Printable View
Pand, I can't tell you where but maybe Demosquid or someone can back me up, maybe it was team liquid..
but yes -- some pro player has came to the conclusion that the siege tank is useless and the thor has rendered it useless. I'm not calling the shot on this, pro players are.
And? Pro players called Vultures useless too, in the early days. Pro players called Valkyries useless, yet now they're discovering a purpose for them.Quote:
some pro player has came to the conclusion that the siege tank is useless and the thor has rendered it useless.
We also have yet to hit the beta testing stage, so stat changes, costs, range and the like will also fundamentally change how the Thor can or will be used. I've always liked the Thor, I hated that it was a mere AtA unit during their tinkering, and am now happy that they've found a medium for them that still has the AtA ability yet returned to being the massive clods that they were initially being introduced. You can pretty much throw efficiency out the window; giant mechas are great as gimmick, but craptacular as warmachines, and hybrid machines, especially transformable ones, can't even pull the generalist role that they were meant to be. As interesting as those rocket launchers looked, I want my Thor to have those cannons on its back. :P
remove the flak canons on its back, or at least change how it looks. Make it look a little flashy just like the new siege tanks canon barrel.
And the thor's normal attack should be energy base. Right now it looks mediocre like a dual shotgun attack, a mech as big and as advanced looking as the thor needs an energy type of weapon and not something the terran usually use.
Its the terran ground battlecruiser. Make this unit look much more impressive.
I never saw the Thor as being 'advanced looking'. I always saw it as a simply a big fatty with lots of missiles and phallic cannons. Solid rounds suit it more.
What do you think would hapen if the thors attack would be be changed to have a bonus against armored. I think that would make the unit quite a bit more specialized, and since the siege tank doesn't have anymore a bonus against armored the thor now has room to receive it. So you would have 2 different units, one specialized against armored and buildings, and the other against all other ground unit.
A hypothetical question :
What would hapen if the thors attack would be changed from 60 damage to 40 + 40 vs armored ?
Blizzard has already been down that road. It used to be 20x2 + 20 vs. Armored, but they changed to to a flat 30x2.Quote:
What would hapen if the thors attack would be changed from 60 damage to 40 + 40 vs armored ?
What that means was that it was probably too strong against certain armored units. For example, 30x2 means that it takes 3 shots to take out a Marauder, while at 20x2+20 it only takes 2 shots. Marauders should probably be more effective than that against Thors.
This seems like a solution looking for a problem. The range and AoE of a Siege Tank already gives it a particular place in the pecking order. Not to mention the fact that STs are cheaper.
I undderstand what you mean, but it has had that attack when the siege tank also had an bonus against armored 50 + 50 vs armored. And they probaly changed it's attack because of that. So now the siege tank has only a damge of 60 with no bonuses, so there is actually room for an another antiarmored unit. Yes the unit would be more usefull agaisnt some units, but in return it would also be far worse against most unarmored units, i mean it couldn't even kill a marine in one shot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas
Definition of spearheading, please?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pandonetho
The way I see it, spearheading is linebreaking. Getting in there and destroying base defenses, softening the darn thing up for the main attack.
As for missile turrets... are we talking about the Missile Turrets that LOST DETECTION?
So, because there is considerable unit overlap (Viking, Reaper, Hellion, Banshee, possibly Raven) there's no reason to modify a unit to give it a new role?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pandonetho
My point being that a tank/meatshield isn't necessary for storming a base. If omitted, other tactics will rise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pandonetho
OK, since Demosquid refused to point out the errors, I guess I shall.Quote:
Originally Posted by don
1: The whole point of the Thor seems to be that it's marching in relatively close and blasting away. Having to hide/defend it kinda ruins the whole point of such a mech.
2: Getting the Thor in range, keeping it protected, and getting the Ghost in is just a little TOO much micro for a game element that is neglected because it rarely works.
3: Lorewise, a Rakeetenbunker zu Fuss makes no sense.
None of the Thor's individual roles are bad in and of themselves, but there is just something about their particular mix — their "togetherness" — that brings a bitter taste to my mouth. Sure, it may be fine for technical gameplay mechanics, but (contrary to what certain people believe) working gameplay is not the be-all-end-all characteristic needed to make good gameplay. Just think of how many games there are that have never really taken off because their gameplay just wasn't that good.
Some of you reference the "boring" armor push of the SC1 Terrans. I see this Thor as the newer version of that. In fact, I think it will be even MORE boring than the original heavy metal push. Need a meatshield? Thor. Need solid AoE GtA? Thor. Need some powerful GtG? Thor. Need a special anti-ground cast? Thor. It's pretty much just an Ultralisk, a Valkyrie, an Immortal, and a Siege Tank all combined into one single unit. That is the most tasteless, unoriginal, gimmicky, cheesy, boring-ass mix of a unit I have ever heard of.
Hell, I wouldn't miss the Viking if it meant that the Thor could be completely reworked.
Dude, they got it back as of last year. It's why the Sensor Tower only has one stage now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quirel