Thor too small?

[Dragoonx]

Exactly: Finally somebody with brains, not some random dude that loves to exaggerate hoping to be funny. OH YEAH YOU WANT SCALE??? MAKE THE BATTLECRUISER THE SIZE OF A MOON. Smart guy huh???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCkfs...layer_embedded

Now that is what the thor should look like. At least in size. Im starting to think that the older design was better than the new one. The guns on its back are too much. Everything else is fine.

Did you even bother to look at the new Thor and the current Siege tank? If you feel they are relatively the same size, I don't know what to say. As it stands there is a substantial gap in their size to make notice of either one on the field.

As for that old Thor model, that's the exact same model people complained about being unrealistically proportioned if I'm not mistaken. I swear its impossible to please everyone.

[KadajSouba]

I swear its impossible to please everyone.

Oh god you must be having a hard time right???

He used the EXAMPLE, to show how relative scale is important. Thor must be bigger than tank. Period. How big? Well thats other story. I never said that tank and thor were the same size, don't know where you read that.

I used what he said also as example of what everybody in here is trying to say about scale and size, because a couple of lads in here tried to be funny saying that if we wanted scale, the battlecruiser should cover the screen. Fortunately now I know that they are clowns, so i'll take their comments as they deserve to be taken.

But I hope you understand.

[MajinX]

Balance is eating design and lore. SC2 multiplayer is a joke in terms of visuals. A ghost taller than the hellion, the "massive" thor reduced, infestors spawning infested terrans, the queen moving stupidly slow off creep, roach being no longer the hard to kill easy to mass unit, a ship healing with a focused light bulb...

I say it again, in the realm of the unbelievable, at least make some fuckin sense Blizzard. If they cant, then make every unit a cube, with different colors to distinguish. That way, pathing, visuals, readability and everything else will be adequate for E-sporting. Hell yes.

hmmm so u want to play a super realistic space RTS... u do realize how boring that would be.... you want to have marines look like ants next to battlecruisers and carriers? and u do realize the game is in the future, like centuries into the future, obviously there will be some odd things (btw the healing light is actually a on-going study right now.)

[KadajSouba]

hmmm so u want to play a super realistic space RTS... u do realize how boring that would be.... you want to have marines look like ants next to battlecruisers and carriers? and u do realize the game is in the future, like centuries into the future, obviously there will be some odd things (btw the healing light is actually a on-going study right now.)

Lol... Read the post above you.

[Wankey]

Dude you have no idea what you're talking about. Literally just pulling stuff out of your behind. Scale has absolutely nothing to do with how the unit is represented.

Look at SC1, unit scale was way off:


SCVs the size of Vultures and Wraiths. Production buildings with looks so squished and disproportionate.



Carriers barely any larger than Dragoons. Archons nearly the same size.



Reaver - supposedly a mobile factory looks tiny.

Scale isn't anything in the game. It is meaningless. Thor is large because they originally envisioned it to be. But playtesting showed it isn't fun to have large objects in the game. The unit looks pretty good resized.

What is your problem anyway? Robot fetish?

[Triceron]

The Thor is 1.5 times bigger than a tank. The Thor is 0.9 the size of the building it's built from. It's still a big unit.

What I see is people who already dislike the Thor finding an excuse to say 'it's not the right size, it should get a new model'. Is there any legitimate reason for it to look any different? No. It's the size of a building. It's by no means a 'small' unit.

Stop fearing change. It was too big to begin with, and making it smaller has helped its pathing immensely. Sure it could use a few minor tweaks, but there's nothing wrong with the scale. If you took a lineup of every unit in Starcraft 2 and asked someone who'd never followed Starcraft 2's development what they thought of the scale, the Thor wouldn't be the only one that looked too small.

[AegisKHAOS]

Come on, it's not THAT big. :|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXfhx-y-6sM

Well, here is the Hyperion next to the Carrier. After that, mutas and the Gantrithor.

In short, the mutas are actually much, much tinier. They're just not flying right next to the Hyperion during that scene the way they did with the Gantrithor.

I'm also a bit amazed that the ultralisk is actually smaller in unit than I thought.

[newcomplex]

Dude you have no idea what you're talking about. Literally just pulling stuff out of your behind. Scale has absolutely nothing to do with how the unit is represented.

Look at SC1, unit scale was way off:


SCVs the size of Vultures and Wraiths. Production buildings with looks so squished and disproportionate.



Carriers barely any larger than Dragoons. Archons nearly the same size.



Reaver - supposedly a mobile factory looks tiny.

Scale isn't anything in the game. It is meaningless. Thor is large because they originally envisioned it to be. But playtesting showed it isn't fun to have large objects in the game. The unit looks pretty good resized.

What is your problem anyway? Robot fetish?

Hes not talking in absolutes but in relation. The thor needs to be BIGGER then the tank, not the thor needs to be realistically proportioned. As in vultures needs to be smaller the tanks, not exactly 4.5 times smaller.

[Triceron]

The Thor still IS bigger than the tank.

[Wankey]

The Thor still IS bigger than the tank.

Yeah, I don't see the problem here. I think the OP is just trying to make a ruckus.