|
Sweden33719 Posts
On October 24 2009 04:35 Doctorasul wrote:Sure, but what better time to do that than pre-beta?  Not sure what you mean by hard to implement - do you mean interface-wise? With the ball of doom you activate the ability and select a point to roll to; with the bridge select a point to bridge to etc. Or did you mean something else?
Well, I guess I'm not sure how you'd control it, hard time visualizing it hehe
I guess it'd work something like bladestorm in WC3.
|
The Factory -> Thor conversion actually sounds really good...Blizzard would, of course, have to balance the Thor in terms of build time, cost and supply in order to make it work - but all in all, it sounds like a really good idea. Remember that when factoring in the cost of the build time, you have to think of all those units you aren't producing from the factory.
The problems with the Factory -> Thor all-in move can either be prevented by using the compounding system that FA was talking about (although I don't really have any ideas about what it could be), or nerfing the Thor sufficiently, such as allowing the return of that slow-turning speed. If the Terran player does decide to all-in, it will necessarily lead to micro-intensive play in preventing zerglings/zealots/hellions from obliterating the backbone of your push. Indeed, someone posted an idea earlier in this post to make the Thor vulnerable to anti-air - that's a perfect weakness which prevents the Thor from being a 1a2a3a unit - pushing into a base filled with Missile Turrets would be suicide.
Speaking of which, I really liked the modules idea from before. Admittedly, it is copying the customisable abilities of the BCs and the Siege/Tank Mode of the Tanks to a certain extent, but it could work with, let's say, SCVs being required for every "tech-switch" between that anti-ground mode and that anti-air mode. Heck, perhaps they could make it such that the Thor wouldn't reactivate if the SCV was killed, similar to how Missile Turrets were useless if the SCV building it was destroyed.
Oh, and all that talk about Carriers? The Thor isn't a counter to the Carriers, it's a counter to mutalisks and suchlike. Carriers are, in fact, countered by Vikings, which have bonus damage to capital ships (not sure what their class is called).
|
The factory -> Thor idea? That is so crazy that is into parody land. Just how does a production line, with molding machines, casts, assembly machines, unknown electronics production methods, massive logistic trails and all that transform into guns? Of course, RTS are a crazy genre where battlecruiser armies are built in less time it takes to cook spaghetti, but should the game push in that direction? Do we really want a game that is crazy for crazy sake, like RA3's unit set?
Thor vulnerable to anti-air - that's a perfect weakness which prevents the Thor from being a 1a2a3a unit - pushing into a base filled with Missile Turrets would be suicide.
Hardly, the only GtA only unit is the missile turret. Every other unit is either dual use, or AtA which is supposed to be countered by the thor. (which also means that thor GtA will have to be buffed to make it keep the role)
-----
Yes, lets have a terran colossus (together with transform), as if the terran archon isn't bad enough. Ah, stolen roles.....
Of course, the biggest problem we have now is how to have a terran archon when it looks like a siege tank on legs.
|
I gotta say, despite my attempts to find it a role in the game, the Thor is a fucking shitty unit.
It is bad.
When I saw it for the first time I was like "oh, a big, long range, deployable artillary unit, wtf happened to the siege tank?"
Now it's just a big fat meat shield, BOOOORING
The Thor is a shitty unit, that is educated my verdict.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Most of this thread has crazy ideas: how about letting the Thor "push" small units like how force fields can push units away or how things gets pushed by SC1 mines and such. Now I'm not sure if it works in the SC2 engine, but it would be a characterful feature for such a unit which interesting potential applications, like pushing zealots out of tank lines and such, leading to clutch saves and such.
This is definitely interesting. The only potential problem I can see is that it's annoying to have abilities that rob you of control of your units, but it's not like it would be the only one in the game.
|
During the last cycle of thor threads (you couldn't possibly believe such a bad unit had only one thread), I thought about giving thor GtA a special property of increasing dispersion of stacks. This makes it a supporting AA unit that needs marines to be fully effective.
While not engine breaking, I can smell the complaints from the "mutas are nerfed already" crowd already.....
----------------------
Now that I think about it, Protoss gets all the unit disabling abilities right now..... force field, phase shift, who knows what mothership-does-now and such. The closest the terran has is emp.... (gone is the lock down)
----------------------
If there is a identity the thor has, it is bulk. If there is a way to translate that impression into game mechanics than it would be okay....in having its own identity. (though probably still don't fit in the glass cannon terran race) That is why I'm kind fond of abilities that shove enemy units around since that is what a BIG unit is suppose to feel like, while doing something interesting tactically.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Well, I count the Marauder's slowing attack as a disabling ability, but I guess it depends on your definition.
Dispersion AA sounds really cool in theory, it's just a question of if it takes the fun out of using air units vs it (as with all disabling and slowing abilities). I'm all for trying it out tho.
In a similiar vein, I remember maybenexttime proposing something along the lines of a ground stomp (seismic thump iirc?), I'm not sure if it was on the Thor tho. Anyway it makes sense with the Thor's bulk at least.
|
I wonder what happened to Raven's (nighthawk) seismic thump ability. I wonder if there was a Q/A that addressed why it was removed. One also wonder about how did the infestor "uber ensnare" worked out.
If dispersion AA is added, the "natural stacking" can probably be increased, since protoss have either splash or very mobile GtA (to counter edge range kiting) while zerg will probably get air superiority via corrupter (dedicated unit >> nondedicated units...and it needs no tech) and only terran is hurt by stacking that much. If the dispersion has some kind of delay involved (it should lead the target so that a unmicroed full speed stack should not evade it by flying straight) that can be microed to dodge would be interesting. Of course if a stack is dodging attacks, it isn't doing its best at killing things.
----
Now that I think about it, one could use the code for resolving terran building landings (or burrow stacking) for thor push ability to move thing out of the way. It would also be very funny if the thor could "stomp" interceptors after dropping from a medivac.... :D
-----
If the thor is to become a disruption unit, one can probably look at DoW and see how that worked out..... (but I don't play DoW...so ....I guess we need to grab some relicnews folks and ask them about it)
|
On October 24 2009 11:27 SWPIGWANG wrote:
If there is a identity the thor has, it is bulk. If there is a way to translate that impression into game mechanics than it would be okay....in having its own identity. (though probably still don't fit in the glass cannon terran race) That is why I'm kind fond of abilities that shove enemy units around since that is what a BIG unit is suppose to feel like, while doing something interesting tactically.
You probably missed this, so i'll repost my idea (page 6):
- I'm not going to comment on the changes that FA has proposed because i'd like to play the game before commenting, but i would like to add a suggestion - for those of you who've played Ground Control 2, you will remember that the Human faction had a siege-tank like piece that could also deploy. The kicker was that when it deployed it also extended to either side a sort-of shield, behind which infantry could hide (and shoot out of).
So basically, we steal this idea. Thor gains a Deploy ability (say same, or slightly longer time then siege mode) which parks it in a _fixed_ direction and providing a cover/armour bonus to stuff that clustering in it's 180o behind arc. This gives it a proto-bunker ability in that it serves as a portable fire/rally point for terran pushes, while synergising with the siege-tank and the terran leap-frog. Furthermore, it should't be as imbalanced as the bunker idea because the units are still out in the open and can therefore be flanked, but are a little more resilient against head-on assaults. -
|
The ability to produce cover is pretty interesting, i must admit. It would add a click and strategic positioning value to the thor, as well as put it directly in harm's way. Maybe the terrans cracked some part of protoss technology and were able to create a proxy defense net for forward positions or something.
I had a slightly different take on a possible use for the thor as an artillery unit revisiting 'particle cannon' a bit. What if instead of 250mm cannons, which i dont think many people like, you had a massive back-mounted energy cannon, and instead of single damage or splash in the siege tank sense, make it damages everything in the path of the beam either ground or air, anime-style. Give the ability enough range, and effect radius, and enough damage to 1 shot marines, hydras, roaches, mauraders, zealots, but not tanks, stalkers, lurkers, etc. make the energy requirement low enough to get 2 or 3 shots off with a sizeable cooldown(~10 sec).
Make the ability a directional click, which forces the player to aim the beam, not at a unit, but in the direction it will have maximum effect, and also another click to choose between hitting air targets or ground targets.
Give it a half second charge time, and a full second duration, also to make it somewhat 'dodgeable' or especially to stalkers with blink and such.
From there you can either have the ability shoot omnidirectionally and make the unit turn uberslow, or leave the current turning speed in BR4 and only fire where it can turn.
Also, make the thor exclusive, so you can only have one, like the mothership. Buff the cost, supply, and hp of the unit and you have something that could be the centerpiece of the terran army. Something the player will want to protect but powerful
The SC2 dev team will be loathe to make super changes to the build that it is right now, since in their own words the game is pretty close to being balanced. This change isn't too drastic, but allows the unit to still be a game changer with the right circumstances.
Making the unit exclusive solves a lot of the issue with being built either by scv's or a factory, as well as makes the unit very situational, like BC's, which would satisfy those who hate it overall.
|
Cerebralz, the kinda CNC2 railgun idea sounds neat.
Perhaps instead of having that mechanic with its special, put it with it's normal guns like the Mammoth Tank Mk2. Could be interesting watching players trying to keep their Thor's rapid fire guns always on the best targets to get the most line splash.
|
Also, make the thor exclusive, so you can only have one, like the mothership. Buff the cost, supply, and hp of the unit and you have something that could be the centerpiece of the terran army. Something the player will want to protect but powerful
The SC2 dev team will be loathe to make super changes to the build that it is right now, since in their own words the game is pretty close to being balanced. This change isn't too drastic, but allows the unit to still be a game changer with the right circumstances.
Personally, I like the idea of a single massive game-changing unit. Unfortunately, I also have to admit that such a unit isn't going to work in Starcraft. We all know what happened to the Mothership, and in SC:BW, the essential parallel for this super-game-changing unit is the Nuke, which almost no one uses anymore, other than Flash against Savior. In other words, I kind of disagree with the whole make the Thor unique idea.
I do, however, agree whole-heartedly with the second point. The Dev team is probably not going to want to move the Thor around in the tech-tree or mess around with the machine too much. It's probably too much to hope that they'll change the Thor's production mechanism (either the SCV building it or transforming from a Factory), and they aren't going to create a whole new sprite for the cover, either.
What they can do is either bring back the slow turning mechanism such that micro becomes a lot more important when fighting with or against Thors, or implement the Module idea - the Thor has gone through quite a few re-iterations that I doubt it'd be difficult for them to scrounge up a previously used model.
|
On October 24 2009 14:58 cerebralz wrote:
The SC2 dev team will be loathe to make super changes to the build that it is right now, since in their own words the game is pretty close to being balanced. This change isn't too drastic, but allows the unit to still be a game changer with the right circumstances.
Wait, wait, WHAT? Where did they actually say that? Because, seriously, fucking looooooooooool. "Close to being balanced" my arse. With what, David Kim as the mean? Haha, no.
|
Ideas I like:
* SCV construction.
Much more macro-intensive and doesn't make observers soil their pants at the end of every Factory production cycle. Whatever IMBA caused Blizzard to believe locally produced Thors are a bad idea can be offset with build duration. Plus, with the Thor's movement speed, you'll be lucky to get one where you want it before the match ends either way.
* Lift off.
That just feel extremely natural and solves a whole lot of clutter problems for the SCII Terran army. Very, very good idea. Keep in mind that combined with the Mobile Bunker part, this would essentially make the Thor a short-range transport. With sufficiently low movement speed, it would be possible to get your army into an enemy base during an assault, but not like doom drop a bunch of Thors and Marines out of the blue. Though, admittedly, Drop Thors make Drop Pods look like crap.
* Modules.
Again, highly fitting for Terran. Not sure about "switching" between modules, as we're going into RPG territory here, but an initial choice between different kinds of Thors sounds about right. Bunker for infantry support and cliff-jumping, WWII battleship artillery rack for cracking base defenses, or a bunch of AA missiles for the sheer joy of seeing mutas pop. All Thors, like BCs, would then start out with just the basic cannons and be upgradeable at no extra charge.
Ideas I don't like:
Everything else. Keep in mind, the Thor is just one, albeit gigantic unit. It makes no sense to give it too many bells and whistles. The fact it's big enough for 536987 SCVs to repair at the same time is bad enough.
On October 24 2009 14:58 cerebralz wrote:
The ability to produce cover is pretty interesting, i must admit. It would add a click and strategic positioning value to the thor, as well as put it directly in harm's way. Maybe the terrans cracked some part of protoss technology and were able to create a proxy defense net for forward positions or something.
I had a slightly different take on a possible use for the thor as an artillery unit revisiting 'particle cannon' a bit. What if instead of 250mm cannons, which i dont think many people like, you had a massive back-mounted energy cannon, and instead of single damage or splash in the siege tank sense, make it damages everything in the path of the beam either ground or air, anime-style. Give the ability enough range, and effect radius, and enough damage to 1 shot marines, hydras, roaches, mauraders, zealots, but not tanks, stalkers, lurkers, etc. make the energy requirement low enough to get 2 or 3 shots off with a sizeable cooldown(~10 sec).
Make the ability a directional click, which forces the player to aim the beam, not at a unit, but in the direction it will have maximum effect, and also another click to choose between hitting air targets or ground targets.
Give it a half second charge time, and a full second duration, also to make it somewhat 'dodgeable' or especially to stalkers with blink and such.
From there you can either have the ability shoot omnidirectionally and make the unit turn uberslow, or leave the current turning speed in BR4 and only fire where it can turn.
Also, make the thor exclusive, so you can only have one, like the mothership. Buff the cost, supply, and hp of the unit and you have something that could be the centerpiece of the terran army. Something the player will want to protect but powerful
The SC2 dev team will be loathe to make super changes to the build that it is right now, since in their own words the game is pretty close to being balanced. This change isn't too drastic, but allows the unit to still be a game changer with the right circumstances.
Making the unit exclusive solves a lot of the issue with being built either by scv's or a factory, as well as makes the unit very situational, like BC's, which would satisfy those who hate it overall.
I believe this is what you're getting at.
|
I wonder did lurker morping from hydra maked lurker interesting, or the fact that it does line splash....... because that is what SCV construction is. Sure, devour morping from muta fits the theme of things, but it hardly made the unit interesting because of that after the first 10 minutes. I've never, ever heard of a claim that "zomg, devour is so cool because it is morped by mutalisks."
So what if thor is built by SCV, it doesn't change its core identity.
direction and providing a cover/armour bonus to stuff that clustering in it's 180o behind arc.
It is really something not in the engine, worst than even armor facing. Starcraft never had true LOS and units can shoot through cliffs and other units and everything else. The range calculation and angles are all messed up, like how range is calculated from the body of the mutalisk as opposed to its shadow when shooting at something on the ground....and so and so on.
It'd be extremely messy to jury rig something like that it now that the engine is done already.
|
On October 25 2009 14:10 SWPIGWANG wrote:
The range calculation and angles are all messed up, like how range is calculated from the body of the mutalisk as opposed to its shadow when shooting at something on the ground....and so and so on.
Why would it shoot from its shadow? Shadows do not have to be straight under the object, usually they are a lot to the side since the sun is not straight above.
|
[QUOTE]On October 25 2009 14:10 SWPIGWANG wrote:
I wonder did lurker morping from hydra maked lurker interesting, or the fact that it does line splash....... because that is what SCV construction is. Sure, devour morping from muta fits the theme of things, but it hardly made the unit interesting because of that after the first 10 minutes. I've never, ever heard of a claim that "zomg, devour is so cool because it is morped by mutalisks."
So what if thor is built by SCV, it doesn't change its core identity.[quote]
Um, no. The difference is that when you morph hydras you lose the hydra entirely. When you're done building your six Thors with SCVs you get the SCVs back and have only lost a little mining time. Also, you have to devote production to hydras before you can morph lurkers, which could be an important decision (if you don't make hydras then you'll never make lurkers) Contrast this with the thor, where pretty much you'd have your CC building SCVs as much as possible, so you will always have a buttload of them hand to begin construction of thors with no problems.
|
Why would it shoot from its shadow? Shadows do not have to be straight under the object, usually they are a lot to the side since the sun is not straight above.
Okay, maybe not the shadow itself, but "whatever its exact land position it is over", which is actually unknown except hints given by the 45 degree perspective. For range calculation purposes the mutalisk is essentially on the ground while flying. That is fine for a 2D engine, but problematic in a 3D one where the angle of shot is important for gameplay purposes.
It would suck horribly, if say, a mutalisk shooting from top to bottom would almost never trigger the directional shield, while shooting from down to up triggers it even at zero range....and so and so on. There is just a ton of position glitches possible if one try to jury rig an angular system into the game when all it does now is track unit distances on the 2d plane matching the default viewing perspective.
If that kind of stuff is to be added to the game, it is best to have it be a part of the engine since day one to prevent any weirdness from happening. Doing it this late in the development cycle is asking for bugs.
The classic glitch in Starcraft is the tank mode siege tank out ranging range upgraded marines in a bunker at specific angles.
The difference is that when you morph hydras you lose the hydra entirely.
The similarity is that they both are built outside of buildings in a remote location. The important thing is that the lurker example didn't make lurkers interesting (egg block trick aside)....lurkers had to be interesting in itself.
|
I think he is refering to the fact that you could have just 1 factory and an armory and then create 14 thors all at the exact same time (provided you had the minerals) with SCVs more than the fact that you get to 'keep the SCV that build it'.
|
On October 25 2009 14:10 SWPIGWANG wrote:I wonder did lurker morping from hydra maked lurker interesting, or the fact that it does line splash....... because that is what SCV construction is. Sure, devour morping from muta fits the theme of things, but it hardly made the unit interesting because of that after the first 10 minutes. I've never, ever heard of a claim that "zomg, devour is so cool because it is morped by mutalisks." So what if thor is built by SCV, it doesn't change its core identity. Show nested quote +direction and providing a cover/armour bonus to stuff that clustering in it's 180o behind arc. It is really something not in the engine, worst than even armor facing. Starcraft never had true LOS and units can shoot through cliffs and other units and everything else. The range calculation and angles are all messed up, like how range is calculated from the body of the mutalisk as opposed to its shadow when shooting at something on the ground....and so and so on. It'd be extremely messy to jury rig something like that it now that the engine is done already.
How do you know it's not something the engine is capable of? From what we've seen of the sc2edit demo it looks pretty damn powerful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
