A little late to the party, but I do have some carriers in PvP replays if anyone wants to view them.
First of all, just wanted to get off my chest that there are 1 base carrier rushes in PvT as well as 2 base carrier rushes. Have replays of those too if anyone wants. Personally think the 1 base variety are much more effective.
Anyway, regarding PvP: blink stalkers are indeed the counter to carriers. HTs w/ storm or archons can also work if you somehow get the carriers clumped (vortexes are the most common method). Now, in super late game colo vs colo PvP, neither of these counters really matter, the colo will vaporize everything on the ground. Carrier transitions at that point are difficult, but if successfully done, there's really nothing that can stop it. Alicia vs Hero is a good example, White-Ra does it on his stream from time to time, and generally this is a well-known, though still incredibly rare super late-game situation in colo vs colo PvP.
However, there are also ways of building carriers in the mid-game and surviving against mass blink stalker builds, namely, using zealot/immortal or cannon/immortal (depending on the map) as a supplemental composition. As I previously mentioned a few pages back, I have developed methods of getting into carrier/immortal compositions from both 2 gate stargate play as well as 3 gate robo play. The former tends to rely more on cannons, the latter more on zealots. Best response I've seen (replay below) was colossus/void ray/stalker. Unfortunately for him, he transitioned too late, had too many colossi and not enough void rays. Graviton catapult is stupid good.
Great work HelioSeven! How did you feel the new interceptor movement impacted your play? Also are there certain maps these strats would work better on?
On August 24 2012 07:59 Archerofaiur wrote: Great work HelioSeven! How did you feel the new interceptor movement impacted your play? Also are there certain maps these strats would work better on?
In PvP, no, not really. The only thing that's really changed is the storm trap, but very few people know to do that (for those who don't know, storm trap is a PvP technique against carriers where you use a few zealots to bait out all the interceptors and then storm your own zealots for interceptor carnage). With the 1.5 changes the technique is a lot more effective, you don't have to hit them all right as they're launching anymore. 1 storm does exactly enough damage to kill an interceptor, so 2 storms can wipe half an interceptor fleet out before the zealots die (thus providing a major vulnerability for void rays and stalkers to exploit).
Like I said, though, very rare I've seen people do that. Mostly I feel the 1.5 changes effect PvZ much more and PvT to a lesser extent. Fungal is stupid effective against carriers now, making those feedbacks so much more important.
As far as maps go, not really. Bigger is generally better, since you almost always have the faster mothership and thus can abuse mass recall. Bigger maps are also easier in terms of the transition, because bigger maps favor phoenix play which gives you the stargate first. My favorites are Entombed and that one Blizz recently added, Condemned Ridge. But 3 gate robo speed prism harass is my PvP bread and butter opening, so I'm comfortable making the necessary turtle on just about any map.
If they change it too the Starcraft 1 version I am all for it. The SC2 version blows and I have watched alot more SC2 then Broodwar. I want a unit that exciting too watch and can be micro'd really well. The carrier version we have now doest do that. So scrap it.
On August 22 2012 11:00 Jollygoody wrote: God yes, let the carrier stay, anything to stop the boring death ball colossus play.
Because the carrier is doing a great job with that now, right? ..........
Because Blizzard didnt even TRY to make it viable (zero patch changes); they cant "complain" about it not being good enough while not trying to fix it for YEARS.
They improved the carrier ai in patch 1.5 making it able to lanch interceptors and then move something like 14 range away while interceptors still stay. This change allows carrier to be more microable and similar to broodwar. Tell me if I need to provide source cause apparently people don't believe anything in those threads.
That change doesnt really cover the main problem of Carriers: they only deal as much damage as they have Interceptors and the Interceptors die too easily. Fungal Growth, stimmed Marines, Hydras all really kill the Interceptors very fast and then they have to be built again ... which costs resources (contrary to the Broodlings of the Broodlord). It takes over a minute to rebuild all the Infestors and thats a lot.
Tweaking the Interceptor AI a tad and being able to run away further doesnt really count as "trying to fix it" in my books, because those changes dont address the problems of the unit.
On August 24 2012 15:11 Rinnegan5 wrote: If they change it too the Starcraft 1 version I am all for it. The SC2 version blows and I have watched alot more SC2 then Broodwar. I want a unit that exciting too watch and can be micro'd really well. The carrier version we have now doest do that. So scrap it.
Thats not really a good idea since the new movement AI allows for very tight balls of ground units, which will be able to shoot down Interceptors easily. Consequently the Carrier has to be changed ... since it is unlikely that Blizzard will change their dearly loved "deathball movement AI". The Carrier in its current form simply doesnt work in SC2.
On August 22 2012 11:00 Jollygoody wrote: God yes, let the carrier stay, anything to stop the boring death ball colossus play.
Because the carrier is doing a great job with that now, right? ..........
Because Blizzard didnt even TRY to make it viable (zero patch changes); they cant "complain" about it not being good enough while not trying to fix it for YEARS.
They improved the carrier ai in patch 1.5 making it able to lanch interceptors and then move something like 14 range away while interceptors still stay. This change allows carrier to be more microable and similar to broodwar. Tell me if I need to provide source cause apparently people don't believe anything in those threads.
That change doesnt really cover the main problem of Carriers: they only deal as much damage as they have Interceptors and the Interceptors die too easily. Fungal Growth, stimmed Marines, Hydras all really kill the Interceptors very fast and then they have to be built again ... which costs resources (contrary to the Broodlings of the Broodlord). It takes over a minute to rebuild all the Infestors and thats a lot.
Interceptors only die easily to masses of fast firing anti air units such as marines and hydras, and also to fungal. This doesn't make carriers ineffective, each unit has counters and vulnerabilities to not make them overpowered. Also you can help the carrier deal with this counter unit using support units such as high templars (storm marines and hydras and feedback infestors).
I've suggested before reducing the build time and cost of interceptors while increasing the initial cost of the carrier. Health and armor of interceptors can be increased too. Every problem has a fix.
On August 22 2012 11:00 Jollygoody wrote: God yes, let the carrier stay, anything to stop the boring death ball colossus play.
Because the carrier is doing a great job with that now, right? ..........
Because Blizzard didnt even TRY to make it viable (zero patch changes); they cant "complain" about it not being good enough while not trying to fix it for YEARS.
They improved the carrier ai in patch 1.5 making it able to lanch interceptors and then move something like 14 range away while interceptors still stay. This change allows carrier to be more microable and similar to broodwar. Tell me if I need to provide source cause apparently people don't believe anything in those threads.
That change doesnt really cover the main problem of Carriers: they only deal as much damage as they have Interceptors and the Interceptors die too easily. Fungal Growth, stimmed Marines, Hydras all really kill the Interceptors very fast and then they have to be built again ... which costs resources (contrary to the Broodlings of the Broodlord). It takes over a minute to rebuild all the Infestors and thats a lot.
Interceptors only die easily to masses of fast firing anti air units such as marines and hydras, and also to fungal. This doesn't make carriers ineffective, each unit has counters and vulnerabilities to not make them overpowered. Also you can help the carrier deal with this counter unit using support units such as high templars (storm marines and hydras and feedback infestors).
The alternatives (Colossi, High Templars) are much cheaper and you can get them earlier than the Carriers. They are faster on the map too and thus the Carrier is quite useless for its investment since it takes AGES to get a decent number of them but getting the counter units is done in the blink of an eye. Carriers are only useful in two situations:
a) You manage to hide them and can surprise your opponent while he is still teching somewhere else. During the mid-game you cant really replace your army with something completely different. b) You have a vastly superior economy which allows you to build lots of Stargates.
5) The Carrier plays a vital aesthetic role in making space battles epic
Lets look at some great sci-fi battles
The battle over Endor, over Mr. Universe’s moon, Will Smith dodging alien skirmishers before punching them in the face. Gigantic warships raining destruction and in between them nimble starfighters engaging in a dance of death.The screen raging with fire and thunder behind them. The Protoss armada is filled with units that fire lasers and energy balls. But the Carrier, better than any other unit in Starcraft, captures the feeling of the space dogfight. Its multitude of skirmishers obscure the battlefield, but in this chaos the viewer sees the space battle they imagined since they were a kid.
On August 24 2012 15:11 Advocado wrote: I am gonna play around with these builds in team games. Thanks for posting them HS. The carrier must stay!
npnp
Against non-protoss races you don't need as many immortals, because the other races' basic armored unit don't shoot up. Get more sentries instead for guardian shield against marines and forcefields against everything of Zerg's.
On August 22 2012 19:23 Adonminus wrote:zasx They improved the carrier ai in patch 1.5 making it able to lanch interceptors and then move something like 14 range away while interceptors still stay. This change allows carrier to be more microable and similar to broodwar. Tell me if I need to provide source cause apparently people don't believe anything in those threads.
That change doesnt really cover the main problem of Carriers: they only deal as much damage as they have Interceptors and the Interceptors die too easily. Fungal Growth, stimmed Marines, Hydras all really kill the Interceptors very fast and then they have to be built again ... which costs resources (contrary to the Broodlings of the Broodlord). It takes over a minute to rebuild all the Infestors and thats a lot.
Tweaking the Interceptor AI a tad and being able to run away further doesnt really count as "trying to fix it" in my books, because those changes dont address the problems of the unit.
On August 24 2012 15:11 Rinnegan5 wrote: If they change it too the Starcraft 1 version I am all for it. The SC2 version blows and I have watched alot more SC2 then Broodwar. I want a unit that exciting too watch and can be micro'd really well. The carrier version we have now doest do that. So scrap it.
Thats not really a good idea since the new movement AI allows for very tight balls of ground units, which will be able to shoot down Interceptors easily. Consequently the Carrier has to be changed ... since it is unlikely that Blizzard will change their dearly loved "deathball movement AI". The Carrier in its current form simply doesnt work in SC2.
Adonminus is actually incorrect about this, they've always been able to do the 14 range leash thing. Furthermore, they still can't pick new targets unless the carrier itself gets within range 8 of the new target, meaning the leash really only works on big units and if you target fire well (unlike BW, where the interceptors would actually stay out and pick new targets within the extended range). What was changed in 1.5 is the range of the interceptors themselves, and thus their flight pattern in engaging a unit. Their range was much shortened, thus they fly in a much tighter group around the target unit. This is better for hit and run type stuff because it more accurately reflects the nature of the game with the tighter ground movement AI you mentioned (not as easy to shoot down from far away). The downside is of course that AoE like fungal and storm are suddenly a whole lot more effective (potentially seeker missiles as well, someone should look into that).
However, I believe you are incorrect in saying that tweaking the AI of the interceptors a little wouldn't be enough to fix them. If interceptors could pick new targets within range 14 of the host carrier, like in BW, that would radically change things. Suddenly the carrier becomes an incredibly effective hit and run unit (show up, mow everything down, float away while your opponent rushes back to his base to kill... a bunch of interceptors). Furthermore it creates micro potential in big battles: which carriers do I want to move in close to launch new interceptors and which carriers do I want to hold back at range? Does my opponent go for the interceptors to attempt to force the carriers in close or rush after the carriers themselves at potentially huge cost? I think an interesting gameplay dynamic could be achieved by fixing the AI. I'll see if I can dig up that custom game with the modified carrier AI and you'll see the difference that I'm talking about.
Lastly, you're kind of missing the whole point as to why carriers are good: yes, interceptors cost money where broodlings and locusts don't, and yes, interceptors take some time to rebuild where broodlings don't. But the most broodlings a brood lord can store up is 2. By being able to carry 8 interceptors, carriers have an instantaneous damage output that is higher than almost any other unit in the game, and definitely higher than any other anti-air attack (and yes, that includes a supply-equivalent amount of hydralisks). With graviton catapult, carriers dps over the first 1.5 seconds is 53.3(+10.7). And let me remind you, the reason things like stim and storm are so good (and why you want to bait the first volley of a siege tank line) is because damage at the very beginning of battle is a whole lot more important than damage a few seconds into the battle. Carriers aren't good because of their normal 26.7(+5.3) dps. Carrier deathballs are so deadly because very few things live through the first volley.
On August 24 2012 21:10 Adonminus wrote: This doesn't make carriers ineffective, each unit has counters and vulnerabilities to not make them overpowered. Also you can help the carrier deal with this counter unit using support units such as high templars (storm marines and hydras and feedback infestors).
This man knows what he is talking about. You all should listen to him. Carrier/HT is probably Protoss' best composition.
On August 25 2012 01:15 Rabiator wrote: The alternatives (Colossi, High Templars) are much cheaper and you can get them earlier than the Carriers. They are faster on the map too and thus the Carrier is quite useless for its investment since it takes AGES to get a decent number of them but getting the counter units is done in the blink of an eye. Carriers are only useful in two situations:
a) You manage to hide them and can surprise your opponent while he is still teching somewhere else. During the mid-game you cant really replace your army with something completely different. b) You have a vastly superior economy which allows you to build lots of Stargates.
Haha, no.
Let me explain something to you that you probably don't understand about Starcraft: it's called income. Roughly speaking, income is resources mined divided by time it took to mine them. With me so far? For any given production facility, the income cost of producing a single unit constantly is resource cost of the unit divided by it's build time. Still with me? The carrier has the lowest income cost of any other tier 2 or tier 3 Protoss unit, accounting for supply. Don't believe me? Here are some numbers:
*Assuming warp tech, as warp gate cooldowns are shorter than gateway build times
Yes, the carrier's absolutely ridiculous build time in fact makes it one of the cheapest t3 units in the game to produce. However, it does take forever to build. Solution? Build tons of stargates. I mean a lot. The income cost of a carrier is half that of the colossi: for every robo you would have building a colossus, have 2 stargates building carriers. It doesn't require a ton of money or a lot of time to build a carrier fleet, just a careful analysis of your income (can be deduced from probe count) and the correct number of stargates (just enough that they all stay busy). Do that correctly, and you will have carriers out in overpowering numbers before your opponent can possibly respond to them.
Remove Void Ray (overnerfed due to fail design and now only used in small numbers early pvz, it's time for it to go) Move Carrier to T2 Scale Carrier cost, size and efficiency by 50% (for example maybe max 4 interceptors) Tempest as T3
This solves the carrier air upgrade problems as you can start upgrading earlier because the upgrades pay off earlier. We get rid of a silly unit nobody likes (VR), and we get to keep both the Carrier and Tempest. Everybody wins?
On August 25 2012 21:10 TheOrigin wrote: What do you guys think about this solution?
Remove Void Ray (overnerfed due to fail design and now only used in small numbers early pvz, it's time for it to go) Move Carrier to T2 Scale Carrier cost, size and efficiency by 50% (for example maybe max 4 interceptors) Tempest as T3
This solves the carrier air upgrade problems as you can start upgrading earlier because the upgrades pay off earlier. We get rid of a silly unit nobody likes (VR), and we get to keep both the Carrier and Tempest. Everybody wins?
Personally I'd rather see tempest be new t2 to replace/help with void ray. Slightly less ridiculous range, slight speed boost... could be a deadly t2 combination with phoenixes and lift.
On August 25 2012 21:10 TheOrigin wrote: What do you guys think about this solution?
Remove Void Ray (overnerfed due to fail design and now only used in small numbers early pvz, it's time for it to go) Move Carrier to T2 Scale Carrier cost, size and efficiency by 50% (for example maybe max 4 interceptors) Tempest as T3
This solves the carrier air upgrade problems as you can start upgrading earlier because the upgrades pay off earlier. We get rid of a silly unit nobody likes (VR), and we get to keep both the Carrier and Tempest. Everybody wins?
Id rather see the colossus removed and changed with something much more interesting in terms of micro. A worthy reaver replacement which means you wont have vikings/corrupters on the field in almost every game (even blindingly sometimes).
I also think Mutas should morph into broodlords so it not only makes left over mutas not useless from mid game, but also doesn't force them to get corrupters. Choosing the ratio of Corrupter/BL from mutas is much more interesting than having BLs spawn from corrupters.
On August 24 2012 07:17 HelioSeven wrote: A little late to the party, but I do have some carriers in PvP replays if anyone wants to view them.
First of all, just wanted to get off my chest that there are 1 base carrier rushes in PvT as well as 2 base carrier rushes. Have replays of those too if anyone wants. Personally think the 1 base variety are much more effective.
Anyway, regarding PvP: blink stalkers are indeed the counter to carriers. HTs w/ storm or archons can also work if you somehow get the carriers clumped (vortexes are the most common method). Now, in super late game colo vs colo PvP, neither of these counters really matter, the colo will vaporize everything on the ground. Carrier transitions at that point are difficult, but if successfully done, there's really nothing that can stop it. Alicia vs Hero is a good example, White-Ra does it on his stream from time to time, and generally this is a well-known, though still incredibly rare super late-game situation in colo vs colo PvP.
However, there are also ways of building carriers in the mid-game and surviving against mass blink stalker builds, namely, using zealot/immortal or cannon/immortal (depending on the map) as a supplemental composition. As I previously mentioned a few pages back, I have developed methods of getting into carrier/immortal compositions from both 2 gate stargate play as well as 3 gate robo play. The former tends to rely more on cannons, the latter more on zealots. Best response I've seen (replay below) was colossus/void ray/stalker. Unfortunately for him, he transitioned too late, had too many colossi and not enough void rays. Graviton catapult is stupid good.
I've been doing stargate/carrier play pretty much since i've been playing protoss and i've never had any problems with blink stalkers. Most players just assume that blink stalkers counter stargates but because of how many immortals you get they basically play straight into your hands.
My solution to people hitting timing attacks with blink stalkers or whatever is to go voidrays before carriers. They are vastly underated in this matchup imo. Pretty much if i am able to get out 4 voidrays i win every single pvp. This is one of the perks of actually thinking about the tactics you employ instead of blindly copying what everyone else does. I get to do a unique strategy which few people use and get to people endless amounts of protoss going blind mass collosus (and raging when they lose). So much fun.
The issue with going with mass air in PvP is not Stalkers but Zealots. Phoenixes only have so much Graviton Beam and Carriers move awfully slowly, so the little tanky melee dudes can often do more than their value in damage to your Immortals (or to your economy once the Immortals are down). Once the Immortals are overrun, then the Stalker force is brought to critical mass.
Hey, remember the Ultralisk? The unit that costs almost as much as a Carrier, but Blizzard decided that a 300 costing unit producing structure (the Hatchery) that makes another Ultralisk every 15 seconds was just not strong enough because making an Ultralisk tied up your resources for an unacceptably long 70 seconds, so they reduced it to 55?
Yeah, Stargates making Carriers cost more than those hatcheries and they tie up your resources for 120 seconds. And don't give me the "chronoboost reduces it" crap, because I didn't include the Queen in the Ultralisk comparison.
The HoTS Tempest from what we've been shown costs the same total amount of resources as the Carrier but takes 90 seconds to produce. Give the Carrier a build time like that and it'll blow that stupid Tempest out of the water.
Remove Void Ray (overnerfed due to fail design and now only used in small numbers early pvz, it's time for it to go) Move Carrier to T2 Scale Carrier cost, size and efficiency by 50% (for example maybe max 4 interceptors) Tempest as T3
This solves the carrier air upgrade problems as you can start upgrading earlier because the upgrades pay off earlier. We get rid of a silly unit nobody likes (VR), and we get to keep both the Carrier and Tempest. Everybody wins?
Rather give Voidray bigger range and nerf damage. A range would actually fit how the Voidray feels and operates. Kinda like the campaign giant laser that drills it's way through the door.
Corruptors / vikings are too strong in the air battles, mainly because of their speed and high range, well they need high range against collossi ..... but i dont think they need the speed / acceleration at that high level, then you could give the same speed to the carrier, but a little less acceleration. Or give them a chance in PvP, somehow more range and interecptors get health back when they come back into the carrier and when you are behind in collossi count you can counter them with carriers
EPT
