Thor

I was unaware that the Thor's build time was so long as to make the SCV's building it any less "imbalanced" than floating the sucker.

 

We don't really have any information as tohow long anything builds.

The reason I support flying is that even if I can set up a beachhead and build on the enemy's island once his base is gone what am I supposed to do with the Thor. It isn't so much about attacking the enemy as what to do after

 

Beachhead is the perfect description of why flying the unit in won't work.

You have to use other units to clear the way and hold that lane open. If a player manages to do that, then they should be able to land the thing. Oh, and you're already dead by this point, by the way.

 

Exactly. People are saying it is OP being able to move the Thor anywhere but if you can't stop him what hope do you have of winning anyway. It isn't OP because it is easier just to fly in battle cruisers and do tank drops

 

Exactly. So... why did this discussion even take place in the first place?

Not like it matters. I included it in the Blizzard report anyway.... I'll probably include it again if we hear nothing. Lol.

 

When did you send it?

 

I have no idea what sparked the discussion. I came in towards the end of it

 

That was because some people were saying that liftoff for Thors would be OP since they would be able to go wherever they wanted and argued that Salvage would be better for transporting them, since you get the resources back with which you can rebuild your Thor on another area of the map. Which imo is ridiculous.

 

As an addition to Joneagle's point - the Thor description specifically says that it can be built relatively quickly...

which means the Thor ambush scenario ppl keep imagining, could much more easily be accomplished by simply ferrying an SCV to the desired ambush site, and having it build the Thor there - rather than trying to float a Thor to said site... I don't think either has much chance of success, but just compare the two actions

SCV drop and build Thor vs. float Thor:

SCV drop and build = faster overall
SCV drop and build = somewhat less likely to be noticed
SCV drop and build = if about to be countered, much easier to flee
SCV drop and build = if countered, much less resource lost

so, if a Dropship and SCV can already accomplish the dreaded Thor super surprise, masterfully sneaky, unparalleled stealth attack much easier than the proposed upgrade.... what is all the complaining about really?

*scratches head*

 

Like I said before. People who do not like something or are resistant to change will find a reason to convince people it is a bad idea and unfortunately if that something cannot be found they will make something up themselves

 

Agreed. Nice expansion of the idea Nate. I knew I kept you around for a reason. Lol

@ Wick , the report gets submitted monthly. For September I think it got submitted October 3rd.

 

^ ^ That crap has been happening way too much on our forum as of late. I usually love debates and in-depth discussions. Or so I though up 'til pretty recently. Even if it appears that I'm mad at someone I'm debating against because how heated the discussion and how into I seem to be, I'm almost always loving it in actuality. But recently, I've been pumped full of frustration on quite a few occassions.

Thank you BoP for casting light back onto what was actually the real issue at hand. And doing it in such a short amount of text, which I'm generally incapable of myself. You get 1UP from me for that one right there baby.

 

I support Salvaging because it accomlishes the same as all "flyers" support but instead of having a big "shoot me" sign you get resources. The Thor is quite specialized, it would be fair (and unique) that it could be deconstructed once obsolete.

The Beachhead explanation points it out: once only Island bases are left the Thor is redundant, even if flying it would be a waste. The moment it could land the enemy has lost anyway. Wouldn´t you rather have another BC then? I don´t think it would be OP to allow salvaging of ONE unit, it would serve as unique advantage of the unit.

Salvaging should apply to the Thor the same way it applys to the Buildings. If it isn´t of any use at that position anymore and can´t be reasonable move in one piece (for balance and or logical reasons) it should be taken apart to be moved or recycled.

 

Are we even aware that a fully built building can be "salvaged"? I may be a bit naive here as I haven't taken an in-depth look at the Terran abilities, but I wasn't aware that a Terran player could dismantle buildings for a percantage return...

But even if that's so, the liftoff is still a better alternative to increase the Thor's mobility beyond it's current "stuck" state.

 

Salvage just feels wrong for a unit, especially one with the nature of the Thor.

You don't build your massive 'battlecruiser on land' unit and then take it back apart again... The Thor is a statement of power... it's a landmark... it's akin to suggesting the U.S. take the Statue of Liberty apart so we can use the copper for making wires if we want.... we can always build the Statue again later if we want =/

 

*Stares in disbelief*

Nate hates the Statue of Liberty.....

 

Not a percentage, full! Some buildings can be salvaged for 100% of their cost as a way to move them.

Of course Lift off would raise it´s mobility - and that is the main problem. For me that is like suggesting to give the Siege Tank AA capabilities. It would look weird and remove a intended weakness. There is a reason why Immortals can´t hit air at the moment.

@Nate: Salvaging makes sense for the Thor BECAUSE it is build on the Field. It is made of modular parts for easy de- and reconstructing. Also, the Thor is a Ultimate Assault Mech, not a Statue. The statement of power comes from the performance, not the looks. If it can´t perform anymore it is salvaged, that fits completely with the Starcraft Terrans (which don´t hava a statue of liberty and most likely won´t get one soon).

 

Is this true??

 

it is

 

I thought the main problem was that we had a few hallucinating people who insisted on thor liftoff being OP.  And that entire paragraph doesn't make sense anyway.  You are pulling a fast one over people's eyes when you assume any mobility option for the thor would somehow automatically equate to thor magically losing its weaknesses and become imba.

In the long ass post of my fat list of concerns, I made mention of salvage.  I personally don't even like the idea of salvage on buildings, especially 100% return.  I learned from a reply in that thread(I think by GuiMontag) that salvage only applies to non-liftoff-able buildings.  So in this case, my argument against salvage would apply even if it didn't fully apply in that other thread.

You are on crack if you think liftoff is imba and somehow salvage on thor isn't.  Every player is committed to their resource investments and strategic choices on macromanagement.  A big part of strategy revolves around that very fact.  If you catch a player with his pants down going a poor build against what you have, whether it is from poor recon or just poor decision making, they pay the price.  Why should a Terran player be allowed to have their fun with a thor and then get all their money back and put that money back into something else that is better for the situation?  It's like a Zerg player going mass lurker on one of the enemy bases because of a lack of detection, then getting all the money back to put into a mass of mutalisks or devourers to spank the fleet of banshees the other player's gotten to kill the lurkers with.  Some balance.

Any the whole thing about how a thor is somehow useless when it's just islands left, I'm not even gonna address that. More logical arguments out of the anti-liftoff naysayers, woot.