Add real stackfarm!

+1 reputation for cele.

Cele, you have to separate balancediscussion from actual mapdiscussion.

If you think the wolves should be buffed, take that in another thread. This is not a balancediscussion, this is regarding the stackfarm. Balance of the map isnt relevant to this discussion as it can be altered with or without the stack regardless if you think its good now or not.

Ok. Lets add some pretty op beam laser that can destroy every farm on the map then.

Some may say that it's pretty op, but that's not the subject of the discussion like shoop said:

Quote :

This is not a balancediscussion, this is regarding the beam laser.

... You can't discuss adding stack without talking about balance.

You just dont get it do you? This is a hypothetical discussion about stack. Since you are too stupid to understand that by yourself, let me rephrase it for you :

IF we can balance it properly, should we add stack?

Rafl ur so dumb ffs. yoyo lets talk about destroying Irak with missile. But let's not consider about the consequence, we'll find a way to trick it out.

Quote :

IF we can balance it properly, should we add stack?

You may say we should worry solely about the issue of stack and then about balancing, but you are missing a quintessential issue: how should stacks be balanced. It is very easy to say that sense stacks make escaping isolation easier, we should increase the number of isolations. However, I'm not sure this is exactly what people want. As I've argued before, this brings a more RotS'y gameplay. That is, as I've used this example before, it is akin to giving everyone 1000 damage and 1 hp.

Is increasing the number of isolations the balance (or ONLY balance) to bringing in stacks? I'd argue not. I'd say that besides simply trying to create more isolations, other possible counters should also be considered (phaseboots, anti-stack (a real one, not cloak of flames), etc).


So, let me say this again. The issue of stacks isn't that they directly increase escaping isolations. They provide a non-counterable opportunity for sheep and this indirectly increases isolations. This non-counterable opportunity is what I'd say that, alone, make stacks an unfavorable idea to add. This is what needs to be addressed. This issue is the same that lives with invis (and golems/stalkers if you ever play public ST).


The only counters I know possible to directly countering stacks (increasing isolation count is indirect, but I would suggest doing this to some degree) are phaseboots (ie, walk through stacks for X seconds, sounds iffy to me), anti-stack aura (can be potion based or w/e), and forb (ridiculous for ReVo).


And, of course, ultimately this issue--how non-counterable stacks should be faced, if faced at all--is up to opinion and can't be logically debated.

well... Chakra told you what I was trying to tell you with nice word:D

Obviously we will discuss balance, but not at this stage. First we should discuss if we want stackfarm in sheep tag, then, IF we agree on adding stack IF we can balance it, we should discuss how to balance it.

Chakra wrote:

It is very easy to say that sense stacks make escaping isolation easier, we should increase the number of isolations. However, I'm not sure this is exactly what people want. As I've argued before, this brings a more RotS'y gameplay.

Let me get this straight, you seriously represent the opinion that what made RotS worse than Revo was that there were more isolations?

Chakra wrote:

That is, as I've used this example before, it is akin to giving everyone 1000 damage and 1 hp

Err, what?

Quote :

Is increasing the number of isolations the balance (or ONLY balance) to bringing in stacks? I'd argue not. I'd say that besides simply trying to create more isolations, other possible counters should also be considered (phaseboots, anti-stack (a real one, not cloak of flames), etc).

As I said, we should take that discussion later. First we should evaluate if and in that case why we should add the stack.

Chakra wrote:

So, let me say this again. The issue of stacks isn't that they directly increase escaping isolations. They provide a non-counterable opportunity for sheep and this indirectly increases isolations. This non-counterable opportunity is what I'd say that, alone, make stacks an unfavorable idea to add. This is what needs to be addressed. This issue is the same that lives with invis (and golems/stalkers if you ever play public ST).

I dont really agree that non-counterable is the correct term. You could argue that with perfect use every aspect of the game is non-counterable for the wolf or the sheep. If both players play perfecly every situation will have the same outcome every time. The problem with stack is perhaps that it is too easy to escape isolations given the balance we have today. But do we really think the best runtagger would escape 100 % of the times if he was isolated by the 4 best wolves? Hardly. The balance will shift, probably a lot, in the benefcial way of the sheep if we just add the stackfarm. But if we look at the whole map and maintaining the same avarege and all percentil times (assuming its perfect now) in a 5v5 between the 10 best players which is the assumption I am asking you to make this argument really just means we will have a lot more isolations which is also the argument I am making in support of stack.

So again, it just comes back to this. I want more isolations therefore I want to add stacks IF we can find a way to keep the map balanced.

add stack

This

Quote :

That is, as I've used this example before, it is akin to giving everyone 1000 damage and 1 hp

Is a re-emphasis of this

Quote :

However, I'm not sure this is exactly what people want. As I've argued before, this brings a more RotS'y gameplay.

And what it means is that it makes the game an issue of chance. That is, it makes the game more dependent on random failures rather than consistent victories.

You don't understand what I mean by "balancing." I can balance giving shepherds Doom Guards by giving sheep Stun Farms. I can balance making shepherds one hit (at the beginning) by giving sheep super movement speed. But what these changes represent are a fundamental change to the game. Stacks aren't as large as a change, but they represent a change.

So, as I said many times, the issue of stacks isn't that they increase escaping isolation. It's that they change a fundamental element that many don't want changed--non-counterable moves.

You can argue I simply failed in every measure, but it only takes just that: a small failure. And to boot, these failures are within the bounds of simply having delay; you can't always react fast enough. The sheep can just continue to run back and forth until it does have a success.

What frustrates most people isn't that people escape isolations easier, it's that they can do it unopposed. It is the nature of the stack farm that needs to be balanced, not it's overall impacts.

Quote :

And what it means is that it makes the game an issue of chance. That is, it makes the game more dependent on random failures rather than consistent victories.

this is the biggest bullshit anti-stack argument ever made.

there is NO luck, and there is NO chance with the stack. this argument got crushed years back when gosusheep tried to use it.

there was a bigger difference between players in the stack days than there is now. there is no way to make sense out of that by attributing chance/luck to the stackfarm.

Quote :

there is NO luck, and there is NO chance with the stack. this argument got crushed years back when gosusheep tried to use it.

I think you forgot that the argument WON and stacks were removed.

Quote :

there was a bigger difference between players in the stack days than there is now

America's economy grew faster under slavery than it does now.


Either way, that isn't the core of the argument. It's that stacks are not directly counterable (on a reliable basis--chance).

Quote :

I think you forgot that the argument WON and stacks were removed.

i think you forgot who was the MAPMAKER. the antistack arguments didn't win, the mapmaker just fell for pseudo-logic("stacks is a cheat" - classic gosusheep argument) and asslicking from his social circle on bnet.



anti-stackers have been crushed throughout history. watch sidey vs drew debate on the stack issue. drew gets shit on all over the place and then u have shoop hyping him up like a cheerleader. sickening practice. instead of listening to arguments and logic you buy these freak arguments like ''stacks is based on luck'' and ''stacks is a cheat''. those are seriously some of the most insane arguments floating around the map-discussion section, and dont forget that people like laauch and prodigy are posting here

I think you forgot that stacks were placed on trial. The trial map took over as the de facto map and the removal of stacks was officalized.

stackers have been crushed throughout history. watch sidey vs drew debate on the stack issue. sidey gets shit on all over the place and then u have beeeh hyping him up like a cheerleader. sickening practice. instead of listening to arguments and logic you buy these freak arguments like ''stacks is not based on luck'' and ''stacks is not a cheat''. those are seriously some of the most insane arguments floating around the map-discussion section, and dont forget that people like laauch and prodigy are posting here

Shoop wrote:

You just dont get it do you? This is a hypothetical discussion about stack. Since you are too stupid to understand that by yourself, let me rephrase it for you :

IF we can balance it properly, should we add stack?

Of course.

Now that I answered your question can you follow up an answer to my question?

What changes can 'balance' the addition of stack farm?

I have some ideas:

Lower price of golems.
Drastically lower price of consumeables like mana pot, str pot, str beam.
Lower price of cloak or reinsert antistack.
Bombers kill stacks.
Increase gold flow for shepherds over time.
Make bounty for stack be absurdly high (25).
Make it so you cant cancel stacks (build time - instant).
Antistack cost 100 gold via portable.

I'm not going to lie. I believe the most fun I had was during the stack era... maybe its because ive matured or that the quality of games (by this I mean how much fun I had) doesn't even compare to games back then. Stack really did make players shine through, and to say that everyone uses stack flawlessly and can always escape isolation because of it is dumb.

>Shepherds can no longer share gold.
>Invis Potion removed
>Stack farm can be built anywhere except the middle
>Golem is now a wolf ability with a 3 minute cooldown
>Claw/Strength items prices cut by ~40%

These were the changes shoop requested.

Madhatters wrote:

>Shepherds can no longer share gold.
>Invis Potion removed
>Stack farm can be built anywhere except the middle
>Golem is now a wolf ability with a 3 minute cooldown
>Claw/Strength items prices cut by ~4

These were the changes shoop requested.

Hate the first suggestion. Hate hate hate.

2nd suggestion is good.

No @ third... I'd rather have it cost less gold and shepz just get more gold income. That's a total of 15 golems in first 10 minutes. That's absurd.

I think the golem ability was supposed to have a charge as well, instantly having a golem for each shepherd would be quite ridiculous.

bring back stack yeeee