Blizzard has never known what to do with the Thor. The unit was never “designed to be anti-massive”. They’ve just been scrambling to find a role for it and finally realized that the Thor’s anti-ground weapon is most effective against massive units; since those are some of the only units where it doesn’t overkill.
Blizzard has also been trying to make the Thor’s air attack useful for a long time, and the latest iteration happened to include high flat damage with some anti-massive damage. This iteration of the Thor’s Punisher Cannons is stronger than any previous version, but it is still too weak to actually make Thors function as an “anti-massive” unit as advertised. Thors will always lose to Carriers and Battlecruisers.
To put it in simple terms, a unit can only be exceptional in 2 of 4 areas:
Range
Durability
DPS
Speed.
Thors are durable, so that leaves only one other area:
The ground attack has moderate range, so it can be balanced with very high DPS. This is why Thors can trade against durable ground units that do not have some specialization to counter them.
The anti-air attack is long ranged, since the Thor would not be able to catch or threaten any anti-air units without that range. The combination of the Thor’s long anti-air range and high durability prevent the Thor’s air attacks from being balanced with high DPS, and ultimately this means they lose to units that focus more on DPS and durability like the Battlecruiser or the Carrier. Thors only beat Tempests and Brood Lords in practice because those units are focused on attributes other than direct DPS or durability–Brood Lords are based on Broodlings and range, so their DPS is cut drastically if you have something to clean up the Broodlings; Tempests are based on long range and mobility (or durability for the old version), so they end up losing in a slugging match.
Thor will not fulfil the role of anti-massive role if BL can just impede the already slow movement speed of Thors using broodlings. No point have fancy guns with +1000dmg if you can never get close enough to use it.
As you said, the reverse is also true. No one has any evidence that this is NOT a bug. The amount of bug that bliz admits and corrects after keeping it in the game for a long time is numerous. A quick and recent reminder will be your infested terran bug. And I am not even suggesting its removal as the only option. Option 1 is the inclusion of this behaviour into the tool tip to recognise this behaviour and also help new players playing zerg for the first time.
This is not tethering.
I am not advocating a-move countering. Thors out-range BL without micro. This is the intent of the design. Hence, if the BL can increase range through micro, I am suggesting Thor to be able to do the same, and Only through micro targeting too.
And there are countless examples showing the opposite, so I guess you are also “literally wrong about everything”. This is just such a moot point. Zerg players are going to pick games where thors win and Terrans will pick games where Zerg win and then both will proceed to yell imbalanced at each other.
If we take a step back for a moment, I think the over arching point is that, if this is intended (that the broodlord can increase range via micro) then this should just be stated somewhere.
Personally i have a much bigger problem with the fact its inconsistent with whats stated in game than its impact on balance. Its been in the game for what 4 years or something? Bugs or what people perceive as bugs just dont sit well. If its not intended it should be fixed, and if it is, blizz should just say it is, and thats that imo. Sadly i think its just going to remain a grey area, as is the Blizzard way.
A bug is what happens when something is not behaving as described. Eg. Infested Terran ignoring armour. BL are now able to fire above described range. This IS a bug. However, it can also be easily resolved by Bliz updating their tool tip.
Was the extra BL range used by the more skillful zerg Pro? Anyway, the outcome isn’t even a factor when it comes to this. If it is, I would NOT have recommended a simple change in tool tip as 1 of the many ways to resolve this.
I’m not saying the Thor is imba though. My personal position is that the game is probably about 99% balanced, we just don’t like taking responsibility for our W/L ratios.
Someone above in the post put up a picture of the unit coding and it has a tether range which explains why it works the way it does. As for it not being stated, that’s true for a lot of mechanics in SC2. The simplest being mineral walking (when workers move through units (clip) to get to resource patches). Nothing details that this is a thing, it just sorta happens. The turret style function/movement for some units that let them more easily stutter step isn’t listed, just some units do it and some units don’t. Same with the leash range of carriers in BW which allows for that micro trick toss players use to keep interceptors outside the carrier. This is a game where only basic mechanics are openly listed, the more advanced stuff is usually unstated.
Tether range and mineral walk is VERY different from increasing range or (just for discussion sake) increasing damage above described just by target firing.
If it is as you claimed, you should have no problem to the suggestion that Thor be able to increase its range by target firing too. The tool tip clearly indicates that it is the intent of the designers for Thors to have higher range than BL.
I didn’t say they were the same. I said they’re examples of unlisted mechanics in the game. That is to say, developer intended mechanics that exist in the game but aren’t listed in an in game tooltip. Like BLs being able to fire on single targets if microd back properly from a range slightly longer. Or workers moving through units blocking a ramp.
Your second assertion doesn’t logically follow at all. There is an existing mechanic that exists because of specific properties being set on BLs, something that a developer would have to intentionally do. That does not equate to actively altering existing properties on another unit regardless of what people perceive of what the intended interaction is.
I guess you are the kind of person where until bliz announced that IT damage bypassing armour is a bug recently, you would claim that it is design as intended and it is an “unlisted mechanism” of the game.
Range and damage are key elements of this game. When I say that it is VERY different, of course I am not claiming that you say that they are the same; I am saying that the amount of importance associated with these 2 attributes far outweighs what you are talking about.
Except that wasn’t something that’s been around for at least four years; potentially since inception 10 years ago.
Again, no, you’re just trying to find a talking point instead of acknowledging I’m talking about a single aspect of that comparison: They’re unlisted mechanics. Everything else about them is irrelevant in the comparison and the only reason you’re ignoring that is because it’s a convenient talking point for you. BL range is just an unlisted mechanic until Blizzard comes forward and says it is a bug. IF they do; I will change my position on it and say it’s a bug. Until then, it’s intended and unlisted whether you or anyone else likes it or not.
I’ve already discounted that as a fact. In the map editor the tether range shows this was intentional. There are other mechanics not listed in Tooltips so I guess worker collision loss on resource trips is a “bug”. I guess the additional range for Carriers via leash is a “bug”. I guess the reaper hop over walls is a “bug”. Phoneix cancelling channeled spells with lift isn’t listed so it’s a “bug”. None of those are in an in-game tooltip so they’re clearly all “bugs”. Or, just maybe, you have literally no idea what you’re talking about and just want to complain instead of learning to play better.
