Why not give the Carrier a weakened planet-cracker?

[Aldrius]

Yeah, Protoss needs a whole work over in that department. You only ever see 1 every so often.

Not really.

Just because people don't seem to get it all that often doesn't mean it's not good.

[horror]

Not really.

Just because people don't seem to get it all that often doesn't mean it's not good.

There are 4 units in that part of the tech tree. Blizzard apparently wants each unit to have its own specific role and individualism in each race. I don't see how neglecting 4 units to a scarcely used part of the tech tree is justifiable under these terms. It almost makes Protoss 4 units less than the other two races.

[Triceron]

They're perfectly available to you in tech and it is no different than Terrans ignoring Starport tech if they decide to go straight Mech.

Protoss Air is highly specialized in their roles. The fact is that with most versus matchups, you will not be faced with many situations where air is the best decision. Protoss army compositions (beyond T1) are highly dependent on knowing what your opponent is making. Air is generally a late-game tech option, while Robo or Templar tech are much more viable against T1/2 compositions.

This is not a case of neglecting a tree, rather that it's more practical to go Robo or Templar tech over air due to what you're more likely to face up against. Air is still great to use as hard-counters, army support and breaking ground-heavy forces.

[AegisKHAOS]

I got a GREAT idea for the carrier
Put an GTA shield under it, negating some damage which should give it a weakness to air. (no crit mass AKA takes no skill)

Color it blue for differentiation, make the interceptors shuriken like

Perhaps give it some dark templar origins since most of the templar were killed...

Call me Pollito el GeniusO

Genius! We shall call it the Tempest... oh, wait... nevermind. :P

Honestly, if we're here to encourage more use out of the carrier, the lack of use is not because it's a bad unit. The issue is that the Carrier is frickin' expensive, and that there are simply other cost effective alternatives to beating opponents. High on the tech tree, costs lots of resources, slow to produce, and takes up lots of psi. Adding a new ability to an already strong unit will not be enough to encourage people to use the thing more often. A number of stuff needs to be changed first before the carrier becomes a truly viable option.

[MattII]

Maybe you could make it better by allowing the Interceptors of a destroyed Carrier to rebase to the nearest Carrier with free space (provided said Carrier is within 8 spaces). In all honesty though, I'd rather drop the Carrier and replace it with something new, and maybe a bit more representative of the unity they're supposed to have.

[arthas]

Maybe you could make it better by allowing the Interceptors of a destroyed Carrier to rebase to the nearest Carrier with free space (provided said Carrier is within 8 spaces). In all honesty though, I'd rather drop the Carrier and replace it with something new, and maybe a bit more representative of the unity they're supposed to have.

Interceptors are robotic and take commands only from the carrier they have been launched,That's reason they are destroyed when the carrier dies...It's not that it's a bad idea,it just doesn't feel right...

[horror]

They're perfectly available to you in tech and it is no different than Terrans ignoring Starport tech if they decide to go straight Mech.

Compare, between a Terran player and a Protoss player, the percentage of times air tech is used. Terran tech is flexible; air is very viable. As soon as the player wants MediVacs, the path opens up easily, add-ons already made.

Protoss Air is highly specialized in their roles. The fact is that with most versus matchups, you will not be faced with many situations where air is the best decision. Protoss army compositions (beyond T1) are highly dependent on knowing what your opponent is making. Air is generally a late-game tech option, while Robo or Templar tech are much more viable against T1/2 compositions.

If that's fact, it's not smart. Why should one unit be more viable than another? You're saying that there's less chance the enemy is going down a certain path of tech, therefore there's the same chance deciding which tech the Protoss player goes down. Therefore, going down the Stargate tech is less likely. Therefore, units down that path aren't as viable. Therefore, they're being neglected, because their niche isn't as important as that of say, the Colossus.

This is not a case of neglecting a tree, rather that it's more practical to go Robo or Templar tech over air due to what you're more likely to face up against. Air is still great to use as hard-counters, army support and breaking ground-heavy forces.

Where are the hard counters, if air is that much less likely? I'd like someone to show me where a Mothership has ever peen practical, with its niche in the battlefield. I'd also like to see the Phoenix as a crucial part of an army, where it is cost effective, and not just a harassment or 'clean-up' unit.



All I'm saying is that there should be more reason for air tech in a Protoss mix. Why should the opponent decide the tech? Corsairs were made for more than just air superiority; their ability was very effective, which made it an all-rounded unit. The Arbiter, too, although requiring its own building, wasn't rare in the late game. It was even faster than some units.
Protoss air isn't what it could be.

[Norfindel]

Seems kinda pointless to me.

People just don't seem to use the Stargate that often in general.

Yes, and that's a problem for gameplay diversity. I mentioned that a few times by now.

[Aldrius]

I'd also like to see the Phoenix as a crucial part of an army, where it is cost effective, and not just a harassment or 'clean-up' unit.

Well, too bad, that's not what the unit is. That doesn't make it not viable. I never make Mutalisks intending to end the game with them either. And even if they could, it's not like Spire Tech comes with the Void Ray.

Corsairs were made for more than just air superiority

Not much more than that. And the Phoenix is used for more than that too.

The thing is, air superiority is A LOT more key in SC2 than it was in SC1. Void Rays, Mutalisks and Banshees can ruin your day if you don't hunt them down and destroy them. Anti-gravity is good too. AG a few units in an army and turn the tide in your favor. Use them with your army.

Yes, and that's a problem for gameplay diversity. I mentioned that a few times by now.

Except it's not the fault of GAME DESIGN. Well, except that the Robo Bay is way too powerful.

[coolswampert]

AGing units with a Phoenix is not very viable unless the opponent only had two or three anti-air units in their ground army. Phoenixes are too weak to take that many hits while trying to kill the AG units.

And a carrier can be a game changing unit if it's brought in at the right time, however, it's rare to find anyone who risks rushing carriers. They're mostly good for taking out ground armies, or overlord hunting if you've really got something against Phoenixes.

Protoss air is a viable choice, but it is in fact a choice. As Protoss, everything is much more costly, choices weigh heavier. You have to choose between massing a land army or an air army, and most players would choose the land army, simply because the units are cheaper and therefore more numerous.