|
![[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.
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.
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.
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.
|
Your attack priority complaint applies to broodlords and swarmhosts as well.
Your complaint about carriers being harder to play against than use applies to almost the entirety of SC2.
|
Your attack priority complaint applies to broodlords and swarmhosts as well.
Your complaint about carriers being harder to play against than use applies to almost the entirety of SC2.
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.
Swarm Hosts fire off only 100 hp worth of units every 42 seconds. Here is the kicker, while the Locusts fly - they're prioritized lower than other flying attacking units. It is only when they land do they become equal with the rest.
What's worse, is that almost every solution to Brood Lords and Swarm Hosts involves fighting through their free units. Terrans make Hellbats vs. Locusts, Protoss Storm them - you name it. With Carriers, though, unless there is like 2 of them, you simply cannot afford to kill the Interceptors in an even battle. That is what elevates Carriers above those other units in terms of frustration. With other free units, you kill them and then you kill the brood mothers. With Carriers, you have to constantly order your army to ignore ignore ignore the Interceptors.
Were the Interceptor's threat level lowered and Interceptors randomly returning to the Carrier during kiting fixed(thus making kiting a lot more consistent and viable), I believe it is perfectly possible to retain their roles as a 'distractor,' albeit with some more micro from the user; which would be quite easy, you just release the interceptors and move back with the Carrier.
|
Props to the OP for devoting a lot of time in thinking through and making this thread.
As to the proposal, all I can say for now is that I certainly agree it will make Carriers less cumbersome to deal with.
|
I think the spirit of this is fair, but I'm not sure I agree this is the best approach. I think this produces the situation where air vs air battles just become two sides amoving into one another, since additional micro helps very little
Instead, I would propose a carrier usage nerf. Part of the reason carriers in BW were slightly more difficult to use was that the interceptor launch speed was basically nonexistent if carriers weren't on the move, and I think this meant carriers were less "select and amove" and more "constantly keep them moving," which encourages active usage vs turtling behind them.
Another part of the BW carrier mechanic I liked though was that the leash range and attack range weren't *that* different, iirc it's 8 vs 10 or so? So if you wanted to take advantage of leash range, you had to be on top of the opponent's army movement, else they'd get out of leash range. If the difference is really 8 vs 14 like you say, that's probably partly why carriers feel overly effective at kiting and easy to use.
I'm not going to say we should adopt these nerfs; just because they're tested in BW doesn't mean they're good for SC2. But I think making carriers harder to use is a more exciting avenue than making its counters easier to use
|
On May 18 2018 10:27 Boggyb wrote:
Your attack priority complaint applies to broodlords and swarmhosts as well.
Your complaint about carriers being harder to play against than use applies to almost the entirety of SC2.
Something to keep in mind is that, at least for Terran, the thor AI + BL range are almost perfectly synergised as design features to negate this aspect of how broodlords work. The combination of changes very much had the effect of making them a good, easier to use response vs broodlords, because you didn't really have to worry about the broodlings mucking with your ability to hit the broodlords without constant babysitting. Corruptors play a very similar role vs Carriers.
@OP: While I'm not too sure either way, I do feel agree that the ease of use for carriers vs difficulty of mitigation is bad, and it's certainly an interesting solution.
|
This is a lengthy, well-reasoned post that deserves careful thought and scrutiny, meaning it will probably end up buried under a flood of balance whine.
But kudos to OP for putting in the time and effort. The fewer air deathballs in the game, the better.
|
The steady decline of Team Liquid into Team Terran Liquid.
This site is like a Terran whine fest.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Good skill toi have.
Seriously tho, might be a healthy little change for the game.
|
8751 Posts
I don't initially like this suggestion because I'm not sure about the unit behavior that will result. 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 only way to kill interceptors would be to hold position when nothing else is in range or use spells.
Maybe that would actually be good for the game? I don't know but it seems like weird behavior to me. When you focus on mass corruptors and vikings it seems ok, but that seems more like a really late game or really passive way to play. The first moment carriers come out, the interactions are typically different.
|
On May 18 2018 12:58 Parcelleus wrote:
The steady decline of Team Liquid into Team Terran Liquid.
This site is like a Terran whine fest.
Terran is a whine fest.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Hold shift, right click a bunch of carriers. Problem solved.
Why is this a thread?
|
On May 18 2018 13:14 DinoMight wrote:
Hold shift, right click a bunch of carriers. Problem solved.
Why is this a thread?
The original post showed with videos why shift-clicking is not working. The protoss have got splash damage that takes advantage of the shift-clicked units' behaviour.
If you shift-click with no additional micro, you lose. If you shift-click with additional micro, you'll need to use a lot more micro than the carrier+splash damage army.
It is the big difference in micro that is one of the problems.
|
On May 18 2018 13:02 NonY wrote:
I don't initially like this suggestion because I'm not sure about the unit behavior that will result. 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 only way to kill interceptors would be to hold position when nothing else is in range or use spells.
Maybe that would actually be good for the game? I don't know but it seems like weird behavior to me. When you focus on mass corruptors and vikings it seems ok, but that seems more like a really late game or really passive way to play. The first moment carriers come out, the interactions are typically different.
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.
On May 18 2018 12:58 Parcelleus wrote:
The steady decline of Team Liquid into Team Terran Liquid.
This site is like a Terran whine fest.
I have 12,000 Protoss games played.
|
Not opposed to the change nor totally down for it, I just don't understand how that makes the carrier funnier.
|
I agree 100% with OP. This change should have been implemented a long time ago.
Nothing in this game is as infuriating as going up against Carrier and lose the entire game because the interceptors make your units refuse to target the Carriers for half a second.
Balance is not only about win rates. There should also be some kind of balance between the effort the players have to put in to win a fight. The game should feel hard but fair, not hard and unfair.
Carriers are strong and extremely easy to use. There is no reason that they should have the ability to mess up the opponents targeting fire as well.
|
I absolutely love this idea, I think there are a few effects that comes with your idea that fail to get through to most of the readers here.
- Like you explained above with the Zealot example, units will only target carriers or other units besides the interceptors if there are units besides the interceptors in the units attack range. This is huge, this opens up tons of micro potential on both sides, carriers can kite but other protoss units could also use this. An army that moves in close to the carrier army and attack commands will initially target the closest none interceptor unit, if all none interceptors microes away however the interceptors will be targeted instead. The carrier army will have to micro more to reach the same result, for the protoss player using the carrier deathball will in some situaitons be very micro intensive because all of a sudden if protoss needs to kite with carriers that will make everying on the ground archons/HTs and so on vulnerable.
Imagine kiting carriers being fungaled to stop them from running away or a zoning nuke, where the fight happens, how the P kites and controls the rest of the army will with this change start to matter a lot more.
- Like you say in your post the micro disparity between carriers and their "counters"/other armies are huge, a protoss deathball is in my opinion not a called a deathball because it is objectively stronger than any other races army. It is as you said because the same level of army from other races require such an insane amount of micro to fight on an even footing that its basically not doable. A protoss air army with carriers, mothership, HTs and archons is basically so strong because of the micro disparity. If you would turn SC2 speed down to 0.1 or something I'm sure the protoss deathball wouldn't really be a deathball anymore. The crazy thing is, you mention it in your post but don't really expand on what it means, the carrier build time is the longest in the game by a very wide margin. That they had to do that to balance it out really proves your point, carriers are balanced because the opponent is supposed to be able to kill or starve out the protoss player before the carriers have snowballed. It is due to the micro disparity OP but the amount of resources and time you need to get a critical mass of them the game is balanced due to how big of a window the opponent have to punish you. This is really bad game design even beyond the fact that it is not fun to play against, which I can argree with from T and Zs perspective.
This really is great idea and I think it would make playing with and against carriers more fun, if it also makes it possible to shorten the carrier build time maybe we would actually see them used in more interesting ways than just air army of doom. To be honest I love carriers but I don't love that they are only ever used in one way, the amount of resources you sink in for such a long time makes them not worht getting unless you are building the ultimate sky army, if that would change it would make me happy.
|
How do you target interceptors if you want to do that? Much easier to change to carrier, than to change to targeting interceptors.
|
Why does everything have to be equal in terms of input/micro? StarCraft is great because it has 3 asymmetrical races that differ from each other. Some units and compositions should be harder and some easier. You say its more fun if input gap is lessened but I disagree if something is really hard to pull off and I manage to do it its way more fun.
I think your argument would be reasonable if the input gap is like really drastically different where one guy has to have 500apm to pull of a decent fight and the other guy can just a click and afk but this is not the case when it comes to carriers to be honest.
|
On May 18 2018 18:40 inuh wrote:
Why does everything have to be equal in terms of input/micro? StarCraft is great because it has 3 asymmetrical races that differ from each other. Some units and compositions should be harder and some easier. You say its more fun if input gap is lessened but I disagree if something is really hard to pull off and I manage to do it its way more fun.
I think your argument would be reasonable if the input gap is like really drastically different where one guy has to have 500apm to pull of a decent fight and the other guy can just a click and afk but this is not the case when it comes to carriers to be honest.
I think the problem most people have with carriers it's that they are nearly braindead in usage - most of the time it's better to just amove them and trade interceptors for real units, instead of using carriers leash range. They also are slow units with near 0 harass potential so it's just feels like playing vs a flying ball of death. There's near 0 finesse to using carriers and they are extremely frustrating to play against.
Carrier is everything the people used to complain about brood lords except it also shoots at flying units and has more hit points.
|
I still have PTSD because of this game between TY and Neeb
|
Removing graviton catapult and/or tweaking launch speeds will be a simpler and more effective design change to improve unit interactions with the carrier.
|
8751 Posts
On May 18 2018 13:53 NMxSardines wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2018 13:02 NonY wrote:
I don't initially like this suggestion because I'm not sure about the unit behavior that will result. 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 only way to kill interceptors would be to hold position when nothing else is in range or use spells.
Maybe that would actually be good for the game? I don't know but it seems like weird behavior to me. When you focus on mass corruptors and vikings it seems ok, but that seems more like a really late game or really passive way to play. The first moment carriers come out, the interactions are typically different. 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.
|
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.
|
Why not just make the interceptors easier to kill?
|
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.
|
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).
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).
|
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.
|
On May 18 2018 23:18 Genesis128 wrote:Show nested quote +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 Show nested quote +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.
not really
|
Man, this game in general isn't fun.
|
On May 18 2018 23:09 Genesis128 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
On May 18 2018 22:02 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2018 13:53 NMxSardines wrote:On May 18 2018 13:02 NonY wrote:
I don't initially like this suggestion because I'm not sure about the unit behavior that will result. 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 only way to kill interceptors would be to hold position when nothing else is in range or use spells.
Maybe that would actually be good for the game? I don't know but it seems like weird behavior to me. When you focus on mass corruptors and vikings it seems ok, but that seems more like a really late game or really passive way to play. The first moment carriers come out, the interactions are typically different. 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.
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?
|
8751 Posts
On May 19 2018 00:32 10dla wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2018 22:02 NonY wrote:On May 18 2018 13:53 NMxSardines wrote:On May 18 2018 13:02 NonY wrote:
I don't initially like this suggestion because I'm not sure about the unit behavior that will result. 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 only way to kill interceptors would be to hold position when nothing else is in range or use spells.
Maybe that would actually be good for the game? I don't know but it seems like weird behavior to me. When you focus on mass corruptors and vikings it seems ok, but that seems more like a really late game or really passive way to play. The first moment carriers come out, the interactions are typically different. 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. 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.
|
On May 19 2018 02:08 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2018 00:32 10dla wrote:On May 18 2018 22:02 NonY wrote:On May 18 2018 13:53 NMxSardines wrote:On May 18 2018 13:02 NonY wrote:
I don't initially like this suggestion because I'm not sure about the unit behavior that will result. 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 only way to kill interceptors would be to hold position when nothing else is in range or use spells.
Maybe that would actually be good for the game? I don't know but it seems like weird behavior to me. When you focus on mass corruptors and vikings it seems ok, but that seems more like a really late game or really passive way to play. The first moment carriers come out, the interactions are typically different. 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. 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.
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.
|
The real problem with the carrier is that it has 14 range against everything.
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
On May 18 2018 13:02 NonY wrote:
Anyway nice vids he should start a series teaching bronze players the basics.
haha, well said.
|
the problem with microing against carrier armies has nothing to do with carriers, the problem will always be that psi storm is effective against any zerg army so there will always be templar soaking you in storms if you try to use micro to get value out of your vikings/corruptors/hydras/whatever. nothing toss has is broken on its own, its anything + storm that becomes a nightmare to play against.
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.
|
In that video of carrier "kiting", the Battlecruisers would have fired on interceptors while chasing (or use Yamato Cannon) and incurred less loss in current iteration. The proposed change would only benefit unit with low attack speed so as to not waste volleys on interceptors.
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.
|
At first I thought this would make for a good change but the longer I think about it, the more I think the Carrier is ok as it is and changing it would make units appear to behave a bit more unpredictably. In fact in most cases if I am against carriers I want my units to keep their distance and pick away at it, not run towards it to engage it all head on.
Controlling units well is such a necessary skill for each race and most playstyles that it is part of the games identity and for me personally is a big reason I watch pro games. I don't think the argument that engagements should be easier is really what SC2 is about. As long as the opportunity for a good engagement exists then the design is fine. Once you start bringing in the supporting units and talking about compositions, we also can't ignore how the game played out before Carriers hit the field, and whether it was also too hard to deal with Carriers in that sense. Perhaps the easy way to deal with Carriers is with strategy, not tactics?
|
On May 18 2018 09:46 NMxSardines wrote:
I would be happy to address any further concerns in the replies.
Have you considered making a mod so people can experience this change?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
