Thor

Well if the reaver could fly and land would you be worried even if it was slow?

If you aren't then don't bother analysing this post.

 

it would fly as fast as reasonable, the whole point is that it wouldn't get stuck on islands, that's what we've been saying all along... getting stuck on a island is a design flaw, allowing it to lift off simply solve this problem. it doesn't suddenly make the thor OP

basically

no lift off = stuck
lift-off = unstuck

it simply addresses the problem, nothing to do with giving the thor another tactical possibility, simple as that

 

The Reaver already can fly and land.... in a dropship. lol

If it suddenly gained the ability to fly and land on it's own, I wouldn't be worried - it's just a poor substitute for the dropship. I would be happy to see my enemy avoid using dropships and instead slowly float his reavers toward my base so it would be easier for me to destroy them before they got there.

 

exactly! that's what i said here:

 

Er no actually because if its shuttle got destroyed and it floated away you might not have noticed. Especially if some diversion happened on a certain terrain where reavers would be useless.

 

why do you keep talking about feedbaqck? i never heard anything about bombardment using mp

 

Ok lets put it this way:

You can SALVAGE Thors
Positive:
-you can move Thors on island maps - once he is of no use you salvage him and you get your resources back so you can build him elsewhere
-you can move Thors over large patches of terrain without them slowing you down (especially important if you play a 192x192 map), instead of guarding your Thor while he slowly travels to the enemy base you just salvage him and build him elsewhere
Negative:
-no negative gameplay aspects about this as far as I can see

Thors have LIFT OFF ability
Positive:
-you can move Thor around on island maps
Negative:
-you risk a potential imbalance in the game (Thor, an artillery unit, can easely climb cliffs while other units need transports, Thor gains too much mobility)
-this doesn't solve the problem of moving Thors over long distances (from one side of map to the other) and moving Thors on large maps (192x192)

So, you see, the lift off ability is in no way better than the salvage option. Lift off may or may not create a potential imbalance, but salvage won't make any problems at all AND it will solve one issue where lift off cannot help (moving Thor over large distances). So, why bother balancing this ability when salvage can do a better job with less effort needed to implement it.

 

salvaging and rebuilding thor takes a long time and require scv, thor is venerable while being salvaged or built, that's its negative

 

Okay, salvage doesn't actually let you build a Thor somewhere else on the map, since the building process takes time. The Thor has approximately the same build time as a Factory. You can't build a Factory right next to an enemy's base without getting detected, and there's no reason that Thors would survive either. Liftoff can be balanced by giving the Thor a slight delay when it lands before he can shoot and by making it unable to attack while flying. Thors being able to fly over to the enemy's base won't do much anyways. Thors can't take out a base on their own, and in an actual game, no one's likely to have more than one, or at most two Thors. Thors will be easily destroyed by most anti-air while lifted off, they won't be impossible to kill just with the base defenses and the units guarding your base. If you didn't have that, you weren't protecting your base sufficiently and deserved to lose the base.

 

That is not negative gameplay aspect, that is only the balancing factor. If Thor wasn't venerable while being salvaged/constructed it would be too powerful. This way the salvage ability is balanced.

Wlck742, why balance lift off when salvage does a better job and without the need for so much balancing? And I don't see what are you trying to say in your post. Regardless whether your Thors can lift off or you can salvage them you will still need to build them close to the enemy base (while protecting them with your army) so that they do not have to walk far. That is how you are supposed to use the Thors as far as I remember.

 

in that case the speed at which the thor flies is also a balancing factor, not a negative.

 

biased comparison is biiiiaaaasssseeeeeddd



again, where did they say bombardment uses mp?


also, thor isn't that slow, it's about 3/5 the speed of marines.

 

Are we still on this same argument?

As far as I know, 250mm is an energy ability. But like I said, I'm Zerg and I'm not worried. Because realistically, there is nothing threatening about the thor liftoff ability.

The fact that the reaver's mobility comes from the shuttle is actually an advantage is certain situations in the hands of someone with enough skills in micro.

Why are people still arguing the threat of backdoor landing a thor when it's not even a realistically viable strat? What's a thor gonna do on the wall when it can't reach anything important, if it even lands at all?

Flawed logic galore.

 

unless of course it destroys the CC

 

Its much too big and slow to use to ambush someone. They would see you coming before you had time to flank them. Liftoff would be more for regular island hopping. Build it at the very edge of the water while you make out the aa defenses then fly it to the very edge of the island you are attacking then walk form there. Keeping it in the air over ground would be stupid since it wouldn't be able to defend itself and anti air weapons are generally more powerful. It would not be for flaking or surprise attack but merely island hopping. Similar to how you get alot of dropships on island maps

 

Well... one unrealized potential of the Thor is how it can be used as a distraction for a player. Fear the Thor or fear the army coming around the corner? Its all a matter of how the player will react to such a unit as the Thor. If it is a potential threat it would be eliminated, but at what cost to the player? I think that is the true nature of the Thor. How scary can a player make it? Point is Thor = Symbol of Terran power.

 

Yeah that is often a problem. Some players who lack strategic knowledge pound on the unit with the most HP while getting owned by the support units or worse having all of their damage negated by the healers/repairers. That is the reason for units that can tank. The Thor will be well suited to that role

 

From the wall with its attack range? With no energy? If it even lands at all before the game ends? That really sounds like a useful strat that better players would really want to go for, really. It can really happen consistently against good players, really.

You're either arguing about the threat of landing a thor outside the enemy base or right there in there base. Even if the CC has a piece of high ground right behind it for the thor to even be close enough to reach it, you're basically in there base and it doesn't sound like something that can realistically be pulled off against anyone decent. In any case, both scenarios are not realistically threatening.

The later it is into a game, the less impact attacking the enemy's econ has. Anyone any good can make the easy call that the thor would be much better spent on kicking down the front door than a forceful backdoor landing that has a hopelessly low success rate and much less of an direct impact. If you weigh the what you are sacrificing in each scenario vs what is to be gained, the choice is clear.

 

Backdoor landings would still be threatening since it is often less defended but a landing by a Thor would be useless since the mineral line would block its advance anyway unless it is late game in the player's main

 

phase prism + colosuss > flying thor

'nuff said