|
On January 25 2012 08:42 corpuscle wrote:Show nested quote +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).
I run 5 lings into your SCVs and you kill all of your own SCVs. Why would I bother sending banelings at that when I can just kill your expansion lol.
|
On January 25 2012 08:46 Tektos wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 08:42 corpuscle wrote: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). I run 5 lings into your SCVs and you kill all of your own SCVs. Why would I bother sending banelings at that when I can just kill your expansion lol.
Tanks have smart firing in SC2.
|
On January 25 2012 08:46 Tektos wrote:
I run 5 lings into your SCVs and you kill all of your own SCVs. Why would I bother sending banelings at that when I can just kill your expansion lol.
besides the fact that those tanks cover the ramp to the natural (I use that position with unstacked tanks all the time because it's a good position), how does stacking tanks somehow mean you can't defend the rest of your base...? It's not like you have to put all your tanks there and not make marines and not wall off.
|
On January 25 2012 08:42 corpuscle wrote:Show nested quote +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).
Why are you using banelings on tanks? Plus lings surrounding one stack of tanks is better than spread tanks to take out your forces.
Lings first, then banelings, then mutas or both at the same time. Marines are going to stim back and the tanks are meant to be obstacles making it harder to reach marines.
And tanks are usually spread out in a checkered pattern, so the splash would be more effective here than on spread tanks.
|
a nice baneling drop will take care of those tanks
|
On January 25 2012 08:52 Torte de Lini wrote:
Why are you using banelings on tanks? Plus lings surrounding one stack of tanks is better than spread tanks to take out your forces.
Lings first, then banelings, then mutas or both at the same time. Marines are going to stim back and the tanks are meant to be obstacles making it harder to reach marines.
And tanks are usually spread out in a checkered pattern, so the splash would be more effective here than on spread tanks.
Oh, sorry, I though you meant that you could use a couple banes on the stacked tanks to take them out, which I've heard other people suggest.
I agree that it's terrible to stack your tanks in a normal TvZ situation, you want them as spread out as possible (within reason, obviously).
a nice baneling drop will take care of those tanks
like I said, you shouldn't have to research drops/OL speed just because of an exploit. also, if the terran is decent and protects that position with marines/turrets, you'll just lose your OLs and feel stupid.
|
On January 25 2012 08:42 corpuscle wrote:Show nested quote +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?
Yes
Terrans had to research turrets and irradiate because Zerg exploited a bug in BW and it helped make the game great
|
I think this is just like the stacking of vikings and etc. however requires more apm.
personally i dont see whats wrong with stacking vikings, however, this tank stack could be a bit of an annoyance seeming they could just have 3-4-5 tanks stacked before Zerg has mutas out. ( or a really low number countered by marines like a bitch) and make it really REALLY difficult to counter in certain places.
basically: this is a legit bug and should be fixed for the sake of being a bug. however i dont think staking in general is bad ( viking/muta)
|
On January 25 2012 08:59 tedster wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 08:42 corpuscle wrote: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? Yes Terrans had to research turrets and irradiate because Zerg exploited a bug in BW and it helped make the game great
So, anything that's a bug should be left in the game because it made BW better that there were bugs? That makes no sense at all.
Also, as others pointed out, there isn't any real reason that stacking tanks is a good idea in competitive play, so it's not like Blizzard would be removing something that makes the game better. It's just something that low level players can use against each other to confuse/irritate each other and will start hurting the stacking player when they're against players that have seen it before and know what to do.
|
On January 25 2012 09:06 corpuscle wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 08:59 tedster wrote:On January 25 2012 08:42 corpuscle wrote: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? Yes Terrans had to research turrets and irradiate because Zerg exploited a bug in BW and it helped make the game great So, anything that's a bug should be left in the game because it made BW better that there were bugs? That makes no sense at all. Also, as others pointed out, there isn't any real reason that stacking tanks is a good idea in competitive play, so it's not like Blizzard would be removing something that makes the game better. It's just something that low level players can use against each other to confuse/irritate each other and will start hurting the stacking player when they're against players that have seen it before and know what to do.
Tell that to quake players, Strafe Jumping was originally a bug, but now it's a core part of gameplay.
Also, Sc2 still has worker drills, which if not a bug were at least an unintended consequence of worker movement in BW.
Also, ever heard players like Tyler talk about why Carriers in BW work, but carriers in Sc2 don't. The culprit here is also a bug in the interceptor ai.
Also, like past posters mentioned, Muta stacking in BW is based on a bug that occurred when you group a bunch of air units with one other unit that was far away. It is extremely mechanically demanding, but since there is less air splash damage in BW it allows zergs to maneuver muta flocks around defenses and do lots of damage very quickly. Modern ZvZ and ZvT are built around this "bug."
I could go on, but i think I've made my point.
|
I don't think you understood what I said. I know bugs made BW better, but tank stacking is not a bug that makes SC2 better, and we shouldn't blindly say "LEAVE IT IN BECAUSE MUTA STACKING" just because of that history. There were bugs in BW that were stupid, and Blizzard removed them because it hurt the game.
from the 1.15 patch notes:
Bug Fixes
Fixed a bug that allowed burrowed units to be stacked.
I could go on, but i think I've made my point.
|
On January 25 2012 09:18 corpuscle wrote:I don't think you understood what I said. I know bugs made BW better, but tank stacking is not a bug that makes SC2 better, and we shouldn't blindly say "LEAVE IT IN BECAUSE MUTA STACKING" just because of that history. There were bugs in BW that were stupid, and Blizzard removed them because it hurt the game. from the 1.15 patch notes: I could go on, but i think I've made my point.
How do you know it doesn't make it better? Have pro's experimented with it enough to figure out what new possibilities it creates?
|
i would love to see someone try to setup tanks like this in the heat of a battle.... that would be impressive... as it goes, people siege and unsiege multiple times to move into position. you siege all your tanks in one spot, and i just go around.
|
On January 25 2012 09:21 deafhobbit wrote:
How do you know it doesn't make it better? Have pro's experimented with it enough to figure out what new possibilities it creates?
If a pro saw your tanks stacked they would just avoid them and exploit the fact that you're committing more resources to one specific position. The only way it would really be viable is if it's only 2-3 tanks stacked, and the cost to get them set up in terms of APM/actual mineral cost for buildings/mining time lost makes it not worthwhile to stack such a low number of tanks.
Basically, if I (as a diamond terran) saw stacked tanks, I would just go around and force them to unsiege, which means that whatever they invested (time and/or actual money) would be wasted.
edit: iNcontroL just agreed with me completely on Inside the Game, now I feel smart ^__^
|
On January 25 2012 09:29 corpuscle wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 09:21 deafhobbit wrote:
How do you know it doesn't make it better? Have pro's experimented with it enough to figure out what new possibilities it creates?
If a pro saw your tanks stacked they would just avoid them and exploit the fact that you're committing more resources to one specific position. The only way it would really be viable is if it's only 2-3 tanks stacked, and the cost to get them set up in terms of APM/actual mineral cost for buildings/mining time lost makes it not worthwhile to stack such a low number of tanks. Basically, if I (as a diamond terran) saw stacked tanks, I would just go around and force them to unsiege, which means that whatever they invested (time and/or actual money) would be wasted. edit: iNcontroL just agreed with me completely on Inside the Game, now I feel smart ^__^
i want to see thor's shooting two targets, one with each hand. ;-)
|
rough quote from Geoff: "It has no place in the game. It doesn't reward skill, it's just a bug."
|
This isn't that big of a problem.
|
On January 25 2012 09:29 corpuscle wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 09:21 deafhobbit wrote:
How do you know it doesn't make it better? Have pro's experimented with it enough to figure out what new possibilities it creates?
If a pro saw your tanks stacked they would just avoid them and exploit the fact that you're committing more resources to one specific position. The only way it would really be viable is if it's only 2-3 tanks stacked, and the cost to get them set up in terms of APM/actual mineral cost for buildings/mining time lost makes it not worthwhile to stack such a low number of tanks. Basically, if I (as a diamond terran) saw stacked tanks, I would just go around and force them to unsiege, which means that whatever they invested (time and/or actual money) would be wasted. edit: iNcontroL just agreed with me completely on Inside the Game, now I feel smart ^__^
Ok, so if it's not a problem, why does it need to be removed? Why eliminate the possibility that at some point in the future, on some map, tank stacking might let cool stuff happen. Keep in mind, you said bugs in BW were fixed when they "hurt the game" which if you're right this clearly isn't doing.
|
On January 25 2012 09:21 deafhobbit wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 09:18 corpuscle wrote:I don't think you understood what I said. I know bugs made BW better, but tank stacking is not a bug that makes SC2 better, and we shouldn't blindly say "LEAVE IT IN BECAUSE MUTA STACKING" just because of that history. There were bugs in BW that were stupid, and Blizzard removed them because it hurt the game. from the 1.15 patch notes: Bug Fixes
Fixed a bug that allowed burrowed units to be stacked. I could go on, but i think I've made my point. How do you know it doesn't make it better? Have pro's experimented with it enough to figure out what new possibilities it creates?
So we need to leave each and every bug in, just in case at some undetermined time in the future, a pro makes it work?
The game is bigger than just the pro scene. Not to mention that there won't be pros if the majority of casual players are turned off the game because of an exploit that Blizzard left in 'just in case' it becomes usable. Not saying that this bug is such a case, but your philosophy leaves that possibility open.
|
On January 25 2012 09:36 deafhobbit wrote:
Ok, so if it's not a problem, why does it need to be removed? Why eliminate the possibility that at some point in the future, on some map, tank stacking might let cool stuff happen. Keep in mind, you said bugs in BW were fixed when they "hurt the game" which if you're right this clearly isn't doing.
Because it IS a problem for people who aren't that good at the game and don't know how to deal with it. Low level players shouldn't have to learn how to counter people who are using exploits, they should be able to just enjoy the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
