Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nicol Bolas
Twelve days later. It was a mechanics fart: unpleasant but over quickly.
That I couldn't know, as it's not written in the wikia.
Nonetheless, it would have made the Viking a lot better in ground-mode.
Quote:
... What? How is 10x4 + 4 vs. Light AoE "similar" to 10x2 + 10 vs. Massive? The only things similar are that they are multi-attacks with a base value of 10, which is coincidence at best.
In the end, the Thor does equal or even more damage depending on the target.
Quote:
The Thor is clearly better against light armored units, particularly those that cluster together (hence the AoE). Vikings are better, cost for cost, against massive units and single-targets.
That I didn't even know that the Thor did splash damage, until you mentioned it. Now I see that it's been written in the stats of the Thor on the wikia-page.
Quote:
And no, they don't fire at about the same rate. Vikings are notably faster on the attack.
As I said, my assumption is based on the wikia.
Quote:
Against what? Even if we assume they fire at the same speed, 2 Vikings cost slightly less than a Thor. Two Vikings deliver equal firepower to a single target as a Thor. And they fly, thus they can chase targets down. Against massive targets (Viking specialty), one Viking can keep pace with a Thor's damage.
But how many massive air-targets are there? Aside from the Colossus (who can be targeted due to its height), Carrier, the Mothership and the Battlecruiser, no other flying unit is listed as massive.
It's not like these units wouldn't have an escort of stalkers, phoenixes or even void ray (if the Protoss even bother with the massive air-units), and marines in the case of the battlecruiser (or just more battlecruiser, but then I guess you already lost if the enemy can mass-produce battlecruisers).
The wikia doesn't mention of any massive zerg-units.
Quote:
And while a Thor isn't susceptible to AtA, Vikings aren't susceptible to AtG. So Banshees and Brood Lords are mere prey for the Viking, whereas either unit is a major pain for Thors.
They are if they need to go into walker-mode, which they need to do if they want to contribute more.
If they remain in only one mode all the time so as not to expose them to their current weakness, then they'd be a waste of ressource and time.
Quote:
Yes, if you get clusters of the Thor's preferred targets together, the Thor is better. But it should be better. Vikings and Thors handle different situations.
Well, just like the Wraith and the Goliath did, but did people really still use Wraiths? And are we really going to use Vikings if the Protoss-players, who have most of the units susceptible to it, possess good counters against them? The Stalkers will form the core of any protoss army early in the game, and then stay so for the rest of the match.
I do wonder if they shouldn't change the bonus-damage of the Viking to against armored instead of against massive units.
Quote:
People keep trying to call the Thor a "something else." It's a modified Siege Tank or a big Goliath or a walking Battlecruiser or some other nonsense. The fact is that it's none of these. It's a Thor. It has its own designation, and its own unique nature. It is not a slightly modified version of any other Terran unit.
Why shouldn't it be a modified siege tank, big goliath or a walking battlecruiser? It does perform in the way people have attributed to it.
Nonetheless, this is going out-of-topic, so perhaps we should continue it elsewhere. Or perhaps a moderator could split it up.
