|
On April 13 2010 02:32 roemy wrote:
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
Indeed, a unit (I'm thinking a spellcaster) for each of the races to specifically counter the majority of the other race's units would make sense. It would be tricky, but this is supposed to be a new and improved game AND, since they have the classifications built in... they might as well make use of those distinctions.
|
On April 13 2010 02:41 da_head wrote: why wouldn't you go immortals as protoss? its good against marauders or mech (which is pretty much what 99% of terrans do)
Because then they could go air (i.e. Banshees) supported by mass marine medivac.
|
I disagree with the op so much that it's upsetting me, especially how after quickly scanning this thread no one has defended why SC1 is king of rts: the multiple counter systems in place that are 90% not hard counters. The op is based on a prevalent myth and misconception of SC1 coming from people who haven't played the game enough. I can't actually write out a full explanation right now, so maybe someone else can talk about
1. positional counter system
2. counter by economics
3. RPS 9rock-paper-scissor) build order and strategy counter system
4. counter by critical mass
5. soft counter system (think reaver vs turrets)
|
United States33603 Posts
On April 12 2010 16:43 Plexa wrote:
Hard counters have always existed, they were only highlighted in SC2 thanks to the new damage system. Just think Archons vs Muta, Vultures vs Zealots, Firebats vs Zerglings etc
I like how two of those arent' even hard counter in my mind 
|
I think they need to fix the big things first. Like cliff missing. This is one of the points that fucks up a lot of gameplay abilities.
Example: ONE immortals comes running alone with an obs. *ladidadida* 2 Tanks in on a cliff kinda beside each other. They start shooting and the immortal slaps his head against em and start banging.. boom boom boom, next target, boom boom boom. GG
This Strongness wouldnt exist if there would be 25 or 30% miss chance (30% was in bw) Then the immortal would maybe kill 1-1.5 tank instead of ALL.
Fix the important things that matters A LOT before even starting to balance it. Or else we can just have flat maps as cliffs has no real use.
|
On April 13 2010 04:10 shinosai wrote: 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.
All this does is force the terran or protoss to build some air and consequently move towards the bigger late game units -- it's not an insurmountable difficulty and makes the game better in my opinion.
|
On April 13 2010 05:03 NihiloZero wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2010 04:10 shinosai wrote: 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. All this does is force the terran or protoss to build some air and consequently move towards the bigger late game units -- it's not an insurmountable difficulty and makes the game better in my opinion.
Wait you seriously, seriously think that a single unit countering an entire building is ok? That it makes the game better? Just clarifying here.
|
Maybe if they just renamed the game to StarWars 4 (Starcraft/Warcraft) then the game would make sense.
|
On April 13 2010 04:56 MeSaber wrote:
I think they need to fix the big things first. Like cliff missing. This is one of the points that fucks up a lot of gameplay abilities.
Example: ONE immortals comes running alone with an obs. *ladidadida* 2 Tanks in on a cliff kinda beside each other. They start shooting and the immortal slaps his head against em and start banging.. boom boom boom, next target, boom boom boom. GG
This Strongness wouldnt exist if there would be 25 or 30% miss chance (30% was in bw) Then the immortal would maybe kill 1-1.5 tank instead of ALL.
I am in favor of high ground advantage as well -- although it shouldn't be overdone.
|
No but as it looks like now it has no real use. Only Tanks has some use with the range advantage. Without that its a sucky unit also.
|
On April 13 2010 05:06 shinosai wrote: Wait you seriously, seriously think that a single unit countering an entire building is ok? That it makes the game better? Just clarifying here.
I do think an emphasis should be placed on not letting slow, ground-to-ground enemy units into your base.
|
I honestly think if the "big 3" units only did a small amount of bonus, with most of their damage being their base damage, that would solve a whole lot.
Pretty much if all bonuses were limited to something like 5 dmg max, we would see more plays based on mechanics rather than mass x>y>z.
Spellcasters should be the ones doing the most damage, i.e. EMP, Plaguu, and storm. Not the normal attack of 3 certain units.
Also the high ground advantage, too.
In summary, remove Terrible, Terrible damage bonuses.
|
On April 12 2010 16:44 pzea469 wrote:
I Miss super effective things like high damage storms and scarabs. I miss powerful stuff. I wish a baneling in the mineral line would be a huge deal. More expensive but more effective, that's how I want things. Makes for more ahhh! Moments and makes micro more exciting. I'm not sure if this relates to the thread as much or not? Hard counters
Tell that to my bio army that got the daylights stormed out of it, or the 1000k+ worth of minerals and gas group of ghosts that got stormed by a templar that got warped in and I didn't see it in time. Tell that to the two banelings that make it into the mineral line and put you so far behind that you gg out.
|
To everyone who's been turning on the water works over this +dmg stuff, tell me--What's the difference between the BW system of 20 damage dragoons/half damage to small and the SC2 system of 10+10 to armored dragoons?
|
On April 13 2010 07:48 ComradeDover wrote:
To everyone who's been turning on the water works over this +dmg stuff, tell me--What's the difference between the SC2 system of 20 damage dragoons/half damage to small and 10+10 to armored dragoons?
One is like, making it less, and the other is like, totally making it more.
Duh.
|
On April 13 2010 07:49 Funchucks wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2010 07:48 ComradeDover wrote:
To everyone who's been turning on the water works over this +dmg stuff, tell me--What's the difference between the SC2 system of 20 damage dragoons/half damage to small and 10+10 to armored dragoons? One is like, making it less, and the other is like, totally making it more. Duh.
The 10+10 is coming from a Terran unit. That can use Stimpack. That's the problem.
|
On April 13 2010 08:45 LunarC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2010 07:49 Funchucks wrote:On April 13 2010 07:48 ComradeDover wrote:
To everyone who's been turning on the water works over this +dmg stuff, tell me--What's the difference between the SC2 system of 20 damage dragoons/half damage to small and 10+10 to armored dragoons? One is like, making it less, and the other is like, totally making it more. Duh. The 10+10 is coming from a Terran unit. That can use Stimpack. That's the problem.
Oh, so it's just an issue of "this specific unit deals too much damage", not "BWAHH +DMG VS ARMORED RUINED SC2!!1!"? Why aren't the complaint threads being more specific then? Instead of complaining about this specific grievence about one specific unit, the entire damage system of SC2 has aspersions cast on it.
|
On April 13 2010 08:56 ComradeDover wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2010 08:45 LunarC wrote:On April 13 2010 07:49 Funchucks wrote:On April 13 2010 07:48 ComradeDover wrote:
To everyone who's been turning on the water works over this +dmg stuff, tell me--What's the difference between the SC2 system of 20 damage dragoons/half damage to small and 10+10 to armored dragoons? One is like, making it less, and the other is like, totally making it more. Duh. The 10+10 is coming from a Terran unit. That can use Stimpack. That's the problem. Oh, so it's just an issue of "this specific unit deals too much damage", not "BWAHH +DMG VS ARMORED RUINED SC2!!1!"? Why aren't the complaint threads being more specific then? Instead of complaining about this specific grievence about one specific unit, the entire damage system of SC2 has aspersions cast on it.
Alright, don't get your panties in a knot. I was addressing only one unit because that's what the argument was addressing. Where the problem lies is in the damage inflation, which is a trend more than something that can be pinpointed on any single unit.
|
The SC2 system of hard counters is so much more basic than the stuff that existed in SC1. Vultures "countered" zealots/zerglings, but if you didn't micro them properly, they still lost to 1 or 2 zealots or a few lings. Firebats "countered" zerglings, but not because they did +X damage vs them.. it was because of their splash damage and ability to fire under dark swarm. Yes they did full damage to them, but I'd be willing to bet that even if they did 50% damage, they would still be used in situations where dark swarm+a lot of lings are present. Archons countered mutas because they did splash damage, not because they did +damage to small units or anything like that. As a matter of fact, there were a ton of units in SC1 that did their full damage to other units (they "countered" the other unit) but still weren't very good against them. You didn't make firebats to beat marines or zealots really, even though they did full damage to both of those. You didn't make exclusively hydras to beat just tanks, even though hydras do full damage to tanks.
On top of that, at the very least, you even had 3 different levels of units. Large, medium, and small, taking 100%/75%/50% damage from explosive and 25%/50%/100% damage from concussive, and even then, there were a lot of units in the game that didn't have either of these damage types so they just did flat damage to all units.
In SC2, there's normal damage, +damage to armored, +damage to light, and then armored and light units. That's it. I can't think of a single example off the top of my head where a counter in SC2 exists that isn't because of this system, but is rather because of the way the unit is designed or acts. The only thing I can think of is the immortal's shield making it more susceptible to lower damage units.
In short, SC1's "counters" were mostly because of the way a unit was designed and acted, such as splash damage, being microed to become more effective, and things like that, where SC2's "counters" are almost all exclusively because of the light/armored system.
|
Hard counters have been around from start of SC1 nothing new /shrug just people think it is for some reason
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
