Community Update: July 16th 2019 - Page 12
Forum Index > SC2 General |
TelecoM
United States10646 Posts
| ||
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16384 Posts
I hope Blizzard takes the time to read this https://tl.net/blogs/550207-venting-frustrations | ||
WombaT
Northern Ireland23755 Posts
On July 23 2019 15:57 deacon.frost wrote: Carriers will snowball always - interceptors. Similarly swarm hosts, brood lords, infestors vs air. Generally any unit which DPS is based on how many units it produces to do the damage. You would have to change how the Carrier works, that's the reason why Blizzard removed the catapult. To lower the snowballing issue you can lower the interceptor count and give some weapons to the capital ship itself and I don't know how that would be received considering the rage about removing carrier. On the other hand I always thought that it should have some guns because once it loses interceptors it's useless and it's not like there's no room there ![]() Edit> technically it's not about the created units but about the number of attacks and how well they scale up. It's just best seen at units which generate units(IMO). BCs will get out of hand quite fast too in case you want to defend them via ground units. Yeah absolutely man. It’s a difficult problem to figure out. I like how Carriers work in BW (their microability is part of this too), where a relatively small number can be super strong, but it’s impractical to build 15 carriers or whatever given how the economy works. In BW I like how capital ships work, but limitations on just building more and more of them are shaped by a different economy to what SC2 has. The snowball problem is more related to how units scale vs how strong they are individually, IMO. It’s extremely difficult to get there, but large numbers of 3/3 battlecruisers are incredibly difficult to kill off with any composition, especially for Protoss. They just get better the more you make. They’re also not very interesting either in that sense, whereas hypothetically stronger capital ships, but limited in number and had to be deployed smartly could be interesting. Personal proclivities at play here of course | ||
| ||