Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 52

Thread: Why not give the Carrier a weakened planet-cracker?

  1. #31

    Default Re: Why not give the Carrier a weakened planet-cracker?

    Quote Originally Posted by horror View Post

    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.
    Agreed that the Mothership needs more "oomph", but I do not agree that the Fleet beacon is not viable.
    For anyone going VR as their starting strat, there is no harm in keeping them, esp when using Immortals in conjunction. This combo can be really strong in PvP.

    Since you're already getting a bunch of VR, to make them more effective why not get the Fleet Beacon and upgrade flux vanes?

    Also, since when is the Twilight Council not viable? You need it for zealot speed, and if your army is stalker heavy, blink is a cheap upgrade (150/150) to get. Makes your stalkers that much stronger. Also, TC can enable you to unlock HT tech which is your lifeline in PvZ.

  2. #32

    Default Re: Why not give the Carrier a weakened planet-cracker?

    Quote Originally Posted by protoswarrior View Post
    Agreed that the Mothership needs more "oomph", but I do not agree that the Fleet beacon is not viable.
    .
    I think he is right,Fleet Beacon's ridiclous cost 300/200 makes it a pretty big obstacle...

  3. #33
    Pandonetho's Avatar SC:L Addict
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    5,214

    Default Re: Why not give the Carrier a weakened planet-cracker?

    As we have seen, the Carrier is extremely underused. This ability would give a carrier the option to wipe out a mineral line, deal 1200 damage to a single building in 5 seconds or deal mobile AoE on the battlefield.
    1200? Dude a Thor only does 500 to a building in 6 seconds. Don't you think 1200 is a little OP for a flying unit?

  4. #34

    Default Re: Why not give the Carrier a weakened planet-cracker?

    [QUOTE=Pandonetho;82702]1200? Dude a Thor only does 500 to a building in 6 seconds.QUOTE]
    Thors deal about the same damage in 6 seconds with regular attack...,but yeah 1200 is just crazy ,Carrier will probably fit better with a debuff not a DPS skill...Interceptors are very strong already....

  5. #35

    Default Re: Why not give the Carrier a weakened planet-cracker?

    When you begins suggestions with "Why not", you've already failed :/

    Posting suggestions is trying to covey why. Not "why not". Why not give ultralisk lazer beams?

    I mean...WHY NOT?

  6. #36
    Pandonetho's Avatar SC:L Addict
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    5,214

    Default Re: Why not give the Carrier a weakened planet-cracker?

    Really... why not? It sounds like a stellar idea to me. I say we suggest it to Blizzard!

    Then we could have ultralisks to battle those pesky ninja bears that shoot lasers out of their eyes (the ones that invaded mortor!)

  7. #37

    Default Re: Why not give the Carrier a weakened planet-cracker?

    Seems kinda pointless to me.

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


    The Mother of all Queens!

    Thanks to Dynamik- for the signature!

  8. #38
    SCpollo's Avatar Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    25

    Default Re: Why not give the Carrier a weakened planet-cracker?

    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
    Last edited by SCpollo; 04-19-2010 at 03:22 PM.

  9. #39
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    157

    Default Re: Why not give the Carrier a weakened planet-cracker?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pandonetho View Post
    1200? Dude a Thor only does 500 to a building in 6 seconds. Don't you think 1200 is a little OP for a flying unit?
    I meant a group of twelve carriers. That was a little unclear.

  10. #40
    horror's Avatar Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    169

    Default Re: Why not give the Carrier a weakened planet-cracker?

    Quote Originally Posted by SCpollo View Post
    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
    Being reasonable, you wonder why Blizzard doesn't throw the GTA shield into the mix in one of the patches. It would make the Carrier at least seem a bit more attractive to those unfamiliar with it

    Quote Originally Posted by arthas View Post
    I think he is right,Fleet Beacon's ridiclous cost 300/200 makes it a pretty big obstacle...
    Not only that, but the only thing it seems people want from it now is either mass Carrier or Flux Vanes. They only come when a player is going straight for the throat. I'd like to see, say, Carrier rush every now and again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aldrius View Post
    Seems kinda pointless to me.

    People just don't seem to use the Stargate that often in general.
    Yeah, Protoss needs a whole work over in that department. You only ever see 1 every so often.

Similar Threads

  1. The great Carrier debacle
    By Wankey in forum StarCraft Discussion
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 02-21-2010, 10:18 PM
  2. Old Carrier vs New Carrier
    By ArcherofAiur in forum StarCraft Discussion
    Replies: 227
    Last Post: 02-02-2010, 03:26 PM
  3. Carrier death => suicidal Interceptors
    By n00bonicPlague in forum StarCraft Discussion
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: 11-18-2009, 01:18 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •