|
There seems to be an idea coming back and forth on those and Blizz forums to "make mech work". And the most important thing in "making mech work" is "making siege tank valid". I think that the general idea is right - but the way to do it is not simple at all.
Tanks in Brood War vs SC2
In BW the positional play was the key. There is a great blog post explaining how units and tactics used to work and how they work in SC2. Things are much different. BW matches tended to be slower, more positional, more tactical and more micro oriented (or at least the micro was of a different kind). SC2 matches are dynamic, macro oriented, and late game possibly spell-oriented.
ST usage (positioning, tactics, micro) was a very important aspect of playing Terran in BW. Well spread, well positioned in relation to map topography tanks used to be the key to victory. In SC2 they do not make that much of a difference. SC2 seems to be a game of numbers and strategies, where tactics influence the game only to the lesser extent.
Can Siege Tanks work in SC2?
I daresay not, in their current form. The Siege Tank as we know it right now is a relic of the past. It can never be strong enough to work as base defense on its own, and if we make it work like that, it'll be OP in the offense.
Why was ST added to SC2 in the first place? I think that the only reason it was was the sentiment of SC2 creators and the community.
I say: get rid of the current Siege Tank in LotV. Recreate it as a completely different unit, possibly having a similar intended role, but with completely different mechanics. How to do that? I do not know. I have some ideas, most of which are probably stupid, but I'll list them at the end anyway. But please consider my original thesis - Siege Tank has no place in StarCraft 2. It has to go. And we have to let it go.
+ Show Spoiler +
Unit ideas:
* Artillery Tank - machineguns with decent dmg (2x10?) and mid (6? 7?) range as a standard weapon, "artillery shot" as an activated cooldown-based ability: fires a single shot with AoE, much like standard tank
* Bull Tank - siege mode goes, dmg/dps of a standard ST stays, range and speed go slightly up. A unit to sit slightly behind and add it's dps to the core of the army
* Havoc Tank - long-range high rate of fire low-dps and finally large AoE dmg dealer; a kind of support unit for Bio, made to be effective vs lings/blings/hydra
  
|
i actually agree with you, but i don't think they will do it
|
LOL I had this same idea Great post. I think getting rid of the current siege tank is a good direction and changing the dynamic of the unit and also the race in general
|
Hong Kong9169 Posts
relic
and the tank isn't base defense. the tank is for multi-screen-engagement-wide-advancing-siege-lines glory.
+ Show Spoiler [also] +
|
relict exists as well 
I don't want the tank to go. They just have to push its stats a little further and we'll see it come back in TvZ.
Tank lines ftw!
|
|
|
I don't know I use them just fine in Marine tank medivac style. In TvT they are pretty good the entire game until that super late game where you might start getting BCs. You can place towers and turrents to help deter drops. Marines give you mobility to do lots of things. Tanks give you space control, and a ton of dmg. TvZ Marine tank works really well, but you do have to move slowly, unlike bio/mine. And the later stages of the game tanks do lose value vs ultras because if you don't have enough tanks ultras will just eat shots and than kill the tanks lol. TvP honestly going anything but bio in this match up seems silly, so you won't see tanks unless you are doing a 1 base or 2 base all in. This is just what I have experienced throughout my 4000 game playing career lol.
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
Shorten siege/unsiege duration
Problem maybe solved
|
No god please no. The tank is like the most interesting unit in the whole game. The fact that they are not really usable when they should be the most iconic terran unit is the thing that made me stop playing sc2.
If anything they should buff them to the point that they are OP and nerf other terran units to compensate.
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
they need to buff the Siege tank sound in SC2.
|
Canada11466 Posts
On September 27 2013 23:17 lichter wrote:
Shorten siege/unsiege duration
Problem maybe solved
What's the point of seige mode then? It doesn't cost anything, you don't have to research anything, and you are proposing to narrow the window of vulnerability. The solution is to make that window of vulnerability worth it. But based on all the things in SC2 that can snipe the tank, I am almost in agreement with the OP. Somehow I think even if tanks were viable, we'd get passive tank-viking again and not the dynamic tactics of Mech Play. Maybe SC3 can finally figure out the siege tank.
|
United Kingdom1381 Posts
I think a lot of the problem is that air units in general are a lot stronger in SC2, meaning that tanks are corresponding weaker.
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On September 27 2013 23:39 iHirO wrote:
I think a lot of the problem is that air units in general are a lot stronger in SC2, meaning that tanks are corresponding weaker.
Well they do do half the damage they did in BW.
|
Dear god, it's everything I love on one webpage.
|
What if they upgraded the Siege Tank to have anti air capability like the apocalypse tank in red alert 2 so it will have less weakness to air units then..
|
On September 27 2013 23:52 Targe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2013 23:39 iHirO wrote:
I think a lot of the problem is that air units in general are a lot stronger in SC2, meaning that tanks are corresponding weaker. Well they do do half the damage they did in BW.
And cost 25 more gas and 50% more supply.
|
You have no idea what your talking about as far as Broodwar
|
On September 27 2013 23:52 Targe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2013 23:39 iHirO wrote:
I think a lot of the problem is that air units in general are a lot stronger in SC2, meaning that tanks are corresponding weaker. Well they do do half the damage they did in BW.
I think that is to compensate for the fact that the AI in sc2 does not overkill like BW tanks do.
|
Its relict of the pas....
Artosis sniper.
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On September 28 2013 05:48 Megaliskuu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2013 23:52 Targe wrote:On September 27 2013 23:39 iHirO wrote:
I think a lot of the problem is that air units in general are a lot stronger in SC2, meaning that tanks are corresponding weaker. Well they do do half the damage they did in BW. I think that is to compensate for the fact that the AI in sc2 does not overkill like BW tanks do.
On September 28 2013 04:12 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2013 23:52 Targe wrote:On September 27 2013 23:39 iHirO wrote:
I think a lot of the problem is that air units in general are a lot stronger in SC2, meaning that tanks are corresponding weaker. Well they do do half the damage they did in BW. And cost 25 more gas and 50% more supply.
I do know these things guys, I was just pointing out the difference in damage.
|
On September 27 2013 23:17 lichter wrote:
Shorten siege/unsiege duration
Problem maybe solved
I'm feeling this too.
The tank is weak and needs some sort of buff, siege is sooooo sloooowwww.
|
Haven't touched SC in a while. Tanks if they are strong decimate an enemy team without them even reaching the tanks. If they are weak they die before they reach critical mass.
If the player is not good at handling positions and making decisions he can slowly lose his army to tanks until he doesn't have enough to retaliate. Tanks are a binary unit due to their range. You need to be careful when buffing them.
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
On September 27 2013 23:39 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2013 23:17 lichter wrote:
Shorten siege/unsiege duration
Problem maybe solved What's the point of seige mode then? It doesn't cost anything, you don't have to research anything, and you are proposing to narrow the window of vulnerability. The solution is to make that window of vulnerability worth it. But based on all the things in SC2 that can snipe the tank, I am almost in agreement with the OP. Somehow I think even if tanks were viable, we'd get passive tank-viking again and not the dynamic tactics of Mech Play. Maybe SC3 can finally figure out the siege tank.
Well I did say maybe.
Another thing to consider is that the pace of SC2 and its battles are far shorter, so having a siege duration is more punishing in SC2. The fact that mines get set faster, cost less, and have less supply, make up for their much longer attack cool down since there is rarely retreat for siege units. If siege tanks had comparable prep duration maybe they'd have greater utility since mines wouldn't be universally better. The tradeoff would be cost/supply vs attack cool down, instead of cost/supply/mobility vs attack cooldown.
|
On September 28 2013 04:12 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2013 23:52 Targe wrote:On September 27 2013 23:39 iHirO wrote:
I think a lot of the problem is that air units in general are a lot stronger in SC2, meaning that tanks are corresponding weaker. Well they do do half the damage they did in BW. And cost 25 more gas and 50% more supply.
They shoot twice as fast as they did in BW though.
|
IMO removing tanks may make sense given the game's current state of affairs but I'm one of these people who aren't in love with the game right now, and one of my beliefs is that the tank is one of SCBW's remnants and in a vacuum it's truly elegant and awesome.
The game, IMO, is fundamentally flawed. It would be bad to remove the tank because the game is not good enough to have that unit =(
|
If going mech ever became a viable option, it would get nerfed for being too strong.
|
I lost a lot of faith in the SC2 community today...
Siege tanks were one of the best designed units in BW. Everything that made the original Siege tank great is not in any way shape or form present on the current tank, and now we are left with a joke of a unit that really isn't a Siege tank.
Blizzard removed most of the big weaknesses of Tanks in the transition to SC2, and guess what? It was massively overpowered. What did they do to fix this? remove most of the strengths as well - now it was UP. Then they decided to buff unsieged tanks, so now its just a more expensive Marauder with a useless Siege mode.
The reason the Tank is so bad, isn't because its a relic from an old game, it's because everything that was once great about this unit has been removed. There is basically no way you can compare the old BW tanks to SC2 tanks anymore.
|
This is a horrible, ill-conceived thread. You're talking about removing an archetypal terran unit from the game based on fuck all actual evidence/analysis and a 5 minute OP. You just repeat and bold your opinion without adequately justifying it:
On September 27 2013 22:40 sctstarcraft wrote:
Can Siege Tanks work in SC2?
I daresay not, in their current form. The Siege Tank as we know it right now is a relic of the past. It can never be strong enough to work as base defense on its own, and if we make it work like that, it'll be OP in the offense.
Why was ST added to SC2 in the first place? I think that the only reason it was was the sentiment of SC2 creators and the community.
I say: get rid of the current Siege Tank in LotV. Recreate it as a completely different unit, possibly having a similar intended role, but with completely different mechanics. How to do that? I do not know. I have some ideas, most of which are probably stupid, but I'll list them at the end anyway. But please consider my original thesis - Siege Tank has no place in StarCraft 2. It has to go. And we have to let it go.
You support your entire "thesis" (lol) with one statement (I underlined it for you) and didn't back that up with any evidence whatsoever. It's not even true because we see tanks regularly (and defensively) in one of the mu's. The rest of your rambling is just you repeating that tanks should be removed.
Tanks are still a big part of TvT and your summary of the two games is also ridiculous. I can't believe you called SC2 more macro oriented than BW.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Qzo7YMk.gif)
