EPTTank Stacking - Page 9
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
cydial
United States750 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15394 Posts
On January 23 2012 18:29 Krejven wrote: This is getting abit messed up hehe ROFL, I'm speechless. This isn't nearly as bad as the tome bug in WC3 TFT beta, but its certainly up there. | ||
|
-orb-
United States5770 Posts
1: Tanks are no longer going to be doing friendly damage to each other, vastly increasing their efficiency 2: With so many tanks on top of each other, any units that move into range will get 1-shot with no time to react 3: If you actually place them in an intelligent spot (such as on a cliff, etc) so that banelings can't get to them, you should be able to realize how ridiculously OP this is. 4: If a group of banelings tries to roll into these tanks and the player with the tanks target fires them there is no way in hell they are going to connect unless it is a ridiculous number of banes And yet I see so many newbies actually trying to say this wouldn't help in any way. LOL can't wait for the influx of whining once people start getting wrecked by this | ||
|
Ziken
Ghana1743 Posts
On January 24 2012 16:28 -orb- wrote: I honestly can't understand people that think this is bad just because banelings could do splash to them. 1: Tanks are no longer going to be doing friendly damage to each other, vastly increasing their efficiency 2: With so many tanks on top of each other, any units that move into range will get 1-shot with no time to react 3: If you actually place them in an intelligent spot (such as on a cliff, etc) so that banelings can't get to them, you should be able to realize how ridiculously OP this is. 4: If a group of banelings tries to roll into these tanks and the player with the tanks target fires them there is no way in hell they are going to connect unless it is a ridiculous number of banes And yet I see so many newbies actually trying to say this wouldn't help in any way. LOL can't wait for the influx of whining once people start getting wrecked by this Even as effective as it might be, dont you think it requires too much effective apm to set it up? | ||
|
ToastieNL
Netherlands845 Posts
On January 24 2012 16:35 Ziken wrote: Even as effective as it might be, dont you think it requires too much effective apm to set it up? It doesn't seem THAT hard; and it helps you to secure your half of the map on some maps; which is worth some clicks to me... I mean, hell, even get those tanks a Wall off, like, a round of depots and a round of turrets, nothing is going to be touching them any time soon! Imba in TvZ, don't know about TvP (probably won't work; collosi) and TvT it is just becoming a guessing game, like with the vikings; is htere 1 tank, or is there 30 tanks. Works grteat in combination with bunkers too, as they are salvageable. | ||
|
McDutch
Netherlands184 Posts
| ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On January 24 2012 16:41 McDutch wrote: i don't care if it's strong, OP or weak. The tank isnt meant that way, and it's a glitch, so it got to be fixed asap, before people start to exploit this on Ladder. It might be fun to try to Vs ur friends, but you shouldnt use this on Ladder, because everyone know's this isn't right. I'm soooo glad Blizzard couldn't be assed listening to these complaints during BW. On January 24 2012 13:32 Gyro_SC2 wrote: Does someone think we could use tank stacking for tvp mech ??? Protoss still has Immortals, Blink, Phoenixes and VoidRays. All available before Terran can get enough mech units to be viable. It still works in the mid-high ranks, but what's the point when you have MMM. In BW Protoss only had shuttles with drop and carriers. Arbiters and storms were a soft counter, which only punished when tanks were clumped, or lack of turrets. Protoss needed to be really crafty (bait, snipe, flank, chicken) in order to destroy a tank line, none of this a-move shiz. | ||
|
y0su
Finland7871 Posts
| ||
|
Xapti
Canada2473 Posts
On January 23 2012 16:52 corpuscle wrote: You can! You just need a warp prism for every colossus, and they can't move, but whatever, close enough. I noticed your using an old version of a unit testing map/sandbox. I spend some time updating the map. It has a bit more features, records army size more accurately, and probably most important: has proper string values (as opposed to param/val). I did somehow screw up one or two things while making a change or two though. Never bothered to fix it, since people seem to like using other unit tester maps I don't think there was any demand for using this one. Search for Ultimate Starcrafft sandbox — the double 'f' is important (pretty dumb Blizzard censors the word Starcraft — in fact many of the censored words are pretty ridiculous) On January 23 2012 07:44 corpuscle wrote: Also, for those of you who aren't convinced that this is something that should probably be fixed, look at this. There's 8 tanks in there, and 5 SCVs on auto-repair which can get to the bunkers and the tanks (and I could fit more if I had more medivacs). edit: turns out you can basically fit in infinity SCVs (again limited by medivac count) without it interfering with the number of tanks you can stack, this is hilarious. I wonder if I can fit a maxed army inside a 2x2 area. Cool. Although obviously the more units you want trapped, the more medivacs you need. It makes it impossible to get 200 supply of units in there (without defying melee rules). You could get 25 thors or 50 tanks in there for 150 supply though. | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On January 23 2012 07:44 corpuscle wrote: Also, for those of you who aren't convinced that this is something that should probably be fixed, look at this. There's 8 tanks in there, and 5 SCVs on auto-repair which can get to the bunkers and the tanks (and I could fit more if I had more medivacs). edit: turns out you can basically fit in infinity SCVs (again limited by medivac count) without it interfering with the number of tanks you can stack, this is hilarious. I wonder if I can fit a maxed army inside a 2x2 area. Yeah, we could fix it, or we could have a good e-sport. I find it hilarious that there are people going on about how SC2 will evolve, and find its own bugs and glitches that improve the game (so many of them make BW great to watch), so far they have ALL been patched. I really hope people stop this wishful thinking and denial, and instead support protest for change rather than trying to deny it. | ||
|
Keyboard Warrior
United States1178 Posts
This is an awesome 2v2 strat@ | ||
|
TBO
Germany1350 Posts
On January 24 2012 16:47 sluggaslamoo wrote: I'm soooo glad Blizzard couldn't be assed listening to these complaints during BW. I'm just 99% sure but I think they fixed the flying templar / flying drone bug and what we have here is definitely on the same level just with siege tanks. | ||
|
bLah.
Croatia497 Posts
On January 24 2012 16:28 -orb- wrote: I honestly can't understand people that think this is bad just because banelings could do splash to them. 1: Tanks are no longer going to be doing friendly damage to each other, vastly increasing their efficiency 2: With so many tanks on top of each other, any units that move into range will get 1-shot with no time to react 3: If you actually place them in an intelligent spot (such as on a cliff, etc) so that banelings can't get to them, you should be able to realize how ridiculously OP this is. 4: If a group of banelings tries to roll into these tanks and the player with the tanks target fires them there is no way in hell they are going to connect unless it is a ridiculous number of banes And yet I see so many newbies actually trying to say this wouldn't help in any way. LOL can't wait for the influx of whining once people start getting wrecked by this 1st of all, if you stack tanks you cover too small area. 2nd thing is, you are concentrated on banelings which shouldn't get to tanks anyway. But you suggest placing bunch of tanks on cliffs? are you aware how doomed would they be when couple of mutas come with their splash? +it's just to hard to pull this off, seriously, look at how much shit you need to do to prepare it | ||
|
soapyy.
United States103 Posts
 | ||
|
corpuscle
United States1967 Posts
On January 24 2012 16:35 Ziken wrote: Even as effective as it might be, dont you think it requires too much effective apm to set it up? It's pretty easy to do in a small amount of time. I can do it in less than ten seconds with this method, though I started using four bunkers instead of 8 depots since it's just generally more efficient. A player with better mouse precision could probably do it in half the time, especially with practice. edit: by the way, they're gonna talk about this on tonight's Inside the Game, so we'll get to hear some actual pros talk about it | ||
|
SwizzY
United States1549 Posts
| ||
|
Gladiator6
Sweden7024 Posts
 | ||
|
RouaF
France4120 Posts
On January 24 2012 19:02 TBO wrote: I'm just 99% sure but I think they fixed the flying templar / flying drone bug and what we have here is definitely on the same level just with siege tanks. You can be 100% sure. They did fix it. It was a lot of fun back then . | ||
|
RageCommodore
Germany912 Posts
I mean it's not imbalanced or something. You could potentially do a lot of damage with stacked tanks, but you could also loose the really fast to aoe damage. Let's see if it's even useful^^ | ||
|
4Servy
Netherlands1542 Posts
| ||
| ||
