dave333:
LOL that just made my day, doubting my grades. I'm your classic overachieving asian+more, don't doubt.
Yeah, I can tell. Arrogance and proof came with the package. Oh wait, only one of those did…
Jesus do I have to say things explicitly? You CAN get carriers, you will just die doing so. Whereas Void Rays, Collossi, and Sentries (especially sentries) are on the way of your tech path and will keep you safe. Where do you get the gas for all that? Idk man, void ray collossus with sentry/stalker support was pretty damn common. Still occasionally pops up but zerg aggression has been mostly shutting late game toss down.
You know, several posts ago (if you read it) I mentioned proof from at least 3 games. I still have yet to see that…from, quoting you, “competent players.”
This is totally true and is basically part of what I have been saying.. However, you can't just have the economy; you need to be able to stay alive. If you reach the point where you have a big economy and can go carriers, you can simply just make more collossus/upgrades/HTs/void rays whatever without investing in a huge amount of money that doesn't pay off till you have that sufficient amount of carriers. I already said this multiple times.
No, it hasn’t been any part of what you’ve been saying, and all you’ve been repeating is that Carriers are worthless and that’s why Blizzard kept them in the game unlike units such as the Lurker, and that Carriers are the only possible option.
This statement:
Instead of devoting a ton of money into carriers that don't pay off, you can just put that money into actual units and just go kill them.
and this one:
Here I am specifically discussing the costs of production of carriers. If you are on 3 base and producing as much as you can to build from robos and gateways and stargates too (I assume you already have a stargate), to build carriers you will have to cut down on building other stuff. And so the question is, are carriers worth it? Check my other posts, I said no
contradict this one, yet again:
Using economics to look at carriers is a good way of doing it. The opportunity cost of getting carriers is time and a lot of money that could be spent on collossi and templar, as well as upgrades, gateway units, etc. Essentially, money safety and units are what you are trading for carriers. In general, it is not worth getting carriers because the result of getting carriers isn't much better than just getting more collossi/HTs, and getting collossi/HTs/upgrades is safer and cheaper. What is the opportunity cost of Brood Lords/Ultralisks? More roaches? More lings? Simply put, Brood Lords and Ultralisks are actually good units compared to the rest of the zerg cast, getting them has lower opportunity cost, and they have a safer transition.
Because your implicit statement here is that getting Carriers only removes the ability to get other units, when the statements you just made on this page is it’s good to get other units, as you agreed with
Timbo’s hopeless slice. Also, please enlighten me – if I am wrong – how
Timbo’s hopeless slice also got the same impression as I did.
Also, don’t try to hide that the PFF you kept typing was a typo, it was a clearly an understanding mistake, as you typed it like that 3 times, and then when I say it’s actually PPF, again we have a long pause before a post before we see you acknowledge it and fix it. Now, how about acknowledging the match fixing scandal mistake?
So every time you choose to make a unit or build a structure, you have to cut down on something else.
This doesn’t seem like it was taken from an Econ 101 book or something…
And given that carriers aren't even necessairly better than Collossus/Void rays, as my earlier posts elaborate on, it's pretty much useless.
Then riddle me this (which I’ve asked 4 different times in 4 different posts now): Why did Blizzard keep it?
This discussion on carriers have gone sooo long, I'm pretty sure it's over. What is your conclusion on carriers? You have given none. I barely even know what you are arguing about at this point. I'm trying to say carriers are not worth it, you say I am wrong, but what are you trying to prove right?
The question above this quote. My conclusion agrees with
Timbo’s hopeless slice, but yours does not. If you have the time to get Carriers, and the game’s been drawn on that long, is there an incentive to get them? If there is, why are they not yet had? They’re useless? They don’t offer any decent support?
Oh, and to recall one of your other posts you said:
Brood Lords, ultras, carriers, and battlecruisers are all big expensive T3 units. The fundamental difference between them is that it is way easier to get a lot of ultras/brood lords, along with other available options.
But let’s look at that in one of the most nitty-gritty forms:
Hatchery > Lair > Spire > Hive > Greater Spire or Hatch > Lair > Hive > Ultralisk Cavern
Command Center > Barracks > Starport > Fusion Core (tech lab somewhere in there)
Nexus > Gateway > Cybernetics Core > Stargate > Fleet Beacon
Now, you also said:
It takes a long time to get to brood lords/ultras, but you can made 5+ at once when you have the money banked. The infrastructure is not as expensive either; just that one ultra den or that greater spire. You already have hatches. To get carriers or BCs, you need to invest in fusion core/fleet beacon, and if you want to get a good number of either without taking years, you need multiple stargates/starports.
Apparently the other two races don’t have Stargates/Starports when you’re making the Fleet Beacon or Fusion Core as you need the Ultralisk Cavern or Greater Spire…
Blizzard knows the units of other races are produced at a linear rate, there’s a reason why they’re very strong. A Battlecruiser or a Carrier destroy ground units faster than a Brood Lord. Thors one-shot Ultralisks with 250 mm Strike Cannons (assuming no regeneration) and do much better than that with just +1 Vehicle Upgrades (but of course the Armory isn’t required for Thors so they’ll never get that).
Okay I've decided to make this final statement on carriers. I think it's fairly moderate and accurate.
Carriers are useful in certain situations, but in most normal situations there are better alternatives than going carriers.
This statement contradicts Post #494 (you wrote that one), because you say that Carriers aren’t cost-efficient, but they’re somehow in certain cases unit-efficient:
So carriers are "useless".
Also, if I was trolling, you would know. But sarcasm from frustration and then reverting to real discussion is not trolling. If you need a guide on how to troll, you can find many on the internet.
You said Carriers are useless in situations because of their cost-efficiency, but they’re also useful in “certain situations” – please describe these. At least try to defend your point, even if it’s this small part this time. Repeating what we’ve stated, unless there’s something I missed, does not count.
soyizgood:
But the beauty of SC 2 is you can win in both conventional and unconventional ways.
Oh God, I went nostalgic right there remembering one of my greatest games when I expanded far out of my base and a Terran player cheesed me with me winning with mass Zerglings. Except this was SC1 back before they had Medics. Good times…
