EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/m7tgWiZ.jpg)
TL;DR: Carriers are not fun to deal with as the receiving player due to large gap in micro necessary to fight the Carriers as opposed to use them. This is because Interceptors are treated, aggro wise, as every other attacking unit; despite the fact that attacking them (as opposed to the Carrier) is generally highly inefficient and leads to losses. Most Carrier fights are spent preventing your units from attacking the Interceptors, and telling them to attack the Carrier instead; which is very micro intensive and is thus not fun, because no such micro is necessarily required from the Carrier side. A change is proposed to reduce the Interceptor 'aggro' level to that below of other attacking units. A lot of analysis is done justifying the change and accounting for potential reservations.
For further abridged reading, scroll down and read 'Proposed Change', 'Why is this a good design change for the Carrier?', and 'In Conclusion' sections; they're the most core. The rest of the post is largely supporting information/arguments.
NOTE: This was simultaneously posted on Reddit. Edits may occur post factum for clarity and factual correctness.
Prologue :
Lately, Blizzard has been releasing more patches aimed at resolving design issues with Starcraft 2 rather than merely balance. While before we generally had to wait for a whole expansion to receive effective design changes, now Blizzard seems to alter the game's design whenever it is called for. I am very happy with this and thus motivated to write a lengthy constructive post on the unit which I believe should be considered next for design reevaluation - the Carrier.
I have played and watched a lot of Starcraft 2 since its release, and throughout that time I haven't seen much positive reception to playing on the receiving end of Carriers. Even when a player wins, it is often accompanied with a sigh of relief rather than exultation. Over time, I tried to analyze what makes Carriers potentially frustrating and think of ways to improve their design. I believe that currently there is a large disparity between the enjoyment of using Carriers and the experience of being subjected to Carrier use. This is due to the micro difficulty from Interceptors being treated the same as any other attacking unit; each time a Carrier is killed, your own units begin attacking the Interceptors instead. Further in this post is the elaboration as to why reducing the Interceptors' aggro would be a step forward in the design of the Carrier, and make the unit more fun overall.
Background Information :
Balance vs. Design :
Balance deals with the consistency of each side to be able to attain victory against the other side. Design, on the other hand, deals more with the 'fun' aspect of playing Starcraft 2. When we're talking about a unit, design would be how fun the unit is to use, and how fun it is to have the unit used against you. The closer both of those perspectives are to being 'fun', and to each other - the more the unit could be considered to be 'well designed.' Design also encompasses balance within itself, as the fun reduces on all fronts when committed practice with said units does not yield consistent results. Even though the changes I will propose here will affect design, and thus incidentally balance, the focal point will be primarily on the design of the unit. My desire is to make Carriers more fun to respond to, and perhaps even more fun to use after a few patch iterations.
Carrier Patch History :
All Carrier patches for reference. The ones you see from patches 2.5.0 to 2.5.5 are not from Heart of the Swarm but LotV Beta.
Carriers have gone completely unchanged all the way from WoL to end of HotS. LotV Beta has made some attempts at redesign with the 'Release Interceptors' change, but that has been unsuccessful (as it has likely exacerbated the design issues I will soon address) and thus reverted. Carrier has also had a long history of balance changes being made and then reverted - the build time, release interceptors, interceptor cost. The only true changes we are left with across the many years of Starcraft 2 are an hp reduction (from 300 hp and 150 shields to 250 hp and 150 shields) and Interceptor cost reduction (from 25, to 5, to 10, and finally, to 15). They all address balance rather than the design of the unit. Sure, players are now able to address Carriers somewhat more consistently than they have before, but is the unit fun to play against? Being able to win a bit more often does make it marginally more fun, but I argue that there is a large discrepancy between fun of using Carriers and having them used against you, and here is why :
Proposed Change :
- Interceptor
- ATP (Attack Target Priority) reduced from 20 to 19.
- ATP (Attack Target Priority) reduced from 20 to 19.
What is ATP? Attack Target Priority is the value that determines the perceived threat level of a unit. The higher the ATP, the higher in the kill list will the unit be for other units. According to the ancient Wings of Liberty-era Liquipedia link on ATP, only 5 values are ever used for units. 20 for normal attacking units, 19 for for special attacking units (like unburrowed spines, spores or widow mines; or empty bunkers), 11 for non-aggressive buildings, 10 for zerg cocoons, and 0 for, uh, Forcefields (they're a unit apparently). So, essentially, by setting Interceptors' ATP to 19, other attacking units would be prioritized over the Interceptor. Effectively, this would eliminate the undesired (for the receiving end of the Carriers) effect of units automatically attacking Interceptors when they could rather be attacking other units, or the Carriers themselves. This is a big design change that will significantly impact how Carriers are used and how they are reacted to, and one that I believe will make Carriers considerably more fun to play against without necessarily sacrificing the fun of using them. I expect a lot of players, especially those of Protoss persuasion, to have strong initial reservations about this change. I will first elaborate on why I believe this change is good for Starcraft 2, and then I will address potential reservations.
Why is this a good design change for the Carrier ? :
1. Reduction of the micro input gap between Carriers and other units -
As of now, the proper micro response to a significant Carrier force would be to attack the Carriers themselves, as opposed to the Interceptors. Reasoning for this is the sheer hit point value of the Interceptors. A single Interceptor possesses 40 hit points and 40 shields; thus, 8 Interceptors in a Carrier results in a total of 640 hit points. Additionally, 1 or 2 Interceptors may be made during battle (depending on how long it takes to kill the Interceptors and THEN the Carriers), which could total up to 720 - 800 hit points. For reference, the Mothership, an 8 supply unit, has a total of 700 hit points. So, were an opponent choose to kill Interceptors, rather than the Carriers, they would have to get through an hp worth of a Mothership for each Carrier present. Afterwards, they would have to kill the Carrier themselves(which is another 400 hit points) stationed at 8 - 14 range away from the Interceptors.
So, what is the problem with just killing the Carrier? The problem is the input gap in micro between using Carriers and beating Carriers. In order to defeat a multitude of Carriers, you must always be babysitting your units, preventing them from ever attacking the Interceptors. This is especially troublesome with the units that are most often used in killing Carriers. Take Vikings and Corruptors, for an instance; those units attack in slow volleys. Should they ever get distracted from the Carriers, an entire volley of missiles could be spent on Interceptors instead, and that is a game ending waste of DPS. When there are major input gaps in micro between the action and the reaction, it results in significantly less fun for the receiving end. By removing much (not all) of the babysitting currently required in big battles with Carriers, that input gap is lessened, and more equal fun is had by either side.
- This is an example of good a-click micro vs. Carriers. This is hard to do while simultaneously microing against Storm or Disruptors.
- This is an example of less than perfect a-click micro vs. Carriers. This is how a lot of fights vs. Carriers go while the reacting player is busy microing against Storm or Disruptors. 'Minor' mistakes like this are game ending.
- This is an example of shift-click micro vs. Carriers. This works well but is very hard to do because Carriers are often out of your vision(especially as Zerg, because they don't have scans), and Carriers are often stacked on top of each another and other units.
2. Reduction of Losses to other elements of the Protoss arsenal because you were too busy microing against Carriers.
You're not going to be facing just Carriers. Protoss has a whole arsenal of elements that require precise reactions from the opponent. Psionic Storms, Disruptors, Colossus, Stasis Traps, and more. Losing because you targeted the Interceptors over the Carriers is not the only danger; even if you microed against the Carriers correctly, while you were doing so you might have mismicroed against a Psionic Storm or a Disruptor ball. You have to always prioritize, and choosing the reactions in the wrong order would result in your death. I do not consider Psionic Storm or Disruptors to have as much of a micro input gap between action and reaction as Carriers do; but the problem occurs when a Protoss has preemptively 1Aed their Carriers and is ready to Storm or Disrupt, and the opponent has to perform splits and Carrier targeting micro at the same time; lest they lose due to one or the other. This ties into the first problem of Carrier micro input gap and further makes reacting to Carriers less fun.
Potential concerns in relation to this Carrier change :
1. The Carrier will simply be too weak now and nobody will use it.
This change, like every other successful design change that has occurred within Starcraft 2, will not be of a single iteration. There were several balance patches after the design patch of removing the Mothership Core or reworking the Raven. If the Carrier is too weak as a result, there would be balance patches making the Carrier stronger. Remember all of those patches Carriers had in the past that simply got reverted? Release interceptor, reduced Carrier production time, etc.. I believe that a big part of why they were not feasible is because dealing with Interceptors is as micro intensive as it currently is. With more manageable Interceptors, it would be considerably easier to buff (or nerf) the Carrier without breaking the game for either side. You could reduce its production time or you could increase its range to 9 and leash range to 15, and more... Possibilities are endless when design problems are resolved.
- Fun Fact #1: Carrier has the production time of 86 seconds, 2nd longest of any combat unit and trailing only to the Mothership - 114 seconds. 3rd is the Battlecruiser, with 64. Should Carrier ever need a buff, this could be one of the things to improve; as currently its production time and expensiveness slows down the pace of the game considerably, often forcing the Protoss to turtle until their arrival.
- Fun fact #2: Carriers in Brood War had 4 base armor, at +3 upgrades they had more armor than a fully upgraded Ultralisk; and are the units with highest armor in the entire game.
2. It is in the Carrier's identity since Brood War for the Interceptors to be distracting, by removing this feature you would make Carriers less unique and characteristic.
This point is sentimental, and whenever somebody loses to Carriers in Starcraft 2 they rarely think about the Carrier's identity across the ages. In my experience, every time I've talked to somebody after they've lost to Carriers, it has always been the bitterness about having to micro against the Interceptors and just the general lack of enjoyment. I believe Starcraft 2 should take from Brood War what would benefit Starcraft 2, and leave the rest, as these games are played quite differently. (and that is a topic for another time). Not to mention, Starcraft 2 has already done an excellent job of appropriating Brood War elements - Shield Battery replacing the Mothership Core was a sublime move, and I think Lurkers have made ZvZ a lot more interesting. It is more important to value the fun one has in a game rather than keeping unfun elements for the sake of tradition.
Secondly, the Carriers would still be effective at distracting opponents with Interceptors. Carriers fire their Interceptors at range 8, but there is a range 14 leash on the Interceptors before they return to the Carrier. Carriers can essentially move while firing (just like the Phoenix) as long as the Interceptors are within range 14 of the Carrier. With the design change, the only time units would prioritize Carriers over Interceptors is when Carriers are within their aggro range (the aggro range of a unit is generally the same or slightly larger than their attack range). If Carriers were to release their Interceptors and then immediately kite, it is perfectly possible for Carriers to stay outside of the range of those units, thus prompting the units to attack the Interceptors instead. The distracting element of the Interceptor would not disappear as a result of this change, but it would require micro from the Protoss player to make happen. 14 range is a vast distance.
- This is an example of Carrier kiting in action. Carriers can essentially run away while attacking any unit whose range is lower than 14 (though after the Interceptors have been released at range 8). Note that this is only a demonstration of kiting thus I did not use Battlecruisers' ability to their fullest. Also note how halfway through the clip Interceptors have returned to the Carrier prematurely; this is a bug. Fixing that bug could be one of the things that helps return strength to the Carrier were this design change ever go through.
3. It is possible to micro against Carriers in the current state by taking all of your anti-air and shift-attacking every single one of the Carriers. They would kill one Carrier after another without getting distracted by Interceptors.
This is true but there are problems putting that approach to practice. First of all, if you have attempted this before you know that there is a danger of misclicking. If while shift clicking the Carriers you were to accidentally click on the ground (which would queue an attack move order), you would have to redo it all over again. This is harder the more Carriers there are. There is also the issue of vision, as a Zerg player would not see the Carriers to properly shift click each one until Zerg units are on top of the Carriers; though the Terrans do have scans. Additionally, there is still a big micro input gap, because in contrast to your preemptive shift clicking the Protoss would merely magic box their Carriers and and attack move, which is considerably easier.
Secondly, say you have a bunch of Vikings or Corruptors and you shift clicked all of the Carriers. You also pre-spread your Vikings and Corruptors because you wish to avoid Psionic Storm. When the battle begins, Carriers release their Interceptors and then the Carriers start moving back (as they do damage with the leashed Interceptors). Because your Vikings or Corruptors need to move to keep up with the kiting Carriers, your prespread is ruined and the air units start to stack. Then Psionic Storm or Archons performs lethal damage upon your air ball. If you try to spread your Vikings/Corruptors again mid battle, then they start attacking Interceptors and you die because Carriers remain alive and doing damage to Interceptors is worthless. Then, if you lose the game you're left with a bitter feeling of having to deal with insurmountable micro odds; or if you win, you feel relief rather than excitement that you had barely enough to defeat them. The proposed change would allow you to micro against both Storm and Carriers mid battle, as opposed to betting everything on your original pre-spread; the former would be more rewarding and fun, rather than punishing.
- This is an example of how shift clicking kiting Carriers can ruin a pre-spread of air units. The Interceptors might also get stormed but compared to the Corruptors they're cheap and this is thus cost efficient. With the design change, a player would be able to keep their Vikings/Corruptors spread more easily while still attacking the Carriers.
In Conclusion :
As I've written before, this change is proposed in the same vein as the Mothership Core removal and Raven redesign - I am trying to address design first, and balance second; though I believe both will benefit in the end. Blizzard is more aggressive in addressing problems with the game than ever before, and I believe LotV is currently the best iteration of Starcraft 2. I wish to continue this pattern of design and balance resolutions until Starcraft 2 is viewed in the same way balance wise as Brood War (BW, I think, was much easier to balance because of the higher mechanical skill ceiling, but that's a story for another time), and eventually reach the end of the seemingly endless cycle of balance and design updates - to become complete.
- Fun Fact #3: For the two decades since its release, Starcraft 1 had only two patches which affected balance. Patch 1.04 (Brood War release patch) and Patch 1.08
I would be happy to address any further concerns in the replies.
