Carriers

i am very happy to read the Carriers in that movie are not at their full power,because heck,they were pretty weak.

now,about it's design,it's far too hollow to me.the Carriers are supposed to be big capital ships with Interceptors as their main attack.now they look like hollow flying machines with interceptors popping out of them,(actually,they look like they pop out of nowhere) and i don't really like this,AT ALL.

 

Yes but the Tempest did have normal shields. Were they at full strength when the yamato hit or had they been worn down?

 

i heard the shields were weaker on the tempest

 

I like the carrier as it is now.

If there would be any change I would like a selection of different types of intercepters. Maybe AA intercepters AG intercepters and normal all purpose ones.

 

I agree with the hollow look, it really needs something else there. I also think that being able to customize is key because the protoss don't have much of an answer to heavy air right now. Phoenixs and warp rays aren't bad, but they are fairly fragile and I think both might fall to one shot from a Yamamoto blast. With the mother ship strong against ground there is really no difference between it and the carrier other than one has abilities and will cost more. With the ability to adjust to what the enemy is building on the fly the carrier has a big advantage to the mother ship that will make people get mother ships just as casters instead of an armada of them.

 

You heard true. To a degree. In the old video that was packaged with the PC Gamer issue, it explains that the Tempest had really poweful undershields, these shields where meant to be extremely powerful against ground units. However it was supposed to be non-existant vs. air units. I personally dislike the new look, it reminds me of the tempest, and I really didn't like the tempest. I'd learn to live though, if they could hold more interceptors.

False dreams....

 

I think most talk involing the carrier should go about under the assumption that the MS is a unique unit otherwise they will overlap so much one of them will end being thrown out.

 

I completely disagree with this. No offense. I just don't see what you are saying. The Carrier and Mothership, even at the same price, and not one time units, do not overlap role-wise. The carrier is made for attacking, given enough rescources it can be the backbone of an attack force. The mothership has much more of a support role. They have said that the black-hole ability is gone, so it is left with time warp and a lesser planet cracker. I do not see this unit heading any sort of attack on its own. Now say, with a couple immortals, a Colossus, and a DT or ten, maybe. I really don't see how they overlap, sure they are both capital ships, but their roles are completely different.

 

carrier in sc2 = boring. they should add something new to it. new abilities / skills.

 

While they both go about it in different ways the term effect of using either one of these is a heavy ATG unit. And yes i know interceptors can attack air units but how often are carriers used for anti air vs. heavy ATG assult? While the Mothership does have some obvious support abilities i would lvoe for you tell me with a straight face that 4 Motherships wouldnt do more ground damage than 4 carriers. (assuming they have planet cracker) The only real big difference between them is Carriers can attack air and Mothership can cloak units/buildings but these air both secondary roles.


EDIT: Zeratul i have atleast 2 threads devoted entirely to that exact disscussion. (one is a poll ithink as well)

 

zeratul i couldnt agree more its just only better graphics but still a big ass blimp wit bees in it

 

@LordKerwyn
Now I was going to post a well thought response to you, but then it occured to me that I didn't know the new carrier's HP/Shields/cost/ Will it be the same? Do we know? Are the two units comparable cost wise? I was under the impression that the mothership was much, much more expensive.

*EDIT* Also I would like to point out that Planet cracker has a limited number of uses, and isnt relative of the unit as a whole. The carrier can keep attacking with roughly that same damage in each battle. You take out one base, you still have the same attack power with the survivors for the next assault. The mothership will be low on energy, and wont be able to use that same ability again for a while, so now your stuck with its base attack, which from what I've seen is much weaker then a BC's standard air to ground attack.

 

does anyone know how effective the carrier will be against players on battle.net?

cuz everytime I use them, they just get destroyed before they can do much permanent damage, even at full power upgrades :-\ is there anyway that the carriers would be able to take on hydralisks, since they get destroyed by them in SC1?

even if not, I love the new animation for then, the pure one color sceme in the origional just looks too dull

 

well, the hydras are a sort of counter for the carriers, so you cant just make the carrier able to kill em with less casualties. they are supposed to get shot down by fast anti-air land units(among other things) but they are instead more useful in other situations. The range for instance, makes it able to destroy static defenses, letting your other units handle the attack. Of course, under that attack, the Carriers will do some great damage when floating in the background not taking to much damage themselfs.

 

but against human players, carriers don't stand a chance unless in massive numbers, ppl leave the intercepters alone and go only for the carrier

I know this is off subject, but how do u get avatars? can u get them in the shop? or from other sources?

 

Go to "View/edit my profile" in the upper left corner, then press "Forum profile information".
you change it there

 

thx, the protoss avatars for SC2 look nice ^_^

hope the carriers will be awesome, they are my favorite aircraft in SC1

 

well,i am not worried anyomore about it's look(well,one/some new abilities wouldn't hurt),but i do wish they make something about it's looks.the Carrier just doesn't looks right.i mean,THAT'S how the Gantrithor is supposed to look like ??that's just WRONG.the Carriers are capital ships,but they don't look like one at all as they are now.Blizzard did a great job with the Battlecruiser,i am very dissapointed with their work with the Carrier.i know they can do much better.

 

I personally like how the new carrier looks, but that's my opinion and have no reason to argue against yours

the carrier at least kept its general shape and the interceptors look just like a swarming hive of insects like they did in the first game

 

I also like the current carriers look but just in case anyone didn't know the current carrier is just a recolored tempest so blizzard actually tried to make the model smaller and lighter than the SC1 carrier model.

@Wraithwatch Its a shame you didn't make you long post i love picking great thoughts apart. I have been discussing the carrier and the mothership on this forum pretty much since my first post. In fact my first post was creating a topic discussing the Mothership so i would to think i have seen a lot of sides of these arguments.

But anyways back to the discussion. First numbers mean almost nothing when you are discussing the role of a unit. Numbers primarily are the the fine tuning of balancing and not much more. Second take a look at just the Mothership's and Carrier's attack. Its nearly identical they both shoot a number of smaller bolts at separate targets (carriers do this with interceptors) currently the Mothership shoots 8 bolts and i think the carrier has 6/12 interceptors. Making the only real difference in there primary attack whether or not the attack can hit air. Next look at the possible counters for these units. Assuming the carrier is similar to its SC1 version a couple of good counters are BCs with yamatos and scourges. Both of these abilities would also be extremely effective against Motherships. Now lets look what there potential roles would be again assuming carriers are similar to SC1. Carriers primarily were good at long range assult against static defense because the target of static defenses couldn't be chosen, Carriers were also really good at just attacking buildings in general because of there high damage output. Motherships as of right now are also good against static defense because time bomb can be used to effectively shut down any static defense and other semi stationary units also Motherships are extremely effective against buildings because of planet cracker due to most buildings inability to get out of the way before it is completely destroyed.

Now so what does that leave of us with? Carriers can attack air units with semi effectiveness and Motherships can cloak ground buildings and units. Is that a difference? Yes. Is that a big difference? No. As of right now i would perdict most players would either get just Carriers or just Motherships depending on which one gave more bang for its buck. Which is in fact determined by the numbers.