Old Carrier vs New Carrier

[Crazy_Jonny]

I wouldn't mind the new model as much if they can fix up the textures and stuff a little bit, which they did with the Mothership so I still have hope. But I'll always prefer the old one out of nostalgia, which is the reason the unit is even there anyway.

[ArcherofAiur]

But I'll always prefer the old one out of nostalgia, which is the reason the unit is even there anyway.

Thats a great point.

[Gradius]

I'd be fine with them keeping this new carrier actually if they kept the supercarriers as the original banana in single player.

[ArcherofAiur]

Im so holding out hope for massive super carriers with 16 interceptors, massive hp and the planet cracker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eflKzcEbLk






PS (how come you cant img youtube on this site anymore?)

[Roobster]

Cue me:

As others have pointed out, it's entirely possible that the ring in the center of the new Carrier is in fact a small warp gate. Hence, the new lore could say that recent development in the understanding of the Void has allowed the Protoss to create stable, portable gateways. Powered by dedicated matrices of their own, these new Carriers possess a direct conduit to the Interceptor factories and repair facilities on Shakuras. From here, the Interceptors are launched directly into combat through the Carriers' portals at which point the Carriers take control of the robotic automatons.

By using this centralized factory, the Protoss no longer have to produce the thousands of Interceptors needed to outfit the many Carriers of their fleet; instead deploying those that they have into the field only at times of active combat. This carried the further benefit of not losing all the Interceptors in the event a Carrier is shot down. In addition, as they no longer need to carry Interceptor components, a mobile factory and an onboard repair bay (all of which were impractical anyway), the new Carriers no longer needed to be so large in size.

I really hope Blizzard will go with this if they choose to keep the current model, it is an interesting and clever concept and way to justify it. This could certainly make it more cost-effective than the old Carrier if your reasoning in the second paragraph would be true.

I feel however that such a tremendous improvement should translate somehow into the actual game, and having a giant ship with a portal in it could be used for many kinds of special abilities or upgrades. And maybe Blizzard is already toying with the idea, perhaps the Carriers that are glassing that planet are actually just teleporting through beams being fired from Shakuras or some other world? This could be used to explain why Carriers can't fire the beams in combat since that would require withdrawing all Interceptors and shutting down shields to give enough power to the portal to allow the glassing beam through et cetera.

[B~E]

It should have been a Zerg unit,.

I thought I was the only one who saw that.

[Kimera757]

Im so holding out hope for massive super carriers with 16 interceptors, massive hp and the planet cracker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eflKzcEbLk

16 interceptors is actually kind of lame, given the purpose of the super carrier is lore, not gameplay.

A typical aircraft carrier has at least 7 squadrons of aircraft, although only about half are actually combat aircraft. (The rest would be support vessels, troop transports, and the like.)

[MattII]

I really hope Blizzard will go with this if they choose to keep the current model, it is an interesting and clever concept and way to justify it. This could certainly make it more cost-effective than the old Carrier if your reasoning in the second paragraph would be true.

Any efficiency gained from removing the onboard manufacturing and repair units is immediately lost to the fact that the Carrier has not actually shrunk any as a result, it's just got a lot more flimsy.

I feel however that such a tremendous improvement should translate somehow into the actual game, and having a giant ship with a portal in it could be used for many kinds of special abilities or upgrades. And maybe Blizzard is already toying with the idea, perhaps the Carriers that are glassing that planet are actually just teleporting through beams being fired from Shakuras or some other world? This could be used to explain why Carriers can't fire the beams in combat since that would require withdrawing all Interceptors and shutting down shields to give enough power to the portal to allow the glassing beam through et cetera.

Well if this is true, why are we still stuck with one type of Interceptor? Sorry, but there is no way this flimsy, gangly, sorry excuse of a climbing frame should even fly, let alone be regarded as a combat ship, and especially not one that's meant to carry a flight of fighters by itself.

[Roobster]

Any efficiency gained from removing the onboard manufacturing and repair units is immediately lost to the fact that the Carrier has not actually shrunk any as a result, it's just got a lot more flimsy.



Well if this is true, why are we still stuck with one type of Interceptor? Sorry, but there is no way this flimsy, gangly, sorry excuse of a climbing frame should even fly, let alone be regarded as a combat ship, and especially not one that's meant to carry a flight of fighters by itself.

I agree, except in that it's impossible to tell what size it is compared to the old Carrier since aerial units are not to scale in either game.

[mr. peasant]

Any efficiency gained from removing the onboard manufacturing and repair units is immediately lost to the fact that the Carrier has not actually shrunk any as a result, it's just got a lot more flimsy.

Well, people often point out that the Tempest was not meant to be a capital ship; meaning its size was likely smaller than the old Carrier. Seeing as how the new Carrier is a recolor of the Tempest, this should also mean that it too is smaller than the old Carrier, no?

Moreover, the economic benefit comes from this: Let's say the Protoss have 100 Carriers in their fleets across the galaxy and each Carrier is set to be outfitted with 1,000 Interceptors. They'd need 100,000 Interceptors to support them all. By centralizing Interceptor storage, this number can be significantly lowered since the odds that all Carriers would be engaged in combat at all locations at the exact same time is highly unlikely. Moreover, losing a Carrier would not lead to the loss of those 1,000 Interceptors. Again, this conserves resources. So, even if their size remain the same, it doesn't matter since the savings come from other aspects.

Well if this is true, why are we still stuck with one type of Interceptor? Sorry, but there is no way this flimsy, gangly, sorry excuse of a climbing frame should even fly, let alone be regarded as a combat ship, and especially not one that's meant to carry a flight of fighters by itself.

Seriously, I keep seeing people complain that the new Carrier looks flimsy, etc. If you look at the old Carrier carefully, it's pretty flimsy as well! The entire hull is largely hollow and can lore-wise be blasted through by a Mutalisk (as evidenced in the original Protoss ending). Also, the old Carrier also isn't sensibly able to carry all those Interceptors either. In the video I linked, the Mutalisk enters the Carrier. When they show the inside, the hollowed-out front 2/3 mostly contain scaffoldings. There was no sign of any Interceptors or docking bays of any sort.