PDA

View Full Version : Carrier's alternative cargo



Blazur
05-19-2009, 12:13 PM
The Carrier as a unit was clever for the original game, but as a returning unit in SC2 has lost much of its appeal in my opinion. I really like the premise behind a capital ship that serves as a launch pad for smaller sentient ships, and would really like to see Blizzard take this concept and expound upon it. I'd like to invite everybody to discuss alternatives for the Carrier.

Consider this: the Carrier of SC2 still has limited capacity, but now offers some choices on the types of ships you can train within it. You can mix and match your cargo provided you don't exceed the cargo limit, or optionally auto-train any ship by right-clicking the icon. The Carrier still has an upgrade available at the Fleet Beacon which extends its cargo holding.

Here's a few different types of ships it can offer.

Interceptor: Same as the original, the Interceptor is a quick and versatile attacker able to attack any target. These take one cargo slot and are relatively inexpensive.

Bomber: Bombers take 2 slots and can only attack ground targets. They're slower than interceptors and cost slightly more. These ships carry one bomb from the hull of the Carrier and drop them at a designated ground target, dealing explosive AOE damage. Once its payload is dropped it needs to return to the Carrier to arm another bomb. Bombers can be controlled independently, and will remain inside the hull of the Carrier until engaging ground targets.

Phantoms: Phantoms are more fragile than Interceptors and can only attack airborne targets. These stealth fighters emerge from the Carrier cloaked, and will only reveal themselves when engaging hostile threats with their plasma surges. Each takes 2 capacity but is more powerful than Interceptors against air targets.

Defender: Defenders take 4 capacity and cost x gas to train, with a limit of one per carrier. Once built the Defender will emerge behind the Carrier where it will remain, although the player can control the ship within a limited radius of the Carrier (a range shows up when selecting the defender indicating the perimeter). Once a Defender is trained 1/2 of the Carrier's available shield is permanently transferred to this ship (the Carrier cannot regain back that 1/2). Any damage sustained to the Carrier is absorbed by the Defender at 1/3 of the amount. The Carrier itself receives no damage until the Defender is destroyed, and any direct damage with a Defender active shows up visually as the original Tempest shield.

While this ability is slightly more complicated, the premise is with a little micro it can be used to prolong the life of the Carrier. You can control the flight of the Defender to evade threats. It can be positioned in a fortified spot while the Carrier ventures out into hostile territory to gain reach. And overall it adds strategy to the Carrier.

unentschieden
05-19-2009, 12:36 PM
Im afraid this would turn the Carrier omnicapable. What is supposed to be the weakness of the new Carrier?

Blazur
05-19-2009, 12:41 PM
Im afraid this would turn the Carrier omnicapable. What is supposed to be the weakness of the new Carrier?

These suggestions are not meant to address any weaknesses, but rather to expand upon its potential as the highest-tier ship. Any new abilities can be balanced out with cost or other tradeoffs worked into the formula (slower speed, less available cargo, etc).

If the BC is allowed 3 individual upgrade paths, then it would be a shame if the Carrier remains as it always has been.

Perhaps the mix-and-match ideal of the unit is a bit drastic, and each Carrier should be designated as a type of cargo (ground, air, or dual). Whatever the case may be, I'd just like to see more potential with this unit in terms of what it can store inside its hull.

Eligor
05-19-2009, 12:46 PM
Very interesting, no suggestions of my own at the moment, but I like the ideas. Especially that of the cloaked Interceptors.

Perfecttear
05-19-2009, 12:47 PM
I think that the interceptor is the only thing what a carrier needs and nothing more. Why complicate things. IF you need more damage, just build more interceptors. Do you have any lore background on the new type of ships?

Blazur
05-19-2009, 12:49 PM
Do you have any lore background on the new type of ships?

Nah, I have neither the interest or energy to discuss ideas as they relate to lore. I just enjoy sharing thoughts that could make the game more fun and exciting :)

Plus it helps to pass the time while waiting for the next official discussion to surface...

SpiderBrigade
05-19-2009, 12:50 PM
Interesting, although ideas like this have been tossed around before - especially the Bomber. The problem is usually that there either isn't enough difference between the options to make the choice meaningful (in other words not worth spending micro/time to choose), or else one of the options is always clearly better than the others.

As far as carrier fixes go, I'm still sticking by my "mobile bunker for Phoenix" idea. In other words the Interceptor is scrapped and the Carrier just loads/protects your Phoenix units.

Pandonetho
05-19-2009, 12:51 PM
I think that the interceptor is the only thing what a carrier needs and nothing more. Why complicate things. IF you need more damage, just build more interceptors. Do you have any lore background on the new type of ships?

Um what? Lore is easy as hell for something like this. Protoss have upgraded their arsenal simple as that.

Any I like some of Blazur's ideas. If the BC can have such massive changes, then why the hell is the carrier the same old? It was fun in SC1, but in SC2 it's just the exact same thing with a new paint job. Boring.

Perfecttear
05-19-2009, 01:05 PM
I wold like if there would be only 2 choices, but not 4, they are really not needed in my opinion.Having 4 different units for a unit that won't see much use is excesive.
This could work:

Option1 :

Interceptor
Type: Light
Movement: Fast
Modifiers: Mechanical - Ai
Pulse Blaster
Damage: 5 (x2)
Range: 8
Speed: Slow
Targets: Ground, Air

Option2 :

Bomber
Type: Light
Movement: Normal
Modifiers: Mechanical - Ai
Particle Disrupter
Damage: 8 (x2)
Range: 7
Speed: Slow
Targets: Ground

.

mr. peasant
05-19-2009, 01:25 PM
If the Carrier is indeed to have customizable payloads, I think two types would be sufficient to make things interesting. As for what they are, I have two ideas:

Suggestion 1
1. ATA Interceptors
2. ATG Interceptors

Suggestion 2
1. Interceptors (same as before)
2. Scarabs (1 use only and requires constant manufacturing; either ATG only or targets both)

Especially with Suggestion 1, you can hence choose to either specialize your Carriers as purely ATA or ATG or mix it up (whether with a ratio of 1:1, 1:3, etc). With Interceptors and Scarabs, they would be more specialized along the lines of low armor vs high armor units.

Blazur
05-19-2009, 01:32 PM
If the Carrier is indeed to have customizable payloads, I think two types would be sufficient to make things interesting. As for what they are, I have two ideas:

Suggestion 1
1. ATA Interceptors
2. ATG Interceptors

Suggestion 2
1. Interceptors (same as before)
2. Scarabs (1 use only and requires constant manufacturing; either ATG only or targets both)

Especially with Suggestion 1, you can hence choose to either specialize your Carriers as purely ATA or ATG or mix it up (whether with a ratio of 1:1, 1:3, etc). With Interceptors and Scarabs, they would be more specialized along the lines of low armor vs high armor units.

I like both your suggestions. The first one could become interesting if you allowed a third option of a hybrid interceptor which damages both to a lesser extent. This would offer more flexibility in how you specialize your army and even introduces some math theorizing.

The second suggestion is great because it has scarabs. Being allowed to manufacture an expendable bomb is thrilling to me. Although if it were allowed to hit both ground and air this overlaps with the HSM slightly. But nonetheless I would still like to see this implemented and would even justify removal of the Reaver.

0neder
05-19-2009, 02:00 PM
I think that the interceptor is the only thing what a carrier needs and nothing more. Why complicate things. IF you need more damage, just build more interceptors. Do you have any lore background on the new type of ships?
Maybe you should keep this in mind next time you make one of these threads, lol. No offense intended, it was just so ironic.

And yes, this unnecessarily complicates the game. I think carriers were appropriately altered already - given more range to play up their strength in small numbers. They don't need anything else.

Zero
05-19-2009, 03:01 PM
If anything, I'd give Carriers two possible upgrades, that would work similar to the older Battlecruiser upgrade. Each Carrier starts with its default 4 interceptors, and for a reasonable cost, each carrier can be upgraded two different ways:

Tempest Upgrade:
With this upgrade, the carrier gains hard/ground shields and adds capacity for 2 additional interceptors.

Elite Upgrade:
With this upgrade, the carrier gains capacity for 10 interceptors.

Neither upgrade makes the Carrier overpowered. The Tempest upgrade gives less firepower, but far more protection, while the Elite Carrier has no extra defense but far more firepower. This idea doesn't turn the carrier into only anti-air or anti-ground. The carrier would remain a generalist, gaining only a slight advantage by upgrading. Also, the carrier won't be next-to-useless if you didn't upgrade it. You can have a group of the two carriers together and not have it change the way you use them, although if you had some with Tempest shields, you'd probably want them at the front if you were attacking ground forces.

Like the old battlecruisers, if you double-clicked a Tempest carrier, all of the Tempest carriers would be selected.

Visions of Khas
05-19-2009, 03:04 PM
Where does the Carrier stand right now? Range, attack, interceptor capacity, health? It seems a little one-sided for the Terrans to gain so much variety in their battlecruisers, only for them to leave the carrier unmodified. Of course, the same might be said for the Zerg, as well, but we have next to no information about the Brood Lord... right?

EDIT Huh, wow. The Brood Lord looks like a giant scourge...

Blazur
05-19-2009, 03:12 PM
Where does the Carrier stand right now? Range, attack, interceptor capacity, health? It seems a little one-sided for the Terrans to gain so much variety in their battlecruisers, only for them to leave the carrier unmodified. Of course, the same might be said for the Zerg, as well, but we have next to no information about the Brood Lord... right?

I'm unaware of any substantial changes to the Carrier...not even a range boost. At one point they dabbled with a reduced Interceptor capacity and optional escorts with augmented firepower and a timed life, but they've long since removed that. Who knows where the Carriers stands today.

Zero, I like your ideas as well. Although individual unit upgrades doesn't really suit the Protoss as much as the Terrans.

Norfindel
05-19-2009, 03:15 PM
If the Carrier has the range and attack of the sc2armory page, i'm sure they're going to be pretty powerfull. With an Interceptor attack of 5x2, instead of their former 6, it's almost like having 16 Interceptors instead of 8, which means you can cause as much destruction with 6 Carriers than with 12 in BW from greater range, provided that the enemy does nothing about them.
However, if balance is right, some Void Rays, Vikings, or Corrupters should be very dangerous for that Carrier-only army.

MattII
05-19-2009, 03:26 PM
This isn't the first time a multi-unit Carrier has come up, In fact I suggested (http://www.blizzforums.com/showthread.php?t=12780&page=10) (post #142) such an arrangement within two days of the Carrier's announcement, although other people later polished it. In opposition to two sub units, why not just give it the ability to trade in up to 4 of its slots for defensive turrets (3 range, 6 damage, 12 cooldown)?

Zero
05-19-2009, 03:28 PM
Zero, I like your ideas as well. Although individual unit upgrades doesn't really suit the Protoss as much as the Terrans.

Thanks. And you do make a good point, since adaptability is more of a Terran trait.



Anyway, after recovering my idea from BlizzForums, I thought I'd post the poll we had on the subject of Carriers and their upgrades.

http://usera.imagecave.com/josh_zero_factor/Carrier%20options%20poll.JPG

The poll brings up a good point that we, the fans, as a majority, really don't know what we want for the Carriers, so we will have to trust Blizzard's judgment. The Carrier does need work from it previous incarnation in SC/BW, but we can't seem to come up with one single direction for it.

n00bonicPlague
05-19-2009, 03:37 PM
Here's mine:

Carriers start with 6 spaces and can be upgraded to 12.
Two interceptor types:

Light Interceptor
-- 15M/0G
-- 25HP/25SP (+1/+1 per upgrade)
-- 0 armor (light)
-- 2AP (+2 light)(+1 per upgrade)
-- 13sec build
-- 1 cargo
-- really fast speed

Heavy Interceptor
-- 25M/5G
-- 50HP/50SP (+1/+1 per upgrade)
-- 1 armor (heavy)
-- 4AP (+4 heavy)(+1 per upgrade)
-- 26sec build
-- 2 cargo
-- medium speed

These are basically the original Interceptors but remixed and specialized against certain armor types. This makes it possible to create Carriers that are anti-light specialized, anti-heavy specialized, or a mix of both. They do better against what they are made for but won't totally suck vs units of different armor types. Note that I pulled the original stats from the SC1 Carrier and Interceptors. I would need to redo the stats for whatever they have now in SC2.

mr. peasant
05-19-2009, 03:57 PM
If the Carrier has the range and attack of the sc2armory page, i'm sure they're going to be pretty powerfull. With an Interceptor attack of 5x2, instead of their former 6, it's almost like having 16 Interceptors instead of 8, which means you can cause as much destruction with 6 Carriers than with 12 in BW from greater range, provided that the enemy does nothing about them.
However, if balance is right, some Void Rays, Vikings, or Corrupters should be very dangerous for that Carrier-only army.

Of course, it should be worth mentioning that Carriers are now greatly disadvantaged against heavily armored units. Just 1 point of armor cuts their damage output by 20%.

DemolitionSquid
05-19-2009, 04:00 PM
The only acceptable option for me is to scrap the fucking thing. It is a horribly designed unit as it stands, and is only in the game because most of you feel an abhorrent nostalgia for it. Until the Carrier (or its replacement) fills a niche beyond "critical mass," I will not be content.

RainbowToeSocks
05-19-2009, 04:03 PM
Tempest!!!!

sandwich_bird
05-19-2009, 04:04 PM
I like it. Good suggestion. It should be something to be considered.

MattII
05-19-2009, 04:09 PM
Gods, don't start that again DSquid, the Tempest (hate the model only slightly less than I hated the unit) was badly flawed, like the Thor, in an attempt to fit an existing mechanic into a role it was never meant to fit.

Zero
05-19-2009, 04:13 PM
Gods, don't start that again DSquid, the Tempest (hate the model only slightly less than I hated the unit) was badly flawed, like the Thor, in an attempt to fit an existing mechanic into a role it was never meant to fit.

Umm, DSquid wasn't for the Tempest, that was RainbowToeSocks. DSquid is for scrapping it altogether. He makes a good point, but my nostalgia refused to let me let go of the Carrier. ;)

DemolitionSquid
05-19-2009, 04:15 PM
Gods, don't start that again DSquid, the Tempest (hate the model only slightly less than I hated the unit) was badly flawed, like the Thor, in an attempt to fit an existing mechanic into a role it was never meant to fit.

I did not mention the Tempest in my post. Don't assume. I do support the Tempest over the Carrier, however.

The Tempest was NOT flawed. The Carrier NEEDED/NEEDS a role, and I think making it better at what it already did while giving it a glaring weakness was a well thought out plan. To this day there is STILL no definitive answer to why the Tempest was scrapped beyond a short, vague quote from Browder about it "not passing testing," which it only failed to do after the community was in an uproar wanting its stupid fucking Carrier back.

The Tempest was NOT flawed. You killed it with nostalgia. Good job, morons.

MattII
05-19-2009, 04:16 PM
I did not mention the Tempest in my post. Don't assume.

You have my apologies for that.


The Carrier NEEDED/NEEDS a role, and I think making it better at what it already did while giving it a glaring weakness was a well thought out plan.

Weak ATA defence was the wrong 'glaring weakness', bad/no ATA attack would have been a better, if chiched, weakness.

DemolitionSquid
05-19-2009, 04:17 PM
Maybe, but back at the Carrier's announcement DSquid was rabid about his beloved Tempest being replaced, despite the fact that the Tempest was a flawed unit itself.

I support the Tempest.

It was not flawed.

Stop spreading lies.

MattII
05-19-2009, 04:24 PM
The Tempest had no/weak ATA shields, which is a flaw given that it's non-repairable. A better method of Dealing with the Problem would have been (as I suggested a long time ago) to Swap the Interceptos to the Mothership in exchange for the AtG missiles then used by said unit.

DemolitionSquid
05-19-2009, 04:33 PM
The Tempest had no/weak ATA shields, which is a flaw given that it's non-repairable. A better method of Dealing with the Problem would have been (as I suggested a long time ago) to Swap the Interceptos to the Mothership in exchange for the AtG missiles then used by said unit.

Its not a flaw! Its a weakness. It ensured that AA units were created.

And even IF it didn't work as intended, IT COULD HAVE BEEN ALTERED in any number of ways without bringing back the Carrier.

And FYI, giving the Mothership Interceptors would not solve the problem. Because then they'd STILL BE CARRIERS, except now even more powerful with abilities. They'd still suffer from the Carriers underlying problem - critical mass.

Now seriously, stop posting on a topic you don't understand.

unentschieden
05-19-2009, 04:34 PM
These suggestions are not meant to address any weaknesses, but rather to expand upon its potential as the highest-tier ship. Any new abilities can be balanced out with cost or other tradeoffs worked into the formula (slower speed, less available cargo, etc).

If the BC is allowed 3 individual upgrade paths, then it would be a shame if the Carrier remains as it always has been.

Perhaps the mix-and-match ideal of the unit is a bit drastic, and each Carrier should be designated as a type of cargo (ground, air, or dual). Whatever the case may be, I'd just like to see more potential with this unit in terms of what it can store inside its hull.

"The Terrans have stuff like that." is a awefull reason. In fact its a reason NOT to do it. Also all BC addons rely on energy and dont modify the base characteristics.

Im with DSquid in that the Tempest would have been preferable, I can see where the nostalgia comes from though - The Carrier was THE Mass and A-Attack unit, the convenience being the main advantage.

MattII
05-19-2009, 04:40 PM
Its not a flaw! Its a weakness. It ensured that AA units were created.

Making the thing ATG only would have given it a damned big weakness as well, without


And even IF it didn't work as intended, IT COULD HAVE BEEN ALTERED in any number of ways without bringing back the Carrier.

You have a suggestion?


And FYI, giving the Mothership Interceptors would not solve the problem. Because then they'd STILL BE CARRIERS, except now even more powerful with abilities. They'd still suffer from the Carriers underlying problem - critical mass.

Actually they'd be even further from Carriers than Tempests were, and since they'd be support units they 'wouldn't' suffer from critical mass. Mind you, I can think of one or two ways of dropping the entire 'carrier' mechanic altogether.


Now seriously, stop posting on a topic you don't understand.

I understand the topic perfectly well, I just don't agree with your POV, ignorance and disagreement aren't the same.

Now tell me, just to clear things up, are you more in favour of 1. resurrecting the Tempest, 2. revamping the Carrier, or 3. dropping the whole mechanic altogether? Personally I'm 2>3>>1.

DemolitionSquid
05-19-2009, 06:20 PM
Making the thing ATG only would have given it a damned big weakness as well, without [GTA only shields]

Indeed, it would have, but that option was never given a chance to be tested because you wanted your Carrier back.


You have a suggestion?

I have suggested multiple fixes to the Tempest that would have niched it, as well as multiple alterations to the Carrier which also would have niched it. None were ever tested.


Actually they'd be even further from Carriers than Tempests were, and since they'd be support units they 'wouldn't' suffer from critical mass. Mind you, I can think of one or two ways of dropping the entire 'carrier' mechanic altogether.

Critical Mass is the nature of the Carrier/Interceptor relationship, the problem would exist on any unit that functions in such a manner. You are right in that the Mothership's saving grace would be that unlike the Carrier, it has other abilities that can be useful. But it would still be a carrier.


I understand the topic perfectly well, I just don't agree with your POV, ignorance and disagreement aren't the same.

To me, they are, because I'm awesome.


Now tell me, just to clear things up, are you more in favour of 1. resurrecting the Tempest, 2. revamping the Carrier, or 3. dropping the whole mechanic altogether? Personally I'm 2>3>>1.

3>1>2

Norfindel
05-19-2009, 06:37 PM
Of course, it should be worth mentioning that Carriers are now greatly disadvantaged against heavily armored units. Just 1 point of armor cuts their damage output by 20%.
It's nearly like it has always been, but now you have increased firepower (nearly double) and more range with the same price of the old Carrier. It's difficult to find something that can really be a disadvantage.
It's a long-range attacker that can rape an entire base if not stopped, but obviously, it's not allmighty. Several units can (or should) be able to stop them, and that's why it's attack loses lots of effectivity vs something, and why are they slow.
I think they should be allright, they aren't designed to take down heavily armored targets in seconds. That's why the Void Rays are there.

MattII
05-19-2009, 06:47 PM
I have suggested multiple fixes to the Tempest that would have niched it, as well as multiple alterations to the Carrier which also would have niched it. None were ever tested.

Those being back on Blizzforums, could you give us a basic list of what they were?


Critical Mass is the nature of the Carrier/Interceptor relationship, the problem would exist on any unit that functions in such a manner. You are right in that the Mothership's saving grace would be that unlike the Carrier, it has other abilities that can be useful. But it would still be a carrier.

No more than it's currently a battleship.


3>1>2

Each to their own I suppose. What would you put in the anti-light ATG role?

DemolitionSquid
05-19-2009, 07:00 PM
Those being back on Blizzforums, could you give us a basic list of what they were?

- Tempest (cheaper, weaker than Carrier) with full shields but GTA attacks do 50% dmg
- Tempest (cheaper, weaker than Carrier) with ATG only interceptors
- Tempest (cheaper, weaker than Carrier) with toggle shield from AG to AA
- Carrier as ATA only
- Carrier with toggle shield


No more than it's currently a battleship.

Are you seriously arguing semantics?


Each to their own I suppose. What would you put in the anti-light ATG role?

My original plan was:

Tempest - ATG anti-light
Warp Ray - ATA ATG anti-heavy
Pheonix - ATA anti-light
Djinn - Caster
Mothership - Uber

Which evolved to what I'd like to have now:

Carrier - ATA anti-light
Warp Ray - ATA ATG anti-heavy
Mothership - Caster / ATG anti-light

Fuck the Phoenix, its a shell of its former glory.

MattII
05-19-2009, 07:12 PM
- Tempest (cheaper, weaker than Carrier) with full shields but GTA attacks do 50% dmg
- Tempest (cheaper, weaker than Carrier) with ATG only interceptors
- Tempest (cheaper, weaker than Carrier) with toggle shield from AG to AA
- Carrier as ATA only
- Carrier with toggle shield

1. Exactly the reason I disliked the Tempest in the first place, I just can't bring myself to like a unit that's got better defences against one plane than the other (defences being shields and armour).
2. Works for me as much as anything with the 'carrier' mechanism does.
3. Not too sure about this one, it makes it seem a bit flimsy IMO (more so than just having weaker shields would).
4. Phoenix already fills this role, we really need something with anti-light ATG, unless you're suggesting the Phoenix be changed to fill that role, that's a suggestion I'd be open to.
5. See 3.


Builds From: Factory
Type: Mechanical
HP: 250
Ground attack: None
Air attack: 15 to light air
Range: 4
Supply: 2
Minerals: ~200
Gas: ~100

Abilities:
Bunker (Passive) – The Stinger can hold 4 supply worth of infantry inside it like a bunker, while it’s on the move.

All subject to balance, of course.

How does a Terran APC end up becoming a Protoss anti-light ATG unit?

DemolitionSquid
05-19-2009, 07:25 PM
How does a Terran APC end up becoming a Protoss anti-light ATG unit?

Hahaha, wow, I'm so drunk right now. Ill go revise that lol. I know I was in an anti-Thor thread earlier...

Whanhee
05-19-2009, 08:14 PM
Some important observations:
-Carriers with this implemented will need to be able to target multiple units. It would be awful to target air units while getting raped by ground units while your bombers sit in the hangar because you're not targeting ground units.
-Carriers will need to be able to scuttle their ships, perhaps even have a mechanism to transfer them from one to another.
-Since they can now produce multiple different ships, how will multiple unit selection production work? Will you need to press 'i' 12 times to build 12 interceptors at 12 carriers? Will pressing b once build bombers for all carriers when you only wanted one?

In my opinion, it is an interesting mechanic to be explored in ums games, but it definitely needs to be fleshed out a bit more mechanically.

My idea for carrier cargo improvement would be like the old sc original idea for scourge. Once the carrier dies, instead of the interceptors exploding like they did in sc, they go on a suicide charge and attack nearby enemy ships. Possibly as an upgrade.