Website Feedback
Closed Threads
IRC Chat
irc.quakenet.org #teamliquid
IRC Web ClientTeamSpeak 3 (53 users) | |
|
| Strike_ Netherlands. March 05 2012 03:05. Posts 702 | Profile Blog # |
| The carrier is a great unit and the people who hate it obviously have never seriously tried a carrier build |
| |
|
| Forikorder March 05 2012 03:15. Posts 5189 | Profile # |
On March 05 2012 02:17 Mataza wrote:
Imho the carrier would see way more play if it just build faster.
That´s what helped the Ultralisk.(From 70 down to 55)
Just seeing how a colossus is 75 seconds and a carrier is 120 seconds should make you facepalm. Nearly all units in SC2 build in 25 seconds to 60 seconds(w/ chronoboost). Even the fucking Thor builds in 60 seconds, and those were as big as a baracks in beta.
There are only 2 units that are so far out there with building time they are almost never used. You have 2 guesses:
Carrier and Battlecruiser.
Before you try any shenanigans with "BC speedboost" or other HoTs shit(it´s funny bc its similar to horse shit), they should just make the units buildable in less than a lifetime.
that didnt help the ultralisk, its stilla fringe unit you barely see and the times you do see it the build time wasnt a facter |
| |
|
| ishkabibble Canada. March 05 2012 03:16. Posts 161 | Profile # |
| After playing some hots custom game with my friend, it makes me realize how much the carrier should stick, no tempest please. With it's massive air splash, it beats all air units, and with it's design, tempest colossi can 1a over any army in the game and lose very little supply. Tested and true, the carrier is a lot better, just needs some love. |
|
|
| Forikorder March 05 2012 03:18. Posts 5189 | Profile # |
On March 05 2012 03:16 ishkabibble wrote:
After playing some hots custom game with my friend, it makes me realize how much the carrier should stick, no tempest please. With it's massive air splash, it beats all air units, and with it's design, tempest colossi can 1a over any army in the game and lose very little supply. Tested and true, the carrier is a lot better, just needs some love.
mass bio
you wont have enough collosi to kill the marauders before they swarm over the collosi
aside from the fact that the army comp you jsut listed is completely unnatainable it would lose to any massed ground armoured unit like roachs or marauders or the new warhound |
| |
|
| AcrossFiveJulys United States. March 05 2012 03:22. Posts 3594 | Profile Blog # |
| It's a myth that vikings beat carriers. Carriers in similar cost RAPE vikings. Try it yourself. As people have said, the reason carriers aren't good in pvt in sc2 is because 1) terran has to go bio, this means lots of marines around with good upgrades, 2) marines are beefier late game with combat shield, 3) large groups of marines are more microable than in bw due to unlimited selection, while carriers don't get the same benefit; and 4) AI changes that make carriers less microable. |
| |
|
| NeonFox March 05 2012 03:22. Posts 2355 | Profile # |
| The fact that they want to take it out baffles me. It does not show any balance problems, at worst just leave it in there, if only 5 players out of 100 use it, where's the problem? Just leave it there and see how people figure out ways to use them. Removing it brings no benefits. |
|
|
 SeaSwift Scotland. March 05 2012 03:25. Posts 4485 | Profile Blog # |
On March 05 2012 03:22 AcrossFiveJulys wrote:
It's a myth that vikings beat carriers. Carriers in similar cost RAPE vikings. Try it yourself. As people have said, the reason carriers aren't good in pvt in sc2 is because 1) terran has to go bio, this means lots of marines around with good upgrades, 2) marines are beefier late game with combat shield, 3) large groups of marines are more microable than in bw due to unlimited selection, while carriers don't get the same benefit; and 4) AI changes that make carriers less microable.
and 5) Carriers take forever and a day to build. |
| |
|
| Forikorder March 05 2012 03:29. Posts 5189 | Profile # |
On March 05 2012 03:22 NeonFox wrote:
The fact that they want to take it out baffles me. It does not show any balance problems, at worst just leave it in there, if only 5 players out of 100 use it, where's the problem? Just leave it there and see how people figure out ways to use them. Removing it brings no benefits.
if its no benefit in the game and its no benefit to remove it from the game then the benefit of following there design idea by having the most compact game possible overrules the lack of any benefit by having it in the game
besides according the Lore the protoss are working on replacing the carriers completely with void rays anyway |
| |
|
| RaiD.RaynoR United States. March 05 2012 03:33. Posts 284 | Profile # |
| Please don't remove the carrier, it is so badass. |
| | Redemption is the consequence of forgiveness |  |
|
|
| NeonFox March 05 2012 03:38. Posts 2355 | Profile # |
On March 05 2012 03:29 Forikorder wrote:
Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 03:22 NeonFox wrote:
The fact that they want to take it out baffles me. It does not show any balance problems, at worst just leave it in there, if only 5 players out of 100 use it, where's the problem? Just leave it there and see how people figure out ways to use them. Removing it brings no benefits.
if its no benefit in the game and its no benefit to remove it from the game then the benefit of following there design idea by having the most compact game possible overrules the lack of any benefit by having it in the game besides according the Lore the protoss are working on replacing the carriers completely with void rays anyway
But it's not like it's never used, of course it needs some sort of buff or incentive to use but we see it time to time, Genius for example uses it sometimes in PvZ. Would you be ok with the option of going carriers being removed? |
|
|
| Empirimancer Canada. March 05 2012 03:42. Posts 724 | Profile # |
I'd rather fight for the Mothership.
|
| |
|
| darkscream Canada. March 05 2012 04:05. Posts 2117 | Profile Blog # |
| OP is a lie. The "tempest" has not been replaced with anything. Don't get WoL patch notes confused with patch notes from a alpha test which you've never seen. Unless you have proof/blue post/press release, take that shit out and stop spreading misinformation. |
|
|
| Ventor United States. March 05 2012 04:08. Posts 336 | Profile # |
| Why do you people refuse to accept change? The carrier didn't fit into what Blizzard had designed so they are removing it. I'm sorry that you don't like it but you need understand Blizzard's decision. Just because YOU like it and think it fits in the game, doesnt mean Blizzard does as well and they are in charge of balance, not you. Please stop complaining, look forward to what HOTS will bring, not what it's taking away. |
| | oGsMc - EGHuK - White-Ra - SlayerSBoxeR - STBomber Fighting!~ |
|
|
| Kimaker United States. March 05 2012 04:15. Posts 2068 | Profile Blog # |
On March 05 2012 04:08 Ventor wrote:
Why do you people refuse to accept change? The carrier didn't fit into what Blizzard had designed so they are removing it. I'm sorry that you don't like it but you need understand Blizzard's decision. Just because YOU like it and think it fits in the game, doesnt mean Blizzard does as well and they are in charge of balance, not you. Please stop complaining, look forward to what HOTS will bring, not what it's taking away.
Listen buddy....
I'm already 99% resolved to not bother with HOTS. This would push me to 100%. The Carrier is more than a unit, it's an emblem, a symbol of an entire race in the game. For 10 years this unit encapsulated the essence of "protoss" for a large number of people and you're going to chalk up our argument to "refuse to accept change"?
Fine, maybe we are being stubborn, but at least try and understand where we're coming from here. There's a history. A deep one. We're not just screaming to save it because, because because, but rather because there's an emotional attachment.
And hell, beyond that Blizzard really HASN'T done anything to try and make the unit viable. |
| | Entusman #54 (-_-) ||"Socialism is the abolition of rational economy." - Ludwig von Mises|| "Optimism is Cowardice."- Oswald Spengler |  |
|
|
| aZealot New Zealand. March 05 2012 04:16. Posts 1406 | Profile # |
On March 05 2012 04:08 Ventor wrote:
Why do you people refuse to accept change? The carrier didn't fit into what Blizzard had designed so they are removing it. I'm sorry that you don't like it but you need understand Blizzard's decision. Just because YOU like it and think it fits in the game, doesnt mean Blizzard does as well and they are in charge of balance, not you. Please stop complaining, look forward to what HOTS will bring, not what it's taking away.
Based on the HOTS preview, I'm very much NOT looking forward to what HOTS will bring. |
| | "Consider fully, act decisively" - Jigoro Kano |
|
|
| Marddox United Kingdom. March 05 2012 04:22. Posts 108 | Profile # |
Okay keeping the collossus for HOTS that's fine, i would like to see it replaced with another unit (like the reaver) but whatever..
Now removing the carrier? this won't fix anything but rather reduces options. carrier is such a cool unit that has potential where as the collosus doesn't.Last edit: 2012-03-05 04:25:48 |
| | We didn't have no "4 gates" back in the probe drought, no sir! we only had 1 gate, chrono and probes to defend! |  |
|
|
| Indolent Poland. March 05 2012 04:27. Posts 124 | Profile # |
| Anybody remember Lost Viking? Carrier boss had some kind of special attack there. Just use it, give it splash damage versus air and there, no need for Tempest at all. |
|
|
| frozenrb Poland. March 05 2012 04:29. Posts 389 | Profile # |
On March 05 2012 04:15 Kimaker wrote:
Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 04:08 Ventor wrote:
Why do you people refuse to accept change? The carrier didn't fit into what Blizzard had designed so they are removing it. I'm sorry that you don't like it but you need understand Blizzard's decision. Just because YOU like it and think it fits in the game, doesnt mean Blizzard does as well and they are in charge of balance, not you. Please stop complaining, look forward to what HOTS will bring, not what it's taking away.
Listen buddy.... I'm already 99% resolved to not bother with HOTS. This would push me to 100%. The Carrier is more than a unit, it's an emblem, a symbol of an entire race in the game. For 10 years this unit encapsulated the essence of "protoss" for a large number of people and you're going to chalk up our argument to "refuse to accept change"? Fine, maybe we are being stubborn, but at least try and understand where we're coming from here. There's a history. A deep one. We're not just screaming to save it because, because because, but rather because there's an emotional attachment. And hell, beyond that Blizzard really HASN'T done anything to try and make the unit viable.
That's the problem with game industry. If game developers delete something from game, something witch many people identify with, there are 99% of people who thinks that sux.
Tell me how many of you saw usage of Carrier in tournaments?? Maybe 2-3 times??? This is eSport game.
Bliizzard hasn't done anything to change it because it's that emblem, a symbol of an entire race in the game... You want them to be small, fast?? Or what ?? I see many people after that kinds of changes bitching all the time. "Oh oh it's carrier why it is so small blizzard make huuuge mistake.. it should be flagship of protos.. BIG, SLOW, AND rape shit..." Because it is like it is people don't use it. SC2 is by design very fast game.
Last edit: 2012-03-05 04:30:47 |
|
|
| Paramo Mexico. March 05 2012 04:33. Posts 133 | Profile # |
On March 05 2012 04:27 Indolent wrote:
Anybody remember Lost Viking? Carrier boss had some kind of special attack there. Just use it, give it splash damage versus air and there, no need for Tempest at all.
I like the idea of making the carrier a better AA option. I think it would require a lot of tweaking, specially in terms of being able to get it faster but I do think it would give it an added functionality that does not compete with the collosus.
Carriers fighting! |
| |
|
| Big J Austria. March 05 2012 04:34. Posts 5037 | Profile Blog # |
On March 05 2012 04:15 Kimaker wrote:
Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 04:08 Ventor wrote:
Why do you people refuse to accept change? The carrier didn't fit into what Blizzard had designed so they are removing it. I'm sorry that you don't like it but you need understand Blizzard's decision. Just because YOU like it and think it fits in the game, doesnt mean Blizzard does as well and they are in charge of balance, not you. Please stop complaining, look forward to what HOTS will bring, not what it's taking away.
Listen buddy.... I'm already 99% resolved to not bother with HOTS. This would push me to 100%. The Carrier is more than a unit, it's an emblem, a symbol of an entire race in the game. For 10 years this unit encapsulated the essence of "protoss" for a large number of people and you're going to chalk up our argument to "refuse to accept change"? Fine, maybe we are being stubborn, but at least try and understand where we're coming from here. There's a history. A deep one. We're not just screaming to save it because, because because, but rather because there's an emotional attachment. And hell, beyond that Blizzard really HASN'T done anything to try and make the unit viable.
so, how do you make the carrier viable without straight up making it broken?
I mean all those cutsie little "more microability, shorter buildtime" suggestions all are pretty small things.
In detail: how the hell is a carrier supposed to work in TvP right now? You are not going to hold any position with slightly carriers, when the Terran army is blindcountering universal air units already. You would have to buff the carrier HUGELY, up to the point where the question raises: how is Terran supposed to win vs carriers, if a viking/marine heavy army can't do it?
And ZvP: Zergs ground army is not equipped to deal with bigger masses of durable strong air to ground units.(that's why Carrierbuilds have seen use in this matchup, as surprise strategies) But that creates the need that corruptors beat such units. Checkmate for the Carrier.
--> Carriers must not be strong without strong Mech; Carriers must not be strong, without strong hydralisks |
| |
|
| 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 | |
|
|
|
| |
|
Sidebar Settings...
|
Store
