|
The carrier, for the many of us who've never seen one is a Protoss capital ship (one of the 3...) that has a unique attack mechanic. Rather than attacking directly it produces smaller units called interceptors which fly around it and attack for it with many low damage attacks. The interceptors can take damage and die and take 25 to rebuild, this means the carrier's attack depends on the amount of interceptors it carries with it and that it has to expend minerals to keep an interceptor count up, on the flipside the interceptors tank damage for it and distract the AI. It attacks both ground and air.
Jack
Almost any unit in StarCraft II has a strength and a weakness. Marines do sick dps but die very quickly to AoE. Stalkers do low dps but traverse Terrain. Tempests have sick range, but low dps.
The point of the carrier is that it's the jack of all trades, master of none. Contrary to what Artosis keeps saying, carrier dps is not the highest in the game at all. Interceptors do 5*2 damage every 3 seconds. A fully loaded carrier with 8 interceptors thus does 80 damage per salvo every 3 seconds, giving you 26.7 dps. The exact dps a dt dus by the way. A thor, an ultra or the BC ground dps is higher. And when most units in the game have armour, especially when the carrier first comes out with its 0 air upgrades against at least +2 armour upgraded ground units. Its dps is actually low for its cost.
Its base range is a decent 8. Some people call this 'siege range', I don't know, I think this is 'long range', I don't call the colossus siege range either because it doesn't actually siege, siege tanks and swarmhosts and tempests siege. The carrier has a supposedly interesting mechanic where the interceptors once out can track a target up to 14 range, they expose themselves to damage when doing so, but not the carrier. This would be cool if the range wasn't reset to 8 when the target died so in practice it doesn't actually do anything, the carrier's range in practice is simply 8. It's decent, but not good, just like its dps.
And this is the problem, the carrier is decent vs everything, good vs nothing. So for whatever role you might imagine, there is another unit that does it better. Dedicated AA is better with the phoenix or stalker depending on the target. Dedicated range is better with the tempest. Just good old solid dps you have a variety of better options at your disposal. That carriers take a ridiculously long amount of time to build also means you never see them. Carriers for some reason have a disproportionally huge build time to any other unit. BC's, tempests, and all other units in that price class build waaay more quickly.
Minor strengths
Interceptors would be far more interesting if they actually were glass cannons, as it stands interceptors are super tanky low dps high hp units for their cost. They cost 25 minerals and have 80 hp. That's the only unit that has a better hp/mineral trade than the overlord. They are ridiculously tanky for their cost and but if they were actually glass cannons that would make carriers interesting units with the graviton catapult where you could release a salvo to snipe a high priority target and then take the interceptors back in to avoid them from being killed. Ideally interceptors would take longer to build, do more damage and have far less dps so the carrier could do high burst damage but its dps would go down in the battle quickly. This would actually make it a unit with a role, not a jack of all trades, it would make it an expert harass sniper of tech that flies over to the enemy base where the enemy is not, releases a couple of high dps salvos and gets out before the enemy shows up to gun down the interceptors.
Another related thing the carrier does do that no other protoss unit does is that it fucks with targeting AI. Units will attempt to target interceptors instead of the carrier itself or any other units when often they don't want to target interceptors. You can argue that this promotes micro (for the opponent) but it's just stupid. A game shouldn't be build upon retarded units, a game should in fact not be "difficult", it should be easy but skill should be rewarded. Micro should shine, lack of micro shouldn't make your units behave like retards. Units should never do something which is completely counter intuitive which is what units do with interceptors.
A little known thing about interceptor bullets is that they hitscan despite the animation which is deceptive and that they don't overkill. Because they also release damage in small packs and interceptors instantly change target after one die. Carriers have very little wasted damage in large numbers. Carriers actually start to counter units that supposedly counter them in large numbers. Anyone who ever played 4v4 knows that the player who manages to max on carriers is a serious threat. 200/200 carrier becomes very potent and starts to take on vikings and corruptors and void rays easily. The enemy overkills and wastes dps because it _has_ to target fire or it attacks interceptors, yeah, you one shot a carrier with your viking volley, but your volley did 3 times the damage it takes to kill one carrier and your vikings are slowly dying one by one without damage wasted. This would provide for a boring use of the carrier, turtle until you max on it, if they didn't take so ungodly long to build.
They weren't cool in BW either, Kim
People always say carriers were actually good in BW. This is nonsense, carriers were not "good" in BW and they weren't commonly used either, they were a fairly cheesy surprise strategy mostly in PvT to take advantage of TErrans who did not build enough anti air. The thing with the BW TvP army is that tanks and vultures were excellent versus protoss ground units but didn't attack air. Goliaths had meh anti ground damage but were great against air. Siege tanks were a real threat and the logical choice to attack them was from the air. Carriers are a flying unit that attacks ground, it isn't particularly good at it, but it does it. The use of carriers in BW has nothing to do with its 'microability', are you kidding me, if void rays existed in BW people would use that instead, it exists because the only other ATS unit that protoss has in BW are scouts and the first two rules about BW Protoss is:
A: Don't build scouts for their anti ground, the dps is terrible
B: Don't build scouts, they are terrible
So that leaves you with a direct anti ground assault in the carriers, or arbiters, and arbiters are actually far more consistent and solid. The thing with arbiters is though that they don't absolutely punish lack of anti air. Which carriers do, but if there is sufficient anti air arbiters are a far more solid and less gimicky choice.
BW nostalgia about the carrier is heavily overrated, it wasn't that good or interesting a unit in BW at all, Arbiters are far more interesting and I'd rather they bring those back than the BW carrier. Arbs are very interesting spellcasters which provide for a lot of emergent gameplay especially when coupled with hallucination. Carriers do not provide for any emergent gameplay ever.
Why was she cut?
In the original SC2 Alpha there was this unit called the Tempest, they eventually ended up recycling the name into an unrelated unit which also has a role. But the tempest was honestly a good version of the carrier, it was cheaper, more mobile which is good because capital ships in general are hard to use because they can't be transitioned to savely. But it had a role, a strength and a weakness, it had a hardened shield but it only activated against ground attacks, its shields didn't even work versus attacks from the air. IT was a dedicated potent anti ground unit with melee interceptors which was vulnerable to attacks from the skies, it wasn't a jack of all, master of none, it was a unit which retained all the things which made the carrier interesting and made it more interesting and I have no clue why they cut it.
  
|
On February 07 2014 17:50 SiskosGoatee wrote:
They weren't cool in BW either, Kim
People always say carriers were actually good in BW. This is nonsense, carriers were not "good" in BW and they weren't commonly used either, they were a fairly cheesy surprise strategy mostly in PvT to take advantage of TErrans who did not build enough anti air. The thing with the BW TvP army is that tanks and vultures were excellent versus protoss ground units but didn't attack air. Goliaths had meh anti ground damage but were great against air. Siege tanks were a real threat and the logical choice to attack them was from the air. Carriers are a flying unit that attacks ground, it isn't particularly good at it, but it does it. The use of carriers in BW has nothing to do with its 'microability', are you kidding me, if void rays existed in BW people would use that instead, it exists because the only other ATS unit that protoss has in BW are scouts and the first two rules about BW Protoss is:
A: Don't build scouts for their anti ground, the dps is terrible
B: Don't build scouts, they are terrible
So that leaves you with a direct anti ground assault in the carriers, or arbiters, and arbiters are actually far more consistent and solid. The thing with arbiters is though that they don't absolutely punish lack of anti air. Which carriers do, but if there is sufficient anti air arbiters are a far more solid and less gimicky choice.
BW nostalgia about the carrier is heavily overrated, it wasn't that good or interesting a unit in BW at all, Arbiters are far more interesting and I'd rather they bring those back than the BW carrier. Arbs are very interesting spellcasters which provide for a lot of emergent gameplay especially when coupled with hallucination. Carriers do not provide for any emergent gameplay ever.
Nearly everything about this is incorrect. Carriers were commonly used, and not as a gimmick or cheesy surprise. Their microability is their strength. Scouts have good DPS, and would be good if they were not so expensive. How familiar are you with Brood War? Maybe you shouldn't be writing about it.
|
Blizzard actually added the option to micro the Carrier in a way that the Interceptors don't go back when you are further of 8 range, although it's only good at small numbers since u overkill that way.
|
You shouldn't compare dps of melee units with dps of range units. Melee units are generally better in raw stats apart from range to make up for that range,
|
On February 07 2014 18:36 Sero wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2014 17:50 SiskosGoatee wrote:
They weren't cool in BW either, Kim
People always say carriers were actually good in BW. This is nonsense, carriers were not "good" in BW and they weren't commonly used either, they were a fairly cheesy surprise strategy mostly in PvT to take advantage of TErrans who did not build enough anti air. The thing with the BW TvP army is that tanks and vultures were excellent versus protoss ground units but didn't attack air. Goliaths had meh anti ground damage but were great against air. Siege tanks were a real threat and the logical choice to attack them was from the air. Carriers are a flying unit that attacks ground, it isn't particularly good at it, but it does it. The use of carriers in BW has nothing to do with its 'microability', are you kidding me, if void rays existed in BW people would use that instead, it exists because the only other ATS unit that protoss has in BW are scouts and the first two rules about BW Protoss is:
A: Don't build scouts for their anti ground, the dps is terrible
B: Don't build scouts, they are terrible
So that leaves you with a direct anti ground assault in the carriers, or arbiters, and arbiters are actually far more consistent and solid. The thing with arbiters is though that they don't absolutely punish lack of anti air. Which carriers do, but if there is sufficient anti air arbiters are a far more solid and less gimicky choice.
BW nostalgia about the carrier is heavily overrated, it wasn't that good or interesting a unit in BW at all, Arbiters are far more interesting and I'd rather they bring those back than the BW carrier. Arbs are very interesting spellcasters which provide for a lot of emergent gameplay especially when coupled with hallucination. Carriers do not provide for any emergent gameplay ever.
Nearly everything about this is incorrect. Carriers were commonly used, and not as a gimmick or cheesy surprise. Their microability is their strength. Scouts have good DPS, and would be good if they were not so expensive. How familiar are you with Brood War? Maybe you shouldn't be writing about it. Absolute bullshit, anyone who says that carriers are "commonly" used is talking out of their arse, you maybe saw them 2/5 out of every PvT and even that is a stretch and they were highly situational in any other matchup.
Carriers were also absolutely not used because of their "micrability", they were used because they're a flying unit that hits ground and the only alternative has shit anti ground dps, both for a unit and for its cost. If a dedicated air to ground unit existed for Protoss carriers would not be used ever to deal with tanks. Carriers are a way to surprise and punish a Terran who doesn't get necessary anti air. There are some maps where carriers do become actually used for their microability over ridges and ledges and where they aren't a surprise and still work despite being unexpected. But apart from that carrier transitions in BW are always used as a surprise where you only reveal it when you have at least 4.
|
All transitions should be kept as surprises. It's not like zerg's enjoy showing you their spire before they have mutas or terran's reveal their ghost tech before they've secretly emped your templar. That doesn't make them cheese. It's simply good sense.
You claim that carriers are used because tank/vultures are strong against ground and you aren't wrong. This too is simply good sense. But you're dead wrong if you think any ol' air unit will do. Mutas are almost never used against tanks and there's a simple reason for that. Terran's have a very strong counter to them. Similarly, if void rays existed in brood wars they would be completely shunned PvT. Goliaths are far scarier than anything SC2 terran has and their poor DPS wouldn't warrant the wasted supply.
Carriers are different though. The great things about them isn't their 'microbility.' It's their Survivability. Carriers are about the only protoss unit that can battle a late game metal army and come out ahead in resources. They're not without their problems but they're still the best unit for the job. Seeing them in 40% of PvT matches is an amazingly high statistic. Few games get to the point where you can afford them without opening yourself up to a counter, but when you can You Do.
|
On February 07 2014 19:45 patrick321 wrote:
All transitions should be kept as surprises. It's not like zerg's enjoy showing you their spire before they have mutas or terran's reveal their ghost tech before they've secretly emped your templar. That doesn't make them cheese. It's simply good sense. Mass muta transitions in ZvP are a gimmick? You heavily bank on your opponent commiting to anti ground and bam 15-20 mutas appear. It doesn't go well for you at all if there are even 6 phoenices waiting for you. It's a surprise gimmick. It relies on the surprise factor.
You do not however save up ghosts before revealing them at all. Each ghost you make is going directly into your army generally speaking.
There are also a lot of colossus transitions in PvT which are a gimmick and rely on your opponent not making vikings, or in reverse, the old trick where you make one rangeless colossus and go directly to templar and hide it to bait overproduction of vikings. THe colossus can be used however without a gimmick that relies on your opponent comitting to the wrong army. Carriers can be used like that on some maps but in general the carrier is reserved to tricking your opponent in not making enough AA and then surprising with 4 carriers which cleans up a huge mech army.
You claim that carriers are used because tank/vultures are strong against ground and you aren't wrong. This too is simply good sense. But you're dead wrong if you think any ol' air unit will do. Mutas are almost never used against tanks and there's a simple reason for that. Terran's have a very strong counter to them. Mutas are sometimes used as a surprise against mech. Obviously the main flavour of TvZ has always been bio-based some mech surprises (which is againa gimmick relying on surprise) here and there. Obviously mutalisks do not remain viable against stimmed marines with medic support.
Similarly, if void rays existed in brood wars they would be completely shunned PvT. Goliaths are far scarier than anything SC2 terran has and their poor DPS wouldn't warrant the wasted supply. Void rays counter stalkers, they are a dedicated anti armour unit that would have explosive damage in BW and probably be able to hold its own against goliaths. In fact, I think that if voids existed in BW mech wouldn't be viable. Mech works in BW because Protoss does not have any early ATS option which allows mech to go without any real anti air for a while. How would you stop something like a 3gate void ray all in with mech in BW? Turrets? You can stop it with marines in both games, the threat of such attacks alone would make mech significantly less viable.
Carriers are different though. The great things about them isn't their 'microbility.' It's their Survivability. Carriers are about the only protoss unit that can battle a late game metal army and come out ahead in resources. They're not without their problems but they're still the best unit for the job. Seeing them in 40% of PvT matches is an amazingly high statistic. Few games get to the point where you can afford them without opening yourself up to a counter, but when you can You Do. True, 40% of PvT matches is an impressive number for a capital ship. BC's see far less use in BW I admit. And carrier range obviously plays a big factor but I still feel the biggest thnig about carriers in TvP is simply the combination that it's the only real ATS unit that protoss has and that siege tanks can't shoot upwards.
|
People always say carriers were actually good in BW. This is nonsense, carriers were not "good" in BW and they weren't commonly used either, they were a fairly cheesy surprise strategy mostly in PvT to take advantage of TErrans who did not build enough anti air
What the fuck, learn more about the topics you discuss
|
You really got the Broodwar part horribly wrong.
Carriers were very common in PvT. If the game went long, you'd go for either Arbiters or Carriers. Of course, as with any tech choice, you'd hide the information as best as possible. That doesn't make it cheese. Carriers were actually more microable in BW than in SC2 because the interceptors behave differently. You could release the interceptors, then fly back out of range with the carriers and the interceptors would keep firing for a while. You'd hit-and-run Goliaths until you had whittled them down enough to face them head on, but you'd lose if you got caught out in the open. This meant that the terrain played a big role in your tech choice.
Void Rays wouldn't have done much in BW PvT. Goliaths were just too strong. Their dps output and range was so great that they even held their own against mass mutas which only took half damage. They weren't exactly late game tech either, you just didn't need to build them earlier in PvT because protoss had no air early on.
|
On February 07 2014 21:52 Scorch wrote:
You really got the Broodwar part horribly wrong.
Carriers were very common in PvT. If the game went long No they aren't "very common" by any stretch of the word "very". Dragoons are very common, siege tanks are very common, carriers are not "very common". They aren't even "common", they are entirely viable and used, not "very common.
you'd go for either Arbiters or Carriers. Yes, and arbiters are more common, dare I say even "common", but still not "very common".
Of course, as with any tech choice, you'd hide the information as best as possible. Do you hide that you go siege tanks? No, not really. It's a standard play. Any Terran will assume arbiters for the most part until carriers are revealed. You aren't stockpiling arbiters to gain a surprise factor, you are using them the moment they have enough energy for their spells. You are almost always going to stockpile carriers until at least 4 and the transition relies on that moment where you catch Terran by surprise with the carriers to do considerable damage. You can surely keep making them after that but the strategy relies on the surprise factor.
That doesn't make it cheese. Yes, yes it does, any strategy which relies on a surprise factor is cheesy.
]Carriers were actually more microable in BW than in SC2 because the interceptors behave differently. You could release the interceptors, then fly back out of range with the carriers and the interceptors would keep firing for a while. You'd hit-and-run Goliaths until you had whittled them down enough to face them head on, but you'd lose if you got caught out in the open. This meant that the terrain played a big role in your tech choice. They recently patched SC2 so SC2 carriers do this too, well, they did a year back I think. I said back then that it wouldn't make a difference and it didn't make a difference. The reason carriers are used in BW and not in SC2 has nothing to do with microability, it has to do with that the unit has a function in the meta. Why would you make carriers against Terran when the to go TvP unit in SC2 is the marine? There is almost never a reason to make a carrier instead of a colossus. In BW however the to go units are tanks and vultures and carriers provide a solution.
Void Rays wouldn't have done much in BW PvT. Goliaths were just too strong. Their dps output and range was so great that they even held their own against mass mutas which only took half damage. They weren't exactly late game tech either, you just didn't need to build them earlier in PvT because protoss had no air early on. The trick of going air like that in PvT is again to catch them by surprise when they don't have enough goliaths. A carrier switch is a wasted investment if Terran is ready on most maps. If Terran has enough goliaths already you just made a major investment for nothing.
|
u normally dont want to fight the goliaths head up anyway, normally u either aim to take out the CC's at their expos or if u get into their main take out the armories and factories. (obviously u pick off the units and tanks u can) and its most certainly not a herp derp i got 4 carriers u didnt see that coming did you, now u lose: a click gg.
also waiting to 4 carriers, it also because their effective at 4, sending them out right after they are made, is risky as they can be picked off. Kinda like mutas u wait till all of them are together, if u just rallyed them out 1 by 1 it would be so stupid.
You should always try to hide information even if ur doing the most standard thing in the world, because ur opponents definitely dont know ur doing the standard they can assume, but a good player will have to account for the other possibilities.
eg: in zvp where even if ur going for the most standard 3 hatch, lair -> 5 hatch hydra, you try to block ur ramp with lings when the probe comes and deny its scout because then the protoss as to account for u going for a hydra bust.
In zvt you sometimes put ur spire at ur nat or where ur 3rd hatch is, the spire is completely standard but if the terran doesnt see ur hidden spire hes gotta start thinking about if it could be a lurker bust.
Just beacuse its standard doesnt mean u dont need to hide it, im sure if u could hide ur tank in tvp u would, but frankly the goon pressure will probably force you to use ur tank straight away. so in the tank case rather than "hiding it does nothing" its u cant afford to hide it in most situations lest you lose.
|
|
|
On February 07 2014 22:38 Shock710 wrote:
u normally dont want to fight the goliaths head up anyway, normally u either aim to take out the CC's at their expos or if u get into their main take out the armories and factories. (obviously u pick off the units and tanks u can) and its most certainly not a herp derp i got 4 carriers u didnt see that coming did you, now u lose: a click gg. Actually, in some cases it is. Maybe not with 4 but 6 or 8 it can definitely happen if Terran has not enough AA that they just leave right there when the carriers are revealed.
also waiting to 4 carriers, it also because their effective at 4, sending them out right after they are made, is risky as they can be picked off. Kinda like mutas u wait till all of them are together, if u just rallyed them out 1 by 1 it would be so stupid. True, but mutas are also a strat which relies on surprise factor, and escalating that initial damage that is caused by mutas suddenly finding themselves into the mineral line.
You should always try to hide information even if ur doing the most standard thing in the world, because ur opponents definitely dont know ur doing the standard they can assume, but a good player will have to account for the other possibilities.
eg: in zvp where even if ur going for the most standard 3 hatch, lair -> 5 hatch hydra, you try to block ur ramp with lings when the probe comes and deny its scout because then the protoss as to account for u going for a hydra bust.
In zvt you sometimes put ur spire at ur nat or where ur 3rd hatch is, the spire is completely standard but if the terran doesnt see ur hidden spire hes gotta start thinking about if it could be a lurker bust. The difference is that you can pretty much see the sweat of the Protoss players face if the 2-3 stargates building carriers are found. You absolutely do not want Terran to know you are doing that.
Just beacuse its standard doesnt mean u dont need to hide it, im sure if u could hide ur tank in tvp u would, but frankly the goon pressure will probably force you to use ur tank straight away. so in the tank case rather than "hiding it does nothing" its u cant afford to hide it in most situations lest you lose. Hiding always helps, but most strategies don't rely as heavily on it as carriers. Obviously it's a continuum but carriers are fairly big up the scale of needing to be hidden to be successful.
|
Only part of the reason for hiding carriers and saving them up is wanting to catch the terran unprepared. Another reason is that in small numbers, carriers just aren't very effective. They just have their interceptors shot down and that's that. And most importantly, you want to hide the transition itself, because it's a longer time of vulnerability than any other tech transition in the game and you don't want to be attacked.
By your definition, just about anything other than 1a with the most standard unit composition is cheese. Every harassment, every recall, every drop, every runby, every nydus worm, every burrowed baneling seeks to catch the enemy unprepared against something they didn't expect.
|
Bisutopia19137 Posts
Yesterdays SSL group H had carriers in every PvT game. You don't know what you're talking about. You're entire write-up about Carriers in BW is dead wrong. It's honestly offensive to mislead your readers so horribly.
I will not comment on your write-up of SC2 carriers because I'm NOT INFORMED ENOUGH to. Just like you shouldn't talk about BW if you are going to give false facts.
edit: 0 stars should be an option.
|
Banking your game on burrowed banelings is pretty gimmicky. As are drops which are a super big commitment. the thing with most of those strats in most cases is that they aren't a big commitment. Yes, they rely on not being expected but if you want to drop in most cases and your opponent is ready you just turn around and don't drop and you're fine unless you do some one base drop all in. If your carrier transition gets scouted out that's a decent hit to you, it's not the absolute end of the world but it's definitely a very big hit, carriers cost a tonne both in resources and time and they are simply much worse if they are expected and there are turrets and goliaths ready with the push.
Mutas also rely on being unexpected but the catch with Zerg is that if the spire gets scouted out you don't actually have to commit to mutas, it's a wasted 200/200 building that will probably be useful later but you can just spend those resources on something else before the spire is done.
On February 07 2014 23:38 BisuDagger wrote:
Yesterdays SSL group H had carriers in every PvT game. You don't know what you're talking about. You're entire write-up about Carriers in BW is dead wrong. It's honestly offensive to mislead your readers so horribly.
I will not comment on your write-up of SC2 carriers because I'm NOT INFORMED ENOUGH to. Just like you shouldn't talk about BW if you are going to give false facts.
edit: 0 stars should be an option. So? There have also been groups, even eras where every TvZ was mech, that doesn't make mech a situational gimmick for the most part that is dependent on map pool. I'm sorry, but overall you only see carriers in about 2/5 lategames in PvT and in the other two matchups their uses is highly restricted though certainly possible. Carriers are not common in BW, and certainly not very common, they are an option in PvT, not even the standard option which is arbiters and they are reliant on surprise factor and they are most definitely simply used because they are an air unit that can attack ground.
Edit: I would even call 2/5 a stretch.
|
Where did carriers touch you?
BW Carriers were awesome. You don't know what you're talking about. Your opinion is void for cause of insanity.
|
Bisutopia19137 Posts
On February 07 2014 23:40 SiskosGoatee wrote:Banking your game on burrowed banelings is pretty gimmicky. As are drops which are a super big commitment. the thing with most of those strats in most cases is that they aren't a big commitment. Yes, they rely on not being expected but if you want to drop in most cases and your opponent is ready you just turn around and don't drop and you're fine unless you do some one base drop all in. If your carrier transition gets scouted out that's a decent hit to you, it's not the absolute end of the world but it's definitely a very big hit, carriers cost a tonne both in resources and time and they are simply much worse if they are expected and there are turrets and goliaths ready with the push. Mutas also rely on being unexpected but the catch with Zerg is that if the spire gets scouted out you don't actually have to commit to mutas, it's a wasted 200/200 building that will probably be useful later but you can just spend those resources on something else before the spire is done. Show nested quote +On February 07 2014 23:38 BisuDagger wrote:
Yesterdays SSL group H had carriers in every PvT game. You don't know what you're talking about. You're entire write-up about Carriers in BW is dead wrong. It's honestly offensive to mislead your readers so horribly.
I will not comment on your write-up of SC2 carriers because I'm NOT INFORMED ENOUGH to. Just like you shouldn't talk about BW if you are going to give false facts.
edit: 0 stars should be an option. So? There have also been groups, even eras where every TvZ was mech, that doesn't make mech a situational gimmick for the most part that is dependent on map pool. I'm sorry, but overall you only see carriers in about 2/5 lategames in PvT and in the other two matchups their uses is highly restricted though certainly possible. Carriers are not common in BW, and certainly not very common, they are an option in PvT, not even the standard option which is arbiters and they are reliant on surprise factor and they are most definitely simply used because they are an air unit that can attack ground. Edit: I would even call 2/5 a stretch.
Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself. The depth of carriers is far beyond what you fit in your paragraph. I really don't have the energy to clarify this for you.
And your analysis of mutas in BW is horribly wrong too. Surprise unit? ROFL. It's expected in most TvZs and the spire provides much more then just mutas after being built. /Sigh
Please take some time to educate yourself in BW or just don't involve it in an SC2 article. They are two different games. I'm hoping NinaZerg will arrive in this thread soon and have her fun.
|
On February 07 2014 23:52 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2014 23:40 SiskosGoatee wrote:Banking your game on burrowed banelings is pretty gimmicky. As are drops which are a super big commitment. the thing with most of those strats in most cases is that they aren't a big commitment. Yes, they rely on not being expected but if you want to drop in most cases and your opponent is ready you just turn around and don't drop and you're fine unless you do some one base drop all in. If your carrier transition gets scouted out that's a decent hit to you, it's not the absolute end of the world but it's definitely a very big hit, carriers cost a tonne both in resources and time and they are simply much worse if they are expected and there are turrets and goliaths ready with the push. Mutas also rely on being unexpected but the catch with Zerg is that if the spire gets scouted out you don't actually have to commit to mutas, it's a wasted 200/200 building that will probably be useful later but you can just spend those resources on something else before the spire is done. On February 07 2014 23:38 BisuDagger wrote:
Yesterdays SSL group H had carriers in every PvT game. You don't know what you're talking about. You're entire write-up about Carriers in BW is dead wrong. It's honestly offensive to mislead your readers so horribly.
I will not comment on your write-up of SC2 carriers because I'm NOT INFORMED ENOUGH to. Just like you shouldn't talk about BW if you are going to give false facts.
edit: 0 stars should be an option. So? There have also been groups, even eras where every TvZ was mech, that doesn't make mech a situational gimmick for the most part that is dependent on map pool. I'm sorry, but overall you only see carriers in about 2/5 lategames in PvT and in the other two matchups their uses is highly restricted though certainly possible. Carriers are not common in BW, and certainly not very common, they are an option in PvT, not even the standard option which is arbiters and they are reliant on surprise factor and they are most definitely simply used because they are an air unit that can attack ground. Edit: I would even call 2/5 a stretch. Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself. The depth of carriers is far beyond what you fit in your paragraph. I really don't have the energy to clarify this for you. Because there's nothing wrong with what I'm saying and you're just insulted and emotional because I "insulted" your favourite unit. As it stands, I think carriers are super awesome and I hope to see them more in SC2 and use them all the time for the sake of using them. Do you even know what "Devil's advocate" means?
Seriously, you're coming off as highly emotional and offended because I used the word "cheesy" to describe something.
And your analysis of mutas in BW is horribly wrong too. Surprise unit? ROFL. It's expected in most TvZs and the spire provides much more then just mutas after being built. /Sigh It's an analysis of mutas in SC2 ZvP. I have never analysed mutas in BW ZvT ever. Mutas are super staple in BW ZvT and not a surprise unit unless in some cases against mech.
Please take some time to educate yourself in BW or just don't involve it in an SC2 article. They are two different games. I'm hoping NinaZerg will arrive in this thread soon and have her fun. Yeah, I think you:
A: Are way too offended and emotional to think clearly, calm down and try again.
B: You don't know what the term "Devil's advocate means", so here's an explanation for you:
The art of devil's advocacy is to take a very unpopular opinion, typically something the writer doesn't even agree with and try to defend it, in this sense you are being an advocate of the devil. It's typically seen as an exercise to be critical of your own believes and also see the merits of the opposing side.
That said, despite not agreeing with that carriers are uninteresting, I did not argue something I didn't believe in with lies. Carriers are reliant on a surprise factor in PvT and their primary utility has nothing to do with microability and all that fancy stuff but simply with being an air unit that can shoot downwards.
|
Bisutopia19137 Posts
On February 07 2014 23:58 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2014 23:52 BisuDagger wrote:On February 07 2014 23:40 SiskosGoatee wrote:Banking your game on burrowed banelings is pretty gimmicky. As are drops which are a super big commitment. the thing with most of those strats in most cases is that they aren't a big commitment. Yes, they rely on not being expected but if you want to drop in most cases and your opponent is ready you just turn around and don't drop and you're fine unless you do some one base drop all in. If your carrier transition gets scouted out that's a decent hit to you, it's not the absolute end of the world but it's definitely a very big hit, carriers cost a tonne both in resources and time and they are simply much worse if they are expected and there are turrets and goliaths ready with the push. Mutas also rely on being unexpected but the catch with Zerg is that if the spire gets scouted out you don't actually have to commit to mutas, it's a wasted 200/200 building that will probably be useful later but you can just spend those resources on something else before the spire is done. On February 07 2014 23:38 BisuDagger wrote:
Yesterdays SSL group H had carriers in every PvT game. You don't know what you're talking about. You're entire write-up about Carriers in BW is dead wrong. It's honestly offensive to mislead your readers so horribly.
I will not comment on your write-up of SC2 carriers because I'm NOT INFORMED ENOUGH to. Just like you shouldn't talk about BW if you are going to give false facts.
edit: 0 stars should be an option. So? There have also been groups, even eras where every TvZ was mech, that doesn't make mech a situational gimmick for the most part that is dependent on map pool. I'm sorry, but overall you only see carriers in about 2/5 lategames in PvT and in the other two matchups their uses is highly restricted though certainly possible. Carriers are not common in BW, and certainly not very common, they are an option in PvT, not even the standard option which is arbiters and they are reliant on surprise factor and they are most definitely simply used because they are an air unit that can attack ground. Edit: I would even call 2/5 a stretch. Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself. The depth of carriers is far beyond what you fit in your paragraph. I really don't have the energy to clarify this for you. Because there's nothing wrong with what I'm saying and you're just insulted and emotional because I "insulted" your favourite unit. As it stands, I think carriers are super awesome and I hope to see them more in SC2 and use them all the time for the sake of using them. Do you even know what "Devil's advocate" means? Seriously, you're coming off as highly emotional and offended because I used the word "cheesy" to describe something. Show nested quote +And your analysis of mutas in BW is horribly wrong too. Surprise unit? ROFL. It's expected in most TvZs and the spire provides much more then just mutas after being built. /Sigh It's an analysis of mutas in SC2 ZvP. I have never analysed mutas in BW ZvT ever. Mutas are super staple in BW ZvT and not a surprise unit unless in some cases against mech. Show nested quote +Please take some time to educate yourself in BW or just don't involve it in an SC2 article. They are two different games. I'm hoping NinaZerg will arrive in this thread soon and have her fun. Yeah, I think you: A: Are way too offended and emotional to think clearly, calm down and try again. B: You don't know what the term "Devil's advocate means", so here's an explanation for you: The art of devil's advocacy is to take a very unpopular opinion, typically something the writer doesn't even agree with and try to defend it, in this sense you are being an advocate of the devil. It's typically seen as an exercise to be critical of your own believes and also see the merits of the opposing side. That said, despite not agreeing with that carriers are uninteresting, I did not argue something I didn't believe in with lies. Carriers are reliant on a surprise factor in PvT and their primary utility has nothing to do with microability and all that fancy stuff but simply with being an air unit that can shoot downwards.
An unpopular opinion and saying things as fact that are false, clearly are two different things. Carriers are not my favorite unit. Dragoons are. I do not care how you feel about the carriers emotionally. I only care that when you state things as Facts that are indeed facts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
