EPTIn defense of hard counters... - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
SubtleArt
2710 Posts
| ||
|
iSTime
1579 Posts
On April 12 2010 16:52 ArvickHero wrote: If you have insanely good micro, you can beat Archons with Mutas. Unmicroed Vultures vs Zealots is not necessarily a hard counter, and Firebats need to be in sizable numbers to be a real hard counter to Zerglings. How is this different than the things you are complaining about in SC2? Do you really think there are units which just completely stop other units from being useful and no micro tricks can change this? Plus, some of your examples are retarded. In SC1, "unmicroed vultures vs zealots is not necessarily a hard counter" "firebats need to be in sizable numbers to bea real hard counter to zerglings." The first of these is just stupid, and the latter isn't accurate unless "sizable" means "having 3 in addition to your M&M squad. | ||
|
Tom Phoenix
1114 Posts
What made StarCraft's implementation of hard counters different from other games, though, was the fact that, with proper micro, one could nullify the advantage a certain unit held over another. Lings could surround Firebats so that they took minimal damage from the splash, Mutalisks could attack an Archon without getting hit etc. That does not mean that there were no hard counters in StarCraft, just that hard counters were not something that could not be overcome. That is the reason why, unlike most people, I actually supported Marauders having slow (although it is a good thing that they made it an upgrade). There is nothing wrong with Marauders being able to fend off Zealots if the Terran player has good micro. Overall, I do not think hard counters are necessarilly a problem across the board. That said, there are problems with specific units. The two I can think of are: - Immortal - This unit is actually fairly decent even without it's bonus to Armoured. Hardened Shields are a really useful ability and 20 damage is a hefty amount. For that reason, the enormous bonus to Armoured it has just seems quite over the top and it should be reduced. - Hellion - While the Immortal is fairly decent even without it's bonus, the Hellion, however, is nearly useless without it. Even with splash damage, the Hellion is just too weak against non-Light units to be a mainstay of any Mech-heavy build. As such, it would require a buff to it's base damage. | ||
|
Cloak
United States816 Posts
It's realism because real life is as as unpredictable as you can get. It's forcing your opponents hand because you'll still have or lose an advantage. And it's even more interesting because micro affects the odds and the outcome. Stalkers are in a good position now because they soft-counter Roaches by virtue of their inherent properties (range and mobility) rather than +5 to Kill Roaches. It's analogous to the Lurker/Marine dynamic. Lurkers didn't have a +20 damage to light when they owned Marines. And Marines didn't have a +20 damage to Lurkers when they could micro themselves out of the attack. By relying more on those other properties of the units, we see much more ambiguity at the end of the day with who actually has the advantage. | ||
|
ComradeDover
Bulgaria758 Posts
| ||
|
miklotov
United States62 Posts
hard counters are based on arbitrary +dmg numbers. soft counters are based on the actual mechanics of the unit. if you take away hellion's +dmg to light, but increase their base damage, they would still own zerglings and hydralisks, but it would be because of their mechanics as a unit, (their line based aoe and fast movement speed) not some arbitrary number system... this would make them a much more interesting unit, and actually add more depth and complexity than the game has now. using arbitrary +dmg numbers to create counters is a sign of poor design.. it's like saying "well the only way we know how to make 1 unit better than another is to give 1 unit bigger numbers"... there are MUCH better and more interesting ways to balance units than just arbitrary numbers... i'm very disappointed in Blizz... but i have faith that they'll see the error of their ways and correct it. I'm not completely opposed to +dmg stuff... but it should be used as a last resort to tweak balance, not the backbone of the whole balancing system... there's no reason to have +15 or +30 dmg bonuses... but +3 or +5 to get the balance just right is perfectly fine... how it is right now blizz seems to be using this system like a sledge hammer to jam things into place instead of like a cloth to polish the balance till it shines. basically this type of system should be used as a last resort, and the fact that blizz is relying on it so hard and using it as the backbone for balancing is a very, very bad sign... they should focus on mechanics first, then add small tweaks with the +dmg system after you have the mechanics down. i think blizz has realized this and has started and will continue to move further and further toward soft counters and only use hard counters as a last resort. | ||
|
TheDna
Germany577 Posts
For example while you can easy counter ultras with marauders but try coutering BCs with antiair it just wont work nearly as cost efficient. Another thing that i personally dont like is that there are synergys that dont have a really good counter. Like MMM whatever you build to counter it Terran is almost never forced to switch his strat or adept much or anything. Fungal or storm is good vs mmm but terrans still win alot of games by just keep massing mmm even vs storm or infestors. Thats imo a game design flaw. I d like to see more adepting and switching going on.Keep the games interesting dont make cookie cutter builds work all the time. Prevents seeing the same strats going on in most matchups. | ||
|
killerdog
Denmark6522 Posts
But think, as a spectator, what is more interesting. Warching a pack of muta perfectly microed to take out an archon, or watching a player steamroll another players army because of some thinking done earlier. it was those intense micro moments that made starcraft so fun to watch, such as muta harras, marines dodging lurker spines, reaver micro, that kind of thing. if a game is always decided before the battles just due to build order and army composisition then it may be hard to play but is also kind of boring to watch. | ||
|
Teugeus
United Kingdom21 Posts
Taking the Immortal in PvZ for a very basic example, they see "20+30" and go "wow, these do a ton of damage vs roaches and negate some of their damage i should build a lot of these"; when in fact they should also consider how it performs on the battlefield and not just on paper. Once people have gotten familiar with the game, people will have figured out ways to soft counter hard counters. Things such as Thors stunning immortals are a prime example of this and I think it can only get more interesting as time goes on. edit: to clarify, hard counters are going to be more obvious because everyone can look down at a unit card and see "+10 to bio" etc, but soft counters only appear as time goes on and people get more familiar with how units perform on the battlefield itself. | ||
|
Amber[LighT]
United States5078 Posts
On April 12 2010 22:25 SubtleArt wrote: This game isn't realistic. If it was drones wouldn't morph into buildings, bunkers couldn't be salvaged instantly, carriers would make no sense, spawn larva would make no sense How would you know? You're neither an morphing alien race nor a psionic being. And besides spawn larvae makes perfect sense. Do you not know how bugs work? | ||
|
Markwerf
Netherlands3728 Posts
A hard counter is simply something that counters something HARD ie. they will be very cost effective against the thing they counter, soft counters are the same but less cost effective. It really has little to do with many of the complaints about the game made in this thread such as mechanics and positioning mattering much less.. Hard counters make attacking the correct unit much more important then soft counters so that actually increases micro. It´s just not the kind that makes for flashy graphics or watching as it´s hard to see in big battle´s if your immortasl were attacking marauders or marine´s. People just seem to miss some of the cool mechanics sc1 had which I agree with. This has nothing to do with hard counters though but simply that sc2 has less effective spell casters or mechanics then sc1 most upgrades simply improve combat stats. To solve these issues casters, especially infestors, need to become better and perhaps some mechanics be added. Units are still able to beat their supposed counters by micro in this game, marauders can beat zealots, colossi can beat immortals, hydra/roach can beat pure roach, sentry/stalker can beat zerglings etc. This thread is just completely wrong in it´s premise that hard counters have anything to do with these problems. Hard counters vs soft counters only matter for the extent in which unit mixing is important. Very hard counters make unit mixing incredibly important with the well mixed army beating any other army, whereas soft counters lean more to massing one or 2 types of units. I actually think there is a fine balance between the 2. The game has some underused units (infestor, ultralisk, carrier/mothership, reaper beyond rushes, battlecruiser) but these can be buffed in time. | ||
|
Tom Phoenix
1114 Posts
But as I mentioned before, just beacuse a certain unit hard counters a certain other unit damage-wise does not mean that proper micro cannot nullify that advantage. That is what made StarCraft so great....not that it lacked hard counters (infact, it had plenty of them), but that efficient control allowed the player to make the dynamic between units less one-sided. | ||
|
fulmetljaket
482 Posts
On April 12 2010 21:40 fulmetljaket wrote: ive got your hard counter for ya right here lol great post bro | ||
|
Tdelamay
Canada548 Posts
- I think hard counters is when a unit can kill another unit without taking any damage, which would make the counters in Starcraft soft. | ||
|
Cloak
United States816 Posts
On April 12 2010 23:36 Markwerf wrote: People make totally wrong statements in this thread. Like hard counters are the reason that there is less important micro or that soft counters work on the mechanics of the unit instead of numbers. A hard counter is simply something that counters something HARD ie. they will be very cost effective against the thing they counter, soft counters are the same but less cost effective. It really has little to do with many of the complaints about the game made in this thread such as mechanics and positioning mattering much less.. Hard counters make attacking the correct unit much more important then soft counters so that actually increases micro. It´s just not the kind that makes for flashy graphics or watching as it´s hard to see in big battle´s if your immortasl were attacking marauders or marine´s. People just seem to miss some of the cool mechanics sc1 had which I agree with. This has nothing to do with hard counters though but simply that sc2 has less effective spell casters or mechanics then sc1 most upgrades simply improve combat stats. To solve these issues casters, especially infestors, need to become better and perhaps some mechanics be added. Units are still able to beat their supposed counters by micro in this game, marauders can beat zealots, colossi can beat immortals, hydra/roach can beat pure roach, sentry/stalker can beat zerglings etc. This thread is just completely wrong in it´s premise that hard counters have anything to do with these problems. Hard counters vs soft counters only matter for the extent in which unit mixing is important. Very hard counters make unit mixing incredibly important with the well mixed army beating any other army, whereas soft counters lean more to massing one or 2 types of units. I actually think there is a fine balance between the 2. The game has some underused units (infestor, ultralisk, carrier/mothership, reaper beyond rushes, battlecruiser) but these can be buffed in time. You can't attack one definition of hard-counter/soft-counter and substitute it for a worse one. It just doesn't work that way. In reality, whether or not a unit is hard or soft depends on how much strategic effort you must put into the game to match the threat. The effort ratios then define who's in what tier. Hard counters polarize the effort amounts enough where micro opportunities are reduced. Think about it. Since making an Immortal is no harder than any other unit and "+30 damage to Armored" always works in ALL situations, the limited number of choices and sacrifice involved makes it boring. On the other hand, Linear AoE and Range only work in certain situations. That qualitative difference between parameters shows why this overreliance on hard numbers is an anathema to the variety of tactical positions. | ||
|
petered
United States1817 Posts
For example, a zerg army will almost for sure include zerglings. if the protoss sends in an army of immortals to kill of roaches, but gets surrounded by the zerglings, then he is going to lose. The protoss will almost for sure have zealots, so if he has good micro he can use those as a shield between the roaches/zerglings and the immortals. Or if you got the upgrades for the roaches, and your are really fast, you can burrow a roach and move it away after it gets hit, etc. In other words, there are still a lot of dynamic factors involved in pvz even with the way roaches and immortals are designed. | ||
|
beetlelisk
Poland2276 Posts
On April 12 2010 23:09 miklotov wrote: Cloak is absolutely right. hard counters are based on arbitrary +dmg numbers. soft counters are based on the actual mechanics of the unit. if you take away hellion's +dmg to light, but increase their base damage, they would still own zerglings and hydralisks, but it would be because of their mechanics as a unit, (their line based aoe and fast movement speed) not some arbitrary number system... this would make them a much more interesting unit, and actually add more depth and complexity than the game has now. using arbitrary +dmg numbers to create counters is a sign of poor design.. it's like saying "well the only way we know how to make 1 unit better than another is to give 1 unit bigger numbers"... there are MUCH better and more interesting ways to balance units than just arbitrary numbers... i'm very disappointed in Blizz... but i have faith that they'll see the error of their ways and correct it. I'm not completely opposed to +dmg stuff... but it should be used as a last resort to tweak balance, not the backbone of the whole balancing system... there's no reason to have +15 or +30 dmg bonuses... but +3 or +5 to get the balance just right is perfectly fine... how it is right now blizz seems to be using this system like a sledge hammer to jam things into place instead of like a cloth to polish the balance till it shines. basically this type of system should be used as a last resort, and the fact that blizz is relying on it so hard and using it as the backbone for balancing is a very, very bad sign... they should focus on mechanics first, then add small tweaks with the +dmg system after you have the mechanics down. i think blizz has realized this and has started and will continue to move further and further toward soft counters and only use hard counters as a last resort. Yes of course because Hellions burning down Ultras and Tanks makes perfect sense. There aren't huge bonuses in BW at all. I mean Hydras, Tanks in both modes, Dragoons, Wraiths, Goliaths, Valkyries, Corsairs and Scouts don't have +50% against large which translates to Armoured; Firebats +50%, Ghosts and Vultures +75% against small which translates to Light. Not at all lol. | ||
|
SubtleArt
2710 Posts
On April 12 2010 23:25 Amber[LighT] wrote: How would you know? You're neither an morphing alien race nor a psionic being. And besides spawn larvae makes perfect sense. Do you not know how bugs work? A small drone instantly morphing to the size of a gigantic building makes no senses...the point is this game isn't exactly hell bent on realism As for the argument, I think the line that summed it up best is soft counters are due to the mechanics of a unit. for example Sc1 vultures soft counter zealots. Is this done by inflicting massive amounts of damage instantly? No, it's because vultures stop zealots from reaching your tanks, so they dont splash damage each other. This is a clever soft counter.. Yes tanks might counter dragoons by simply doing a lot of damage but the difference isn't THAT large when u see the economy protoss can get compared to terran. Also, tanks are immobile which adds further depth and often times can make dragoons better (threat of a backstab, engaging unseiged, etc). Also, marines and lurkers. Which counters which? Does the lurkers ability to do a lot of splash damage counter mass marines or do marine's mobility and ability to spread counter lurkers | ||
|
fulmetljaket
482 Posts
On April 12 2010 23:51 fulmetljaket wrote: + Show Spoiler + On April 12 2010 21:40 fulmetljaket wrote: ive got your hard counter for ya right here lol great post bro haha thanks bro | ||
|
Qikz
United Kingdom12025 Posts
On April 12 2010 16:50 da_head wrote: hard counters have always existed, but are currently way too extreme. example? immortals COMPLETELY shut down any sort of mech play that terran attempts which is counter intuitive to making the game more complex. Well, there are ways around that, like ghosts for example. | ||
| ||
