Anyways when sentries use force field it pushes units of the way, so the units aren't trapped under the force field. But this means if the units have no where to go they are compressed in the same area with other units.
So I used this in order to get 20'ish siege tanks in the same place, then sieged them all on top of each other. To make things easier I put the siege tanks in a corner so I can push them in with a single line of ff's. In order to pull this off I create a line of force fields at the edge of the siege tanks. Then I create another line over the edge of the siege tanks compressing them slightly. I continue this until all the siege tanks are in the same place and there's no where left to push them. Finally I siege them so they stay where they are even when ff's end.
This is the siege tanks sieged up and all in the same spot.
This is the siege tanks after I unsieged them and they spread out.
This is the tanks being compressed with force field.
While I used this on siege tanks, this can be used on any unit to my knowledge, unless its massive of course. Also it shouldn't make a difference whether it's your our an enemy units you are stacking with ff. I just did this on my own units so my sentries wouldn't be attacked when I was ff'ing.
Well, if enemy splash isn't a concern, you can stack the tanks up to make sure they don't splash each other, then surround them with hellions and/or marauders.
As far as usefulness, I just thought it looked cool, its like an uber siege tank. Also in theory you could do this to compress your opponents army and then hit all their units with 1 storm or any splash attack.
On September 04 2010 11:21 sYz-Adrenaline wrote: lol if you can get this off then storm the shit outa of em o.o
Yea its cool you can get that many tanks (stacked) but I think the real usefulness of this trick will come in force fielding units into walls in order to psi-storm them to all hell.
If you stack non-tank units into tanks and siege them, will the non-tanks stay put after the forcefields disappear? Because I can think of nothing more terrifying than a tank filled with Banelings.
On September 04 2010 11:43 Sanguinarius wrote: Interesting. Dont know how useful.
If you don't remember how powerful tank lines were in BW, watch some TvT replays of BW. This basically means you can get an unbreakable ground defense. Awesomesauce.
I'd be interested to see how hit detection works on these stacked tanks. What happens if they get attacked? Does one tank get hit or do all tanks get hit?
bobbeh, you cant push sieged tanks with ff. Sieged tanks react the same way to force fields when sieged as buidlings, which is not at all. You could actually place a ff directly on top of a siege tank to defend it from lings.
Kpyolysis32, units that are stacked with tanks with spread out after force field ends, unless they are are trapped, like between the tanks and a wall.
The only time I can see this being useful is if you need to have a lot of firepower at some critical location, like overlooking your choke on Blistering Sands. Thirty tanks at max range is better than 1 or 2 at max range and the rest at various distances behind them, especially with no overkill, etc etc. If the choke is narrow enough you can be reasonably safe from splash.
I don't see this being practical though, especially since you need two races to pull it off.
Although not practical in this scenario, could it be made into something useful? What about on enemy units? A perfect circle around a large group of zealots or something in order to compress them into one bite sized storm for your handful of high temps? Could lead to a very cost effective exchange assuming you could ever afford the gas to get high temps as well as a fair few sentries.
So, would it be possible for a Protoss player to, say, stack five or six zealots together so that they all hit and move together? If it works like the Muta magic box i'd assume that you could move them without them being unstacked, and then you could stop them as they reached a target for an instant kill.
If possible, this could give Protoss players a huge melee advantage as theywouldn't have to worry about surrounds or anything like that, they could just all attack at the same time.
Ichabod, I checked it out, and yes you can siege tanks on top of each other following a vortex, nice find. On the down side you can't stack pre-sieged tanks on top of each other with a vortex because vortex forces tanks to unsiege.
On January 22 2012 22:40 Uncultured wrote: Why does it need to be fixed? How does clumping up all your tanks actually benefit you?
3:00 in the video He loses no tanks
Then you build a couple of banelings and give a whole new meaning to the world annihilation . You can't move your marines if you want to protect your tanks and if they move, you just throw like 6 banes at them and they all die. It doesn't seem very good or game changing to me. Actually I think it sucks.
Yeah this is messed up. That type of a play doesn't seem that incredibly hard to pull off and it has obvious uses. What at a glance might be mistaken as one tank but could be a dozen should not be allowed in the game.
Even if you spread your units tanks have a function in their AI iirc that their auto-attack targets different targets I believe. Tanks will only expect the necessary amount of shots needed to kill one unit or a group of units. This means that spreading your spread is automatically negated by the AI. You can see this by the tanks swiveling not as one but separately during your last attack with lings. If someone can confirm this though I'm basing this off of something I remember reading so I am not 100% sure this is true the way I am presenting it.
Realistically a zerg would have banes so the terran could still lose the tanks if the zerg realized what was going on and acted against their usual instinct to target marines. As most zergs will have never encountered this they'd likely keep running the banes and lings towards the retreating marines and lose everything.
On January 22 2012 22:40 Uncultured wrote: Why does it need to be fixed? How does clumping up all your tanks actually benefit you?
3:00 in the video He loses no tanks
Then you build a couple of banelings and give a whole new meaning to the world annihilation . You can't move your marines if you want to protect your tanks and if they move, you just throw like 6 banes at them and they all die. It doesn't seem very good or game changing to me. Actually I think it sucks.
That's why you can focus fire your tanks. Remember that tanks will never overkill, so with these amounts of tanks it will be even easier and more effective to kill all the banelings.
Also, the 4 highground on Shakuras next to the watchtower
On January 22 2012 22:40 Uncultured wrote: Why does it need to be fixed? How does clumping up all your tanks actually benefit you?
3:00 in the video He loses no tanks
Then you build a couple of banelings and give a whole new meaning to the world annihilation . You can't move your marines if you want to protect your tanks and if they move, you just throw like 6 banes at them and they all die. It doesn't seem very good or game changing to me. Actually I think it sucks.
Target fire banes is a skill even gold players do.
I can actually see some efficiency for this vs Protoss. It would for instance be great for focus firing units like collosus, since all tanks will fire at it at approximately the same moment. Collosus walks in range, 1 shot BOOM, no more collosus. Hell maybe it could even help against immortals...
Hmm, Blizzard should fix this by leaving those tanks together and make it a new unit. You could use it in TvP and stuff. Haven't come up with a name yet.
I dont think this would be too much of an exploit that it should top blizzard's to do list. I'd wait and see if anyone uses it in game and how they do so before calling it imba. I imagine that muta stacking was figured out similarly for BW.
EDIT: Just saw the post above me. Now I'd REALLY like to see a replay lol, especially something higher level.
Maybe it's not "that" good in TvZ because of banelings (except maybe to counter infested terrans friendly fire bombs), but just imagine a healthy army composition (marauders with marines) with just enough tanks to 1-shot colossi in TvP. It would never be cost effective for the protoss player to break a contain or attack a terran player. The protoss player would lose almost 2 colossi without even having the time to react, immortals would get like 2-shotted, and HTs would just never get in range.
It's way too unforgiving to move on the map against such a composition, especially when you know siege tanks have more range than vision. Nowadays, you make 1 mistake by moving your army around and you get 2/3 tank shots. But with that stack, you make one mistake and you insta lose a clump of units or an expensive unit such as a colossus/immortal/hts. I'm not sure how effective it would be in TvZ, but I don't know if banelings are even that good against tanks all firing at the same time.
And anyways, even if it becomes kind of balanced, it's gonna be removed in the same fashion as the viking flower because units are not supposed to stack like that when you are not actively moving them around. I wouldn't mind if it required crazy micro like muta stacking, but just dropping 10 tanks in a tiny area around your third or fourth expansion and siegeing them up doesn't require that much APM...
im going to try this on ladder shortly for a few games.. should be interesting for taking middle of maps, but early game I can't see this being all that great.. and in the video 16 tanks.. most I usually get is like 10 and thats late game vs a full army not 100 lings.
On January 22 2012 23:05 NuKedUFirst wrote: im going to try this on ladder shortly for a few games.. should be interesting for taking middle of maps, but early game I can't see this being all that great.. and in the video 16 tanks.. most I usually get is like 10 and thats late game vs a full army not 100 lings.
Um, its not really useful, 10 blings can clear 16 tanks? Looks like it will help noobs who don't control their banelings and let them run their banes into tanks instead...
On January 22 2012 23:10 poorcloud wrote: Um, its not really useful, 10 blings can clear 16 tanks? Looks like it will help noobs who don't control their banelings and let them run their banes into tanks instead...
On January 22 2012 22:40 Uncultured wrote: Why does it need to be fixed? How does clumping up all your tanks actually benefit you?
3:00 in the video He loses no tanks
Then you build a couple of banelings and give a whole new meaning to the world annihilation . You can't move your marines if you want to protect your tanks and if they move, you just throw like 6 banes at them and they all die. It doesn't seem very good or game changing to me. Actually I think it sucks.
That's why you can focus fire your tanks. Remember that tanks will never overkill, so with these amounts of tanks it will be even easier and more effective to kill all the banelings.
Also, the 4 highground on Shakuras next to the watchtower
I can not think of a single way this could benefit u. This honestly hurts u more then anything. any AoE unit kills all the tanks in 2-3 shots and a single ling can kill it all. If u do this in tvz then the zerg can just run his banelings over there and take out every single one of ur tanks with 6-10 banelings.
On January 22 2012 23:01 PatouPower wrote: Maybe it's not "that" good in TvZ because of banelings (except maybe to counter infested terrans friendly fire bombs), but just imagine a healthy army composition (marauders with marines) with just enough tanks to 1-shot colossi in TvP. It would never be cost effective for the protoss player to break a contain or attack a terran player. The protoss player would lose almost 2 colossi without even having the time to react, immortals would get like 2-shotted, and HTs would just never get in range.
Being an exploit doesn't mean it should automatically be removed. Remember, in BW muta stacking, hold lukers, patrol move vultures, harvester mineral phasing, and moving larva to block paths could all be considered 'exploits' but are lauded mechanics of BW which make it amazing(not all equally or course). So this technique should be evaluated based on what it brings to the game rather then the yes/no question of exploiting the game engine.
That being said, I think this exploit should go because it's bad for game play. Being able to fit unlimited siege tanks in any space you want is bad for the viewing experience and probably completely breaks the game if you can get 3 or 4 tanks stacked behind a mineral line.
I mean I don't really mind if blizzard removes this, since it's kinda stupid, but I feel people are really overestimating how good this can be.
I mean tanks are better spread out against zerg, since after zerg gets into tank range, they are commited to the engagement. Against TvP, I kind of feel it's unrealistic to think this will do well against lategame toss, since chargelots will take the first volley and then colossi swipes will be painful. Archons which are already really good against tanks would define the new meaning of pain.
On January 22 2012 23:13 Jamileon wrote: I can not think of a single way this could benefit u. This honestly hurts u more then anything. any AoE unit kills all the tanks in 2-3 shots and a single ling can kill it all. If u do this in tvz then the zerg can just run his banelings over there and take out every single one of ur tanks with 6-10 banelings.
Not to mention how easy it would be to flank that army, since you have all those tanks occupying one place. Not only that those marines died so fast to zerglings and tank AoE so I don't think it will affect mutas very much.
It's pretty imba if you use it for tank marine cliff play, for example the main in shakuras. You only need half the amt. of marines to create a pocket along the edge of the cliff. Just having an extra 2 or 3 tanks that can have maximum range into the main will make it so much abusive.
basically since boxer played on the first version of taldarim in the gsl, we know that you can stack any units on top of each other as terran o.o; . Though its pretty unimportant for tanks, other units are a bit more dangerous lol, for example marines. The easiest unit to stack though is the scv, remember some time ago where terrans loved to pull all their workers again ? Its super easy to make those workers look like a single worker. (looks funny if you surround it with lings and suddenly the surrounding lings die instantly and the scv splits into 30)
As for tanks the more you stack the less damage they will do. Its like tower defense, the more the units have to walk the better it is. The only thing is that people aren't aware of this most of the time (that you can drop units on top of each other if there is no space to spread out) and don't know how to react, because of being suprised. Basically this is a muta or infestor party.
Anyway i suppose we can see an polished ai with HotS, but if they let it in or not i don't know. It depends if they find it interesting. For example stacking shredders, its only one you can run past it easily ! and then splatter. (hold posi lurker feeling)
As for the viking flower, it got removed because people hid banshees inside the vikings and became pretty invulnerable due to that. What could you hide in tanks not to much? But you could hide workers inside a thor, 100 workers repairing a thor yay.
On January 23 2012 00:43 FeyFey wrote: basically since boxer played on the first version of taldarim in the gsl, we know that you can stack any units on top of each other as terran o.o; . Though its pretty unimportant for tanks, other units are a bit more dangerous lol, for example marines. The easiest unit to stack though is the scv, remember some time ago where terrans loved to pull all their workers again ? Its super easy to make those workers look like a single worker. (looks funny if you surround it with lings and suddenly the surrounding lings die instantly and the scv splits into 30)
As for tanks the more you stack the less damage they will do. Its like tower defense, the more the units have to walk the better it is. The only thing is that people aren't aware of this most of the time (that you can drop units on top of each other if there is no space to spread out) and don't know how to react, because of being suprised. Basically this is a muta or infestor party.
Anyway i suppose we can see an polished ai with HotS, but if they let it in or not i don't know. It depends if they find it interesting. For example stacking shredders, its only one you can run past it easily ! and then splatter. (hold posi lurker feeling)
As for the viking flower, it got removed because people hid banshees inside the vikings and became pretty invulnerable due to that. What could you hide in tanks not to much? But you could hide workers inside a thor, 100 workers repairing a thor yay.
2 banes say hi to the 100 repairing SCVs
Id like to see that guy post a replay of this tank stacking strategy being used
The biggest problem is like the viking flower you can't see how many tanks are in there, and for that reason I think Blizzard will patch this. Just imagine your surprise when you try and flank a 'single tank' with all your marines only to find there were 20 stacked on top of eachother.
Yea dropping behind mineral lines can be a bitch with some marines too. Also I think the fact if someone saw that with obs or scan or overlord they might think its just one tank when in fact its like 7-9 tanks and they might move out into it and lose a shit ton of units before they realize what is going on.
Just tried it on ladder except with supply depots, seems any building works aswell as units, I was surprised how many kills each tank had, It felt like I held more off then I should have but he went mass broodlord corrupt and rolled me late game seems like an okay strat for holding a place on the map ..I wouldnt say its "imba"
On January 23 2012 01:00 NuKedUFirst wrote: Just tried it on ladder except with supply depots, seems any building works aswell as units, I was surprised how many kills each tank had, It felt like I held more off then I should have but he went mass broodlord corrupt and rolled me late game seems like an okay strat for holding a place on the map ..I wouldnt say its "imba"
On January 23 2012 01:00 NuKedUFirst wrote: Just tried it on ladder except with supply depots, seems any building works aswell as units, I was surprised how many kills each tank had, It felt like I held more off then I should have but he went mass broodlord corrupt and rolled me late game seems like an okay strat for holding a place on the map ..I wouldnt say its "imba"
It wasn't too great of game, I was figuring out the tank stack bug and whatnot. Don't take the game too seriously.. He went broodlords and that was that, if he went Ling/Muta I think he would have been screwed.
On January 23 2012 00:59 XenoX101 wrote: The biggest problem is like the viking flower you can't see how many tanks are in there, and for that reason I think Blizzard will patch this. Just imagine your surprise when you try and flank a 'single tank' with all your marines only to find there were 20 stacked on top of eachother.
yeah, it's like WOW why did he bring 15 medivacs to drop one tank?? that's so WEIRD
What a pointless thing to do.... in that video, the terran lost all his marines to zerglings. If the terran doesn't stack his tanks at all, he maybe loses 2-3 tanks but keeps all his 30 marines alive. I really don't see how this could ever work in your favor. There is a reason why you spread out tanks in TvZ and tanks vs protoss are just awful, except with certain all-ins.
Imo extremely pointless.
edit: Seriously people thinking that this benefits you are just clueless. 30 marines and 16 tanks with 5 medivacs vs. 100 zerglings, is not even an even fight to begin with and if you DONT stack your tanks you win this fight and lose nothing at all or a few marines/tanks, in the video the terran lost all his marines, so how exactly does this benefit the terran? Have you people never played TvZ??
Why don't you let 100 lings fight 16 collossi and then look how the battle ends? Sometimes people really don't use their brains. "hey look terran had 4x more army value and lost no tanks - obviously imba". He wouldn't lose anything in the first place, in fact he would lose less if he didnt stack his tanks.
On January 23 2012 00:43 FeyFey wrote: basically since boxer played on the first version of taldarim in the gsl, we know that you can stack any units on top of each other as terran o.o; . Though its pretty unimportant for tanks, other units are a bit more dangerous lol, for example marines. The easiest unit to stack though is the scv, remember some time ago where terrans loved to pull all their workers again ? Its super easy to make those workers look like a single worker. (looks funny if you surround it with lings and suddenly the surrounding lings die instantly and the scv splits into 30)
As for tanks the more you stack the less damage they will do. Its like tower defense, the more the units have to walk the better it is. The only thing is that people aren't aware of this most of the time (that you can drop units on top of each other if there is no space to spread out) and don't know how to react, because of being suprised. Basically this is a muta or infestor party.
Anyway i suppose we can see an polished ai with HotS, but if they let it in or not i don't know. It depends if they find it interesting. For example stacking shredders, its only one you can run past it easily ! and then splatter. (hold posi lurker feeling)
As for the viking flower, it got removed because people hid banshees inside the vikings and became pretty invulnerable due to that. What could you hide in tanks not to much? But you could hide workers inside a thor, 100 workers repairing a thor yay.
Oh yeah good point lol.
Uh, about the tower defense, no. The tanks don't overkill so that part doesn't make sense.
The problem with the viking flower is that it has superior positioning and attack timing - when you come in firing range of the viking flower or now tank flower/stack is that any unit that enters into range is hit simultaneously by all of the units. it's really quite incredible defenders advantage, maybe overpowered. Having that many siege tanks stacked means nothing can come in range without being obliterated. I think it'll be patched. It's a little gimmicky but still potentially useful, especially if in super late game you set up little tank stacks that cover an entire choke.
especially if in super late game you set up little tank stacks that cover an entire choke
.... and how would you do this without being in a 2v2 with a protoss constantly ff'ing your tanks....force fields arent permenant and sentry energy isn't unlimited. This will not be patched or ever looked at again.
Why shouldn't this be given a chance first? If it leads to broken gameplay they can always fix it then.
I don't see how it's useful anyway. How is this different than just having a clump of tanks? Tanks have such high range that having them in a super-tiny ball is hardly worth the effort. The only use I can see is hiding tanks behind mineral lines or something.
On September 04 2010 11:03 Lightswarm wrote: lolol, stacked tanks. almost as imba as stacked mutas
Except for the part where you drop absolutely any unit on it and the tanks insta blow themselves to peices in one shot.
except for the part siege tanks cant shoot in their immediate vicinity... thats the point of stacking them up, they wont shoot themselves
the reason dropping on top of tanks works is because tanks that are sieged away from the tank being dropped on will shoot whats on top of the original tank
Could you make a ring with sieged up siege tanks and drop tanks in the middle, siege the tanks in the middle, and then unsiege the ring of tanks, creating a nice stack of tanks without needing the forcefields.
On January 23 2012 03:22 cactusjack914 wrote: .... and how would you do this without being in a 2v2 with a protoss constantly ff'ing your tanks....force fields arent permenant and sentry energy isn't unlimited. This will not be patched or ever looked at again.
Apparently you can do it with depots (and presumably other buildings), but I haven't checked (gonna go try it now)
Another huge thing i found is you can do this anywhere on the map if you hold position marines in a tank-sized circle and drop the tanks in there then siege up. After sieged, you can move marines. This works with any unit but after the attack animation they get unstuck. Tanks are different because they're stationary.
why not make a little circle of 3 sieged up tanks drop within! It'll help create an even better illusion as single siege tank seems a little suspicious.
Confirmed that it works with buildings. The trick is that all the tanks need to get dropped at the same time, so you need one medivac per tank you want to stack, and you can't add more tanks to your stack after there's already some there. If you try to drop additional tanks on pre-stacked ones, they'll get pushed to the outside of your wall.
edit: in the screenshot I linked he appears to have more than one tank per medivac, I think that works because he's on that little island thing on Shakuras and the AI doesn't want to push them off of the ledge... it doesn't work on normal ground when there's enough space (I did it in my main)
On January 23 2012 03:22 cactusjack914 wrote: .... and how would you do this without being in a 2v2 with a protoss constantly ff'ing your tanks....force fields arent permenant and sentry energy isn't unlimited. This will not be patched or ever looked at again.
Apparently you can do it with depots (and presumably other buildings), but I haven't checked (gonna go try it now)
Or marines, at least if you can trust the videos in this thread, and so far noone has suggested you can't. I have not tried it myself, though.
And i think the main problem with this is that you have absolutely no way to see how many tanks are in that stack, and thus your reaction becomes just a guess. Maybe its 2 tanks, maybe 20. Even if the stacked tanks are a little bit less effective then nonstacked, this alone makes it problematic, since instead of having a skill-based reaction where you maybe scout out how many tanks are spread out, and react accordingly, you have a luck-based reaction where you guess how many tanks are in that blob, and react according to that guess.
On January 23 2012 01:00 NuKedUFirst wrote: Just tried it on ladder except with supply depots, seems any building works aswell as units, I was surprised how many kills each tank had, It felt like I held more off then I should have but he went mass broodlord corrupt and rolled me late game seems like an okay strat for holding a place on the map ..I wouldnt say its "imba"
It wasn't too great of game, I was figuring out the tank stack bug and whatnot. Don't take the game too seriously.. He went broodlords and that was that, if he went Ling/Muta I think he would have been screwed.
Oh holy crap the tanks wrecked the roaches in that first battle
On January 23 2012 03:22 cactusjack914 wrote: .... and how would you do this without being in a 2v2 with a protoss constantly ff'ing your tanks....force fields arent permenant and sentry energy isn't unlimited. This will not be patched or ever looked at again.
Apparently you can do it with depots (and presumably other buildings), but I haven't checked (gonna go try it now)
Or marines, at least if you can trust the videos in this thread, and so far noone has suggested you can't. I have not tried it myself, though.
And i think the main problem with this is that you have absolutely no way to see how many tanks are in that stack, and thus your reaction becomes just a guess. Maybe its 2 tanks, maybe 20. Even if the stacked tanks are a little bit less effective then nonstacked, this alone makes it problematic, since instead of having a skill-based reaction where you maybe scout out how many tanks are spread out, and react accordingly, you have a luck-based reaction where you guess how many tanks are in that blob, and react according to that guess.
Or marines, at least if you can trust the videos in this thread, and so far noone has suggested you can't. I have not tried it myself, though.
And i think the main problem with this is that you have absolutely no way to see how many tanks are in that stack, and thus your reaction becomes just a guess. Maybe its 2 tanks, maybe 20. Even if the stacked tanks are a little bit less effective then nonstacked, this alone makes it problematic, since instead of having a skill-based reaction where you maybe scout out how many tanks are spread out, and react accordingly, you have a luck-based reaction where you guess how many tanks are in that blob, and react according to that guess.
The imbalances are pretty obvious, yeah. Same issues as viking flower.
wrt viking flower: what if blizz makes it so you can box over enemy units and have all of them selected so you can count them? it wouldn't work if you even boxed over 1 allied unit ofc.
On January 23 2012 04:32 Grumbels wrote: wrt viking flower: what if blizz makes it so you can box over enemy units and have all of them selected so you can count them? it wouldn't work if you even boxed over 1 allied unit ofc.
It's too easy to get information about worker counts and precise army sizes by doing that, though. It might not necessarily break the game, but I doubt Blizzard wants to let us scout that easily.
edit: after more experimenting, it's really easy to set up a stack quickly if you pull some SCVs and have 800 minerals lying around. Build 8 depots in a ring, leaving a 2x2 space (enough for one depot) in the middle, stack the medivacs and drop the tanks in the middle, then cancel your depots. You can do it with 4 but it's a little less consistent, whereas I've never had it fail to stack at least half my tanks by building 8. Obviously it's less efficient than the marine or 4-depot trick, but in a late-game situation where you're more limited by APM and time than actual resources, it works really well since it only takes a couple seconds.
Frankly, I wasn't too worried about this bug until I started messing around with it, since it seemed like something you can only pull off if you have lots of time to set it up, but with this trick, I can easily see myself using this in a real game.
using a cliff, minerals or other map objects plus a couple of marines should suffice to stack tanks this way. I think you can stack any amount of tanks with only a single medvac, a couple of marines and a cliff.
I can't try it because I don't have SC2 in this machine, but someone should.
On January 23 2012 05:30 Jotoco wrote: using a cliff, minerals or other map objects plus a couple of marines should suffice to stack tanks this way. I think you can stack any amount of tanks with only a single medvac, a couple of marines and a cliff.
I can't try it because I don't have SC2 in this machine, but someone should.
You have to drop all the tanks at the same time (or close to it), so you need more than one medivac. You can't, for example, start a stack and then drop more tanks onto the existing one, at least as far as I can tell. Basically, you need a medivac for every two tanks in the stack, and often more because sometimes they get pushed out anyway.
The marine method works but is kind of finicky, I can't see anyone using it in an actual game because it takes a long time to set up and is unreliable. There may be a trick to getting it to work every time, but I can't seem to find it, and no matter what to do, you have to set the marines up in a weird way that takes a while.
Terrain kind of works, but it seems like using buildings is the most efficient way, especially given the fact that you can stack between buildings that are under construction and then cancel them, or set up little stacking areas in spots where it would be useful for base defense.
I was just going to post that. This is actually quite ridiculous. I wouldn't know where the hell the shots were coming from. Good to know! Thanks Husky.
Shocking. Video is a bad example. If you've let your opponent get up to 16 tanks without making some sort of tech yourself, you've already lost.
I'm more worried about siege lines in TvT than its potential abuse in TvZ, since it's generally accepted that spreading your tanks is better in TvZ anyway. I don't know how you'd break a siege line if there's no spots you can sneak into where only one or two tanks can hit you, since you'll just try to get your own tanks in and watch them get one-shot.
Shocking. Video is a bad example. If you've let your opponent get up to 16 tanks without making some sort of tech yourself, you've already lost.
I'm more worried about siege lines in TvT than its potential abuse in TvZ, since it's generally accepted that spreading your tanks is better in TvZ anyway. I don't know how you'd break a siege line if there's no spots you can sneak into where only one or two tanks can hit you, since you'll just try to get your own tanks in and watch them get one-shot.
Solution: Be the first to the watch tower, or have air dominance. Same way it's always been in tvt.
Everybody needs to shut up about this not being an exploit.
Ground units aren't supposed to clump that way.
The problem is, that you don't know whether youre facing 16 tanks or 1 tank untill you attack. So Zerg wont send 20 banes and 30 lings to clear it; as vs 1 tank it costs about 10 banelings to attacks, vs 16 tanks it kills 16 tanks for a few banes. That is the problem
Solution: Be the first to the watch tower, or have air dominance. Same way it's always been in tvt.
I didn't say it was impossible to break a stacked sieged line. You can break a non-stacked line with a slightly superior unit count and scans (or air dominance/towers, but remember, they can scan so you can never completely deny vision) but it takes a lot more when the tanks are stacked. It's hard to call it "imbalanced" because this really only matters in a mirror matchup, but you can argue that it's abusive and goes against how the game is supposed to work.
You can also do things like this which covers a larger surface area with higher tank cover than you possibly could without stacking.
Something doesn't have to be completely game-breaking and imbalanced to hurt gameplay. You'd have to be pretty stupid to think this is something that would ruin the game, but it's undoubtedly exploitable.
Edit: To explain the quadra-post. I have an iPhone 3GS. (woohoo). It runs slow and gets buggy. This messes with the touch interface, video playback, site load timing, and font size at random. So I:
Couldn't hit edit Couldn't see right Couldn't get updated info Etc.
So I decided to make fun of my first mistake post, then saw something else that piqued my curiosity. Within seconds I had fail-save-fail. Decided to put a save again rather than let a storm roll over. I got a reasoned reply and a less polite reasoned reply. So you can now see my fail on the next page if you want.
On January 23 2012 07:13 TheRabidDeer wrote: Jrocker: He doesnt read the thread (after criticizing somebody for not reading it, at that) and he quadruple posts. Epic.
I know man I wish I had a portable desktop. My apologies dammit! The reason for the posts was to clean up after that mess of stupidity when this touchscreen doesnt want to hit edit oreven let me freaking spell right. I get it now will clean up on a desktop when I can.
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.
Haha we really need to write down why something was fixed, seeing the viking flower argument so often :p. Especially zergs should be aware that not knowing the numbers is something that never really got removed (mutas ;o ) or that you can't targetfire weak units (mutas still). So if we go after this argument stacking tanks is fine. Especially since some think this is optimizing the damage (mutas again). And if you argue about the range, broods can stack too and even move. It is in the game and you can do it, either everyone agrees on not to do it or blizzard will patch it. Otherwise you will have to live with it. Discussing of course is fine, but discussion need valid arguments, not just "damn this is op".
I mean i could complain about broodlords for example, you can spread your tumor attack it with your broodlords while its still "building" and cancel the tumor, the tumor will be canceled but the broodies shoot anyway resulting in 1 broodling per broodlord being spawned, without any cost except of 6 clicks. Now you can send those broodies around with a click and produce more that way. Sure they die fast and a few get killed quiet easily, but you can send 3 waves at once attacking. While the broodlords basically sit at a save distance (you could for example creep tumor down a click). I actually find it quiet funny that a zerg can use their tumors that way. If the toss starts attacking just shoot at your creep tumor and you will produce broodlings pre battle. Bit like toss charging voids on their own Buildings.
Such things might sometimes be frustrating but they add to the game, only if they are broken they should be fixed, but that should be tested under real conditions not on the theory board.
Anyway while this is not gamebreaking or anything for me personally, it looks really stupid ^^; , which would currently be the only reason for me to remove it. Stacked colossus are most fun though.
On January 23 2012 07:49 FeyFey wrote: Haha we really need to write down why something was fixed, seeing the viking flower argument so often :p. Especially zergs should be aware that not knowing the numbers is something that never really got removed (mutas ;o ) or that you can't targetfire weak units (mutas still). So if we go after this argument stacking tanks is fine. Especially since some think this is optimizing the damage (mutas again). And if you argue about the range, broods can stack too and even move. It is in the game and you can do it, either everyone agrees on not to do it or blizzard will patch it. Otherwise you will have to live with it. Discussing of course is fine, but discussion need valid arguments, not just "damn this is op".
I mean i could complain about broodlords for example, you can spread your tumor attack it with your broodlords while its still "building" and cancel the tumor, the tumor will be canceled but the broodies shoot anyway resulting in 1 broodling per broodlord being spawned, without any cost except of 6 clicks. Now you can send those broodies around with a click and produce more that way. Sure they die fast and a few get killed quiet easily, but you can send 3 waves at once attacking. While the broodlords basically sit at a save distance (you could for example creep tumor down a click). I actually find it quiet funny that a zerg can use their tumors that way. If the toss starts attacking just shoot at your creep tumor and you will produce broodlings pre battle. Bit like toss charging voids on their own Buildings.
Such things might sometimes be frustrating but they add to the game, only if they are broken they should be fixed, but that should be tested under real conditions not on the theory board.
Anyway while this is not gamebreaking or anything for me personally, it looks really stupid ^^; , which would currently be the only reason for me to remove it. Stacked colossus are most fun though.
From the 1.3 patchnotes:
"Players can no longer hide units by setting them in a close proximity patrol (ex: Viking flower). "
So it is the official reason it was removed. And as far as i know, at the moment, to stack air units you need to be constantly clicking, which is quite different from something you set up once like the viking flower, because realistically, you can't focus on stacking your airunits all the time, so they will spread out at least a bit, and you can easily get at least an approximate count.
On January 23 2012 07:13 TheRabidDeer wrote: Jrocker: He doesnt read the thread (after criticizing somebody for not reading it, at that) and he quadruple posts. Epic.
I know man I wish I had a portable desktop. My apologies dammit! The reason for the posts was to clean up after that mess of stupidity when this touchscreen doesnt want to hit edit oreven let me freaking spell right. I get it now will clean up on a desktop when I can.
It has some small advantages, but has a huge vulnerability to splash damage such as seeker missile, banelings, colossus, and even ultralisks. Also, one of the biggest uses of siege tanks in general was to have them spaced out a bit across fair distances to cover lots of area.
The biggest advantage is probably hiding them under buildings, as was mentioned, but unlike SC1, that probably doesn't even work well at all, due to the 3D perspective resulting in things only being blocked when the camera is right at the perfect angle.
On January 23 2012 09:37 Xapti wrote: I don't know if this should be disallowed/fixed.
It has some small advantages, but has a huge vulnerability to splash damage such as seeker missile, banelings, colossus, and even ultralisks. Also, one of the biggest uses of siege tanks in general was to have them spaced out a bit across fair distances to cover lots of area.
The biggest advantage is probably hiding them under buildings, as was mentioned, but unlike SC1, that probably doesn't even work well at all, due to the 3D perspective resulting in things only being blocked when the camera is right at the perfect angle.
The main issue that I have with it is that there are certain spots on maps where having one siege tank covers a ton of really important ground, like this. It's definitely overkill to put a TON tanks in that spot, but I'm definitely gonna start putting 2-3 tanks there in my TvZ because it's such an efficient position to be covering. Being able to triple-cover both the entire ramp to the natural AND one of the only attack paths into the third with only 3 tanks is a little silly.
On January 23 2012 09:37 Xapti wrote: I don't know if this should be disallowed/fixed.
It has some small advantages, but has a huge vulnerability to splash damage such as seeker missile, banelings, colossus, and even ultralisks. Also, one of the biggest uses of siege tanks in general was to have them spaced out a bit across fair distances to cover lots of area.
The biggest advantage is probably hiding them under buildings, as was mentioned, but unlike SC1, that probably doesn't even work well at all, due to the 3D perspective resulting in things only being blocked when the camera is right at the perfect angle.
Blizzard aims for professionalism. By keeping this bug in the game, they are not being professional. It makes them look bad, honestly. So thats a huge reason why they would remove it.
Seriously this is broken and abusive. Whether it is useful if a zerg acts one way or responds another way is beyond the point. The fact that units can effectively be stacked and you cannot get an accurate grasp on how many tanks are there means this will be patched out.
On January 23 2012 17:50 Krejven wrote: By changing this you would have to change how forcefield clump up units aswell, which I think most terran and zerg players would like.
On January 24 2012 10:54 TehTemplar wrote: The nat on shakuras is seigable? O_O
I don't know. My guess is that dragon used the tank exploit and the tank travelled through the airspace on shakuras, as showed in the youtube post ,2-3 posts above us. You can see on the bottom left of the minimap that dragon had buldings placed for tank stacking o.o
This thread gave me a lot of good laughs. I love funny bugs like these. This is also what makes Skyrim so great ^_^
On a serious note. I really hope this gets fixed soon, and that it's not allowed to be used in tournament play. I'd hate for this to pop up on the ladder and Blizzard taking a long time to fix it. Or maybe it turns out that it really has no use at all, and it's just another fun bug for the history books.
On January 23 2012 17:50 Krejven wrote: By changing this you would have to change how forcefield clump up units aswell, which I think most terran and zerg players would like.
Not really, just dont let siege mode be used when that specific pathing event happens.
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
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
I imagine people being more angry and leaving the game because they don't know what the hell is going instead of the effectiveness of that tank stacking.
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.
You can be 100% sure. They did fix it. It was a lot of fun back then .
Please don't fix this blizzard. It's fricken awesome. 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^^
why would you put 30 tanks on each other in the first place? I guess you can do some exploits like in the vids but apart from that its not going to do shit because you wont be able to attack at all and your tanks control like a million times less map space then when you would spread them a bit.
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.
well i guess the stacking is not the problem about the tank stacking, but that you can press the tank in airspace and move it around surely is a problem lol, so if stacking makes sense or not kinda falls behind this, unless blizzard can fix the aispace problem once again, without fixing the stacking (which might not work).
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
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.
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.
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....
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 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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 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 08:19 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.
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 08:11 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.
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 08:19 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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^^
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 08:37 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.
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 08:37 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.
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 08:37 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 08:37 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 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 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.
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.
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.
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 ^__^
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. ;-)
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 09:18 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.
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.
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.
Actually Dustin Browder have said that there is no smart firing technically. There is just a 0.5 second delay with how tanks shoot so they don't all waste shots on a single unit. Can't find the interview right now but I remember reading it on a interview.
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.
people who use this exploit are probably not going to be in the lower levels. most lower level players cant even micro. however, if you show it used to me in lower levels then i will stick my foot in my mouth.
people who use this exploit are probably not going to be in the lower levels. most lower level players cant even micro. however, if you show it used to me in lower levels then i will stick my foot in my mouth.
So if I taught my friend in silver how to set up stacked tanks, would you agree it's stupid? It's not something that's difficult to execute, you just build buildings, spam right click so your medivacs stack, and then use a drop command.
edit: and if you don't think that people in lower leagues will figure out how to do this, you're wrong. plenty of people in low leagues read reddit, TL, and the bnet forums (hell I'm pretty sure that ONLY people below plat read the bnet forums).
people who use this exploit are probably not going to be in the lower levels. most lower level players cant even micro. however, if you show it used to me in lower levels then i will stick my foot in my mouth.
So if I taught my friend in silver how to set up stacked tanks, would you agree it's stupid? It's not something that's difficult to execute, you just build buildings, spam right click so your medivacs stack, and then use a drop command.
edit: and if you don't think that people in lower leagues will figure out how to do this, you're wrong. plenty of people in low leagues read reddit, TL, and the bnet forums (hell I'm pretty sure that ONLY people below plat read the bnet forums).
yeah, im not too worried about this exploit because i doubt it will be seen in real competition, including ladder. if blizzard fixes it, so be it. if they dont, meh, whatever...
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.
Meh. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
I really don't want to have to wait until it starts being a problem for Blizzard to patch it, though. It's not supposed to be in the game, it doesn't make the game better, and it's their job to fix it when something's broken like that, even if it's not blatantly exploitable.
Also, the fact that it's essentially the same bug that allows you to push tanks off of cliffs should be reason enough that they just fix the whole thing. They are gonna have to address the "flying tank" bug, or else you're gonna have to start getting used to having people rush to tanks to siege your main and have no way to deal with it.
Meh. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
On January 25 2012 09:54 corpuscle wrote: I really don't want to have to wait until it starts being a problem for Blizzard to patch it, though. It's not supposed to be in the game, it doesn't make the game better, and it's their job to fix it when something's broken like that, even if it's not blatantly exploitable.
Also, the fact that it's essentially the same bug that allows you to push tanks off of cliffs should be reason enough that they just fix the whole thing. They are gonna have to address the "flying tank" bug, or else you're gonna have to start getting used to having people rush to tanks to siege your main and have no way to deal with it.
well, lets try this. has this ever impacted any game you have played?
I haven't played since the bug got revealed (besides doing testing to see how to do it), but there's a VOD of Dragon using the flying tank bug to win. I figure they should fix this since it'll get rid of both issues in one fell swoop.
Also, whether it's happened to me is completely irrelevant. We don't have to wait for people to lose to it to recognize that it's not supposed to be in the game, and should be fixed. Again, I don't think it's a viable strategy, and I can't imagine losing a game to it, but I don't see how that really affects whether it should be removed or not. Something that has even a minor potential for abuse (like the fact that if you walk into a stack of tanks as opposed to a regular tank line, you'll lose more units) and is a bug/exploit should be removed.
Honestly, though, I'm done with this, you guys should just watch what Machine and iNcontroL said about this. It's a really simple argument, and I feel like I'm just banging my head against a wall here.
On January 25 2012 09:54 corpuscle wrote: I really don't want to have to wait until it starts being a problem for Blizzard to patch it, though. It's not supposed to be in the game, it doesn't make the game better, and it's their job to fix it when something's broken like that, even if it's not blatantly exploitable.
Also, the fact that it's essentially the same bug that allows you to push tanks off of cliffs should be reason enough that they just fix the whole thing. They are gonna have to address the "flying tank" bug, or else you're gonna have to start getting used to having people rush to tanks to siege your main and have no way to deal with it.
Meh. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
good logic, dude. you should go into game design.
You're latter rational is good. If fixing flying tanks, which is clearly a problem, requires fixing this then so be it. However, you have no proof of this at this point, so it's moot.
In the absence of proof of that point, however, all your other points fall apart. You've said it isn't causing any problems, and that there are ways to work around it. Because of this, it's clearly not breaking the game at this point, so there's no urgent need to remove it. All your points about it distorting the balance of low level play are irrelevent when this entire time you've emphasized how hard this is to do. If it's too difficult for a pro to pull off in a real match, why should we expect it to effect the balance of low level play? Moreover, why should we even care if it does?
Furthermore, you're really not clear what a "problem" is. That is, you say you want fixed to prevent future problems, but you never define what sort of situation that would be. Personally, if a pro found an interesting way to gain an advantage through stacking a few tanks on top of each other in a good location, i wouldn't see it as a problem, but rather an interesting tactic. At the point where you've stated so many counters to this tactic (going around them, forcing them to un-siege, etc) it seems difficult to imagine a situation where this would be unbeatable. At best, there will be situations where there are advantages and disadvantages to stacking tanks. This adds more decisions and greater mechanical demands to the game, which is a good thing.
Which brings us back to your point about how "it's not supposed to be in the game." Again, i would reference you to all sorts of awesome things in other games that were unintended consequences of the game's design. By itself, something not being intended isn't enough of a reason to remove it, it should be causing problems. At the point where
1) Tank Stacking is hard enough to do that it is unlikely to seriously disrupt low level play.
2) There exist obvious counters to it, which make it at best situationally useful.
3) There is at least the possibility that at some point it could lead to interesting situations.
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.
Yes but if my lings are attacking your SCVs your SCVs will take splash damage if tanks fire at them. If your tanks dont fire at them then the lings kill your SCVs anyway. How does smart firing fix that?
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.
Because if you invest multiple tanks in defending a single position without the possibility of moving those tanks then it means you are forced to defend without them if I attack elsewhere. If you put tanks in that position normally (not stacked) you're able to easily unsiege and move your tanks into a position where you can defend the drops.
You're in an ENTIRELY defensive position and can't be offensive with your tanks. I am free to expand and can prevent your 4th indefinitely until you move enough of your tanks out of the stack.
well, lets try this. has this ever impacted any game you have played?
I haven't played since the bug got revealed (besides doing testing to see how to do it), but there's a VOD of Dragon using the flying tank bug to win. I figure they should fix this since it'll get rid of both issues in one fell swoop.
Also, whether it's happened to me is completely irrelevant. We don't have to wait for people to lose to it to recognize that it's not supposed to be in the game, and should be fixed. Again, I don't think it's a viable strategy, and I can't imagine losing a game to it, but I don't see how that really affects whether it should be removed or not. Something that has even a minor potential for abuse (like the fact that if you walk into a stack of tanks as opposed to a regular tank line, you'll lose more units) and is a bug/exploit should be removed.
Honestly, though, I'm done with this, you guys should just watch what Machine and iNcontroL said about this. It's a really simple argument, and I feel like I'm just banging my head against a wall here.
my point is that i dont see it as a problem that needs immediate attention. i have never seen it in my play, or in streamed games. if blizzard wants to fix it, go ahead, but if they dont (or are waiting for a larger patch), i have no problem with that.
whats the flying tank bug? i searched, but found nothing.
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.
Lol because flying siege tanks and stacking siege tanks are the same thing. -_-
if you can't see that those two exploits are a result of the same piece of faulty code, I don't know what to tell you. if they fixed whatever allows two tanks to occupy the same space, you wouldn't be able to push them off cliffs and make them "fly" either.
On January 25 2012 10:30 corpuscle wrote: if you can't see that those two exploits are a result of the same piece of faulty code, I don't know what to tell you. if they fixed whatever allows two tanks to occupy the same space, you wouldn't be able to push them off cliffs and make them "fly" either.
flying tank seems like more of a problem than stacking tanks. im still meh about it.
On January 25 2012 10:30 corpuscle wrote: if you can't see that those two exploits are a result of the same piece of faulty code, I don't know what to tell you. if they fixed whatever allows two tanks to occupy the same space, you wouldn't be able to push them off cliffs and make them "fly" either.
Source?
You can easily fix one problem without the other. You can still stack colossus, but the flying colossus bug was fixed.
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.
This is also just a totally different beast than the types of things in BW. Drone floating was a bug that was just plain bad for competitive play. But other "bugs" like vultures being able to shoot while moving and muta stacking were good. They were also much less extreme than tank stacking and flying tanks..lol. Its not like all bugs are equal :p
Anyone with a WC3 background remember the tome bug? Where your hero would get as many tomes as the number of times you clicked on it? :p
On January 25 2012 10:38 sluggaslamoo wrote: Source?
You can easily fix one problem without the other. You can still stack colossus, but the flying colossus bug was fixed.
flying colossus bug wasn't a stacking issue. what you'd do is block off the exits to your robo with other buildings and then the colossus would pop out on the other side.
the reason flying tank works is that you can stack tanks and then if you only unsiege one of them, it gets pushed to the side because it gets freed up. if you couldn't stack tanks period, you wouldn't be able to make them fly.
yes, you could probably fix the flying bug without fixing stacking, but fixing stacking would solve both in one fell swoop.
On January 25 2012 10:38 sluggaslamoo wrote: Source?
You can easily fix one problem without the other. You can still stack colossus, but the flying colossus bug was fixed.
flying colossus bug wasn't a stacking issue. what you'd do is block off the exits to your robo with other buildings and then the colossus would pop out on the other side.
the reason flying tank works is that you can stack tanks and then if you only unsiege one of them, it gets pushed to the side because it gets freed up. if you couldn't stack tanks period, you wouldn't be able to make them fly.
yes, you could probably fix the flying bug without fixing stacking, but fixing stacking would solve both in one fell swoop.
Seems like the same bug to me. Both units are getting stuck near a cliff and a structure, and then as they are freed they start flying. The difference I think is that Blizzard made space blocked, so a unit couldn't pop out of the building at all. You should be able to do the same thing, just make it so the tank gets stuck in un-seiged rather than resorting to cliff.
Although I'd rather Blizzard just made them blow up if they stopped touching the ground.
Edit: I just saw the video
The flying bug is not really a flying bug, drone flying bug literally allowed the drone to fly, but this one is a case of laziness and not putting block tiles on the low ground. Its really the same as the worker supply/mineral trick where you can push units through buildings/destructables/mineral patches, thats used to great effect in BW and produces really interesting games and fun maps.
How is this map not Terran imba? The way every race made expansions was they had to do a special but difficult trick to push workers through the mineral line. Any unit could be pushed through though, and sometimes Protoss would do it to sneak DT's. The technique is quite similar to tank stacking, only you didn't need dropships and you could do it with every unit.
There was also an interesting game by UpMagic who created an amazing strategy using this trick (it was a 2 rax bunker cheese through a destructible temple). Also if anyone can find the video I would be really grateful. I wanna make a thread about this tonight if i can.
Originally I thought it should be patched because people said it allows tanks to fly, but it doesn't. This should not be patched at all, it should be left as is, and map makers should just make sure the maps have block tiles or enough doodads on the low ground.
I am pretty sure we have all seen that picture on reddit or have seen Dragon's stream lately. He abused the bug on Shakuras Plateau and I am pretty sure you can get banned from that. Joke or not, Dragon broke a rule and anyone who is abusing this bug is breaking the rules, which puts themselves at the risk of a ban. I am not saying its a big deal that Dragon abused the bug on Shakuras, but he shouldn't have done that.
If someone cares, I did used this a lot in 2v2, and since i dont play anymore ill tell you another good trick that has won me hundreds of 2v2 masters games.
THROW FORCEFIELD ON TOP OF PARTNER TANK. No zerglings, no zealots usefull my friends!.
On January 26 2012 08:10 Lebzetu wrote: I am pretty sure we have all seen that picture on reddit or have seen Dragon's stream lately. He abused the bug on Shakuras Plateau and I am pretty sure you can get banned from that. Joke or not, Dragon broke a rule and anyone who is abusing this bug is breaking the rules, which puts themselves at the risk of a ban. I am not saying its a big deal that Dragon abused the bug on Shakuras, but he shouldn't have done that.
as long as he reported this he is fine, unless blizzard officially announces that it is a bug. Of course there is this "don't make the game do things it isn't supposed to do" rule. But its just against people who abuse something excessive. Right now i actually would encourage doing this once and sending it to blizzard. But by now i think they are aware of it. And will sneak fix it this thursday or the next.
On January 26 2012 08:10 Lebzetu wrote: I am pretty sure we have all seen that picture on reddit or have seen Dragon's stream lately. He abused the bug on Shakuras Plateau and I am pretty sure you can get banned from that. Joke or not, Dragon broke a rule and anyone who is abusing this bug is breaking the rules, which puts themselves at the risk of a ban. I am not saying its a big deal that Dragon abused the bug on Shakuras, but he shouldn't have done that.
I disagree, dragon just abused the games mechanics. What I mean is that Dragon bought the game so he has the right to do whatever he wants to in the game, he has the right to use this bug as much as he has the right to build workers cause he's not using a third party program to be able to use the bug, he's just doing what the game allows him to do. If blizzard doesn't want this bug to be used then its their obligation to fix it
On January 26 2012 08:10 Lebzetu wrote: I am pretty sure we have all seen that picture on reddit or have seen Dragon's stream lately. He abused the bug on Shakuras Plateau and I am pretty sure you can get banned from that. Joke or not, Dragon broke a rule and anyone who is abusing this bug is breaking the rules, which puts themselves at the risk of a ban. I am not saying its a big deal that Dragon abused the bug on Shakuras, but he shouldn't have done that.
I disagree, dragon just abused the games mechanics. What I mean is that Dragon bought the game so he has the right to do whatever he wants to in the game, he has the right to use this bug as much as he has the right to build workers cause he's not using a third party program to be able to use the bug, he's just doing what the game allows him to do. If blizzard doesn't want this bug to be used then its their obligation to fix it
You're not allowed to abuse anything to gain an unfair advantage in this game, especially exploits. An exploit is something not intended for the game in any way shape or form. So if you abuse an exploit, its against the terms of use or whatever they call it. It's not game mechanics, its an exploit.
It even says in the ToS not to abuse an exploit, so it doesnt matter if he purchased it or not, he cant abuse the bug. From your standpoint, you can also use hacks and cheats because you "bought the game" and you have a right to do so because of that. That's not how it works.
EPT![[image loading]](http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/6070/tanksstacked.png)
![[image loading]](http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/696/tanksspreadout.png)
![[image loading]](http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/8913/forcefeildingtanks.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Vrs5f.jpg)
seems like an okay strat for holding a place on the map ..I wouldnt say its "imba"![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bt65D.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/byKUU.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.iccup.com/upload/maps/images/ICCup%20outsider.jpg)
