We Must Fight For The Carrier - Page 34

On May 29 2012 09:31 JiYan wrote:

and perhaps make carriers with the same build time as battlecruisers? It still doesnt make sense to me that the carrier takes 30 seconds longer than the battlecruiser to make, not including interceptors.

Chrono boost anyone?

Mr Showtime United States. May 29 2012 09:54. Posts 1350

On May 29 2012 08:53 Kharnage wrote:

Make interceptors free.
That is all.

It's still awful in PvZ. It's either too good because the zerg isn't prepared or it sucks b/c the zerg scouted and massed corruptors. It shouldn't play that way.

HelioSeven United States. May 29 2012 10:10. Posts 184

On May 29 2012 07:57 NicolBolas wrote:

I would rather Blizzard spend the time to make a Protoss air force worth using as a whole. I want the Protoss to have serious air options that can augment their ground forces significantly.

Just because you don't understand how to properly use Protoss air units doesn't mean they aren't a serious option. Skytoss is one of the dominant comps in the entire game, it's just difficult to build up to and use properly (and rightly so, in my opinion). With the range upgrade on phoenixes they are now a complete hard counter to muta play in PvZ, and not half bad at picking off medivacs in PvT. Not to mention that a couple of phoenixes can clear the entire map of overlords, completely denying a Zerg map awareness for significant chunk of the mid-game (not to mention completely deny the nydus option). In PvZ, void rays are a hard counter to early roach pressure, and typically induce your opponent to tech to hydras as a response, upon which time a colossus transition will absolutely shred roach/ling/hydra. Void rays can also provide great support to a blink stalker comp against bio in PvT, if you're opponent builds too many marauders to counter the stalkers.

Regarding carriers, which I think are the most misunderstood of all stargate units, I'm sick and tired of people complaining about how carriers and colossus overlap: they don't. At all. Carriers trade splash for higher DPS and the ability to shoot back at anti-air. That in and of itself is a world of difference. Many of the claimed deficiencies of carriers are more attributable to people simply not understanding how to use them; take for instance the build time. Yes, the build time is absurdly long, and if you are only producing carriers on 1 or 2 stargates it's going to take forever to build up a decent force of them. But counter-intuitively, the build time actually makes the income cost of carriers quite low, only 175 min/m and 125 gas/m (compare to colossus: 240 min/m and 160 gas/m). To take advantage of this, one simply needs to build a ton of stargates. Every single pro game that I can think of in recent memory where carriers were used effectively (StarDust vs RorO in PL, Crank vs Freaky in GSTL, etc) demonstrated this perfectly: they produced carriers off 4-6 stargates on just 3 or 4 bases. Because of carrier's low income cost, this didn't adversely affect their production of a gateway army, with which skytoss has a natural synergy (chargelot/archon is great for zoning out your opponent and keeping them at distance from your high value air units). Another big mis-usage of carriers: the graviton catapult upgrade (which most people don't even understand what does), which significantly increases the launch speed of the interceptors and thus the instantaneous DPS of carriers (to 53.3(+10.7) over 1.5 seconds, before falling back down to 26.7(+5.3)) making them incredibly effective at hit-and-run style tactics, though they can certainly hold their own in a straight-up fight.

As someone who actually uses the skytoss style all the time, don't knock it until you actually understand it. I'm tired of people bashing stargate play as totally useless when they've never even taken the time to try and make it work.

If I smite you, have you been smitten?

Dontkillme Korea (South). May 29 2012 10:11. Posts 620

Nobody uses carriers, Marines too good, Corruptors too good, void rays and stalkers too good.. Even if they took it out, it really wouldn't make a big difference.

Boxer, MMA, MVP, MarineKing, Bomber, NaDa, PuMa, Thorzain, Polt, Taeja, KT.Flash, FOrGG, Fantasy, Leta

kckkryptonite May 29 2012 10:23. Posts 832

Long live the Carrier! Tempest is just another deathball unit, why not at least try to tweak the Carrier?!

Playing Terran destroys wrists!

Nosferatos Norway. May 29 2012 10:28. Posts 773

Useless unit is useless.

IF we are to keep the Carrier it'll need a make over.

"Show me the Raven" ~ HMS turns into a mini-nuke, going twice as fast and doing 250 damage over a large area.

HelioSeven United States. May 29 2012 10:29. Posts 184

On May 29 2012 08:43 Zambrah wrote:
Something that can help deal with Vikings and Corruptors to keep them off of the bulk of the Carrier could make Carriers legitimately useful.

Again, I really don't think you guys get it. Phoenixes are that unit, you just aren't using them correctly. What phoenixes lack against corruptor's armor and viking's range is made up for by their speed. They are the fastest unit in the game, period (except I think speedlings on creep, but since neither can target the other that's a moot point). Primarily, this allows you to choose where your engagements happen. But moreover, this makes phoenixes very effective at kiting, easily able to retreat to a group of archons, stalkers, or other AA if they are heavily outmatched. When it comes to protecting a carrier ball, carriers are plenty good at taking out corruptors and vikings, so long as said units aren't shooting directly at them. If you put a bunch of phoenixes in the way, you're likely to lose all your phoenixes but at the same time save the bulk of your carriers, which is what really matters in the late game.

If I smite you, have you been smitten?

fabiano Brazil. May 29 2012 10:30. Posts 3827

Carriers were good in BW because tanks were good in BW.

"When the geyser died, a probe came out" - SirJolt

XxJuicexX United States. May 29 2012 10:33. Posts 48

Id rather see the mothership stay than the carrier.

Kharnage Australia. May 29 2012 10:38. Posts 831

On May 29 2012 09:54 Mr Showtime wrote:

It's still awful in PvZ. It's either too good because the zerg isn't prepared or it sucks b/c the zerg scouted and massed corruptors. It shouldn't play that way.

BCs suffer the same fate.

+3 attack carriers are pretty good though, and mass corruptor without ups gets shredded by archon + storm vs 7 or 8 carriers.

oZii United States. May 29 2012 10:38. Posts 1198

Carriers are useless, even if they where tweaked at all. You would still need to tech to them so they could be apart of your deathball instead of colossus. Only thing I can see is to make another air unit that can help to protect the carriers so they are somewhat viable.

Aerisky United States. May 29 2012 10:40. Posts 9247

I dunno, I really do have some nostalgic love for the carrier, was so fun to watch. Would be so awesome if they could make them a viable unit again

I miss stork's carrier control

"It has always been in my observation of human nature, that a man who has any good reason to believe in himself never flourishes himself before the faces of other people in order that they may believe in him."

IntoTheheart Canada. May 29 2012 11:13. Posts 2728

What do you reckon would happen if you decreased build time slightly and buffed its shields?

When a ghost kill someone with their gauss rifle, are they performing gaussian elimination then? - Arnstein

Psychlone Canada. May 29 2012 11:32. Posts 90

Give Carriers the Tempest AA attack as a spell and I assure you people will build them.

Also give them at least 3 armor, seriously...

It's so easy to tweak, but Blizzard is just incomprehensible some time.

Mr Showtime United States. May 29 2012 12:16. Posts 1350

On May 29 2012 10:10 HelioSeven wrote:

Just because you don't understand how to properly use Protoss air units doesn't mean they aren't a serious option. Skytoss is one of the dominant comps in the entire game.

This is so wrong.

On May 29 2012 10:38 Kharnage wrote:

BCs suffer the same fate.

+3 attack carriers are pretty good though, and mass corruptor without ups gets shredded by archon + storm vs 7 or 8 carriers.

Sure they would, but I'd love to see a Protoss player get that comp before the zerg manages to get any air upgrades..... hell, I'd like to see the Protoss get that comp

Last edit: 2012-05-29 12:18:25

-Exalt- United States. May 29 2012 12:26. Posts 966

Hmm, IMO they can not remove the Mothership/ carrier and then not give us something that can siege/aoe mass air. The only way to beat a zerg on a map like Metropolis who makes 40 spines and 22 broods/infestors/corrupters/queens isto transition into carriers. Can blizzard not see this glaring issue in end game PvZ that will arise in Hots? hope they are working on a solution..

intense555 United States. May 29 2012 12:29. Posts 219

A few zealots to talk,

Top 50 GM HoTS, member of Clarity Academy, come watch! http://www.twitch.tv/intensesc

Azera Singapore. May 29 2012 12:39. Posts 3374

On May 29 2012 10:30 fabiano wrote:
Carriers were good in BW because tanks were good in BW.

This is so unbelievably true, and somebody needs to take an in-depth look into this relationship in SC2.

Trudge comfortably | Check out some glorious music made by TLers - http://bit.ly/QXYhdb , by intrigue. http://bit.ly/RTjpOR , by ohsea.toc.

EMIYA United States. May 29 2012 12:41. Posts 372

I don't know if the carriers just suck or if corruptors are too good against them

Campfire United States. May 29 2012 12:55. Posts 48

On May 29 2012 12:16 Mr Showtime wrote:

This is so wrong.