Printable View
Ive seen allot of people complain about the new carrier model. Anyway I am really curious what the actual break down is and I cant recall seeing a current poll about it. So lets see what you guys think.
http://www.scmillennium.com/Images/u...ss/carrier.jpg
http://www.sc2armory.com/img/protoss/units/carrier.jpg
First! :p
Old Carrier in all his might.
I hate the Carrier. Period.
But I figure if Blizzard is going to keep the unit because its iconic, the least they should do is keep the goddamn unit model.
Thats a new one. Why do you hate the Carrier?Quote:
Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid
I like the new model better but wish it had slightly more bulk.
Not new. I have always hated the Carrier. I thought that was obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur
It should have been a Zerg unit, and its broken.
How is it broken? It hard to get, expensive and can be countered. You just dont like it cause it has mass effect :pQuote:
Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid
That's what I said... broken.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur
I like the new model better but wish it had slightly more bulk.
I'm in favor of the new model. It better fits the Protoss' current theme of 'advanced race = sleek with glowy lights'. The old Carrier simply doesn't achieve this aesthetic. It's almost reaching Terran levels of chunkiness in its robustness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid
The new Brood Lord is kind of a Zerg version of the carrier.
It would have been cool having a Zerg carrier though. Maybe a Behemoth or Leviathan that spits out little Scourges.
As for the original question, I agree with electricmole... I like the new graphic, but it should be fatter considering its got a bunch of little ships inside it.
Wow pro new-carrier people. Im surprised. Where were you guys before?
I want this...
http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/st...SC2_Cncpt1.jpg
kick sc2 "tempestcarrier"
I agree, new one is better except that it looks too fragile. They need to update it with more bulk.
Thats basically the new carrier minus some details. They even show the new model in the picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by scorpio19
Old Carrier +1
The new carrier is basically a reskinned version of a different unit that meant to serve a different role. It's an ad-hoc reskin, and it shows. I don't see how anyone can possibly justify the new carrier...especially when the excuse for bringing it back was iconic status. It makes no sense.
Old carrier wins IMO. It's just too bad there isn't a third "better Carrier than both of these" option.
There are a bunch of differences which I've pointed out repeatedly in other threads. In fact, the only real similarities are that it's golden and has hoops; practically everything else is different.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur
And that's not the new model in the background; it's the tempest.
i would like the new carrier in game model, if it looked like that. but it doesn't. the old carrier looked better than the tempest carrier wannabeQuote:
Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur
Old carrier for me. Although I might need to see the new carrier with its polished armor (take the current mothership as an example).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gradius
On that subject Id like to once again complain about the muta I mean corruptor evolution. A good model but its all too obviously they made it to be a mutalisk evolution and didnt change anything when moving it over to the corruptor.
http://www.starcraftsector.net/style.../BroodLord.jpg
Yah I think thats more of a semantics arguement than anythings else. I think of it as Banana model and goatskull model (whatever the minor details and color changes).Quote:
Originally Posted by Gradius
That an ancient 2D sprite is more popular than the latest and best Blizzard can do for the same unit says everything: Give us a model based on the old Carrier, just imagine how the SC2 graphics engine and some artistic improvements could lift it to new heights and make it a model that fans of both the old and new Carrier could enjoy.
Agreed, and this should have been an option.Quote:
Originally Posted by scorpio19
Uh, what? This is nowhere near the tempest model; the body runs the whole length rather than just 2/3, the bridge is attached to the body rather than up on pylons, and the engines are a block at the back rather than a set of strips, oh and the body itself looks solid rather than hollow. Get your facts right mate.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur
Personally, I'm all for the new model. The old one looks like a blimp... Protoss are supposed to be advanced—what are they doing with an old blimp??????
Remember how we had that thread about the Stalkers concept art and then later blizzard changed it to look more like the concept.
new model owns period. but who cares really, we just want the beta
As I mentioned in a different thread, given the number of passes and revisions that have been made throughout SC2's development, odds are high that someone's tried it in house at some point or other (assuming the developers didn't just port things over into SC2 when they first started). That they've stuck to the new design over the old one probably suggests that the old one didn't quite impress them when in 3D.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roobster
Also, I think it's worth pointing out that this 'new' design more or less sticks to the basic layout of the original Carrier. If you look carefully (e.g. in the end cinematic of SC1), the front 2/3 of the Carrier is actually hollow/an empty shell. Only the back 1/3 consists of any functional space and even then, that's mostly for the thrusters. Now, look at the new Carrier. Isn't that more or less the same with just a different front section?
I just find the new model just waay too fragile looking, not saying the SC model was extremely robust but at least it had a more powerful feeling, I can't figure the new model in a battle site against the terrans like:
"Captain there's a new contact, it seems a protoss warship.
You mean the big blue glowing thing with yellow bars around it?
That's a Protoss carrier
Uh.. yeah... Well we're doomed"
It just doesn't feel right :(
And as stated before, if it came back because it was an iconic unit, then why use the model of another, preexisting unit that was scrapped?
Someone should photoshop the new model to look like the picture. Like the stalker thread.
Doesnt the SC2 carrier have 100 less hit points than the SC one? So it is more fragile.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nenol-phoenix
50 less hp, but also 20 less seconds. Also the Interceptors have 10/10 more, cost 3 less seconds and d0 2*5 damage rather than 8.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattII
Im going off SCarmory. Are your stats SCwiki?
Armoury doesn't show the SC1 stats, Carrier was only 300 back then.
Oh man your right I just did the math wrongQuote:
Originally Posted by MattII
so now its 250 hp 150 shields
old was 300 hp 150 shields
right?
Yep, down only 50 hp.
So I guess the model is meant to look more fragile cause you know it is.
*Pshaw*
Unit hp vary quite a bit from build to build. Blizzard made the carrier look fragile because the cinematic version of it looks fragile.
This still makes no sense to me. You're just talking art appreciation. I don't know how you can say "it shows". The new carrier looks like a carrier. The tempest looked like a carrier too, not surprising because it was a variant on the StarCraft I carrier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gradius
SC1 carrier -> Tempest -> SC2 carrier. Still looks like a carrier to me.
The problem is that the Carrier is supposed to house the Interceptors, and the recoloured Tempest model we have at the moment just doesn't feel like it could do that.
BTW, here's a rough, fan-made idea of what the old Carrier would look like in 3D.
http://screenshots.filesnetwork.com/...1063651962.jpg
That one BTW was made for the WC3 total conversion so anything Blizzard did with it would look a lot better.
Mind you, DSquid had a point, the Carrier as it stands is by now an old mechanic, and could do with either a revamp, or being replaced entirely, especially in light of the fact that very few of these behemoths ought to have survived the last 4 years.
Ahaa! That's what I thought. That's like, DT at work, hiding in the shadows and waiting to wreck everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur
But seriously, who said the new model is like the old one but with slightly changed parameters? the new model is dumb, in terms of economy and space. Looking at both models together,one would see that the new carrier is half ship, half storage for interceptors, whereas with the old model, the majority of the ship is used to hold the interceptors. The carrier shouldn't need so much engine and whatnot, but more space to hold the units that give it its purpose.
Thoughts? Or flaming for my bad pictures? Either way, it's reasonable. :p
EDIT: Damn, MattII beat me to it.
New model = sexy. Although not quite as sexy as Peter Lee's concept art rendering of it.
Actual reasonable criticism. I don't agree with you, but you're presenting facts rather than "I don't like it". Kudos.Quote:
Originally Posted by MattII
(I think there's enough space for interceptors, but it's hard to tell since most pictures are just of carriers, not of carriers + interceptors. Near the bow, there's that "mobile ring" that moves back when an interceptor launches. Interceptors can fit, but they need to be small. Not a big deal, since interceptors are pretty small.)
Weird, I'd always assumed that that ring was a miniature on-board Stargate, which would at least allow for a lack of manufacturing (if not repair) facilities.