EPTIn defense of hard counters... - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
fabiano
Brazil4644 Posts
| ||
|
Stropheum
United States1124 Posts
| ||
|
Stropheum
United States1124 Posts
On April 13 2010 00:45 fabiano wrote: I still dont understand the Immortal. Does his hardened shield cut off all damage above 10? If thats true, those motherfucking could live after being nuked in the head?? Holy shit, thats why the are called immortals... hardened shield upgrade makes it so while their shield is active, their damage is capped at 10, but non-shield damage still effects them normally. so against immortals with shield upgrades you're gonna want to use a lot of T1 units with high hit-rate. Never nuke lol | ||
|
SubtleArt
2710 Posts
On April 13 2010 00:18 beetlelisk wrote: 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. But the damage to HP ratio is so much lower in starcraft so your argument is invalid | ||
|
k!llua
Australia895 Posts
On April 12 2010 16:46 Funchucks wrote: I, on the other hand, am completely opposed to hard counters, and believe that the game is unplayable as long as zerglings are not able to climb up on each others' shoulders to reach air units. This thread should be locked and stickied to immortalise this beacon of human achievement. | ||
|
Acies
Australia196 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? Since a drone has signficantly less mass than a hatchery it's implausible that it could morph into one. For other buildings it could be implied that the creep is providing the additional matter. | ||
|
Legendre
Afghanistan10 Posts
Examples: - Siege Tank suffers a -50% penalty vs small units like Marines but it hard countered mass Marines. - Corsair does 5 explosive damage, which is halved (-50% penalty) vs Mutalisks but they hard countered mass Mutalisks. - Valkyries does explosive damage (-50% vs small) and too countered mass Mutalisks. - Hydralisks and Dragoons do explosive damage (-50% vs small) but countered Zealots and could stand up to Marines. - Goliaths do explosive damage (-50% vs small) but countered Mutalisks. [not sure about this one! sorry, I am a little out of touch with Brood War.] - Interestingly, the Ghost's "bonus damage" to small units did jack shit. :p Starcraft 2 units appeared to be defined by their damage bonus. E.g. Immortals countered armored because it does +30 to armored. Are there SC2 units that hard countered a unit that it does less damage against? (excluding Marauders, which countered Zealots with Concussive Shells) | ||
|
SubtleArt
2710 Posts
On April 13 2010 00:50 Stropheum wrote: Nobody went mass ling against speed vultures in SC1, now people hear hard counter and think it blasphemy to be part of the starcraft world. It's always been there, just more a part of the game now. Personally, i love it. This means you can't just go your strict build order every game blind, cause if you go straight roaches, your opponent just has to go straight marauder. Isn't this game about gaining advantage with intelligence anyway? Which is why it would be nice if it wasn't as mechanical as I see unit X so I'll build unit Y. Compared to deciding how many Corsairs to build against Mutas (soft counter here) based on scouting information, I'd hesitantly call hard counters intelligent. | ||
|
roemy
Germany432 Posts
therefore i'm not really sure the current system does enable these so-called hard counters: we can mass marauders and plow through those numerous armored units... and buildings. thanks to quite-high normal base damage (boosted by stim) through everything else as well. i'd say reduce the number of armored units. beginning with the ultralisk. then (unsieged) tank. possibly stalker as well. if you still wish to have a specialized unit against the latter, feel free to introduce a unit that does extra damage to mechanical units. and although this will open a whole new can of worms, it'll be worth the trouble/braincells | ||
|
da_head
Canada3350 Posts
On April 12 2010 17:13 NihiloZero wrote: The complexity is in the production switch (or better scouting in the first place). If the 'toss is building immortals, then maybe the terran should consider switching to banshees to support mass bio units. If someone sees immortals coming into play and keeps going with the same mech build, it's their fault, not the games. Tech switches make sense and add necessary complexity to the game in order to make it more dynamic and interesting. why wouldn't you go immortals as protoss? its good against marauders or mech (which is pretty much what 99% of terrans do) | ||
|
zomgzergrush
United States923 Posts
This broke down to: 1. Core units have slight bonuses 2. Reavers died very easily (if not controlled well of course), scourges suicided, but both did terrible, terrible damage...to EVERYTHING. What you were aiming for was probably going to die. The problem is that they fucked up the bonuses. Hard countering is now instead being applied to core units now and in a larger degree. Core units should not all be hard counterable to one another. Immortals? Mauraders? Roaches? Specifically the bonus towards armor issue. It's way too damn skewed and pretty much makes using armored units counter-productive. There should be no reason to feel vulnerable when using a bunch of armored units. They should only be physically countered, i.e. air or cloaked, not easily countered by 83918947291 bonus fucking damage. All this stuff leads the game more towards a massing rock paper scissors battle. Example of something they fuxed: Clip the wings of the scourge to the baneling, cool. Now make it useless against half the units in the game even though it still suicides. I think it really all just boils down to bonuses. They are all way too extreme. Also, as mentioned before numbers dictate counters now instead of mechanics. I doubt blizz will ever change that, though, because Dustin likes it when everything does Terrible, Terrible Damage to everything else. They see every single unit hard countering another being a dynamic game, but fail to see that it's like balancing on a fucking spike on your tiptoes. It makes for faster, uninteresting games. | ||
|
beetlelisk
Poland2276 Posts
On April 13 2010 00:56 SubtleArt wrote: But the damage to HP ratio is so much lower in starcraft so your argument is invalid What are you talking about? Are you one of those people who would like to mass pure Stalkers but can't because Marauders are there? | ||
|
SubtleArt
2710 Posts
On April 13 2010 03:40 beetlelisk wrote: What are you talking about? Are you one of those people who would like to mass pure Stalkers but can't because Marauders are there? No... but I don't think anyone can argue units die a lot faster in Starcraft 2. Battles that would take like half a minute in sc1 generally end up taking like 15 seconds at most in Sc2. Therefore all the damage buffs are made more apparent. In comparison, look at how quickly stimmed marines or even 10 dragoons killed a hatchery and compare that to stimmed marauders. 12 Hydras vs 8 Dragoons was a hell of a lot slower than 12 hydras vs 12 stalkers is in Sc2. This is also why people complain about the absence of micro. If battles happen quicker, it sometimes becomes detrimental to micro too much instead of letting the AI just shoot a lot. | ||
|
oxxo
988 Posts
| ||
|
shinosai
United States1577 Posts
Immortals are preventing terran from using the factory at all, and marauders as a result are the definitive terran strategy since nearly all toss units are armored. I think toning down marauder/immortals would make interesting changes to the TvP matchup. It's one thing when a unit hard counters a single unit, it's another when a unit hardcounters an entire fucking building. | ||
|
Badjas
Netherlands2038 Posts
Every discussion on SC2 Beta balance will eventually converge into a discussion on the Roach, the Marauder and the Immortal, unless it gets locked by a moderator before that happens. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
I'll play a little devils advocate (or Blizzards advocate). One thing that hard counters SHOULD do is create army diversity, which is a good thing. With proper scouting you and your opponent should have an idea of what eachother are doing. If we accept that there exists a counter for most all units, then if they "mass" a single unit, you could just "mass" the counter to that unit. If this happens over the course of the game you will constantly adjust to what the opponent is making. Because of that you SHOULD diversify your army to include units that would in turn counter that as well as reinforce your primary unit, whaterver that may be. From this what should happen (and does in a lot of games) is two armies will clash with a variety of units. In this situation micro will be the deciding factor since it comes down to who can use specific parts of their armies to counter specific parts of the enemy army requiring a great deal of orginization and micro mid-fight. You might say "but all you see in games is people massing a few single units." Well this is because one of the players in that game doesn't know what they are doing and they end up getting rolled by the other person who actually adjusted. If your opponent chooses to build nothing but zerglings at all then you can't blame the other player for just sticking with hellions and such. People who complain about getting hard countered can only blame themselves for being the last player to adjust. Don't think SC was any different... people didn't keep building mutas once goliaths and valks were in the field (unless they are Action). TLDR: I'd contend (and seeing some tournaments confirms this) that at the highest levels of play you will see a lot of army diversity because people know how to respond to eachother. This will result in more varied armies which in turn will result in great shows of micro once these armies oare engaged in order to maximize each individual unit against specific enemy units. | ||
|
NihiloZero
United States68 Posts
On April 12 2010 23:18 killerdog wrote: 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. I think it's both... it's nice to see a an expert micro mutalisks versus an archon, but it's also nice to then see a Templar pop up and fry a dozen of them in an instant -- very dramatic. | ||
|
NihiloZero
United States68 Posts
On April 13 2010 01:43 Legendre wrote: Some units in Brood War countered other units even though they do less damage to them. I agree. I didn't mean to solely imply that hard counters should be strictly damage based, merely that damaged base counters do make some sense and can force an interesting tech switch. Countering should certainly also include factors like range, micro-ability, splash damage, and spells. | ||
|
beetlelisk
Poland2276 Posts
On April 13 2010 03:58 SubtleArt wrote: No... but I don't think anyone can argue units die a lot faster in Starcraft 2. Battles that would take like half a minute in sc1 generally end up taking like 15 seconds at most in Sc2. Therefore all the damage buffs are made more apparent. In comparison, look at how quickly stimmed marines or even 10 dragoons killed a hatchery and compare that to stimmed marauders. 12 Hydras vs 8 Dragoons was a hell of a lot slower than 12 hydras vs 12 stalkers is in Sc2. This is also why people complain about the absence of micro. If battles happen quicker, it sometimes becomes detrimental to micro too much instead of letting the AI just shoot a lot. Don't 2 Marines have DPS of about 1 Marauder? And they deal the same damage to everything. SC2 Hydras are more expensive and stronger. Gas alone is more valuable so I don't think it's that easy to compare amount of damage the same units / their equivalents do in both games. I like the term Day[9] used in one of his casts: people suffer from 1 hotkey syndrom. That's why most of battles are 2 blobs meeting each other. I think army positioning is something players themselves have to develope. It's defferent if Zealots or Roaches just chase Marauders instead of coming at them from different sides and prevent from escaping. I like how order queing is improved and it's possible to order a Siege Tank to shoot something even before it started Sieging. It surprises me everytime I read about Broodlords hardcountering Siege Tanks. With amount of units that can be selected at once Siege Tanks shooting Broodlings should impossible IMO (as long as there is something else in range). | ||
| ||
