Carrier Escorts

@ BoP, I ain't the one who pulled out the "panic button" label. You you're comment should be directed elsewhere.

@ Hex, No, the two are not the same. You seem to think that you are just getting the same result of increased damage output, only by a different method without effecting anything else. You are wrong, their impact on the game is not the same. Because you failed to consider beyond immediate and superficial effects, you can't understand why one is later in tech/timing than the other.

Do you even know the meaning of the bolded word as it pertains to games?

If you are going for 8 Interceptors w/ overload, you then must decide if they are to be preloaded or built individually, and if they are targetable/destructible. Going for individually built(SC1 style) Interceptors, would make it worse because it's later. Two people ride the same tech and pulling Carriers at the same time. One with overload and one with Escorts. The realistic timing at which these two types of Carriers becoming useful in the game are different. The overload Carriers must build its Interceptors from scratch, where as, the Escort Carriers are fully function in 4 seconds if need be. No difference? I don't think so, it's quite a big difference.

If you go the other route of making all Interceptors pre-loaded, you are then faced with the question of whether the Carrier would be a little too good. If there was no point in having to build them, why was such a mechanic even built into the Carrier in the first place. In any case, the Escort Carrier provides a good middle ground. Greatly increased functionality without weakening the Carrier, the only thing Blizzard introduced as a balance measure is careful management the part of the player.

And... OMG, Protoss had more than one Archon? Zerg had more than one unit that could mutate/evolve? Really? And you do know that you are mentioning unit naming schemes and universal mechanics to refute my concern on a redundant use of the mechanic of a specific ability on a single unit right? That's not unlike countering someone's concern of Jackal's linear AoE being similar to the Lurker with something like "there are units in the game, can they not have more?" Stay in contex if you want to discuss/debate, I ain't stroking the keys just so I can be king of the hill at the end of the day.

@ Psionicz, Just how many Carriers vs what kind of player are you talking about where you just rob the opposing player of his micro and win the game? Carrier is only somewhat useful when using to focus fire. The only fire that you can draw away with Interceptors against any competent player is from their static D, which, doesn't require micro in the first place.

 

PvP. I had 3 Carriers some Goons and Zealots but he had quite a few cannons and Dragoons.
Interceptors flying everywhere gives the chance of the other player misclicking and the units which he hasn't set to attack will be attacking the Interceptors as they are attacking it. Basically it distracts projectiles and clicks.

 

Instead of just giving the carrier more interceptor capacity, Blizzard just makes something a bit useless. All the escorts do are just make the carrier more appealing to the fans with a weird ability.

 

The carrier may get slightly more killing power in exchange for being a bunch of resources tied into a relatively easier killed unit. Wrong move on this one Blizzard. The awesomeness of the Carrier was when it was used with other units. It forces the enemy to take the Carrier's out first while a crapload of dragoons and zeals hide underneath the swarm tearing the place up.

 

The Escorts are bought one at a time for a certain amount of resources, right? They increase the fire-power of the Carrier, right? They're temporary, right? They take about one second to produce, correct? Explain how the cost, increased fire-power, duration and build time cannot be merged with the suggested idea. In can, and fairly easily at that.
Say that each Escort increases the fire-power of the Carrier, as a whole, by 25. That means that having four Escorts would increase it by 100. Let's say they cost 25 minerals each, and we know they take a second to produce and last for 45 seconds.
Now, for the suggested idea, the Overload ability could have four stages, each costing 25 minerals. Each stage would increase the fire-power of the Interceptors as a whole, not each individual one, by 25. When all four stages have been commenced they'd increase it by 100. It takes a second to charge up, and lasts 45 seconds.
It's the same. Indestructible or destructible Interceptors and Interceptor limit don't really matter when it comes to this ability. The fact is that this ability works in the same way as the Escorts. Whether they give it another four Interceptors or make them indestructible is basically up to them and their balancing, and they both apply to the Carriers with the Escort ability as well.
As for the Archons, mutations and Overload. They are all abilities. Both types of Templar have the Archon Warp ability. Both the Mutalisk and Hydralisk had the ability to mutate. Both the Phoenix and Carrier can have an Overload. Having similar abilities helps unite the team, whereas having abilities that go completely against that team's style or mentality helps split up the team.

 

That's quite a mouthful... I guess your point kind of does make a bit of sense.

 

No it's not the same Hex. I'm beginning to question your reading comprehension.

It impacts the game differently because it effects the timing at which the Carrier is available in the game, and if they are viable to Protoss players when they're in a pinch.

If all you can see is increased damage output but not the actual profound benefit of the mechanic itself, you are lost.

 

How does it effect the timing? And what is the actual profound benefit of the Escorts if it's not to increase the damage output?

 

The current changes have a major effect on timing. Right now you can have a fully functional Carrier in 4 seconds. In the old game each Inceptor took 20 seconds game time to build multiply that by 8 and thats 160 seconds. So assuming both of those are game seconds the new Carriers take 1/40 the time to be fully amred after construction than the old Carriers. Thats Remy's point.

 

If that's what Remy is talking about then he totally missed the point. Itza was never comparing the SC2 current carrier to the SC1 carrier (or the old SC2 one without abilities, for that matter). He was suggesting an alternative to the escorts, namely, an increase in damage for regular interceptors. Itza's carriers would do the same dps as carriers with escorts, just in a different way, simple as that.

I would prefer Itza's idea because that wouldn't break the unity of 8 identical little ships, while the escorts would basically divide the attack force into 2 distinct groups.

 

Indeed, I agree with Kuvasz. As much as I hate fighting against Carriers (I don't like Protoss), I find the carrier with the swarming interceptors very cool. With the reduced number of interceptors, we will lose that fantastic mess of interceptors we always enjoyed (or feared). Again, I alway thought of the Carrier as an OP unit, I dont think it needs any more power or abilities. Escort? Use a real escort, Like Phoenix.

 

Thats why I proposed 8 interceptors and the eescorts hanging around outside the carrier. You would have that swarm aspect still there but be ableto suplement the carrier's firepower.

 

why don't players just build other ships, instead of massing carriers and using their escort ability. If players used a mix fleet that could handle both ground and air, they wouldn't need to use escorts.

 

The problem here is that with 4 interceptors the carrier is gimped. To make the carriers actually be useful requires you to buy escorts.

I think the carrier should have a capitalship level attack without having to use this ability

 

I don't really care what happens. Blizzard will make a fine decision in the end.

 

if you think so, how do you think you can contribute to discussions


i think the 8 interceptors should come back, and be powered down a LITTLE, and the escorts should stay and max wouuld be 2

 

I guess they need our feedbacks to make the game something we like. If they wouldn't care about the opinion of the crowds, noone would buy the game, and we would think that there are only selfish developers at Blizzard.
I think they are reading the forums, at least someone.. So I am sure they will change this new ability.

 

Kuvasz if you think Remy missed the point then you aren't understanding why he thinks the Escorts are better. I am only using Sc1 numbers because that is all that is available. But assuming the overload idea means the Carrier has to build all 8 Interceptors reseearch the increased Interceptor capacity and the Overload ability, While the current Carrier only has to be built and it can build the Escorts. In Sc1 Carriers took 140 game seconds to build and 8 interceptors took 160 game seconds to build on top of that (we can assume the reserach was done concurrently with this, so it really doesn't matter). Assuming the current Carrier has the same build time and Escorts only take 1 game second to build the current Carriers would only take 144 game seconds to work at its strongest state. Thats 300 gmae seconds to 144 game seconds, really think about that for a second. Assuming Overload with 8 interceptors is the same thing as 4 Interceptors and 4 Escorts thats a huge difference in time needed to deploy a fleet of fully armed Carriers. That is Remy's point if everything else between the Overload ability and the Escort the ability are the same the Escort ability is still better because of this time difference.

 

I think that the carrier should get its 4 interceptors as soon as it comes out, but then you get the option to make either a) 4 more regular interceptors, or b) 4 (max) escorts that cost 3x as much and slightly easier to hit than regular interceptors. Both would have the same build time.

 

@LordKerwyn

Who says the carrier can't come preloaded with an overload type mechanic?