Old Carrier vs New Carrier

[mr. peasant]

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.

So, the speculated details taken from even lesser detailed sprites of the game make a better source? That's hardly an ideal arrangement, is it? Regardless, both of them agree that the Carrier is hollow for the most part at the front. Therefore, the complaint that the new Carrier's apparent lack of mass is silly since this has always been the case. As for the intricate design, this is done simply to make the unit appear more visually interesting, unique, recognizable and memorable. It's certainly the case that the current Carrier is aesthetically appealing (at least to me) and easy to recognize.

As for the general impracticality of the design, the entire concept of the Carrier as a mobile factory that manufactures Interceptors in the field is just as bad. Why bring a factory into the field when the space it occupies aboard a ship can be used to carry even more fighters? In order to build the Interceptors in situ, they would need to bring their individual components anyway. So, why not completely build them ahead of time? In terms of mass and space occupied, it would be about the same (if not more efficient in the former if there is wastage during the manufacturing process).

[MattII]

So, the speculated details taken from even lesser detailed sprites of the game make a better source? That's hardly an ideal arrangement, is it?

My complaint has and always will be about the superstructure of the thing, which is clearly visible even on the sprite as being wide-open and flimsy.

Regardless, both of them agree that the Carrier is hollow for the most part at the front. Therefore, the complaint that the new Carrier's apparent lack of mass is silly since this has always been the case.

The old Carrier had very few gaps in the hull, this new one has more, and they're pretty gaping at that. The old Carrier was also about (by my estimates) 1/2 factory and engines, this new one quite clearly does not have this, yet is supposed to be a ship of about the same size (at least I think so, I mean it is a direct port from the original game rather than a new unit). If you're going to pare down the mass by removing bulky components,then why not pare down the size as well, give yourself less empty hull to cover?

As for the intricate design, this is done simply to make the unit appear more visually interesting, unique, recognizable and memorable.

That would make more sense if it were a new design and not simply not a recoloured Tempest. The new sprites also have a lot more pixels to work with than the old ones, so who knows how a ported Carrier would look?

It's certainly the case that the current Carrier is aesthetically appealing (at least to me) and easy to recognize.

The first bit is, as you state, an opinion, and the second is ambiguous due to the fact that the old Carrier design would be just as distinctive if it were ported over.

As for the general impracticality of the design, the entire concept of the Carrier as a mobile factory that manufactures Interceptors in the field is just as bad. Why bring a factory into the field when the space it occupies aboard a ship can be used to carry even more fighters?

Because a factory can be used to replace any destroyed fighters, scrap that and you're left with an attack force that is both flimsy 'and' irreplaceable.

In order to build the Interceptors in situ, they would need to bring their individual components anyway. So, why not completely build them ahead of time? In terms of mass and space occupied, it would be about the same (if not more efficient in the former if there is wastage during the manufacturing process).

If you're working with prebuilt components that might work, but if you're working with say, nano-assemblers, the raw materials take less space than the completed items.

[Roobster]

Since Interceptors on the old Carrier are built from materials harvested from the battlefield, and minerals that were dropped off at the Nexus can immediately be used for Interceptor production and finally that the Carrier is unable to build any Interceptors without mining at the base it has to be assumed that the Carrier brings no materials on board for construction and that the materials are transported from the local base to the ship as needed, possibly through teleportation. So since materials are not stored on the Carriers until needed, they do not take up extra space.

[Norfindel]

So, the speculated details taken from even lesser detailed sprites of the game make a better source? That's hardly an ideal arrangement, is it? Regardless, both of them agree that the Carrier is hollow for the most part at the front. Therefore, the complaint that the new Carrier's apparent lack of mass is silly since this has always been the case. As for the intricate design, this is done simply to make the unit appear more visually interesting, unique, recognizable and memorable. It's certainly the case that the current Carrier is aesthetically appealing (at least to me) and easy to recognize.

As for the general impracticality of the design, the entire concept of the Carrier as a mobile factory that manufactures Interceptors in the field is just as bad. Why bring a factory into the field when the space it occupies aboard a ship can be used to carry even more fighters? In order to build the Interceptors in situ, they would need to bring their individual components anyway. So, why not completely build them ahead of time? In terms of mass and space occupied, it would be about the same (if not more efficient in the former if there is wastage during the manufacturing process).

The information on how it works is from Blizzard itself: http://classic.battle.net/scc/protos.../carrier.shtml

I recommend to you, that before calling that the argument of someone else "pure speculation", you at least check the official site.

Mobile factories are common for the Protoss. The Reaver is another one: http://classic.battle.net/scc/protos...s/reaver.shtml

.

[mr. peasant]

The information on how it works is from Blizzard itself: http://classic.battle.net/scc/protos.../carrier.shtml

I recommend to you, that before calling that the argument of someone else "pure speculation", you at least check the official site.

Mobile factories are common for the Protoss. The Reaver is another one: http://classic.battle.net/scc/protos...s/reaver.shtml

.

I have and nowhere does it state at which part of the Carrier Interceptors are manufactured. My argument is that it does not take place at the front section (so, I assume it takes place at the back section) of the Carrier since the cinematic shows that this area is devoid of the required components or storage pods of any kind. Rather, the front section was composed of scaffolding meant to support an otherwise empty and unused shell. It would seem reasonable and even logical for this front section to be used to store Interceptors and to build them. However, official cinematic sources seem to indicate otherwise.

Because a factory can be used to replace any destroyed fighters, scrap that and you're left with an attack force that is both flimsy 'and' irreplaceable.

However, you'd still need to carry the raw materials to build Interceptors onboard. Hence, why not have them built ahead of time? That way, when one is shot down, you can immediately launch one of the spares that you have docked rather than having to manufacture a replacement.

If you're working with prebuilt components that might work, but if you're working with say, nano-assemblers, the raw materials take less space than the completed items.

Really? The only way a disassembled object takes less space than when assembled is if the components are geometrically shaped (and thus more space efficient) or if the completed product is hollow on the inside. Chances are, the latter is not true as an Interceptor is a robot (lots of circuitry and computers needed). As for using microscopically small materials, how feasible would it be to produce something as (comparatively) large as an Interceptor in a reasonable amount of time?

Since Interceptors on the old Carrier are built from materials harvested from the battlefield, and minerals that were dropped off at the Nexus can immediately be used for Interceptor production and finally that the Carrier is unable to build any Interceptors without mining at the base it has to be assumed that the Carrier brings no materials on board for construction and that the materials are transported from the local base to the ship as needed, possibly through teleportation. So since materials are not stored on the Carriers until needed, they do not take up extra space.

Do you have a source for this? If you're talking about how you need to harvest materials in-game in order to build Interceptors, Carriers, etc, that's like saying Zealots are made from minerals harvested at the base site. It's just a gameplay mechanic.

[Roobster]

Do you have a source for this? If you're talking about how you need to harvest materials in-game in order to build Interceptors, Carriers, etc, that's like saying Zealots are made from minerals harvested at the base site. It's just a gameplay mechanic.

Good point, however since all Protoss buildings and units including Zealots are warped in as opposed to built like Interceptors and Scarabs there must be some important difference between the two in lore if the difference is big enough to be states in-game. Of course, the gameplay mechanics are so extremely abstracted representations of the lore that it might be impossible to get an answer to the question of materials storage on Carriers.

By the way, the Carrier article on starcraft2.com states the following: "Interceptors are automatically manufactured and serviced inside the carriers’ bays."
http://starcraft2.com/features/protoss/carrier.xml
If this statement stays canon and no portal exists on the new Carrier the new model will indeed be as senseless as has been explained earlier by some posters including myself, so let's hope Blizzard picks up on the portal idea. The portal would be a great and thematically fitting technological advancement for Carriers regardless which model Blizzard goes with in my opinion.

[KneeofJustice]

Who says a portal would cut down on space? Maybe it would actually increase the amount of space needed to service it? And if it takes up more space, it also wont be able to repair the interceptors mid-flight, which is very important for the carrier.

I would imagine, however, that the Carriers already have a "beam-me-up-Scotty" type deal on their carriers so they can move around and between ships of a fleet with little hindrance. And also for resourcing and repair reasons.

I mean, if they can teleport instantly out of a battle when dying, they should be able to teleport between ships of the same carrier group.

Also, a good reason for having a repair bay/factory is to be able to store and service scouts and other fighters that may or may not need such repairs. This is based on the assumption that carriers also may house manned vessels, so it could be wrong. If youre in a war-zone, instant access to repair bays could be very useful, instead of having to travel through a warp gate first.

Think also about power. What kind of khaydarin chrystals would be needed to service a constant coming and going of interceptors to and from the home-planet? Big ones right? And that takes up more space, right?

[Visions of Khas]

It may be possible that the Carrier stores the Interceptors in a manner similar to the way Warp Prisms store ground units, ie in energy form.

But it would also serve other advantages, if it were a portal to a centralized manufacturing plant. Damaged interceptors would be quickly swapped out for working ones without the wait; a lone carrier can act as the vanguard for an entire expeditionary fleet. Of course, this also raises the disadvantage of further centralizing everything, and after the fall of Aiur and the Protoss's main industrial power, they may be leaning more towards self-sufficient vessels. Who knows.

[Norfindel]

There's something nobody mentioned here, however: the energy required to constantly warp Interceptors in and out of Carriers. It could be more efficient to repair Interceptors inside the ships, than to warp them back to Shakuras, and warp a replacement Interceptor. The ability to completely repair them could allow them to also build them from scratch.
Who knows how the Protoss build stuff? Maybe they use force shields and energy beams to work metals and crystals, which would make a very versatile machine. Also, their tech could be just less complex. They use crystals to focus psi energy and create various effects, which means that their whole tech could be just completely wireless. The fantasy equivalent would be that the ship is just a huge magic item .

[KneeofJustice]

There's something nobody mentioned here, however: the energy required to constantly warp Interceptors in and out of Carriers. It could be more efficient to repair Interceptors inside the ships, than to warp them back to Shakuras, and warp a replacement Interceptor. The ability to completely repair them could allow them to also build them from scratch.
Who knows how the Protoss build stuff? Maybe they use force shields and energy beams to work metals and crystals, which would make a very versatile machine. Also, their tech could be just less complex. They use crystals to focus psi energy and create various effects, which means that their whole tech could be just completely wireless. The fantasy equivalent would be that the ship is just a huge magic item .

Two posts above yours

Thats more or less exactly what I was suggesting. Crystal size appears to be directly proportional to their power (see below link, but be aware that its non-cannon, so I was making a giant assumption )

http://homepage.mac.com/cheethorne/S...technology.htm

You might enjoy this (non-cannon) page. There are lots of other ones, including one about protoss military ranks and a history, as well as things for zerg and terran.

http://homepage.mac.com/cheethorne/conversions.htm (scroll down a bit).

Think of it like a highly detailed fanfic.

Do people want just a role/ability/"something new" change, just a design change or a combo of the two or neither (pure SCBW carrier)?