Old Carrier vs New Carrier

[MattII]

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.

Well maybe not, but there's a lot of space and a lot of holes in the Tempest design, including the fact that the Bridge is physically disconnected from the main 'body' of the thing, ergo, it's flimsy, which is not something you want to see in any sort of ship, especially not a warship.

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?

No, it carries the same number of Interceptors which means it needs to be the same size, especially as it wastes so much more space on openings than the old Carrier did.

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.

Gameplay >> everything else, they actually need to have the Interceptors to hand to be able to use them, which means that unless they're right in the middle of a safe-zone they need to keep all the Carriers equipped with Interceptors anyway.

So, even if their size remain the same, it doesn't matter since the savings come from other aspects.

And any saving on Interceptors are taken up by materials wasted on the Tempest design.

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).

Take a look again, the Mutalisks fly through the sides 'where the Interceptors come out', so, no, they don't even touch the hull.

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.

It was closer to half actually, and remember that this was meant to run on low-end computers, so there can't be too many details. Also, the only time we might see the interceptor bays is on the final approach, and we see that head on, so we don't get to see most of the inside of hollow section anyway.

[mr. peasant]

Well maybe not, but there's a lot of space and a lot of holes in the Tempest design, including the fact that the Bridge is physically disconnected from the main 'body' of the thing, ergo, it's flimsy, which is not something you want to see in any sort of ship, especially not a warship.

Hmm... that's an interesting observation. I can't seem to make it out in the OP's pic and I haven't really seen many clear shots of the Carrier from other angles. But even if that's the case, it should be pointed out that the new Photon Cannon is also physically disconnected from its base. Perhaps it's a Protoss thing?

No, it carries the same number of Interceptors which means it needs to be the same size, especially as it wastes so much more space on openings than the old Carrier did.

If we accept that it's a miniature Gateway at the center of the new Carrier (from which the Interceptors are deployed from), they wouldn't need to physically store the Interceptors.

Gameplay >> everything else, they actually need to have the Interceptors to hand to be able to use them, which means that unless they're right in the middle of a safe-zone they need to keep all the Carriers equipped with Interceptors anyway.

Actually, I disagre with that statement. Gameplay and Lore are two distinct and independent factors as far as Blizzard's development of SC2 is concerned. As for the Carriers needing the Interceptors on hand at all times, that's not true. After all, what are the odds that the Protoss will need them at multiple locations at the exact same time? A comparable analogy would be any military. When was the last time the U.S. needed/deployed all its soldiers into the field at the exact same moment?

And any saving on Interceptors are taken up by materials wasted on the Tempest design.

And Phoenix, and Void Ray, and Stalkers, and Immortals, and... Logically speaking, the Protoss would have been more preoccupied with rebuilding infrastructure than revamping their military from the ground up after what they went through in the Brood War.

Take a look again, the Mutalisks fly through the sides 'where the Interceptors come out', so, no, they don't even touch the hull.

It was closer to half actually, and remember that this was meant to run on low-end computers, so there can't be too many details. Also, the only time we might see the interceptor bays is on the final approach, and we see that head on, so we don't get to see most of the inside of hollow section anyway.

My definition of 'hull' is the outer shell of a ship. Basically, the point is that the Mutalisk entered the ship, regardless of which part. Whether 1/2 or 2/3 through, the fact remains that's still a hefty chunk of the ship that is hollow and horribly fragile/waste of space.

As for the need to run on low-end computers, I believe the clip was a pre-rendered video not too different from a movie clip. Now, I admit my undersetandings of the technical aspects behind this is rather minimal, wouldn't there be no difference in the computer's requirements to play the clip with or without Interceptors/bays shown since the computer isn't creating them in real time but simply replaying a recording? Unless, of course, you mean it was less work for Blizzard. But if all of that was the case, why even add a segment with the Mutalisk inside and paint an inaccurate picture? Couldn't they have just had the Mutalisk wreak havoc from the outside?

[MattII]

Hmm... that's an interesting observation. I can't seem to make it out in the OP's pic and I haven't really seen many clear shots of the Carrier from other angles. But even if that's the case, it should be pointed out that the new Photon Cannon is also physically disconnected from its base. Perhaps it's a Protoss thing?

The new Photon Cannon was originally the Phase Cannon. the original Photon Cannon can be seen here:

As for the Disconnection being a Protoss thing, why only a few units and buildings ('Carrier', Void Ray, 'Photon Cannon') then?

If we accept that it's a miniature Gateway at the center of the new Carrier (from which the Interceptors are deployed from), they wouldn't need to physically store the Interceptors.

They need to store them 'somewhere', so why not on the Carrier. And if they do store them elsewhere, why the hells do they need such a big spindly ship?

Actually, I disagre with that statement. Gameplay and Lore are two distinct and independent factors as far as Blizzard's development of SC2 is concerned.

We're talking about a game here, Gameplay trumps lore, it has to, or risk being a bad seller.

As for the Carriers needing the Interceptors on hand at all times, that's not true. After all, what are the odds that the Protoss will need them at multiple locations at the exact same time?

Against the Zerg, I'd say the odds would be quite big.

A comparable analogy would be any military. When was the last time the U.S. needed/deployed all its soldiers into the field at the exact same moment?

When was the last time the U.S. faced a major attack against its mainland states, by a superior power? Oh, that's right, during the War Of Independence, when the Minutemen were formed; Minutemen being reserve soldiers who could be ready for action very quickly.

And Phoenix, and Void Ray, and Stalkers, and Immortals, and... Logically speaking, the Protoss would have been more preoccupied with rebuilding infrastructure than revamping their military from the ground up after what they went through in the Brood War.

Oh, right, so in the face of a massive well-prepared enemy Military spending is a waste and should be spent on roads? Get real. Also, the Tempest-Carrier is a master-work of inefficient design, huge holes, thin struts (those connecting the bridge and the main section for example) and making it overall way bigger than you actually need it to be. The tempest is far closer to a piece of abstract art than a warship.

My definition of 'hull' is the outer shell of a ship. Basically, the point is that the Mutalisk entered the ship, regardless of which part. Whether 1/2 or 2/3 through, the fact remains that's still a hefty chunk of the ship that is hollow and horribly fragile/waste of space.

Inside the front section is basically a mix of Hanger and Flight Deck, so the interceptors have to have 'some room to manoeuvre, or risk crashing (into each other or the structure of the Carrier. And even if it was 2/3 hollow, that's still 1/3 more than the Tempest-Carrier we currently have, which appears to be made of tin-foil and pipe-cleaners.

As for the need to run on low-end computers, I believe the clip was a pre-rendered video not too different from a movie clip. Now, I admit my undersetandings of the technical aspects behind this is rather minimal, wouldn't there be no difference in the computer's requirements to play the clip with or without Interceptors/bays shown since the computer isn't creating them in real time but simply replaying a recording? Unless, of course, you mean it was less work for Blizzard. But if all of that was the case, why even add a segment with the Mutalisk inside and paint an inaccurate picture? Couldn't they have just had the Mutalisk wreak havoc from the outside?

The Carrier had 4 armour (the highest in the game), they had to have the Mutalisk to get inside, for it to do any damage. Also, the Muta entered near the factory section, so it was mostly not flying through the Interceptor bays itself, but through the factory/repair section. There's also the fact that it was made for a 640*480 display and a 16MB graphics card, so they didn't have a great deal to work with.

Also, the only time we got to see inside the main bay was during the final approach to the Overmind, and at that we were seeing it head on, so we'd have got to see about 1/5 maybe less of what was inside anyway.

[mr. peasant]

The new Photon Cannon was originally the Phase Cannon. the original Photon Cannon can be seen here:

As for the Disconnection being a Protoss thing, why only a few units and buildings ('Carrier', Void Ray, 'Photon Cannon') then?

Not to mention the Disruptor, Mothership, Nexus and Pylon. That's quite a lot, if you ask me. And speaking of the Mothership, I find is strange how people are quick to complain how the new Carrier model does not look combat capable when the Mothership is far more exposed in its design. Especially since it's the Mothership that is the Protoss' current capital ship, not the Carrier (which is more escort vessel).

We're talking about a game here, Gameplay trumps lore, it has to, or risk being a bad seller.

Not according to Blizzard. Notice how the campaign has loads more features that aren't available in multiplayer? If game trumped lore, they wouldn't have these features. Instead, lore and gameplay are largely two separate entities independent of one another.

When was the last time the U.S. faced a major attack against its mainland states, by a superior power? Oh, that's right, during the War Of Independence, when the Minutemen were formed; Minutemen being reserve soldiers who could be ready for action very quickly.

Thing is, in SC2, the Protoss are spread out beyond one location. They've ventured out beyond just Shakuras, likely holding multiple planets; many of which aren't continuously active combat zones.

Oh, right, so in the face of a massive well-prepared enemy Military spending is a waste and should be spent on roads? Get real. Also, the Tempest-Carrier is a master-work of inefficient design, huge holes, thin struts (those connecting the bridge and the main section for example) and making it overall way bigger than you actually need it to be. The tempest is far closer to a piece of abstract art than a warship.

Certainly to a degree. You must realize, the Protoss' situation is akin to having lost the President, all major cities and having had to retreat to Hawaii. First things first would be to reestablish order over who's in charge. Then, consolidate what forces you have. You wouldn't be designing new vehicles and retiring older yet still functional vessels.

Inside the front section is basically a mix of Hanger and Flight Deck, so the interceptors have to have 'some room to manoeuvre, or risk crashing (into each other or the structure of the Carrier. And even if it was 2/3 hollow, that's still 1/3 more than the Tempest-Carrier we currently have, which appears to be made of tin-foil and pipe-cleaners.

If it's 2/3 hollow with 1/3 content, that's close to the same ratio as the new Carrier. The new Carrier's back end is equally as solid as the old Carrier.

The Carrier had 4 armour (the highest in the game), they had to have the Mutalisk to get inside, for it to do any damage. Also, the Muta entered near the factory section, so it was mostly not flying through the Interceptor bays itself, but through the factory/repair section. There's also the fact that it was made for a 640*480 display and a 16MB graphics card, so they didn't have a great deal to work with.

Also, the only time we got to see inside the main bay was during the final approach to the Overmind, and at that we were seeing it head on, so we'd have got to see about 1/5 maybe less of what was inside anyway.

Likewise, the only view of the new Carrier is in an in-game model that is severely limited in the amount of detail it can show. For all we know, the front section of the new Carrier (those two frontal projections that surround the blue ring) might be completely capable of storing Interceptors and the unit being in fact very large in reality.

[KneeofJustice]

The carrier in SCBW had 3 hull segments which mirrors the mothership's 3 individual "petals."

Anyways, Im interested in the suggestion that the carrier has somehow gained an on-board stargate that can somehow call in reinforcements from on-planet factories in a pinch. Although I think that from a design stand-point the carrier would have definitely been improved in the last 4 years (getting its own attack anyone?), especially if new space is opened up by the loss of on-board manufacturing plants.

Think... if youre a protoss designer and youve found a way of putting the same amount of things into less space, you arent going to do away with that space entirely: youre going to use it for other things.

Anyways, this idea intrigues me because it is very similar in concept to the original strike escort idea: call in the full power of the protoss fleet to aid you, but only when it suits you. Theoretically, if you could call in more reinforcements from around the universe (sector), one carrier could be in command of an entire fleet of interceptors!

Also, remember that carriers actually heal their interceptors. Imagine that when they go into the carrier, they are warped out of battle and back to the repair station where they are healed and then sent back (maybe even to a different battle). So that a carrier's interceptors wouldnt just be changing from battle to battle, but minute to minute as they become damaged.

So I kind of like this idea from a lore perspective. I actually think that they should consider some form of strike-fighter escort idea again... maybe something like +4 interceptors (in addition to previous 8) that you pay 25 each for and are exactly like normal interceptors, except with half the HP. Furthermore, they would only last a certain time.

So now, carriers are basically like 1.5 carriers when used to their full potential, but it will be expensive to use them. Maybe this is a better way of making them more powerful and useful, but not in "12 carrier GG" groups?

Another point I found insightful was the one someone made earlier about how the carrier fleets are probably pretty sparse. We know that the dark templar have their own ships (corsairs at least, but also, didnt they flee Aiur in Carriers + a Xelnaga ship?) , but Aldaris himself says that they (Aiur toss) no longer have the protection of their great fleets (something to that effect). So it actually makes sense that the carriers would look slightly different and have slightly different abilities.

I dont think the new carrier looks as bad as people say, but i think that it could certainly use some more art updates and tweaks, perhaps more in the direction of the old carrier/new concept art. I think it really needs some new gameplay abilities or mechanics that make it unique and iconic again for SC2.

[FrozenArbiter]

I think the old one looks cuter - like a loaf of bread :]

[KadajSouba]

The new carrier must be:

Stilish, like the new ARTWORK.

Bulkier, like the old carrier.

They need a 3rd model...

This and the observer are the only Protoss units that didnt change at all since Brood war...

[MattII]

Not to mention the Disruptor, Mothership, Nexus and Pylon. That's quite a lot, if you ask me. And speaking of the Mothership,

Disruptor has no disconnected bits, and none of the others have such large a and critical component so flimsily attached to the rest of the structure, except maybe the Photon Cannon, and again, that's no closer tothe original than this is.

I find is strange how people are quick to complain how the new Carrier model does not look combat capable when the Mothership is far more exposed in its design. Especially since it's the Mothership that is the Protoss' current capital ship, not the Carrier (which is more escort vessel).

The Mothership was (lorewise) never meant to be a warship, it was designed and built 'a long time ago', and thus they're only re-crewing, not re-building it.

Not according to Blizzard. Notice how the campaign has loads more features that aren't available in multiplayer? If game trumped lore, they wouldn't have these features. Instead, lore and gameplay are largely two separate entities independent of one another.

Campaign =/= Multiplayer, everyone is going to play multiplayer (and/or non campaign single player), but probably not 'everyone' is going to play the campaigns, which means that the campaigns can have those extras that might not work in multiplayer.

Thing is, in SC2, the Protoss are spread out beyond one location. They've ventured out beyond just Shakuras, likely holding multiple planets; many of which aren't continuously active combat zones.

But which could quickly 'become' combat zones, so they need the forces on hand.

Certainly to a degree. You must realize, the Protoss' situation is akin to having lost the President, all major cities and having had to retreat to Hawaii. First things first would be to reestablish order over who's in charge. Then, consolidate what forces you have. You wouldn't be designing new vehicles and retiring older yet still functional vessels.

The analogy fails in that they've actually relocated to Toronto (Shakuras), not Hawaii (Ash'Arak), and while they've lost DC (Auir) and most of the Government (the Conclave), the Secretary of Defence (Aldaris) has survived, and is in charge. You wouldn't be retiring anything just yet, but you would be attempting to rebuild your forces.

If it's 2/3 hollow with 1/3 content, that's close to the same ratio as the new Carrier. The new Carrier's back end is equally as solid as the old Carrier.

No, the new carrier's engines are arranged in vertical slats, not a solid block like the original, which suggests a less solid rear to me.

Likewise, the only view of the new Carrier is in an in-game model that is severely limited in the amount of detail it can show. For all we know, the front section of the new Carrier (those two frontal projections that surround the blue ring) might be completely capable of storing Interceptors and the unit being in fact very large in reality.

They they're wasting 'even more' space with the design.

Personally though, I want to see a new unit anyway, leave the Carrier to a campaign and give us something new, like a cruiser that uses the MShip's old missile attack (6*10 damage say).

[Norfindel]

People, cinematics from SC1 don't count at all. The detail in them is minimal.
Carriers service and manufacture Interceptors themselves. Obviously there's a lot more inside them than it's seen in the cinematics.

Also, the in-game SC1 Carrier model looks a lot better than in the cinematics.

[Visions of Khas]

Carriers service and manufacture Interceptors themselves.

I don't think this is true anymore, considering they're emitted from a warp gate mounted in the carrier itself in SC2.