SC2 concerns and issues (possible inclusion in monthly report to Blizzard)

I would agree with most of what has been posted so far about the SC1 tank being better. But there is one big difference in my opinion. With the SC2 version you will have less units to control and they will take up less space for the same job from SC1 tanks. So while the SC1 tanks may be more efficient in damage the SC2 tanks are more effiicient in the amout of damge done for the space takin up. Which means while there may a difference between the two it is not as great as some people would think it is.

 

I don't think that really make sense, other than in theory, to be honest.  Space doesn't cost you anything.

If it was any other unit, there might be grounds for debate, but this is the siege tank.  Attack range of 12, longest firing range in the game, it can't even see as far as it can shoot.  Melee units are a given, but even compared to other ranged units, the siege tank is a unit that you really don't move around much.  Siege tanks certainly don't play like hydras or lurkers, you won't ever need to move them through crowds or chokes to get up close to the enemy.  So space is hardly ever an issue.

I really see no merit in taking up slightly less space, I don't see how that effects anything at all in a realistic way.  And whether the SC2 siege tank even takes up less space is arguable.  Based on food count, you can expect to have 33.3% less tanks than before.  However, the SC2 siege tank itself is also larger than before, it is quite the fat boy.  So even the spaced saved is really arguable.  At the very least, even the actual space saved isn't even significant to begin with.

While whether what Blizzard has done with the siege tank is good or bad is debatable, I don't really see the change itself being completely negative(nerf) as something that's arguable.  It's worse than before in every way, at least based on the info at hand for the moment.  Whether that nerf is a good move or a bad move is left to be seen.

 

Ok i see your point. But just as a note you also have to take into accound dropship space as well. Even im not sure if that make much difference or any difference at all.

 

Personally, I'm kind of just taking it as Blizzard nerfing the siege tank on purpose.  The drop in damage isn't that big anyway.  But I'm curious about the resource cost.  I know there's an increase, but I wonder if the cost went up or down in relation to food.

EDIT: LOL, nice graffiti LordKerwyn. Just noticed it now.

 

Remy i think you are overlooking something, from to all the info about damage types we've seen so far, it's almost certain that the <damage type vs unit size> system from sc1 will be scrapped. meaning the tank no longer does 50% damage against "small" units, but "full" damage, which is 50 damage. this is only slightly less than the 35 it used to do when taking in account of food cost:

50/3 = 16.7 dam/food
35/2 = 17.5 dam/food

the extra 50 damage vs armored acts as a "bouns" and makes the sc2 siege tank's power against "large" to be roughly the same as sc1 levels

 

That's true but it's still taking quite a large damage hit versus smaller units, which was its originally intended purpose, to knock out masses of ground units.

It looks to me like they're trying to orient it more toward a counter-Thor role. Makes sense what with the armored damage.

But spacing doesn't do you any good. It's actually better to have them spread out as you can take more hits before they're all gone . You also lose firepower at a greater rate because more of it is based with one unit. When that unit dies (because it's absorbing more damage than when there were an increased number of tanks) you lose all of its firepower (which might have been more like 1.5 tanks before).

 

The Siege Tank was indirectly buffed with the change in relevation mechanics. Firing out of the Fog of War does not reveal you anymore.

Also sometimes it seemed as if in SC Terrans got as many Siege Tanks as you could still support (with other units) so I don´t think making it step a bit back is completely bad. Terrans are supposed to be flexible/adaptable, an overshadowing Siegetank would not exactly fit that credo.

 

I've already mentioned that Breaker.

This isn't true.  The siege tank's decrease in damage is the same in both vs large and vs small, you see an equal drop rate.  The extra 50 damage vs armored isn't any bonus over the minimum value because vs armored(large), the SC1 siege tank see the same 100% increase in damage.  You should be able to tell that the drop in power is equal in both categories by taking notice that the difference in both the SC1 and SC2 tanks' min and max values are at the same ratio.  So whatever is true for one is also true for the other.  But to make it easier, I'll break it down.

SC1 tank max = 75damage/2food = 35/food ; SC2 tank max = 100/3food = 33.33/food
The reduction in damage per food is 4.76%.

SC1 tank min = 35/2food = 17.5/food ; SC2 tank min = 50/3food = 16.67/food
The reduction in damage per food is also 4.76%.

It's easier if you take every thing to per 6 food, and look at it without decimal values.  It's even easier if you look at it backwards and compare the increase in power from SC2 tank to SC1 tank.

SC2 tank max = 200/6food ; SC1 tank max = 210/6food
The SC1 value is a 5% increase from SC2, the decrease is still 4.76% from SC1 to SC2.

SC2 tank min = 100/6food ; SC1 tank max = 105/6food
The SC1 value is a 5% increase from SC2, the decrease is still 4.76% from SC1 to SC2.  But take note that both min values are exactly 50% of what their respective max values are above.  So you can tell that whatever rate of drop that applies to either, also applies to the other.  So the "extra 50 damage" doesn't really make the 100 damage vs armor any closer to what it was in SC1 than what SC2 tank damage vs unarmored is to SC1 tank damage vs small.  It's all the same, the Blizzard nerf stick hit both areas equally.

While I certainly do not know what anything is supposed to be, Terran was not flexible. That is a misconception. People think Terran is flexible, mobile, adaptable, rugged, but in reality Terran is none of the above.

 

The Zerg are the flexible ones. But from what I've seen of SC2 Terran is working a lot on mobility, it seems.

I feel put to shame when I don't write a post the length of the page... :'(

 

that's not what i meant, the overall damage has indeed been reduced from 105/52.5 to 100/50 (with respect to 3 supply worth of tank). that's why i said the 50 bonus damage make the sc2 siege tank's power against "large" to be roughly the same as sc1 levels.

while the damage/supply has been nerfed , there are a other consequences. the tougher tank can absorb more damage before it dies, so it'll dish out damage for longer. but on the other hand the increased damage per shots means more damage will be lost through over-kills. this however, also depends on target units' hp. if most units have hp just below a multiple of 50(100) then the siege tank would become very efficient, on the other hand if they have hp just above a multiple of 50(100) then a lot of damage will be lost through over-kills. (example, 2 siege shots to kill a marine in sc1)

 

I think it's basically a slight nerf overall. But the damage reduction in relation to food doesn't concern me as much as the increase in actual food cost. But Blizzard probably know what they're doing.

With each race, I think Blizzard is attacking the specific weaknesses, or what each race lacked in SC1. The new addon system, reaper, viking, better mobility for vikings, the restructuring of the Terran tech tree, warp-in, stalker, phoenix, are all examples of this. While theoretically this might make all the races more similar by making all of them strong in all areas, I think it's a good approach. Everything looks good so far, and it should all work out nicely in the end. Terran can actually own up to those claims this time around in SC2.

 

Well of course not everything ended up as supposed in SC, mostly for the sake of balance. I´m shure Spider mines weren´t supposed to be offensive, Irradiate actually killing, Reavers being used in drops, buildings as scouts...

Right now "what they might be supposed to be" is the stuff we can discuss about since balance becomes a issue in Beta. Imbalances are right now based on concepts, not numbers.

 

All these concerns are purely speculation, we should wait until at least the beta to start commenting on these issues

 

Most of what all fansite forums do is speculation. The purpose of this thread is to get an idea of what the popular opinion on our forum is on the things mentioned, so we can take into consideration what to include and mention in the monthly report that our site submits to Blizzard.

If you actually read the opening post(s) completely and have a fair idea of how things are going, I doubt you would've threw out a blanket statement like that. Not all concerns mentioned are purely speculation.

 

You made a mistake Remy the siege tank in tank mode was actually improved when looking at it from a supply stance. In SC1 the damage was 30 not 35. So in SC2 tanks are 11% better than before.

Also take into account one additional factor. Against high armor/shield upgrades SC2 tanks are affected less by such factors than SC1, though it remains to be seen how common this case will occur.


Anyway what I wanted to comment on was your assessment of the cobra. It is definately too slow to take on armored targets right now but it doesn't have to be redesigned to take on light units instead of armored units. Even in this day and age tank destroyers deisgned with an intent similar to the cobra (difference being that it can also attack aircraft) exist.

 

remy was talking about siege mode which did 35 damage to small targets

 

I don't think you're on the same page as the rest of us mutantmagnet. The 100 and 50 are damage values of the SC2 siege tank in siege mode. None of us were talking about anything in tank mode, and it is unlikely that you'll be looking at the same set of numbers when the SC2 tank is in tank mode. Meaning, it will be even lower than the 100 and 50 per shot.

The SC1 siege tank dealt explosive damage in both modes. So even though it did 70 a shot in siege mode, because the damage type was explosive, against small units it was hit with a 50% damage reduction. Thus, the 35. While the SC1 tank did do 30 damage a shot in tank mode, it is irrelevant here. You are comparing SC1 tank mode damage vs large units to SC2 siege mode damage vs unarmored units, so your 11% improvement is incorrect. The SC2 tank is worse in every way from what we know so far.

Your comment on the cobra also didn't make much sense to me. You mention cobra's inadequacy vs armored units but you say it does not need a redesign because similar anti-armor vehicles exist in real life. Don't you want to mention the existence of similar anti-personnel vehicles in real life in stead? Not that I think it would actually have anything to do with game balance anyway.

The problem is that Blizzard has set a hard role of anti-armored for the cobra. It receives bonus damage vs "armored" unit types, and is also not designated as a anti-infantry unit. I also made mention that it is too late in tech to be a dedicated anti-infantry unit for Terran anyway. So some kind of tweak is indeed necessary, as the role Blizzard has set for the cobra doesn't seem like it would work out.

 

No what I said was that it was too slow against armored units, implying that it needs a speed boost so it can flank them like tank destroyers outmaneuver mbts today.

When I said it doesn't need improvements against small units I was specifically attacking your point the Cobra had to become a copy of the Vulture. What I like a lot about SC2 units is that the new ones are so different you could insert the discarded units with only mild issues in overlapping roles. I wanted the vulture to return just for stylistic reasons but the role it filled as anti-small unit raider and harrasser doesn't neccessarily have to come back in the same way the role of the wraith as an surgical strike stealth unit doesn't have to come back. Leaving out such roles would do a lot to make each iteration of SC feel different from each other.


In short the cobra can fill the role of being an anti armor unit regardless of where it exists in the tech tree. What matters is how effective it is at achieving its role once you build it. The bonus damage is a good start but speed has always been the issue for these type of military units in a real world sense. Sure the cobra could have both the speed of a vulture and the armor of a battlecruiser because this is a videogame but it's not balanced nor reflective of the choices we make when trying to make military units.

As for the siege mode discussion, my bad.

 

Sorry, I misunderstood your mention of the existence of real life examples.

I'm not sure how you got that I wanted the cobra to be like the SC1 vulture. I read it over again just to be sure, but it still didn't sound like that's what I said. My ultimate suggestion was for the cobra to deal decent amount of damage all around without any bonuses or reduction penalties, making it an all-around unit for Terran.

I didn't say that. My mention of cobra's position on the tech tree was to point out why it wouldn't be sufficient in taking up the role of designated anti-infantry. It only further state why I think the cobra would/should not be like the SC1 vulture. I also mentioned that the vulture's role is replaced by the reaper while its position on the tech tree is taken by the viking ground form.

And if it was actually anti-infantry that you meant to argue against, which is what I said, position on the tech tree does indeed matter. When your opponent masses a large number of zealots or zerglings to hit you with a timing rush, a unit high up on tier 2 tech ain't gonna help you.

As for anti-armored, even with increased movement speed, it still doesn't make sense as a designated anti-armored unit. I've already explained why but let me clarify again. If a unit is moving in and out fast, the natural counter would be a type of unit that is tough, have a ranged attack, hits hard per hit, and have a longer cooldown rather than weak but fast attack. It's because you will be hitting the cobra only once in a while instead of engaging it continuously, so hitting it harder when you do is the way to go. All of those are trait normally found in higher tech, armored units.

To further clarify the point, I will take the zergling as an example. It has the highest damage per cooldown per food in SC1 after it gets the attack speed upgrade, it places second after the firebat before that(disregarding firebat concussive damage penalty). But it deals out damage with very weak individual hits while doing it in very quick succession, it also has low HP and armor. If the cobra was to move around faster, even if it was designated as anti-armored, it would actually still be easier to take it down with hard hitting ranged armored units rather than melee infantry because you won't ever be able to deal sustained damage on the cobra.

If they made it so the cobra sucked against ranged infantry, the overall usefulness of the cobra as anti-armored would still be questionable. As ranged infantry units are the most prevalent due to their usual "all-purpose" nature, and armored units all have tons of ranged infantry around them anyway. Overall, the very nature of the stay-mobile-shoot-on-the-move mechanic doesn't mesh with the anti-armored role. By its very nature, it gives a natural advange over melee infantry.

Anyone who has seen the Terran demo would already understand part of what I'm saying, it was pathetic. I don't think any unit other than the thor takes the time to turn to shoot either, so it doesn't really get any better. I seriously think they need to reevalute the cobra from scratch.

The cobra can attack air btw. Not sure if that's what you were saying, I am kind of confused by that whole part.

 

I don't really know what is going to become of the Cobra. It seems to me that they're trying to make it fill a niche that this type of unit never was meant to fill, simply based on abilities and range.

For instance, how is a ranged unit supposed to be anti-armor? I just doesn't make sense. Against the Thor, maybe, but against the Seige Tank? Heck no. Since the Seige Tank outranges the Cobra, that's game right there. I mean, I admit there's a possibility that it could completely dominate Banshees and Battlecruisers, etc. but I really don't see why you would go with this type of unit against units such as those.