I like the Blizzard one... But you should see the Interceptors *docking* on the outside of it, that way the more "skeletal" look would be pretty cool.

Koley89

Hungary14 Posts

February 01 2010 11:00 GMT

#109

I also put to the vote this question http://starcraft2.hu/
Hopefully if people vote to GnaReffotsirk's modell, then Blizzard will modify sort of extent the present modell.

Archerofaiur

United States4101 Posts

February 01 2010 13:44 GMT

#110

Just to touch one more time on the silhouette issue, game designers go to great lengths to differentiate model silhouettes. They do this so that it is easy for players to quickly tell what model they are looking at. Here is an example.

Now compare the current carrier to our friend the voidray.

Zack1900

United States211 Posts

February 01 2010 15:15 GMT

#111

That's a little to similar in my book. Is the carrier going to be larger that the voidray? That could make up for the similar silhouette.

Kerl

Germany74 Posts

February 01 2010 15:24 GMT

#112

The new model is looking like a flying vulture :D

TeWy

France714 Posts

February 01 2010 16:02 GMT

#113

On February 01 2010 22:44 Archerofaiur wrote:
Just to touch one more time on the silhouette issue, game designers go to great lengths to differentiate model silhouettes. They do this so that it is easy for players to quickly tell what model they are looking at. Here is an example.

Now compare the current carrier to our friend the voidray.

Woaow, here we go again, was it you who initiated that whole inane mutalisk/broodlord/idk comparison some months ago ? I'm not usually rude, but that is an epic Archerofailure once again, these 2 units have nothing in common, nor do their attack animations.

But let's get back to the whole idea of this thread for 2 seconds. Let me get this straight. You're trying to convince people that the Starcraft2 carrier should be the Starcraft1 carrier, except with better graphics. That's the whole idea I think.

Alright, this is why I don't respect your thread, you didn't present the facts. The carrier has been made weaker, the developpers told us that it wasn't anymore that ultimate weapon of mass destruction. It costs less money/food, it has less HP, and the interceptors probably deal less damage.

Plus, probably the funniest thing considering that no-one has yet pointed that out, you guys are talking about size but not even using a god damn REFERENTIAL. That alone kind of proof that all this is hysterical babbling, see people aggreeing with you can't test your thing, nor even SEE how this unit will look like in the game, but all that doesn't seem to matter, they are still convinced that your model is superior and would fit better because guess what ? You told them that it looks more like the SC1 carrier, and it looks more like the SC1 carrier. But I'm sorry sir, manipulating an already biased community wouldn't legitimize your idea.

kyama

United States118 Posts

February 01 2010 16:23 GMT

#114

I like sc2 model because it's not too bulky.

EmeraldSparks

United States1451 Posts

February 01 2010 16:26 GMT

#115

On February 02 2010 01:02 TeWy wrote:

Show nested quote +

yeah i frequently confuse scouts for medics in team fortress two since they're almost the same

i'll be like

CHARGE ME, DOCTORRRRR

and he'll be like

NEED A DISPENSER HERE

and i'll be like

FUCK I CHARGED A MASSIVE SENTRY NEST AND DIED

But let's get back to the whole idea of this thread for 2 seconds. Let me get this straight. You're trying to convince people that the Starcraft2 carrier should be the Starcraft1 carrier, except with better graphics. That's the whole idea I think.

Read the first post.

Does that look like "convincing people that the starcraft2 carrier should be the starcraft1 carrier to you"? Because if it does, you have issues.

Plus, probably the funniest thing considering that no-one has yet pointed that out, you guys are talking about size but not even using a god damn REFERENTIAL. That alone kind of proof that all this is hysterical babbling, see people aggreeing with you can't test your thing, nor even SEE how this unit will look like in the game, but all that doesn't seem to matter, they are still convinced that your model is superior and would fit better because guess what ? You told them that it looks more like the SC1 carrier, and it looks more like the SC1 carrier. But I'm sorry sir, manipulating an already biased community wouldn't legitimize your idea.

OH SHIT WE DONT KNOW WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE IN GAME

I GUESS WE BETTER CLOSE THE ENTIRE SC2 FORUM UNTIL BETA SINCE NOBODY REALLY KNOWS WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT

LarJarsE

United States1378 Posts

February 01 2010 16:52 GMT

#116

Those unwilling to accept and embrace the changes to occur from starcraft BW to sc2 are not going to like the new game. Discussing the storyline is a completely legitimate argument, because it gives old SC players a reason to expect change in the races. I like the newer streamline look of the carrier.

Also, how can you bitch about "where the interceptors go?" Are you saying there is NO WAY you can imagine 8 little flat rectangles being docked SOMEWHERE inside that model? Can you please draw the insides of the old SCBW carrier and explain how you see the interceptors inside of it? The point is, to discuss such unimportant details is trivial.

LarJarsE

United States1378 Posts

February 01 2010 17:01 GMT

#117

On February 02 2010 01:02 TeWy wrote:

Plus, probably the funniest thing considering that no-one has yet pointed that out, you guys are talking about size but not even using a god damn REFERENTIAL. That alone kind of proof that all this is hysterical babbling, see people aggreeing with you can't test your thing, nor even SEE how this unit will look like in the game, but all that doesn't seem to matter, they are still convinced that your model is superior and would fit better because guess what ? You told them that it looks more like the SC1 carrier, and it looks more like the SC1 carrier. But I'm sorry sir, manipulating an already biased community wouldn't legitimize your idea.

Very well said. I agree 100% with this guy.

Archerofaiur

United States4101 Posts

February 01 2010 17:08 GMT

#118

Woaow, here we go again, was it you who initiated that whole inane mutalisk/broodlord/idk comparison some months ago ? I'm not usually rude, but that is an epic Archerofailure once again,

I thought Archerofailure was cute.

Anyway wernt you the guy who came into this thread a couple posts ago saying "Why are Americans so afraid of change ?" and then trying to play it off as ironic? But anyway lets move onto your other arguements.

The thread consisted of a proposal and poll to gauge how the people liked it. The following posts consist of debating the issue.

Alright, this is why I don't respect your thread, you didn't present the facts. The carrier has been made weaker, the developpers told us that it wasn't anymore that ultimate weapon of mass destruction. It costs less money/food, it has less HP, and the interceptors probably deal less damage.

Remember when you posted about how you were just being ironic? You might notice that right after that I told you that the carrier had less HP. 50 HP infact. And according to SCarmory and Starcraft wiki the carrier costs the same amount of minerals, gas and psi (money/food to use your termonolgy). And the interceptors actually deal more damage now.

Im sorry. What were you saying about manipulating and misleading? :p

Plus, probably the funniest thing considering that no-one has yet pointed that out, you guys are talking about size but not even using a god damn REFERENTIAL.

Actually very few people are talking about size. Most are talking about the models shape.

That alone kind of proof that all this is hysterical babbling, see people aggreeing with you can't test your thing, nor even SEE how this unit will look like in the game, but all that doesn't seem to matter, they are still convinced that your model is superior and would fit better because guess what ?

Speaking of hysterical babbling. Lemme get this straight, your arguement now is that we cant tell which model looks better because we cant see it in the game. There is a grain of truth in that we cannot see the fine details but that a far cry from not being able to say which is better. Here try this, which model looks better? We can do a poll if you want :p

You told them that it looks more like the SC1 carrier, and it looks more like the SC1 carrier. But I'm sorry sir, manipulating an already biased community wouldn't legitimize your idea.

"I told them it looks more like the SC1 carrier"-ok
"and it looks more like the SC1 carrier"-ok
"manipulating an already biased community wouldn't legitimize your idea"-what???

Pray tell how I am manipulating them if i told them something thats true?

danieldrsa

Brazil522 Posts

February 01 2010 17:14 GMT

#119

Theres a blue looooong way ago (so long that i cant remember) that said the Carrier would have a small redesign. But we never got it.

I prefer the custom model, it is better looking and reflects better the feel of the carrier.
We know the current one is just a recolored Tempest

Low resources dont justify a not so good model.
The current Carrier model is not that bad, but certainly can be improved.

Anyway, i would really like if they remake the old carrier model and put it on the editor.
We know old units will be, but how about the redesigned ones?