The Colossus is worse for spectating visibility. The Colossus fits Protoss racial identity poorly. The Colossus is less believable in terms of scale and size The Colossus micro potential is minimal
If the Carrier got a cleaner more epic unit art redesign, and got better micro, it would be great. Of course, this might mean nerfing vikings/add-on mechanic/bio, but that should be done anyways.
pigscanfly Singapore. January 27 2012 03:37. Posts 113
Great thread, it's good to see the love for the Carrier.
Probably someone at Blizzard will read this thread, but if I get the message right from Blizzard's last Q&A post, they based a lot of their data in the number of times players use the Carrier in ladder games. So my opinion on this is to encourage more people to use Carriers and show Blizzard that we care about this amazing unit.
I am a gold league player and I can't put more than a few hours a week in SC2, but I'm going to try to use Carriers, no matter the match-up, hell I don't care about ladder points anymore but I do care about my Protoss Units. No matter how many games I lose, I will help the Carrier survive HotS!!
What about a supercarrier to replace the Mothership?
It is true that yes, carriers have no role at the moment, but also carriers are iconic and should be kept in the game.
I don't have much to offer on the way of implementation, other than that it could fill a late-game support role. Perhaps increase the range at which it launches Interceptors, increase Interceptor numbers, etc.
Actually, what would be cool is if the supercarrier was role-convertible. For anti-air (broodlords) your SuperCarrier would use AA-only Interceptors (perhaps with +dmg to massive or something). It could have a seige mode in which the Interceptors are converted to AoE ground-only Bombers for dealing with PvT "lol 30minutes into the game still just bio". This conversion would take time obviously, and perhaps cost energy, adding depth to the use of the carrier.
Just a thought.
Arisen United States. January 27 2012 04:05. Posts 1940
On January 26 2012 11:49 sickle wrote: I agree 100%. If a protoss unit needs to be removed, it should be the collosus rather than the carrier.
no way usa dude! colossus is our precious! removing colossus is like removing broodlords for zerg or thors for terran dude.
The argument is not that the colossus isn't a great unit - we know it is. But it's a stupid unit. Unit balance can change drastically from now until the game is released but design and what's included is much less likely to change. The colossus is as un-Protoss of a unit as there is and it has no place in the lore and no style whatsoever. Whoever came up with it had very little imagination on that day.
Meanwhile, the carrier is the quintessential Protoss unit. When you think of BGH, you think of carriers. When you think of Tassadar, you think of the carrier. When you think of the Overmind, you think of the carrier. Hyperion might be cooler, but Gantrithor is the most majestic and most important ship in the Starcraft universe, and it is a culmination of the entire race.
It might be difficult to fix, but it seems like Blizzard hasn't even tried. :| It's a shame given it's one of the best units Blizzard has ever designed in any game, and it has a long and powerful history. It's situational, as with every other capital ship, but it should be dominant when seen in the right hands. In WoL, the game is designed such that most end game compositions are already anti-carrier, but this is a new game and a chance to fix that mistake.
I hate Bisu but I get chills from him in this video because of the carrier.
Dustin Browder created the colossus a long time ago in a galaxy far, far, away called C&C Tiberium land or something like that. A lot of the units we know so well today have their roots in this game; and while I agree they didn't have a lot of imagination the day they made them into SC2 units, I'm sure it took them at least a little while the first time around.
The first version of the blink stalker
Early infestors
The visual father of the baneling combined with the mechanics mother of the broodlord
Early Colossus
Early Mothership; even shares the same name!
Marauders
Hellion
Banshee
Planatary Fortress
Thor
There are more, but I'm getting tired.
Also, who in their right mind went carriers in BGH?! It was ALL about the mass scout.
"If you're not angry, you're not paying attention"
Mohdoo United States. January 27 2012 04:07. Posts 3948
On January 27 2012 03:38 MakTemplar wrote: Great thread, it's good to see the love for the Carrier.
Probably someone at Blizzard will read this thread, but if I get the message right from Blizzard's last Q&A post, they based a lot of their data in the number of times players use the Carrier in ladder games. So my opinion on this is to encourage more people to use Carriers and show Blizzard that we care about this amazing unit.
I am a gold league player and I can't put more than a few hours a week in SC2, but I'm going to try to use Carriers, no matter the match-up, hell I don't care about ladder points anymore but I do care about my Protoss Units. No matter how many games I lose, I will help the Carrier survive HotS!!
You are a hero. Tassadar would be proud!
Crisium United States. January 27 2012 04:09. Posts 1427
Carriers are surprisingly cost efficient versus a lot of units. But it takes too long to get them, and there's no safe way to transition. Carriers are roughly equal against Vikings in terms of cost efficiency, and I'd take a Carrier versus ground over landed Vikings any day.
But it doesn't matter since you'll never match Viking production. Each 200/150 Starport w/ reactor gets you one Viking every 21 seconds. Each 150/150 Stargate gets you one Carrier every 120 seconds, plus additional build time for interceptors, plus one 300/200 Fleet Beacon and a 150/150 upgrade to be more useful.
So it doesn't matter if Carriers are even against Vikings in even cost battles, since you cannot possibly have an even cost battle unless your opponent is really out of it.
It takes 152 seconds for a Carrier with 8 interceptors to be complete. A Carrier is roughly equal to 3 Vikings. However, one reactored Starport can create 8 Vikings in barely any more time than that (168 seconds). Even with non-stop Chrono Boost, a Carrier with all its interceptors built takes more than a 4:1 ratio of build time compared to Vikings out of a reactored Starport.
I don't understand the high build time. Most units do not have such an absurd build time relative to their cost.
Higher is better. This is how much combined minerals and gas go into each second of production (ex. VRay: 400/60 = 6.66):
Voidray is 6.66 money per second. Carrier w/ all interceptors is 4.60 Carrier w/ only 4 interceptors is 5.00 Phoenix is 7.14 Colossus (heavy sigh) is 6.66 Immortal is 6.36
Why such an absurd build time Blizzard? It does not makes sense given the cost of the unit compared to the other Protoss non-Gateway units. It is just wrong.
If we made the Carrier build-time relative to cost the same as the Colossus and Voidray (based on Carrier with 4 Interceptors only) then the Carrier would have a build time of 90! Yes, the same as the Battlecruiser. This gives it 6.66 money per build time. A build time of 90, but also with an additional 4 interceptors, lowers the efficiency to 5.73. But this isn't too bad considering you can move across the map and even fight with less than 8 interceptors.
By any reasonable means, the Carrier really should be reduced to 90 seconds build time. Not because that's what the BC is, but because it puts it in line with other Protoss units. There is no reason it costs more, especially because the extra interceptors already take time and money and can be killed.
Last edit: 2012-01-27 04:16:32
Broodwar and Stork forever!
darkscream Canada. January 27 2012 04:14. Posts 2119
Carrier would need to be changed a lot to be worth keeping in the game.
If you changed it to make it effective though, you'd have to give something up, because the idea of the carrier, being a long range siege ship which sends out a swarm of attacks is just another way of saying "Long range aoe" which as you might be aware, protoss has a lot of already.
And the real question: Why keep something just for nostalgia? It's obvious the way the unit is implemented now, it's not worth using. There's been some pro players who experiment with it sure but it just doesn't have a niche in the game right now, because other units like the colossus and templar fill the role SO MUCH BETTER. It really comes down to the Colossus - the amazing wonder unit that serves as primary aoe, primary siege (anti-static D), primary staple of most protoss armies. Because the Colossus is so fucking good the carrier just can't be useful.
infinity2k9 United Kingdom. January 27 2012 04:18. Posts 2398
The carrier doesn't fit in the game, as long as bio is viable/the main TvP strategy.. isn't this obvious really. No scourge makes it a bit more interesting in PvZ i guess but it's still not particularly 'right' for the matchup, it doesn't fit. Why do people want a unit which clearly doesn't fit when there's much better things you could be arguing for like an actual skilled unit in place of the Collossus.
BUT i agree with the person who said why not leave it in anyway.. same goes with other units really. The scout existing in BW didn't negatively affect anything so why not just leave it, why remove options from people at all if they were not affecting balance. They like to talk about how they design 'fun' units and try to balance them, well i don't see evidence of this when they are happy to remove things just for the sake of it. What 'fun' is that.
Last edit: 2012-01-27 04:22:11
TheToast United States. January 27 2012 04:20. Posts 4804
On January 27 2012 03:01 TheToast wrote: I have to admit, I was expecting to see a lot of QQ in this thread. Instead I was pleasantly surprised with a well written OP that makes some very good points.
I agree 100%. I love the carrier, and I don't see how it fixes the deathball issue to simply give up on the carrier and replace it with a super pheonix. Protoss need an "ultimate" unit like the battlecruiser (which you can buy more than one of...)
On January 26 2012 17:51 ceaRshaf wrote: 1) Interceptors are always cloaked. 2) Add "Retreat" ability that calls all the interceptors into the carrier very fast 3) Add an ability "Pulse wave" with cool down that adds an AOL damage to the carrier that consists in a circular blast wave with a decent radius and affects only Air Units.
Why all of these changes?
1) and 2) have the purpose of giving the player a semi control over his interceptors. Making them cloaked means that they are no longer the main target all the time.
Well usually most players will just focus down the carrier, so idk if the cloak would help things. But your other ideas are creative, if nothing else it really shows there are nearly limitless possibilities Blizz could look into to fix the carrier and the deathball.
Good write-up OP
We have to agree that the Tempest is not a Starcraft unit. It's an A move unit.
I don't disagree with that at all.
I still don't know about cloak, but then I suppose none of us will unless Blizz is willing to try some new ideas.
I like the way the walls go out. Gives you an open feeling. Firefly's a good design. People don't appreciate the substance of things. Objects in space. People miss out on what's solid.
How about having the Oracle have some type of spell which allows Carriers to retreat more safely? Having a new (or existing) unit synergize with the carrier could be a good solution.
Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid!
infinity2k9 United Kingdom. January 27 2012 04:28. Posts 2398
Oh and i thought maybe peoples desire for the reaver and the carrier could be combined... wouldn't the carrier's interceptors changing to single powerful air to air AOE shots as a counter to mutas be quite interesting? Like there's tons more interesting things that could be done with it, could have multiple options in what ammunition you build to switch between air-to-air and air-to-ground. Could create some interesting dynamics and more actual player involvement in unit control/decisions for P.
Arisen United States. January 27 2012 04:58. Posts 1940
On January 27 2012 04:28 infinity2k9 wrote: Oh and i thought maybe peoples desire for the reaver and the carrier could be combined... wouldn't the carrier's interceptors changing to single powerful air to air AOE shots as a counter to mutas be quite interesting?
No; this is basically the tepest. This is the very epitome of non-interesting game design. Unit A complely shits on unit B so you might as well not make unit B. This is the reason a lot of zergs won't make hydras. He gets 1 or 2 colossus out and you wasted a ton of resources on something that's about to get shit on. THe tepest and this idea would just make it so you can't make more than a handful of muta per game.
This design philosophy is seen all over SC2 and I hope to not see any more in the expansions.
"If you're not angry, you're not paying attention"
IIIOmegaIII Sweden. January 27 2012 05:23. Posts 319
i like the carrier and all.. but srsly. would be so boring if sc2 would become a copy of bw. not cool. now their bringing in some new stuff, better not judge. chill until HoTs is out.
On January 27 2012 05:23 IIIOmegaIII wrote: i like the carrier and all.. but srsly. would be so boring if sc2 would become a copy of bw. not cool. now their bringing in some new stuff, better not judge. chill until HoTs is out.
News flash. The carrier is already a SC2 unit it's not a fan request.
Can we fight for the Lurker while we're at it?
Well, we are fighting to make the carrier unit actually work not to revive broodwar units. Since the carrier legacy passed to WoL it would be stupid to remove it now for the simple reason that it's a bad unit.
Mess with the best, die like the rest.
DiLiGu United States. January 27 2012 05:59. Posts 71
On January 27 2012 04:26 willoc wrote: How about having the Oracle have some type of spell which allows Carriers to retreat more safely? Having a new (or existing) unit synergize with the carrier could be a good solution.
Uh, yeah, this is a pretty good point.
Wouldn't even be super difficult, a temporary shield against AA (vikings) or speed boost would be kinda sick- and more interesting game design.
Fruitalchemist Greenland. January 27 2012 06:06. Posts 51
0neder United States. January 27 2012 03:28. Posts 3732
CARRIER HAS ARRIVED is like the most epic phrase in starcraft
![[image loading]](http://media.strategywiki.org/images/2/2f/CNC3_ShockTrooper.PNG)
![[image loading]](http://media.strategywiki.org/images/7/76/CnC3_Mastermind.PNG)
![[image loading]](http://media.strategywiki.org/images/2/2e/CnC3_Corruptor.png)
![[image loading]](http://media.strategywiki.org/images/f/f9/CnC3_Apod.png)
![[image loading]](http://media.strategywiki.org/images/8/80/CnC3_Mothership.png)
![[image loading]](http://media.strategywiki.org/images/1/19/CnC_GDIZone.png)
![[image loading]](http://media.strategywiki.org/images/f/fc/CnC3_Pit.png)
![[image loading]](http://media.strategywiki.org/images/8/88/CnC3_Orca.png)
![[image loading]](http://media.strategywiki.org/images/1/17/CnC3_Mamm.png)
![[image loading]](http://media.strategywiki.org/images/f/f8/CnC3_Avatar.PNG){kind=avatar}
