Re: Simpler, more realistic Thor model?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hyde
Hahaha that's my youtube channel.
Yeah the thor's air to air isn't so great versus capital unless you have like 6 thors..but even then they're not practical. They deal great DPS, but due to their size, clunkiness, and speed - cruisers/carriers can rape them before they can deal any serious damage. They suffer the same fate as the SC1 Goliath. Even if you have tons, their idiotic AI and pathing will get them killed most of the time.
Like that map, even if I sent 6-10 thors , the time to get up to the ramp and then clear the way for the other thors - the carrier swarm could have vollied them to death one by 1.
Or if he came and bombarded anyone elses platform, the thors would have had to run to the end of the platform in hope of range. Easily losing 25-50% of all their HP. Not to mention theres the always present mothership in carrier fleets.
But they are A W E S O M E versus ANY other air (and can take the beating too).
I just had a lonnnngg and drawn out 2v2 Lost temple, both our allies got killed and it ended up being 1v1 Terran. He went mass banshees/vikings, I went marines and Thors. Smoked those flies outta the sky , even if they landed =P.
Role: I think heavy support unit. They can get owned by themselves simply by a squad of marines/zerglings. But they really shine when you use the 600damage/6 seconds spell on buildings and etc. Also if they got shitloads of air. They still deal a decent amount of damage at ground but at a cost of reduced range.
But I think for capital air, that is where the thor's 120 MM cannons come in handy. 100 energy to kill any unit essentially. But IMO, if they're going capital air...
It is much more effective spending the same resources and getting one battle cruiser and safely yamato-cannon'ing for 300 damage without taking a hit. Plus a Cruiser is much more mobile.
But a Drop ship can carry a thor though, it takes up the entire dropship however.
Your YouTube channel? magicalpoop ? well, I guess I shall subscribe.
So, from what you say, I can deduct the Thor's special attack with 120 MM cannons is both GTG and GTA. What is it's range? is it like the Yamato to be able to counter a single Battlecruiser with a single Thor? besides, how much damage it deals? I can't believe Yamato cannon deals 300! it used to be 250 max! does any of those (yamato or 120 MM cannons) deal splash damage of any kind? I.E. when targeted ground or air? I hope 120 MM cannons deal GTA splash damage...
About the topic, do you agree with me that the new model looks a lot better than the old walking wall/box one? I think it's GTA attack could be improved, but the model is just fine for me now.
Re: Simpler, more realistic Thor model?
I think it looks weird how the Thor's legs are splayed when it stands still.
IE: It stands with its legs like this: /\ , rather than: | |
I wouldnt have expected a giant mech to have a hip (read: ball and socket) type joint., rather just a hinge that allows its leg to swing fwd or back in a single plane only.
IMO it appears to only have a hinge joint during its walking animation, yet when its resting, it parts it legs slightly wider, standing with an inverted V.
Re: Simpler, more realistic Thor model?
For the record, I like the new Thor model much better.
Re: Simpler, more realistic Thor model?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Crazy_Jonny
For the record, I like the new Thor model much better.
Who doesn't? the new model doesn't have a wall/box body!
this one has better proportions! Now I wish I could play and see the attacking capabilities by myself, how responsive the unit is, feel it's power... etc...
Re: Simpler, more realistic Thor model?
I realy cant find where Thor fits in lore or whatever... Other that it looks like a monstrosity with thoose unrealistic moving legs.... they are turning SC into Transformers god dammit and not the cool transformer cartoon we all loved when we were kids. Its shity Michael Bay flag waving deep shit Transformers.
Re: Simpler, more realistic Thor model?
terran needs optimus prime.
The only thing i like about the new thor are its back canons, looks more scifi and hightech, the original looks like your typical flak canons.
Give the thor some sort of energy weapon. I am betting that the thor would look 10x more cooler, impressive and devastating. A user created thor will put blizzard thor to shame. I suggest giving it a better weapon choice than your typical projectiles for the terran.
Re: Simpler, more realistic Thor model?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Adlerburg
I realy cant find where Thor fits in lore or whatever...
http://www.starcraft2.com/features/terran/thor.xml
;)
Quote:
Other that it looks like a monstrosity with thoose unrealistic moving legs....
I'm sure it appears no worse than the Viking or the Goliath (Single Player). And besides, there are people who also love the Thor for that aspect.
Quote:
they are turning SC into Transformers god dammit and not the cool transformer cartoon we all loved when we were kids. Its shity Michael Bay flag waving deep shit Transformers.
Now this is just bandwagon hate on Michael Bay. Yes, his movie had no coherent plot and was centralized on its over complex CGI, but please; don't diss the CGI merely because Bay was the director. People dislike the movie for the plot and acting (or lack thereof), not because the transformers looked bad (mostly). In fact, the only reason it can be said to be successful WAS because of the Transformers themselves. Though of course, you can hate the stupid stuff like Devastator's anatomy. :p
And even if you find the CGI to be horrible as well, the similarity between the Transformers and the Thor is so minimal, you might as well be daft enough to compare the Thor with, like the Warlord Titan from Warhammer 40k. Suffice to say, the similarities are contained to both being giant robots.
P.S. The Terra-tron would be a better parallel.
Re: Simpler, more realistic Thor model?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kacaier
Now this is just bandwagon hate on Michael Bay. Yes, his movie had no coherent plot and was centralized on its over complex CGI, but please; don't diss the CGI merely because Bay was the director. People dislike the movie for the plot and acting (or lack thereof), not because the transformers looked bad (mostly). In fact, the only reason it can be said to be successful WAS because of the Transformers themselves. Though of course, you can hate the stupid stuff like Devastator's anatomy. :p
No, even the CGI wasn't that good, considering how fugly and confusing things got every time two 'bots got into a hand-to-hand fight (which certainly wasn't helped by the Jello-based shakey cam)
Quote:
And even if you find the CGI to be horrible as well, the similarity between the Transformers and the Thor is so minimal, you might as well be daft enough to compare the Thor with, like the Warlord Titan from Warhammer 40k. Suffice to say, the similarities are contained to both being giant robots.
I see what you did there :p
Re: Simpler, more realistic Thor model?
Quote:
I wouldnt have expected a giant mech to have a hip (read: ball and socket) type joint., rather just a hinge that allows its leg to swing fwd or back in a single plane only.
How else would it be able to turn?
Quote:
No, even the CGI wasn't that good, considering how fugly and confusing things got every time two 'bots got into a hand-to-hand fight (which certainly wasn't helped by the Jello-based shakey cam)
Off Topic: The CG itself (ie: the rendering of the models) was very good. They looked solid. The models themselves were shit on toast. So it was a good rendering of something that looked like crap.
But that's what Bay wanted them to look like. That was the specific "artist" direction he wanted. So don't blame the CG for that. Much like you can't blame the SC2 rendering engine if you don't like the Thor.
