|
When the Thor was first introduced (along with the original concept of the queen and the original mothership), it seemed like it would of destroyed much of the infrastructure of the game of what it was known for.
Now that the beta is finally out which actually gives us something to base our arguments on. What role does the Thor actually play?
The Thor sucks vs capital ships (IE carrier), and its limited splash damage making it a very poor unit to use against smaller swarming ariel "ships" like mutas. Which just leave its ground attack and special ability.
Granted, 4 Thors + 4 drop ships = a dead cc/hat/nexus in less than 10 seconds thanks to its ability (awesome!), but honestly, that does indeed seem to be the only real use for them, besides mineral drainers when your bank is getting high (If thats the case, why not get BCs?)
Compared to say, the original tank thats been nerfed (-10 siege damage, -20 unsiege damage) but with bigger ground splash. Now, I loveee tanks, But their price, nerfed damage, the fact that they just dont damage other units like they used to, and the ridiculously amount of counters against them (protoss... >_< )
Which brings the question, which is better to use when you want a strong "pow" attack?  (provided they are covered by marines)
|
Tanks attack much faster than in SC1. I prefer tanks.
|
that and I would much rather have 60 damage instead of 75 *explosive* damage. If anything I see that as a buff.
|
i dont use them
id start use them if their special ability had about 1-3 more range so it could actually have a say to colosus in a battle
they should be good vs ultralisks but imo the best way to kill a zerg by then is just massing bio and raven, it feels like thors r overall not as good as i expected them to be
tanks kill the marines like crazy. thats why i dont think tanks r good in tvp or tvz
|
The thor is meant as a support unit, it's not something to base your entire army around. Give it time and people will find a use for it.
|
thor is like the new ultralisk for Terrans, it provides the O CRAP when your opponent seams like 4 of them storming down the ramp with a bunch of other units. i've never really used them so i cant say much but they just look like the unltra/archon for terran kinda deal
|
thors suck against capital ships? i don't find that they do. Some rines and helions holding off a small toss army while 4-5 thors battle it out with 3-4 carriers usually ends with a terren win in my experience.
|
Thors are pretty effective in late game TvP when banshees or MM don't seem to pack much of a punch anymore. They 2 hit zeals/stalkers, 1 hit sentries and HTs, and 4 hit colossi. They 8 hit immortals and immortals 8 hit them as well. The rest of your troops should be able to take care of immortals quite easily.
|
What would you think if the Tank and Thor switched positions?
What I mean by this is the Tank would be buffed into a much stronger more costly unit and moved to the Thor's position on the Tech tree. Its tank mode would have a higher armor value than its siege mode allowing it to actually 'tank' (lol).
Meanwhile the Thor would be switched to the Tank's current position on the Tech tree. It's stats would be reduced and so would its cost and build time.
Graphically the Tank model would be basically enlarged while the Thor's was decreased.
Thoughts?
|
Thors provide some serious anti-air, even if it's slow. Thors kill Mutas in 2 volleys, and one thor can kill 4-5 mutas on its own.
Additionally, a Thor with 1 weapons upgrade kills Banshees in 2 volleys as well.
It's important that you keep SCVs around set to auto-repair, so they'll keep them topped off. After that, it's just a matter of making sure they don't get swarmed using Marines or Hellion backup.
|
On March 07 2010 03:42 RPGabe wrote:
Thors provide some serious anti-air, even if it's slow. Thors kill Mutas in 2 volleys, and one thor can kill 4-5 mutas on its own.
Additionally, a Thor with 1 weapons upgrade kills Banshees in 2 volleys as well.
It's important that you keep SCVs around set to auto-repair, so they'll keep them topped off. After that, it's just a matter of making sure they don't get swarmed using Marines or Hellion backup.
Not true. Thors absolutely blow against mutas. lol.
|
The Thor is a kind of a glass canon he fall fast under focus fire but do very good damage. Nearly 100 damage to ground can't spit on it!
|
The problem with thor is how fast they die and how easily they get focused because they are retardedly big and slow.
|
I'm just telling you what the unit vs unit matchups show. One Thor kills 3 or 4 mutas and just about ties vs 5 Mutas. Of course bounce attack skews things in larger groups, but one Thor is cheaper than 5 mutas and they don't really represent the bulk of your army. Thors offer a long range deterrent to keep harassing mutas away, much like Goliaths used to.
|
Why exactly are thors bad versus mutas?
Just theorycrafting here... but 10 damage per shot, +6 damage vs light, X4 for 4 shots. That's 64 damage per volley, per thor. Meaning, 2 hits will kill a muta before you upgrade at all.
then, consider return damage. Even if you have massed thors vs mass mutas, you have each set of 3 muta (which cost more than a thor) doing 8+2+1, or thereabouts damage, due to armor. That's about 11 damage per shot, or 33 damage per volley. Compared to the thor's better armor, double damage attack, massively superior range, and repairability. And that's mass thors versus mass muta.
Even assuming that the attack rate is double for muta (guess, haven't tested), that would put the thor against 4 muta as 128 damage to kill the first muta, 96 to kill the second, 64 to kill the third, and 32 to finish the fight.... Meaning the thor would still have 80 hit points left. And that neglect mass repair, when I bet a thor could kill 5 mutalisks, and possibly even a 6th, though the splash damage would hurt a lot of scv's. And that's just one thor. A pair of thors can work together to one shot muta.
Then consider the range difference. The thor has ridiculous range, making him almost garunteed to get the first shot. And he's also great in base defense in general, as he is really strong versus banelings and roaches, and I suspect, not terrible against small amounts of hydralisks.
What about the thor makes him bad against muta? He has a ton of hit points, some armor, a brutal anti air attack, and the range to really punish a player who is trying to outmaneuver him. Plus, mass repair seems like an extremely good option.
|
On March 07 2010 03:42 RPGabe wrote:
It's important that you keep SCVs around set to auto-repair, so they'll keep them topped off. After that, it's just a matter of making sure they don't get swarmed using Marines or Hellion backup.
THIS.
Thors require either SCVs (for endurance) or Medivacs (for mobility) to do anything. They also require a good army composition to avoid counters. If you have these though, they'll steamroll anything.
|
On March 07 2010 04:19 timmins wrote:
Why exactly are thors bad versus mutas?
Just theorycrafting here... but 10 damage per shot, +6 damage vs light, X4 for 4 shots. That's 64 damage per volley, per thor. Meaning, 2 hits will kill a muta before you upgrade at all.
then, consider return damage. Even if you have massed thors vs mass mutas, you have each set of 3 muta (which cost more than a thor) doing 8+2+1, or thereabouts damage, due to armor. That's about 11 damage per shot, or 33 damage per volley. Compared to the thor's better armor, double damage attack, massively superior range, and repairability. And that's mass thors versus mass muta.
Even assuming that the attack rate is double for muta (guess, haven't tested), that would put the thor against 4 muta as 128 damage to kill the first muta, 96 to kill the second, 64 to kill the third, and 32 to finish the fight.... Meaning the thor would still have 80 hit points left. And that neglect mass repair, when I bet a thor could kill 5 mutalisks, and possibly even a 6th, though the splash damage would hurt a lot of scv's. And that's just one thor. A pair of thors can work together to one shot muta.
Then consider the range difference. The thor has ridiculous range, making him almost garunteed to get the first shot. And he's also great in base defense in general, as he is really strong versus banelings and roaches, and I suspect, not terrible against small amounts of hydralisks.
What about the thor makes him bad against muta? He has a ton of hit points, some armor, a brutal anti air attack, and the range to really punish a player who is trying to outmaneuver him. Plus, mass repair seems like an extremely good option.
Thors build slowly, don't do as much as you'd think vs muta, and by the time you have a good push going with Thors, if he has enough mutas, he will roll them quickly. This is based off my own games in Beta.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
I think the Thor does fine vs Mutas until they start reaching huge numbers... at which point you should have ravens.
|
I don't get why thors are easy to focus down. You aren't going to be keeping them all by themselves, now are you? I assume, you would mass them at your mineral lines, and even build a couple turrets so that when you are ready to move out, you aren't leaving your base undefended.
If anything, they should be really really hard to focus down, as they can support each other without even being in the same zip code, given how badly they outrange pretty much everything. Plus, lots of surface area means easy repairing.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
right now its ability seems to be pretty useless. Thor is hella strong against Ultralisks, but focus-firing is far stronger than using its big guns
|
(-10 siege damage, -20 unsiege damage)
I believe you mean 15 +10 to armored unsiege damage. The tank actually does more DPS unsieged in sc1 than it does in sc2 because it attacks twice as fast. The siege mode attack is also considerably faster. Factor in that it doesn't overkill anymore, and tanks still have a place in the Terran army.
Yes, they are expensive. I think they should be reduced from 3 supply to 2.
As for vs Thors, Tanks have a clearly defined roles. Thors have no splash on land and their attack is slow. They are single target killers, aka Ultralisks. Tanks are best against stuff like Stalkers, Hydras, M&M&M, things that will kill a Thor in a few seconds because the Thor wastes all of its firepower on that one target.
The Thor is big, and that's a good thing. It keeps those lanky dawgz from wrecking your shit. Thors are giant, meaty walls you stick in appropriate locations for great profit.
Thors are great vs Muta. Don't try them vs Mustache Lords. It ain't gonna work out.
|
On March 07 2010 04:19 timmins wrote:
Then consider the range difference.The thor has ridiculous range, making him almost garunteed to get the first shot. And he's also great in base defense in general, as he is really strong versus banelings and roaches, and I suspect, not terrible against small amounts of hydralisks.
The Thor doesn't have such a huge range against air (and that's too bad  ). It's range 4 if i remember correctly. Muta are range 3 but they have mobility so it's a pain in the ass to manage some Thor against them.
I'm not saying Thor sucks against them but there's others factors. Nevertheless they own ground unit long range style.
|
Thors are not good when opening bio imo but I love going the Moon build as mech and expand aggressively with almost no units. Just Thor / some Tanks and making all the CCs into Planetary Fortresses. Seems like this only works on maps where main and nat are close together and third is in a line with those two. So the only maps I've won with this build on is Scrap Station and Metalopolis. Since the three bases can be defended decently with one siege line and slow thors (and the added vikings vs air).
|
Actually, the thor DOES have a huge range versus air. It's ten. I just checked sc2armory.com, and then loaded up the beta myself and tested. I can't, of course, without a key, test against mutas, but one thor can solo 3 banshees without getting repaired or having any upgrades. It's fairly close, but he still wins, and banshees do WAY more damage than mutalisks.
|
thors are hard counter to muta since they do bonus damage against light air and light ground
|
the thor has been a pretty big letdown thus far
|
Dont know about balance, but it FEELS like the Thor should have more armor
|
Thors are good vs Ultras in TvZ
They are a strong and underused unit I think
|
i've seen it contribute to fights. it doesn't really have a strong niche, but it has a decent attack against everything and it attracts fire from your opponent - the army it supports is doing most of the damage but a support of 4 thors or so is nothing to sneeze at, so does the opponent focus down the thors while taking full damage from the rest of the army, or ignore the thors at risk of a barrage, not to mention all the support it's providing to both gtg and gta. it won't take care of either of these things by itself but i think the point is that until the thors are gone, the terran army can still address both to a limited degree. i'm really curious to see how all this overlap in sc2 plays out over the years.
|
i love how people think the tank got nerfed. the tank is 100x better in sc2 than broodwar.
|
isn't it less that it got nerfed than there are better counters to it now?
|
On March 07 2010 06:34 danl9rm wrote:
i love how people think the tank got nerfed. the tank is 100x better in sc2 than broodwar.
No it's not , but it's still a good unit in any MU to have .
|
You know, when build orders and unit usage methods become more and more defined, and people start defending 2 base off 3 tanks and a bunker, I wanna see strats that involve 3 base thor-BCs and 2 base tank-heavy marine tank composition. Like 10 tanks without siege at the front soaking melee damage with armor ups while marines dps from behind.
Kinda like what it is today in warfare, since tanks in mobile mode fire so much faster than SC1. Collossi would absolutely rape the tanks, but the marines ought to be able to destroy everything else, the tanks are just there as meatshields and cover for the marines.
Also, anyone thinks that vikings in ground mode look alot like thors?
|
Definitely the thor right now. Siege tanks are really only good against cost effective units like Hydras and Roaches, the thor is overall much better to take out the "big units" of each race.
|
On March 07 2010 05:05 timmins wrote:
Actually, the thor DOES have a huge range versus air. It's ten. I just checked sc2armory.com, and then loaded up the beta myself and tested. I can't, of course, without a key, test against mutas, but one thor can solo 3 banshees without getting repaired or having any upgrades. It's fairly close, but he still wins, and banshees do WAY more damage than mutalisks.
My bad, you're right. 10 range, 4 attacks. They're beast on paper.
|
Tank is better vs tier 1 masses while thor is meant to take out tier 2 and 3 units.
I like sc2 tank cause it does 60 dmg to everything and atks faster. my only thing against the tank is that it's now a support unit rather than the heart and soul of the terran army...
i rly hate that thors don't do splash, but 90 dmg to a single unit is pretty good for sniping stuff. However, there is usually very little to snipe besides spellcasters and collosi...
|
On March 07 2010 06:52 sArite_nite wrote:
Also, anyone thinks that vikings in ground mode look alot like thors?
eh... they're both walkers, so i guess yeah. vikings have that backwards knee walk thing going on though like the goliath had, and they have gatling guns.
|
I agree with the sentiment that the thor "feels" like it needs a lot of armor, gven the look of it. But a unit that is meant to be countered by lots of little things with many weak attacks, like zealots and zerglings, Would be a fair bit too powerful If it came with a lot of stock armor. Even 1 armor is pretty good against a zergling.
|
Thor needs splash damage to it's anti air rockets. It would be a perfect counter to mass mutas then. Maybe as an upgrade at factory tech lab? It's kind of empty anyway.
Heh, I just noticed Viking and Thor are only terran units without some kind of special upgrade. It's understandable for massable Viking (although speed upgrade wouldn't hurt there), but for Thor, the supposed pinacle of factory units?
|
thors annihilate ultras in tvz because of its ability. so if u see a few ultras around u can use thors to target them with its ability acting almost like an eradiate as long as u can keep it alive. cant really think of any other use for them other then taking down ccs/nex/hatches/ultras with its 500 dmg cannon thingy. just about anything and verything can take thor down. there only really dangerous if u mass them tho.
|
very poor unit to use against smaller swarming ariel "ships" like mutas. Which just leave its ground attack and special ability.
stopped reading here.. It's aerial and thor pretty much is made to counter mutas.
|
Although this goes somewhat off topic, I feel that the skill Thors have ought to be changed to something like:
Mobile Roadblock (placeholder)
Transforms the Thor into a Bunker-like structure and renders it immobile. Can contain up to 8 infantry units, but only 6 may fire out of the Thor. Takes up a larger pixel space and gives it an additional 1 armor. In addition, to all the additions, the Thor loses its long range aerial combat capabilities and instead mounts a missile turret equivalent in damage to its stationery counterpart, but without detection.
Hell yeah. At least its better than some trumped up base killing skill that's kinda useless elsewhere because of the cast time. At least the Thor will get in the way of any melee units and protect infantry. You can even do a drop with marines and marauders and one thor using 2 medivacs, and harass the crap out of your enemy's mineral line. Or you could swap in SCVs to repair and stuff.
|
On March 07 2010 03:26 Hasire wrote:
that and I would much rather have 60 damage instead of 75 *explosive* damage. If anything I see that as a buff.
gonna guess by this post that tanks no longer have splash, in which case its a major nerf not a buff. splash is what raped dragoons and zealots in the original, made shitmeat out of zerg armies because they are so weak. if tanks dont have uber splash they just arent that great anymore
On March 07 2010 07:25 sArite_nite wrote:
Although this goes somewhat off topic, I feel that the skill Thors have ought to be changed to something like:
Mobile Roadblock (placeholder)
Transforms the Thor into a Bunker-like structure and renders it immobile. Can contain up to 8 infantry units, but only 6 may fire out of the Thor. Takes up a larger pixel space and gives it an additional 1 armor. In addition, to all the additions, the Thor loses its long range aerial combat capabilities and instead mounts a missile turret equivalent in damage to its stationery counterpart, but without detection.
Hell yeah. At least its better than some trumped up base killing skill that's kinda useless elsewhere because of the cast time. At least the Thor will get in the way of any melee units and protect infantry. You can even do a drop with marines and marauders and one thor using 2 medivacs, and harass the crap out of your enemy's mineral line. Or you could swap in SCVs to repair and stuff.
so why not justmake it so 6 can fit instead of having 2 completely useless units?
|
On March 07 2010 07:26 arb wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2010 03:26 Hasire wrote:
that and I would much rather have 60 damage instead of 75 *explosive* damage. If anything I see that as a buff. gonna guess by this post that tanks no longer have splash, in which case its a major nerf not a buff. splash is what raped dragoons and zealots in the original, made shitmeat out of zerg armies because they are so weak. if tanks dont have uber splash they just arent that great anymore
Nope, tanks still have splash. Explosive damage was a damage type which dealth 50% damage to small units and 75% to medium sized ones.
Concussive did 25% to large units and 50% to medium ones.
Splash isn't about explosive damage.
|
It's important to keep cost in perspective. It 'feels' like you're spending a ton of money on Thors because the unit itself is so physically large, and so you expect it to be one of those Battlecruiser/Carrier style units that can do everything. That's not the case.
It's very similar to the Colossus in terms of cost, except it works against different types of targets. Keep in mind that it's not unusual to see several colossus mixed in with an army of other units - Thors can function that way too. It's still just a little unclear what gap they best fill.
I like using them against other Terran's Banshees for instance, however. And I like having one or two around to keep harassing air away with their 10 range. It forces the other site to commit - if they waffle around, you get plenty of free shots.
|
I don't really think that aoe would be a good idea on the thor. It's already so versatile (counters roaches, ultras, base defenses and mutalisks, and not even terrible versus hydralisks due to the one shot kill and superior range, and I suspect, if you have hellion support, is even a viable counter to the brood lords), that you can afford to mass them anyways, just like marines in brood war. The aoe units are really better specialized, like corsairs or valks, so that there is a real cost to massing them. zerg would have a hell of a time if dragoons had an AOE attack in brood war, because you could just mass goons every game on the theory that they were good even if your opponent didn't make any mutalisks.
Thors, you could just build half a dozen of them because really, as long as you have some hellions to back them up, they should be able to take on pretty much anything the zerg can throw at them.
Plus, the thor already has a lot going on. 3 different attack types? One of which is a micromanaged ability? feels like a complete unit when I am walking them around.
|
On March 07 2010 07:26 arb wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2010 03:26 Hasire wrote:
that and I would much rather have 60 damage instead of 75 *explosive* damage. If anything I see that as a buff. gonna guess by this post that tanks no longer have splash, in which case its a major nerf not a buff. splash is what raped dragoons and zealots in the original, made shitmeat out of zerg armies because they are so weak. if tanks dont have uber splash they just arent that great anymore Show nested quote +On March 07 2010 07:25 sArite_nite wrote:
Although this goes somewhat off topic, I feel that the skill Thors have ought to be changed to something like:
Mobile Roadblock (placeholder)
Transforms the Thor into a Bunker-like structure and renders it immobile. Can contain up to 8 infantry units, but only 6 may fire out of the Thor. Takes up a larger pixel space and gives it an additional 1 armor. In addition, to all the additions, the Thor loses its long range aerial combat capabilities and instead mounts a missile turret equivalent in damage to its stationery counterpart, but without detection.
Hell yeah. At least its better than some trumped up base killing skill that's kinda useless elsewhere because of the cast time. At least the Thor will get in the way of any melee units and protect infantry. You can even do a drop with marines and marauders and one thor using 2 medivacs, and harass the crap out of your enemy's mineral line. Or you could swap in SCVs to repair and stuff. so why not justmake it so 6 can fit instead of having 2 completely useless units?
Micro options, baby. Put two marauders inside and dropship micro them for cooldown without having them sniped. Pure bullshit coming out of me at the moment, but I'm sure you'll want to protect those scvs that are repairing that thor too.
|
Finally, after reading multiple threads in different forums where people lacked the math and observational skills to notice tanks became vastly better than the ones in BW (even after you adjust for their price increase) we have at least three people spreading the truth.
As for this question of tanks vs thors. I pretty much hated Thors even before beta because of the obvious overlap with Battlecruisers as well as some other issues. But after seeing them in several games I think they serve a sufficient role of providing anti-air at a timing BCs lack and their barrage ability allows for an efficient destruction of buildings to make them useful in a direct confrontation reapers can't achieve.
Once people start employing SCVs in the front lines we'll have a case of Terran mech being a lot more mobile with Thors healed by SCVs when compared to setting up siege lines.
Thors offers something tanks don't but I still think other alternatives would've made Terran factory usage a better experience.
|
The one thing I am finding really wierd is how the resource expenditure works out.
When you are pumping hellions out of a reactor factory, and then 2 thors at the same time, you have to get used to floating an absolute ton of money. Even with perfect macro, which I don't have at ALL, having to drop 800 minerals all at the same time is wierd, because you have to save up a fair bit in advance, lest your production all of a sudden churn to a halt when your factories need another set of thors starting.
Plus, the swings it puts in your supply are also huge. It's like trying to macro battlecruisers in the first 6 minutes of the game.
|
At the moment if I am pushing offensively with mech Terran, I prefer The Thor to siege tanks by far. The Thor offers great anti-air, while doing well against everything that Hellions do not and Hellions doing great against the things Thor's do not. The Thor is more mobile than sieging/seiging siege tanks while achieving roughly the same thing with it's high attack. Taking ~6 SCVs with autorepair turned on and tagged to a Thor, the whole mech army's survivability shoots through the roof and I don't have to worry about friendly AoE fire or the siege delay like I do with tanks. Two tanks have higher damage output than one Thor, and when sieged have crazy range, but it's not enough. What's more likely to be sniped, the Thor or siege tanks? Siege tanks. etc.
Siege tanks work better when they're backing up bio.
|
Thor's ability seems pretty lackluster and unimaginative. Are there any replays of Terran players using it to great advantage? I'd much rather prefer some AOE delayed artillery barrage, kind of like storm but with more delay and more damage, and also slightly off target.
Single target special ability is already kinda fullfilled by the Yamato.
|
Tanks definitely need a lot of fat in front of them or great positioning to be effective. Thor is more of a general purpose unit. I've found he's almost always pretty efficient in terms of what he kills compared to his cost - it's typically just a matter of time and timing. They take a while to get to, a while to build, a while to get anywhere, etc.
Also I wrote a big write-up with pictures etc. on tanks if anyone's looking for a list of things that have changed about them since SC1, including game dynamics and map issues. You can find it at http://rallypointgabe.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/tanks.
|
On March 07 2010 03:23 Energizer wrote:
Compared to say, the original tank thats been nerfed (-10 siege damage, -20 unsiege damage) but with bigger ground splash. Now, I loveee tanks, But their price, nerfed damage, the fact that they just dont damage other units like they used to, and the ridiculously amount of counters against them (protoss... >_< )
This is simply wrong.
In BW, sieged tanks do 70 explosive damage. The SC2 equivalent of this would be 35 damage (+35 vs. armored).
Instead, SC2 tanks do 60 damage. Sure, it's less damage against armored than 35 damage (+35 vs. armored), but it's a lot more damage vs. light units. Add to that the bigger splash radius and... well. Have you seen tanks rip up lings? It's quite a sight.
On March 07 2010 07:26 arb wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2010 03:26 Hasire wrote:
that and I would much rather have 60 damage instead of 75 *explosive* damage. If anything I see that as a buff. gonna guess by this post that tanks no longer have splash, in which case its a major nerf not a buff. splash is what raped dragoons and zealots in the original, made shitmeat out of zerg armies because they are so weak. if tanks dont have uber splash they just arent that great anymore
Nope. Splash damage and explosive damage have nothing to do with one another in BW. Tanks, mines, corsairs and valkyries deal explosive AND splash damage; lurkers and archons do splash damage but with normal damage type; firebats deal concussive splash damage. In other words: tanks still have splash damage when in Siege Mode in SC2- in fact, more splash damage, thanks to the increased splash radius.
Also, sieged tanks do 70 damage in BW, not 75.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
