|
Congrats! Your work wasn't in vain, OP. This is was I'm talking about. Power to the people up in here!
|
On September 15 2012 05:47 Zrana wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 05:43 rd wrote:On September 15 2012 04:54 Zrana wrote:
Gotta say i kinda disagree with this thread, i actually think blizz can do a better job than than a load of players. Look at the mothership; it was going to be removed at one point but the reddit-reading, mlg-watching bronze to gold leaguers loved it so much it stayed in the game, and now any lategame PvX is decided on a single vortex, instead of any strategic or clever play.
Apart from looks, what's actually interesting about the carrier? You just mass a bunch of them and win (or otherwise). The carrier and collosus are extremely similar in terms of function and how using them affects a match. It's simply, "Does my opponent have enough vikings/corruptors to beat my army?" If yes, game continues as if i'd never built carriers - if no, win. Such hard-counter based design is not interesting. Look at interesting units like siege tanks in tvz. They don't really have a unit that can be said to counter them, instead you beat them by engaging when they unsiege or flanking them or attacking elsewhere. The carrier in bw was countered by goliaths, but goliaths are ground units so there was still some depth to the interaction between carrier/goliath even after both units were on the field as the carriers could use terrain to their advantage.
In SC2, goliaths fly and are called Vikings. Now instead of a positional battle you get a counter-based battle. Carriers > Terran ground army > stalkers > vikings > carriers. This is not without depth and interest but it just leads to more deathball play.
Terran and zerg have a load of cool stuff that allows positional play or mobility/multi-pronged play. Protoss is still stuck with herp derp put my units in a big group and shove them across the map.
Your arguments earn no credence making highly opinionated, uneducated generalizations. Even further, I question how one makes the absolutely incorrect to statement that a Colossus and Carrier serve the same function when their functions are world's apart -- so much so that they're polar opposites in usage. Really? How do the carrier and collosus really differ? They are both big, high-tech units that are weak to anti-air and very strong vs ground. The difference is in how they attack. All it means is that marines are better vs unsupported carriers. Once you get to the lategame and storms are available, what does the carrier give you that the collosus doesn't?
Carriers are super strong against everything. Plop a carrier at a base and you can't be dropped. Same food as 3 zealots, but 100x more effective. Just because they die to hard-counter-AA doesn't mean they are bad against air. Carrier/Tempest/Void will be extremely strong. Especially with the new Oracle abilities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
The Carrier indeed has arrived. And a big thank you to all the haters and folks who disparaged the Carrier. It only made this more sweet.
|
|
|
On September 15 2012 05:47 Zrana wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 05:43 rd wrote:On September 15 2012 04:54 Zrana wrote:
Gotta say i kinda disagree with this thread, i actually think blizz can do a better job than than a load of players. Look at the mothership; it was going to be removed at one point but the reddit-reading, mlg-watching bronze to gold leaguers loved it so much it stayed in the game, and now any lategame PvX is decided on a single vortex, instead of any strategic or clever play.
Apart from looks, what's actually interesting about the carrier? You just mass a bunch of them and win (or otherwise). The carrier and collosus are extremely similar in terms of function and how using them affects a match. It's simply, "Does my opponent have enough vikings/corruptors to beat my army?" If yes, game continues as if i'd never built carriers - if no, win. Such hard-counter based design is not interesting. Look at interesting units like siege tanks in tvz. They don't really have a unit that can be said to counter them, instead you beat them by engaging when they unsiege or flanking them or attacking elsewhere. The carrier in bw was countered by goliaths, but goliaths are ground units so there was still some depth to the interaction between carrier/goliath even after both units were on the field as the carriers could use terrain to their advantage.
In SC2, goliaths fly and are called Vikings. Now instead of a positional battle you get a counter-based battle. Carriers > Terran ground army > stalkers > vikings > carriers. This is not without depth and interest but it just leads to more deathball play.
Terran and zerg have a load of cool stuff that allows positional play or mobility/multi-pronged play. Protoss is still stuck with herp derp put my units in a big group and shove them across the map.
Your arguments earn no credence making highly opinionated, uneducated generalizations. Even further, I question how one makes the absolutely incorrect to statement that a Colossus and Carrier serve the same function when their functions are world's apart -- so much so that they're polar opposites in usage. Really? How do the carrier and collosus really differ? They are both big, high-tech units that are weak to anti-air and very strong vs ground. The difference is in how they attack. All it means is that marines are better vs unsupported carriers. Once you get to the lategame and storms are available, what does the carrier give you that the collosus doesn't?
I regarded their function as different. It's massively different. You already answered your own question by stating the synergy of storm and carriers -- storm, supplementing the lack of AoE colossus provide that make them infinitely more pivotal in a game reliant on AoE.
|
Our fight wasn't in vain, Tassadar smiles upon us this day. As the Carrier is back!!!
|
Now we just gotta get them to replace the colossus with Reavers
|
Maybe Blizzard isn't as incompetent as I thought they were. Respect.
|
On September 15 2012 05:49 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 05:47 Zrana wrote:On September 15 2012 05:43 rd wrote:On September 15 2012 04:54 Zrana wrote:
Gotta say i kinda disagree with this thread, i actually think blizz can do a better job than than a load of players. Look at the mothership; it was going to be removed at one point but the reddit-reading, mlg-watching bronze to gold leaguers loved it so much it stayed in the game, and now any lategame PvX is decided on a single vortex, instead of any strategic or clever play.
Apart from looks, what's actually interesting about the carrier? You just mass a bunch of them and win (or otherwise). The carrier and collosus are extremely similar in terms of function and how using them affects a match. It's simply, "Does my opponent have enough vikings/corruptors to beat my army?" If yes, game continues as if i'd never built carriers - if no, win. Such hard-counter based design is not interesting. Look at interesting units like siege tanks in tvz. They don't really have a unit that can be said to counter them, instead you beat them by engaging when they unsiege or flanking them or attacking elsewhere. The carrier in bw was countered by goliaths, but goliaths are ground units so there was still some depth to the interaction between carrier/goliath even after both units were on the field as the carriers could use terrain to their advantage.
In SC2, goliaths fly and are called Vikings. Now instead of a positional battle you get a counter-based battle. Carriers > Terran ground army > stalkers > vikings > carriers. This is not without depth and interest but it just leads to more deathball play.
Terran and zerg have a load of cool stuff that allows positional play or mobility/multi-pronged play. Protoss is still stuck with herp derp put my units in a big group and shove them across the map.
Your arguments earn no credence making highly opinionated, uneducated generalizations. Even further, I question how one makes the absolutely incorrect to statement that a Colossus and Carrier serve the same function when their functions are world's apart -- so much so that they're polar opposites in usage. Really? How do the carrier and collosus really differ? They are both big, high-tech units that are weak to anti-air and very strong vs ground. The difference is in how they attack. All it means is that marines are better vs unsupported carriers. Once you get to the lategame and storms are available, what does the carrier give you that the collosus doesn't? Carriers are super strong against everything. Plop a carrier at a base and you can't be dropped. Same food as 3 zealots, but 100x more effective. Just because they die to hard-counter-AA doesn't mean they are bad against air. Carrier/Tempest/Void will be extremely strong. Especially with the new Oracle abilities.
He has a point, but I think it's not the right one. The colossus has actually be the biggest problem for sky-toss to actually be viable. The counter to colo is AA for both terran and zerg. They are going to make those units regardless, so they can blindly counter 2/3 of the tech paths for toss. It also makes tech switching useless since the counter is already there. If we had a unit like the reaver in place of the colo (not an avid bw fan, just an example) it would not force vikings or corruptors. That would allow air play to be much more useful. I'm hoping that at least for LotV, we lose the colo in favor of a non 'air' splash unit
|
On September 15 2012 05:49 Phoenix2003 wrote:
Congrats! Your work wasn't in vain, OP. This is was I'm talking about. Power to the people up in here!
On September 15 2012 05:52 ZeroClick wrote:
Congratulations, OP!
Thanks!! I am still extremely psyched.
This is the best way to describe how I reacted when I heard the news:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8rI2C.gif)
|
On September 15 2012 05:57 NotSorry wrote:
Now we just gotta get them to replace the colossus with Reavers
If only...
|
United Kingdom12041 Posts
Even as someoone who mech TvP's in WoL and oftentimes dies to carriers, I'm glad carriers are back.
Woo! :D
|
On September 15 2012 05:56 rd wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 05:47 Zrana wrote:On September 15 2012 05:43 rd wrote:On September 15 2012 04:54 Zrana wrote:
Gotta say i kinda disagree with this thread, i actually think blizz can do a better job than than a load of players. Look at the mothership; it was going to be removed at one point but the reddit-reading, mlg-watching bronze to gold leaguers loved it so much it stayed in the game, and now any lategame PvX is decided on a single vortex, instead of any strategic or clever play.
Apart from looks, what's actually interesting about the carrier? You just mass a bunch of them and win (or otherwise). The carrier and collosus are extremely similar in terms of function and how using them affects a match. It's simply, "Does my opponent have enough vikings/corruptors to beat my army?" If yes, game continues as if i'd never built carriers - if no, win. Such hard-counter based design is not interesting. Look at interesting units like siege tanks in tvz. They don't really have a unit that can be said to counter them, instead you beat them by engaging when they unsiege or flanking them or attacking elsewhere. The carrier in bw was countered by goliaths, but goliaths are ground units so there was still some depth to the interaction between carrier/goliath even after both units were on the field as the carriers could use terrain to their advantage.
In SC2, goliaths fly and are called Vikings. Now instead of a positional battle you get a counter-based battle. Carriers > Terran ground army > stalkers > vikings > carriers. This is not without depth and interest but it just leads to more deathball play.
Terran and zerg have a load of cool stuff that allows positional play or mobility/multi-pronged play. Protoss is still stuck with herp derp put my units in a big group and shove them across the map.
Your arguments earn no credence making highly opinionated, uneducated generalizations. Even further, I question how one makes the absolutely incorrect to statement that a Colossus and Carrier serve the same function when their functions are world's apart -- so much so that they're polar opposites in usage. Really? How do the carrier and collosus really differ? They are both big, high-tech units that are weak to anti-air and very strong vs ground. The difference is in how they attack. All it means is that marines are better vs unsupported carriers. Once you get to the lategame and storms are available, what does the carrier give you that the collosus doesn't? I regarded their function as different. It's massively different. You already answered your own question by stating the synergy of storm and carriers -- storm, supplementing the lack of AoE colossus provide that make them infinitely more pivotal in a game reliant on AoE.
But how will the protoss gameplan change with the addition of carriers? If you look at zerg lategame options, the ultra and broodlord both have very different playstyles associated with them. The ultra favours mobility and aggression, the broodlord is a defensive, slowpushing unit. Now looking at the carrier and collosus options you still need gateway units and templar, you still want a mothership eventually, you're still worried about ghosts and you still want to move your army around in a big old ball of death.
I will admit that with carriers you can potentially (and eventually) replace every unit in your army with carriers and get an unbeatable army. However i cannot conceive how this can possibly be good for the game.
The Tempest at least provides the unique role of forcing an engagement and increasing your army's area of influence on the map.
I'm sorry if i came across as rude, but i'm willing to be wrong here. Could you maybe spell it out for me what exactly it is the carrier can do for protoss and how it makes the game better?
|
successful thread is successful
|
|
|
On September 15 2012 05:54 wangstra wrote:
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
The Carrier indeed has arrived. And a big thank you to all the haters and folks who disparaged the Carrier. It only made this more sweet.
HAHHAHAHAH
Carrier has arrived! DAMN STRAIGHT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
