[Idea] Poll: Void Ray Replaces Carrier

Quote:

---

Better yet kill them both and bring back the tempest with a mechanic identical to void ray charge, except instead of a bigger charge, more shurikens come out.

---

Wow, that's like powerfully stupid. It doesn't solve any problems. It doesn't make for a more interesting unit. It's just an idea fart: short and unpleasant.

Quote:

---

Hmmpf. Carrier, Tempest, the only difference is the color scheme, the ugly mediocre shielding and that the so called "shurikens" are just like interceptors but with a melee attack. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but that's it.

---

You're wrong. The Tempest had a high shield value, but the shields only stopped GtA attacks. That made them strong against ground units but more vulnerable to air, without resorting to making their attack AtG only.

Quote:

---

The mechanic of a unit which attacks by making more units is a very Zergy thing, since Zerg are supposed to be a swarmy race.

---

But there is a fundamental difference. Look at the Brood Lord and compare it to the Carrier.

BLs spawn units continuously without cost. But these units are weak and short-lived. The Carrier has maximum capacity

The Carrier mechanic is really about breaking the Critical Existence Failure. An Ultralisk on 1 Hp can do just as much damage as an Ultralisk at 600. But a Carrier with 0 Intercepters is far weaker than one with 8.

This allows you to weaken the unit without destroying it. Simultaneously, it allows you to remove the weakened unit and "repair" it to full power.

Quote:

---

So, if it's still like it was in SC1 what happened the time I played?

---

You, as the owner of the Carrier, can neither select nor target your Intercepters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Josue

Overlap, since when that overused argument is a problem?
Thor's cannons Yamato gun and the Siege Tanks siege attack overlap when it comes to bring down buildings, yet the three are still there. I was thinking Thor's should get Missile Barrage, and it should be AoE with stunning effect for those caught within the clash.

The Carrier's planet cracker could just leave an area of the terrain impassable for some time due to heavy destruction or something...

But... I guess that's just me.

---

erm what...

siege tanks do less dps against buildings then they do when not sieged.

All overlaps are not the same.

The Thor and the BC are from diametrically opposed tech paths, one is an air unit and the other is a ground unit, one deals damage over 5 seconds the other is instantaneous.

The void ray and carrier are BOTH air, move at similar speeds, and are right next to each other on the tech tree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by newcomplex

The Thor and the BC are from diametrically opposed tech paths

---

Actually, they're not so different, the Thor requires only the Armoury, but if you're going for BCs you're going for the armoury anyway, because it has both air and ground upgrades. it's not like DT and Carrier for example, which 'are' on different paths, it's more like Immortal and Carrier, because you're going to go for the Robotics facility anyway, if only for Observer.

I have always supported the Carrier but since Blizzard doesn't seem to be planning to give it a proper look, instead keeping the flimsy Tempest-reskin, I voted yes to DS' proposal so we have a chance for a good 3rd Aiur-Protoss ship later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

There's been a lot of talk of how strong Void Rays are right now. They were originally intended as a Protoss capital ship.

But then Blizzard brought back the Carrier... bleh. Really, who uses Carriers competitively in 1v1? They're an absolute joke compared to the Void Ray. The Void Ray is better in pretty much every way right now. I see 1 Carrier for every thousand Void Rays.

So here's my thought. Let the Void Ray stay powerful. Make it a capital ship again. Let it take the place of the Carrier. Get rid of the damn Carrier.

Lets count how many ways this idea is win.

1. No more Carrier. Finally.
2. One less returning SC1 unit.
3. Creates room for a better 3rd Stargate unit.
4. Gives more space for new Protoss air units in expansions.
5. Gives option to move Mothership to Stargate and make it better all around.
6. Gives option for Zerg to gain unit with Carrier-like mechanic, which frankly we can all agree has felt Zergy since 1998, and the SC2 Zerg could sure as hell use the boost.

But of course, as usual, I may just be crazy. So, what say you all?

---

Wow, I actually agree with Dsqid.

But yeah, Carries is just an icon now, just and decal or something, no use AT ALL. It would be best to remove it and let it be like that or make the mothership more useful.

I too am sliding down the slippery slope of agreeing with DS. I just don't think a unit that no one uses should stay. Brood lords are semi rare but only because many games don't go the distance needed to get a number of them. If you run into that 30-40 minute game with Zerg you better believe you'll see at least a few of them. The same can't be said of Carriers, you just see more void rays.

I just had a brilliant idea!
Take out the carrier and put in the lurker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KillaKhan

I just had a brilliant idea!
Take out the carrier and put in the lurker.

---

i laughed.

They just need to remove or the mothership, make the carrier a more supportive unit with good abilities. or remove the carrier and put the mothership in stargate, and make it not lame.

Pull both from MP and replace them with a new unit, with a new attack and maybe some spells as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roobster

I have always supported the Carrier but since Blizzard doesn't seem to be planning to give it a proper look, instead keeping the flimsy Tempest-reskin, I voted yes to DS' proposal so we have a chance for a good 3rd Aiur-Protoss ship later.

---

Ugh! Why don't just stop this "campaign" against the Carrier and start one for a better model appearance and mechanics instead? Heck! they could even give the planet cracker to the Carriers with a linear destructive attack that destroys terrain leaving it temporarily impassable for non cliff climbers units nor non aerial ones nor the ones that could move while burrowed. (that means the ones that can't fly nor cliff jump nor move while burrowed .)

EDIT
to make sure it's balanceable, it only lasts some time right? well add this: it doesn't stack with other carriers casting it in the same area : I.E. you can't cast another one in the same area untill all the effect has vanished.

Uses for this? the easiest one is to block your opponent's choke points!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Josue

Ugh! Why don't just stop this "campaign" against the Carrier and start one for a better model appearance and mechanics instead? Heck! they could even give the planet cracker to the Carriers with a linear destructive attack that destroys terrain leaving it temporarily impassable for non cliff climbers units nor non aerial ones nor the ones that could move while burrowed. (that means the ones that can't fly nor cliff jump nor move while burrowed .)

EDIT
to make sure it's balanceable, it only lasts some time right? well add this: it doesn't stack with other carriers casting it in the same area : I.E. you can't cast another one in the same area untill all the effect has vanished.

Uses for this? the easiest one is to block your opponent's choke points!

---

So you want to give the Carrier Force Field?

"The Carrier has arrived"

Quote:

---

6. Gives option for Zerg to gain unit with Carrier-like mechanic, which frankly we can all agree has felt Zergy since 1998, and the SC2 Zerg could sure as hell use the boost.

---

Can't speak on any of the other points because I'm primarily a Terran player, but this one makes a lot of sense.

The Zerg are, by definition, a swarm. They should have an Air--or ground--unit capable of sending out smaller drones to fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by //MavericK\\

Can't speak on any of the other points because I'm primarily a Terran player, but this one makes a lot of sense.

The Zerg are, by definition, a swarm. They should have an Air--or ground--unit capable of sending out smaller drones to fight.

---

The Brood Lord would like to have a word with you, Broodlings will be present.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noctis

The Brood Lord would like to have a word with you, Broodlings will be present.

---

Haha :)

They need to further Diversify the carrier and void ray... probably by giving the Carrier that massive range it was rumored to have at one point (13 or so, like a siege tank) Make the interceptors slightly weaker so that they can reasonably get damaged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Josue

Ugh! Why don't just stop this "campaign" against the Carrier and start one for a better model appearance and mechanics instead? Heck! they could even give the planet cracker to the Carriers with a linear destructive attack that destroys terrain leaving it temporarily impassable for non cliff climbers units nor non aerial ones nor the ones that could move while burrowed. (that means the ones that can't fly nor cliff jump nor move while burrowed .)

EDIT
to make sure it's balanceable, it only lasts some time right? well add this: it doesn't stack with other carriers casting it in the same area : I.E. you can't cast another one in the same area untill all the effect has vanished.

Uses for this? the easiest one is to block your opponent's choke points!

---

The only "campaigning" I have done regarding the Carrier is exactly what you encourage, to give it better appearance and make it work as a unit. In fact, I don't think I've made more posts on any other subject than this. Since Blizzard seems unwilling to fix neither the model or the mechanics, I would rather cut it. After all my campaigning and support for the Carrier I did not make this decision lightly but the reasoning of DS is so good that even I can't deny it's a better choice than keeping things the way they are now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

So you want to give the Carrier Force Field?

---

OUCH!
No... I... I mean yes, but I totally forgot of the existence of the force field.
Yes , that's pretty much the idea but making it a bit more dangerous looking since it destroys the terrain... well, that was just a suggestion, I still think something cool could be added to the carrier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roobster

The only "campaigning" I have done regarding the Carrier is exactly what you encourage, to give it better appearance and make it work as a unit. In fact, I don't think I've made more posts on any other subject than this. Since Blizzard seems unwilling to fix neither the model or the mechanics, I would rather cut it. After all my campaigning and support for the Carrier I did not make this decision lightly but the reasoning of DS is so good that even I can't deny it's a better choice than keeping things the way they are now.

---

But your post seemed to help D.S. "Campaign".
Anyways, if that's what you think then I guess I misread you and we're on the same side of the votes here. I propose a "brainstorm" of ideas about how to make the Carrier cool (besides of the model improve, since it was already done, and everyone wanted this:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Josue

I hope Carrier model will be improved, at least like this:

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/595/bigbetter.jpg
http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/2153/bigbetter2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...rierAttack.jpg

[...]

EDIT
P.D. those carriers are fanmade, even the last image is fanmade.
You can find the maker in this thread

---

Of course, the Carrier does require a skill like this:

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/st...om6_Comic1.jpg

Wait! I remembered, this one's a lot better!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s06Ua_EIQyo

No, just no. Personally I'd go with dropping the Carrier and replacing it with something newer and more unified (the Carrier is all Khala by lore), but if it really has to stay, then can we please go with something more fitting and more interesting than a Yamato Cannon, say 2 types if fighters or an inherent defence like short-range lasers, or even a new mechanic (like Hardened Shield)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MattII

No, just no. Personally I'd go with dropping the Carrier and replacing it with something newer and more unified (the Carrier is all Khala by lore), but if it really has to stay, then can we please go with something more fitting and more interesting than a Yamato Cannon, say 2 types if fighters or an inherent defence like short-range lasers, or even a new mechanic (like Hardened Shield)

---

Short-range defenses could be interesting. Reminds me of the Gallente in Eve Online, they use fighters and short-range cannons on their warships.

Give it some kind of Planet Cracker. That is something I've been wanting to see ever since understanding the first Starcraft Cinematic.

I've suggested several times before that it gain two types of interceptors: anti-armor and anti-light. Anti-light interceptors would be fairly cheap (minerals only) and would have low hp, shields, armor, and attack and a bonus vs light. They would take up less room in the carrier. Anti-armor interceptors would be more expensive (minerals and gas) and would have medium-high hp, shields, armor, and attack and a bonus vs armored. They would take up twice as much room as anti-light interceptors. Maximum holding would be 12 anti-light interceptors (6 anti-armor). Players would be able to mix the types within each carrier and would be provided with, in addition to the standard attack button, a "launch light interceptors" button and a "launch heavy interceptors" button, so the types could be split up among targets to make the most efficient use of them. Absolutely no AoE effects would be allowed on the interceptors' weapons, as it would be unnecessary overkill. The best way to deal with this threat would still be the same: heavy anti-air to destroy the carrier.

I'm fine with the Carrier remaining, but in almost every respect I'd like to see improvements made to returning units. The Carrier of SC2 lacks that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noctis

The Brood Lord would like to have a word with you, Broodlings will be present.

---

Allow me to clarify...I meant an air unit, in addition to the Brood Lord, that has an AtA attack.

Or heck...it could be a ground unit with a GtA attack.

Something that shoots out eight or nine little scourges that blow up on impact.
So it would be like a protoss Carrier mixed with a Reaver.

But then you start stepping on the toes of the Corrupter and Mutualisk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by n00bonicPlague

I've suggested several times before that it gain two types of interceptors: anti-armor and anti-light. Anti-light interceptors would be fairly cheap (minerals only) and would have low hp, shields, armor, and attack and a bonus vs light. They would take up less room in the carrier. Anti-armor interceptors would be more expensive (minerals and gas) and would have medium-high hp, shields, armor, and attack and a bonus vs armored. They would take up twice as much room as anti-light interceptors. Maximum holding would be 12 anti-light interceptors (6 anti-armor). Players would be able to mix the types within each carrier and would be provided with, in addition to the standard attack button, a "launch light interceptors" button and a "launch heavy interceptors" button, so the types could be split up among targets to make the most efficient use of them. Absolutely no AoE effects would be allowed on the interceptors' weapons, as it would be unnecessary overkill. The best way to deal with this threat would still be the same: heavy anti-air to destroy the carrier.

---

Oh, I forgot this idea! it was so cool!
I had been thinking about making the "heavy interceptors" go suicidal like scarabs or something. Anyways your idea is quite good. Keep it up!
I hope people considers it instead of throwing away the Carrier.

What about switching the Carrier and Void Ray on the tech tree?

Void Rays require Fleet Beacon, Carriers are more available to assault light ground units earlier?
Changes to the units and upgrades could be made accordingly.

No thanks, they just need to give the Fleet beacon a few more techs (the old one had like 4, 2 of which were for the Scout).

How would 2 more upgrades on a late game building help? =(

Carriers should be able to move while interceptors keep attacking. They shouldn't retreat with such a small range away from the carrier.

This will make the carrier worth getting. But they can already decimate hydras currently in 4s or 6s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ManjiSanji

How would 2 more upgrades on a late game building help? =(

---

Well if we had one for the Phoenix and another one for the VR it'd make the Fleet Beacon a bit more enticing, and thus the Carrier might see a bit more use, if only because people would be more likely to tech to it.

Ultimately though, I feel the Carrier really needs to be relegated to the campaigns/map editor and replaced in regular games with a new unit.

*cough* tempest *cough*

I couldn't agree more.

The tougher GtA shield was nice, too. Didn't care for the melee interceptors, but the unit idea was otherwise sound.

Lets retake the idea some of the posters proposed:

The Fathership

Because it fires little swimmers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SCpollo

*cough* tempest *cough*

---

Sorry, you want to replace an existing unit with the very unit it replaced (which is, let's face it, basically the existing unit with a new mechanic, and thus, doesn't really warrant a name change since it's happened to no other unit in the game)? No thanks, I'd rather take a 'real' new unit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MattII

Sorry, you want to replace an existing unit with the very unit it replaced (which is, let's face it, basically the existing unit with a new mechanic, and thus, doesn't really warrant a name change since it's happened to no other unit in the game)? No thanks, I'd rather take a 'real' new unit.

---

Well, yes, so would the rest of us, but we'll take what we can get, and the Tempest is at least conceptually different than the Carrier.

Frankly, I think nearly everybody recognizes that our, "ZOMG no don't take the Carrier!" response had unfavorable ramifications, in that the Carrier just feels out of place and boring now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ManjiSanji

Well, yes, so would the rest of us, but we'll take what we can get, and the Tempest is at least conceptually different than the Carrier.

---

Maybe, but the shield mechanic was thoroughly un-Protossy, and apart from the mechanic it was basically a facelifted Carrier.

Quote:

---

Frankly, I think nearly everybody recognizes that our, "ZOMG no don't take the Carrier!" response had unfavorable ramifications, in that the Carrier just feels out of place and boring now.

---

Yep it did, but it was as much Blizzard's refusal to really try new ideas as community response that got us the Carrier back.

I have to admit, MattII, you have me confused; how was the mechanic, inspired directly from the Immortal, un-Protossy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ManjiSanji

I have to admit, MattII, you have me confused; how was the mechanic, inspired directly from the Immortal, un-Protossy?

---

Because it had exactly 0 shields against AtA attacks, and Protoss units always have shields (reduced to 0 points maybe, but never not there).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phazonjunkie

Starcraft 2 would be such a different (and better) beast if it wasn't for that damn dirty 'N' word:


Nostalgia....:mad:

---

Indeed, we might have gotten some interesting mechanics to make this that much more different; instead we got "press button every 45 seconds or lose" and "wireframe casting is bad, we want to force you to do mediocre things."

The lack of air shield would've made the Tempest laughably weak the minute your opponent got any air units up, and melee interceptors is just laughably stupid. I'm all for modifying the existing Carrier to have some smart, interesting abilities (i.e. multiple types of Interceptors) but let's leave the silly squiddy's ideas alone.