Why not give the Carrier a weakened planet-cracker?

[Triceron]

It's just an idea, but we need something to beef up the Carrier.

No, we don't need anything to beef up the carrier. Crit mass carriers are already very dangerous.

[arthas]

I were trying to pull a joke there.((
Oh, I should have written "to shoot Lings to check the Yamato splash"

And it's a good thing - because Rays(and many others, say, Zealots) would be totally owned by Yamato.

Well now they are owned by the cheaper Ravens with Seeker missiles aren't they? ...

Also i think carriers,should get some sort of a beam weapon(that requires energy) that doesn't actually deal damage but increases damage taken by the units that are hit by the ability what do you think?

[Sietsh-Tenk]

Well now they are owned by the cheaper Ravens with Seeker missiles aren't they? ...

Also i think carriers,should get some sort of a beam weapon(that requires energy) that doesn't actually deal damage but increases damage taken by the units that are hit by the ability what do you think?

I like the last one. And sure, Triceron, if you get a critical mass of Carriers they are unstoppable, but by definition anything you get a critical mass of is unstoppable. It's a non-argument.

Fact of the matter is, I've rarely seen Carriers in any matchup. Maybe I've been watching the wrong replays, but an expensive late-game domination unit should be able to exactly do that: dominate. Of course, it should be counterable, but there are plenty of units that can counter mass Carriers. Just like in SC1, if a unit is good (like the Carrier was, it showed up tons of times in PvT to break proper defense), it doesn't mean it's OP. If you never see a unit used, it needs to be buffed or might as well not be there. The Ghost was almost never used in SC1. Did they buff it? Yes. Because it was necessary. Now it's being used.

I hope they will restore the Carrier to its former glory.

[Sietsh-Tenk]

I really love the shield-battery idea. But if put on the Carrier, it would delegate it more to a tactical support role, rather than widening the scope of its strategic possibilities. Still, it's more creative than my own 'Let's put a big gun on it!".

Also, follow the ongoing controversy on my rant about Robert Kotick, CEO of Activision-Blizzard and official douchebag of the year/month/day:

The initiation:

http://sclegacy.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3580

The aftermath:

http://sclegacy.com/forums/showthrea...1903#post81903

[Triceron]

Lack of seeing a unit used regularly in games is not a compelling reason to add a new spell or ability.

Abilties are added to units for a reason, a purpose. Carriers already attack air/ground, have a fairly long range, mess up AI targetting with many interceptors and are very potent late-game units. They don't need to fire off giant beams under them - that's what making Void Rays is for. They don't need to debuff enemy units.

Carriers don't need more incentives. They're not usually seen in games because their tech requirement is high, not because they don't have enough use in the battlefield.

[protoswarrior]

I think carrier build time should be decreased to encourage it's use. Give it the same cost, but reduce production time. I have seen carriers in SC2 in good numbers and BOY are they powerful lol!

I won my last PvZ WITH carriers lol !

[Kknewkles]

Well now they are owned by the cheaper Ravens with Seeker missiles aren't they? ...

Also i think carriers,should get some sort of a beam weapon(that requires energy) that doesn't actually deal damage but increases damage taken by the units that are hit by the ability what do you think?

Ravens are ok with that)
I'd be more pleased with Carrier having a planet-cracker)

[Asfastasican]

I would love to see the carrier tip over forwards and aim its death ray straight into the earth.

It would probably immediately run itself into the ground, but oh wellz!

[SomePerson2314]

Sounds cool, i like it but, while the beam is under casting, the intercepters shouldn't be active until the beam is finished

[horror]

Kinda dumb. It's called Carrier because it carries stuff. It's not called Void Ray, or Battlecruiser. The main idea of the unit is that its a support unit. True, Carriers only work well when massed, but there aren't many units that are useful on their own without being massed. You don't see 5 Marauders running around the map on their own. They'll either be in larger numbers, or included into a mix.

As far as I can see, the concept of the Carrier is fine. It's just how people perceive it, that makes it so unattractive. It's not a one hit wonder, you have to throw it in a mix or mass.

Also, giving it a planet cracker would cross roles with the aforementioned units, Void Ray and Battlecruiser.


It's not the Carrier that needs changing here, but the Mothership. Fleet Beacon is currently, like the Twilight Council, not a very viable tech building to build.