PDA

View Full Version : Siege tank



Perfecttear
05-14-2009, 03:14 AM
As you alredy know the siege tank in sc2 is much more expensive unit, than it was in sc1,costing 50 more minerals and 50 more gas, and is a more specialized antiarmored unit. There were alredy many debates if the increase cost is justified, and i was undecided.
But recently i read information, that change my mind to the negative.
Ive read't that the tank in sc2 fires faster in tank mode and actually much slower in siege mode than in sc1. In sc1 the tank fired every 3 seconds, but in sc2 it's every 5 seconds, as some people stated visiting ESL Paris SC2 Event.

So i'm wondering can aynybody confirm this? And if it is confirmed, do you think it's justified?



Thanks

MattII
05-14-2009, 03:32 AM
I haven't actually seen it, but I wouldn't be surprised, tanks in Siege Mode did 70 damage (explosive) in SC, now they're doing 50 +50 vs. armoured (about the equivalent of 100 explosive damage given that damage is usually judged by armour type rather than size), so it pretty much balances out.

Perfecttear
05-14-2009, 03:46 AM
I haven't actually seen it, but I wouldn't be surprised, tanks in Siege Mode did 70 damage (explosive) in SC, now they're doing 50 +50 vs. armoured (about the equivalent of 100 explosive damage given that damage is usually judged by armour type rather than size), so it pretty much balances out.
Yes it would balance out , if they would cost the same, which they don't.

Noise
05-14-2009, 04:16 AM
I don't think anyone can really be sure about little balances like unit cost at this stage, hopefully it will all get ironed out in the beta.

icephantom02
05-14-2009, 06:59 AM
Yes it would balance out , if they would cost the same, which they don't.

No no no. It would not be balanced if they were the same. If you have a unit that was created from scratch that had the same exact stats as the Siege Tank and it's cost was released to be x minerals an y gas, you wouldn't complain about the imbalance of the cost because you have no past knowledge/memory of a unit in the previous game. You're whole bias for it not being more is the fact that it cost fewer materials in StarCraft than it does (as of right now) in StarCraft II. Why is it imbalanced? If it does more damage and is more lethal then it should be more expensive.

It gains much more damage vs. Armored units than it could have caused in the original StarCraft. The range is also buffed up, making it extremely potent.

Damage Increase + Range Increase = Better Unit
Better Unit = More Resources
*** Damage Increase + Range Increase = More Resources

If you get the cost of the old Siege Tank out of your head and think of this as a brand new unit and you have no basis of thinking, then I'm sure you could see the point of the cost of it.

IP02

Kimera757
05-14-2009, 07:24 AM
As you alredy know the siege tank in sc2 is much more expensive unit, than it was in sc1,costing 50 more minerals and 50 more gas

Yes, and 1 more supply too.


and is a more specialized antiarmored unit.

That is wrong. It does half the full damage to small units, and in StarCraft I, it did ... half the full damage to small units. That's identical to StarCraft I.


But recently i read information, that change my mind to the negative.
Ive read't that the tank in sc2 fires faster in tank mode and actually much slower in siege mode than in sc1. In sc1 the tank fired every 3 seconds, but in sc2 it's every 5 seconds, as some people stated visiting ESL Paris SC2 Event.

So i'm wondering can aynybody confirm this? And if it is confirmed, do you think it's justified?

Maybe you'd need a video to confirm this. That may be the case. It's still a powerful unit, given the high damage and range; the opening volley is actually deadlier than before.

IMO the original siege tank was overpowered, so a nerf doesn't bother me anyway.

Norfindel
05-14-2009, 07:52 AM
It's a lot more powerfull, and the Terrans have other good units to use, instead of depending on them 90% like they did before (except in TvZ, when going Infantry was a good option), and there are good counters now, which i think will get the gameplay more diverse and better.

unentschieden
05-14-2009, 11:56 AM
Siegetanks have gotten a pretty significant new advantage: Firing from the FOW no longer reveals the aggressor. Still the ST is no longer a Massable unit. They shouldn´t be since the ST is a Techlab unit. If you were to mass them Reactors would be useless.

Aldrius
05-14-2009, 12:19 PM
The Siege Tank's siege cooldown is so long that it doesn't even matter that much if it's 3 seconds or 5 seconds, it'll obliterate everything in one attack. And yes, all the other advantages of having invisibility when atop a cliff firing down, having a lot of extra range, and tank mode being stronger all make up for the higher cost.

They're not anti-armored specialized so much as they are defensive-specialized. You need to be cautious with them, try to take advantage of cliffs, try to hold particular ground and have nighthawks spotting for them. They'll be more difficult to use properly, but when they are they will be much more powerful. Overall, the biggest change is their cost-effectiveness when it comes to their HP. Which is a nerf they desperately needed really.

Nicol Bolas
05-14-2009, 12:41 PM
Which is a nerf they desperately needed really.

That. You're not going to see great slabs of Terran Mech slowly marching across the field. And this is good.

Infantry was always more mobile, but it wasn't cost-effective in 2/3rds of the Terran matchups. Now it is. STs will not dominate Terran play; they will be the support units they were always supposed to be.

areese87
05-14-2009, 04:15 PM
Additionally, the tank also has 50 more hp, correct? It did at one point at least.

Anyway, the SCII Tank is better is oh so many ways than the SC1 tank, and the increased cost/supply is certainly warranted. It's far less massable now, and with far better infantry and aircraft, this is perfectly fine.

Whanhee
05-14-2009, 04:56 PM
That. You're not going to see great slabs of Terran Mech slowly marching across the field. And this is good.

Infantry was always more mobile, but it wasn't cost-effective in 2/3rds of the Terran matchups. Now it is. STs will not dominate Terran play; they will be the support units they were always supposed to be.

Certainly not, but it should be possible even with these new stats to see pure metal builds. The only thing terran is missing right now is dedicated AA mech. and vikings can easily substitute for that.

In all fairness a 100 cost increase is not going to stop a terran macro player from being able to amass a huge army of these slowly pushing across the map. The fact that it is a huge support unit means that it can pretty much support another one of itself. With a range upgrade and FOW hiding other tanks, they can and will rape everything. (with hellions or w/e supporting obviously)

Pandonetho
05-14-2009, 06:14 PM
The 100 increase will definitely help, but the main point is that it costs 3 food now. Where in SC1 30 tanks took 60 food, SC2 30 tanks will take 90.

Nicol Bolas
05-14-2009, 06:30 PM
In all fairness a 100 cost increase is not going to stop a terran macro player from being able to amass a huge army of these slowly pushing across the map.

50 more gas is not insignificant. It throws off all the timings. You need either more expansions or more time to build up your ST group. In that time, your enemy can out-produce you with other units, kill you main expo, make use of new AtG options to nullify your STs, etc.

Not to mention that the enemy has their own new bag of tricks to deal with STs. Immortals might as well have "Murder Siege Tanks" written on them.


With a range upgrade and FOW hiding other tanks

Which only lasts until the enemy gets a flying unit over there. Banshees, Mutalisks, even Phoenixes with AG can tear STs apart. And they don't have to wait until you attack; they can do it anytime.

Norfindel
05-14-2009, 08:59 PM
Siegetanks have gotten a pretty significant new advantage: Firing from the FOW no longer reveals the aggressor.
I think that would really be a disadvantage for the ST, as their incredible firepower, range, and splash allowed them to counter units attacking them from upside a cliff back in BW, and they won't be able to do that anymore without some spotter, which is how it should been always.


50 more gas is not insignificant. It throws off all the timings. You need either more expansions or more time to build up your ST group. In that time, your enemy can out-produce you with other units, kill you main expo, make use of new AtG options to nullify your STs, etc.

Not to mention that the enemy has their own new bag of tricks to deal with STs. Immortals might as well have "Murder Siege Tanks" written on them.
Don't forget the 3 Supply cost. Scouts were so much worse than Wraiths just for this, not counting the Cloaking.

n00bonicPlague
05-14-2009, 09:31 PM
I like the SCII Tank "remix". Each SCII tank is about 1.5 SCI tanks, in terms of power and cost. The siege cannon has a longer cooldown but a bigger bang; thus, it will be more bent on siege and base defense. The regular cannon has a shorter cooldown but a smaller bang; thus, it will be more suited for the mobile support role. All in all, it's been made toe be more of what it was supposed to be.

Whanhee
05-14-2009, 11:36 PM
50 more gas is not insignificant. It throws off all the timings. You need either more expansions or more time to build up your ST group. In that time, your enemy can out-produce you with other units, kill you main expo, make use of new AtG options to nullify your STs, etc.

Not to mention that the enemy has their own new bag of tricks to deal with STs. Immortals might as well have "Murder Siege Tanks" written on them.

Which only lasts until the enemy gets a flying unit over there. Banshees, Mutalisks, even Phoenixes with AG can tear STs apart. And they don't have to wait until you attack; they can do it anytime.

50 more gas means you just get more mineral only units per siege tank. So long as your macro is keeping up with your opponent's, you should be able to pump out a relatively large quantity of tanks and support units. And don't pull that "It throws off all the timings" bullshit. Different game, different timing.

Obviously supporting units are needed to counter air, massed speed units and immortals, but massing mineral only units to support tanks should work fine. Marines seems pretty viable now with the increased hp. In any case, I was just saying that tanks aren't going to lose their role as super heavy ranged aoe rape, they just won't be as common.

FlashWar
05-15-2009, 04:42 AM
The Immortal is about the same price as a Tank in SC2. It's the main counter for Protoss against Tanks. So they cost about the same but Immortals kill Tanks with ease. I still see a role for the Tank but I think its way to hard to tell how it needs to be balanced until we get Beta.

But another thing, I really can’t see a use for the Immortal against the Zerg. The Immortal costs 250 minerals and 100 gas, its so expensive. It would most likely die easily to Zerglings. It might be good against Roaches? Someone fill me in.

Aldrius
05-15-2009, 04:51 AM
I was just saying that tanks aren't going to lose their role as super heavy ranged aoe rape, they just won't be as common.

Oh but they will.

If you only have 2/3rds of the tanks that you'd have in SC1 (the food cost will make sure of that) then they'll be much more vulnerable.

And with charge, Stalkers being able to blink, immortals, void rays and phoenix... (and Banshees, Med-evacs and Marauders in TvT) Siege Tanks in Siege mode won't be seeing a whole lot of use as sole offensive weapons. It'll take a bit more tactical skill than just throwing them at your enemy. Knowing the map, using the cliffs and spotters to the tanks advantage will be much more prudent.

Nicol Bolas
05-15-2009, 12:18 PM
But another thing, I really can’t see a use for the Immortal against the Zerg.

Its hardened shield may not be of much value vs. Zerg (though in the late game, they have some function against Lurkers and Ultralisks), but they are still 300 Hp worth of unit. They can function as reasonably effective meat-shields for Stalkers. Though to be fair, an equal cost of Zealots would probably be preferable.

Noise
05-15-2009, 12:35 PM
When you have a game full of specialist units and 3 incredibly distinct races, it is a big ask for every unit to be balanced and useful against every race.

Norfindel
05-15-2009, 02:04 PM
The Immortal is about the same price as a Tank in SC2. It's the main counter for Protoss against Tanks. So they cost about the same but Immortals kill Tanks with ease. I still see a role for the Tank but I think its way to hard to tell how it needs to be balanced until we get Beta.

But another thing, I really can’t see a use for the Immortal against the Zerg. The Immortal costs 250 minerals and 100 gas, its so expensive. It would most likely die easily to Zerglings. It might be good against Roaches? Someone fill me in.

Let's compare them against each other:



Immortal Siege Tank
Life: 200 150
Shields: 100
Minerals: 250 200
Vespene: 100 150
Supply: 4 3
Build Time: 55 50
Defense: 0 1
Type: Armored Armored
Movement: Normal Normal
Damage: 20 50
Range: 5 13
Cooldown: Normal Slow
Targets: Ground Ground
Bonus: +10 vs Armored +50 vs Armored
Abilities: max dmg received:
10 per attack


I think they're both "tanks", but different kind of tanks. The Siege Tank deals a lot of damage from long range, but isn't resistant to damage. They call them "glass cannons" for a reason. The Immortal, on the other hand, deals much less damage at short range, but is twice as resistant to damage, with 300 total life, and also has the Reinforced Shields mechanic, which makes a lot of a difference when attacked by the heavy-hitters, but makes no difference against the weaker attacks.
Against the Zerg, i think they won't be too popular, as most attacks are too weak for the Reinforced Shields to play a role. 300 hp still is a lot, but as the Archon has 350 hp and a Light type, not to mention it's 35 dmg vs any Bio unit, it's a tank on it's own vs the Zerg. Still more, they are made from 2 HTs who are warranteed to be there in any serious PvZ match. The Immortal is on the same tech path, however, and they cost 1/3 the gas of an Archon, and are good enough as damage soakers, specially if Brood Lords, Ultralisks, not to forget Banelings are there.

I think they have a chance vs Zerg, specially because of Banelings, their relatively low gas cost, and fairly high amounts of life.

CrystalV3
05-15-2009, 03:41 PM
Despite claims of StarCraft 1 being "perfectly balanced", the Siege Tank is hardly balanced itself. Siege Tanks end up being massed heavily, due to their strength in numbers. Any ground unit within range of a suitable group of tanks is completely demolished in a single shot. Also, due to the Goliath's easily massable nature any air unit that gets close is taken down in moments by a swarm of missiles. It's no wonder then that nobody liked to see TvT matches in the original game because any match would consist of who could build their siege line first and advance it up.

Now, in StarCraft 2 Blizzard is trying to change this so all units can have a purpose. It's true there are many more ways to kill tanks, but they aren't meant to be the unstoppable force they were back in SC1. Even the Thor, which many members have wish scrapped in favor of the Goliath, can be seen in this light. Considering the cost of each Thor, they will be harder to ensure the safety of your Tank squadrons and have uses besides only anti-air unlike the Goliath.

Personally I favor these changes to the Siege Tank because it brings the unit back to what it was meant to be, a long range support striker, as opposed to a panacea for all ground units.

The_Blade
05-15-2009, 03:47 PM
Everytime i read a thread like this one i'm even more confident that SC2 will not be SC

but not for bad i mean just an entire new gameplay were units cant be compared with the original like "yea the viking a blalbalbal the goliath" or even units that play the "same roll" like the zergling or the marine.