Hello this is my first post, be gentle , i'm an educated noob
i'm wondering how hard counters works in sc2? Because is little confusing.
Let's see. Zealots beats marauders, but marauders can micro zealots, so a good micro should be capable to "cheat" the hard counters of the game?
Another example, Roaches beats reapers and stalkers but reapers and stalkers can micro roaches so... it is the same?
Why 1 unit that its suppose to be the counter than another is unable to counter maneuver that unit? this simply doesn't make sense
Its like having two aircrafts, one stronger and other light and faster, what aircraft would win the battle, the faster because the other one cannot catch them
So in design unit "x" its a counter to unit "y" but in reality its unit "y" that counter unit "x". And that simply will ruin the design isn't it?
i still learning this games and i strugling because how do i think a strategy when the theory said zealots beats marauders but the reality its another?
Its a problem design or its and skill problem or what?
If you're coming from other RTSes, SC's counter system can be a lot different. On AoE for example, skirmishers counter archers. There's no way around it.
The counters are just a little more complex. In this case, you can say "banshees counter marines unless marines can catch them" (i.e. stim). There's still a counter system, there's just more conditionals.
I think it was Day9 that said something along the line, "There are no 'hard-counters' in this game, just units that are really good against other units." So yes there are counters, but like iEchoic said its not just X counters Y, it's X is really good against Y under these circumstances or conditions.
On October 12 2010 05:41 hoovehand wrote: this is a not-so-cunningly disguised 'nerf marauder' thread.
Nah, I played AoE for many years prior to SC, so what he's asking is legit. It takes a bit of time to get used to the movement of other games. In a straight up battle is what F12 will tell you but some units have modifiers (conc shell, charge), which cancel each other out when equally upgraded
Camilocraft: They talk about counters in terms of the purpose and skills of the unit. For instance: a zergling is the counter of the stalker; however, 3 zerglings can't kill 1 stalker even if the stalker stands still. What they are referring to are attack speeds, health, air, ground, or invisible, etc.
Example 2: Marauders are the counters to roaches. Why? Well because roaches take extra damage to marauders weapons. And zerglings kill marauders yet an equal amount of roaches which get countered by marauders kill marauders better than the zerglings. Why? Because the marauder's counter are zerglings because zerglings attack fast, come in large numbers, and have low health. Thus the slow clumsy marauder is weak against them. However: Roaches have more health and damage and therefore 20 roaches will do a lot better against 10 marauders than 20 zerglings.
Your theory works only in small army numbers, e.g. 2 marauders vs 2 zealots but not in big armies. It's just a beginner problem u've got, dont try to find the mistake in the game
There is no A, B,C counter system, or every game would pretty much be a photo-copy of others. Just ending at different points- depending on macro. The game is designed to reward good micro and better scouting... rather than A>B>C... I don't think its to the same extent that is in BW- but any unit can be better if it's micro'd properly.
I really think the idea that "1 unit that its suppose to be the counter than another is unable to counter maneuver that unit".... is the wrong way to think. Starcraft will never work like: "I have B so you don't make A." Mr.Day[9] is big on that- if you have ENOUGH roaches, you can counter marauders- or if you burrow and pop up underneath them. Same with Mutas/Thors- even Baneling/Marine or Sentry/Ling- the winner is going to be the one with the best micro.
I am a bronze league dude, but the roaches get countered by the marauders. So the Terran will try to engage non-speed roaches off creep. A silver league guy might be able to recognize this and try to "bait" the mauraders with the roaches then swarm in with speedlings. The silver league dude can then retreat his roaches because the marauders can't escape the speedlings surround. amidoinitrite?
i have two more questions because this really helps (if i understanding right )
1. in big armys fights the counters are less visible or more visible?
2. "The game is designed to reward good micro and better scouting", is this the holy grial? if is, i gonna improve my micro first and multitasking and stop learning counters
Banelings counter marines, HARD but if there are enough marines you can out DPS the banelings before their splash even touches you. You use the units that do bonus damage but in a smart way. For example, burrowed banelings is a smart example of trapping marines without taking damage on the way towards them.
But the more you mass units the less of an effect counters have, they are more noticable when it's the early stages of the game or there is only one of that unit that was brought out to help against an army composition. If you go mass roaches against a protoss who brings out one immortal, then the immortal is surely a counter so you want to take precaution but you can still beat the immortal by using strategy, tactics and macro (aka building a bigger army). So A isn't > than B just because of it's stats, there is more that goes into it. This is a concept that took me awhile to figure out as well, it isn't something that you get over night.
There are a few hard counters. Like, obviously mutalisks hard counter tanks because tanks can't even hit mutalisks.
This opens up another whole discussion about counters, because no terran would just make straight tanks. They would take marines to support them, hence "countering" the mutas. So unit composition is always an important consideration.
I never understood the system behind SC2 (and SC in general) as a typical rock-papers-scissors game where every - or at least most - units have a "hard counter". Every unit has its situational advantages and disadvantages, which has to be applied/balanced by the players through tactics and unit composition.
If you want to think of "counters", think of ressource-efficient deals. Marauders are efficient against roaches, zerglings are efficient against marauders. But only in a standard situation. Zerglings need enough surface to deal damage, a choke or a "critical mass ball" of marauders can change that. And if you simply got enough roaches you can still kill marauders with them - you just won't make a good deal.
Micro is essentially you putting "out-game-ressources" (your apm/focus) into your units to make them more efficient. Upgrades can change the situation, make micro more effective or simply make the units be worth more.
On October 12 2010 06:03 camilocraft wrote: i have two more questions because this really helps (if i understanding right )
1. in big armys fights the counters are less visible or more visible?
2. "The game is designed to reward good micro and better scouting", is this the holy grial? if is, i gonna improve my micro first and multitasking and stop learning counters
1. different compositions tend to be better in small or larger numbers. but in general i'd say counters become more visible in big army fights as there is less gained from micro in large battle. (example roaches counter hellions but in small numbers hellions can kite roaches and kill them because they have longer range, but in large numbers there is not enough time and space to kite the roaches). However counters even in big army fights can be overcome by tactics and macro.
2. improve your macro first (always build units and don't get supply blocked) but yes macro micro and multitask are far more important than unit counters.
Focus less on individual unit counters and more on unit compositions. You are almost never going to have a pure marauder army vs a pure zealot army, so why worry about who wins that fight. Starcraft also has a lot of other variables that drastically sway a battle... troop positioning, attack timing, micro, terrain,etc.. Also improve scouting (need to know where opponent's army is in order to position your troops correctly).
just keep playing and watching replays, things will start to mesh
On October 12 2010 06:03 camilocraft wrote: i have two more questions because this really helps (if i understanding right )
1. in big armys fights the counters are less visible or more visible?
2. "The game is designed to reward good micro and better scouting", is this the holy grial? if is, i gonna improve my micro first and multitasking and stop learning counters
1. If the armies are diverse, the counters will be less visible.
soft counter to me is like lings vs marauders. lings can surround and marauders don't do extra damage to lings but eventually when the marauders hit a critical mass or ball rather, the ling's cant surround all of them but only the outer ones which ends up marauders winning.
hard counter is like blue flame hellions vs lings. Or vikings vs brood lords.
From my experience the only real 'hard counters' are units that can't hit other units... such as Mutalisks hard counter Marauders, cause Marauders can't hit them. But, saying something is a hard counter is kind of deceptive. Even if you have an equal cost of Marauders, vs your enemy having mutalisks, you might still want to attack, since your Marauders could kill most his drones, and maybe some buildings before they die. So even though your army was 'countered' is still won because you used it effectively.
This is why having good macro and scouting is more important than micro and counters. The easiest way to win outside the top levels of play is just to have more stuff. If your army is twice the food count of your opponents army, you will likely steamroll him regardless of counters.
Also, one of the best ways to get an advantage is to keep pressure on your opponent. This doesn't mean suiciding units into his base. Just poking in, picking off easy targets, while trying to lose as few units as possible. This will throw off his macro, while allowing you to play your strategy unharassed. You are making him 'counter' you, but you will just pull ahead through better macro, and eventually win.
And as far as counters go, the first step is just getting a good mass of a well rounded army through solid macro. it is impossible to 'counter' a large mixed army.. the only counter to that is having a bigger well mixed army.. and that is called macro.
On October 12 2010 06:03 camilocraft wrote: i have two more questions because this really helps (if i understanding right )
1. in big armys fights the counters are less visible or more visible?
2. "The game is designed to reward good micro and better scouting", is this the holy grial? if is, i gonna improve my micro first and multitasking and stop learning counters
If we can learn anything from NaDa,Oov, and Flash.
Yeah, units with bonus damage against a specific armor type tend to do well against them in un-micro'ed battles, but once micro is involved it really comes down to positioning.
Let's use the zealot v. marauder in-a-vacuum example:
1. Early game, small numbers of marauders can kite small numbers of zealots on a flat map with no terrain. However, with some terrain and maybe a little mis-management, zealots will eventually catch up and start taking shots.
2. When concussive shell and stim are researched, it's not even close anymore. The zealots won't touch the marauders if they kite.
3. When charge is researched, it becomes more balanced again -- zealots will catch marauders in-between concussive shots with charge to get hits in.
However, once you factor other units into the equation, it doesn't look so unbalanced. Sentries really ruin a marauder's day -- force field removes the advantage marauders have in all 3 situations, but mostly in 1 and 3 depending on forcefield placement.
Also, at least in situation 1 and 2, the addition of a couple of stalkers also make the matchup a little more balanced. If the marauders run from the zealots to kite, the stalker is faster and will get shots off. If the marauders stay to fight stalkers, the stalkers can kite while the zealots take shots (this is less viable in situation 2 because of concussive shell, but becomes viable again once blink and charge are researched).
I think all of this isn't indicative of a broken system but rather a system with a lot of depth to it. Sure, you can simply 1a your armies into your enemies' and hope for the best, but the player who can multitask his economy and control his units simultaneously can often come out with better-than-expected results against a "supposed" counter.
EDIT: Also, to echo the esteemed posters above me, all of this is secondary to macro. If you're a micro god and spend all your time on the battle, then you'll probably win that battle. But then your opponent's reinforcements (which you neglected in favor of micro) and roll you.
You need to have the macro first to be able to do the fancy micro stuff later. Everybody is impressed with watching Fruitseller and IdrA's ability to crush people with micro and superior positioning without realizing it's really their macro that creates those opportunities for them.
The reasoning behind this is instead of having a rock paper scissor system, players can get upgrades and micro their units to overcome any inherent disadvantages. This serves to vastly increase the effectiveness timing pushes and rewarding players for properly microing. For example, this is how the game flow works with zlot vs rauders: Zlot>rauder Zlot<rauder +concussive Zlot+ff>rauder+con Zlot+ff=rauder+con+stim (depending on micro) Chargelots>rauders
Of course there are many other factors such as medivacs, territorial restrictions, atk and armor upgrades etc.
This translates into a concept familiar to broodwar players called soft counters. The best example is comparing the zealot, dragoon, vulture, and tank. Firstly vultures do full damage to zealots and are able to out micro them. Tanks far outrange dragoons and do full against them as well. Secondly, vultures barely do damage to dragoons and tanks do reduced damage to zealots. This implies: Zlots>tanks Vultures>zlots Tanks>dragoons Dragoons>vultures
However, there is another dynamics in play. Even though tanks do reduced damage to zlots, since zlots are way smaller, they receive way more damage from splash. Zlots however can drag mines which decimates both tanks and vultures (esp if you use shuttles). Dragoons on the other hand arent that great against vultures. Even though they barely take dmg from vultures, they also barely deal damage to them. In this confrontion, tanks are the huge dmg dealers while vultures serve as meat shields. But a dragoon kills a vulture in 6 shots and a tank in 8. Therefore, its vital to ensure your dragoons are firing at the tanks themselves. See how different this is from the assumptions i made earilier? Welcome to sc
In the beginning leagues, it's much more important to MACRO MACRO MACRO - get lots and lots of resources and lots and lots of whatever you can get your hands on. Take a generous helping of everything. Then and only then learn about which unit counters which unit.
Counters really only matter once you start getting into upper silver league and gold. By platinum, if you do not know unit counters you will get slaughtered.
Also, not all countering is based upon units. Some countering is based upon unit positioning. For example, Zealots are a soft counter against Zerglings, but Zlots hard counter lings when they're up against a wall. Immortals hard counter Siege Tanks, but if a Siege Tank is placed on a cliff... well, the Immortal is as good as dead if he doesn't get out of the way.
So unit counters really depend on the situation, positioning, micro, and multitasking. This makes actual counters much more complicated than rock/paper/scissors.
However, there is such a thing as a hard counter when it comes to build orders. Take for example Bisu v. Stats @ Polaris Rhapsody during the 2010 Proleague Finals:
In this game, Bisu goes for fast Dark Templars and Stats opts for a fast obs. Stats did a complete (blind!) hard counter against Bisu. Of course, it's still possible for Bisu to win in this situation, but he's at a massive disadvantage.
Counters really only matter once you start getting into upper silver league and gold. By platinum, if you do not know unit counters you will get slaughtered.
I dont really agree. On low level many people mass 1 unit, which makes using the right counter pretty important. Of course that doesnt matter if you are better than the noob in every other aspect of the game, but for the fellow noob, i think using the right unit is the first thing to know. Partly because it is by far the easiest part to learn. Just spend an evenying reading about the units and playing them against eachother with a friend and you will undestand much of it.
The difference is in numbers though. As said, at small numbers, micro plays a more important role. But numbers als make a huge difference when one unit has a significant longer range that the other (or the other is a mellee unit) or when one unit has splash damage. Bigger numbers benefit the units with the longest range and with splash damage. 1v1 a zergling and marine are about even while the marine costs twice as much. 50 marines vs 100 zerglings (same cost), the marines may not even have a scratch.
On October 12 2010 06:03 camilocraft wrote: i have two more questions because this really helps (if i understanding right )
1. in big armys fights the counters are less visible or more visible?
2. "The game is designed to reward good micro and better scouting", is this the holy grial? if is, i gonna improve my micro first and multitasking and stop learning counters
Don't skimp out on learning your counters. You can't possibly always have the correct counters to everything your opponent has, so don't stress too much over it. In big armies of just ONE unit per army, the so-called "counter" will win, but you'll always have unit mixes.
To answer point 1, large battles are almost always won by the player with higher tech (assuming near equivalent army sizes.)
Too much of this game is situational. Like a previous poster said, you only need to worry about counters in small numbers. Once you get to mass numbers of say, zealots vs marauders, micro gets thrown out the window and it doesn't matter as much anymore.
On October 12 2010 06:33 tackklee wrote: imo., there are soft counters and hard counters.
soft counter to me is like lings vs marauders. lings can surround and marauders don't do extra damage to lings but eventually when the marauders hit a critical mass or ball rather, the ling's cant surround all of them but only the outer ones which ends up marauders winning.
hard counter is like blue flame hellions vs lings. Or vikings vs brood lords.
Meh, my .02 cents.
if your lings can get a surround on the hellions theyre still moderately effective. Surrounds are hellion's weakness.
Maraders require an upgrade to kite zealots. No matter how cheap and available, you can't discount that. Zealots are super baller units. Once you have a few stalkers to stop the kiting, its game on.
Its like having two aircrafts, one stronger and other light and faster, what aircraft would win the battle, the faster because the other one cannot catch them
And that's not even true. You can't even make a reasonable conclusion based on this. My aircraft could be the fucking death star and you could be flying an x-wing. But baring super natural intervention, you still get raped.
can someone link the daily where the protoss goes for the hard counter to mass roach but the zerg simply has better macro and beats him with pure roaches?
Units and Counter-Units work in this RTS game to allow Strategies and Counter-Strategies to have a high place in combat. If my terran opponent is building a marauder-heavy biological unit army then I might adjust my Protoss army composition to favor zealots and sentries with fewer stalkers. Marauders do not gain their damage bonus against zealots and guardian shield from sentries helps my zealots live longer against the many shots it takes to kill them. This type of interplay is the same.
Hard Counters and Soft Counters are terminology that Starcraft players frequently like to use on top of the anti-X unit terminology of "Counters." In a very base manner, Soft Counters entail units that do well against a certain type of unit but can perhaps be micromanaged to overcome the deficit in relative strength of the units against each other. Hard Counters generally refers to units that do so extraordinarily well against the unit they counter that it is presumed that in an equal battle (or even an uneven battle) the Hard Counter will defeat the opponent's army with little difficulty (and few, if any, losses).
My advice: Stay away from making sweeping generalizations about hard counters and soft counters because these terms are frequently used in arguments to shortcut real strategy and ignore other factors of the game. Say instead, as Day[9] puts it, there are merely units that do very well against other kinds of units. Many of these battles are decided equally by the mix of units and how they are micromanaged to the best effect. I'd recommend you look at Day[9]'s videos because he dialogues on strategy from all the relevant points.
It will take you a while to find out the relative strengths of different units against each other, but find yourself a solid build the pro's use, practice it, and keep trying new stuff.
As people have said, micro matters less in big fights, thus macro typically is more important to focus on. If I have significantly more stuff than you, I'm probably going to win the battle (there are exceptions of course).
Large fights tend to be more oriented on the positioning, DPS, and health of the army than specific units. When you have smaller battles you can use things like speed and range more effectively. For example, Reapers can be very effective early on because of their range and speed (and their ability jump off fucking mountains)
Well it definitely is not as easy as the game help tells us it is. There is some really stupid stuff like marauders weak to zealots, viking weak to phoenix or roaches weak to thors.
Morale of the story. You should take the game help with gratuitous amounts of salt. Most of the listed counter only work for no micro/attack-move/same cost numbers.
The this that makes sc great is that hard counters can be overcome with good tactics and micro.
It also depends on the number of units. For example, 4 lings will kill one hellion, but there's no way in hell that would happens at higher numbers. Same with marines. 2 lings beats a ling, but at higher numbers, lings can't even get close. Immortals should beat ultras, but when there are a million lings and hydras to kill the hardened shield, they are done. Colossus rapes m&m but is exponentially better when you reach the 5~6 count.
The best way I think of it as "Yes. This unit counters that unit."
However, that is the most basic of basic when comes to strategy and tactics. Knowing "Colossus counters Hydralisk" is definitely important to know. That's the beginning.
Micro can make things work. Macro can make things work. Unit control can almost always make things work. Upgrades definitely affect things.
The game help does give some really bad counters, though. It's good in most cases, but some of things it suggests are honestly a little weird.
On October 12 2010 10:24 Roaming wrote: Maraders require an upgrade to kite zealots. No matter how cheap and available, you can't discount that. Zealots are super baller units. Once you have a few stalkers to stop the kiting, its game on.
Its like having two aircrafts, one stronger and other light and faster, what aircraft would win the battle, the faster because the other one cannot catch them
And that's not even true. You can't even make a reasonable conclusion based on this. My aircraft could be the fucking death star and you could be flying an x-wing. But baring super natural intervention, you still get raped.
You know... actually I'm not going to spoil it for you but you should go watch Star Wars: A New Hope.
EPT
, i'm an educated noob 
