the Thor, a hypocritical goliath

If your opponent has capital ships, they have the tech to make detectors.

Vikings can fly. Battlecruisers can outrange goliaths when using Yamato Cannon, and (depending on how a base is built) might be able to keep out of their range much of the time.

Two units to counter heavy air isn't necessary. Both the protoss and zerg had only one unit that could do that (the zerg added the devourer to their total in Brood War, but the protoss only ever had the Scout).

You'll probably have more Vikings that you would have had Wraiths since they don't suck (as much) vs ground. I'd rather have a more useful unit overall; you can mass them a bit better since you can use them for things other than attacking capital ships. (And the Viking does more than 1.5 times the damage a Wraith did vs large ships anyway.)

The 4 x 4 damage (16 damage) is for countering mutalisks, who don't have the battlecruiser's high hit point total. The thor does splash, which wouldn't be useful against capital ships anyway. (Ships don't really stack in StarCraft II.)

 

So once my wraiths clear all the detectors by comsat sweep or medics blinding the observers, the carriers can't even attack my wraiths! Conclusion my wraiths are invincible one all detection capabilities are nullified...

Its true that BC's canon outrange those Goliaths. But since the energy cost is high plus the mineral cost, BC's are not efficient to counter Goliaths anyway....It is the other way round...

Yes its not neccessary. Just that it upsets me..If u mean SC1, the Zerg has hydralisk and scourge to counter air units. The Protoss on the other hand has dragoons and scouts to counter capital ships. So basically all race has at least 1 gta and 1 ata to counter heavy air. If u were to add in spellcasters, there are defilers (plague and dark swarm) with high templars (psionic storm) and dark archon (mind control).

Well lets say I love the cloaking part. Thats why i would take Wraiths over Vikings anyday.....Invisibility is a force to be reckon with..

Thats why I m not happy with the 4 x 4. It should have been at least 8 x 4 imo. Anyway I was hoping the splash is enuf to kill carriers' interceptors. This way the Thor would be a Carrier killer. But I also want to use the Thor to kill off the Mothership. Forcing me to use Vikings exclusively to counter capital ships make me sick...

 

i think the thor should still be transportable
it should be carried by the dropship externally (like its lifted with cables under the dropship)
the thor should occupy the whole lifting load of the dropship and the dropship should move at 50% speed while carrying the thor

or assign two dropships to carry the thor

 

Funny thing is that Carriers and Battle Cruisers have multi packet attacks now, so the thor with 3 more armor than the viking has a 400% damage reduction from their attacks, the BC deals 8*8 damage, which after factoring in armor halves its damage ends up at 4 per hit, meanwhile vikings only cut out 1/8th of the damage, carrier interceptors deal 5*2 damage which has 8 of it counted out from the armor of a thor and 2 counted out from viking armor. This means that a Thor will die after 200 attacks from an interceptor and assuming it is hit from one attack per half second, this is a guess based on SC1 strafing run speeds, meaning that it will take the carrier 1 minute and 40 seconds to kill a Thor. A BC has more fortune in this setup from vids Ive seen it takes 2 seconds between full damage volleys to take effect, meaning that the 32 damage is at a rate of 16 dps meaning a 50 second combat session.

Note that these are only for bringing the thor to its wreaked state.

In terms of offensive power the viking has a substantially higher dps especially versus high armor units like the carrier, 30dps for BC's and 28dps for carriers, however, this is assuming all attacks hit for the thor and an identical attack rate, the thor has a 12dps versus the BC and only 8 dps versus carriers. This is assuming that both units have a 1 second attack cooldown.

The thor would take 50 seconds to kill a BC however it attacks sooner due to a far greater range. Against a carrier it would take also 50 seconds meaning that the thor has a substantially greater advantage, this is assuming the attack has the same rate as what I observed watching vikings on a blizzcon '07 video...or was it '08.

Meanwhile this is traded off for a substantially lower survival rate. lasting only 8 seconds against a carriers attack as well and less a mere 6 seconds against a BC, which some attacks are carried on to the next viking lessening the time taken to wipe that one out of the sky.

So both of the two have their own merits the thor is a near-guaranteed win(excluding abilities and upgrades) 1v1 and assuming all attacks hit, while the Viking is much more effective if you want it to get taken out NOW. As a plus for the Thor, should there be a small mass of targets its cost effectiveness vs Carriers and Cruisers increases much more than vikings as that the AoE mechanic of its attacks allow it to deal exponentially more damage to the enemy fleet.

I'll admit that my post has a lot...too much really in my opinion...of guess work, however I thought it prudent to share my...findings.

 

I'm surprised noone rebutted the point on the 1st page that Goliaths were only good against certain air units.

Goliaths were effective against all air units, including mutalisks since the Charon booster upgrade..

The only time they sucked against air was due to the flyer having spells they can't counter (e.g. stasis). Any other time they fought against carriers and guards using cliff tactics they lost effectiveness; because of their bad AI, but overall weren't unusable as long as you controlled them directly.

Thors would be a crappy replacement for GOliaths if it wasn't for their HP.

 

But Thors don't replace Goliaths, vikings do.

 

Correct.

Goliaths are strong against capital ships, ok against regular air units, ok against light ground units, and very weak against heavy ground units

Vikings are strong against capital ships, ok against regular air units, ok against light ground units, and very weak against heavy ground units

Thors are ok against capital ships, strong against regular air, weak against light ground units, and strong against heavy ground units.

Also, Goliaths/Vikings have lousy HP per resource and Thors have great HP per resource

 

Exactly, you can't compare the Thor to a Goliath because they are completely different units and roles. The title to this thread is ironic because the name is hypocritical in itself since the Thor and the Goliath are completely different things.

In my opinion this discussion should be over, the Thor is not suppose to be a new Golitah or anything and people need to stop comparing every little thing in Starcraft 2 to Starcraft 1 because they are different games, ya they may be based on each other but they are different.

 

SC1

Counter against light air units - Marines and Valkyries

Counter against capital ships - Wraiths and Goliaths

SC2

Counter against light air units - Marines and Thors

Counter against capital ships - ONLY VIKINGS !!!

See where the problem lies? The Terrans has many alternatives to counter light air units such as mutalisks but when it comes to countering capital ships such as the Mothership and Carriers, there is only the Vikings available. A good bet in SC2 would be the Vikings would be an overuse Terran unit.

I always like things to be fair. U can't have 2 counters against light air units and only 1 for capital ships. My suggestion is to make the Thor a decent counter against both light air units and capital ships. Even if its ground attack was nerf it didn't matter. Make the Thor's air attack 8 x 4. This way the net damage the Thors will do against Carriers would be 6x4 = 24.

 

What is the problem with just having 1 hard counter unit for capital ships for the Terran? just because it's not as many as the hard counters for light air units its not fair? That doesn't make any sense because you have no way to determine if it is fair or not and it would only be a problem if it made the game unbalanced which there is no evidence at all for, besides you say so.

The game is constantly evolvoing and developing as well, so before you accuse something of being not fair, unbalanced or broken please provide sufficient evidence from the current build of the game at why it is.

I think Blizzard has a lot more experince at balancing games than anyone here so I say let them do their job for the most part.

 

Actually its nothing wrong. Just that the game will be dull at least for me. I m comparing from SC1 to SC2 where I have Wraiths and Goliaths as hard counters as oppose to Vikings in SC2. And now I would like to ask u wats wrong if I want to have more than 1 hard counter for capital ships? I am all for more alternatives. If SC1 has 2, why should SC2 has only 1?

Yes Blizz has the experience to balance the game. But bear in mind that SC1 isn't perfect either. There are issues like useless scouts and queens in SC1. So as a fan, I have the right to point out the weakness. One of the weakness for the Terrans is only one hard counter for capital ships..The Protoss for example has other issues such as poor GTA unit like Stalker.

Bear in mind I have nvr accuse anything for being imbalanced. But having only one hard counter for capital ships isn't fair certainly. The Protoss has at least 2 hard counters which are Void Rays and High Templar's psionic storm. Also what is the point of having Thors countering light air units when missile barrage will do the job fine? And also what is the poiint of the Thor having strong GTG attack when there is oredi the Siege Tank / Banshees? It may be balanced. But the tendency in the Terran army is TOO MUCH counter for light air while TOO FEW counter for capital ships.

 

You are being overly simplistic. Goliaths countered Mutalisks pound for pound once they got Charon Boosters.

They are part of the reason why heavy metal is becoming a viable strat against zerg. Wraiths and scouts don't stand a chance because they count as large units. SO even without the booster upgrade Goliaths will kill them quickly.

AS for THors they might be effective against carriers. Their attack profile is similar to Corsairs and Valks and a critical mass of sairs will destroy interceptors before they could do much damage (can't say much about valks since it's only recently valks are becoming popular enough to attempt using and only against zerg)


Anyway the OP was correct to say the Thor was a hypocritical replacement based on the lore. But even without it the Thor should've already been looked at as a dumb unit. The revisions the THor went through to become a variation on the goliath would be like turning the COllosus into the reaver by giving it a burst damage laser attack which would make you wonder why remove the reaver if they are going to fall back on their old ideas so much.

 

Goliaths deal explosive damage. if memory served me right, they will only deal 10 damage instead of 20 damage. They may be effective in terms of range but if u were to compare Goliaths with Marines, Marines can kill Mutalisk faster and at a cheaper cost. They only need Medics to support them. Furthermore with stim packs, Marines can increase their rate of fire and movement speed allowing them to overpower Mutalisk with Medics supporting them. In conclusion if Goliaths are effective against Mutalisk, Marines must be ulra effective against Mutalisk.

Thors splash damage may be effective at destroying interceptors and in the long run a good counter against Carriers. But what I want is damage as well. I wouldn't want to fork out so much resources just to destroy the interceptors and have the Carriers come back with interceptors again. Thors range is great but what I want is more DAMAGE! 8 net damage against Carriers is too pathetic. Just like SC1, I would like a GTA and ATA unit to counter capital ships.

 

No counters against capital ships other than Vikings, but many soft counters:

Thors don't deal much damage to them, but they have impressive staying power.
Battlecruisers equipped with a Yamato will rip capital ships apart, and block most of their damage regardless.
Marines with shields are tough enough to actually get a shot in before being bug-zapped out of existence by capital ships.
Ghosts can nuke them

 

Who's to say Thors don't deal much damage to them? Assuming that said capital ships are Armoured, which they almost always will be, the Thor deals four attacks each doing four plus two damage. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but that's twenty four damage. Given its siege-style Anti-Air range and the four hundred hit points the opposing player would have to chew through in order to just get it down to a wreckage that can still be repaired, and the fact that it can inflict this upon several capital ships at once... How is this not a counter? Just because the Viking deals thirty six damage to most capital ships it doesn't mean the Thor suddenly isn't a counter.

I've checked a couple of different sources on the Thor's damage, and it seems to deal four times four plus a bonus to Armoured. The bonus varies from two to eight, so that's anywhere between twenty four and forty eight damage from those two sources. Correct me if I'm simply not looking at the latest info, but the Thor does not deal eight net damage to capital ships.

 

Carriers have about 3 armor which halves the damage Thor's do and BC's only take 2/3'ds of the damage due to its armor of 2. If armor behaves like SC1 (eg Zealot having 2 damage reduced from its attacks as that its 2 hits of 8 not 1 16 dmg hit) then the Thor has a really gimped attack vs a single capital ship, however against multiple ships the graph of damage per hit goes up exponentially!

 

That's true. However if it does work the same way, which I think it does, it's a reduction of twelve damage, but depending on what the actual bonus is it could still deal between twelve and thirty six damage, based on the two reported bonus' I've seen.

 

It's actually the same bonus damage on each site.

+2 damage per hit (and there are four hits).

Thors are inefficient against capital ships for their cost.

Mutantmagnet:

"The revisions the THor went through to become a variation on the goliath"

This is just more propaganda.

 

SC2Armory says it's eight, not two.

 

Thor deals 4*4 damage versus air units, and 6*4 damage versus armored air units. Thor deals 8 damage to Carriers and 12 to Battlecruisers, but it deals 16 against all Light Air and 20 against Armored air with a defense of 1, which is most armored air. So yes, its most effective against things like Corruptors, Vikings, and Void Rays.

Thor kills Battlecruiser in 50 hits. Battlecruiser disables it in 8 hits and kills it in 15.
Thor kills Carrier in 50 hits. Carrier disables it in 7 hits and kills it in 13.
Thor costs 71% as much as a Battlecruiser and 76% as much as a Carrier

Viking kills Battlecruiser in 20 hits. Battlecruiser kills it in 3.
Viking kills Carrier in 15 hits. Carrier kills it in 2.
Viking costs 28% as much as a Battlecruiser and 30% as much as a Carrier