EPT
Thanks for these ^^ Dustin Browder, David Kim Interviews - Page 7
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45531 Posts
Thanks for these ^^ | ||
|
VPCursed
1044 Posts
| ||
|
johnny123
521 Posts
On June 13 2012 14:15 Teriyaki-Boy wrote: As much as the 22 range tempest sound cool and all but it just an A-move unit nothing special about it. The carrier on the other hand has potential, if they actually fix the way carrier are suppose to function and with carrier you can actually micro them, which mean is more fun to used.CARRIER>>>TEMPEST i kinda disagree with all this "dont remove the carrier" . Why do people want to see the carrier? It is the true defination of a deathball unit. Its obvious that 1 or 2 carriers will always suck, but when you have like 8 + carriers that is a really strong 1A deathball in the air. So not only will toss have 1A on the ground, but a buff to the carrier means 1A in the air as well. I disagree with buffing the carrier, I say leave it as it is,If people can find a use for it then good, but also bring in the Tempest.( Have both in). That unit to me has more of an interesting role than the carrier. You can send 1 or 2 tempest to harass bases early. They are not there to add towards a deathball. They are for like harassing and picking apart strong compositions from a far distance. The carrier to me is the boring unit. | ||
|
Dingobloo
Australia1903 Posts
On June 13 2012 14:19 VPCursed wrote: someone make a meme with A pic of just david kim.. possibly with arms crossed and at the top of the pic say " Warpgate is imba" and on the bottom put... the data or statistics disagree It's what http://www.quickmeme.com/ was made for! | ||
|
Vogin
Czech Republic926 Posts
On June 13 2012 14:22 johnny123 wrote: i kinda disagree with all this "carrier stuff" . Why do people want to see the carrier? Its the true defination of a deathball . Its obvious that 1 or 2 carries suck, but when you have like 8 + carriers that is a really strong 1A deathball. So not only will toss have 1A on the ground, but a buff to carrier means 1A in the air as well. I disagree with buffing the carrier, I say leave it as it is,If people can find a use for it then good, but also bring in the Tempest. That unit to me has more of an interesting role than the carrier. You can also send 1 or 2 tempest to harass bases early. They are not there to add towards a deathball. They are for like harassing and picking apart strong compositions from a far distance. The carrier to me is the boring unit. Carriers are the Protoss icon... | ||
|
SarcasmMonster
3136 Posts
Unfortunately, War of the Worlds will still be the dominant late game PvP strat. The Colossus really needs some changes (make it slower and more a glass cannon?) or else  is doomed to have the worst mirror in HOTS as well. | ||
|
IamTheArchitect
United States46 Posts
I heard that part correctly, right? He was joking when he they talked about Thorzain but then he was serious about how the Thor blocks marines and marauders from being visible? Couldn't they just have made the thor radius bigger? Wouldn't this even perhaps have been an appropriate nerf (can't clump thors together as much so not quite as effective), as opposed to a "never use this strategy again" nerf? | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On June 13 2012 14:22 johnny123 wrote: i kinda disagree with all this "carrier stuff" . Why do people want to see the carrier? Its the true defination of a deathball . Its obvious that 1 or 2 carries suck, but when you have like 8 + carriers that is a really strong 1A deathball. So not only will toss have 1A on the ground, but a buff to carrier means 1A in the air as well. I disagree with buffing the carrier, I say leave it as it is,If people can find a use for it then good, but also bring in the Tempest. That unit to me has more of an interesting role than the carrier. You can also send 1 or 2 tempest to harass bases early. They are not there to add towards a deathball. They are for like harassing and picking apart strong compositions from a far distance. The carrier to me is the boring unit. You can't ever 1a carriers. You couldn't in BW, you can't in SC2. Even if you get a lot, you can't 1a them. You have 10 carriers in BW vs T, if you A-move, your carriers will be dead in seconds. Carriers are only good on maps with lots of cliffs, they're made for eventually powerful raiding and engaging with the enemy army where only the interceptors themselves are being attacked while the carrier itself is constantly being microed out of range. | ||
|
tsuxiit
1305 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45531 Posts
On June 13 2012 14:26 tsuxiit wrote: Browder has no idea about ZvP. To be fair, the common complaint isn't really about NP... it's about hitting or missing the vortex. But it did seem like he hadn't heard anything about ZvP late game being decided by mothership accuracy. | ||
Falling
Canada11490 Posts
On June 13 2012 14:22 johnny123 wrote: i kinda disagree with all this "carrier stuff" . Why do people want to see the carrier? Its the true defination of a deathball . Its obvious that 1 or 2 carries suck, but when you have like 8 + carriers that is a really strong 1A deathball. So not only will toss have 1A on the ground, but a buff to carrier means 1A in the air as well. I disagree with buffing the carrier, I say leave it as it is,If people can find a use for it then good, but also bring in the Tempest. That unit to me has more of an interesting role than the carrier. You can also send 1 or 2 tempest to harass bases early. They are not there to add towards a deathball. They are for like harassing and picking apart strong compositions from a far distance. The carrier to me is the boring unit. SC2 Carriers are 1a as far as I can tell. And for that reason, it might as well get cut. BW Carriers were attack and fade. If you got caught in the open, it was dead, so you had to constantly keep them moving to avoid the incoming anti-air. But you could move while attacking which made them extremely mobile. And you used the terrain to protect the carriers- attacking along cliffs so you could retreat where ground based anti-air couldn't catch them. It was hit and run tactics and very interesting play. SC2 you park them wherever they're supposed to attack. Interceptors fly out to attack. When it's time to move, they recall the interceptors and move to the next spot. Stop. Then launch interceptors.Very uninspired play and it's no wonder Blizzard want to get rid of it. But it doesn't have to be that way. | ||
|
Dingobloo
Australia1903 Posts
On June 13 2012 14:22 johnny123 wrote: i kinda disagree with all this "carrier stuff" . Why do people want to see the carrier? Its the true defination of a deathball . Its obvious that 1 or 2 carries suck, but when you have like 8 + carriers that is a really strong 1A deathball. So not only will toss have 1A on the ground, but a buff to carrier means 1A in the air as well. I disagree with buffing the carrier, I say leave it as it is,If people can find a use for it then good, but also bring in the Tempest. That unit to me has more of an interesting role than the carrier. You can also send 1 or 2 tempest to harass bases early. They are not there to add towards a deathball. They are for like harassing and picking apart strong compositions from a far distance. The carrier to me is the boring unit. Problem is they made the carrier worse in the transition from BW to Sc2 in a way that made it uninteresting, then refused to try putting those changes back, it used to have really interesting interactions with terrain where you could throw out the interceptors then retreat the main carrier away from short ranged units and while it still has that it's a lot more subtle. The interceptors used to heal when they returned to the carrier so they couldn't just be shot down as easily you needed more bursty fire on them, they also all attacked pretty much in unison making them a bit more bursty for quickly killing high value targets. And then on top of that because the interceptors have to be rebuilt they provide a nice way to trade excess minerals for continued siege potential. The tempest on the other hand clicks on something at 22 range and then you wait for it to die, the only way it's interesting is because they increased it's range to an almost comical degree with an upgrade and a range that's almost impossible to fit on a single screen making for a TERRIBLE spectator experience. It has some interesting interplay with sight and that's it. It has no interesting resource distribution, no micro and even inherits some of the carriers flaws like the long build time and large cost because if you get to many of them, stuff starts getting 1 hit making the upfront hit but low dps of the tempest a moot point. | ||
|
rd
United States2586 Posts
On June 13 2012 14:32 Falling wrote: SC2 Carriers are 1a as far as I can tell. And for that reason, it might as well get cut. BW Carriers were attack and fade. If you got caught in the open, it was dead, so you had to constantly keep them moving to avoid the incoming anti-air. But you could move while attacking which made them extremely mobile. And you used the terrain to protect the carriers- attacking along cliffs so you could retreat where ground based anti-air couldn't catch them. It was hit and run tactics and very interesting play. SC2 you park them wherever they're supposed to attack. Interceptors fly out to attack. When it's time to move, they recall the interceptors and move to the next spot. Stop. Then launch interceptors.Very uninspired play and it's no wonder Blizzard want to get rid of it. But it doesn't have to be that way. They're more 1a than every different implementation of the Tempest? I mean, you realize they CAN'T micro like they could in BW which is a huge nerf to being able to use them at any time EARLIER than when you're maxed with a huge army to support them, right? I'm not sure how you can say they were a different unit in BW when they literally amoved exactly as they do now. The only difference is the nerfed clunky AI, reduced armor and a different meta game surrounding them. | ||
|
Korinai
Canada413 Posts
| ||
|
RifleCow
Canada637 Posts
On June 13 2012 14:45 Korinai wrote: Ol' Dusty doesn't know about motherships in late game pvz? ARE WE PLAYING THE SAME FUCKING GAME HERE? Jesus christ. Please clean out your ears and actually listen to what he says becuase he spoke about mothership usage in multiple sections in the video. He didn't know that zergs were trying to neural parasite the motherships, which is what Kennigit was asking. | ||
|
goldendwarf
Canada170 Posts
On June 13 2012 14:45 Korinai wrote: Ol' Dusty doesn't know about motherships in late game pvz? ARE WE PLAYING THE SAME FUCKING GAME HERE? Jesus christ. Dustin Browder does know about the mothership. What he didn't know about was that it was a "problem" when people would be forced to NP a mothership or lose, which it isn't a problem. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11490 Posts
I'm not sure how you can say they were a different unit in BW when they literally amoved exactly as they do now. The only difference is the nerfed clunky AI, reduced armor and a different meta game surrounding them. Well if carriers attack the same as their BW counterpart, then I'm wrong about SC2 Carriers being boring. That also means they aren't inherently a-move units either. There's a difference between units that can be a-moved and units that that's all you can do with them. For instance muta and vutures in BW. You certainly could a-move them. But you could also micro them like crazy to get far more interesting results. So if the same thing exists with the SC2 carrier, then it's shame it's getting cut. | ||
|
MrCash
United States1504 Posts
Undefended siege tanks are just as vulnerable as the other two. Sure if you have 10 of them, you aren't killing them with 20 supply of any ground unit, same for colossus and broodlords. Siege units are siege units, terran simply can get them fast, because they have the least tech and defensive flexibility. | ||
|
Goibon
New Zealand8185 Posts
I dunno what they can do about it. I watched some BW a number of months back and saw a dude going mass carrier against mass goliath. It was some of the most intense micro i've ever seen with two of the coolest units ever created and it made me hard. It's also funny how you would hear them talk so often about cool units in the past as if it was more important than balance etc. Times like these i almost miss that kind of talk >_> <_< LOL'd @ the Thor answer. Did David get why everyone was laughing? Great stuff. I also like how David's interviewer challenged him on a lot of answers. It may have come across as nitpicky, but it allowed David to elaborate and clarify his points. GREAT JOB A+ | ||
|
DaveVAH
Canada162 Posts
On June 13 2012 14:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: To be fair, the common complaint isn't really about NP... it's about hitting or missing the vortex. But it did seem like he hadn't heard anything about ZvP late game being decided by mothership accuracy. Right, he mentioned 'I haven't seen mother-ships used lately", "they are not that viable" before talking about the NP. Folks are just using the NP part to excuse his apparent lack of knowledge about late game ZvP. Also I though it was very uncalled for that he mentioned they are "excited" terran's are losing tournaments lately.. I mean wtf?? | ||
| ||
