| crown77 United States. March 04 2012 13:06. Posts 98 | Profile # |
| I've been playing a lot of TvP in the HOTS custom in wol and in late game situations the only real micro is spreading the tempest so they take less splash damage from warhounds.... and the terran just makes a thousand turrets as they push..... and it's just kind of a shitty... did he scout the tech switch in time?.. kind of thing... where as in broodwar tech switching to carriers definitely benefited from surprise... but it didn't rely on it... I really hope they bring back the carrier for all the iconic reasons mentioned but also more importantly for healthy game play... artosis made a really good suggestion to experiment with making interceptors free... that might be a good place to start. |
|
|
| Ansinjunger United States. March 04 2012 13:11. Posts 1901 | Profile # |
| Keep the Carrier! It's iconic to Starcraft. Building them is also a pretty useful talent. But seriously, it's a way more interesting unit than the tempest. Besides, they already buffed phoenix vs muta, why need tempest now? Fleet Beacon gives you a step and the option to get carriers as well as deal with mutas. |
| |
|
| noD March 04 2012 13:11. Posts 2120 | Profile Blog # |
I don't think it should be removed, but I don't think it should be adjusted either
just leave it as a bm unit like it always wasLast edit: 2012-03-04 13:11:51 |
| |
|
| Caphe Vietnam. March 04 2012 13:19. Posts 7268 | Profile Blog # |
On March 04 2012 13:11 noD wrote:
I don't think it should be removed, but I don't think it should be adjusted either
just leave it as a bm unit like it always was
What? Carrier a BM unit? I beg your pardon. Carriers is the heart and soul of late game tech swtich in SC:BW. They are just so must fun too watch.
What Blizzard should do is actually find a way to fix the Protoss deathball late game rather than take out one of the most iconic unit in the Starcraft universe. I'd prefer just take the Colossus out tbh, just a boring and generic unit. |
| | Terran |  |
|
|
| ticklishmusic United States. March 04 2012 13:22. Posts 3210 | Profile Blog # |
I like the attacking while moving command. I think a big revamp of interceptor AI would make the carrier a lot more viable.
Here's my idea:
Make it so the carrier slows (or even stops) when it launches interceptors, but it can move around while interceptors are out. Interceptors stay out for a fixed period of time and within a fixed range of the carrier before returning to the carrier to... refuel and rearm or whatever for a few seconds. Have an upgrade for interceptors so they refuel/reload and are better in some way as well. Make it so you can manually launch and recall interceptors as well. And really, interceptors shouldn't die when the carrier dies, they just fly around till they run out of juice, then explode.
Personally, I loved playing long PvT in BW and playing the carrier/gateway vs goliath/tank dance with terran. <3
Tempest is a ginormous corsair, so that's pretty lame IMO.Last edit: 2012-03-04 13:58:42 |
| | (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻ #1 TPA fanboy TL |  |
|
|
| Ooshmagoosh United States. March 04 2012 13:27. Posts 412 | Profile # |
What is this?
Every time I use a carrier, the problem I have is that they have to remain still when launching the interceptors (which now takes forever, even with the upgrade), not that they can't move around after launch. That, and the interceptors don't return for repairs when wounded. Is there something I'm missing? |
| | "There should be no tying a sharp, hard object to your cock like it has a mechanical arm and hitting it with the object or using your cockring to crack the egg. No cyborg penises allowed. 100% flesh only." - semioldguy |
|
|
| Forikorder March 04 2012 13:34. Posts 5172 | Profile # |
even a genius cant figure out a way to make these viable
theres no way to make them viable agaisnt Zerg becuase of Corrupters
no way to make them viable agaisnt Terran becuase of Vikings
and no way to make them viable against Protoss becuase of void rays
Terrans only use battlecruisers becuase they can use there vikings to bully the other vikings |
| |
|
| synapse China. March 04 2012 13:50. Posts 6908 | Profile Blog # |
On March 04 2012 13:34 Forikorder wrote:
even a genius cant figure out a way to make these viable
theres no way to make them viable agaisnt Zerg becuase of Corrupters
no way to make them viable agaisnt Terran becuase of Vikings
and no way to make them viable against Protoss becuase of void rays
Terrans only use battlecruisers becuase they can use there vikings to bully the other vikings
I say remove corrupters and vikings, keep carrier :D |
| | Mmmm butterfly... delicious. | |
|
|
| kevinthemighty United States. March 04 2012 13:55. Posts 97 | Profile Blog # |
| I'm seriously hoping something legitimate can be figured out to keep the carrier in the game |
|
|
 Blasterion China. March 04 2012 13:55. Posts 10268 | Profile Blog # |
On March 04 2012 13:50 synapse wrote:
Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 13:34 Forikorder wrote:
even a genius cant figure out a way to make these viable
theres no way to make them viable agaisnt Zerg becuase of Corrupters
no way to make them viable agaisnt Terran becuase of Vikings
and no way to make them viable against Protoss becuase of void rays
Terrans only use battlecruisers becuase they can use there vikings to bully the other vikings
I say remove corrupters and vikings, keep carrier :D
Do we get Wraiths Valkyries back? |
| | [TLNY]Mahjong Club Thread | |
|
|
| yakitate304 United States. March 04 2012 13:56. Posts 568 | Profile # |
The entire name "Carrier" should mean that the main ship is only the CARRIER for the Interceptors... Not something that the Interceptors are bound to, which means that when the ship moves the Interceptors shouldn't automatically follow it and stop attacking. Jet fighters who take off from naval carriers don't just disengage when the boat moves...
I don't think this would fix the lategame Protoss tree, but it would certainly help if they were microable. |
| | Yaki's Streaming Madness: twitch.tv/YakiSC ||| FRB Grand Tournament Organizer ||| @YakiStarCraft ||| Youtube.com/YakiStarCraft |  |
|
|
| Kimaker United States. March 04 2012 13:57. Posts 2053 | Profile Blog # |
On March 04 2012 13:34 Forikorder wrote:
even a genius cant figure out a way to make these viable
theres no way to make them viable agaisnt Zerg becuase of Corrupters
no way to make them viable agaisnt Terran becuase of Vikings
and no way to make them viable against Protoss becuase of void rays
Terrans only use battlecruisers becuase they can use there vikings to bully the other vikings
If that's the case then it's a truly sad day indeed considering how innovative and unique a unit the carrier is.
That being said, I disagree.
1. The devourer was basically the Corrupter, but without having to manually use the passive degenerative ability since it was automatic. I understand that BL's are inevitable in a lategame army, and corrupters are going to be on the field anway because of colossus, but a carrier switch means less BL's.
2. Wraiths may not have the same range as the viking, but they were MUCH faster and combined with cloaking and the ability to shoot on the move I would say they countered carriers even harder than the viking. The main issue was the inability to mass them quickly, which is resolved because of reactors in the case of the viking.
3. Carriers were never really used in PvP anyway because of their costs and the tightness of the MU anyway.
Blizzard hasn't even tried to save the carrier. It has a lot of potential and could be viable with some minor tweaks which were mentioned in the OP. |
| | Entusman #54 (-_-) ||"Socialism is the abolition of rational economy." - Ludwig von Mises|| "Optimism is Cowardice."- Oswald Spengler |  |
|
|
| Forikorder March 04 2012 13:57. Posts 5172 | Profile # |
On March 04 2012 13:56 yakitate304 wrote:
The entire name "Carrier" should mean that the main ship is only the CARRIER for the Interceptors... Not something that the Interceptors are bound to, which means that when the ship moves the Interceptors shouldn't automatically follow it and stop attacking. Jet fighters who take off from naval carriers don't just disengage when the boat moves...
I don't think this would fix the lategame Protoss tree, but it would certainly help if they were microable.
they do if they need to refuel and its moving too far away |
| |
|
| ticklishmusic United States. March 04 2012 14:00. Posts 3210 | Profile Blog # |
On March 04 2012 13:57 Forikorder wrote:
Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 13:56 yakitate304 wrote:
The entire name "Carrier" should mean that the main ship is only the CARRIER for the Interceptors... Not something that the Interceptors are bound to, which means that when the ship moves the Interceptors shouldn't automatically follow it and stop attacking. Jet fighters who take off from naval carriers don't just disengage when the boat moves...
I don't think this would fix the lategame Protoss tree, but it would certainly help if they were microable.
they do if they need to refuel and its moving too far away
Then have it so if a carrier moves away from a battle, sometimes the refueling interceptors don't make it and crash. The you gotta make a new one. |
| | (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻ #1 TPA fanboy TL | |
|
|
| Bobgrimly New Zealand. March 04 2012 14:01. Posts 249 | Profile # |
| Make them able to fire on the move and increase their movement speed slightly. Problem solved? Also interceptor repair. |
| |
|
| Forikorder March 04 2012 14:01. Posts 5172 | Profile # |
1. The devourer was basically the Corrupter, but without having to manually use the passive degenerative ability since it was automatic. I understand that BL's are inevitable in a lategame army, and corrupters are going to be on the field anway because of colossus, but a carrier switch means less BL's.
pretty sure the devourers cost alot more then corrupters, and probably more supply
by alot
2. Wraiths may not have the same range as the viking, but they were MUCH faster and combined with cloaking and the ability to shoot on the move I would say they countered carriers even harder than the viking. The main issue was the inability to mass them quickly, which is resolved because of reactors in the case of the viking.
i probably should ahve said marines more then vikings, stimmed marines shed intercepters too fast
Blizzard hasn't even tried to save the carrier. It has a lot of potential and could be viable with some minor tweaks which were mentioned in the OP.
lets look at similar level tech units
1) Broodlord only used becuase Zerg generally has more bases, more gas income, les gas usage (then other races) and max faster so can bank alot sooner, and even so theres still pretty volatile unit if you use it jsut right it can win the game but mess up and they evaporate
2) BC only ever used in extreme late game TvTs that have degenerated into mass viking/raven or when both isdes have 2 giant tank lines and none of them are budging
so you see its not that the Carrier is a useless unit, its jsut that its a high tier unit on a stargate that doesnt splash
aside from turning it into the collosus it just wont get use |
| |
|
| Blasterion China. March 04 2012 14:01. Posts 10268 | Profile Blog # |
On March 04 2012 14:00 ticklishmusic wrote:
Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 13:57 Forikorder wrote:
On March 04 2012 13:56 yakitate304 wrote:
The entire name "Carrier" should mean that the main ship is only the CARRIER for the Interceptors... Not something that the Interceptors are bound to, which means that when the ship moves the Interceptors shouldn't automatically follow it and stop attacking. Jet fighters who take off from naval carriers don't just disengage when the boat moves...
I don't think this would fix the lategame Protoss tree, but it would certainly help if they were microable.
they do if they need to refuel and its moving too far away
Then have it so if a carrier moves away from a battle, sometimes the refueling interceptors don't make it and crash. The you gotta make a new one.
I don't think Protoss Airships run on fuels though.... and that's RNG aspect that's not good for the game. |
| | [TLNY]Mahjong Club Thread | |
|
|
| Forikorder March 04 2012 14:04. Posts 5172 | Profile # |
| why do people want "fire on the move carriers?" you expect them to kite corrupters or stimmed marines or vikings? |
| |
|
| Kamais Ookin Canada. March 04 2012 14:07. Posts 490 | Profile # |
| I think it's laughable that blizzard has never given carriers a chance and just being lazy by replacing them in HOTS. |
| | Torte de Lini was the only one who got my ban reason right. |
|
|
| 0neder United States. March 04 2012 14:15. Posts 3732 | Profile # |
Meh, I used to have your attitude, but I'm growing more apathetic as time goes on. Blizzard may have good intentions, but good intentions don't make for a game on par with Brood War.
Pigeonholing the ghost with no PTR or feedback from top players.
The 'moving shot' they gave the phoenix.....
They've said they can't/won't fix micro/physics engine.
The 'real time' is still missing from this 'real time strategy' game.
Focus on balance rather than excitement.
Nerfing of all AoE units until they are UP rather than OP.
Terran bio is viable in every matchup in every situation. Boring.
Inability/ignorance of exploring more high-speed microable units. So far in SC2, it's mainly the marine.
|
| |
|
| Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 Next |
|
Store
