Carrier Changes

[DemolitionSquid]

if carriers are so broken, why dont people make fleets of carriers instead of deathballs of colossi/warpgate units?

Wouldn't we see a trend of mass victories for the protoss via Carrier spam? Has not enough time passed for the OPness of carriers to emerge?

I have NEVER EVER said the Carrier was overpowered. I have said it was imbalanced. Whenever I said "If the Carrier is balanced at 4 Interceptors, then it cannot be at 5, or 2, or 8," that was an example, and was not in any way saying the Carrier is acctually balanced at any of those numbers. Looking at the numbers The_Blade provided, it certainly appears the Carrier may not even become balanced until well above its current 8 Interceptors, let alone overpowered.

[TheEconomist]

Whenever I said "If the Carrier is balanced at 4 Interceptors, then it cannot be at 5, or 2, or 8," that was an example, and was not in any way saying the Carrier is acctually balanced at any of those numbers.

Kind of like saying none of the units are balanced if they have upgrades, i.e. ridiculous. In fact, it's a core fundamental problem of logic that really goes without saying.

[Kimera757]

Kind of like saying none of the units are balanced if they have upgrades, i.e. ridiculous. In fact, it's a core fundamental problem of logic that really goes without saying.

I disagree with this point actually.

The amount you spend on upgrades and the benefits are set. You can't suddenly lose upgrades because marines randomly picked one unit to attack instead of another one.

[Alar]

DSquid agrees with me.

This is a weird day indeed.

[SebiAlex]

What they have to change, as DS said, it to remove the insta death of the interceptors when the carrier dies.

If you played C&C think about air units and airfields. The carrier should work like a mobile airfield. The interceptors should have 'fuel' and if the carrier dies, they can still attack anything in site until their fuel runs out, and at that moment they should find a carrier with less than full capacity to dock (this can have a set range, 15-20 or even the hole map). If they can't find any, then they die.

With this, the carrier could be made so that it costs 0 supply, since an empty carrier is useless (kinda like an overlord with no ventral sacs, it can scout but that's it).

It can have a max of 6 interceptors (buffed to match the current 8 dps/hp), and each interceptor takes 1 supply, keeping the current 6 supply for a fully operation carrier. If you loose 4 interceptors, you can either build them back or make zealots or other units.

This way you can have extra carriers, floating behind an army at 200/200, with the sole purpose of being fall back sites for carrierless interceptors.

Base carrier cost and interceptor cost would have to be played with to find a sweet spot.

[The_Blade]

I'm proud of the modding community:

[Rake]

So, rather than discuss if the carrier can be balanced or not, I would like to hear ideas on whether you think a unit using attack range - leash range would be worthwhile.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=1Rqx8s2qKXM

Do you think that, for example, a carrier with invulnerable interceptors would be a good addition to the game? Or perhaps another kind of unit with similar mechanics?

[GnaReffotsirk]

It will be good if there's a counter to it and that the potential strength of having to chase a far target or be forced to retreat from a persistent damage source that cannot be stopped directly.

It's like say a psi storm that as long as the templar is channeling at an area, the storm will keep on hitting there.

Of course carrier mechanics would be different, yes, but as long as it can be countered or if it does what it's meant to do without making the opponent totally helpless, then I say why not?

But then again, I'd love more micro mechanics getting back into SC. Especially unit micro, where one can optimize a unit and give it % more effectiveness by giving attention to it in battle.