Seige Tank or (Original Terran Launch) Thor?

Lots of people have been complaining/lamenting about the downsizing of the Terran's Thor. After struggling to find its own place in the Terran army It has recently assumed the role of a glorified Goliath. Is this a fitting role for one who bares the name of the mighty Norse god Thor, wielder of the mighty hammer Mjolnir! We say... no.

Okay Terran lovers! ... you want the big, bad-ass looking Thor back? Are you willing to give up your... Siege Tank for it? (No. You can't have both.)

Just to be clear here. We are talking about the "Original" Thor from the Terran Launch at BlizzCon.

• Full Size - for the psychological "Oh Sh*t!" factor.
• Built by SCVs on the field.
• Artillery cannons on it's back.
• Has a Barrage/Siege mode (like the tank) for added range and power.
• Some adjustments to move, and turn speed so It can trully step up and replace the Siege Tank.

Oh and don't worry about Terran Anti-Air... if the Thor took over the Siege Tank's role... we'd bring back the Predator or something to compensate. Just assume Terran AA would be fine without for the sake of the Poll. Thanks.

-ced

 

No, no, no, no, no, no, NO! Siege tank is the only unit that has to stay, remove scv, remove marines, remove BCs but never ever mess up with siege tanks! Ever! Especially exhanging siege tank for Power Rangers ripoff.

owerdown:

 

umm i'd say we CAN have both. keep original thor but bugger off its artillery cannons.

actually belay that, keep the current thor we have now, however return it to its original size and allow it to be built from SCVs.

 

As much as I appreciate a owerdown:. This isn't a "Stupid Idea".. It's a Poll.

There has been lots of complaining about the Thor's new roll, and its new size, and how it's "not like it used to be". Thor is where it is now mainly because of its overlapping role with the Siege Tank. So I've prepared this poll so that we can see where the community stands when facing the reality that overlapping roles means somebody has to go.

Are Thor fans ready to give up their Siege Tanks? It's a simple question. Not a stupid Idea.

-ced

 

That's an unfair powerdown, SubTachyon. You can't power someone down for suggesting ideas or proposing hypothetical situations. If that were the case, people would be afraid to post their opinion because of the risk of someone not liking it and getting powered down because of it. Forums are meant for giving ideas and opinions, so powering someone down for giving theirs isn't right and goes against the forum rules. He's just saying that because a lot of people are complaining that the Thor isn't as good as it used to be, but because the old Thor's role overlapped with the Siege Tank, would people be willing to give up the Siege Tank in order to get the better Thor back? Obviously a lot of old time-y StarCraft players wouldn't want the Siege Tank to go because it's such an iconic unit. However those same people are complaining about the degradation of the Thor. So, it's basically asking them which they want more. If people say the Siege Tank should stay, then they should stop complaining about the Thor, and if they say the Thor should stay, then so be it.
@ DevilsGate. It's a hypothetical situation, not a real situation. Of course Terran can have both, but if you had to choose one or the other, which would it be?
In answer to ced's question, I would much rather the Siege Tank. The Thor was a great idea, and it would be an awe-inspiring model to have for the Map Editor, but it's also an extremely difficult unit to fit in. The Siege Tank always fit in nicely, so I wouldn't enjoy seeing the well-fitting Siege Tank removed so that a not-so-well-fitting Thor can be installed. It was fun while it lasted, but when push comes to shove, the Thor has to go.

EDIT: According to the Forum Rules on Power Ups/Downs you're now eligible for a powerdown by ced, SubTachyon. If I were you I'd promise to correct that powerdown as soon as possible. It was unfair and unreasonable, and now you're at risk of being powered down.

 

Siege tank, send Thor to hell for all I care, even if you bring it back the same way it was. And this is from one of the original Thor fans. Current Thor- shame on Blizzard. Im a tankman till I die.

 

I am sorry, Ill correct myself, its a stupid question not a stupid idea. I mean sorry but if I were to create topic with poll *Would you like to have Tetris in SCII instead of the epic battles between the 3 races?* I doubt I would get many power ups.

 

Er.....Dont have an option for keeping them both?Thor now becomes heavy anti-air units,so there's no overlapping roles
Question:what exactly power up/down for?

 

Wtf, thats very narrow minded, I was thinking of powering you back up, but your reasoning has stopped me from doing so. I hope you improve your attitude.

Could you please add another option saying 'give the Thor a new function'

Cuz initially there was an overlap with the bombardment cannons but when they got removed, the Thor became something different with huge HP and direct build.
Where the Thor and Crucio tank have similar rles, both operate in a different way as well as the Thor being higher tier.
Tank: Long range, low HP, faster fire and movement.
Thor: Short range, high HP, slow rate of fire and very slow movement.

As you can see they both compensate for each other, and if both was used together it would be a formidible combination which would surely wipe out any ground resistance. I think things should be looked at in comparison and how these 'overlapping' units would work together.
IMO, the Tank and Thor and like the same unit split into two and placed at opposite ends of use but still retain a similar function which I don't think would be a problem.

You can't do the same with a Thor that you could with a Thor, for example:
You have 3 Thors and theres a very strong defense, you don't want your more vulnrable units to get damaged so you send the Thors in first as they can soak up the damage while your smaller units get into place and assult all the priority targets to ensure a win.

Cruci tank; where the Thor is useful at going head to head in battle alone, a tank would require numbers and numbers cost minerals and APM. This is where the Siege mode comes in, it strikes devesting blows into the enemies defense/offense from a large distance. This compensates for its low HP since it is in less risk of coming under fire, where the Thor is slow meaning it will come under fire, so it has high HP to counter that.

Both units together would eliminate any weaknesses they both have on a singular level thus 'combining' two units which are similar in initial role but different in functions.
But they still wouldn't be imbalanced or overlapping as I've stated.

IMO, there is also a problem with Terran vs Archons:

What needs to happen:
Give the Thor 900hp again- Makes it unique to Terran and opens up many possibilities as you can easily imagine,
Make it big and slow- To balance it unit-wise with its self and others. Plus lore of course.
Change the flak cannons to a new mechanic which emplifies the aspect of the Thor being a huge powerful machine.
Do not give it bombardment cannons as that is the thing which made it overlap with tanks. It did the same job as a group of sieged tanks would: razing a touch defense. Now where the Thor can do it and the tanks do it in different ways, the Thor's way was easy and didn't require any skill such as micro to place the tanks in correct positions. The Thor just aimed and shot and it wasn't really counterable.
Allow it to be directly build on to the battlefield again as it emplified the Terrans adaptivness.
_________________________________________________
Also explain to me Subtachyon how this is a viable power down?
SubTachyon Psionicz - Being stupid doesnt help you In topic Today at 02:34:26 PM

 

Wow, it seems that people give powerdowns now just because of receiving one. And no, ItzaHexGor, you cant power down someone because he/she powered you down. Its not in the rules, the rules actually say it is forbidden.

 

Technically you can. As you are supposed to power someone down for something inappropriot. And his power down was indeed that.
But I'm also used to getting powered down for unecessary reasons. But it seems no one rights so it whatever ;]

But yea, any feedback on my above post?

 

I must say I agree with Zergi. Give the Thor the old role back, but change it in some way... If this still overlaps, then cut it.
And about the archon part: EMP!

 

Seige tank makes more sense storywise and production wise then Thor. This whole Thor thing is a real mess. <_>

 

You can't EMP 8 Archons coming at you from all directions.

 

With 8 ghost´s you can?
Really, Ghost´s will be very usefull against both HT´s and Archons.

 

Just quickly, this was the rule I was referring to:

"That's a stupid idea" is basically word for word.
@ Spacechick and others. It's supposed to be a hypothetical, not a real option. Of course it's possible to have both, but if you had to choose one and one only, which one would it be?

 

This is an unfair choice. The Thor doesn't have to overlap with the siege tank or be a super Goliath. If I had to choose of course I'd pick the siege tank, however, there's no reason why the 2 units can't complement each other.

The Thor could be a durable short range penetrator, while the tanks could be the high power long range support. I think the main things that needs to distinguish the Thor and Siege Tank are their difference in range (Thor = close, Crucio = long), their cost (Thor =expensive, Crucio = not so much), and their durability (Thor =heavy, Crucio = medium).

If you want to have GTA you can go the Battlecruiser route, with customization on whether you want a mainly ground assault mech, or an air bombardeer.

 

And...

It's a hypothetical situation, guys. If you could have one or the other, which would you have? The original Thor or the Siege Tank?

They still overlapped too much, even after these first few changes, which is why they kept changing the Thor's role again and again and again. The original Thor definitely did overlap a whole lot more, but the adjusted Thor also overlapped too much.

Just because they can be used in different situations, it doesn't mean that they can both be kept as they were. Yes, the Thor is able to take a lot of damage and soak up the enemy fire, and yes the Siege Tank is a long range artillery which can be used both offensively and defensively, but they still overlap way too much.
Keeping both would be like the Terran having both the Valkyrie and Predator. They can still be used in different situations, Predators for raiding because of its point laser defence system to destroy enemy projectiles, like Missile Turret missiles, etc. It fired several weapons independently, meaning it was effective at taking on a few units and more effective than the Valkyrie at taking on capital ships because all weapons could focus on the one target. The Valkyrie on the other hand was much more vulnerable to capital ships because they dealt pure area of effect damage and weren't able to focus their weaponry at all. Valkyries were also less effective at raiding because they were completely vulnerable to attacks from the Ground, unlike the Predator which could intercept Ground-to-Air projectiles, but it was more effective at taking out swarmed units because instead of only being able to attack a set number of targets with a set number of weapons, they dealt the same amount of damage to all units in the effected area.
The Valkyrie and Predator are two different units that were both usable in different situations to the other, but Blizzard would never give Terran both, just like how they'd never give Terran a pure Anti-Ground Thor as well as Siege Tanks. This is why ced made to poll. To see whether people would want the Thor they'd always wanted if it meant giving up the Siege Tank.

 

I would prefer the siege tank.

It's a Terran classic, and a Terran icon. It's new design looks fantastic, realistic, and allows the terrans to have a wide variety of tactics to use. They can turtle, placing marines and tanks near chokes, leapfrog across the map, or an all out war, sieging them behind the front lines to bombard them from a distance.

Also, the tank's siege mode will now be harder to locate because of it not being revealed when in the fog of war, and the enemy have no way of knowing what direction the shells are coming from.

 

I wouldn't say that the new design looks fantastic, the Siege Mode design does, but the Tank Mode, although good, does look a little too smooth and rounded off. It's just the concept that decides it for me. The Thor is a great concept, a huge gargantuan mech able to tear any and all base defences apart at the seams leaving a ruined and wrecked path directly into the heart of their base and economy, and the Siege Tank, capable of dealing the exact same devastation, despite being a tenth the size and cost, with the added ability of a mobile assault mode. Siege Tank all the way.