EPTLet's make Carriers fun: Constructive Analysis - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
DieuCure
France3713 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
NonY
8751 Posts
On May 18 2018 13:53 NMxSardines wrote: Interceptors have a range of 2, and whenever they attack a unit they distribute themselves in a vague circle with the unit it in the direct middle of it. So, yes, holding position would essentially guarantee you only attacking the Interceptors. A single Interceptor has 80 hit points and does 4.675 DPS, significantly less if the unit has any armor. So, say, you're trying to kill the Interceptors with your Marines or Hydralisks in Hold Position and then a Zealot suddenly comes in their range. A Zealot has 150 hit points and does 18.6 DPS. The Zealot has 87.5% more hp than the Interceptor, but, it does 398% more DPS. Zealots also cost 666% more minerals than the Interceptor. At any rate, the point is that even if you have an army that's good vs. Interceptors - it would still be more cost efficient and more decisive in a battle to kill all other units in the immediate vicinity before you start killing the Interceptors. This does not get to the heart of the matter at all. Imagine two pro players microing these armies. | ||
|
Skyro
United States1823 Posts
On May 18 2018 19:18 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Removing graviton catapult and/or tweaking launch speeds will be a simpler and more effective design change to improve unit interactions with the carrier. I agree. Maybe pair the removal of graviton with a build time reduction and/or increase in leash range. I don't buy the argument that BLs/SHs are somehow inherently more fun to play against than Carriers though. Yes they throw out less HP of raw "fodder" but they have other advantages like their fodder being ground units than can mess with pathing, their fodder is free, SHs can launch and immediately run away, etc. And while I agree Carriers themselves aren't micro-intensive the OP is making an argument against Carriers + Storm, and utilizing HTs is micro-intensive. | ||
|
chocorush
694 Posts
| ||
|
Genesis128
Norway103 Posts
On May 18 2018 22:21 chocorush wrote: Why not just make the interceptors easier to kill? What you are proposing is a balance change, not a design change. As was addressed in the OP, several iterations of interceptor balance changes have been made, but they fail to attack the core issue. What is proposed here is not a change to the unit numbers, but the unit behavior. Props to OP for delivering a well-thought out, comprehensive write-up. I thoughourly enjoyed reading it is my belief that this change would make the game overall more enjoyably. | ||
|
aish
20 Posts
Also, take this whole post and change the word "carrier" to "brood lord" and it's the same time exact thing. Protoss players lose when they are too far behind and can't transition into carrier or tempest to deal with broodlords; zergs should too if they can't get ready for carriers (which honestly is not hard, you many have 6 bases and tons of time). My favorite part is watching zerg players massing hydras when they see carriers. That's like massing stalkers vs. broodlords (except protoss players usually aren't that dumb). | ||
|
Genesis128
Norway103 Posts
On May 18 2018 23:11 aish wrote: It really isn't fair to complain about carriers being "1a no micro units". This whole hate for "1a units" is ruining the community and game. There can be variety in the game in races and units. The whole power curve of making every unit extremely fast and micro able with many abilities has gone far enough. Also, take this whole post and change the word "carrier" to "brood lord" and it's the same time exact thing. Protoss players lose when they are too far behind and can't transition into carrier or tempest to deal with broodlords; zergs should too if they can't get ready for carriers (which honestly is not hard, you many have 6 bases and tons of time). This has already been answered by the OP On May 18 2018 10:35 NMxSardines wrote: No matter how much one tries to elaborate, there will always be a subjective element to Starcraft 2. That subjective element is that even though, you're right, the 'harder to defend than to attack' applies to almost every single unit in Starcraft 2 - I believe that difference is the strongest with Carriers by a good margin. I think that the Carrier is an outlier in that dichotomy. Brood Lord's attack rate is 1.79 seconds. Brood Lord keeps 2 Broodlings on its back, and fires both of them with each attack; but it regenerates 1 Broodling with each attack cycle. So, when battle starts, Brood Lord fires both of the Broodlings, and every attack after fires only 1 at a time. A Broodling has 30 hp. So, that's 60 hp on the first attack and then 30 every 1.79 seconds. A Carrier fires off all 640 hp worth of Interceptors in 1 second. | ||
|
aish
20 Posts
On May 18 2018 23:18 Genesis128 wrote: This has already been answered by the OP not really | ||
|
Hannibaal
41 Posts
| ||
|
chocorush
694 Posts
On May 18 2018 23:09 Genesis128 wrote: What you are proposing is a balance change, not a design change. As was addressed in the OP, several iterations of interceptor balance changes have been made, but they fail to attack the core issue. What is proposed here is not a change to the unit numbers, but the unit behavior. Props to OP for delivering a well-thought out, comprehensive write-up. I thoughourly enjoyed reading it is my belief that this change would make the game overall more enjoyably. It sounds like the core issue is that the interceptor messes up the AI when you usually want to attack the carrier, not the interceptors. Balancing the interceptors so that it is viable to attack the interceptors, while still giving the option to attack the carriers manually seems to be a logical way to address this issue. This was how you deal with carriers in brood war, and as mentioned with swarm hosts and brood lords, targeting the projectiles is not a controversial way to deal with these when doing so is worth your time. | ||
|
10dla
127 Posts
On May 18 2018 22:02 NonY wrote: This does not get to the heart of the matter at all. Imagine two pro players microing these armies. Is the whole process of goliath+turrets shooting down interceptor for XX minutes so much more fun just because protoss moved his carrier back after interc. launch? | ||
|
NonY
8751 Posts
On May 19 2018 00:32 10dla wrote: Is the whole process of goliath+turrets shooting down interceptor for XX minutes so much more fun just because protoss moved his carrier back after interc. launch? The point is that zealots have high dps because they're melee units. Zealots trade well against almost anything that just stands and fights them. But zealots get kited or there isn't enough surface area for them to all attack at once. Ranged units that have lower "dps" end up doing more damage because they can attack more often and focus their attacks. Taking that even further, ranged units that take up less space do even more damage. For example, 2 stalkers do the same "dps" to light units as 1 immortal, but the immortal takes up less space and all of its damage is always on the same target. 5 immortals standing together will punch a hole through whatever's in range, whereas 10 stalkers might not even have the space to all be in range of anything, and if they are then their damage is spread out. Anything stepping in range of 5 immortals instantly dies but stepping in range of zealots baits a charge that isolates them from everything else and then they get kited and die without accomplishing anything but wasting the opponent's time. Taking this concept even further, a flying unit (or a colossus) takes up no space, and a flying unit with long range is even better. Of course, mass carriers get in each other's way and so do colossi, but in small numbers they increase the density of your army, which is a huge boost to its effectiveness. This OP posts things like "Did you know corruptors and vikings were designed to attack the carriers themselves and letting them attack interceptors is bad?" and "Did you know that if a storm lands on stacked/clumped units and they don't move out of it, that's really bad for them?" And then quotes zealot dps numbers to me. Whatever. When someone's idea of fun is that their units are behaving effectively even though they're not being controlled, then I think they've chosen the wrong game. Maybe try a turn-based strategy game? The fact is that as soon as zealots charge or interceptors launch, a marine or hydra player is kiting back. And when they're kiting back, it's preferable that interceptors are targeted too. This OP is just posting bullshit when his response to someone who says that vikings/corruptors trade well vs carriers when focus firing is that "the carriers kite back while HT cast a series of storms on the chasing vikings/corruptors" and at the same time he just quotes zealot DPS numbers without any generosity of argument to consider that there may be some effective micro against zealots just like there are against vikings and corruptors. Anyway nice vids he should start a series teaching bronze players the basics. | ||
|
Shuffleblade
Sweden1903 Posts
On May 19 2018 02:08 NonY wrote: The point is that zealots have high dps because they're melee units. Zealots trade well against almost anything that just stands and fights them. But zealots get kited or there isn't enough surface area for them to all attack at once. Ranged units that have lower "dps" end up doing more damage because they can attack more often and focus their attacks. Taking that even further, ranged units that take up less space do even more damage. For example, 2 stalkers do the same "dps" to light units as 1 immortal, but the immortal takes up less space and all of its damage is always on the same target. 5 immortals standing together will punch a hole through whatever's in range, whereas 10 stalkers might not even have the space to all be in range of anything, and if they are then their damage is spread out. Anything stepping in range of 5 immortals instantly dies but stepping in range of zealots baits a charge that isolates them from everything else and then they get kited and die without accomplishing anything but wasting the opponent's time. Taking this concept even further, a flying unit (or a colossus) takes up no space, and a flying unit with long range is even better. Of course, mass carriers get in each other's way and so do colossi, but in small numbers they increase the density of your army, which is a huge boost to its effectiveness. This OP posts things like "Did you know corruptors and vikings were designed to attack the carriers themselves and letting them attack interceptors is bad?" and "Did you know that if a storm lands on stacked/clumped units and they don't move out of it, that's really bad for them?" And then quotes zealot dps numbers to me. Whatever. When someone's idea of fun is that their units are behaving effectively even though they're not being controlled, then I think they've chosen the wrong game. Maybe try a turn-based strategy game? The fact is that as soon as zealots charge or interceptors launch, a marine or hydra player is kiting back. And when they're kiting back, it's preferable that interceptors are targeted too. This OP is just posting bullshit when his response to someone who says that vikings/corruptors trade well vs carriers when focus firing is that "the carriers kite back while HT cast a series of storms on the chasing vikings/corruptors" and at the same time he just quotes zealot DPS numbers without any generosity of argument to consider that there may be some effective micro against zealots just like there are against vikings and corruptors. Anyway nice vids he should start a series teaching bronze players the basics. Wow you are being very rude and condescending for being a someone with no understanding of how an engagement with carriers work at all. In you initial post you stated: On May 18 2018 13:02 NonY wrote:Sometimes it actually is better to target the interceptors, like when you already have an army that's especially good at killing them (hydras or marines) or when it's unreasonable to expect to get in range to kill the carrier. The carrier player will have other units but it'll be the interceptors doing the most damage. With this change, the interceptors will be the very last things to die. The OP has stated most of this but I will try to put it in a simple way. A carrier releases its interceptors at 8 range, a hydralisk has an attack range of 5-6 and a marine has a range of 5. Your above example of "I have a hydralisk/marine army and carriers attack me, with this change my units would just hit the carriers and not the interceptors" is as you put it "just posting bullshit", obviously you don't really understand unit interactions and simple concepts like attack range. The carriers would be out of range of the hydralisk/marines attacks and they would still kill the interceptors, if the protoss players wanted your units to target the carriers(for some reason) they could move them closer but in that situation you could just kite away just as you wrote above. I don't know what made you wake up in grouchy mode but none of your arguments seem to hold up and when confronted you turn to petty condescending ramble. Edit: I will also add that regarding the "micro against the zealots" in the current version of carriers you kite away from the zealots all you want, you would still mostly target the interceptors and get shredded by the zealots. | ||
|
JackONeill
861 Posts
So not only are interceptor giving a 640 hit points shield to the actual carrier unless the opponent targets the carrier manually, but you can kite every unit in the game except for tempests with revelation. To be fair it's more an issue about the general clusterfuck that is protoss air, which will always be absolutely overwhelming in the late game unless the counters are massively buffed or if a complete redesign happens. | ||
|
NMxSardines
77 Posts
The point is that zealots have high dps because they're melee units. Zealots trade well against almost anything that just stands and fights them. But zealots get kited or there isn't enough surface area for them to all attack at once. Ranged units that have lower "dps" end up doing more damage because they can attack more often and focus their attacks. Taking that even further, ranged units that take up less space do even more damage. For example, 2 stalkers do the same "dps" to light units as 1 immortal, but the immortal takes up less space and all of its damage is always on the same target. 5 immortals standing together will punch a hole through whatever's in range, whereas 10 stalkers might not even have the space to all be in range of anything, and if they are then their damage is spread out. Anything stepping in range of 5 immortals instantly dies but stepping in range of zealots baits a charge that isolates them from everything else and then they get kited and die without accomplishing anything but wasting the opponent's time. Taking this concept even further, a flying unit (or a colossus) takes up no space, and a flying unit with long range is even better. Of course, mass carriers get in each other's way and so do colossi, but in small numbers they increase the density of your army, which is a huge boost to its effectiveness. This OP posts things like "Did you know corruptors and vikings were designed to attack the carriers themselves and letting them attack interceptors is bad?" and "Did you know that if a storm lands on stacked/clumped units and they don't move out of it, that's really bad for them?" And then quotes zealot dps numbers to me. Whatever. When someone's idea of fun is that their units are behaving effectively even though they're not being controlled, then I think they've chosen the wrong game. Maybe try a turn-based strategy game? The fact is that as soon as zealots charge or interceptors launch, a marine or hydra player is kiting back. And when they're kiting back, it's preferable that interceptors are targeted too. This OP is just posting bullshit when his response to someone who says that vikings/corruptors trade well vs carriers when focus firing is that "the carriers kite back while HT cast a series of storms on the chasing vikings/corruptors" and at the same time he just quotes zealot DPS numbers without any generosity of argument to consider that there may be some effective micro against zealots just like there are against vikings and corruptors. Anyway nice vids he should start a series teaching bronze players the basics. I never implied anywhere that engagements occur without anybody microing. I will agree that the sterile Unit Tester videos are not representations of what happens in real games, but it was never intended to be seen as such. At most, it tried to deconstruct a small part of what goes in an actual engagement; for example, how some players choose to A-click each of the Carriers or how some players choose to shift click them, etc. I think they did a good job of demonstrating how units can get distracted and start shooting at Interceptors, but no, I am sorry if I confused anyone into thinking that this is how I think actual games are played out. I should've found examples of what I wanted to show and recorded them from professional games, or streams, but I got lazy. Carriers are rare in professional games and a lot of streamers paywall their vods, etc. Though, nevertheless, I agree that I shouldn't have rushed and took the sweet time finding professional examples of each element of Carrier play, then made this post 2-3 days later; I am sorry for that. I believe what I said about Interceptors and Zealots was correct regardless of micro. All I said is that if you're trying to kill Interceptors with Marines/Hydralisks - you'd want to kill any other units in the direct range* of Marines/Hydralisks first - because those units will always cost more than Interceptors, and always be more useful for every hit point they have than an Interceptor - whether with higher DPS or some magical ability. I don't see how that changes in a professional game or with any level of micro. I could do the same math I did with the Zealot on any ranged unit and it would still be more proficient to kill the Unit rather than an Interceptor. It's simple where 'If Interceptor in range; If no other unit in range; then kill Interceptor,' and 'If Interceptor in range; If other units in range; then kill other unit.' *Sure, there are some exceptions, like - you're trying to kill Interceptors but there are Stalkers harassing at the edges, distracting your units from killing Interceptors and refuse to engage in a full fight by blinking away. But that wouldn't qualify for direct range; you would continue holding position (or hold position kiting) under the Interceptors and keep killing them; and obviously, I would not expect you to just stand there fighting if 15 Chargelots are barreling down on your army, at that point Interceptors are not a priority at all and you must start kiting. The fact is that as soon as zealots charge or interceptors launch, a marine or hydra player is kiting back. And when they're kiting back, it's preferable that interceptors are targeted too. I don't understand this. If your Hydralisk or Marine army is being chased by both Interceptors and, say, Chargelots - you would rather be killing Interceptors than Zealots? Zealots must surely die first in that case. Even if you're being chased by ranged units, kiting back with 'Hold Position' almost guarantees that only Interceptors will get hit. 'Right Click, Hold Position, Right Click, Hold Position, etc.' We must be imagining different scenarios in our head; it's becoming too subjective. This OP is just posting bullshit when his response to someone who says that vikings/corruptors trade well vs carriers when focus firing is that "the carriers kite back while HT cast a series of storms on the chasing vikings/corruptors" I never meant to comment on the effectiveness of any approach, the entire post could operate under the assumption that Carriers are perfectly balanced within the current state of the game. What I am saying is that even though almost every unit in Starcraft 2 has a much easier action than reaction to it - Carrier is the unit with the most discrepancy in difficulty between action and reaction. Potentially even to a point where late-games with Carriers make micro somewhat easier for Protoss than other races, or other Protosses who don't have Carriers. Meanwhile, the balance and win rates might all be equal and well functioning; it's just what one must do in reaction to what Carriers mustn't do that makes them as unfun as they are. | ||
|
mostevil
United Kingdom611 Posts
But the carrier is still ATP 20? Won't this make marines and hydras form a daft arc trying to get to the carriers rather than firing on the interceptors. It sounds like it will introduce a very un-intuitive death by not looking situation. Stutter stepping will be rendered largely ineffective unless its done with hold position, which feels very whacky. I can see it being very painful in the lower leagues where they haven't read about this interaction. A weird interaction that doesn't seem to make sense but make something harder does have a hint of broodwar about it. But SC2 tends to steer away from such things. Carriers already hit pretty hard for their supply, not sure that needs boosting by forcing more counter micro (from ground units anyway). It does annoy me when people talk about its +3 DPS as at that point the enemy will almost always have +3 armour and the interceptors twin attacks means that is completely cancelled out. I'd be in favour of trying a single attack or up's giving +2 to actually make the +3 impactful. | ||
|
aish
20 Posts
On May 18 2018 13:02 NonY wrote: Anyway nice vids he should start a series teaching bronze players the basics. haha, well said. | ||
|
brickrd
United States4894 Posts
i'm not saying storm is broken (i play toss anyway), but storm just always breaks other things in combination. storm was the original reason mass swarm host was invented in HOTS ZVP, because nothing but locusts could trade against storm armies. zerg can fight storm now because of hydra/baneling buffs which creates pressure for templar to be microed and allows brood lord transitions tbh carriers are fine interaction wise until there are 4-6 of them and 4-6 templar with energy, and at that point zerg can transition into viper corruptor deathball with spores. when the players are even in skill both z and p have to micro their lategame armies well. | ||
|
Odowan Paleolithic
United States232 Posts
It is not always worth to trade interceptors for real units. They take time to build too. Losing all interceptors while defending make defending follow ups less probable. On May 19 2018 03:50 mostevil wrote: I can see the intended effect with corruptors and vikings... But the carrier is still ATP 20? Won't this make marines and hydras form a daft arc trying to get to the carriers rather than firing on the interceptors. It sounds like it will introduce a very un-intuitive death by not looking situation. Stutter stepping will be rendered largely ineffective unless its done with hold position, which feels very whacky. I can see it being very painful in the lower leagues where they haven't read about this interaction. A weird interaction that doesn't seem to make sense but make something harder does have a hint of broodwar about it. But SC2 tends to steer away from such things. Carriers already hit pretty hard for their supply, not sure that needs boosting by forcing more counter micro (from ground units anyway). It does annoy me when people talk about its +3 DPS as at that point the enemy will almost always have +3 armour and the interceptors twin attacks means that is completely cancelled out. I'd be in favour of trying a single attack or up's giving +2 to actually make the +3 impactful. I follow the sentiment. If a buff of build time is implemented concurrently with the ATP change the a two base rush to carriers will be hard to deflect when opponent only have slowish hydras and marines in low numbers. Rushing player can just hog the ledges and "stutter step" the carriers (The carrier will appear in and out of attackable range due to ledge constraint). Also it is much easier for shield batteries to recharge carrier itself than a group of interceptors. | ||
| ||
