EPTWe Must Fight For The Carrier - Page 46
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
lorestarcraft
United States1049 Posts
| ||
|
AsymptoticClimax
United Kingdom249 Posts
On June 12 2012 05:29 sunprince wrote: It doesn't need anything nearly as complex as a blink. Carriers simply need better stats. Ha really? it's that simple? you mean that this hasn't crossed blizzards mind because if you're right then we should of seen the carrier buffed a long time ago and have slacking balance team ... BUT! I'm sure theres more to it than just buffing the stats... In blizzard we trust. | ||
|
CCalms
United States341 Posts
I don't usually post in threads like this, simple because I like keeping my brain cells intact, but I have a couple things that I think need to be brought to attention. Why doesn't blizzard remove, say, the stalker? Well, that would be moronic, because people use the stalker and it works and it helps to win games and add to the experience of starcraft 2. Okay. So, what if, maybe, you guys actually tried using the carrier? I promise you, sitting in here and thinking about giving the carrier 22 range or blink will get you nowhere, because those ideas are the stupidest things I have ever heard in my entire life. Let me preface this by saying I am a huge n00b compared to you guys. I'm only 1600 master, and I know that you guys are all at least Code A, but don't write me off so fast! I USE the carrier. That is the difference between me and you. You can whine all you want about how great it is whilst whining about how bad it is, but I actually go onto ladder and use it. I recently cleared my replays so I am not going to be able to post them here, probably resulting in me getting temporarily banned (because teamliquid), but maybe you guys can trust me? My standard PvZ on tda is 4 gate pressure into double stargate phoenix into 3base 4 stargate carrier. I don't really lose with it. Among some no-name grandmaster players, I've beaten Ret and vileHawk using this playstyle. The carrier is a viable unit, or at least as viable as the battlecruiser is. Unfortunately, since you guys don't like actually playing the game, you will never be able to show Blizzard that, so it is irrelevant. Unfortunately, after unveiling the tempest to this extent, it is too late for the carrier. I am just here to let you know that it is not the fault of blizzard, but the fault of all of you. If you really cared, you wouldn't theorycraft in this thread, you would go and put the unit's statistics up with gameplay time. User was warned for this post User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Alpino
Brazil4390 Posts
On June 12 2012 05:48 CCalms wrote: Hi guys, I don't usually post in threads like this, simple because I like keeping my brain cells intact, but I have a couple things that I think need to be brought to attention. Why doesn't blizzard remove, say, the stalker? Well, that would be moronic, because people use the stalker and it works and it helps to win games and add to the experience of starcraft 2. Okay. So, what if, maybe, you guys actually tried using the carrier? I promise you, sitting in here and thinking about giving the carrier 22 range or blink will get you nowhere, because those ideas are the stupidest things I have ever heard in my entire life. Let me preface this by saying I am a huge n00b compared to you guys. I'm only 1600 master, and I know that you guys are all at least Code A, but don't write me off so fast! I USE the carrier. That is the difference between me and you. You can whine all you want about how great it is whilst whining about how bad it is, but I actually go onto ladder and use it. I recently cleared my replays so I am not going to be able to post them here, probably resulting in me getting temporarily banned (because teamliquid), but maybe you guys can trust me? My standard PvZ on tda is 4 gate pressure into double stargate phoenix into 3base 4 stargate carrier. I don't really lose with it. Among some no-name grandmaster players, I've beaten Ret and vileHawk using this playstyle. The carrier is a viable unit, or at least as viable as the battlecruiser is. Unfortunately, since you guys don't like actually playing the game, you will never be able to show Blizzard that, so it is irrelevant. Unfortunately, after unveiling the tempest to this extent, it is too late for the carrier. I am just here to let you know that it is not the fault of blizzard, but the fault of all of you. If you really cared, you wouldn't theorycraft in this thread, you would go and put the unit's statistics up with gameplay time. Today I learned that the carrier being removed from the game is my fault. | ||
|
iGrok
United States5142 Posts
On June 12 2012 05:48 CCalms wrote: Hi guys, I don't usually post in threads like this, simple because I like keeping my brain cells intact, but I have a couple things that I think need to be brought to attention. Why doesn't blizzard remove, say, the stalker? Well, that would be moronic, because people use the stalker and it works and it helps to win games and add to the experience of starcraft 2. Okay. So, what if, maybe, you guys actually tried using the carrier? I promise you, sitting in here and thinking about giving the carrier 22 range or blink will get you nowhere, because those ideas are the stupidest things I have ever heard in my entire life. Let me preface this by saying I am a huge n00b compared to you guys. I'm only 1600 master, and I know that you guys are all at least Code A, but don't write me off so fast! I USE the carrier. That is the difference between me and you. You can whine all you want about how great it is whilst whining about how bad it is, but I actually go onto ladder and use it. I recently cleared my replays so I am not going to be able to post them here, probably resulting in me getting temporarily banned (because teamliquid), but maybe you guys can trust me? My standard PvZ on tda is 4 gate pressure into double stargate phoenix into 3base 4 stargate carrier. I don't really lose with it. Among some no-name grandmaster players, I've beaten Ret and vileHawk using this playstyle. The carrier is a viable unit, or at least as viable as the battlecruiser is. Unfortunately, since you guys don't like actually playing the game, you will never be able to show Blizzard that, so it is irrelevant. Unfortunately, after unveiling the tempest to this extent, it is too late for the carrier. I am just here to let you know that it is not the fault of blizzard, but the fault of all of you. If you really cared, you wouldn't theorycraft in this thread, you would go and put the unit's statistics up with gameplay time. Hi guy, I don't usually respond to posts like this, simple because I like keeping my brain cells intact, but I have a couple things that I think need to be brough to attention. Why don't you post, say, constructive criticism? Well, that would be great, because people like constructive criticism and it works and it helps to convince people and add to the experience of TeamLiquid. Okay. So, what if, maybe, you actually tried posting constructively? I promise you, sitting in here and posting about how theorycrafters are bad or your ladder rank will get you nowhere, because your sarcastic jack-ass-ery is one of the more annoying posts I have ever heard in my entire life. Let me preface this by saying I am a huge n00b when compared to you, I have only 2900 posts, and I know you are a Star poster, but don't write me off so fast! I USE constructive posting. That is the difference between me and you. You can whine all you want about theorycraft or get banned for being a dick in the Strategy forum, but I actually go on the forum and post ideas. I keep all my PMs private so I am not going to be able to post them here, but maybe you can trust me? My standard actions on this forum is help new posters into cleaning up formatting into encourage discussion. I get a lot of thanks with it. Among some no-name grandmaster posters, I've helped out Plexa and GMarshal using this poststyle. Constructive Criticism is a viable style, or at least as viable as being a dick. Unfortunately, since you don't like actually being a decent guy, you will never be able to show us that, so it is irrelevant (to you). Unfortunately, after unveiling your posting style to this extent, it is too late for you. I am just here to let you know that it is not the fault of TeamLiquid, but the fault of you. If you really cared, you wouldn't try to snuff out discussion in this thread, you would go and think about what people are saying and find logical faults (or perhaps even concede they may have merit!), then test them out in the editor with gameplay time. | ||
|
SarcasmMonster
3136 Posts
 Everyone hates them! | ||
|
Dvriel
607 Posts
On June 12 2012 05:48 CCalms wrote: Hi guys, I don't usually post in threads like this, simple because I like keeping my brain cells intact, but I have a couple things that I think need to be brought to attention. Why doesn't blizzard remove, say, the stalker? Well, that would be moronic, because people use the stalker and it works and it helps to win games and add to the experience of starcraft 2. Okay. So, what if, maybe, you guys actually tried using the carrier? I promise you, sitting in here and thinking about giving the carrier 22 range or blink will get you nowhere, because those ideas are the stupidest things I have ever heard in my entire life. Let me preface this by saying I am a huge n00b compared to you guys. I'm only 1600 master, and I know that you guys are all at least Code A, but don't write me off so fast! I USE the carrier. That is the difference between me and you. You can whine all you want about how great it is whilst whining about how bad it is, but I actually go onto ladder and use it. I recently cleared my replays so I am not going to be able to post them here, probably resulting in me getting temporarily banned (because teamliquid), but maybe you guys can trust me? My standard PvZ on tda is 4 gate pressure into double stargate phoenix into 3base 4 stargate carrier. I don't really lose with it. Among some no-name grandmaster players, I've beaten Ret and vileHawk using this playstyle. The carrier is a viable unit, or at least as viable as the battlecruiser is. Unfortunately, since you guys don't like actually playing the game, you will never be able to show Blizzard that, so it is irrelevant. Unfortunately, after unveiling the tempest to this extent, it is too late for the carrier. I am just here to let you know that it is not the fault of blizzard, but the fault of all of you. If you really cared, you wouldn't theorycraft in this thread, you would go and put the unit's statistics up with gameplay time. I agree with you totaly,but seeing replays when HuK said "Carriers suck" while he is streaming doesnt help.If no Pro use them,then,no one will use them.If you are so good,or this BO works,why dont you post it?Write it in the Strategy Forum and we all will learn to use Carriers and may save them,no? | ||
Falling
Canada11363 Posts
BTW, BW carrier is not that different from SC2 carrier. All those glorifications of BW carrier is vague. Carrier is good in BW only because there were not hard counters to carrier. But in SC2 carrier is easily countered by corruptors and vikings. Someone may argue that when you reach a critical amount, carrier is unstoppable. This is incorrect. If you actually test that out in unit tester, you will know that with the same supply or same resource costs, corruptors and vikings will always win (you need to target the carrier itself). Yes and no. I do agree with the fundamental problem of vikings and corrupters. But they're necessary because of the problem of Collosi. However, carriers handle in BW to SC2 is very different. I'm sure it's been described before where after clicking a unit and destroying it, the interceptors would return to the carrier. Unless you clicked to the next target. But then you could also click a target, then move the carrier, even retreating to extend the range of carriers. But if you moved too far, they'd return. So the great trick is to keep the carriers moving away from attacking units, while constantly keeping the interceptor in flight destroying stuff. Rather than it being a mobile a-move unit that would just sit their and attack. And I think that's my biggest disappointment. I haven't heard through the interviews an understanding of what even made some of these units different. That in fact the SC2 and BW carriers aren't the same thing and that missing component makes the SC2 version far less interesting. If they at least acknowledged that these were some of the things that made BW great, but we feel a-moving with spell abilities on every single unit is the way of the future, well I'd at least know they know what is missing. But when Browder's suggest the only reason to keep it is nostalgia... that's just frustrating. You know, it's not even the specific unit so much as the type of gameplay. Sure. Cut the carrier. I don't care. (Well I actually I do.) But cut it. You could create the craziest looking new SC2 unit, but completely stripped down. No spell abilities. (blink) No passive abilities (charge, concussive.) And as long as it had BW-esque unit handling, it would actually be an interesting unit. Because it's as powerful as the player has time to micro it. | ||
|
chebhe
United States113 Posts
Oddly enough they own hydras. So everyone watches replays and copies their favorite pros while doing the same thing. | ||
|
Whole
United States6046 Posts
-Interceptors do not enter the Carrier while it is moving. As a result they can attack quicker, since they do not have to be unloaded. Also the Carrier can attack while moving, making it very strong in the hands of a skilled player. -Interceptors heal fully when they enter the Carrier, so stopping to move every now and then can be beneficial. | ||
|
RavenLoud
Canada1100 Posts
Someone who's not a total chobo with the editor like me could try to replicated BW carrier micro and show it to Blizzard.  | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
| ||
|
Falling
Canada11363 Posts
On June 12 2012 06:41 RavenLoud wrote: I think we need to take matters into our own hands. Kind of like with the pheonix back in the beta, IIRC it was a user made demo that showed how phoenix would play if they had the move shot. Blizzard liked it therefore implemented it. Before that, pheonix sucked and failed their role as an air superiority fighter. Someone who's not a total chobo with the editor like me could try to replicated BW carrier micro and show it to Blizzard. Well to be honest, the Phoenix really demonstrated that Blizzard didn't actually understand what was being asked. I remember some of Lalush's posts at the time arguing for moving shot. And at the time I was defending Blizzard with the wait and see, we might discover something cool. But it's pretty obvious that the Phoenix just flips around and fires backwards for as long as it is in range, which is different... But it wasn't the precise BW unit handling that was being asked. | ||
i)awn
United States189 Posts
| ||
|
tehemperorer
United States2183 Posts
On June 12 2012 06:21 SarcasmMonster wrote: Buff the Carrier and replace the Colossus Blizz Everyone hates them! As uninteresting as the colossus is, I don't want to play Protoss without it. It's like trying to run uphill with a parachute. I feel like the carrier is a unit that you don't rush to, makes as much sense as a nuke rush or a high templar rush (you are teching for a huuuuuuuge amount of time for a unit that can be easily countered by whatever the opponent happens to have). However, I really think it has its place because it is so heavy a unit that it takes a lot of resources to stop about 4 of them. Therefore, in the situation where you have done damage to your opponent and taken a significant macro lead, the decision to make carriers instead of void rays (though normally a foolish decision) at this point could be argued for since the damage you've done will make carriers a lot more tough for your opponent to handle than void rays. Think FFE vs Zerg fast third on Daybreak, and you've killed their third with VRs and taken your own. Zerg tries to roach up and kill your third soon after it completes and you hold with equal losses on both sides, and you know that you were finally repelled by zerg earlier by a lot of spores/queens. I would argue that now is the time to crank carrier production and use your current VR fleet to delay Zerg's third base. When their third becomes viable you are ready to strike with a significant number of carriers (4-6) and at their range they are able to easily destroy a spore/queen defense and stop mining/destroy the third soon after. If you had chosen to simply make more VRs, you put yourself in a position to lose much more than mineral only interceptors, you will lose a good number of VRs. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On June 12 2012 05:43 AsymptoticClimax wrote: Ha really? it's that simple? you mean that this hasn't crossed blizzards mind because if you're right then we should of seen the carrier buffed a long time ago and have slacking balance team ... BUT! I'm sure theres more to it than just buffing the stats... In blizzard we trust. Assuming you're not being sarcastic, Blizzard's design team has repeatedly demonstrated that they are incompetent and/or have ulterior motives besides simply balancing the game, such as the desire to adhere to certain sacred cows and make the game sufficiently different from BW to justify their jobs. | ||
|
iGrok
United States5142 Posts
On June 12 2012 07:24 sunprince wrote: Assuming you're not being sarcastic, Blizzard's design team has repeatedly demonstrated that they are incompetent and/or have ulterior motives besides simply balancing the game, such as the desire to adhere to certain sacred cows and make the game sufficiently different from BW to justify their jobs. And this is why giving Carriers blink would be the best compromise I can think of. If anyone is interested, I'll build a mod when I get home from work today. Any requests for the map? | ||
|
SarcasmMonster
3136 Posts
On June 12 2012 07:09 tehemperorer wrote: As uninteresting as the colossus is, I don't want to play Protoss without it. It's like trying to run uphill with a parachute. I feel like the carrier is a unit that you don't rush to, makes as much sense as a nuke rush or a high templar rush (you are teching for a huuuuuuuge amount of time for a unit that can be easily countered by whatever the opponent happens to have). However, I really think it has its place because it is so heavy a unit that it takes a lot of resources to stop about 4 of them. Therefore, in the situation where you have done damage to your opponent and taken a significant macro lead, the decision to make carriers instead of void rays (though normally a foolish decision) at this point could be argued for since the damage you've done will make carriers a lot more tough for your opponent to handle than void rays. Think FFE vs Zerg fast third on Daybreak, and you've killed their third with VRs and taken your own. Zerg tries to roach up and kill your third soon after it completes and you hold with equal losses on both sides, and you know that you were finally repelled by zerg earlier by a lot of spores/queens. I would argue that now is the time to crank carrier production and use your current VR fleet to delay Zerg's third base. When their third becomes viable you are ready to strike with a significant number of carriers (4-6) and at their range they are able to easily destroy a spore/queen defense and stop mining/destroy the third soon after. If you had chosen to simply make more VRs, you put yourself in a position to lose much more than mineral only interceptors, you will lose a good number of VRs. I'm asking for a replacement unit, not just removal. There are other ways to give  midgame strong splash units that aren't as uninteresting (from both spectators and players POV) as the Colossus. | ||
|
Avs
Korea (North)857 Posts
All carriers need is better kiting mechanics instead of all interceptors get reduced range when backing up after 1 second. | ||
|
Eifer
United States138 Posts
On June 12 2012 07:38 iGrok wrote: And this is why giving Carriers blink would be the best compromise I can think of. If anyone is interested, I'll build a mod when I get home from work today. Any requests for the map? Please please please stop saying things like this. It is totally ridiculous to give carriers blink. It is ok for the stalker to have blink as a researchable ability because it allows it to have mid and late game viability after serving its early game purposes without being too strong. It also is a ground unit that can sometimes bypass elevation constraints given high ground vision. A carrier already flies, negating elevation differences. A carrier has no early game viability as it isn't available, so you aren't fixing a unit to make it applicable for more than one period of the game. What you are doing is giving a very good unit an ability which makes it totally overpowered. Just think about your suggestion. Blinking carriers. Blinking. Carriers. Let's give a unit that potentially has the greatest DPS in the game that flies, can be successfully massed by good players (See CCalms higher up, Crank, and Hongun's play in general), vies for the most hit points in the game, and does not actually need to be fixed. It is mind boggling that when a good player chimes in to a discussion among lower level players about how a unit isn't viable, giving an actual build that he has found to work, that you focus on his delivery and not what he has to say. Just ignore his tone. Look at what he said. Carriers are really good. Do his build. If it doesn't work for you the first time, watch other high level players that utilize carriers and see the various ways to include them. Then do it another ~50 times and you'll see most of the variations that can occur. If people actually practiced concepts more complex than the 4gate and one or two base play and tried to do more complicated strategies for the mid and late game, then this discussion wouldn't be going on. I specifically referenced the general "people" because if you look at this strategy forum as a whole, you'll understand. I've read every PvX article and XvP article that has been posted for the last year and a half. I have rarely seen threads which focus on the pros, cons, and timings of various mid game transitions after the initial build is completed. Often when this is included, it's either an after thought or bad theory crafting. I think that it's a shame that a several thousand post member completely derailed the strategy discussion to respond to his tone. The build he outlines is legitimate and has quite a few alternative transitions and variations that are all very good i.e. Yonghwa's phoenixes, Hongun's macro nexus for faster 5th gas etc. I know the carrier is a viable unit for PvZ. It's a viable unit in the mid game, late game, and super late game, but for entirely different reasons. TL;DR Carriers are really good. Ccalms is right. The suggestions in this thread are bad. Use the unit and you'll see it doesn't have to be fixed. TS;WM I'll do an extensive guide if you're interested. | ||
| ||
