Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24

Thread: Siege tank

  1. #1

    Question Siege tank

    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

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    4,102

    Default Re: Siege tank

    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.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Siege tank

    Quote Originally Posted by MattII View Post
    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.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Siege tank

    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.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Siege tank

    Quote Originally Posted by Perfecttear View Post
    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
    Units that Should be Cut Thor and Carrier
    Unit that should be Back Tempest
    Favorite Unit : Immortal and Nullifier
    Yes, I am biased.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Siege tank

    Quote Originally Posted by Perfecttear View Post
    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.
    StarCraft wiki; a complete and referenced database on the StarCraft game series, StarCraft II, Lore, Characters and Gameplay, and member of the StarCraft II Fansite Program.

    "Do you hear them whispering from the stars? The galaxy will burn with their coming."

  7. #7

    Default Re: Siege tank

    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.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Siege tank

    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.

  9. #9

    Default Re: Siege tank

    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.


    The Mother of all Queens!

    Thanks to Dynamik- for the signature!

  10. #10

    Default Re: Siege tank

    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.
    "When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up." - C. S. Lewis

    "You simply cannot design a mechanic today to mimic the behaviour of a 10-year old mechanic that you removed because nearly nobody would like them today." - Norfindel, on the Macro Mechanics

    "We want to focus the player on making interesting choices and not just a bunch of different klicks." - Dustin Browder

    StarCraft 2 Beta Blog

Similar Threads

  1. Suggestion: Replace thor with an Anti-Air Siege tank
    By Santrega in forum StarCraft Discussion
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 05-18-2009, 08:55 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •