Thors design and its efficiency

[Blazur]

Really? Psi Storm (or any other AoE). Watch them combat that. If by "combat", you mean "die quick and bloody," then yes, they can "combat" it. Vikings might be able to get somewhat out of the way of it, but even they will take substantial damage from a single shot of Psi Storm.

What I mean is they're generalists. They can attack any target, unlike other units which are specialized like the banshee or hellion. The Terrans have an abundance of generalist fighters which for all intensts and purposes can be A-moved across the map. Just like hydras, dragoons, goliaths, and stalkers. These are units I all consider to be jack's of trades.

No, they don't. The Strike Cannon is a single-target attack. And it's not particularly long ranged (the Thor will be being shot at by whatever it's shooting).

That's still long-range bombardment. Just like the tank. Their roles and abilities overlap. And the Thor has to stop to use this ability...just like the tank.

Nothing new? Have you ever watched SC1 when a Terran goes 'Mech? It's just "move forward, Siege up. Force enemy to back up or die. Repeat until dead." There's no mobility at all, save when a Dropship gets directly involved; just a slow, inexorable push across the map.

It's a goliath on roids dude. There's absolutely nothing new about it. Yet another ranged attacker with no revolutionary ability of its own. The only difference is it's uglier than a Goliath and less practical.

The Thor is as much of a fail as are your arguments for it.

[TheEconomist]

And it's precisely because of that mobility mentioned by Nicol that I enjoy these changes.

[Blazur]

And it's precisely because of that mobility mentioned by Nicol that I enjoy these changes.

You're entitled to your opinion, but you have to at least admit it's unoriginal and pretty damn goofy looking. Blizzard is cheesing out on so many levels with SC2 when there was so much potential for innovation and change.

[Pandonetho]

What I mean is they're generalists. They can attack any target, unlike other units which are specialized like the banshee or hellion. The Terrans have an abundance of generalist fighters which for all intensts and purposes can be A-moved across the map. Just like hydras, dragoons, goliaths, and stalkers. These are units I all consider to be jack's of trades.

And this is where the problem lies. The Thor is NOT a generalist unit. It is specialized in many roles. The common saying is "jack of all trades but MASTER of none" which is baloney.

The Thor is in fact quite a master of soaking damage (what other Terran unit beats it in that regard?). It is in fact quite capable of killing air units (it's a master of killing units that marines can't kill effectively, such as Brood Lords), and last but not least it is the master of destroying high HP targets, oh and it has an attack for self defense. These are far from generalist. Everything about the Thor points to it being used as a heavy artillery for heavy units.

That's still long-range bombardment. Just like the tank. Their roles and abilities overlap. And the Thor has to stop to use this ability...just like the tank.

The tank does splash, actually has farther range, and is used for actual bombardment. This is a sniping ability that costs energy and relies on the Thor's damage soaking capabilites to utilise effectively.

It's a goliath on roids dude. There's absolutely nothing new about it. Yet another ranged attacker with no revolutionary ability of its own. The only difference is it's uglier than a Goliath and less practical.

What's new and revolutionary about Lurker? Or the Marine? The Banshee? The Zergling? The Hydralisk? What about the Carrier or the Archon? Don't forget the Dark Templar. Why does the Thor deserve all this attention for not being "different" enough while all these other units get away with it? What's new and revolutionary about the Ghost besides the fact that they actually made him at an earlier tech level to be useful? He has the exact same abilities save snipe which is yet another high damage attack.

[Blazur]

And this is where the problem lies. The Thor is NOT a generalist unit. It is specialized in many roles. The common saying is "jack of all trades but MASTER of none" which is baloney.

Fair enough. I guess there's some confusion on semantics here put you make my point in your follow up paragraph. The Thor is TOO good in TOO many roles. It has strength against both ground and air. It can absorb a lot of damage. It can snipe units/buildings at decent range at the cost of energy.

What's new and revolutionary about Lurker? Or the Marine? The Banshee? The Zergling? The Hydralisk? What about the Carrier or the Archon? Don't forget the Dark Templar. Why does the Thor deserve all this attention for not being "different" enough while all these other units get away with it? What's new and revolutionary about the Ghost besides the fact that they actually made him at an earlier tech level to be useful? He has the exact same abilities save snipe which is yet another high damage attack.

Nothing, and personally I'd like to see many of those removed or revamped. But if they're gonna keep the Thor as basically a Goliath then bring the damn Goliath back. Stop trying to tout it as a new unit. Either bring a new unit or bring back something that doesn't look as dorky. But I'd still rather have something new in its place.

[TheEconomist]

You're entitled to your opinion, but you have to at least admit it's unoriginal and pretty damn goofy looking. Blizzard is cheesing out on so many levels with SC2 when there was so much potential for innovation and change.

Just to clarify, I wasn't specifically talking about the Thor. I do like the Thor but it's not the only thing that brings the change I was talking about.

[Nicol Bolas]

I'm confused. You're saying this about the Thor:

It has strength against both ground and air. It can absorb a lot of damage. It can snipe units/buildings at decent range at the cost of energy.

Followed by:

But if they're gonna keep the Thor as basically a Goliath then bring the damn Goliath back.

Which is it? Either it's a multi-roled unit that can serve many purposes, or it's a Goliath. It can't be both.

For the record, Goliaths:

1: Don't have "strength against both ground and air". They're clearly much better against air. Their ground attack is pretty crappy, cost for cost. That cannot be said about the Thor.

2: Cannot "absorb a lot of damage".

3: Cannot "snipe units/buildings at decent range at the cost of energy."

Besides the fact that Thors look like Mechs and can attack both air and ground, how exactly are they "basically a Goliath"?

Furthermore:

The Thor is TOO good in TOO many roles.

TOO good for what, exactly? Is its GtA attack taking away from the utility of Vikings or BCs? Is its GtG attack taking away from the utility of Siege Tanks or Marauders? No.

If an opponent is going strongly for air units, Thors aren't going to stop them. Thors can't bring down big air units quickly (cost for cost), nor can they hunt down units that use terrain properly.

As for their GtG attack, Thors are great against small numbers of units with lots of Hp. They're far worse against swarms of low Hp units. They're basically helpless against Marines and Zerglings. And Immortal shields blank out quite a lot of their GtG damage, making them a reasonable counter.

[Blazur]

Besides the fact that Thors look like Mechs and can attack both air and ground, how exactly are they "basically a Goliath"?

That's exactly it...they're a stronger Goliath. It has more hp and costs more, and has been given a barrage ability that works similar to the tanks. The Thor excels at fighting air, as did the Goliath. Both can deal moderate damage to ground units. AND they're both biped mechs.

As far as I'm concerned there the same with only minor enhancements. And it frustrates me that they couldn't have come up with something different that would offer players a new strategy or ability to use in battle.

Personally I'd rather have 4 Goliaths than one oversized, cumbersome Thor. There's more potential for both micro and macro given that they're essentially the same unit. And I thought the Goliath was a really cool unit in SC1.

[phazonjunkie]

I personally like the Thor. Not necessarily the unit itself (in all honesty it's pretty fugly) but the concept/intent behind it. It makes the terran offense more mobile, and allows a more fast, dynamic push that doesn't center on babysitting stationary artillery as Nicol mentioned earlier.

Are there other ways they could've done it? Perhaps. They could've brought back the goliath model and given it a substantial buff to make it a more effective ground counter. Hell I actually liked the goliath model. I would've liked to have use it more in ground assaults if it didn't get utterly raped by practically every other ground unit cost for cost.

[Nicol Bolas]

It has more hp and costs more, and has been given a barrage ability that works similar to the tanks.

So, are you saying a Goliath then is just a stronger... Marine? Because that's what it is. It has more Hp and costs more. It also does more damage per shot.

The point I'm trying to make is that speaking in generalities is meaningless as far as gameplay is concerned. The Goliath is not just a stronger Marine because of precisely how it is different. It has more GtA range and damage, for example, as well as a massive +4 (+2x2) bonus per vehicle attack upgrade. These things make it better at GtA per-cost than a Marine. That makes it significantly different, and thus not merely a stronger Marine.

Similarly, the Thor is more than just a stronger Goliath. Its AoE air attack makes it significantly better against groups of air units than against single targets. Its GtG damage is massive, but single target.

Oh, and the Strike Cannon has nothing in common with Siege Mode. Siege Mode is AoE, Strike Cannon is single-target. Siege Mode has long range, Strike Cannon does not. Siege Mode takes no energy, Strike Cannon requires it (and thus can only be used against choice targets). The only overlap between them is in your mind.

The problem is that you're letting your dislike of the look of the unit color your appreciation of its gameplay potential.

And it frustrates me that they couldn't have come up with something different that would offer players a new strategy or ability to use in battle

MOBILE TERRAN MECH ARMY!!!!! What part of that is not a new strategy?

If the only kinds of "new" that will satisfy you are off-the-wall things like jumping up terrain or whatnot, then yes, nothing Blizzard will do with the Thor will satisfy you. But there are far more important "new" things than these gross, obvious "hey look at me, I'm a new ability" kinds of stuff. Even if the Thor was truly nothing but a stat and cost change of the Goliath, it'd still be different. It would have a different interaction with the rest of the Terran army, and thus create new strategies.

Look at how different the new Siege Tank is. By bumping up its cost, it now is no longer the GtG God-unit that it was before. It has become what it was meant to be: a support unit. A relatively small cost and stat change fundamentally modifies how a unit can be used.

And I thought the Goliath was a really cool unit in SC1.

It wasn't. It was a terribly unbalancing unit that took away the one weakness of the Siege Tank: air units. The Goliath is not just the best GtA unit; it is the absolute best unit for killing anything that flies in the game. The only place that it was lacking was in killing air units was against mass swarms of Mutalisks (and that's only because Mutas were the only Small air unit in the game).

Because of that, the primary weakness of the Siege Tank didn't even exist. If the Terran saw you trying to get a few air units together, they could just pump out Goliaths for a while and have perfect immunity to you.

Thors do not provide this. Thors require so much gas that you will not be able to afford both them and Siege Tanks in sufficient numbers to make it possible for you to mass up enough Thors to cut off the air option entirely. And if you do, then you won't have enough Siege Tanks to matter.

Goliaths were a bad idea. Let them rest.