|
On October 23 2009 02:12 Unentschieden wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2009 00:55 Appendix wrote:On October 22 2009 10:44 Musoeun wrote:On October 22 2009 09:04 Appendix wrote:
I think the Thor is flawed in so many ways.
First of all, lorewise, it is farfetched. Normally, lore isn't that big of a concern to me, but when the supposedly greatest terran scientists sat down and discussed the new alien threats, they could impossibly have concluded that the correct counter to the more mobile protoss armies and the much much more mobile zerg armies were to construct an even bigger and slower terran unit than we have ever seen before. I doubt anyone is that stupid. Lorewise it makes perfect sense (to me, at least). What is the Terran army lacking? An all-around, general-purpose, wreck-shit-up machine. Sure, you've got tanks (which are deadly, but only in bunches), nukes (which are expensive and easy to dodge), and battlecruisers (but they're often not practical in ground battles or whatever, you can fluff that somehow). It's not too hard to imagine Mengsk or Duke's SC2 equivalent watching a mass of zealots and dragoons smashing a tank line to bits and demanding that R&D "get me something that can stop these alien bastards. Something BIG." Is it? I don´t agree. I would consider for instance the vulnerability to mutalisk harass a bigger weakness than zealots and dragoons, which tanks with proper support excel at killing. And as a solution to that problem I would not create the thor. I would make like gizmoducks with AA-missiles, or something. Small, mobile and only good against air. The terran army is characterized by units well suited to their purpose. Tanks are raw power against attacking ground units, and are optimized for that, and that only. Vultures are fast, but generally weak in terms of firepower and health, well suited for harassment and scouting. Goliaths -> antiair. The only exceptions to this structure are marines and battlecruisers, but marines are the first available attacking unit and are generally weak, and battlecruisers are capitol ships at the other end of the scale whose purpose is to look impressive and keep the commanders safe. The thor, as it is now, doesn´t fit into this structure. Its only unique value right now is that it is big. And, as it seems, to make it fit into the structure it has to become very complex. You got it the wrong way around. Terrans "thing" is versatility. Specialisation is a Zerg thing - they get away with it because Larvae can turn into any unit. Thats why they can techswitch with ease and their 200/200 army is the weakest overall. The Tank isn´t specialized, used properly it beats ANYTHING on the ground. Vultures are scout/harrass with anti armor/mobility inhibition with Spidermines etc... Again it´s fair because Terrans don´t get Larvae but have to build either Barracks Factorys or Starports. The Thor is EFFECTIVE against everything but only EFFICIENT against light air. As such it fits Terrans perfectly.
Zerg can techswitch with ease because their units are cheap, die fast and build fast in combination with the larvae mechanism. They just have a high renewal rate. And specialization is not their trademark either, massing and agility are.
The terran army is versatile, the terran units are not. The phrase "the whole is greater than the sum of its part" very much applies. And the tank is specialized. It lacks mobility, it requires certain circumstances to be effective and, as you said, it only hits the ground. The tank is not versatile. Neither is the vulture.
I don´t see the role thor plays in the terran army. I just see "aha, someone wants a big robot in this game".
"But this isn't Brood War, its starcraft 2"
Indeed its not, but they force themselves into this problem when they went with Vulture 2.0 i.e. the hellion. I say scrap it too and let the reapers take over their harassing role and come up with another fun set of dynamic units for the terran mech army.
(sorry for late answer, my HDD crashed)
|
Concerning OP argument for rear armor dmg.
I really disagree. I hate the entire rear armor concept, I don't think that stuff has much place in a Starcraft game. Just a personal opinion, similar to how I don't think heroes belong either. Starcraft doesn't have that feel - I feel like if we did it with the Thor it should be done with other units as well, namely the siege tank (and I imagine that happenign to the siege tank in SC1 and it being awful).
|
mobile bunker? When ghosts are already overpowered with faster nukes as well as hard as hell to kill? Yeah, let's have everybody play terran and whoever gets the nuke upgrade wins.
|
I definitely agree that units like the Thor, Immortal and Roach are struggling to find their place. They are really just Broodwar concepts tagged with a new irrelevant feature (big goliath, hearty dragon, healing hydralisk). There are plenty of ideas for each of the units, including those in this thread for the Thor.
The OP mentioned the Tripod from C&C and how the Mechanical Rebirth ability was similar. Unlike the MR ability that saw some light in SC2, when the Tripod was dismantled/destroyed, any race could repair it for use on their side. This ability coupled with a number of the ideas for the Thor could greatly help to grant it the unique identity it deserves.
|
On October 22 2009 01:51 Lz wrote:
nice read~
haha...great ideas for a THOR UMS/Custom game...
|
On October 27 2009 09:36 FabledIntegral wrote:
Concerning OP argument for rear armor dmg.
I really disagree. I hate the entire rear armor concept, I don't think that stuff has much place in a Starcraft game. Just a personal opinion, similar to how I don't think heroes belong either. Starcraft doesn't have that feel - I feel like if we did it with the Thor it should be done with other units as well, namely the siege tank (and I imagine that happenign to the siege tank in SC1 and it being awful).
i agree with you, but just bringing something up. isn't hte carrier in SC2 supposed to have different armor levels for calculating gta damage and ata damage?
|
On October 27 2009 09:27 Appendix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2009 02:12 Unentschieden wrote:On October 23 2009 00:55 Appendix wrote:On October 22 2009 10:44 Musoeun wrote:On October 22 2009 09:04 Appendix wrote:
I think the Thor is flawed in so many ways.
First of all, lorewise, it is farfetched. Normally, lore isn't that big of a concern to me, but when the supposedly greatest terran scientists sat down and discussed the new alien threats, they could impossibly have concluded that the correct counter to the more mobile protoss armies and the much much more mobile zerg armies were to construct an even bigger and slower terran unit than we have ever seen before. I doubt anyone is that stupid. Lorewise it makes perfect sense (to me, at least). What is the Terran army lacking? An all-around, general-purpose, wreck-shit-up machine. Sure, you've got tanks (which are deadly, but only in bunches), nukes (which are expensive and easy to dodge), and battlecruisers (but they're often not practical in ground battles or whatever, you can fluff that somehow). It's not too hard to imagine Mengsk or Duke's SC2 equivalent watching a mass of zealots and dragoons smashing a tank line to bits and demanding that R&D "get me something that can stop these alien bastards. Something BIG." Is it? I don´t agree. I would consider for instance the vulnerability to mutalisk harass a bigger weakness than zealots and dragoons, which tanks with proper support excel at killing. And as a solution to that problem I would not create the thor. I would make like gizmoducks with AA-missiles, or something. Small, mobile and only good against air. The terran army is characterized by units well suited to their purpose. Tanks are raw power against attacking ground units, and are optimized for that, and that only. Vultures are fast, but generally weak in terms of firepower and health, well suited for harassment and scouting. Goliaths -> antiair. The only exceptions to this structure are marines and battlecruisers, but marines are the first available attacking unit and are generally weak, and battlecruisers are capitol ships at the other end of the scale whose purpose is to look impressive and keep the commanders safe. The thor, as it is now, doesn´t fit into this structure. Its only unique value right now is that it is big. And, as it seems, to make it fit into the structure it has to become very complex. You got it the wrong way around. Terrans "thing" is versatility. Specialisation is a Zerg thing - they get away with it because Larvae can turn into any unit. Thats why they can techswitch with ease and their 200/200 army is the weakest overall. The Tank isn´t specialized, used properly it beats ANYTHING on the ground. Vultures are scout/harrass with anti armor/mobility inhibition with Spidermines etc... Again it´s fair because Terrans don´t get Larvae but have to build either Barracks Factorys or Starports. The Thor is EFFECTIVE against everything but only EFFICIENT against light air. As such it fits Terrans perfectly. Zerg can techswitch with ease because their units are cheap, die fast and build fast in combination with the larvae mechanism. They just have a high renewal rate. And specialization is not their trademark either, massing and agility are. The terran army is versatile, the terran units are not. The phrase "the whole is greater than the sum of its part" very much applies. And the tank is specialized. It lacks mobility, it requires certain circumstances to be effective and, as you said, it only hits the ground. The tank is not versatile. Neither is the vulture. I don´t see the role thor plays in the terran army. I just see "aha, someone wants a big robot in this game". "But this isn't Brood War, its starcraft 2" Indeed its not, but they force themselves into this problem when they went with Vulture 2.0 i.e. the hellion. I say scrap it too and let the reapers take over their harassing role and come up with another fun set of dynamic units for the terran mech army. (sorry for late answer, my HDD crashed)
Well lets avoid discussing if Zerg are versatile or not or if Terrans are specialized - let everyone decide for themselves. It´s a tangent to this issue, really.
"aha, someone wants a big robot in this game" is right but unlike you suggest also legimitate. It worked for SC - where do you think the Vulture came from? Blizzard wanted a "space biker" to enhance the Terrans "Space Mad Max" feel. They gave it hover for the "space" bit and added Spidermines since the Factory needed a cost effective mineral only unit for balance reasons.
A mine was worth 25 minerals but the Vulture was a throwaway unit for many years.
I´m not suprised that youre upset with the Hellion if you think it´s the Vulture 2.0, it´s not. The familarity is mostly explained from it´s position in the Tech tree, mineral only in the Factory. It also relys on mobility but unlike the Vulture it´s supposed to be a serious combat unit. It has enhanced Damage capability due to the linear splash boosting the actual usefullnes of the unit itself. They don´t have the harrassing role Primarly since they are Primarly the "Factorys Marines". Going Mech has to be substainable Gaswise or you´d be forced to build Barracks for Marines.
If you were to made Hellions suck at harrassment (maybe slow the down?), how would a Mech Terran harrass? Siege mode Tanks would be a bit late, especially since they also need Medivacs at that point to "harrass".
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On October 27 2009 09:36 FabledIntegral wrote:
Concerning OP argument for rear armor dmg.
I really disagree. I hate the entire rear armor concept, I don't think that stuff has much place in a Starcraft game. Just a personal opinion, similar to how I don't think heroes belong either. Starcraft doesn't have that feel - I feel like if we did it with the Thor it should be done with other units as well, namely the siege tank (and I imagine that happenign to the siege tank in SC1 and it being awful).
I'm fine with you disagreeing, but I don't understand why the siege tank would have to use the same mechanic  ?
On October 27 2009 14:19 Ryuu314 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2009 09:36 FabledIntegral wrote:
Concerning OP argument for rear armor dmg.
I really disagree. I hate the entire rear armor concept, I don't think that stuff has much place in a Starcraft game. Just a personal opinion, similar to how I don't think heroes belong either. Starcraft doesn't have that feel - I feel like if we did it with the Thor it should be done with other units as well, namely the siege tank (and I imagine that happenign to the siege tank in SC1 and it being awful). i agree with you, but just bringing something up. isn't hte carrier in SC2 supposed to have different armor levels for calculating gta damage and ata damage?
No, they removed this when they scratched the neo-carrier-Tempest and replaced it with the regular-SC1-carrier.
On October 27 2009 10:21 probu wrote:
I definitely agree that units like the Thor, Immortal and Roach are struggling to find their place. They are really just Broodwar concepts tagged with a new irrelevant feature (big goliath, hearty dragon, healing hydralisk). There are plenty of ideas for each of the units, including those in this thread for the Thor.
The OP mentioned the Tripod from C&C and how the Mechanical Rebirth ability was similar. Unlike the MR ability that saw some light in SC2, when the Tripod was dismantled/destroyed, any race could repair it for use on their side. This ability coupled with a number of the ideas for the Thor could greatly help to grant it the unique identity it deserves.
Hm, I guess you could have an "infested thor" :D That'd be kinda cool. What about for protoss? MC:ed Thor?
|
Make it able to build nukes and give it a secondary seige ability that takes a couple of seconds to transform(similar timing to ghost nuke ability). It makes it stupid to mass, valuable when it carries nuke b/c of all the resources spent on it and prime target on the battlefield when it seiges up into nuke mode.
ok, not exactly brilliant.... but it kinda works and yes I am playing MGS =P
|
Armor switches? hahahaha yeah right how ineffecient would that be, Multiple ablilities? lmao let make spells even more annoying than they were b4!!, Fuck that- no!, Built by an scv? awesome and interesting but still a little on the hokey side, could be sniped by fast air units (irony LOL), Walking fortress? fuck what is this WoW or something-- hell no.
|
On October 22 2009 01:59 Djabanete wrote:
Wow, some *really* nice ideas there. Obviously they cannot all be implemented at once, but a few of them in conjunction would be cool.
I like the idea of a Thor with different weapon types that you can switch between. If the Thor were a unit that could switch between being a giant firebat and a giant goliath, could cast its own defensive matrix, could lift off (I imagine it "packing itself up" and basically turning into a big lozenge), and was built by SCV's, you'd have a really versatile and interesting unit.
The "mobile fortress" idea takes it in a completely different direction, but is also very cool.
According to gearvOsh
One special note is that Thors are transportable. The Thor transforms into a little square shape and attaches itself to the underneath of the Medivac. It also takes up 1 slot instead of 2 or 4, however you can only transport one at a time.
WHERE IS BETAAAAAA
|
send them to blizzard right now...
|
I don't know if anyone has suggested this but I get the sense that using SCV's to construct Thors on the battlefield could lead to some obvious problems. For example:
On October 22 2009 02:31 SWPIGWANG wrote:
SCV Construction:
Don't need to build anti-air or multiple factories to prepare a pump, just spam thor if air tech is spotted! Every race is limited in its macro by buildings, and this breaks the rules. The thor being a "do it all unit" as is, really make building planning less important, macro more lazy and make factories worthless targets in base raids. It also means more annoying macro, while 300/300 isn't "that big" of a unit, when units carriers are spammed.
On October 22 2009 02:51 Ryuu314 wrote:
First off, the SCV construction mechanism was removed because it can totally break matchups, more specifically TvP. For example, the T is going say 6 rax and only 1 fact. He scouts out mass carriers with his comsat. He only has mnm, which isn't all that effective v. carriers. No problem, just pull 6 SCVs or so off the mineral line and build Thors. Protoss walks in, carrier fleet demolished in a couple seconds. The Thors then head out and roflstomp the Protoss base which has practically nothing because all their resources was just blown out of the sky, literally. Starcraft places a lot of emphasis on choosing the right tech and being punished for not. SCV construction of the Thor violates that concept.
However, I had an idea that I am not sure has been discussed yet where the construction of a Thor unit would need both a Factory and an SCV to complete. I'm not sure how this would be implemented. Perhaps the Factory begins the base skeleton and the SCV finishes it anywhere on the field or an SCV has to physically be at the Factory to help complete the unit. This would mean that the Terran player would still need to queue the Thor units at his/her Factory and could not spam build a game-winning unit without prior preparation.
Another thought about the two-stage construction... If the SCV's could transport the unfinished Thor pieces to the battlefield for completion, that could add a whole new dimension to the matchups. Just imagine the possibilities!
Any ideas about whether this could be viable or what could be done to flesh it out?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
