|
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.
No, the mothership stayed in game because people used it at all leagues. It never got buffed or anything like that. If Carriers stay to HoTS retail its because they are a viable lategame addition to the protoss composition. Only time will tell if that last statement is true.
|
On September 15 2012 06:20 TheDougler wrote:Show nested quote +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.
No, the mothership stayed in game because people used it at all leagues. It never got buffed or anything like that. If Carriers stay to HoTS retail its because they are a viable lategame addition to the protoss composition. Only time will tell if that last statement is true.
Remember how garbage infestors used to be? Hell of a lot worse than Carriers nowadays. All it takes is for Blizzard to try to fix a unit and it works its self out. Until now, there was no effort. Now, Blizzard has committed to making the carrier work.
|
On September 15 2012 06:08 Zrana wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 05:56 rd wrote: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?
I'm confused, are we arguing the differences of the carrier and colossus or viability of the carrier? Because if you want to talk about two units serving very similar functions, you have the tempest and carrier. I mean, you're making these arguments against the carrier, but how on Earth does the tempest solve the issue of similarities between Colossi and Carriers when juxtaposed to the other races?
They'll both sit in your ball because they're extremely fragile otherwise, and they'll both shoot shit from a far range. Tempest shoots a little further for less dps, carrier does more dps with a more limited range. Carriers used to have a much larger effective range but because they cant keep interceptors out when changing targets (a nerf in sc2's release) their effective range is 8 and not 14. Tempest also just has the buffs the carrier needs: cheaper, builds/moves faster, etc.
What do you want me to tell you aside from all of that? They buffed the infestor to allow it to see more use, but they never touched the Carrier. It's difficult to imagine the use Carrier might have when put before the hammer of top level korean mechanics/theorycrafting if it were buffed into viability. PvZ has evolved to a point where the Carrier's role is viable, but should the Tempest get thrown into PvZ in WoL it'd fare even worse than carriers when 30+ corruptors snap them in half. PvP is evolving and may or may not see a use for Carriers. Carriers nor Tempests will never see serious use in PvT as long as bio remains dominant. If the HotS TvP meta game becomes mech, the carrier could perform as well, or even better than the Tempest.
|
On September 15 2012 06:20 TheDougler wrote:Show nested quote +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.
No, the mothership stayed in game because people used it at all leagues. It never got buffed or anything like that. If Carriers stay to HoTS retail its because they are a viable lategame addition to the protoss composition. Only time will tell if that last statement is true.
Your last statement has already been proven to be true by a few players in tournaments. If the game goes late enough you end up going with an almost full on air comp vs very late game zerg. HerO vs Ret at Dreamhack Open Summer on Daybreak so it works its just about getting enough time to actually pull a full on tech switch.
But with stargate having a somewhat good use early game (oracle) it would seem that the tech switch might be a bit easier.
|
I hope they don't chicken out again but make the carrier into a decent unit again instead.
|
Nice. Hard to imagine Starcraft without the Carrier.
|
Victory! Victory! Oh, how sweet it tastes
|
We got it back BABY ! WOOT WOOT !
|
Maybe Kim Carrier will gain passion in sc2 with this :D
Probably not, but one can hope
|
VICTORY!!! Now we just need a buff to make it micro'able and decrease build time and we are good to go! :DDDDDDDD
|
Carrier has arrived! Again.
|
On September 15 2012 06:49 Basileus wrote:
VICTORY!!! Now we just need a buff to make it micro'able and decrease build time and we are good to go! :DDDDDDDD
Won't happen, and they will probably remove the Carrier again.
|
WE MUST REMAIN VIGILANT MY BROTHERS, AT ANY MOMENT THE CARRIER COULD STILL BE AT RISK!
|
I shall toast in your honor, brethren.
|
Hey congrats to you guys!
Just made Carriers in a HotS game and now they come with a new bar below their hp that tells you how many interceptors it has at a glance. Very convenient to know which carriers are out of interceptors and which aren't. Very game changing in fights.
I will add a screenshot soon.
|
So the carrier came back for HoTS! and warhound gone 
|
THE CARRIER!!!!!!!!! ITS BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
|
On September 15 2012 06:20 TheDougler wrote:Show nested quote +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.
No, the mothership stayed in game because people used it at all leagues. It never got buffed or anything like that. If Carriers stay to HoTS retail its because they are a viable lategame addition to the protoss composition. Only time will tell if that last statement is true.
The only way I see Carriers doing well is if Vikings and Corruptors are nerfed in some fashion. They both simply counter Carriers to well. The issue with changing those units however is that you then have to figure out how they are gonna counter Collosi.
|
Now, Blizzard, if only you could make it as useful as a BW carrier, all would be well!
|
On September 15 2012 08:32 GinDo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 06:20 TheDougler 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.
No, the mothership stayed in game because people used it at all leagues. It never got buffed or anything like that. If Carriers stay to HoTS retail its because they are a viable lategame addition to the protoss composition. Only time will tell if that last statement is true. The only way I see Carriers doing well is if Vikings and Corruptors are nerfed in some fashion. They both simply counter Carriers to well. The issue with changing those units however is that you then have to figure out how they are gonna counter Collosi.
Even now if you combine carriers with storm + archons to hit corruptors it is a viable late game comp.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
