Siege tank

[Perfecttear]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.