Website Feedback
Closed Threads
IRC Chat
irc.quakenet.org #teamliquid
IRC Web ClientTeamSpeak 3 (56 users) | |
|
| HighLach United States. April 10 2012 06:11. Posts 131 | Profile # |
I really liked to see the final tech paths of all three races in starcraft one: guardian, ultralisk, battlecruiser, and carrier. Back then these units were awesome, now in starcraft 2, you never see the capital airships, the carrier and the battlecruiser. Why do these units not show up in professional matches? Is it a design flaw? Do they have no niche? I just want to see the general consensus on their flaws. I've read some of the topics on it already. What would make them viable?
For instance, I think it's unfair that tier 1 ranged units can so easily take care of capital ships and that the counters are very easy to acquire, perhaps even faster than the capital ships can be built. Marines and stalkers both kill capital ships way too easily. If a player cant handle them with the low tier units then he can just build the direct counter faster, and the direct counters are way too effective. Even with upgrades the capital ships suffer. I think that if the capital ships did higher damage, with a lower attack rate (Compare sc1 battlecruisers to sc2 battlecruisers. Sc1=High Damage, Low AS. Sc2=Low damage,High AS) they would perform better. Additionally they could have higher armor values to make them more sustainable against low tier range units. Your thoughts?
What niches do exist for the capital airships?
I took a look at this suggestion, HOTS is coming up so perhaps blizzard will make some changes. I hope they don't remove the carrier
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=286965
Here another as well.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=307691
- High LachLast edit: 2012-04-10 07:16:50 |
|
|
| Resistentialism Canada. April 10 2012 06:21. Posts 684 | Profile Blog # |
| They're "post-tech". There's some degree to which they are supposed to be outside the normal tech curve for normal build orders, making them decidedly gimmicky. They really only have a purpose for breaking extreme late game stalemates (45min+). |
|
|
| DoubleReed United States. April 10 2012 06:21. Posts 3133 | Profile Blog # |
| If anything marines and dragoons were even better against battlecruisers than they are in sc2. I don't really know what you're talking about. |
| | Baby, you want to make like Stravinsky and perform a Rite of Spring? |
|
|
| HighLach United States. April 10 2012 06:32. Posts 131 | Profile # |
On April 10 2012 06:21 DoubleReed wrote:
If anything marines and dragoons were even better against battlecruisers than they are in sc2. I don't really know what you're talking about.
Battlecruisers and carriers had more damage potential in sc1, now they don't do enough damage. Armor on tier 1 units is drastically more effective against capital ships in sc2. That's just one reason.
I have two questions, why do you think they were better in sc1? And why did people actually build capital ships in some professional match ups in sc1?Last edit: 2012-04-10 06:33:03 |
|
|
| papapanda Taiwan. April 10 2012 06:34. Posts 201 | Profile # |
But you can't focus all 200 of your marine fire onto a single BC in brood war, making them melt in seconds like you can with the big select group.
I see pros in TvT go BC late game. Even though thors do too much to BC in my opinion.
That said, I pull out the cattle bruiser regularly in gold just because they are awesome Last edit: 2012-04-10 06:36:09 |
|
|
| Gyro_SC2 Canada. April 10 2012 06:37. Posts 513 | Profile # | |
|
|
| Willzzz United Kingdom. April 10 2012 06:39. Posts 684 | Profile # |
| HotS will make battlecruisers much more viable. |
|
|
| Tyrek April 10 2012 06:42. Posts 7 | Profile # |
Pathing - Ground to Air units path a lot better to focus fire on capital ships. This includes blink and stim allowing for easier 'access' to surface area to attack capitals.
Anti Air in general is more developed in general - BW air to air was primarily focused on AoE, or didn't really show up at all. (scouts) In SC2, we have things that require strong counters, such as colossi and, uh, colossi. Therefore air to air is more developed in general, and is a core part of tech trees, instead of being a more style-dependent portion.
|
|
|
| mataxp Chile. April 10 2012 06:43. Posts 420 | Profile # |
On April 10 2012 06:39 Willzzz wrote:
HotS will make battlecruisers much more viable.
what makes you say that? is there supposed buff planned for it? |
| | Liquid.Hero Startale.Bomber MVP.Dongraegu |
|
|
| Willzzz United Kingdom. April 10 2012 06:52. Posts 684 | Profile # |
| Yeah they are getting an afterburner ability. |
|
|
| phiinix United States. April 10 2012 06:55. Posts 1124 | Profile Blog # |
I fail to see why every unit has to be "viable" in every game. Blizzard has said that they don't necessarily need units like the battle cruiser, carrier, and mothership to be perfectly balanced. This game is for casual players too who just build bcs and carriers because they look cool. I find bcs to be perfectly viable in tvt, which is good enough to be viable all around. After all, you don't build hydras in zvt.
I question why you said the last tech units in sc1 included the guardian and ultralisk, but fail to mention the broodlord or ultra things you like to see in sc2. I can understand if you don't find either of them to be "capital ships" (the ultra certainly isn't) but why include them in sc1 but not sc2?
Assuming we're just discussing only the bc and carrier then, it just doesn't really make sense to build either of them in most matchups. You find that tier 1 units counter the 2 ships too easily, but I think this is only partially true. Lets look at the following match ups in which capital ships are pretty much never used: tvz, tvp, pvp, and pvz. Gyro has shown, and I have seen many many times, bcs being used in tvt.
As for the other matchups, what do they have in common? Heavy usage of ground units. Void ray phoenix in pvz is not really part of the army composition. It's a tool to deny a 3rd, force units, scout, harrass, etc. The point is that you don't really see more than 10 air units in the matchup from protoss. This translates to not getting air upgrades. From a strategic point of view, it just doesn't make sense to get expensive air units without air upgrades, especially to fight ground units (stalker/marine) that DO have upgrades. We see bcs in tvt on occasion because players get a lot of vikings, meaning they often invest in getting air upgrades. If you already have the upgrades, why not get bcs?
It is my opinion that stalkers and marines do not counter bcs and carriers if the capital ships have upgrades. I don't find it to be a mechanic flaw, but rather a strategic flaw |
|
|
 treekiller United States. April 10 2012 07:08. Posts 236 | Profile # |
Your understanding of DPS is seriously flawed. Do you even understand what it means? DPS means damage per second. It wouldnt make any different if you changed the attack speed or damage and kept the DPS the same. Thats the whole point of DPS calculation, to compare attack speed with damage.
Capital ships were never really good in BW anyways. To the extent they were, it made for bad games. Also, there are no tiered units in Starcraft. If you want T1, T2 T3 etc. go play a game that actually has it like TA or SupCom. Or CnC. I bet your a fan of Dustin Browder. |
| | All good things must come to an end. Therefore, SC2 will last forever |
|
|
| HighLach United States. April 10 2012 07:13. Posts 131 | Profile # |
On April 10 2012 06:34 papapanda wrote:But you can't focus all 200 of your marine fire onto a single BC in brood war, making them melt in seconds like you can with the big select group. I see pros in TvT go BC late game. Even though thors do too much to BC in my opinion. That said, I pull out the cattle bruiser regularly in gold just because they are awesome
I agree with this fully. It's easier for tier 1 units in SC2 to kill capital ships compared to SC1. Tyreks comment goes along with this too.
As to gyro's comment, in my original question I was looking for niches, that seems to be one that exists for the battlecruiser. I still think that it should be more viable. To use battlecruisers effectively, you must have a decent amount of vikings just to ward off your opponenets. And as for the carrier? I haven't seen a single niche it has been successfully used in. Blizzard didn't want to balance it, so they just tossed it out IMO.
As for HOTS, I haven't heard anything of the balance for capital airships. I've heard they might add in some type of booster for battlecruisers? Not sure about that, we'll have to wait and see. And as I said, they're just trashing the carrier, a protoss icon 
On April 10 2012 06:55 phiinix wrote:
I fail to see why every unit has to be "viable" in every game. Blizzard has said that they don't necessarily need units like the battle cruiser, carrier, and mothership to be perfectly balanced. This game is for casual players too who just build bcs and carriers because they look cool. I find bcs to be perfectly viable in tvt, which is good enough to be viable all around. After all, you don't build hydras in zvt.
I question why you said the last tech units in sc1 included the guardian and ultralisk, but fail to mention the broodlord or ultra things you like to see in sc2. I can understand if you don't find either of them to be "capital ships" (the ultra certainly isn't) but why include them in sc1 but not sc2?
Assuming we're just discussing only the bc and carrier then, it just doesn't really make sense to build either of them in most matchups. You find that tier 1 units counter the 2 ships too easily, but I think this is only partially true. Lets look at the following match ups in which capital ships are pretty much never used: tvz, tvp, pvp, and pvz. Gyro has shown, and I have seen many many times, bcs being used in tvt.
As for the other matchups, what do they have in common? Heavy usage of ground units. Void ray phoenix in pvz is not really part of the army composition. It's a tool to deny a 3rd, force units, scout, harrass, etc. The point is that you don't really see more than 10 air units in the matchup from protoss. This translates to not getting air upgrades. From a strategic point of view, it just doesn't make sense to get expensive air units without air upgrades, especially to fight ground units (stalker/marine) that DO have upgrades. We see bcs in tvt on occasion because players get a lot of vikings, meaning they often invest in getting air upgrades. If you already have the upgrades, why not get bcs?
It is my opinion that stalkers and marines do not counter bcs and carriers if the capital ships have upgrades. I don't find it to be a mechanic flaw, but rather a strategic flaw
Phiinix, every unit in starcraft should have some use at least in one match up at some point in the game. Reapers for example are good early game in tvt and tvz, and some have even experimented using them in lategame tvp to rip apart expansions. They fill a nice niche, but do not work in much else. A good unit. But tell me, where does the carrier fit in.
I didn't mention the ultralisk and broodlord because they are used very commonly in SC2. They could possibly use some balance, but not to the extend that the carrier and the battlecruiser need to be fixed.
You mention the void ray phoenix, you could have included the banshee, these units at least are used. It doesn't matter whether or not they are in the primary composition in the early, mid, or late game. Bottom line, THEY ARE STILL USED! You can't make the argument that carriers and battlecruisers are used anywhere to the extent that those units are.
Even with full upgrades, the capital ships will leave you at a disadvantage. Go test it if you want to. Don't you think that pros would have started getting upgrades for their air if this had worked? Zergs these days get two spires to double upgrade air weapons and armor. Why don't pros get two cyber cores or armories(for air of course, mech is an exception)? It doesn't work.Last edit: 2012-04-10 07:14:42 |
|
|
| HighLach United States. April 10 2012 07:17. Posts 131 | Profile # |
Treekiller, WHOOPS, I meant to say damage instead of DPS. My point is that low damage, high attack speed units like the carrier and battlecruiser both do poorly against high armor units, whereas if they had high damage, low attack speed, their overall DPS would be much better.
And by the way, There are tiered units for starcraft for each race.
ZERG TERRAN PROTOSS
TIER 1: hatchery barracks gateway
pool
TIER 1.5: roach ghosts cyber
banelings
TIER 2: lair factory Robo, Stargate, Twilight
hydra (Protoss differs because each route can be chosen after tier 1.5)
infestor
spire
TIER 2.5: armory
tanks
TIER 3: Hive starport Colossus, Carrier, High/Dark templars
ultra
greater spire
How can you call me a fan of the big man Dustin Browder if I'm critizing his work?Last edit: 2012-04-10 07:27:51 |
|
|
| Willzzz United Kingdom. April 10 2012 07:26. Posts 684 | Profile # |
On April 10 2012 06:34 papapanda wrote:But you can't focus all 200 of your marine fire onto a single BC in brood war, making them melt in seconds like you can with the big select group. I see pros in TvT go BC late game. Even though thors do too much to BC in my opinion. That said, I pull out the cattle bruiser regularly in gold just because they are awesome
You can't focus fire 200 marines on a battlecruiser unless you are playing some map that is totally open. Air units use terrain to gain advantage, or they have other units underneath them to kill marines etc.
Thors are pathetic vs battlecruisers, I have played a lot of FFA and they often come down to a mass thor player vs me with BC, the battlecruisers always win. Thors fire tickle rockets. |
|
|
| Mataza Germany. April 10 2012 07:28. Posts 1614 | Profile Blog # |
Yeah, first ist the design flaw of giving them million little attacks so that the high armor of the corruptor makes for a nice hardcounter(this makes way too much sense).
There have been a lot of suggestions how to balance etc. but imho the most convincing one is the long buildtime on bc and carrier. Just take a minute and compare.
"Regular" unit: maximum of 60 seconds(w/ chronoboost for P).
BC: 90 seconds
Carrier: 120 sec(80 w/ cb)
There are few situations where you can throw 400/300 in the ir for 2 minutes and not die unless your enemy falls asleep. |
| | If nobody hates you, you´re doing something wrong. However someone hating you doesn´t make you right |
|
|
| saltymango United States. April 10 2012 07:29. Posts 120 | Profile # |
On April 10 2012 06:43 mataxp wrote:
Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 06:39 Willzzz wrote:
HotS will make battlecruisers much more viable.
what makes you say that? is there supposed buff planned for it?
Ya Battlecruisers can sprint in hots. |
|
|
| Mataza Germany. April 10 2012 07:36. Posts 1614 | Profile Blog # |
On April 10 2012 07:29 saltymango wrote:
Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 06:43 mataxp wrote:
On April 10 2012 06:39 Willzzz wrote:
HotS will make battlecruisers much more viable.
what makes you say that? is there supposed buff planned for it?
Ya Battlecruisers can sprint in hots.
Sprint won´t change anything, especially if it has to be researched first. |
| | If nobody hates you, you´re doing something wrong. However someone hating you doesn´t make you right |
|
|
| Universum Canada. April 10 2012 07:38. Posts 64 | Profile # |
To go on a small tangent, I might add that Blizzard never really tried to patch those units. They didn't even try to patch the Carrier once since the release of Wings of Liberty. I do understand and agree that those Ultra-late game units shouldn't have to be played every single game, but they could've at least made some efforts to patch them. For instance, I would suggest Yamato Gun to be on a cooldown rather than energy based. That way, high templars can't just easily strip them of half their health. As for the carriers, there is probably a range within which they could increase their hp without making it too resistant. (Although EMP still helps preventing that).
Conclusively, I'd say we can't really expect Blizz to change those units in Heart of the Swarm, but you can try to fit them in your gameplay to have fun with them. As a protoss player I might say I have no use for the carrier in my style of play, but Avilo showed that the BC can be usefule late game TvP ( Look for a strategy thread about late game TvP ) |
| | You often learn more from losing than winning. Don't rage, it's a game! |
|
|
| cristo1122 Australia. April 10 2012 07:39. Posts 501 | Profile Blog # |
| they only became good when they reach upgrade parrity thus in most situations they only become usufull once you have 3/3 done on them during the interlude you willl have to avoid dieing to a multide of different pushes (broodlords being the exception as they benifit from the melee upgrade on the broodlings) |
| | ZvP imbalanced blizzards solution nerf terran |
|
|
| 1 2 3 4 Next All | |
|
|
|
| |
|
Sidebar Settings...
|
Store
