EPTOriginally I wanted to only talk about the "concept/mechanics" of the Tempest and whether or not the Tempest is a better unit concept than the Carrier but now I think the topic could also be used for discussion about Carriers being underused and what can be done to change it.
I've seen a few people mention the Tempest before (positively) in Carrier discussion threads which is why I'm making a thread regarding them and whether anyone else thinks positively of the Tempest or not.
Topic will be split into two parts: one is detailing the Tempest, its abilities, and whether you think the "concept/mechanics" of the Tempest is better than the Carrier) and the other part is detailing the differences of Carriers between BW and SC2 and what can be changed to "fix" Carriers/Tempest.
The Tempest section:
Tempest in gameplay:
Tempest on Starcraft 2 wikia.
Differences between the Tempest and Carrier (based on its descriptions from SC2 Alpha):+ Show Spoiler +
1. The Tempest has a special shield which reduces damage taken by ground units (something like 50% or 75% reduction I'd assume).
However the Tempest has no shields against air units. Air units will damage the Tempest hit points directly regardless of shields.
So the Tempest is the ultimate Protoss air to ground unit. Very effective against ground units but very weak against air units.
2. The Tempest uses "Shurikens" which made melee attacks (and of course look cooler than Interceptors >.>). Shurikens can attack both ground and air units.
3. The Tempest is cheaper and builds faster than the Carrier but has slightly less hit points. (Exact values unknown).
Now we do not know its tech requirements (Does the Tempest require a fleet beacon?) nor do we know the exact stats.
However this is a question is a question regarding whether you think the Tempest's style (moderate cost with good air to ground attacker but weak air to air) is better fit for the game than the Carrier (expensive cost but good overall against most units).
Do you like the mechanics and concept of the Tempest over the Carrier. One thing is assume that the Tempest (and the Carrier) can be changed on the tech tree (like Fleet Beacon could be made cheaper, etc).
Keep this in mind for the poll below (I'll place the poll at the bottom of this post).
Well now onto Carriers and why they may be underused and what can be done to fix them (Carrier section):
Differences between Carriers in BW and Carriers in SC2:
+ Show Spoiler +
1. Carriers in SC2 only have 2 base armor (as opposed to 4 in BW).
2. Carriers cannot attack move move. In BW if you attacked, all Interceptors would keep auto attacking as long as they're out and as long as the "Stop" command is no used.
However in SC2 Carriers cannot do that. They can attack move but once the attack move "initial" targets are gone, they no longer attack move anything else. For example lets say 1 carrier attack moves into a group of hydralisk. One hydralisk is attacked by interceptors but one that hydralisk is gone, interceptors no longer attack and return.
In BW the interceptors would have kept attacking until everything was gone.
3. Interceptors do not heal when docking in the Carrier. In BW if you ordered Carriers to stop and return to cargo (or if they do it automatically), all interceptors will regain health at a very fast rate until healed completely.
However in SC2 this is not the case.
4. Of course an important thing to note is unit composition and counters are different. Instead of Scourges, you have Corruptors for example. Instead of Goliaths you have Vikings. Instead of Scouts and Dragoons you have Void Rays and Stalkers. Except Zerg, the SC2 counters are I'd assume better.
(Blink) Stalkers and Vikings all have better mobility than Dragoon and Goliath respectively (they also deal roughly the same DPS and have the same range).
Other carrier differences + Show Spoiler +
Do note that Carriers have received a buff in their DPS (interceptors attack in sets of two and deal 5 damage each instead of 1 set dealing 8 damage) and cost (they now come with 4 interceptors instead of none).
However instead of having to upgrade interceptor slot (SC2 carriers come with 8 slots by default), you know have to upgrade interceptor launch speed (carriers launched interceptors nearly instantly in BW without having to have any upgrades researched) so that's sort of means no real buff or nerf from BW in terms of upgrades.
Overall it seems the Carrier has more negatives than positions from its transition to Starcraft 2.
What features of the Carrier/Tempest should be changed? Should it obtain all of its Broodwar stats (being able to attack move more easily, interceptors regain HP in cargo, +2 armor, etc) or do you think the Fleet Beacon and/or Carrier should have a cost reduction?
Finally the second question is do you prefer (in terms of concept, looks, and mechanics) the Tempest (moderate cost with good ground to air defense but weak air to air defense) or Carrier (expensive cost but good overall attack and defense against most units [in similar numbers that is])?
Poll: Would you prefer the Tempest over the Carrier?
No (Simply keep and rebalance Carrier) (48)
67%
Yes (replace the Carrier) (17)
24%
Yes (added alongside Carrier) (7)
10%
72 total votes
Yes (replace the Carrier) (17)
Yes (added alongside Carrier) (7)
72 total votes
Your vote: Would you prefer the Tempest over the Carrier?
(Vote): Yes (replace the Carrier)
(Vote): No (Simply keep and rebalance Carrier)
(Vote): Yes (added alongside Carrier)
