|
Original Post and Poll
Over at SCL we've been having a debate about the carrier model. Allot of people liked the way the old SC1 model looked. GnaReffotsirk did a quick photoshop about ways to alter the current carrier model to make it look more like the classic model. What do you guys think?
GnaReffotsirk's model__________________Current SC2 model
Poll: Which model do you like better?
(Vote): GnaReffotsirk's model
(Vote): Current SC2 model
Here is the classic SC1 model (just in case you forgot what it looks like :p)
+ Show Spoiler +
|
bigger one looks much better, small one doesn't look like it carries anything.
|
GnaReffotsirk's model by far. It looks like a cleaner and more advanced version of the SC1 model, but doesn't deviate to the point where it isn't even identifiable as a carrier anymore.
|
I hope blizzard is reading this!
|
GnaReffotsirk's model looks like the SC2 model had too much to eat
|
United States4796 Posts
GR's model is more true to the classic carrier look.
|
I'd like to see something closer to the original model, but I don't think GnaReffotsirk's model is the one to do it.
|
On February 01 2010 02:39 Alethios wrote:
I'd like to see something closer to the original model, but I don't think GnaReffotsirk's model is the one to do it.
Feel free to make your own proposal.
|
Both look like a Terran Vulture...
|
GnaReffotsirk's model is way to bulky, and that is going to be a problem in Starcraft II.
Orig SC2 Model fer sure
|
i like the bigger model, has a more capital ship feel to it 
|
On February 01 2010 02:41 Jlab wrote:
GnaReffotsirk's model is way to bulky, and that is going to be a problem in Starcraft II.
Orig SC2 Model fer sure
QFT
|
Is it just me or is that a cartoon villain with a mustache and a big nose on the back of the carrier?
|
On February 01 2010 02:40 lolaloc wrote:
Both look like a Terran Vulture...
Nope.
|
On February 01 2010 02:36 Zurles wrote:
bigger one looks much better, small one doesn't look like it carries anything.
Totally agree. The name is "CARRIER" after all...
|
Like someone said, the first model has a more of a capital sense to it rather then just a raiding ship as it looks like in the original model.
|
I have to admit I like the SC1 one best. But the new model isn't bad.
|
ugh. you guys are missing the point. The current model was designed to reflect how the protoss changed from sc1 to sc2. iirc the protoss are in a much more desperate situation now so it would make sense for them to conserve resources, cut costs, etc. etc. and construct "leaner" looking ships. This is taken straight from the official sc2 website:
However, the zerg invasion of the protoss homeworld of Aiur has brought the race to a crossroads: the protoss must embrace change if they are to survive and prevail.
it's too bad the protoss are hella ghetto right now.. not technologically speaking but in terms of resources, and they are an endangered species to boot. 
|
I'm glad the poll question is "Which one do you like better" rather than "Which one is better for sc2"
I think the altered model definitely does look more like SC/BW carriers, however, were they ever visually appealing in the first place? Not really, they looked like fat clunky things, unlike the typical streamline and futuristic look of protoss design.
I believe the results of the poll are because old SC fans are hoping more and more that SC2 is going to be like SCBW. It's not, and I like the changes I'm seeing. I don't want to spend money for the same game.
|
Well, the original SC2 model was actually the tempest, just recoloured. I think we need a new model. I'm fine with GnaReffotsirk's (good job photoshopping btw) but if Blizzard makes something better, that's good too.
|
On February 01 2010 03:09 larjarse wrote:
I'm glad the poll question is "Which one do you like better" rather than "Which one is better for sc2"
I think the altered model definitely does look more like SC/BW carriers, however, were they ever visually appealing in the first place? Not really, they looked like fat clunky things, unlike the typical streamline and futuristic look of protoss design.
I believe the results of the poll are because old SC fans are hoping more and more that SC2 is going to be like SCBW. It's not, and I like the changes I'm seeing. I don't want to spend money for the same game.
yes, because retaining a classic look on a unit from the first game that they felt they couldn't leave behind is just like giving you the exact same game over again.
|
GnaReffotsirk's model is much more true to the original SC, thus I like it. As already stated, I think the current carrier model is too small and it doesn't look like it can carry anything.
|
I like the bigger one. The smaller one looks like an attack ship, while the niche of the carrier has always been kinda like the mothership. The giant thing that carries lots of little things. Bigger one for me.
|
|
|
On February 01 2010 02:45 Kazius wrote:
Is it just me or is that a cartoon villain with a mustache and a big nose on the back of the carrier?
Oh my god now I can't unsee it...
|
wow, I can't express how much better Gna's is.
is someone presenting it to blizzard because they really should fix it before beta starts
|
On February 01 2010 03:08 intoyourrainbOW wrote:ugh. you guys are missing the point. The current model was designed to reflect how the protoss changed from sc1 to sc2. iirc the protoss are in a much more desperate situation now so it would make sense for them to conserve resources, cut costs, etc. etc. and construct "leaner" looking ships. This is taken straight from the official sc2 website: Show nested quote +However, the zerg invasion of the protoss homeworld of Aiur has brought the race to a crossroads: the protoss must embrace change if they are to survive and prevail. it's too bad the protoss are hella ghetto right now.. not technologically speaking but in terms of resources, and they are an endangered species to boot.
Can we please not debate made up space economics in this thread?
|
The current model looks like the carrier lost alot of weight. Not big and scary enough.
|
i kinda like the current SC2 model better
|
if you want to a put a carrier in the game, make it a carrier - regardless of all this stuff about how the race is changing. if you want to put in a sleek, speedy, small ship then call it something else. the great name of the carrier does not need to be tarnished
as for spending money for the same game... if sc2 was sc/bw repackaged with great graphics, and no dragoon/reaver glitches, and it would get millions of people back into sc/bw by presenting a new campaign/graphics, and it would get millions of new players into sc/bw by presenting a younger generation with a graphically appealing version of the best game ever made... well, i'd buy it.
|
i can't admit that the origianl design looks like it can't carry anything. The relation of the designs on the image is just not right. Look at this:
The modified model still looks more clumpsy but the main bodies of the two design now have the same size.
|
On February 01 2010 03:19 HobbitGotGame wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2010 02:45 Kazius wrote:
Is it just me or is that a cartoon villain with a mustache and a big nose on the back of the carrier? Oh my god now I can't unsee it...
LOL I can't either. thanks buddy.
|
GnaReffotsirk's model at least resembles a blimp, like the SC1 one. IMO the model looks so much better with the sides covered with plating, instead of just hollow space. It gives the impression of actually holding something inside it.
Oh and I like it bulky. It's a capital ship akin to the Battlecruiser for God's sake, it's supposed to have an aura of "bulkiness" that screams "I'm the most badass ship around, stare with awe and fear me"
|
|
|
|
|
GnaReffotsirk's model for me, but either ways they look too complicated, don't you think so? And don't you think, that terran infantry units are too similar to each other and to (!)... new zealots?
|
GnaReffotsirk's is better for me because it's meatier, the blizzard one looks a little skeletonish.
|
I don't really care about the fact that the new carrier doesn't look like the old one, it just looks a little lame. It's not too bad, but definitely could be improved.. In terms of GR's model, it looks better, makes the carrier not seem so skimpy. The carrier in sc2 is significantly weaker than so maybe that is what they were going for, idk, possibly this has changed however.
They should've followed the concept art rather than just recoloring the tempest. In case you're blind, there are some tempest (blue carrier models) in the background you can compare to.
http://www.sc2pod.com/wiki/Image:CarrierArt.jpg
|
the current one looks like a vulture... srsly.
|
The current one looks more like a destroyer-type ship than a carrier. GR's model is better but honestly the whole design needs to be redone . I think this is just a placeholder for now though, Blizzard is probably going to come out with a real design.
|
Too tough to decide until we see how it looks moving around compared to other units.
|
to me, the question isn't which model looks better in those pics, the question is which model is going to look better in-game in a fleet of ~4-12. and that's easily blizzard's.
|
Both look nice. Nostalgia will bias all our opinions.
|
Where do the interceptors go in the current one?
|
They look similar, but being a "carrier" I have to go with the bigger one.
|
|
|
On February 01 2010 03:08 intoyourrainbOW wrote:
ugh. you guys are missing the point. The current model was designed to reflect how the protoss changed from sc1 to sc2. iirc the protoss are in a much more desperate situation now so it would make sense for them to conserve resources, cut costs, etc. etc. and construct "leaner" looking ships. This is taken straight from the official sc2 website
No offense but this sounds so stupid LOL
|
On February 01 2010 02:57 omfghi2u2 wrote:
Like someone said, the first model has a more of a capital sense to it rather then just a raiding ship as it looks like in the original model.
This is exactly what I thought.
A carrier is a capital warship, and thus it should be a hulking behemoth. The Blizzard model is too small for that feeling.
|
Please pay attention to how your refering to these models. Terms such as "Blizzard, new, old, large" arnt good clarifiers.
|
your model looks much more Carrierish 
|
Wheres the option to vote for SC1 carrier? New carrier looks like they're trying to hard to make it look cool.
|
On February 01 2010 06:33 Chuiu wrote:
Wheres the option to vote for SC1 carrier? New carrier looks like they're trying to hard to make it look cool.
I think we know how TL would vote if there was a SC1 carrier option  For whatever reason Blizzard has chosen to go another direction. GNA's version is an attempt to compromise, adding a new SC2 feel to the model while still harkening back to the old.
|
I think GnaReffotsirk's is better, but i'd like to see him take off the 4 leg looking things on the sides
|
On February 01 2010 06:39 Reborn8u wrote:
I think GnaReffotsirk's is better, but i'd like to see him take off the 4 leg looking things on the sides
We call those the "ribs". Youll notice there are similar rib structures in the SC1 model.
|
You guys seriously want Blizzard to post-pone the beta even MORE?
|
On February 01 2010 06:45 HazMat wrote:
You guys seriously want Blizzard to post-pone the beta even MORE?
Model remake like that takes hmm 3h max...
|
I personally think the one they are using looks better but I think the main reason they made it more streamlined was so you could see more underneath it.
|
They obviously decided to make less a big deal of carriers as they are introducing mothership.
Two kind of admiral ship in the same army would look silly. Carrier now looks like a normal / big ship, while in Sc1 there were supposed to be absolute monsters.
|
On February 01 2010 06:47 Lobbo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2010 06:45 HazMat wrote:
You guys seriously want Blizzard to post-pone the beta even MORE? Model remake like that takes hmm 3h max...
Dude it's Blizzard.
|
On February 01 2010 03:43 251 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2010 03:19 HobbitGotGame wrote:On February 01 2010 02:45 Kazius wrote:
Is it just me or is that a cartoon villain with a mustache and a big nose on the back of the carrier? Oh my god now I can't unsee it... LOL I can't either. thanks buddy.
MDR LOL
Every time I look now I see the mustache before anything else
|
On February 01 2010 03:43 251 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2010 03:19 HobbitGotGame wrote:On February 01 2010 02:45 Kazius wrote:
Is it just me or is that a cartoon villain with a mustache and a big nose on the back of the carrier? Oh my god now I can't unsee it... LOL I can't either. thanks buddy.
Wow. IT'S A MEEE, WALUIGI!!!
|
Either way is fine to me, if you keep proposing things to be changed, the release date will constantly be pushed back because they are catering to peoples needs, and second guessing what they thought they had right. Blizzard is reading these things it's a fact. Lol i'm just saying that i'll take anything as of right now. I could care less at this point if the Carrier is heavy or sleek - just release the damn beta already
|
I like Gna's model because the current one looks like hes going to shoot smt of it's front, like a bc.
|
On February 01 2010 08:01 PeT[uK] wrote:
Either way is fine to me, if you keep proposing things to be changed, the release date will constantly be pushed back because they are catering to peoples needs, and second guessing what they thought they had right. Blizzard is reading these things it's a fact. Lol i'm just saying that i'll take anything as of right now. I could care less at this point if the Carrier is heavy or sleek - just release the damn beta already
To everyone who has said this in this thread.
BETA is for making changes just like this proposal. Please take the question seriously instead of whining how beta is taking a long time.
|
On February 01 2010 08:09 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2010 08:01 PeT[uK] wrote:
Either way is fine to me, if you keep proposing things to be changed, the release date will constantly be pushed back because they are catering to peoples needs, and second guessing what they thought they had right. Blizzard is reading these things it's a fact. Lol i'm just saying that i'll take anything as of right now. I could care less at this point if the Carrier is heavy or sleek - just release the damn beta already To everyone who has said this in this thread. BETA is for making changes just like this proposal.
oh yes definitely, but not before the beta has been released. Once the beta has been released, THATS when you propose the changes, what good is changing something when you havent seen it in game in the first place? in game the original sc2 model might look 10x's better than GNA's version. let them release the beta, and THEN and only then do you propose your changes...
|
On February 01 2010 08:11 PeT[uK] wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2010 08:09 Archerofaiur wrote:On February 01 2010 08:01 PeT[uK] wrote:
Either way is fine to me, if you keep proposing things to be changed, the release date will constantly be pushed back because they are catering to peoples needs, and second guessing what they thought they had right. Blizzard is reading these things it's a fact. Lol i'm just saying that i'll take anything as of right now. I could care less at this point if the Carrier is heavy or sleek - just release the damn beta already To everyone who has said this in this thread. BETA is for making changes just like this proposal. oh yes definitely, but not before the beta has been released. Once the beta has been released, THATS when you propose the changes, what good is changing something when you havent seen it in game in the first place? in game the original sc2 model might look 10x's better than GNA's version. let them release the beta, and THEN and only then do you propose your changes...
We have videos of the carrier in motion. In fact there are two on the SC2 site. The point is the timing of Beta has nothing to do with the carrier model. There not going to delay the beta to wait for an art update. Remember Samwise's promise
The art isn't finished until the game ships.
|
On February 01 2010 08:13 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2010 08:11 PeT[uK] wrote:On February 01 2010 08:09 Archerofaiur wrote:On February 01 2010 08:01 PeT[uK] wrote:
Either way is fine to me, if you keep proposing things to be changed, the release date will constantly be pushed back because they are catering to peoples needs, and second guessing what they thought they had right. Blizzard is reading these things it's a fact. Lol i'm just saying that i'll take anything as of right now. I could care less at this point if the Carrier is heavy or sleek - just release the damn beta already To everyone who has said this in this thread. BETA is for making changes just like this proposal. oh yes definitely, but not before the beta has been released. Once the beta has been released, THATS when you propose the changes, what good is changing something when you havent seen it in game in the first place? in game the original sc2 model might look 10x's better than GNA's version. let them release the beta, and THEN and only then do you propose your changes... We have videos of the carrier in motion. In fact there are two on the SC2 site.
it was an example i'm sure you've realized
|
On February 01 2010 08:14 PeT[uK] wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2010 08:13 Archerofaiur wrote:On February 01 2010 08:11 PeT[uK] wrote:On February 01 2010 08:09 Archerofaiur wrote:On February 01 2010 08:01 PeT[uK] wrote:
Either way is fine to me, if you keep proposing things to be changed, the release date will constantly be pushed back because they are catering to peoples needs, and second guessing what they thought they had right. Blizzard is reading these things it's a fact. Lol i'm just saying that i'll take anything as of right now. I could care less at this point if the Carrier is heavy or sleek - just release the damn beta already To everyone who has said this in this thread. BETA is for making changes just like this proposal. oh yes definitely, but not before the beta has been released. Once the beta has been released, THATS when you propose the changes, what good is changing something when you havent seen it in game in the first place? in game the original sc2 model might look 10x's better than GNA's version. let them release the beta, and THEN and only then do you propose your changes... We have videos of the carrier in motion. In fact there are two on the SC2 site. it was an example i'm sure you've realized
Remember when we changed the siege tank, and the infestor, and marines with bayonets, cryptfiend stalkers, WOW DT's, and the tempest...oh wait scratch that last one.
|
I would definitely like to see some size changes. That looks like a good start. In the G-star video I didn't even notice a carrier was out among the void rays until I saw interceptors
+ Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBnjYnMf014
|
On February 01 2010 08:27 Tsagacity wrote:
I would definitely like to see some size changes. That looks like a good start. In the G-star video I didn't even notice a carrier was out among the void rays until I saw interceptors
Thats a good point. Both the Tempest and Carrier have about the same outline and size. This could make it harder for new players trying to identify units.
To give a example of model size to hitpoints, the Tempest is (according to SCarmory) 100 shields and 150 hitpoints. The SC2 carrier is 150 shields and 250 hitpoints. The mothership is 400/400.
|
The new carrier looks fine, why are people so afraid of change?
|
Bigger = Better.
Because the one that they have right now looks too small and it doesn't seem like that strong of a unit when it's so small.
|
On February 01 2010 06:45 HazMat wrote:
You guys seriously want Blizzard to post-pone the beta even MORE?
Have you done 3d before? This would take about 5 mins to change. Move those side bits, add a couple more and make the middle bigger. Done
|
the current model looks more sleek, the sc1 just looks like a blimp =/
|
The "current" SC2 model looks like a pimped-up flying vulture, not a carrier
|
On February 01 2010 02:46 Archerofaiur wrote:Nope.
WHY are the vultures drivin on the left side of the road???
|
current sc2 carrier sucks....
edit:hopefully art team change carrier..
|
On February 01 2010 09:49 Nub4ever wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2010 02:46 Archerofaiur wrote:On February 01 2010 02:40 lolaloc wrote:
Both look like a Terran Vulture... Nope. WHY are the vultures drivin on the left side of the road???
Because its in Australia dumbass god don't you know anything? =]
|
On February 01 2010 08:13 Archerofaiur wrote:The art isn't finished until the game ships.
Even this is an old-fashioned view considering todays game design environment. Release doesn't mean the game is ready and no new drastic changes can be made anymore; art OR gameplay.
|
On February 01 2010 09:49 Nub4ever wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2010 02:46 Archerofaiur wrote:On February 01 2010 02:40 lolaloc wrote:
Both look like a Terran Vulture... Nope. WHY are the vultures drivin on the left side of the road???
Maybe it's on some former British colony?
|
The custom model looks like it has 4 "bays" on the sides instead of 2, so here's a thought:
Why not change the model to the custom one when carriers receive their capacity upgrade?
|
I don't mind either of them, and the explanation about the mothership makes me like Blizzard's one a bit more.
|
On February 01 2010 09:52 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2010 09:49 Nub4ever wrote:On February 01 2010 02:46 Archerofaiur wrote:On February 01 2010 02:40 lolaloc wrote:
Both look like a Terran Vulture... Nope. WHY are the vultures drivin on the left side of the road??? Because its in Australia dumbass god don't you know anything? =]
who was the one who said that terrans were space australians?
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
Well wasn't white Australia colonised by British Criminals?
Also. Damnit for pointing out the face on the carrier. I just can't unsee it.
|
I think the primary reason behind the smaller carrier design is the reason given for the Thor downsize. When they had TvT games where Thors were built on both sides, the screen looked clustered and unmanageable, thus they reduced the model of the Thor.
The Mothership is an exception to this rule, because you can only have one per Protoss player.
I hope they do not increase the size of any of the units, they all seemed to fit onto the screen rather nicely at the test builds. I was honestly worried about the Thor being too big awhile back, and was really glad they fixed that.
|
Both work for me. If Blizzard decides they like fat carriers, they should go with the gnareffotsirk(?)'s model
|
i don't like how the current model has this huge fat rear end
i dun like the blue strings that attach the two halves together either
srsly they look like futuristic flimsy flying cars that could snap into two pieces if someone sat on it
the custom model is a bit better but i think it's too bulky
|
small carrier?
no thanks...
|
On February 01 2010 09:49 Nub4ever wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2010 02:46 Archerofaiur wrote:On February 01 2010 02:40 lolaloc wrote:
Both look like a Terran Vulture... Nope. WHY are the vultures drivin on the left side of the road???
I don't know but looking at that picture ... why does a Marine take up the space of a car on the road? I know they wear thick armor, but its not that big.
|
I like both of them, but the GnaReffotsirk's model look more than the starcraft 1 carrier
|
On February 01 2010 10:35 TimeToPractice! wrote:
I think the primary reason behind the smaller carrier design is the reason given for the Thor downsize. When they had TvT games where Thors were built on both sides, the screen looked clustered and unmanageable, thus they reduced the model of the Thor.
The Mothership is an exception to this rule, because you can only have one per Protoss player.
I hope they do not increase the size of any of the units, they all seemed to fit onto the screen rather nicely at the test builds. I was honestly worried about the Thor being too big awhile back, and was really glad they fixed that.
The mothership is not unique anymore. You can have ad many as you can afford with their high cost.
|
the current model just looks weak, doesnt seem at all threatening if six of them pop out and start attacking
|
Why are Americans so afraid of change ?
The main reason why the SC2 Carrier has been made smaller is because it is not as strong anymore (that's on the record). Besides, thinking that you can legitimize your model with a SC1 community poll is pretty naive.
I'm sure I could draw a new Thor/Viking model, a bit more Goliath-like, or an old-school siege tank, and the people here would also vote for them, it wouldn't mean jack shit for Blizzard though.
|
On February 01 2010 13:20 TeWy wrote:
Why are Americans so afraid of change ?
lol wut?
|
On February 01 2010 13:27 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2010 13:20 TeWy wrote:
Why are Americans so afraid of change ?
lol what?
It was an ironic statement.
|
On February 01 2010 13:29 TeWy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2010 13:27 Archerofaiur wrote:On February 01 2010 13:20 TeWy wrote:
Why are Americans so afraid of change ?
lol what? It was an ironic statement.
Hows this for an ironic statement: The Carrier lost a whopping 50 hp!
|
On February 01 2010 13:29 TeWy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2010 13:27 Archerofaiur wrote:On February 01 2010 13:20 TeWy wrote:
Why are Americans so afraid of change ?
lol what? It was an ironic statement.
wut?
|
On February 01 2010 11:47 Chuiu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2010 09:49 Nub4ever wrote:On February 01 2010 02:46 Archerofaiur wrote:On February 01 2010 02:40 lolaloc wrote:
Both look like a Terran Vulture... Nope. WHY are the vultures drivin on the left side of the road??? I don't know but looking at that picture ... why does a Marine take up the space of a car on the road? I know they wear thick armor, but its not that big.
It's a Tauren Marine
|
Why do we all think bigger is better?
It isnt necessarily. The mothership covers up a lot of gameplay because she is so large. (See also thors and colossi)
But we also dont want it to be wimpy.
Some good movement animations/mechanics and good sound will convince us that it is a lumbering behemoth. Also, covering up some of the holes in it will go a long way towards convincing players that the carrier is the scary warship that it is instead of a swiss cheese spaceship.
|
On February 01 2010 03:43 251 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2010 03:19 HobbitGotGame wrote:On February 01 2010 02:45 Kazius wrote:
Is it just me or is that a cartoon villain with a mustache and a big nose on the back of the carrier? Oh my god now I can't unsee it... LOL I can't either. thanks buddy. Haha, this is so true. Impossible not to see it now.
|
Bigger is better 
|
That design but the same size as their current carrier size.
|
Carrier suppose to be big and fat. That shows their imbalance
|
I like the modified version, but I think it should be a little more skeletal (but still big.)
|
The mothership is unique. It regained its unique status a few months back.
|
well i like more gna version but dont u ever imagine blizzard will change is only cause we say so....the sooner u accept this idea the better for u
|
Current sc2 model, but bigger.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
The new model is looking like a flying vulture :D
|
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.
|
I like sc2 model because it's not too bulky.
|
On February 02 2010 01:02 TeWy wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
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.
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?
|
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?
|
GnaReffotsirk has put together a new masterpiece
|
Nice one
Now, thats my favorite. The "mustache horns" were not good.
But i miss the spike on the back
|
On February 02 2010 01:52 larjarse wrote:
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.
I'd like to know your thoughts on why it is so terrible to want a better version of the original carrier.
We've all seen how the Battlecruiser got its bounty of nice beef and awesomeness, why force the current Carrier model?
and, guys, this one is kind of a compromise between the "tweak" ArcherofAuir has had for auction and the current Carrier model we see from the videos:
Also, the original intention of these "tweaks" was to try and get another perspective of the current Carrier model (which can be speculated as a mere placeholder for the real awesome Carrier), and maybe say a thought or two about how it can actually become so much better should Samwise and his team let down the hammer on it.
|
I was going to say that I liked the current sc2 model more than Gna's because Gna's looked like an uneven fat piece of spikey lard.
Now it's not so bad, but honestly I'd rather just see what Blizzard will do when they redesign it. I still might take the recolored tempest over Gre's newest mockup.
|
On February 02 2010 02:21 phyvo wrote:
I was going to say that I liked the current sc2 model more than Gna's because Gna's looked like an uneven fat piece of spikey lard.
Now it's not so bad, but honestly I'd rather just see what Blizzard will do when they redesign it. I still might take the recolored tempest over Gre's newest mockup.
Thanks for pointing that out. It's funny how it's "Gna's" when it's merely a tweak to show something like, "hey, maybe we could improve on the carrier model some more?"
edit:
Also, the newest edit's mustache replacement kinda feels like the Immortal, don't you think?
|
On February 02 2010 02:21 phyvo wrote:
I was going to say that I liked the current sc2 model more than Gna's because Gna's looked like an uneven fat piece of spikey lard.
I dont think theres a single spike on his new model.
BTW Gna can I suggest marking the models like
Gna 2.0_____________________Gna 1.0______________Current SC2
Also did you shrink the chasis a bit?
|
Uhm... the "original" sc2 carrier.
Why? Because it doesn't really matter, all suggestions look badass so far. When you've played the game for a month or so, you will probably stop caring about how fat/slim/spikey/small it is anyway. Does anyone bother to complain about how 8 interceptors would fit into the current BW Carrier? Or how a Reaver can cram 10 of those giant scarabs in there? No, because you're used to it by now.
So let's just not give the developers even MORE work. It's fine as it is. To be honest, it currently looks a little like a flying Lamborghini, which is pretty cool :D
|
On February 02 2010 02:27 Archerofaiur wrote:
Also did you shrink the chasis a bit?
Nope. It kinda makes the object smaller or slimmer when the silhouette is like an infinity sign like that.
The angles of the ribs were twisted a bit, the nose of the mustache guy enlarged, and given a smaller waist line.
I think that's what made it a bit slimmer, and the effect of the now hollow part kinda makes it feel lighter than the first edit. So, maybe that's what makes this somewhat gives a less heavy impression.
|
On February 02 2010 02:35 GnaReffotsirk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2010 02:27 Archerofaiur wrote:
Also did you shrink the chasis a bit? Nope. It kinda makes the object smaller or slimmer when the silhouette is like an infinity sign like that. The angles of the ribs were twisted a bit, the nose of the mustache guy enlarged, and given a smaller waist line. I think that's what made it a bit slimmer, and the effect of the now hollow part kinda makes it feel lighter than the first edit. So, maybe that's what makes this somewhat gives a less heavy impression.
If you give us a single copy we can compare it to the voidray. Actually Id like to compare the voidray Gna2.0 and the current SC2 model.
|
On February 02 2010 02:35 Captain Mayhem wrote:
Uhm... the "original" sc2 carrier.
Why? Because it doesn't really matter, all suggestions look badass so far. When you've played the game for a month or so, you will probably stop caring about how fat/slim/spikey/small it is anyway. Does anyone bother to complain about how 8 interceptors would fit into the current BW Carrier? Or how a Reaver can cram 10 of those giant scarabs in there? No, because you're used to it by now.
So let's just not give the developers even MORE work. It's fine as it is. To be honest, it currently looks a little like a flying Lamborghini, which is pretty cool :D
Inspired by PIMPMYRIDE. :D
I understand that completely. I'd hate it when a single model becomes an excuse for delays as well. But, I gotta say, when the carrier first showed itself 13 years ago, it had this effect of giving a feeling of might, coupled with grace, and sheer awesome. That's what's missing with the new carrier model.
And it's not even intended to be a carrier model, right? Do you remember that time during the reveal when people were not so impressed? And then we kinda just played along and eventually accepted it, where it seems some, if not many, are actually hoping for a better, newer, more grandiose Carrier than the original carrier.
So, I say, why not encourage Sammy and his team to show us their latest model of the Carrier? Honestly, it doesn't take too long to make one, or conceptualize one. 3 days of conceptualizing means eons if we're talking business.
For those guys at Blizzard, it will take only a few hours to get 20 concepts out on the table, I believe. Even so, the concept is already there, all they have to do is make it better and make shine the true character of the carrier.
It really doesn't take that long.
|
Lol Im going to have to quote N00bonicplague on this
If they have time to improve some friggin' trees, they have time to improve the Carrier.
|
On February 02 2010 02:53 Archerofaiur wrote:Lol Im going to have to quote N00bonicplague on this Show nested quote +
If they have time to improve some friggin' trees, they have time to improve the Carrier.
That is just hilarious!
Btw, here's the solo of Pimped Carrier 2.0 :
It's your limited edition PimpMyCarrier Carrier 2.0. Order now!... or you will be relieved.
p.s. I wish the more talented guys out there would post their own ideas here as well. That would be awesome!
|
Current one looks like a pod racer.
|
On February 02 2010 02:59 Lysdexia wrote:
Current one looks like a pod racer.
Lol it does! Annakin will have one hell of a race with this thing. Nice catch!
edit: Or a terran vulture for that matter.
|
I think the silhouettes look sufficiently different now.
|
Russian Federation1612 Posts
I hate SC2 Carrier model as well as Void Ray and Nullifier. They are so weird :-\
So, u did great job at pointing for its weirdness!
|
On February 02 2010 02:27 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2010 02:21 phyvo wrote:
I was going to say that I liked the current sc2 model more than Gna's because Gna's looked like an uneven fat piece of spikey lard.
I dont think theres a single spike on his new model.
He didn't remove the pointy bits at the rear end like he did the second time.
And Gna, archer kind of implied that it was yours first, blame it on him. =)
Heck, he even called it a "model" instead of the more technically correct "mockup" or "photoshop job", since you didn't actually do anything 3d.
|
I thought everyone on this forum liked to bitch about how much fluff was in SC2 and how it detracts from the game?
The current sc2 desgin is fine. Making units bigger is the last thing we want.
|
Yea this NEW carrier model is directly taken from that other unit that wasn't exactly a carrier that they scrapped for the new carrier. (i forget what it was called - a tempest?) and yea it's really skinny and weird looking. It was manageable to me though because I don't really care too much at this point and just want to play the damned BETA ALREADY!
Complain about this crap later. the new carrier does look a lot less menacing compared to the fatter ones, I remember I had a bunch of them at blizzcon and I was thinking how much less screen space they took up.
On February 01 2010 06:47 Lobbo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2010 06:45 HazMat wrote:
You guys seriously want Blizzard to post-pone the beta even MORE? Model remake like that takes hmm 3h max...
not really, they have to call a meeting, discuss the changes, voice opinions, take votes, change the model, play test it a little.
Also if they have any lore and story written about the more compact carriers that all needs to me readjusted.
|
On February 01 2010 03:43 251 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2010 03:19 HobbitGotGame wrote:On February 01 2010 02:45 Kazius wrote:
Is it just me or is that a cartoon villain with a mustache and a big nose on the back of the carrier? Oh my god now I can't unsee it... LOL I can't either. thanks buddy.
I dont see it
wait it's this right? Funny how he even has blue eyeliner
|
The new one looks like Mantoss is flying it. I like it.
|
new carrier 2.0 looks great and more protoss. More so even than the blizzard model.
|
Yes, the new 2.0 model looks great. I don't believe the overall size of the carrier needs to be increased, but the design of the new carrier is better than the design of Blizzard's current carrier.
|
still looks too "shiny" imo
|
On February 01 2010 02:39 Alethios wrote:
I'd like to see something closer to the original model, but I don't think GnaReffotsirk's model is the one to do it.
qft. i dont particularly like both of them. carriers have to look like zeppelins!
|
leomon
Canada169 Posts
GnaReffotsirk's model is so dam sexy <3
|
the second one looks even better
|
On February 01 2010 02:45 Kazius wrote:
Is it just me or is that a cartoon villain with a mustache and a big nose on the back of the carrier?
Tell that to blizzard and they might change the model to something else. If that shit goes live I'll be thinking of the cartoon villain all the time.
|
+ Show Spoiler [OT] +am i the only one who thought about judge dredd seeing this?
in topic: first one is better indeed
|
it's not just which model looks better. it's also about which model blends in with other in-game models better, blends in with the landscape, looks better with little interceptors coming out of it, has a size that is proportional to its power, and has a design that looks about right considering its size.
having a model that looks good doesn't mean anything. we can all agree that some models from movies look cool, but that doesn't mean that we should just copy/paste those models to SC2 either. same logic same concept.
|
i like the good old led zeppelin model
|
If we use this new model Im not sure if many peoples computers will support 20 of those things with interceptors, its almost as big as the Mothership and they limit you too 1 at a time
|
Both are too similar (apart from the difference in size) to be any good...
When thinking about Protoss carrier I'm thinking along the lines of:
![[image loading]](http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs43/f/2009/115/1/0/StarCraft___Carrier_Fleet_by_joshzerofactor.jpg)
|
I cannot unsee the mustached cartoon villain! ARGH~
|
Too everyone referencing that artwork. Think about what it would look like as an ingame model. IIRC their was a part in the Blizzcon art panel about making the models clear and simple for easy recognition.
|
can't they just go back to the old sprite models?
3D models are cool and all, but honestly, how can your replace the nostalgic 8 faced sprites?
|
+ Show Spoiler +On February 03 2010 00:12 Manit0u wrote:When thinking about Protoss carrier I'm thinking along the lines of:
Wow. That first one is exactly how I would imagig the Protoss Carriers. The second picture gives me more a swarm feeling.
|
I like the concept art too, but thats the same carrier we have today
Its a bit different from the concept because the 3d model team (dont know the real name) has some freedom when translating the concept to the game engine.
The 3d model team has space to judge if the concept really goes well to 3d or not
Many units arent "exactly" the same as their original concepts, thats common.
I hope they improve the model to look more like GnaReffotsirk's 2.0 or more like the Concept
|
On February 01 2010 02:39 Alethios wrote:
I'd like to see something closer to the original model, but I don't think GnaReffotsirk's model is the one to do it.
agreed. too bulky and intricate. A lot of people get carried away when designing something.
|
beta and carrier.
wtf... what a disgusting way design.. horrible, please redesign please...
|
|
|
On February 03 2010 02:24 Golden Ghost wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 03 2010 00:12 Manit0u wrote:When thinking about Protoss carrier I'm thinking along the lines of: Wow. That first one is exactly how I would imagig the Protoss Carriers. The second picture gives me more a swarm feeling.
Good call. The Nephilim from Wing Commander: Prophecy were definitely swarm-like
|
I just have a problem with the size of it. It doesn't really scream "capital ship" to me, and at first I mistook it for some fighter jet or something similar. It doesn't look like it could "carry" anything, while in SC1 if you saw a carrier, you KNEW it was something to be feared and respected.
|
|
|
Are carriers like completely useless in sc2
|
On February 03 2010 00:12 Manit0u wrote:
This is clearly the Dark Templar equivalent of the Carrier and instead of Interceptors, it fires off Corsairs. They only target air but on every run, they cast Dweb on the ground units as well. Imbaaaaaa.
|
On February 25 2010 09:08 synapse wrote:
Are carriers like completely useless in sc2
I wouldn't go carrier against a Terran. Vikings are cheap air units that can be double produced at the starport and they do bonus damage to armored targets. Basically Terran viking will snipe Carriers. It might be something else though.
|
whenever i see the banshee im always reminded of the orca's from C&C
|
On February 25 2010 09:08 synapse wrote:
Are carriers like completely useless in sc2
It`s too early to say, but I don`t think they will be use frequently in PvP. Thanks to the Stalker Blink, Carriers have to be more careful in choosing which ridges to abuse. If they have nearby land where Stalkers can blink over, the Carriers will not be able to get away. Overall, it seems like Carrier usage will become even more map dependant.
|
![[image loading]](http://www.ressim.net/upload/10051f13.jpg)
I do not wanna play this sucks model...why blizz why... bad job.
|
NO don't you see the current model suits the Carrier. They suck.
To be honest buff Carriers and make them the fat model.
|
On February 25 2010 09:31 Tdelamay wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2010 09:08 synapse wrote:
Are carriers like completely useless in sc2 I wouldn't go carrier against a Terran. Vikings are cheap air units that can be double produced at the starport and they do bonus damage to armored targets. Basically Terran viking will snipe Carriers. It might be something else though.
And i think now turrect 5 shots interceptor who isnt that much with the fire rate of a turrect
|
Russian Federation1612 Posts
I dont want to make carriers just because of its model. I played only 1 or 2 carrier game since beta started...
|
GnaReffotsirk model is what happens when protoss start breeding with Americans.
|
Will this be in the promod?
|
|
|
On February 03 2010 00:12 Manit0u wrote:Both are too similar (apart from the difference in size) to be any good... When thinking about Protoss carrier I'm thinking along the lines of:
wow.. that looks Protossy. Shiny and golden.. Puts current to shame.
I seriously hope models are moddable as the textures..
|
I think the Gna's model is much sexier then Blizzards model.
But, i still think it's way off. It should look more round and bulky with two tentacle looking things under it.
The new carrier is way too detailed (i love details but this is just...), a bulkier, less edgy one would be much better. Also, the interceptors is so wierd - they are hard to spot in-game.
On April 19 2010 23:23 iounas wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 00:12 Manit0u wrote:Both are too similar (apart from the difference in size) to be any good... When thinking about Protoss carrier I'm thinking along the lines of: wow.. that looks Protossy. Shiny and golden.. Puts current to shame. I seriously hope models are moddable as the textures..
Hahaha, Protoss players loves shiny things 
|
Blizzard's model doesn't look like a "carrier". More like some kind of fast moving assault cruiser class
the other one looks like it carries stuff though, looks good yo
|
On April 19 2010 23:39 ToT)OjKa( wrote:
Blizzard's model doesn't look like a "carrier". More like some kind of fast moving assault cruiser class
the other one looks like it carries stuff though, looks good yo
Thats what Im thinking.. It looks like something thats meant to go fast..
|
GnaReffotsirk's is better. Could really tell it's a carrier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/595/bigbetter.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://classic.battle.net/images/battle/scc/protoss/pix/units/carrier1-on.gif)
![[image loading]](http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2509/3874758648_6795771665.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://666kb.com/i/bgb10jzpkspaydcpi.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img43.imageshack.us/i/20081172.jpg/)
![[image loading]](http://www.sirlin.net/storage/articles/tf2_classes.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.sc2armory.com/img/protoss/units/void_ray.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.sc2armory.com/img/protoss/units/carrier.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/starcraft/images/thumb/f/f1/Infestor_SC2_Art1.jpg/111px-Infestor_SC2_Art1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.starcraftsector.net/style/img/factions/units/zerg/Infestor.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/2153/bigbetter2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/590/pimpedcarrier2sold.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.mariomayhem.com/reference/character_bios/waluigi1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i50.tinypic.com/21afhbs.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.wcnews.com/newershots/full/wallpaper_render_alien_carrier.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://content.ytmnd.com/content/6/4/8/648154f3a5318ef743878e1ad51e4052.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee248/Dragoonxlancer/StarCraft%202/Carrier.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://reporting.journalism.ku.edu/fall08/adler-noland/assets_c/2008/12/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster_2-thumb-514x514.jpg)
