carrier

[Mjolniir]

the carrier is in...and very weak...so much for the tempest design being scrapped

http://www.starcraft2.com/features/protoss/carrier.xml

i beat SC.org to it + rep me :D

[Protogod]

i beat SC.org to it + rep me :D

Its called being in a more convenient timezone than me. It went up this afternoon and I got home from school 5 minutes ago.

So stfu

[Anoiktos]

I preferred the tempest. But then, I'm one of those people who thinks the thor and mothership were good ideas. Probably something to do with being fine with change. (especially considering the nature of the protoss' loss of Aiur and new allegiance with the exiled tribes, and the terran's adaptive nature)

[Protogod]

I was most disappointed by the fact that it took 3 carriers to kill ONE FUCKING BC. Not only that, btut one carrier almost DIED in a 3v1.

This is an outrage.

[Terra]

I was most disappointed by the fact that it took 3 carriers to kill ONE FUCKING BC. Not only that, btut one carrier almost DIED in a 3v1.

This is an outrage.
Dont freak out that video was justing showing off the animations and graphics, as Karune said on the forums over at starcraft2.com:

The Carrier is not at all balanced in that video. The video is more showing off the animations involved in the Carrier's attack, so no need to worry about it being completely 'nerfed.'

[Borgorb]

You have to remember though a decent player would monitor the hp of his units and move the dammaged ones to the back to avoid dammage but still deal it
all that was is bad micro skills

btw the people doing the demonstrations are blizz workers not actual gamers

[Kellanved]

I was most disappointed by the fact that it took 3 carriers to kill ONE FUCKING BC. Not only that, btut one carrier almost DIED in a 3v1.

This is an outrage.
BCs have a base armor of 3, and interceptors do base damage of 6. BC effectively cuts carrier's damage in half, while the carrier cuts the BC damage by 16% with base stats. That is before their shields go down at the rate of 100%.

That is SC1 stats, but I'm sure Blizzard decided to perserve their nature.

[Anoiktos]

To above poster: Aye, Battlecruiser vs. Carrier fights have always been one-sided, not least because one yamato halves a Carrier's hit points. Anyone using capital warships in PvT is really silly, considering ghosts' abilities. I think this is why we've had no mention of lockdown in SC2 - protoss now rely even more on robotic units.

[TitanWing]

I was most disappointed by the fact that it took 3 carriers to kill ONE FUCKING BC. Not only that, btut one carrier almost DIED in a 3v1.

This is an outrage.
I was LMAO at that little clip. :P

[ecyor0]

From an aesthetic standpoint, I think the design should swing back towards the SC1 design a little (Keeping the new look, just making it sufficiently different from the Tempest)

[TitanWing]

I really like the new design better. I don't see why people want to change it from the Tempest design, if the Tempest had never been made and they started with the Carrier, people wouldn't be complaining (as much).

I REALLY like the carrier, very sleek and sci-fi.

[pytum]

carrier... carrier!, carrier? i would've like a 3d model of the old carrier... and yeah i laughed when i saw 3 carriers trying to beat that battlecruiser, and i am still waiting for the zerg... im getting old to play sc2:P

[TitanWing]

carrier... carrier!, carrier? i would've like a 3d model of the old carrier... and yeah i laughed when i saw 3 carriers trying to beat that battlecruiser, and i am still waiting for the zerg... im getting old to play sc2:P
Oh please...you're turning like 12 on your next birthday.:rolleyes:

I personally never really liked the original Carrier appearance, it was a yellow flying drill bit in the cinematics and a yellow football after a violent encounter with a food blender ingame.

[pytum]

Oh please...you're turning like 12 on your next birthday.:rolleyes:

I personally never really liked the original Carrier appearance, it was a yellow flying drill bit in the cinematics and a yellow football after a violent encounter with a food blender ingame.

what an imagination!

but... yeah, the old carrier from sc1 has some caracteristics that you said, like the form of a football, but, i think that using the same design of the tempest is not ok for me... at least they could have added more things, like more volume, because IMO it looks kinda of weak... they changed the color, good it looks fine, but i would like more additions

[Galiant]

Carrier has arrived!

[IrishDutchman]

Apart from the name and the color, what exactly was the difference between the tempest and carriers?

[Protogod]

Carriers have shields all around, tempest only had a shield against ground units.

[ChimTheGrim21]

^that can easily be changed....

[Basan]

Carriers have shields all around, tempest only had a shield against ground units.

Just not to mention their melee Shuriken looking interceptors. ;p

[BlackDefiler]

Just not to mention their melee Shuriken looking interceptors. ;p
Those were really silly.

The carriers were only nerfed for the sake of the show taking longer. I'm about 99% sure of that. Blizz just wanted to show what it looks like when they take it on the shield and then the armor.

Plus they look nice. Robust

[3Vee]

Of course the carrier's going to be nerfed in SC2. Blizz needs an excuse to include the m'ship.

But it does look good, at least.

[SgtHK]

Oh please...you're turning like 12 on your next birthday.:rolleyes:

I personally never really liked the original Carrier appearance, it was a yellow flying drill bit in the cinematics and a yellow football after a violent encounter with a food blender ingame.

My viewpoint of the SC1 Carrier is that it looked like a piece of rotten vegetable ^_^

[TitanWing]

I guess that works too...lol.

[vIsitor]

Personally, I wouldn't be opposed to giving the Tempest's hardened surface-to-air shield to the 'new' carrier, as an upgrade. It wouldn't necessarily have to negate the ship's normal shields (in fact, I'm not certain it ever did on the Tempest, even against air-to-air attacks), and it is exactly the sort of thing that would differentiate it from its Terran equivalent, the Battlecruiser.

I'll agree that the Tempest's shurikens were a bit much, however.

As for the matter of aesthetics; I much prefer the sleek design of the Tempest (and its golden 'Carrier' re-color) to the banana-yellow pine-cone in classic starcraft.

[Fiendwurm]

i allways liked the tempest because i looked cool, and it made sence that the DTs have a capital ship, i just thought it should have some spell or speashal ablity that made it stronger then the carrier in some senarios and some weaker (and i'm not meaning vs air/ground)

The carrier should still be strong, and i think it should look more pratical look/look like it could run into a BC and tear it in half by shear blunk force.

[Protogod]

The carrier should still be strong, and i think it should look like it could run into a BC and tear it in half by shear blunt force.

Now THAT is something I wanna see. I mean, I wanna see carriers with muscle again. The kind of ships that take down planets and remind everyone why the Protoss aren't dead yet.

[TitanWing]

So...you want a Mothership AND a Supercarrier?

[Protogod]

So...you want a Mothership AND a Supercarrier?

Not a supercarrier, just a carrier on-par with the BC

[TitanWing]

I don't see why it matters. BCs are never used anyways, and I'm not so sure that gonna change much in SC2.

Besides, I've heard somewhere that they nerfed the carrier's attack in that clip to show off the attack animation.

[Protogod]

I don't see why it matters. BCs are never used anyways, and I'm not so sure that gonna change much in SC2.
Srsly? Carriers are definitely in the list of late game tech PvT. They might be less popular than arbiters due to Pros making arbs look good, but carriers are definitely the best alternative to arbs.
Besides, I've heard somewhere that they nerfed the carrier's attack in that clip to show off the attack animation.

Because they said that. Karune said that the Carrier is in no way balanced yet.

[ChimTheGrim21]

I love the new carrier look myself. It looks bad ass.

I trust Blizzard will do fine in its balance (it can't be any worse than the original Carrier/Arbiter combo in SC1).

[Aqo]

A big reason why carriers were fun is that they were simply powerful, and delivered a shock as you normally didn't expect to see them coming. Getting 6 of them secretly while harrasing with goonzea and then flying them to your T opponent's expansion in LT over the hill when he didn't even see it coming... ahh... that used to feel so good.

I loved the old look. I think fancy tubes around ships make them look silly. The original carrier didn't have that, it was just one badass airship of doom that reigned chaos in its path... eh, not a rotten vegetable ~_~

[IrishDutchman]

My only complaint with the new design is that it's too small. When I think of carriers, I think of ZOMG CARRIERS!
Now, 'ZOMG CARRIERS' aren't the size of a barracks. Those would be, 'meh, carriers'.
ZOMG CARRIERS should at least be bigger than most buildings, a bit more awe-inspiring than the current version.
They need to be wider, in particular. It's too sleek to be a ZOMG CARRIER. It shouldn't look streamlined or anything, they have to look bulky and massive.

[Mr.Bad]

But that's the Protoss's whole look. I think that present models are great. But both the Carrier and the Mothership should be doubled in size.

[Basan]

But that's the Protoss's whole look. I think that present models are great. But both the Carrier and the Mothership should be doubled in size.

Anyone wanting ships as big as the screen (namely the Mothership) thus disabling your capability to select units below, raise your arm. :P

[Mr.Bad]

Being doubled in size won't make them that big. They're pretty small right now.

[TitanWing]

Double-sized Carriers and Motherships is absolutely rediculous. You won't be able to see any units underneath it.

[Tael_Zenith]

And realize, volume increasos faster then Surface Area, so x2 the size makes it take up 4x the space.



*Raises hand*

[Thedutchjelle]

Double-sized Carriers and Motherships is absolutely rediculous. You won't be able to see any units underneath it.

I agree, but it's possible to tilt the camera view right now, so it doesn't have to be true.

But it will be annoying like no tomorrow, no doubt.

[IrishDutchman]

Twice the size would be extreme, but right now they're too small. :<

[Kankuro4800]

lol, watch the new carrier be like a sub-replacement for the scout (meaning that it WAS nerfed, but now you can mass produce them like you would scouts (not that you would mass produce scouts))

[ForTheSwarm]

The Tempest is better than the Carrier in one aspect: it could attack Zerg units under Dark Swarm.

[Mr.Bad]

Actually, yes, that is a point I haven't thought of. Hmm, do you guys think there's a chance of Carriers being able to build two different types of interceptors? Or would that provide too many balance problems?

[Protogod]

It provides too many "useless" problems. I don't really see the point of making two possible interceptors, unless they were more different than interceptor vs shuriken

[Ktan]

The Tempest is better than the Carrier in one aspect: it could attack Zerg units under Dark Swarm.

Assuming Dark Swarm is back, of course.

Looking at how the other races have panned out thus far, I actually expect the Zerg to be changing an awful lot too. The way the nydus Worm and Zerglings look suggests that the race is undergoing a major revamp, even if only aesthetically, but the precedent set by the changes in the Terrans and Protoss indicate that there's very little we can be certain about past Zerglings, Hydralisks and Mutalisks being in the game.

[deadkat]

The ground-only shield of the Tempest was a serious problem though...Wraiths would most certainly rip them apart if they were caught with no detection or if the detection was killed.

However, a handful of heavily armed "super carriers" exist, most famously the Gantrithor.

I say scratch the mothership and replace it with a super carrier.

[SgtHK]

Hey, guys, did any one of you notice that probes look almost like little carriers?

[TitanWing]

I say scratch the mothership and replace it with a super carrier.You want two carriers that have no difference between them other than one having rediculously high HP and shields? That's all that's different between the two.

[Mr.Bad]

If you look at the context, it's implying that the 'supercarriers' have weapons.

[TitanWing]

If you look at the context, it's implying that the 'supercarriers' have weapons.
Either way, it's a dumb idea.

[masterofhobbiton]

All carriers in SC1 were 'supercarriers.' I think that was a really lame excuse to nerf the SC2 carriers.

[DarkMirror]

No, they werent supercarriers. Ganthithor was a supercarrier, not the normal ones.

[Mr.Bad]

Either way, it's a dumb idea.

Agreed

[h0bgawblin]

I kind of liked the carrier not being in the game. I thought it was testament to a "new" game. Where did it say carrier was nerfed though? Does anyone have the link?

[Basan]

From what I gather so far H0b' it's mostly being assumed as such since in some SC2 units page (Carrier or the BC one) it shows a video of 3 Carriers just to topple 1 BC.

[Thedutchjelle]

From what I gather so far H0b' it's mostly being assumed as such since in some SC2 units page (Carrier or the BC one) it shows a video of 3 Carriers just to topple 1 BC.

But it already has been said by Karune that that video is rigged.

[Basan]

I know that 'Dutch. :) But there are several others that seem to be willing bypass the glaringly obvious.