EPTWe Must Fight For The Carrier - Page 74
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Elburracho
United States13 Posts
| ||
|
klops
United States674 Posts
i feel like this is premature by blizzard :\ | ||
|
Tppz!
Germany1449 Posts
| ||
|
leveller
Sweden1840 Posts
On August 19 2012 04:36 whatevername wrote: A clan mate of mine [masters] pvz is entirely built around pure air. Removing carriers basically destroys his build. And what do you think will happen to every other build? Yeah, every build out there will get destroyed when hot comes along. | ||
|
LastDance
New Zealand510 Posts
| ||
|
Noruxas
Netherlands129 Posts
I really think the situation fixed itself. As carriers seem usefull now, well at least in PvZ. | ||
|
kvmetternich
Italy35 Posts
On August 19 2012 16:58 Tppz! wrote: I had an official meeting with David Kim yesterday and he completely convinced me that the Tempest is a lot better than the Carrier. Im writing an article about everthing he said, but I gotta say its time to say goodabye to the Carrier (although he mentioned it could happen the carrier stays but not because the community wants it. its more a gameplay/design thing) David Kim can say what he want and everyone can agree or not with him, but we all saw the TvP battlereport and tempest was completely useless all the time (takes ages to kill a tank and this unit cost 300/300...) and a pain in the ass to watch. Instead of buid this unit a toss player would build colossi from an additional robo . This is a FACT. Anything that come out from stargate vs t is easilly countered by marines/vikings (oracle too. just put a couple of marines and a turret into mineral line to stay safe) ,so tempest (and oracle) will not change this situation . IMHO  | ||
|
SarcasmMonster
3136 Posts
On August 19 2012 16:58 Tppz! wrote: I had an official meeting with David Kim yesterday and he completely convinced me that the Tempest is a lot better than the Carrier. Im writing an article about everthing he said, but I gotta say its time to say goodabye to the Carrier (although he mentioned it could happen the carrier stays but not because the community wants it. its more a gameplay/design thing) Traitor! | ||
|
Emuking
United States144 Posts
On August 19 2012 22:14 kvmetternich wrote: David Kim can say what he want and everyone can agree or not with him, but we all saw the TvP battlereport and tempest was completely useless all the time (takes ages to kill a tank and this unit cost 300/300...) and a pain in the ass to watch. Instead of buid this unit a toss player would build colossi from an additional robo . This is a FACT. Anything that come out from stargate vs t is easilly countered by marines/vikings (oracle too. just put a couple of marines and a turret into mineral line to stay safe) ,so tempest (and oracle) will not change this situation . IMHO do you know what "fact" means? | ||
|
kvmetternich
Italy35 Posts
Yes. To break a siege line colo/immo, colo/ht, colo/archons, immo/archons,immo/blink , <put what you want> are more efficients ways instead of a "stargate/fleet beacon -->tempest" way. | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On August 19 2012 16:58 Tppz! wrote: I had an official meeting with David Kim yesterday and he completely convinced me that the Tempest is a lot better than the Carrier. Im writing an article about everthing he said, but I gotta say its time to say goodabye to the Carrier (although he mentioned it could happen the carrier stays but not because the community wants it. its more a gameplay/design thing) Can you just post some bullet points until the article is ready? I am really interested to hear more about what David Kim thinks about this. My gut tells me that for him it boils down to balance (and why shouldn't he, thats his job) but there are allot more factors to be weighed here than just balance. | ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
On August 19 2012 23:13 Archerofaiur wrote: Can you just post some bullet points until the article is ready? I am really interested to hear more about what David Kim thinks about this. My gut tells me that for him it boils down to balance (and why shouldn't he, thats his job) but there are allot more factors to be weighed here than just balance. He is probably trolling lol | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On August 19 2012 16:58 Tppz! wrote: I had an official meeting with David Kim yesterday and he completely convinced me that the Tempest is a lot better than the Carrier. Im writing an article about everthing he said, but I gotta say its time to say goodabye to the Carrier (although he mentioned it could happen the carrier stays but not because the community wants it. its more a gameplay/design thing) Uh huh ... suuuuuurrrreee Either enlighten us with their reasoning (and it better not be "you are safer to deal damage from afar") or dont post such claims without proof. The tempest is crap due to the razors edge line of potentially being overpowered OR being completely useless and dead weight. Too many of the design concepts for HotS are like that and Blizzard didnt even try to make the carrier useful by patching it. I mean even the BC got some fixes, but since they dont even try to do this for the carrier they have sunk to zero respect for them. Keep the carrier in the game, fix it and kick the tempest!!! | ||
|
ineversmile
United States583 Posts
On August 19 2012 16:58 Tppz! wrote: I had an official meeting with David Kim yesterday and he completely convinced me that the Tempest is a lot better than the Carrier. Im writing an article about everthing he said, but I gotta say its time to say goodabye to the Carrier (although he mentioned it could happen the carrier stays but not because the community wants it. its more a gameplay/design thing) If this wasn't pure bullshit, you would post a good reason for keeping the tempest right in your post. | ||
|
Rorschach
United States623 Posts
I hope it gets a build time buff and is left in HoTS. Could care less if the tempest is scraped. | ||
|
uikos
United States132 Posts
| ||
|
Sroobz
United States1377 Posts
| ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On August 20 2012 00:22 uikos wrote: What I don't get is why Blizzard can't leave both the Carrier and the Tempest in the beta and just see how it turns out ._. The reasoning is probably something like "we dont want to have two units with the same job (long range air assault) in the game" and since they have come up with the stupid tempest "hit the enemy from afar" unit they have to get rid of the carrier. If I turned on my sarcastic self I would predict an orbit-based Ion cannon for Terrans for the next expansion ... + Show Spoiler + Ion cannon is obviously stolen from C&C ... which some guy called Dustin Browder worked on. | ||
|
K_osss
United States113 Posts
| ||
|
Picklebread
808 Posts
On August 19 2012 22:14 kvmetternich wrote: David Kim can say what he want and everyone can agree or not with him, but we all saw the TvP battlereport and tempest was completely useless all the time (takes ages to kill a tank and this unit cost 300/300...) and a pain in the ass to watch. Instead of buid this unit a toss player would build colossi from an additional robo . This is a FACT. Anything that come out from stargate vs t is easilly countered by marines/vikings (oracle too. just put a couple of marines and a turret into mineral line to stay safe) ,so tempest (and oracle) will not change this situation . IMHO I think they were mostly useless because DAKIM was suiciding them and not leaving them freakin stalkers to defend from vikings. | ||
| ||
