Situation report Patch 1.3.3 - Page 26

Bunker Salvage Rebate Reduction

This change was one of the most frequently requested by the community, and players made a lot of valid arguments as to why this change was necessary. We've seen too many bunker rushes vs. zerg, and we felt that adjusting the salvage return rate would be a positive change. Players will also have to think about mineral loss before constructing multiple bunkers on the defensive, which also feels right.

On May 18 2011 08:51 sylverfyre wrote:


Void rays ANNIHILATE thors in large numbers. Even with worse upgrades, the most basic magic boxing of void rays is much easier than it ever was doing it with mutas, because of void rays' lower speed and larger collision size. Even if you don't focus fire and the thors do, void rays come out WAY on top, and are less expensive + faster to build. Not only that, but they're a pretty reasonable thing to build against a meching style. Vikings are scary but void rays vs vikings but VRs don't exactly auto-lose, but that's neither here nor there.

On May 18 2011 10:05 Stratos_speAr wrote:


Haven't watched them, but I routinely use VR's to counter a decent number of Thors. VR's don't clump nearly as much as other units, so as long as you try to keep them spread apart you're perfectly fine. Thors shoot slow as can be and VR's do a LOT of damage to Thors.

On May 18 2011 10:24 Ballistixz wrote:



BS a 25 mineral reduction will not stop bunker rushes. its still a minuscule amount of minerals being lost for such a powerful rush.

On May 19 2011 04:56 SetStndbySmn wrote:
A lot of you need to look at the strike canon nerf more objectively.

Firstly, from a design perspective, blizzard has said they intended for the thor to be heavy front line support. You're reading too far into it if your conclusion is, "blizzard is telling me which strategies are ok to use." The remark simply means they didn't intend for the thor to be the core backbone of your army, much like ghosts, or battlecruisers, or hellions, or high templars, or colossus, or many other units weren't intended to be the core of an army. Debating whether it ever was used as such, whether is should be used as such, and whether this will fix it or not is fine, but don't add in baseless accusations of their intentions.

Secondly, from a balance perspective, they are saying it is frustrating to deal with a unit which has a mechanic that kills units that would normally counter it, when said mechanic is easier to execute than it is to prevent. There is discussion over the relationship between thors and voidrays, which I think is pretty irrelevant and missing the point; I think we can infer this change primarily had the relationship between thors and immortals in mind. Short of amazing execution, I personally don't think it's very interesting to see any number of immortals nullified by researching strike cannons.

I think blizzard envisions a battle being more along the lines of fewer thors supporting the bulk of the army, with harder to execute (and thus more precious) strike cannons being directed at pivotal and important targets such as colossus. It's not to say that the vision of the thor's functionality is reciprocated perfectly by the functionality of the other races' units yet; they are simply moving the thor in the direction of the role they wish it to fill in a theoretically balanced game.

Canons take 40s
Spines take 50s

why should bunkers be faster as a reactionary defense tool?

Toss/zerg players keep raving on "lolololo make something else than t1 units lolololol noob", but it's very frustrating that when you do, blizzard takes it away, slaps you on the hand and says "MMM you moron!".

You're reading too far into it if your conclusion is, "blizzard is telling me which strategies are ok to use."

The remark simply means they didn't intend for the thor to be the core backbone of your army

On May 19 2011 05:27 DooMDash wrote:



Cool, well hatch first isn't an entitlement sorry to say.

On May 19 2011 07:23 eloist wrote:

Objectively, where does the fact that the change nerfs Thors without strike cannons more than Thors with stirke cannons fit into your analysis?

Most people are not really concerned that strike cannons is weaker all that much. Personally I am more annoyed that building Thors is no longer an alternative in reaction to seeing templars. Which is the other side of the coin.

On May 13 2011 19:21 Tppz! wrote:


I'd like to ask Blizzard why Terran Pplayers should add the Thor t an Army if he has no function anymore but killing stacked mutas. There is no way you can add a Thor to an army as a support unit. Its 6 Supply each walking slower than anyrthing else so it can absorb the damage when you push.

On May 20 2011 16:07 Ballistixz wrote:



wasnt an entitlement in SC1 either. but know the diffrence? in SC1 there were RISKS invovled in stopping a hatch, but those risks outweighed the bunker rush if the hatch was stoped. if it wasnt stoped then u are down 100-200 minerals.

in Sc2? if u stop the hatch with a bunker rush then ur ahead. if it fails then ur down 25-50 minerals. good job blizz.

bunker rushing in SC2 has become a no brainer and has no thoght process invovled. if u see a zerg going hatch a terrans natural instinct is to bunker rush since there is no risk involved in it for them to think twice. they just do it because if it fails it will only cost them 25-50 minerals if they salvage.

in SC1 there were risks on both sides and not just 1 side. going hatch first against terran was dangerous because of a potential bunker rush stopping it, but on the same token terran was also taking a slight risk because he is gonna be investing in 100-300 minerals to try and stop a hatch first. so there were risks on BOTH sides not just one. in sc2 there is only risk for the zerg. loosing 25 minerals is minuscule ESPECIALLY with terran having mules -_-.