EPTTank Stacking - Page 10
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Tektos
Australia1321 Posts
| ||
|
phil.ipp
Austria1067 Posts
| ||
|
Grobyc
Canada18410 Posts
| ||
|
gruff
Sweden2276 Posts
On January 23 2012 18:29 Krejven wrote: This is getting abit messed up hehe Haha lol, that's would confuse the hell out of me if it happened to me on ladder. | ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
| ||
|
Yokoblue
Canada594 Posts
On January 25 2012 08:12 Grobyc wrote: So you stack 20 tanks in one place and.... the opponents just walks around and wrecks your main. Meh. The only moments where you could actually set this up properly and have an idiot not exploit one of the dozen weaknesses of it would only happen against a terrible, terrible player. Kind of neat still, but there's no way this is going to be used effectively where it matters. Yeah right... When you're in the main of the opponent and you stack 20 tanks... hes never gonna defend himself  | ||
|
Tektos
Australia1321 Posts
On January 25 2012 08:11 phil.ipp wrote: how do you think anything gets in range to storm 30 siegetanks? warp prism / overlord drops / mutalisks I also imagine that 30 stacked tanks vs. 30 spread out tanks you could move the spread out tanks in range and even if the stacked tanks kill 10 of the spread tanks (they wont even kill that many though) as soon as the spread out tanks get a hit off you instantly have all 30 of your tanks taking damage from each of the enemies tank blast. You can also do things like drop a marauder in range of the tanks and siege your own tanks outside of the range of the stacked tanks and friendly fire your own marauder to splash damage all 30 of your tanks. The added APM alone makes it almost unusable. You're unable to reposition any of your tanks unless you break the stack so you're incredibly susceptible to counter attacks. Cute tricks vs. cute tricks, in this end this will never be used in a professional game. | ||
|
corpuscle
United States1967 Posts
It's not gonna break the game, but it could be used to the stacking player's advantage, and we (well, really, Blizzard) has to decide whether it's a bug that should be left in to make the game more interesting, or if it should be removed. I personally think it should get taken out because it doesn't really produce any interesting situations that would work on a high level, but is super abusable against low-level players who don't see it coming and/or don't know how to react. | ||
|
Diavlo
Belgium2915 Posts
On January 25 2012 08:12 Grobyc wrote: So you stack 20 tanks in one place and.... the opponents just walks around and wrecks your main. Meh. The only moments where you could actually set this up properly and have an idiot not exploit one of the dozen weaknesses of it would only happen against a terrible, terrible player. Kind of neat still, but there's no way this is going to be used effectively where it matters. I don't see why you wouldn't use this on TDA in the super late game in TvZ. You know the moment 20 ghosts are out and people cry for pros to make 200 zerglings.... I don't see how in the world you could get a warp prism over tanks covered by marines... And even if you do, can you actually unload over the tanks? I don't think so... | ||
|
Tektos
Australia1321 Posts
On January 25 2012 08:19 corpuscle wrote: Why do people think it has to be like 20 tanks? There's clear advantages to stacking 3 or 4, stop thinking in such extremes. It's not gonna break the game, but it could be used to the stacking player's advantage, and we (well, really, Blizzard) has to decide whether it's a bug that should be left in to make the game more interesting, or if it should be removed. I personally think it should get taken out because it doesn't really produce any interesting situations that would work on a high level, but is super abusable against low-level players who don't see it coming and/or don't know how to react. Against low level players having your siege tanks clumped up is going to produce the same results as if you have your tanks sieged on top of each other. Removing this from the game provides no positive for the game as this strategy will not have a large impact on any level of play. | ||
|
akalarry
United States1978 Posts
| ||
|
corpuscle
United States1967 Posts
On January 25 2012 08:23 Tektos wrote: Against low level players having your siege tanks clumped up is going to produce the same results as if you have your tanks sieged on top of each other. Removing this from the game provides no positive for the game as this strategy will not have a large impact on any level of play. You obviously haven't walked into a bunch of stacked tanks. Your whole army explodes right away, as opposed to what happens now, which is you get hit by the first volley from 1-2 tanks, freak out, and run away. Newer/less skilled players who blindly walk into siege lines will have no idea what's going on and just lose their whole army because the other player used an exploit that takes no skill. It's stupid. | ||
|
ddrddrddrddr
1344 Posts
On January 25 2012 08:18 Tektos wrote: warp prism / overlord drops / mutalisks I also imagine that 30 stacked tanks vs. 30 spread out tanks you could move the spread out tanks in range and even if the stacked tanks kill 10 of the spread tanks (they wont even kill that many though) as soon as the spread out tanks get a hit off you instantly have all 30 of your tanks taking damage from each of the enemies tank blast. You can also do things like drop a marauder in range of the tanks and siege your own tanks outside of the range of the stacked tanks and friendly fire your own marauder to splash damage all 30 of your tanks. The added APM alone makes it almost unusable. You're unable to reposition any of your tanks unless you break the stack so you're incredibly susceptible to counter attacks. Cute tricks vs. cute tricks, in this end this will never be used in a professional game. You know the solutions you suggest are much more complex and difficult to pull off than the problem itself? I doubt anyone's going to wait like an idiot while you set up a line of tanks right outside his fire range. I also doubt terran will be doing stacking against other terrans with your own sieged tanks around since the moment they unsiege those tanks are going to unravel and die. You may want to think of scenarios when it's actually advantageous to stack tanks. | ||
|
McFeser
United States2458 Posts
On January 25 2012 08:23 Tektos wrote: Against low level players having your siege tanks clumped up is going to produce the same results as if you have your tanks sieged on top of each other. Removing this from the game provides no positive for the game as this strategy will not have a large impact on any level of play. That picture of Dragon sieging on metalopolis looked a little more than game breaking. Unless the zerg has mutalisks, there was no way for Dragon to lose his tank | ||
|
corpuscle
United States1967 Posts
On January 25 2012 08:27 McFeser wrote: That picture of Dragon sieging on metalopolis looked a little more than game breaking. Unless the zerg has mutalisks, there was no way for Dragon to lose his tank I think most people are talking about the bug that lets you siege multiple tanks on top of each other, not the one where you can push them off the cliff and make them fly. That's just clearly broken. | ||
|
SC2Phoenix
Canada2814 Posts
| ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
| ||
|
Tektos
Australia1321 Posts
On January 25 2012 08:21 Diavlo wrote: I don't see how in the world you could get a warp prism over tanks covered by marines... And even if you do, can you actually unload over the tanks? I don't think so... You're going to mass tanks against protoss? Here's some solutions: blink stalker/warp into their main or if it is their main that they're defending with the tank stack do it to their natural. Or if they have multiple tank stacks spread around all their expansions just mass expand and then overwhelm them with immortals. Tanks don't instantly become viable in TvP just because they can be on top of each other instead of right next to each other. Even if you have 30 tanks sieged in one spot it only takes a few immortals to tank the hits to get a high templar into storm range or a collossus in range to attack with thermal lance. And when that happens you have 30 tanks taking damage. Yes, you're going to lose some immortals but dealing splash damage to all those tanks at once is without a doubt worth it. On January 25 2012 08:27 McFeser wrote: That picture of Dragon sieging on metalopolis looked a little more than game breaking. Unless the zerg has mutalisks, there was no way for Dragon to lose his tank He was playing against someone worse than him though. People using cute tricks to beat people of a lower skill level than themselves doesn't mean the cute tricks are game breaking. Also we're primarily talking about the tank stack not the flying tank, that is clearly broken. On January 25 2012 08:26 ddrddrddrddr wrote: You know the solutions you suggest are much more complex and difficult to pull off than the problem itself? I doubt anyone's going to wait like an idiot while you set up a line of tanks right outside his fire range. I also doubt terran will be doing stacking against other terrans with your own sieged tanks around since the moment they unsiege those tanks are going to unravel and die. You may want to think of scenarios when it's actually advantageous to stack tanks. Okay so it can't be used in TvT because your tanks unravel and die and it can't be used in TvZ because a flock of mutas just straight up rapes all your tanks and it can't be used in TvP because you die before you get a sufficient tank count because tanks aren't really viable in the matchup besides a 1-1-1 style build. So propose some situations where it is advantageous to stack tanks please? On January 25 2012 08:26 corpuscle wrote: You obviously haven't walked into a bunch of stacked tanks. Your whole army explodes right away, as opposed to what happens now, which is you get hit by the first volley from 1-2 tanks, freak out, and run away. Newer/less skilled players who blindly walk into siege lines will have no idea what's going on and just lose their whole army because the other player used an exploit that takes no skill. It's stupid. If you have enough stacked tanks in one spot that "your whole army explodes right away" you just attack a different location and force them out of position. Its plain logic and ridiculously simple. On January 25 2012 08:36 SC2Phoenix wrote: I think too many people are underestimating how insanely strong stacking can be. Thirteen range siege tanks that will always focus fire and not overkill the target seems like it would melt any zerg attacking into them. I don't think it will be as bad as unit stacking in Brood War, but it looks pretty damn scary imo. So you don't attack into the stacked siege tanks. Pretty common sense it seems to me... or you just use mutalisks or mass expand. The strategy has no real use other than ridiculous turtle defense. If you let a terran stack and siege that many tanks outside of your base then there are problems with your play not with tank stacks. If someone is playing infinitely defensive then there are stupidly simple things to do which counter that. | ||
|
corpuscle
United States1967 Posts
On January 25 2012 08:37 Torte de Lini wrote: Wouldn't tank stacking just help the Zerg more with banelings and mutas? Less obstacles means easier to kill. How do you hit this with banelings? Should Zerg have to research drops and overlord speed just because Terran is exploiting a bug? And it's harder to kill unstacked tanks with mutas, since it gives the Terran less area that they have to cover with their marines. It's not like Mutas have proper splash damage, it's a bounce attack so it does the same damage against unstacked tanks (unless they're far enough that it can't bounce, I guess). The strategy has no real use other than ridiculous turtle defense. If you let a terran stack and siege that many tanks outside of your base then there are problems with your play not with tank stacks. If someone is playing infinitely defensive then there are stupidly simple things to do which counter that. I don't understand why you think people should be allowed to abuse a bug to beat an unskilled opponent. If a single Bronzie loses to this because he didn't know what to do, it's stupid, unfair, and should be fixed. You're right that a skilled opponent can most likely deal with this without any trouble, which means that there's no real reason why it SHOULD be in the game, but the mere fact that there is potential for abuse means it should be taken out. I think it's a terrible strategy to stack your tanks and hope your opponent is stupid and loses to it, but some scrublet is gonna try, and win games doing it, and that's dumb. You shouldn't be punished for being bad if your opponent is using exploits, you should only lose games because you were less skilled or didn't scout or whatever. | ||
|
Cosmos
Belgium1077 Posts
On January 25 2012 08:30 corpuscle wrote: I think most people are talking about the bug that lets you siege multiple tanks on top of each other, not the one where you can push them off the cliff and make them fly. That's just clearly broken. He is talking about the picture of Dragon on SHAKURAS PLATEAU, I guess, not METALOPOLIS. he abuses a cliff behind the natural expand, it's fun^^ | ||
| ||
