Most reasonable players would never pick carriers over BCs. But interceptor tanking power is NOT negligable.
It’s pretty reasonable to assume that each carrier will produce 1 interceptor over the course of a fight, so that means that each carrier puts out 720 hp of interceptors. Importantly, these 720 hp are light and not massive, meaning they take less damage from thors*, Vikings, corruptors, and stalkers.
I don’t think carriers need massive buffs. They do their job decently well: straggler mop-up and buffering for powerful splash units and unfortunately necessary tempests.
If I were to suggest a buff to carriers I would think either giving interceptors a slightly wider flight pattern (to reduce splash) or to drop the mineral cost of interceptors back down to 10 or even 5 (since the build time nerf was a better idea from day 1).
The biggest problem with carriers is that they do their job well for Protoss and better for Zerg, since they break the standard rules of neural (I will be making another thread about this) since the protoss army will attack interceptors belonging to a neuralled carrier rather than attacking Zerg units.
Marauders don’t suck when massed…wtf lol. Yes, they cna’t shoot up which is a big deal but the slow and damage vs armored is pretty freaking strong. So is the high health pool that allows them to absorb banelings, storm, etc.
Marauders are criminally underused in the mid game by Terran.
I knew you would just ignore it. All the little Zerg kids ignore questions that hurt their little feelings.
I wonder how people can write little threads like “Terran is the least micro intensive race” without their hands cramping from all the B.S. Are we watching a different game? How on earth do you watch a Terran splitting against disruptors and come to the conclusion that it’s harder to throw out a few disruptor balls?
Well, because it is ? The unit is slower than stimmed bio, you also need to react on time to adjust it based on the opponent’s movement, while as a terran you just need to pull your units away.
It’s easier to react to something from which you have 2sc to split from than having 0.5-0.7sc to react to the terran’s army movement.
Yeah, sure. You can just throw them out. You don’t need to direct each one. Not to mention. You’re sending ONE ball, I’m splitting into 3 seperate packs.
Delusion at its finest.
“Terran micro is easier than Protoss.”
The ridiculous nonsense people can kid themselves into believing is astonishing.
I must say I was in the anti-toss camp for a while regarding TvP but seeing Heromarine reverse sweep Classic today made me question this. Between all the emp’s and widow mines it seems very hard for Protoss to enter good engagements without a lot of splash. While at the same time prioritizing Splash over Phoenixes makes it harder to deal with drops. Also the 2-base pushes seem okay atm and when they don’t work Terran still has mules which makes the eco gap not that huge even when the push fails (I didn’t think this way i initially but it was really noticable in these matches). In this light the charge nerf does feel a bit excessive. All in all I feel like the matchup is not that P favoured like I initially thought and is in a rather good spot balance wise.
Lol, I meant P sorry about that. Fixed. And Gabe did play amazing. Very well deserved. My thoughts are more about how my view of the MU in general changed these last couple days.
The matchup favors mostly terran in the opening and early mid game, toss in the mid game, and then terran again in the late game.
At the end of the day, terran marine/marauder/medivac can sadly compete with any composition of protoss ground units and it basically comes down to micro and tactics. However, again you’re talking about basic units (units available right away) competing with upgraded tier 2.5 units.
What you mean? There’s no rule to define tier, it’s just a convention, since it’s unit not so costly to a t3 and not so cheap to a t1 and you can get a decent amount of them in the mid game, I call that a t2 unit. Tempest you cannot have it early, consume lots of supply and it’s very expensive, t3 unit…
That is such a theory craft that almost never reflects to real game but ok, you wanted to add something to the discussion and that is valid. You gotta admit tough, the power difference of both units it’s not a few, it’s a HUGE difference and Carrier is the underpowered one.
Sure, the traits that the Carrier rely on are much worse in StarCraft II. Carriers cannot block pathing like Brood Lords, nor does Protoss have a way to keep enemy units back (other than threatening them with splash that may work against the Interceptors). Meanwhile Vikings and Thors aren’t really affected by the range, and Zerg can just abduct Carriers, Neural Carriers, or use Fungal to prevent escape.
It’s tricky to buff Carriers though because you cannot break the relationship between Corruptors vs. Carriers or Vikings vs. Carriers. That limits DPS increases unless you split the Interceptor’s air and ground weapons. Most other changes only improve Carriers in cases where the opponent goes after the Interceptors.
It’s useless fluff, that tends is often misused to try to claim that a unit is overpowered or underpowered with no basis in how the unit actually functions.
sorry about that. Fixed. And Gabe did play amazing. Very well deserved. My thoughts are more about how my view of the MU in general changed these last couple days.