PDA

View Full Version : Scrapped Editorial Material & Another Carrier Fix



DemolitionSquid
11-06-2009, 07:28 PM
As I was writing my now infamous Proton Charge Editorial, I looked at a variety of different approaches for explaining myself. One thing I explored but decided against using in the final version was a look at "mass effect" using the Protoss Carrier as an example, instead of the Area of Effect spells Irradiate, Dark Swarm, and Psionic Storm.

I thought I'd share that unused portion with you all because it is still relevant material to understanding another thing I feel strongly about: the imbalance of the Carrier.


Mass Effect for our purposes is defined as unequal gain for cost. Mass effect is a curious phenomenon, directly tied in to variable power. The best example of mass effect in StarCraft before Proton Charge was Carriers. The Carrier itself was a large base unit, with no attack. You could have the Carrier build up to 8 Interceptors, each one a drone with its own attack. Essentially, the Carrier itself is nothing but a mobile Interceptor factory. A single Carrier in StarCraft I was very expensive, and hardly worth its cost because its counters were so powerful, like the Terran Goliath. Even two weren’t very strong. But if you managed to acquire four or more Carriers, you suddenly started to harness a lot of power. Equivalent cost in counters loses its strength. So what creates mass effect?

It’s the nature of the Carrier as being 9 units instead of one. Or more accurately, the potential of the Carrier to be either one unit, or 9. When you purchase a Goliath, you get one. You purchase another Goliath for the same cost, you have 2. But the Carrier is really either 1 or 9 units, or anywhere in between. When you buy a new Carrier, you receive 1 unit, the expensive base. You can purchase cheap Interceptors for your Carrier, each one with its own damage and individual hit points. Each one independently target-able from the main Carrier. The more Interceptors you buy, the more the cost of each Interceptor is dispersed against the cost of the base. A Carrier with 8 Interceptors is more cost effective than a Carrier with one Interceptor.

Carrier
300 minerals
150 gas
300 hit points
150 shield points
0 Damage

Interceptor
25 minerals
0 gas
40 hit points
40 shield points
8 damage

Carrier + 1 Interceptor
325 minerals
150 gas
300 + 40 hit points
150 + 40 shield points
8 damage

Carrier + 8 Interceptors
500 minerals
150 gas
300 + 320 hit points
150 + 320 shield points
64 damage

As you can see, a mere 200 mineral difference turns the originally attack-less Carrier into a very strong unit. Because each Interceptor is target-able independent of its host Carrier, you can lose Interceptors without losing the Carrier. The Carrier can build more Interceptors as long as its alive. Unless the main Carrier body is attacked, the unit cannot die. A Carrier in combat will be in a constant state of flux, as Interceptors die and are rebuilt. Its noticeable with one Carrier, but the effect of multiple Carriers in flux, each with alternating returns on their cost effectiveness based on their Interceptors, is mind-boggling. What you achieve is growth through whats known as additive sequence. Instead of a statistical increase in a 1 + 1 + 1 form, you see stats like damage add up in 8 + 8 + 8. This kind of growth leads to imbalance; either the Carrier is underpowered when it has no Interceptors, or overpowered when it has a full compliment. The discrepancy between the cost and power of the base Carrier, compared to its Interceptors, is what causes mass effect. When you have multiple Carriers, all overpowered at 8 Interceptors, you get mass effect on a grand scale.

It can be compared to economy, actually. Because a worker gathers more than one mineral per trip, each leap is additive. Its additive sequence. But because this is true for all workers, there’s no noticeable mass effect because all factions have equal access to it. The mass effect of one worker cancels out the mass effect of an opposing worker. But when producing units, who are built in the singular, building a unit like the Carrier who can differ in power, and becomes more cost effective for minor cost increases, is noticeable. In the same way economy in StarCraft is additive, so is unit production. All production buildings are like the Carrier - a defenseless base structure that pumps out units to take damage and deal damage for it. But the mass effect of a Terran Barracks is equal to the mass effect of a Protoss Gateway, canceling each other out. The Carrier becomes overpowered because you have the Stargate producing Carriers, and the Carriers producing Interceptors. Neither of the other races have a unit which produces other units in this fashion, there is no equivalent mass effect for the Terran or Zerg factions. Instead, it is mildly balanced by focused fire on the core Carrier, and certain spells and units the Terran and Zerg have access to, like Goliaths or Scourge.

So why is mass effect a problem? Because of mass effect, Proton Charge is theoretically either more powerful or less powerful than the additive mechanics of the Terran and Zerg at any given time, given any number of factors from the length of the game, to the saturation limit of the map. This makes it extremely variable every game, and thus hard to accurately balance. It means that the unit or mechanic with the mass effect problem will either never be used because its too hard to achieve a reasonable profit and maximize the ability, or will always used because not using the mechanic will mean certain disadvantage. Mass effect is always a problem because it means that something is either underpowered or overpowered, and has a very small balance point, that in fact may not even exist or be possible to acquire. Proton Charge epitomizes these problems because it cannot be countered like other mass effect aspects in the game. The only reliable way to counter it is by somehow killing the Probes buried deep within his base.


Following that, I'd like to make one final suggestion at how to balance the Carrier. It was suggested haphazardly in another thread, and I will quote the idea here.


Make it more like the Reaver. That is, make Interceptors expendable. Give them a timed life. Make the Carrier constantly cycle through cheap Interceptors just like the Reaver cycles through cheap Scarabs. Each Interceptor gets X shots, then dies, like the D3 Raven summon. You can even make this this go unnoticed, because the Interceptors will die inside the Carrier at the end of their animation, to be replaced with a fresh Interceptor. Essentially, instead of spending 25 minerals per permanent Interceptor, you'll loose 5 minerals every X seconds of combat.

And now, I put on my flame-resistant suit.

And my robe and wizard hat.

KillaKhan
11-06-2009, 07:39 PM
Good examples. Me likey. I won't be casting fireball anytime soon.

ArcherofAiur
11-06-2009, 07:54 PM
Wait so now carriers are inbalanced too?

Pandonetho
11-06-2009, 07:55 PM
Carriers are such a boring unit, honestly.

Kimera757
11-06-2009, 08:00 PM
Would you say things are different with StarCraft II? Carriers start with 4 interceptors and build to 8 (a double benefit rather than 8 x) but with the obvious caveat that a carrier could be reduced to 0 interceptors in combat.


Wait so now carriers are inbalanced too?

There's a myth floating around that StarCraft I is perfectly balanced. The three races are balanced with each other; this doesn't mean individual units can't be unbalanced or problematic. My personal pet peeve is the siege tank, but the infested terran would rate even worse, if only people saw it often enough to realize how much it sucked.

ArcherofAiur
11-06-2009, 08:04 PM
There's a myth floating around that StarCraft I is perfectly balanced. The three races are balanced with each other; this doesn't mean individual units can't be unbalanced or problematic. My personal pet peeve is the siege tank, but the infested terran would rate even worse, if only people saw it often enough to realize how much it sucked.

Have you every seen a high end PvT game? Its incredible watching goliaths face carriers. Absolutly epic.

Kimera757
11-06-2009, 08:06 PM
Have you every seen a high end PvT game? Its incredible watching goliaths face carriers. Absolutly epic.

And has little to do with this discussion. I'm pretty sure the goliaths would just focus-fire the carriers, making the point of this thread academic for that specific scenario. (At least until the carriers try to retreat out of range, forcing a target break, etc.)

spychi
11-06-2009, 08:10 PM
KNOTHX for that
I mean the Carrier is already an expensive unit and in a long-term play it will become even more expensive if we will make the interceptors with timed-life.
This is how we could make the Carrier even more unbalanced

ArcherofAiur
11-06-2009, 08:10 PM
The point is that you really dont know whether Terran goliaths are going to win or the carriers. It is extremely well balanced.

Kimera757
11-06-2009, 08:19 PM
The point is that you really dont know whether Terran goliaths are going to win or the carriers. It is extremely well balanced.

And still has nothing really to do with this thread.

(It doesn't help that goliaths themselves are a bit overpowered as GtA units (it doesn't help that in StarCraft I most AtG units are either weak or very expensive; it's more parsimonious to say the fault lies with goliaths, IMO).)

But enough of that. It's taking the thread off-topic.

Wankey
11-06-2009, 08:22 PM
Bloody hell I thought you had pictures of the new carrier.

sandwich_bird
11-06-2009, 08:26 PM
The point is that you really dont know whether Terran goliaths are going to win or the carriers. It is extremely well balanced.That's bullshit. It's true for koreans but not for decent C players. It's way too easy to micro over a cliff with carriers and way too hard to target the carriers with the goliaths over the cliff mostly because of how retarded the ai is. On top of that targeting thing, you need to orders some goliaths to move, other to hold position and at the same time keep that goliath production up while all the Protoss player have to do is reatreat once the shield is down and rebuild interceptors then go back by putting the most damaged carriers behind to let them recharge.

Of course it's another story when there's no cliff. In this situation, the advantage clearly goes to the goliaths because there's nowhere to run for the carriers.

ArcherofAiur
11-06-2009, 08:29 PM
That's bullshit. It's true for koreans but not for decent C players. It's way too easy to micro over a cliff with carriers and way too hard to target the carriers with the goliaths over the cliff mostly because of how retarded the ai is. On top of that targeting thing, you need to orders some goliaths to move, other to hold position and at the same time keep that goliath production up while all the Protoss player have to do is reatreat once the shield is down and rebuild interceptors then go back by putting the most damaged carriers behind to let them recharge.

Of course it's another story when there's no cliff. In this situation, the advantage clearly goes to the goliaths because there's nowhere to run for the carriers.



Yes. And Terran can attack while Protoss is pumping massive resources into make carriers. You see balanced doesnt mean "exactly equal".


But you know arnt we going to have enough of these arguements once beta starts.

sandwich_bird
11-06-2009, 08:31 PM
Yes. And Terran can attack while Protoss is pumping massive resources into make carriers. You see balanced doesnt mean "exactly equal". No they can't because they are already spending A LOT of apm on controlling the goliaths. On top of that you want them to go use even more apm to place up a mine field with the vultures, place the tanks in good positions, siege, then do siege hopping? Yes like I said that's ok for koreans but for average players no...

unentschieden
11-06-2009, 08:51 PM
Demo tries to defend his "mass effect" theory and proceds to sink it himself. He tries to assing everything exactly clalculated values as if math=balance - but it isnīt. Just as he himself said, if his theory is true Carriers are broken.Except they arenīt by mere point of evidence that TL.net isnīt whining about it. Also just looking at Battle.net doesnīt show any evidence that Protoss are dominating or marginalized because of Carriers - or at all.

Cost effectivness NEVER was a pure funktion of linear math. "Critical Mass", the drastic increase in cost effectivness in high numbers is the very point of the Terrans. Sufficient numbers of Siege Tanks are unbeatable by any equivialent force the other races can come up with, especially with upgrades since enemy armor upgrades canīt compensate the Tanks damagegain. They can just oneshot anything that comes in range.

But itīs fine since everyone knows that and adapt to that. Math would dictate itīs broken, even moreso than the Carrier. (Un?)fortunately reality differs from mathematical models.

Nicol Bolas
11-06-2009, 09:28 PM
I'm not sure I understand the point of this suggestion.

The general idea is that the cost of a Carrier is balanced as the cost of a full Carrier. Rebuilding destroyed Intercepters is therefore essentially like a Terran player repairing his units. Except that the Carrier loses effectiveness with lost Intercepters.

Which gives the Carrier another interesting capability, as damaging a Carrier weakens it.

No, the problem with the Carrier is that, in SC1, one or two Carriers simply isn't worth the cost. Whereas 8+ Carriers is an incredibly destructive force. This means that you can't just go Carriers a little bit; you either are going for full-on Carrier action or you're getting no Carriers.

This is mostly a function of the sheer cost of Carriers. In SC1, they come with no Intercepters, which makes every Carrier cost 200 minerals more (not to mention making their production time that much slower). And the Fleet Beacon, useful only if you want Carriers, is the most expensive single building in the game. And you must research the expanded Carrier capacity before your Carriers become worthwhile.

Thus, paying the money for a FB + one Carrier just isn't worth it. You could have gotten more Dragoons, Zealots, Gateways, a Templar Archives, anything. Lots of anything.

SC2 solves many of these problems. No more research for increased capacity; Carriers now simply come with that. No more building Intercepters for a fresh Carrier; they come with 8 already built. The FB remains just about the most expensive building in the game, but it also has crucial research for Void Rays (makes the beam charge up quicker). Also, Intercepters do 2 more damage than before (5x2. 2 more to units without armor, but each point of armor counts double due to the double attack). Carriers are now much more practical to get in smaller quantities.

Small numbers of Carriers are a good way to punish a player for not getting a dedicated AtA unit (since Carriers how exceedingly long range).

sandwich_bird
11-06-2009, 09:45 PM
Small numbers of Carriers are a good way to punish a player for not getting a dedicated AtA unit (since Carriers how exceedingly long range).And they fixed the cliff micro that I said above since the Thor have an AoE for his GtA they can destroy the interceptors easy and so lower the micro that was involved with the goliath. An alternative would be viking even though they might not be that useful in the matchup.

Santrega
11-06-2009, 10:53 PM
holy crap... Mass effect is spreading...

Quick, stop mass effect before it goes to every unit in starcraft II and the entire game is imbalanced in every aspect... what the hell...

Thats a really good argument you got going there DS... So Reavers of course would have the mass effect argument as well right? How about Colossus? Reavers are stronger when you upgrade their scarab damage, Double the splash damage for I believe 200/200!! WOW!! THINK OF THE MASS EFFECT!!!

Colossus.. OMG they shoot in a horizontal line... But what if all the units line up vertically... OMG THEY ARE SO INEFFECTIVE THEN!! Such a variable attack!!

Ugh, wth is the point to all this anymore?

FrozenArbiter
11-06-2009, 10:59 PM
Yes, because Interceptors don't already drain your bankroll like a bad heroin addiction, let's make them REALLY sting ;p

Jabber Wookie
11-06-2009, 11:03 PM
Yes, because Interceptors don't already drain your bankroll like a bad heroin addiction, let's make them REALLY sting ;p

I would argue that they don't really drain your bankroll. I mean come on, 15 minerals per unit isn't really damaging your mineral income especially since when you reach the point that you can build carriers you typically have an enormous mineral income.

FrozenArbiter
11-06-2009, 11:44 PM
Interceptors die like flies to mass upgraded 3-3 goliaths on hold, and they cost 25 minerals a piece actually ;o

It's alright when you have a few running bases, but quite often getting carriers involves making some trade-offs in terms of economy (ie you'll lose a base in the process of getting them, or you are getting them because you are losing the ground war etc).

Of course, I'm not arguing that massed carriers aren't really, really strong, because they are!

Lucius_Raecius
11-06-2009, 11:58 PM
Just a thought, though. Isnt saying Carriors have X+X HP and X+X Shields abit Erroneous when even though you may have more interceptors, you dont need to kill them all before you kill the carrier?

newcomplex
11-07-2009, 12:18 AM
Squid, carriers are not imbalanced. This is not some figure of vague mathcraft, this is a fact, supported by mid to high level tier gaming.

The only time carriers are viable is super lategame, in which they are drastically overwhelmed by terran lategame.

Josue
11-07-2009, 12:29 AM
Well well well.
Hmm, let's see: considering DemolitionSquid's (D.S.) definition of balance:




Well well well, youv'e got a valid point.
Correct me if I'm wrong. Carriers come with the 8 interceptors upgrade by default in SC2 besides of already 4 when built at stargate.

I know nothing is perfect in this world, in your judgment, how balanced is SC1 from 1 to 10?


I believe that's correct.

I have two numbers, based on how you want to define balanced.

Is balance: the game playable, each race have an about equal chance to win on licensed maps?

Then, 9.5.

Is balance: every unit is useful, each race have an equal chance to win without map restrictions?

Then, 4.

I believe that every unit should be viable. Not all the time, in every matchup, of course. But there shouldn't be units we only see once every 1000 games. I also believe that final balance should not be determined by the map, and things those maps must have like chokes and cliffs.

Many people disagree with me, and that's OK. But to claim SC is "perfect" when clearly its not just by looking at the near uselessness of a unit like the Scout or the variability of the Carrier... that's absurd.

I guess D.S. focuses his arguments within his 2nd definition of what "balanced" means while most of the people seem to think something like the 1'st when "balance" is on the board.
He does have a valid point when he states that "there shouldn't be units we only see once every 1000 games" because that makes sense, a unused unit is a unit nobody likes and must be because it has a boring gameplay style and/or is worthless. However, even if SC2 is to be more balanced than SC1, "perfection" is always one step ahead from mankind. Now, Blizzard embraced the endeavor of making SC2 and they will do the effort, that's their challenge and their goal.

Now, going into the carrier issue: they fixed it being underpowered since they're spawned with 4 interceptors in SC2, however, let's analyze the Mass effect on the carrier (which can be countered with more ease than Proton Charge's "Mass effect": you must kill the probes which are sometimes God knows where the other guy expansion is!)

Following D.S. logic:
If someone goes for more than 3 carriers (let's say 5)
they're investing
5x




Carrier + 8 Interceptors
500 minerals
150 gas
300 + 320 hit points
150 + 320 shield points
64 damage


2500 minerals
750 gas

to have:

1500 hit points + 1600 hit points (interceptors*)
750 shield points + 1600shield points (interceptors*)
*(considering you're not clever enough to avoid attacking interceptors and try to focus your fire in a single carrier)

and a whopping 320 damage (which of course isn't dealt "at once").

if we translate that into Goliaths it would be:



100 minerals
50 gas
125 hit points
20explosive(100% to large -read carrier- units) damage

at that price you could have
2500/100=25
750/50=15
at least 15 goliaths (due to gas, let's pardon the other 10). wich gives us that we outnumber that bunch of carriers at least 3 to 1! and we still have lots of minerals to have some 20 marines! (2500-1500=1000 , 1000/50=20)
Maybe if you could have 12 Goliaths and a ghost you could lockdown one or two carriers! and, you know, just focus fire on them, they're dead. Or use a Sience Vessel to cast EMP shockwave into them!


We must be forgetting something. Indeed!
1 we're not taking upgrades (excepting the Carrier capacity) into account AND
whoever exceeds your resources to be able to "waste" a quantity like 2500 M 750G must mean that
A) if you don't have a simmilar quantity, he must have a greater income per second.
B) thus having more expansions than you.
C) or he harassed to blast enough damage to your economy (Doesn't it sound like, you know, something like David Kim and his addiction to "Terrible terrible damage"?).


Now let's increase the bet with 12 carriers:




with 12 carriers you get:
12x


Carrier + 8 Interceptors
500 minerals
150 gas
300 + 320 hit points
150 + 320 shield points
64 damage

6000 minerals
1800 gas
3600 hit points
1800 shield points

6000 minerals! and clearly, at that rate, you must have more than 1800 gas. so, with such quantities, I don't think it's impossible to have 12 Battlecruisers, and with the Yamato Gun upgraded (we're counting on Carriers having the 8 interceptors upgraded).
You know 12 Battlecruisers can win against 12 carriers, specially with the Yamato Gun, with some micro (select 2 BC cast yamato to a carrier, you may end up 12 vs 6 or in the worst case 10 vs 7) they can decimate them if they don't go very carefully!
Now don't say SC1 Battlecruiser is OP. SC2 may well be (it's quite beefed up compared to the SC1 one)

Zerg could have a harder time with Hydralysks, however it's not impossible for them. Besides, Scourge are quite a good counter against carriers, since (unlike Battecruisers) interceptors tend to swarm into the target to attack it thus taking some time focusing fire on them therefore not killing Scourges as fast as BC (have you tried to focus fire into a tiny scourge with all those interceptors swarming and moving like hell? you may misclick into one of your own interceptors!).





with all that said, I think that "Mass effect" is more a situational and a psychological effect than a real effect: the carrier is not that much unless you stare at them and attack interceptors. Besides, there are many ways to counter them. if we talk about psychological effect, Carrier's bark is worse than their bite: the first time I saw them in my entire life (in a Zerg mission) their mere appearance: with those things swarming around it like bees to a honeycomb, I must confess I was scared. later I learned they are weak, just send some scourges making sure they don't get distracted with interceptors and they're history.

Nicol Bolas
11-07-2009, 01:41 AM
It's alright when you have a few running bases, but quite often getting carriers involves making some trade-offs in terms of economy (ie you'll lose a base in the process of getting them, or you are getting them because you are losing the ground war etc).

And why is it that getting Carriers requires these tradeoffs? Because they cost too much. If every Carrier didn't have a +200 mineral price tag before it became even slightly useful, then maybe you wouldn't have this either/or with Carriers (either you go suicide-Carriers, or you get no Carriers).


You know 12 Battlecruisers can win against 12 carriers, specially with the Yamato Gun, with some micro (select 2 BC cast yamato to a carrier, you may end up 12 vs 6 or in the worst case 10 vs 7) they can decimate them if they don't go very carefully!

12 BCs requires 3600 gas, 2x the quantity needed for 12 Carriers. If you're going even money for even money, where is the Protoss's equivalent of that gas? If it's Arbiters, then the Terrans lose by default, as a little Stasis goes a long way. And 6 BCs vs 12 Carriers isn't dangerous either.

Josue
11-07-2009, 08:37 AM
And why is it that getting Carriers requires these tradeoffs? Because they cost too much. If every Carrier didn't have a +200 mineral price tag before it became even slightly useful, then maybe you wouldn't have this either/or with Carriers (either you go suicide-Carriers, or you get no Carriers).



12 BCs requires 3600 gas, 2x the quantity needed for 12 Carriers. If you're going even money for even money, where is the Protoss's equivalent of that gas? If it's Arbiters, then the Terrans lose by default, as a little Stasis goes a long way. And 6 BCs vs 12 Carriers isn't dangerous either.

Hmm, well, right, the Arbiter can turn the tables, but let's see:
Arbiter tribunal is 200M 150G, the Stasis Field research is 150M 150G and the Arbiter itself 100M 350G . So, granted they didn't invest it in something else protoss must have an aditional 450M and 650G. with it the Battlecruisers could have a Sience vessel with EMP shockwave to help, or protoss could have used it to create archons, it just depends on who has more resources to pay for this or that and whether they invested it on it or not.
However it's still situational, in the Goliath example, all those Goliaths could have been scattered in between several places thus becoming not only uneffective, but also easily destroyed and wasted.

Now to my idea. Several things have been said about Carriers. I don't think they're as Overpowered as stated, but they have certain issues I think we must address:




Alternatively, how about changing the Interceptor's health so that they are often killed in combat, perhaps even eliminating shields or eliminating the healing process that happens in the carrier.

In StarCraft, you could build Carriers, fill them up, and your interceptors would die about once every ten minutes of combat, unless you were up against Goliaths.

1.- Interceptors heal while inside the carrier! that should not happen! why? it's simple: protoss are not supposed to be able to repair themselves excepting shields, it's their racial characteristic.



As for the Carrier, the first thing I'd do is weaken the Interceptors a bit, because I mean, yeah, they can only operate within a limited range (up to 12 distance from the Carrier, although 12 isn't to be sneezed at either), you're paying Zergling money, for something with almost three times the Hp, twice the damage less production time, no supply cost, that can fly (which is important in a melee), oh, and they don't drag on your main unit production either.

2.- Once again Cost efectiveness makes it look overpowered. I think that 30/30 interceptors would be better, specially if they don't heal while inside the carrier. Let's make it even better: interceptor's shields also take full damage from all attacks just like in StarCraft 1, which is fair considering the new damage modifier system.


Carrier's alternative cargo (http://sclegacy.com/forums/showthread.php?t=200)
well seeing that thread I think that there could be another interesting option:
having a scarab style ground suicide interceptors that cost 25M 5G!
(there was a similar unit in StarCraft sickel add on named the "subcarrier" instead of the reaver)
well, still weaker and auto repair removed, quite good!
3.- Carriers don't seem to have changed too much, they need something to spice them up. Blizzard tried things like those escorts but they seemed unlucky. Reading the Carrier's alternative cargo thread this idea was the trigger:


Suggestion 2
1. Interceptors (same as before)
2. Scarabs (1 use only and requires constant manufacturing; either ATG only or targets both)


Well, what I propose is this: Bring back the Shurikens! but keep the carrier the way it was in SC1. Only change it's cargo:

1.-Classic interceptors: 25M (with the fixes already stated in points 1 and 2)
2.-Shurikens: 10M 5G (Scarab Styled suicidal interceptors (melee AtG only!) )

Shurikens would not attack automatically, you will have 2 extra slots for them. you will have to issue a "launch shuriken" command, but they will be able to attack only ground with it and you would only have 2 Shurikens (10M 5G each) to spend, having to make more afterward.

Just to give them some stats they should be 40/40 (but granted their shields also take full damage like the interceptors ) since they're suicidal melee AtG units, their attack could deal 70 damage (+35 to massive) to their target and 35% (24 + 12 to massive) be splashed in a small radius.
That would make carriers a lot better against ground (Specially Massive units like the Ultralisk, Thor and Colossus) while keeping them useful against air.


Now, maybe the shuriken part could create balance problems, however the 1st and 2nd point are quite important!

unentschieden
11-07-2009, 08:47 AM
That is the point though. Actual balance that decides matches is too complex to be solved in a mathematical equation.
Comparing PC to MULE is a lot like comparing Battlecruisers to Carriers. You canīt just put them next to each other and see how they perform since the is the whole rest of the game messing stuff up.

Norfindel
11-07-2009, 09:26 AM
It's no secret that i disagree about this.

There wasn't anything wrong with the Carrier, the problem was in the countering units. Scouts, and Wraiths were the shit about HP, and had no armor at all, and the damage system don't allowed increased attacks against this kind of unit. Ground counters like the Goliath and the Dragoon, get hindered by terrain. However, you can destroy Carriers pretty fast with Dragoons in the open. Surely with Goliaths too.

You can think of the Carrier as an air Siege Tank. If you stand in shooting range, you die. If you shoot the attacker, they die.

About Carriers vs BCs: anyone that has been in this situation knows that you better start using some spellcasters to turn the odds of the battle, as the Carrier sucks against the BC in BW. The best you can do, is trying to keep out of range, Stasis half of the BCs, or Storm them. It gets worse with upgrades and numbers.

Krikkitone
11-07-2009, 10:36 AM
Carriers are balanced.

They are balanced around being full. Because there is a limit to how many Interceptors they have.

Because of that Cap, that the player controls (as in whether or not they reach it), they DON'T have mass effect, they are just more expensive than they initially seem.

(in the same way that PC does not involve mass effect because it is Capped at Mineral Saturation.. which the player controls whether or not to reach)

Pandonetho
11-07-2009, 01:31 PM
About Carriers vs BCs: anyone that has been in this situation knows that you better start using some spellcasters to turn the odds of the battle, as the Carrier sucks against the BC in BW. The best you can do, is trying to keep out of range, Stasis half of the BCs, or Storm them. It gets worse with upgrades and numbers.

BCs will never ever win against any half competent Protoss player in SC1.

Carriers are just too fast, while being able to attack and move while outranging the BCs the whole entire time. The only chance Terran has is to use yamato, and even then it takes 2 just to kill 1.

DemolitionSquid
11-07-2009, 01:32 PM
I love the mess I cause.

Muh hahaha.

Pandonetho
11-07-2009, 01:37 PM
I love the mess I cause.

Muh hahaha.

Don't flatter yourself, Archer is second to none.

ArcherofAiur
11-07-2009, 01:40 PM
Don't flatter yourself, Archer is second to none.


Woot!





That is the point though. Actual balance that decides matches is too complex to be solved in a mathematical equation.
Comparing PC to MULE is a lot like comparing Battlecruisers to Carriers. You canīt just put them next to each other and see how they perform since the is the whole rest of the game messing stuff up.

Great post.

Norfindel
11-08-2009, 09:55 AM
BCs will never ever win against any half competent Protoss player in SC1.

Carriers are just too fast, while being able to attack and move while outranging the BCs the whole entire time. The only chance Terran has is to use yamato, and even then it takes 2 just to kill 1.
Don't worry, just aim for the Protoss base, that will make for an interesting hit-and-run battle, while he tries to destroy your BCs before his base is destroyed. Or, he could Stasis and/or Storm the BCs. I think that the last method is more likely to leave his base in one piece.

Josue
11-09-2009, 11:25 AM
Battlecruisers, just by themselves are stronger than carriers.
However,I think a skilled protoss player can get more juice from carriers than this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8jDExDcPMw
n8jDExDcPMw
of course with micro, but I don't think it will be enough.
Support from Arbiters and High tempars is really needed to turn the tide of the battle, thus demonstrating this once again:

That is the point though. Actual balance that decides matches is too complex to be solved in a mathematical equation.
Comparing PC to MULE is a lot like comparing Battlecruisers to Carriers. You canīt just put them next to each other and see how they perform since the is the whole rest of the game messing stuff up.
Every unit may seem overpowered by itself but once you put it within the game, the synergy it has with every single unit and game feature is what makes it balanced. In this example: Since protoss have more expensive units, the carriers become less spawned if you already had some troops.

EDIT
and for those who said Mind Control was a unuseful novelty seen only once every 1000 games: behold

Grand Theft Carrier (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdzETf-0-l8)
OdzETf-0-l8

Norfindel
11-09-2009, 06:31 PM
Battlecruisers, just by themselves are stronger than carriers.
However,I think a skilled protoss player can get more juice from carriers than this:
[...]
of course with micro, but I don't think it will be enough.
Support from Arbiters and High tempars is really needed to turn the tide of the battle.
I agree. The Protoss could do a lot better if he retreats the Carriers a little, to get them out of range. Their attack range is larger than their sight range, but Interceptors provide sight, so Carriers always are closer than optimal when they begin their attack.

This should be a lot more even now than the Battlecruiser has several relatively weak attacks, and the Carrier has 12 range. Still, not the most optimal way of taking down Battlecruisers (or Carriers, for the other player). That's what the Vikings, Void Rays, and Corrupters are supposed to do well.

Operatoring
11-11-2009, 03:01 AM
Question. Do you think Carriers were overpowered in SC1? I assure you they weren't.

What makes you think they are overpowered in SC2? I agree the unit should be scrapped, but not because of possible imba. It should be scrapped because it's boring a trite. In SC1 the Independence Day factor was amazing. Now it's old.