|
I liked the idea of a very slow-moving, SCV-constructed powerhouse unit. It seemed to me like with the removal of vult/mines, hard pushes became less viable as more mobile bio/tank strats were preferable. Building Thors during the push/at a contain similar to the way Turrets were thrown up seemed like a cool idea. I think it's hard to keep the mechanic, though, as it circumvents standard macro mechanics of production buildings determining how quickly you could pump out units/tech switch.
I think a decent idea that can reconcile those two things (SCV construction breaking macro, low-mobility power units) could be for Thors to be built faster and weaker, with add-on modules like the ones already suggested/discussed disabling attack and movement completely while being built. Theoretically the point would be that if you just rush your army across the map, the Thors would be able to keep up, maintaining the higher level of mobility that SC2 seems to be aiming for, but your army would not be fighting at full strength. On the other hand, if you entrench yourself in a strategic location (e.g. contain), you can plant down your Thors to drastically strengthen them, with the downside being that if you abandon the position, the Thors would be very slow-moving and hard to withdraw.
Unfortunately, this would also make them like giant, exaggerated siege tanks. I suppose the add-on modules would determine exactly how similar/dissimilar they would be to tanks, but it would still seem rather stale. The great thing about vults was their mobility and harassment potential combined with their great synergy with establishing ground with mines.
Also, as a side note, lift-off is entirely reasonable IMO. In terms of "realistic" objections, it's been argued already that buildings are even more massive, but can still fly. There's no real problem there. For people who say there's already enough cliff-jumping, or that this would make them far too strong, keep in mind the movement speed of flying buildings, along with the huge difference between building HP and Thor HP. The Thors would be extremely vulnerable, making it a big risk to try to use lift. I don't think it's an intrinsically imbalanced idea. My own criticism of the idea is that it wouldn't help establish an "identity" to the Thor. It's an interesting addition, but doesn't address the problem of being good at everything.
|
Decent thread; it's about time we have a good old "Thor is shit" discussion.
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.
This will also be super effective at holding ramps temporarily, as well as the invitable marauder nerf.
|
SCV building (again) and Liftoff seem to be interesting changes that wouldn't take too much work. I'd really love to see those
|
Allow Master Chief to commandeer Thor and if he shoots the back glowing thing it explodes.
|
On October 22 2009 09:10 Manifesto7 wrote:I don't agree with people who say that scv-built thors will screw up terran macro. The argument seems to be that "you don't need more factories, you can just use scvs and still produce units". Well, if the thor costs 300/300 and 6 supply, you would already have to have terrible macro in order to build more than one or two, keep pumping factory units, and have an extra 30 supply sitting around. Like this example: Show nested quote +then the Terran player could potentially raise an army of 12 Thors very very fast. Really? You have 3600/3600 + 72 extra supply sitting aronud? That is nonsense. I don't like mobile bunkers. I do like customizable thors. It makes a lot of sense. I am indifferent about armour types, but the fact that a thor moves the same as a hellion bothers me greatly. I agree with manitou. Either make it small and massable (essentially into goliaths) or huge and more unique.
it was an exaggeration for visual purposes only. my point was that by allowing the SCVs to build Thors outside of production buildings the Terran unit production isn't limited. In other words, the factories could continue to pump dual tanks or hellions using their reactors, while X SCVs create X Thors. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but Terran players occasionally build up somewhat large stockpiles of resources, even in pro games. It's not common, but it does happen; usually when the Terran is doing some kind of slow push/turtling. In such a case, it won't be so far-fetched to say that the Terran player can simply just slap down 3-4 Thors at once. Granted, if the Terran player has proper macro, the supply limit would be an issue. However, say the Terran just lost a good number of tanks/hellions to a large air attack. Then the supply would be freed for several Thors to be built, while replenishing the tank numbers simultaneously.
Basically, my concern is that by allowing SCVs to construct Thors the Terran doesn't have as much a dilemma in choosing between replenish tank/hellion numbers or to make Thors. In SC, the Terran has to choose between getting more Goliaths for the time being to counter air or to get more Tanks. With SCV construction of Thors, that dilemma is removed.
I mean, imagine probes being able to warp in Colossi or Immortals straight into the battlefield while the Robotics Facility continues to pump out Observers or something -.-
|
nice, dude. normally when people have suggestions to improve the game they suck... but this was great!
|
Sanya12364 Posts
I don't know how likely terrans will be slow pushing in SC2 but building Thors with SCVs could conceivably enable SCVs to construct them in a forward location and follow the slow push forward like how terrans built turrets against Protoss when setting up a contain.
Customizing Thors should be good since they are large enough and Terrans are good at generalizing and specializing mechanical units.
|
Personally, I like the idea of a slow-moving, short range, heavy damage Thor that has its bombardment spell. It fits the unit concept of the tip of the Terran spear, which traditionally has been very immobile (if it's a mech army anyways). Some argue that if it was slow, it would cause problems with retreating, overpowering by small units, etc... However, is that really so bad? Yes, it's a slow retreat but that's the part of the cost to getting a strong unit. I mean, every powerhouse unit is traditionally slow. For example, carriers and battlecruisers are rather slow and not very good at retreating. It's a trade-off. Also, the fact that small units can micro it to death is already being seen to a certain extent with the Colossus. Colossi die very fast to a ling surround despite being a ling counter. So why not the Thor?
Lifting for me is a meh idea. Mostly because I have to ask myself do we really need that many units in SC2 that can completely bypass the cliff barrier? We have Colossi and stalkers who can do that for Protoss and the Terran already has the reaper and technically the Viking as it is partially a ground unit. Still the idea is worth looking into...
|
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?
|
On October 22 2009 08:39 FrozenArbiter wrote:
I don't know how you can combine "slow and bulky" with "wc3 hero"... The majority of the WC3 heroes are really agile lol
The only ones that are really slow are like... the Pitlord and the Cryptlord?
Anyhow, that doesn't change anything about the rest of your post, just don't see the need to bring in a wc3 comparision.
I admit my WC3 knowledge is crap. I just mean in the sense that WC3 is slower compared to SC, your group moves and centers around your hero unit, moves at same speed, etc. It just seems slow to me.
|
Lift-off can work if you make it an ability like cloak, xx mana to lift and x mana drain per sec while in air. So you wouldn't have the energy to fly in someone's main and 250mm cannon their base and fly out again.
The module idea is also very neat, although I'd prefer them to be able to switch on the fly like siege tanks without costing anything. 250mm cannons of course would still cost mana.
SCV building Thors won't be a problem as long as there is a tech building, it's not that hard to switch to goliaths in current sc1 TvP anyway.
|
[QUOTE]On October 22 2009 07:37 Knee_of_Justice wrote:
[quote]
make an SCV "activate" a factory. The factory would then be "building" the thor (ie: producing materials that will go into the thor). That way, it mimics the assembly line mentality. While the factory is in the active state, only then can you build a thor. If you cancel the assembly line, your thor will stop being built. If you kill the SCV, the factory continues to be out of commission (unless you tell it to stop too).
Review:
1) SCV goes to factory and "activates" it
> while in this state, factory cannot do anything else.
2) 1 thor can now be built. If you want 5 thors, you need 5 factories.
3) SCV goes to build the thor. If you cancel the factory's activation, the thor cannot continue to be built
4) if the SCV cancels construction or doesnt construct the thor, the factory will still continue to be unable to produce other things unless the player tells it to stop.
5) when the thor is built, the factory can do stuff again (comes back online autmatically)
Maybe too complicated?[/QUOTE]
Why not make it so that an scv builds a thor, but only in a certain area, the "add-on area"
1. this prevents mass tech shifts without a drastic change in production buildings- only one thor could be built at a time from each factory, as there is only one "add-on" spot. If the factory lifts off, the thor stops building.
2. It penalizes the player by preventing the use of add-ons. This restricts the factory where the thor is being built to only building hellions, and without the reactor add-on, building hellions at half speed.
This seems like a good potential compromise.
|
Why not make it so that an scv builds a thor, but only in a certain area, the "add-on area"
1. this prevents mass tech shifts without a drastic change in production buildings- only one thor could be built at a time from each factory, as there is only one "add-on" spot. If the factory lifts off, the thor stops building.
2. It penalizes the player by preventing the use of add-ons. This restricts the factory where the thor is being built to only building hellions, and without the reactor add-on, building hellions at half speed.
This seems like a good potential compromise.
Not a bad idea really imo, but i still don't like the idea of the terran player being able to skimp on factories/add ons when he knows he is going to go Thors. Normally, you would have to have an explosion of factories to get the critical mass number for ideal mid-late game production. If the thor needs no add on, that's time and savings that the terran player could be throwing down more barracks, or a CC, or multiple covert ops in the early mid-game. There should be a lasting and severe cost/benefit to teching to thors, which in this case would be multiple factories with tech lab add-ons. Now, if you moved P Immortals back to gateway, there might be a case for balance to let scv's build thors, but since those need to come out of the robo bay, it seems most balanced the way it currently is.
|
Look, if you add those complicate things back into the thor, would it be a interesting unit?
No, you'd just A-move it into the enemy army. (or you emp then A-move)
All the 'classic' Terran units have its unique form of control to overcome the fundamental defining limits of the terran race, that of glass cannon. Marine with its shoot-kite, Tanks with siege advance, vulture with its patrol micro + mine. The terrans has also been a army of extreme specialists that all do one and only one thing very well.
All this is what defined the terran race and gave its units its character.
----
The thor is fundamentally a un-terran unit trying to fit in. It has no character because it doesn't have a extreme role, only a extreme unit model that is very out of place.
-------
Unless a proper role can be found for the thor ON THE BATTLEFIELD, it would always be a bland unit.
|
Osaka27132 Posts
It is unnecessary to bold sentences in your posts. If it is worth reading, people will read it.
|
On October 22 2009 05:16 FrozenArbiter wrote:
First of all, there is nothing that says the Thor would have to stay as low tech as it currently is, should these changes be made.
Second, how wouldn't the modules open up strategic options...?
It will still be in small battles in the extreme late game.
The problem is that the around factory level tech only has 3 units, and with the thor moved up then the factory lineup would be awfully incomplete. The player is pretty much forced into bio/biomech into air due to lack of AA.
That is not necessarily a terrible thing, but does make terran game play less interesting as Bio/Mech's very different unit properties makes for very different fights.
Now if there is another unit to fill the mid game factory gap (or hell, redeployable missile turrets), then the thor can be moved back and have those fancy mechanics. Otherwise, a unit that is affordable at mid game would be spammable at late game and all that baby sitting would be too much....
|
On October 22 2009 12:29 SWPIGWANG wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2009 05:16 FrozenArbiter wrote:
First of all, there is nothing that says the Thor would have to stay as low tech as it currently is, should these changes be made.
Second, how wouldn't the modules open up strategic options...?
It will still be in small battles in the extreme late game.
The problem is that the around factory level tech only has 3 units, and with the thor moved up then the factory lineup would be awfully incomplete. The player is pretty much forced into bio/biomech into air due to lack of AA. That is not necessarily a terrible thing, but does make terran game play less interesting as Bio/Mech's very different unit properties makes for very different fights. Now if there is another unit to fill the mid game factory gap (or hell, redeployable missile turrets), then the thor can be moved back and have those fancy mechanics. Otherwise, a unit that is affordable at mid game would be spammable at late game and all that baby sitting would be too much....
well, previously in SC1, terran would often build turrets as they push so perhaps that mechanic would become more widely used if Thor gets moved up?
or maybe move viking into factory tech?
|
On October 22 2009 10:10 Megrim wrote:
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.
+1
My only worry is that this smacks of the phoenix overload ability, which apparently wasn't good enough.
|
IMO, they should make the Thor a anti air/melee/tank unit, in the sense that it should have a really devastating short range ground attack (maybe with splash) and a strog AA attack, making it really distinct in its role to the Siege Tank, given that choosing Thors over Tanks would give you defence againts air, more mobility and meele capabilities, but would be seriously lacking against ranged units and static defense, the two things the Tanks do best.
So you could have the sheer range and firepower of Tanks, the (relative) mobility and adaptability of the Thor or a commbined arms aproach with the Thor serving as meat shields for the Tanks.
Lorewise i think it would make sense, given how the Terran worse threat are the Zerg and Mutalisks and Dark Swar where probably the worst things the Terran had to face.
|
On October 22 2009 12:40 m3rciless wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2009 10:10 Megrim wrote:
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.
+1 My only worry is that this smacks of the phoenix overload ability, which apparently wasn't good enough.
I think it' sufficiently different because it doesn't boost the damage dealt in any way - all it does is help the terran units survive, while rewarding the tactically aware player. It also rewards the terran staple of 'higher micro = more effectiveness'.
And it makes sense for a fuckhuge robot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
