EPT
On September 17 2012 06:15 thedeadhaji wrote:
There's a bunch of differences between BW and SC2 Carrier micro details that you listed out, and I'm wondering in what order would you personally like to have "returned" to its former state?
Here are the ones I can recall:
1. Target switching in leash zone
2. Able to self select / target interceptors
3. Continuous deployment of interceptors while moving
Also, the movement pattern of the interceptors seem quite different between BW and SC2, which would affect the "death rate" and "dps rate" of interceptors I imagine.
There's a bunch of differences between BW and SC2 Carrier micro details that you listed out, and I'm wondering in what order would you personally like to have "returned" to its former state?
Here are the ones I can recall:
1. Target switching in leash zone
2. Able to self select / target interceptors
3. Continuous deployment of interceptors while moving
Also, the movement pattern of the interceptors seem quite different between BW and SC2, which would affect the "death rate" and "dps rate" of interceptors I imagine.
Target switching in leash zone is the most important.
Being able to target individual interceptors is probably the lowest. That's really just meant to make carriers more difficult to use but it is kind of luck based and not the smoothest way to balance them. Enemies don't really want to do that either. A-move will always be the best method of killing interceptors (aside from possibly with abilities).
Continuous deployment of interceptors while moving I think is really really cool but is the easiest thing to classify as a buggy behavior. I hope we can get it though because it takes so much attention and skill to use effectively. It is very strong but becomes incredibly difficult to do as soon as your opponent forces action in two places at once. So the players are countering each other by doing increasingly difficult strategies and that is AWESOME. The protoss player got the carriers knowing they'll be sufficiently effective ONLY IF he can pull off this micro. The enemy's response is not to bang his head against this really strong micro but rather to split the protoss's attention, punishing him for having tunnel vision on his carriers. Someone is gonna make a mistake and miscalculate and that's how the game should be decided.
If the continuous deployment of interceptors ISN'T in the game, then interceptor healing is pretty much just a straight buff. There isn't really any tension if both things aren't in the game.
All these mechanics sort of tie in to each other. A lot of times the continuous deployment of interceptors isn't used for long stretches, but rather for very short stretches, like in a single battle when the carriers want to pull really far back for a moment and then go right back in. If they don't have continuous deployment of interceptors, they get significantly punished for leaving battles even for a split second. So in such a case, it's basically the same as target switching but with a very short retreat between targets.
Related note: If there isn't continuous deployment, then you are significantly punishing the carrier user for leaving leash range. And when that wasn't a mistake, but rather a "tactical retreat", then the carrier starts to feel like a shitty unit again. If the carrier was too strong, I wouldn't want to see it balanced that way because it's just making it a frustrating unit.
