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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 23:40 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, I'm sure you didn't care about my painting carriers in a negative light with paragraphs like:
"Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself. The depth of carriers is far beyond what you fit in your paragraph."
That aside, do you or do you not agree that we don't even see carriers on average half of every PvT and that they are very rare in all other matchups and that arbiters are the more standard anti Terran solution.
Carriers: The popularity of careers has risen and fallen for many factors in brood war. The three basics fall under: 1. Map Pool 2. Protoss Players 3. Trends
1.Map Pool - There are distinct maps where playing against mech clearly favors a protoss that goes carriers. A lot of these maps are designed in a way where MICRO plays a huge role. You maintain your Carriers even against high numbers of goliaths by using cliffs and ledges around the map to hide your carriers behind. It is important to move your carriers constantly to prevent 1. the carrier to be targeted by units 2. moving the carrier will prevent the interceptors from returning to the carrier allowing them to attack longer and allowing the carrier to distance itself further from battle. If carriers are suddenly used much less in PvT it could be because the map pool does not favor Carriers. Therefore most game will rely on arbiter play as the choice mid to late game strategy.
2. Protoss Players - Using the carrier requires a good level of skill. Over time players have shown to be good drop reaver micro players (Stork), good dragoon micro players (Bisu), or great at storm micro players (Jangbi). For Carriers it is the same thing. Bisu for example is notoriously bad with carriers. Sometimes he finds himself forced to go carrier because the map specifically tells protoss players it is the best route and arbitor play is much harder to win with. On the other hand, players like Stork can go carrier on almost any map he chooses. This is because he has a comfortable handle on how to MICRO carriers properly and plays them in a very strategic manner. Carriers may be played more or less depending on who the more active protoss players are and what fits their style best.
3. Trends - Trends is a combination of both who the active players are and what the map pool is. Additionally, it can factor into who the terran is and how often they lose to carriers.
These are the three basic concepts (in short detail) on when and why carriers might be used in a PvT. There are times where carriers are seen every game for a year straight and other times where it is never seen. And these three points play a major role in why that has happened.
The carrier itself is a heavy micro unit. Take into consideration the macro that has to be conducted while the pro is expected to also babysit the carriers 24/7 and making sure the interceptors are always actively attacking the army while maxing the distance between the opponent and the core ship. All the meanwhile, you have to maintain a small supply of ground units otherwise waves of vultures can over run your bases.
To add to what a carrier provides, is that it will force your opponent to repsond with a different composition that is lighter on Science Vessels and heavier on goliaths. While the terran army becomes slightly more mobile it takes away from the positional play terrans may excel much better at. Arbiter play is something that pros like Flash may have mastered so perfectly you can't win. And then someone like Tyson on sniper ridge studies and realizes this. Therefore the option to go carrier and outplay Flash with a different unit composition then he is used to provides the best way to balance the match up in his favor and then win.
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.
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.
Yeah, I'm sure you didn't care about my painting carriers in a negative light with paragraphs like:
"Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself. The depth of carriers is far beyond what you fit in your paragraph."
That aside, do you or do you not agree that we don't even see carriers on average half of every PvT and that they are very rare in all other matchups and that arbiters are the more standard anti Terran solution.
I disagree. I explain in my post above why and when we see carriers, but to add. If carrier favored maps were in the map pool every tournament then we'd most likely see carriers the majority of PvTs. You're statistics of carriers in PvT is shortsighted which is why I dislike it.
On February 08 2014 00:28 BisuDagger wrote: Carriers: The popularity of careers has risen and fallen for many factors in brood war. The three basics fall under: 1. Map Pool 2. Protoss Players 3. Trends
Agreed.
1.Map Pool - There are distinct maps where playing against mech clearly favors a protoss that goes carriers. A lot of these maps are designed in a way where MICRO plays a huge role. You maintain your Carriers even against high numbers of goliaths by using cliffs and ledges around the map to hide your carriers behind. It is important to move your carriers constantly to prevent 1. the carrier to be targeted by units 2. moving the carrier will prevent the interceptors from returning to the carrier allowing them to attack longer and allowing the carrier to distance itself further from battle. If carriers are suddenly used much less in PvT it could be because the map pool does not favor Carriers. Therefore most game will rely on arbiter play as the choice mid to late game strategy.
Agreed.
2. Protoss Players - Using the carrier requires a good level of skill. Over time players have shown to be good drop reaver micro players (Stork), good dragoon micro players (Bisu), or great at storm micro players (Jangbi). For Carriers it is the same thing. Bisu for example is notoriously bad with carriers. Sometimes he finds himself forced to go carrier because the map specifically tells protoss players it is the best route and arbitor play is much harder to win with. On the other hand, players like Stork can go carrier on almost any map he chooses. This is because he has a comfortable handle on how to MICRO carriers properly and plays them in a very strategic manner. Carriers may be played more or less depending on who the more active protoss players are and what fits their style best.
Agreed
3. Trends - Trends is a combination of both who the active players are and what the map pool is. Additionally, it can factor into who the terran is and how often they lose to carriers.
Agreed.
These are the three basic concepts (in short detail) on when and why carriers might be used in a PvT. There are times where carriers are seen every game for a year straight and other times where it is never seen. And these three points play a major role in why that has happened.
Disagreed. There are no times when carriers are seen every game for a year straight. Currently carriers are definitely in the meta a lot but there has never been a time where carriers were seen every game for a year. There are definitely maps where they are seen virtually every game but every game, or every map. No, not really.
The carrier itself is a heavy micro unit. Take into consideration the macro that has to be conducted while the pro is expected to also babysit the carriers 24/7 and making sure the interceptors are always actively attacking the army while maxing the distance between the opponent and the core ship. All the meanwhile, you have to maintain a small supply of ground units otherwise waves of vultures can over run your bases.
I would say you always have to maintain a fairly large chunk of ground units.I've never seen a pure carrier army work. They are a very tactical unit that makes advantage of terrain, just massing carriers doesn't work.
To add to what a carrier provides, is that it will force your opponent to repsond with a different composition that is lighter on Science Vessels and heavier on goliaths. While the terran army becomes slightly more mobile it takes away from the positional play terrans may excel much better at. Arbiter play is something that pros like Flash may have mastered so perfectly you can't win. And then someone like Tyson on sniper ridge studies and realizes this. Therefore the option to go carrier and outplay Flash with a different unit composition then he is used to provides the best way to balance the match up in his favor and then win.
Also agreed.
Now again, answer my question: Would you say that overall the carrier is a nonstandard alternative to the standard arbiter?
I mean, you just said it yourself. carriers force the game into a slightly nonstandard game that Terrans don't excell at, this assumes that carriers are not standard, they are an alternative. A viable alternative but still an alternative, arbiters are the standard to go way.
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.
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.
Yeah, I'm sure you didn't care about my painting carriers in a negative light with paragraphs like:
"Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself. The depth of carriers is far beyond what you fit in your paragraph."
That aside, do you or do you not agree that we don't even see carriers on average half of every PvT and that they are very rare in all other matchups and that arbiters are the more standard anti Terran solution.
I disagree. I explain in my post above why and when we see carriers, but to add. If carrier favored maps were in the map pool every tournament then we'd most likely see carriers the majority of PvTs. You're statistics of carriers in PvT is shortsighted which is why I dislike it.
Yes, I agree, like I said in the original posts, there are maps where carriers are seen virtually every game. I'm merely addressing the misconception many people seem to have that carriers are used in every matchup all the time in brood war.
Disagreed. There are no times when carriers are seen every game for a year straight. Currently carriers are definitely in the meta a lot but there has never been a time where carriers were seen every game for a year. There are definitely maps where they are seen virtually every game but every game, or every map. No, not really.
I was adding exaggeration on this point. I should have said there are times where "carriers are heavily in season".
I would say you always have to maintain a fairly large chunk of ground units.I've never seen a pure carrier army work. They are a very tactical unit that makes advantage of terrain, just massing carriers doesn't work.
Yes, I think there is a certain balance required here and it gets cringe worthy when you see pros stop macroing out of gateways because they spent so much on carriers.
saying carriers in bw are uninteresting, because arbiters are more interesting is total bull. First of all, i disagree. I think they're equally interesting. Secondly, i think bw carriers are more interesting then nearly any sc2 unit. Also, that some units in the arsenal seem more interesting then others, doesn't mean there's nothing to be seen. Interestingness isnt as black and white as you seem to think. In the other blog you also forgot this, but most units need to be seen along with it's interactions with others units. I could make a case that zerglings are not interesting at all. I could even say that defilers alone are uninteresting (depends on how you compare them with what). But the two together against a missile based enemy army make for very interesting play. In this case: carriers are very interesting as a transitional unit. The effects of carriers on composition of both players is enormous, dependent on maps and micro ability of both players. In that regard, it's more interesting then the arbiter.
You can construct an argument like this about any unit (or anything in general). Skew perception a little here, tweak facts a little there, and you've got a basis for anything you want to say really.
You seem hellbent on throwing tried and true spectator friendly elements of BW in your efforts to be the contrarian over typical SC2 arguments.
What makes them interesting IS their microbility. Try and A-move or even ye old back up a little type micro of the Collosus and see how that works vs Goliaths. The thing is Carriers are very map dependent, but I just watched yesterday Carriers used to great effect in the SSL rebroadcast. They are in fact very interesting although perhaps you do not personally find them interesting. Having failed miserably at carrier micro in games, I know very much how razor thin the position Carriers in regardless of a tech switch 'surprise.'
I don't know that the devil advocacy against BW are the strong part of these blogs.
I think you are thinking about BW carriers too much in terms of SC2. In SC2 it is more about building counters, having the proper units and army composition. Where as in BW it is more what you do what your units that counts.
BW carriers, for example, don't become useless if your opponent scouts your tech and is ready with goliaths. You can still fight the goliaths by using ledges or dragoon and zealot support. Of course the terran player will have tanks and vultures with his goliaths, so it won't be easy. Either player can win at this point.
On February 08 2014 03:38 Falling wrote: You seem hellbent on throwing tried and true spectator friendly elements of BW in your efforts to be the contrarian over typical SC2 arguments.
What makes them interesting IS there microbility. Try and A-move or even ye old back up a little type micro of the Collosus and see how that works vs Goliaths. The thing is Carriers are very map dependent, but I just watched yesterday Carriers used to great effect in the SSL rebroadcast. They are in fact very interesting although perhaps you do not personally find them interesting. Having failed miserably at carrier micro in games, I know very much how razor thin the position Carriers in regardless of a tech switch 'surprise.'
I don't know that the devil advocacy against BW are the strong part of these blogs.
Like I said, I think carriers are about the coolest thing ever. Do you know what "Devil's advocate" means?
I also think mules are terrible, yesterday I made a topic praising how mules are awesome in every single way. I'm thinking the next one will be about how PvZ is the most amazing matchup to behold ever or how TvP is super easy.
Yes, yes it does, any strategy which relies on a surprise factor is cheesy.
If you go 2 base carrier rush with no reaver or anything off like 2 gateways, then yes, it's a cheese. But if you do something like this, it isn't.
Also, when you use the word "Were" with regards to Brood War you are not specifying which time period you are referring to. For many years, carriers were more common than arbiters. Arbiters were more rare than carriers are today. Standard cookie cutter play was all about carriers, and you saw them all the time if the game went on long enough.
I am talking about 2000 - 2007, basically.
Also, you see carriers in games today often. It's not rare. It's common. It's one of the standard ways to play late game PvT. And yeah, it works from time to time, and it isn't a cheese.
On February 08 2014 03:38 Falling wrote: You seem hellbent on throwing tried and true spectator friendly elements of BW in your efforts to be the contrarian over typical SC2 arguments.
What makes them interesting IS there microbility. Try and A-move or even ye old back up a little type micro of the Collosus and see how that works vs Goliaths. The thing is Carriers are very map dependent, but I just watched yesterday Carriers used to great effect in the SSL rebroadcast. They are in fact very interesting although perhaps you do not personally find them interesting. Having failed miserably at carrier micro in games, I know very much how razor thin the position Carriers in regardless of a tech switch 'surprise.'
I don't know that the devil advocacy against BW are the strong part of these blogs.
Like I said, I think carriers are about the coolest thing ever. Do you know what "Devil's advocate" means?
Devil's advocate is about giving proper arguments for an unpopular opinion. What you are doing is called trolling for attention.
On February 07 2014 23:52 BisuDagger wrote: NinaZerg
wot
On February 07 2014 17:50 SiskosGoatee wrote: StarCraft II
BW
why...
People always say carriers were actually good in BW.
Oh, that's why...
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.
All right, that is fairly inaccurate, but give us some thoughts on why you think this.
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.
So, anyhow, someone told me about this thread and asked for me to give my opinion about it. First of all, SC2 users are way too concerned about the particulars of single unit types, i.e., infestors, hellbats, voidrays, et cetera, and many users who are frustrated with the game compare unit types in SC2 to unit types in StarCraft: BroodWar, which is actually a false equivalence. So you can just tell them that, or just call them Nostalgia-freaks. Whichever one suits your style of argumentation, but the argument meta-game is moving away from citing logical fallacies, because users generally counter with "You're misusing terminology." nowadays, but you can still gamble and use the ad hominem rush. I'm sure there's a VOD on youtube if you need the build orders.
Let's talk about two points you brought up, the first being "microability" and the second being "emergent gameplay".
Microability: What makes any unit "good"? In SC2, it's whichever unit does the most terrible, terrible damage. If the unit is not dealing terrible damage and instantly killing everything, it's not worth making. If you disagree with this premise, I will deny it to the end of time and make all kinds of claims like "Just look at the Colossus. Just look at that piece of shit. Those motherfuckers just melt everything into giant pools of molten shit. It's fucking awesome." which technically isn't a claim, but an oversimplified observation I've made as a non-SC2 player.
In StarCraft: BroodWar, what makes a unit "good" is applicability. For example, let's say you are a Zerg player playing against Protoss. You decide to just go mass mutalisks with zerglings and you kick ass every game, and then one day, you play against some guy who goes zealot/archon and has like three archons when you try to fight his army, and all your shit dies. So you demand a rematch, and the same thing happens again. Rinse and repeat. You find something out: your mutalisk/zergling combo is not exactly applicable to that particular situation. I'm not saying "Stop going muta/ling you fuck", I'm saying that engaging the Protoss army at that moment is not practical because you're attacking their strength, which is to use zealots to kill lings and archons to kill mutalisks. Instead of trying to force your units to smash through the Protoss army by brute force, you should attack the Protoss player's weakness, like using your army to backstab the Protoss player's base, and then you can defend your home base with sunken colonies and stuff.
So, when do Carriers become applicable in BroodWar, and specifically, in PvT? Well, first, you need a basic understanding of how this match-up works out. So this first part, you got right:
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.
Tanks and vultures are really good against Protoss units. So how does Protoss deal with this contingency? Well, for a young Protoss player, he (not "or she", girls always pick zerg or terran lawl) experiences difficulty against other noobs who pick Terran because the tanks just seem to kill everything. Then the Protoss Guy slowly learns that if he makes a lot of units, he can simply overwhelm the Terran, when Terran pushes out to attack, using tons and tons of dragoons and zealots.
Then the Protoss Guy moves up to the next level of play where he does his mass dragoon/zealot strategy and takes lots of bases and makes like 20 gateways, but the Terran opponents at this level don't ever seem to move out until they've completely maxed out their population, so it becomes impossible for Protoss Guy to simply overwhelm the Terran's attack with sheer numbers. There is a psi-cap, so the Protoss Guy's army just seems to melt away, and he throws wave after wave of units into the Terran army, but to no avail.
So here is where spells come into play. The Protoss Guy learns that if he makes arbiters, it makes his army way stronger because he can stasis tanks, and use psi storms to significantly weaken or destroy the Terran units. Now that max-population push from Terran doesn't seem invincible any longer. So then the Protoss Guy advances to the next level of Terran players, who start using science vessels. The science vessels use their EMP ability which drains all the shields and mana of the Protoss units, which kills of 40% of the units' health instantly, and takes away the spells. Terran army seems invincible again.
This is where players start to diverge into different mindsets on how to deal with Terran. Some Protoss players will try to do a lot of damage or completely kill the Terran early so the Terran cannot possibly get close to the max population army. This is the "aggressive" approach. Other Protoss players will try to take a huge number of bases, so even if the Terran pushes out and kills the whole Protoss army and then kills a base, it won't matter because first, the Terran army will take a huge hit from the engagement and be significantly weakened. Second, the Protoss can regenerate his army very quickly from 30 gateways and engage again. Third, the Protoss will have at least 6 bases or better, so losing one will not be a significant enough hit to make the Terran's attack worth it. This is the "greedy" approach, but keep in mind that both styles can be utilized in one game, like if the Protoss does some kind of early damage, then uses that time the Terran takes to recover to take bases.
Here's where carriers start to come into the picture. The "aggressive" approach will often incorporate tech rushes from Protoss, like quick reaver, quick dark templar, quick arbiters, and yes, quick carriers. Any of one of these strategies has an inherent risk of failure if the Terran can defend the attack, which will put the Terran at a slight advantage. More Protoss players, therefore, will use a more "greedy" strategy, where they get a couple of expansions, get their arbiter tech and a bunch of gateways, and use a sizable army to box the Terran in while taking a bunch of expansions. Like I eluded to earlier, the Terran will max out his army, then attack. The Protoss will engage, and in a best-case scenario, will win the engagement completely or trade armies. If both sides trade armies, the Protoss will have more production and economy to recover his army more quickly than the Terran. But winning an engagement is not always that easy. The worst case scenario is that the Terran loses nothing, and just goes on a rampage, killing everything. The next best scenario is that the Protoss kills about half the Terran army, and then has to lose a base. Most of these scenarios depend greatly on the positioning of both armies, with a large, flat surface giving Protoss the best chance to prevail, and tight chokes/high ground giving Terran a distinct advantage.
Therefore, the map type is very important to the situation - while the Protoss has the Terran boxed in, the Protoss will max out his psi to 200. While this occurs, his resources will skyrocket to a huge surplus. The Protoss can use this to take more expansions, make more gateways to regenerate his army, or make carriers. In this case, carriers are affordable because of the surplus, and the Terran army will be maxed-out on mostly tanks and vultures, and maybe a few goliaths and science vessels to deal with the arbiters, so after the first engagement, the Terran will immediately start rebuilding his army with tanks and vultures to reinforce his push. Therefore, there will be very little available supply to build goliaths with, and it takes a massive amount of anti-air to deal with carriers.
As for "microability", carriers move extremely slowly, so if you let them sit around, the goliaths will eat them alive. This is why going carriers on a wide-open map is bad for carriers, because when they get caught out in the open, they die extremely quickly. On a map with more cliffs and high ground, and lots of chokes, carriers can escape to areas that are inaccessible by goliaths, and therefore, can get out of the way of danger while doing damage continuously. NonY explains here how to extend the range of carriers:
Using the range of carriers through... micro... they become much more efficient. Therein lies the problems with your assertions that carriers do not need micro and are used as a cheese, because they do, in fact, require micro, and are applicable, and even encouraged on maps where they would more effective than gateway units for reinforcing the Protoss army. As for your argument that carriers are gimmicky units that use surprise to punish Terran with not enough anti-air, this only applies to like, 2-base carrier rushes, which is really easy to scout with a bit of experience. You just see a small number of Protoss units on 2-base play, scan, and voila. In the late game scenario which I described, carriers are used to take advantage of the terrain on particular map types. That's not a gimmick, because the amount of anti-air required to defend against carriers is almost absurd, and no Terran player would build that many goliaths "just in case", because they'd get killed by psi storms and dragoons.
Emergent gameplay: "Carriers do not provide for any emergent gameplay ever." I'll tell you why this is completely wrong. You're assuming two incorrect premises, which are that 1) Protoss needs to make a choice between arbiters or carriers, 2) Arbiters automatically add complexity to gameplay whereas carriers do not.
The first assumption is wrong because, with the exception of a 2-base carrier rush, carriers are applicable to the late-game in PvT, but to get to the late-game, arbiters are absolutely essential. What this boils down to is: Arbiters are necessary and therefore Terran players will naturally prepare for the advent of arbiters, whereas carriers are situational, so an inexperienced player may not be ready for the appearance of carriers on the battlefield.
The second assumption is wrong because you're making a generalization that does not take into account map types, players' styles, macro mechanics, and the general flow (I hate using the word "metagame") of PvT that naturally brings arbiters into play anyhow, with the possibility of a divergence into carriers later. Carriers and arbiters also serve very different functions; carriers are used for direct attack and can be used independent of supporting units, whereas arbiters are a support unit which cannot do anything on their own because their DPS is so extremely low that it is not viable as a primary means of dealing damage, and therefore require supporting units of some kind. This means that the comparison is about as useful as comparing sentries to immortals. Sentries are almost complete necessary for their spellcasting, whereas immortals are more situational, like if the Terran builds a whole bunch of armored units like tanks and thors.
I would argue that arbiters do not provide for emergent gameplay any more than carriers do.
In conclusion, I don't think you understand BroodWar enough to make the comparison between SC2 carriers and BW carriers, and then compare carriers to arbiters.
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.
All right, that is fairly inaccurate, but give us some thoughts on why you think this.
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.
So, anyhow, someone told me about this thread and asked for me to give my opinion about it. First of all, SC2 users are way too concerned about the particulars of single unit types, i.e., infestors, hellbats, voidrays, et cetera, and many users who are frustrated with the game compare unit types in SC2 to unit types in StarCraft: BroodWar, which is actually a false equivalence. So you can just tell them that, or just call them Nostalgia-freaks. Whichever one suits your style of argumentation, but the argument meta-game is moving away from citing logical fallacies, because users generally counter with "You're misusing terminology." nowadays, but you can still gamble and use the ad hominem rush. I'm sure there's a VOD on youtube if you need the build orders.
Let's talk about two points you brought up, the first being "microability" and the second being "emergent gameplay".
Microability: What makes any unit "good"? In SC2, it's whichever unit does the most terrible, terrible damage. If the unit is not dealing terrible damage and instantly killing everything, it's not worth making. If you disagree with this premise, I will deny it to the end of time and make all kinds of claims like "Just look at the Colossus. Just look at that piece of shit. Those motherfuckers just melt everything into giant pools of molten shit. It's fucking awesome." which technically isn't a claim, but an oversimplified observation I've made as a non-SC2 player.
In StarCraft: BroodWar, what makes a unit "good" is applicability. For example, let's say you are a Zerg player playing against Protoss. You decide to just go mass mutalisks with zerglings and you kick ass every game, and then one day, you play against some guy who goes zealot/archon and has like three archons when you try to fight his army, and all your shit dies. So you demand a rematch, and the same thing happens again. Rinse and repeat. You find something out: your mutalisk/zergling combo is not exactly applicable to that particular situation. I'm not saying "Stop going muta/ling you fuck", I'm saying that engaging the Protoss army at that moment is not practical because you're attacking their strength, which is to use zealots to kill lings and archons to kill mutalisks. Instead of trying to force your units to smash through the Protoss army by brute force, you should attack the Protoss player's weakness, like using your army to backstab the Protoss player's base, and then you can defend your home base with sunken colonies and stuff.
So, when do Carriers become applicable in BroodWar, and specifically, in PvT? Well, first, you need a basic understanding of how this match-up works out. So this first part, you got right:
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.
Tanks and vultures are really good against Protoss units. So how does Protoss deal with this contingency? Well, for a young Protoss player, he (not "or she", girls always pick zerg or terran lawl) experiences difficulty against other noobs who pick Terran because the tanks just seem to kill everything. Then the Protoss Guy slowly learns that if he makes a lot of units, he can simply overwhelm the Terran, when Terran pushes out to attack, using tons and tons of dragoons and zealots.
Then the Protoss Guy moves up to the next level of play where he does his mass dragoon/zealot strategy and takes lots of bases and makes like 20 gateways, but the Terran opponents at this level don't ever seem to move out until they've completely maxed out their population, so it becomes impossible for Protoss Guy to simply overwhelm the Terran's attack with sheer numbers. There is a psi-cap, so the Protoss Guy's army just seems to melt away, and he throws wave after wave of units into the Terran army, but to no avail.
So here is where spells come into play. The Protoss Guy learns that if he makes arbiters, it makes his army way stronger because he stasis tanks, and use psi storms to significantly weaken or destroy the Terran units. Now that max-population push from Terran doesn't seem invincible any longer. So then the Protoss Guy advances to the next level of Terran players, who start using science vessels. The science vessels use their EMP ability which drains all the shields and mana of the Protoss units, which kills of 40% of the units' health instantly, and takes away the spells. Terran army seems invincible again.
This is where players start to diverge into different mindsets on how to deal with Terran. Some Protoss players will try to do a lot of damage or completely kill the Terran early so the Terran cannot possibly get close to the max population army. This is the "aggressive" approach. Other Protoss players will try to take a huge number of bases, so even if the Terran pushes out and kills the whole Protoss army and then kills a base, it won't matter because first, the Terran army will take a huge hit from the engagement and be significantly weakened. Second, the Protoss can regenerate his army very quickly from 30 gateways and engage again. Third, the Protoss will have at least 6 bases or better, so losing one will not be a significant enough hit to make the Terran's attack worth it. This is the "greedy" approach, but keep in mind that both styles can be utilized in one game, like if the Protoss does some kind of early damage, then uses that time the Terran takes to recover to take bases.
Here's where carriers start to come into the picture. The "aggressive" approach will often incorporate tech rushes from Protoss, like quick reaver, quick dark templar, quick arbiters, and yes, quick carriers. Any of one of these strategies has an inherent risk of failure if the Terran can defend the attack, which will put the Terran at a slight advantage. More Protoss players, therefore, will use a more "greedy" strategy, where they get a couple of expansions, get their arbiter tech and a bunch of gateways, and use a sizable army to box the Terran in while taking a bunch of expansions. Like I eluded to earlier, the Terran will max out his army, then attack. The Protoss will engage, and in a best-case scenario, will win the engagement completely or trade armies. If both sides trade armies, the Protoss will have more production and economy to recover his army more quickly than the Terran. But winning an engagement is not always that easy. The worst case scenario is that the Terran loses nothing, and just goes on a rampage, killing everything. The next best scenario is that the Protoss kills about half the Terran army, and then has to lose a base. Most of these scenarios depend greatly on the positioning of both armies, with a large, flat surface giving Protoss the best chance to prevail, and tight chokes/high ground giving Terran a distinct advantage.
Therefore, the map type is very important to the situation - while the Protoss has the Terran boxed in, the Protoss will max out his psi to 200. While this occurs, his resources will skyrocket to a huge surplus. The Protoss can use this to take more expansions, make more gateways to regenerate his army, or make carriers. In this case, carriers are affordable because of the surplus, and the Terran army will be maxed-out on mostly tanks and vultures, and maybe a few goliaths and science vessels to deal with the arbiters, so after the first engagement, the Terran will immediately start rebuilding his army with tanks and vultures to reinforce his push. Therefore, there will be very little available supply to build goliaths with, and it takes a massive amount of anti-air to deal with carriers.
As for "microability", carriers move extremely slowly, so if you let them sit around, the goliaths will eat them alive. This is why going carriers on a wide-open map is bad for carriers, because when they get caught out in the open, they die extremely quickly. On a map with more cliffs and high ground, and lots of chokes, carriers can escape to areas that are inaccessible by goliaths, and therefore, can get out of the way of danger while doing damage continuously. NonY explains here how to extend the range of carriers:
Using the range of carriers through... micro... they become much more efficient. Therein lies the problems with your assertions that carriers do not need micro and are used as a cheese, because they do, in fact, require micro, and are applicable, and even encouraged on maps where they would more effective than gateway units for reinforcing the Protoss army. As for your argument that carriers are gimmicky units that use surprise to punish Terran with not enough anti-air, this only applies to like, 2-base carrier rushes, which is really easy to scout with a bit of experience. You just see a small number of Protoss units on 2-base play, scan, and voila. In the late game scenario which I described, carriers are used to take advantage of the terrain on particular map types. That's not a gimmick, because the amount of anti-air required to defend against carriers is almost absurd, and no Terran player would build that many goliaths "just in case", because they'd get killed by psi storms and dragoons.
Emergent gameplay: "Carriers do not provide for any emergent gameplay ever." I'll tell you why this is completely wrong. You're assuming two incorrect premises, which are that 1) Protoss needs to make a choice between arbiters or carriers, 2) Arbiters automatically add complexity to gameplay whereas carriers do not.
The first assumption is wrong because, with the exception of a 2-base carrier rush, carriers are applicable to the late-game in PvT, but to get to the late-game, arbiters are absolutely essential. What this boils down to is: Arbiters are necessary and therefore Terran players will naturally prepare for the advent of arbiters, whereas carriers are situational, so an inexperienced player may not be ready for the appearance of carriers on the battlefield.
The second assumption is wrong because you're making a generalization that does not take into account map types, players' styles, macro mechanics, and the general flow (I hate using the word "metagame") of PvT that naturally brings arbiters into play anyhow, with the possibility of a divergence into carriers later. Carriers and arbiters also server very different functions; carriers are used for direct attack and can be used independent of supporting units, whereas arbiters are a support unit which cannot do anything on their own because their DPS is so extremely low that it is not viable as a primary means of dealing damage, and therefore require supporting units of some kind. This means that the comparison is about as useful as comparing sentries to immortals. Sentries are almost complete necessary for their spellcasting, whereas immortals are more situational, like if the Terran builds a whole bunch of armored units like tanks and thors.
I would argue that arbiters do not provide for emergent gameplay any more than carriers do.
In conclusion, I don't think you understand BroodWar enough to make the comparison between SC2 carriers and BW carriers, and then compare carriers to arbiters.
I don't know why you need to bring up the version of the Carrier on the game you no longer follow - therefore have much less information to make argument upon - to criticize the Carrier design on SC2. Is it a package deal or something? Sounds questionable choice to have irrelevant point derail the validity of entire argument, but I guess that's your freedom to do so.
Carriers were ridiculously exciting units to watch in BW. (and to play against). Regardless of who ended up winning, it always really tensed it up. Some of the most memorable TvP pro games probably had Carriers in it. (that 200+ kill Carrier of Stork vs Flash game on Python comes to mind.)
Arbiter on the other hand was boring. Sound but boring Even at my noobie Iccup D level, playing against Carriers was by far more fun than playing against them Arbiters.