My Ideas on a Carrier/Tempest Overhaul

First I like to look of it even with the lack of a launch bay of logical size.

I was thinking a way to make the tempest/carrier more versatile and require more macro to be useful and also to incorporate the doctrine and aesthetics of both Protoss sects would be to have different upgrade options. The battle cruiser has multiple options so the capitol ship in the 'toss army should be no different.

First I would like to state that my suggestions assume a capacity of 10.
Note that you can mix the options for more versatility

--The first fighter type is like the Starcraft 2 type with a moderate amount of damage but can attack air and ground. It is able to do many roles: air attack ground assault and point defense equally as well but excels at one as the other options do more damage. Its strength lies in its ability to do everything but its weakness lies in that its lack of specialization causes it to lose potency.

--The second type focuses on air to air attack doing heavy damage to air units but having a very weak anti-ground weapon. The air attack is greater than the first interceptor but its ground attack is less than the all purpose interceptor. It will be the standard Templar Gold.

--The third type of interceptor is an air to ground bomber with high damage bombs but a weak low range anti air cannon that is inept at killing even the weakest air unit. It is the counterpart to the second a complete mirror image excelling at what the other does not and failing at what the other excels at. It will be Dark Templar gray/black.

--A possible fourth type as suggested on the Battle Net forums would be a scarab of the air able to attack air and ground units and having splash damage. It is able to do high damage but is single use only and carries a high cost with sustained use

It should be noted that for balance reasons an equal mix of AA AG interceptors will be less useful than a full load of general purpose interceptors However going all anti air or all anti ground will create a carrier that is devastating against that type of unit at the cost of being nearly helpless against the other.

More assorted options are:
--Taking up two slots is a point defense laser. It has a very short range so using it to attack will lose you your carrier. Its function is to protect the carrier from missile and scourge. It will be fast firing but a dedicated group of enemies will be able to overcome it if they focus fire. The anti scourge gun will be higher damage but lower fire rate so it will be able to stop less scourge than it can projectiles. The carrier will get additional protection at the cost of less damage potential barring you engaging enemies at point blank range. The cannon will only be able to attack missiles and air units at close range

--An anti ground shield. Just like what was seen on the original iteration of the Tempest. It will like the point defense cannons take up two slots. Unlike the cannon however it has no attack potential at all. This disadvantage is countered by the fact that it is less easily overwhelmed by ground attack and can stop non missile projectiles fired from the ground. It will be able to be overwhelmed by cumulative damage being taken down and recharging in a similar manner to the normal shield while the point defense will be overcome by mass attacks. The normal carrier shielding will take hits from air attacks and also ground attacks once the hardened shield is spent.

The defensive options will give the carrier more survivability but it will never have as much damage potential as a carrier with a full interceptor load-out. The point defense can be used to defend other carriers it is close to and can have multiple (I'm thinking 2) batteries built while the hardened shield will be single build and only protect that carrier.

--Another option from Battle Net altered by me is a warp ray attack. It will take up 4 slots and will operate same as the warp ray unit charging over time. It will be good versus a single high hit-point unit but will be inferior to any mix of interceptors against multiple small units.



Any comments or concerns?


Bonus 500 minerals for a great post.

 

i think your idea is good but i got 1(simple) myself

the tempest will stay in the game
the carrier will change into an defensive ground building

 

how do you mean the carrier will change to a defensive building? I thought the tempest is a weakened carrier..

 

some of the abilities are from the units like reaver and warp ray i suggest scrap those coz there is no need for that i do like the air to air interceptors it makes more sense but for other things it kinda becomes like a protoss version of a battlecruiser (the point defence cannon) and a flying reaver

 

The warp ray and reaver things were some stuff I found on Battle net that I figured I would throw out there. The point of the point defense thing was to have a carrier be a defensive unit and shield other carriers.

 

First off i would like to say i really love the idea of having opitional upgrades that take the place of Interceptor slots.

Second i would try an stick to ideas that units currently in the game dont have. (The reaver was not in the game for blizzcon so the scarab interceptors wouldnt dectarct from the reaver) My suggestion would be change the warp ray attack to ability that fires a continuos beam for X number of seconds at a target of your choice but make it so it can change targets during the attack (kinda like the collossus but with an ability that is more intense)

Third I know of atleast 3 other threads about carrier/tempest ideas and alot of the ideas you have said have already been discussed in some format. (with the exception of the upgrades taking interceptor slots idea) But on that same token this thread seems like a good new beggining to carrier disscussion.

 

So I noticed not as many people chose the air to ground bomber as th air to air interceptor. Is that because of the bomb part or the air to fround role. I was thinking it could shoot air to ground rockets like the banshee have a cannon or drop bombs. These are basic ideas and I encourage you all to expand on them.

 

I think it would be nice to have an optional upgrade to expand the range of the interceptors. In modern warfare, carriers win by staying out of range of battleships and blowing them up with their planes. Maybe if the interceptors go into the expanded range, they would have to divert some of the power from their weapons to use as fuel to go the extra distance so their attacks outside of the normal range would be weaker (for balance purposes and such)

 

it should be able to send out more of them if it was done that way

 

I agree in full. Although... to many interceptors = win for the carrier. They are already an incredibly powerful unit. I think it would be cool to use them as that kind of support (which they almost only used as in modern warfare). But I wouldn't want to make them too powerful and ruin the game.

Also, what is the range of the carrier vs. the range of the siege tank? there should be no way a tank can fire as far as the interceptors can fly.

 

tanks have a range of 12 interceptors should be able to fly 15 away

not a lot more maybe 12 max with two upgrades (4 extra a piece) and cost more per upgrade to balance things

 

My idea was to give it 10 slots instead of 8.


As for the range thing if I recall correctly the only units that outrange the carrier's reach were the ground attack artillery type units and thus were not a threat to the carrier anyway

 

not a threat to the carrier itself but a threat to what its supporting

i can see ten of 'em, but upgrade wise twelve would be better

 

I agree. You can only attack what is in your range of vision which with tanks and carriers is actually shorter than their range of attack. To get the full range you need something further out there to do the spotting. That's why observers are neat .

I think that the carriers should have the longest attack of the game because they have little interceptors who can go out on their lonesome and do some tiny damage (which adds up). There's no way a tank could fire as far as a carrier could launch it's planes (unless it had a freaking railgun or something and even then dubious).

The tanks can get whatever is close enough to give the carrier line of sight onto the tanks (unless it's an observer)

 

good idea, but I think this will become quite overwhelming for most games. I like the scarab idea, though, it brings back feelings of the reaver.

 

AA interceptors should be AA only, likewise for AG bombers. i.e. no need for AA interceptors to have "strong" Air attack and "weak" ground attack, just don't have ground attack at all.

 

I do hope they bring back the reaver.

About the carrier: Yeah I do think that it would be overwhelming and overpowered. If each carrier had say 12 interceptors with extra +3-4 range, the carrier would make more story line sense, but it would be even more devastating than it already is. Now with multiple carriers? GG, but it would be fun to watch!

 

As you have stated observers would be a good unit to use but you could also use Immortals because they can take the tank hits or a dark Templar would be good if they have no detectors. Really you can send in any unit because interceptors provide sight range so once one carrier has launched interceptors sight range is no longer a problem. I think if the interceptors can go further it would be over powered.

One thing we could do though is to have the general purpose fighters able to fly further. While they have less potential they have less risk as well which would balance it out. The Interceptors and bombers would be shorter range and therefore higher risk for the carrier but the high damage warrants the increased risk. Then the point defense laser which can take out a salvo of missiles or a scourge in one firing is the highest risk requiring you to be at basically melee range but would balance the enormous potential.

 

Since the carrier has been revealed I feel it is time for this

/cast resurect

 

Its funny now that i look at this thread it is near exact copy of a thread i made earlier, i think even before this thread was made.