EPTHowever, Immortals counter Mech in Copper League
In defense of hard counters... - Page 5
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
heyitsme
153 Posts
However, Immortals counter Mech in Copper League | ||
|
ComradeDover
Bulgaria758 Posts
On April 13 2010 09:07 Angra wrote: 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%, or 50% damage depending on the type of damage another unit did (concussive or explosive), 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. But what's the difference between doing full damage with reduction vs targets and having a bonus vs appropriate targets? You do more damage to the unit you're intending to "counter" and less damage to other units. It's the exact same thing, except it's clearer in SC2. I don't but your conclusion that SC2s counters all rest on the damage/armor system. Take the Hellion, for example, which can still fall to zerglings unless you have a critical mass of hellions or micro them properly. What's the difference between that and the vulture? On April 13 2010 09:08 xnub wrote: Hard counters have been around from start of SC1 nothing new /shrug just people think it is for some reason Because people need to compulsively complain about every aspect of SC2, instead of being super excited that we're getting a new StarCraft and that they're one of the lucky nerds to get a beta key. On April 13 2010 09:12 heyitsme wrote: Vultures don't counter Zealots/Lings at D- However, Immortals counter Mech in Copper League Corsairs also counter overlords and Battlecruisers counter ultralisks at all levels of play. Don't make ridiculous examples like that. >:[ | ||
|
Angra
United States2652 Posts
On April 13 2010 09:16 ComradeDover wrote: But what's the difference between doing full damage with reduction vs targets and having a bonus vs appropriate targets? You do more damage to the unit you're intending to "counter" and less damage to other units. It's the exact same thing, except it's clearer in SC2. I don't but your conclusion that SC2s counters all rest on the damage/armor system. Take the Hellion, for example, which can still fall to zerglings unless you have a critical mass of hellions or micro them properly. What's the difference between that and the vulture? Because people need to compulsively complain about every aspect of SC2, instead of being super excited that we're getting a new StarCraft and that they're one of the lucky nerds to get a beta key. That wasn't really the point of my post. I didn't make a single reference to the difference between +damage and reduced damage in the two games. You're correct in fact that they are the same thing. I was mostly pointing out that there are WAY more exceptions to the rule in SC1 than in SC2, and the fact that SC1's system had more factors involved than only light/armored. The hellion is actually a good example of something that doesn't abide exactly by SC2's system of why it's so effective vs certain things, so thank you for pointing that out. It doesn't change the fact that it's still a lot more rare to see something like that though in SC2. | ||
|
buhhy
United States1113 Posts
On April 13 2010 07:49 Funchucks wrote: One is like, making it less, and the other is like, totally making it more. Duh. There are also medium units. It's 10 + 5 + 5 vs light/medium/heavy. And the highest standard attack damage excluding the sieged tank and reaver (because of their mechanics) was 30 explosive from the tank and 30 general damage from the archon and 40 from the DT. Damage in SC1 in general was a lot less, most units dealt 20 damage (vulture, wraith, goli, goon, lurker, ultralisk, guardian) or less. Corsairs also counter overlords and Battlecruisers counter ultralisks at all levels of play. Don't make ridiculous examples like that. >:[ ... ridiculous straw man. Your statement has no context next to his. | ||
|
ComradeDover
Bulgaria758 Posts
On April 13 2010 09:21 Angra wrote: That wasn't really the point of my post. I didn't make a single reference to the difference between +damage and reduced damage in the two games. You're correct in fact that they are the same thing. I was mostly pointing out that there are WAY more exceptions to the rule in SC1 than in SC2, and the fact that SC1's system had more factors involved than only light/armored. The hellion is actually a good example of something that doesn't abide exactly by SC2's system of why it's so effective vs certain things, so thank you for pointing that out. It doesn't change the fact that it's still a lot more rare to see something like that though in SC2. You're shutting your eyes and only seeing what you want to see. Here's another example. A Protoss army has to fear roach pressure early on, until they get colossi, which counter roaches not by nature of their +dmg, but by nature of their splash. The roaches then have to avoid confrontations until they upgrade the ability to move while burrowed, which enables them to snipe the colossi and mop up the rest of the Protoss army. At least, until they get an observer out (Assuming they don't have one already), and even then it comes down to being able to micro your colossi away in time. On April 13 2010 09:22 buhhy wrote: There are also medium units. It's 10 + 5 + 5 vs light/medium/heavy. And the highest standard attack damage excluding the sieged tank and reaver (because of their mechanics) was 30 explosive from the tank and 30 general damage from the archon and 40 from the DT. Damage in SC1 in general was a lot less, most units dealt 20 damage (vulture, wraith, goli, goon, lurker, ultralisk, guardian) or less. "The highest standard damage (excluding things that prove me wrong -- let's not talk about those) was..." Ridiculous. | ||
|
buhhy
United States1113 Posts
| ||
|
ComradeDover
Bulgaria758 Posts
On April 13 2010 09:32 buhhy wrote: ?? Are you disagreeing that SC2 damage is generally higher than SC1? Yes. | ||
|
miklotov
United States62 Posts
i dunno about you guys but i personally feel like it's much more fun and interesting if units are countered based on the actual mechanics/skills/abilities of the unit rather than just because you do more damage to a certain type of unit. it's ok to use the +dmg system... but i'm fairly sure you could halve all the +dmg modifiers in the game currently and every unit would still be able to counter the units it's supposed to counter just fine... it just seems like the +dmg is taken to the extreme currently... they could achieve the same effect with half the +dmg. | ||
|
gogogadgetflow
United States2583 Posts
On April 13 2010 05:03 NihiloZero wrote: 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. This type of misguided response inclines me to agree with Gliche: 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. The fact that this thread was the OP's first post (or so) on tl along with a few of his comments in the thread indicate to me that he has little to no experience with the true excitement of a solid rts, probably never played BW, and is definitely not playing the Beta. Conclusion: I'm no rts pro but the title of the thread just screams troll to me. | ||
|
ComradeDover
Bulgaria758 Posts
On April 13 2010 09:37 miklotov wrote: basically what it boils down to is would you rather counter a unit because of a specific skill or ability that your unit has... or would you rather counter a unit because of some arbitrary +dmg number? i dunno about you guys but i personally feel like it's much more fun and interesting if units are countered based on the actual mechanics/skills/abilities of the unit rather than just because you do more damage to a certain type of unit. it's ok to use the +dmg system... but i'm fairly sure you could halve all the +dmg modifiers in the game currently and every unit would still be able to counter the units it's supposed to counter just fine... it just seems like the +dmg is taken to the extreme currently... they could achieve the same effect with half the +dmg. It's like you didn't read the thread or something. | ||
|
buhhy
United States1113 Posts
SC2: Zealot - same Stalker - (10 + 1) + 4 vs armor Immortal - (20 + 2) + (30 + 3) vs armor Colossus - (20 + 2) x 2 DT - (45 + 5) Archon - (25 + 3) + (10 + 1) vs light SC1: Zealot - same Dragoon - (10 + 1) + (5 + 0.5) + (5 + 0.5) vs medium/heavy DT - (40 + 3) Archon - (30 + 3) | ||
|
ComradeDover
Bulgaria758 Posts
On April 13 2010 09:54 buhhy wrote: K.... Protoss for starters: SC2: Zealot - same Stalker - (10 + 1) + 4 vs armor Immortal - (20 + 2) + (30 + 3) vs armor Colossus - (20 + 2) x 2 DT - (45 + 5) Archon - (25 + 3) + (10 + 1) vs light SC1: Zealot - same Dragoon - (10 + 1) + (5 + 0.5) + (5 + 0.5) vs medium/heavy DT - (40 + 3) Archon - (30 + 3) You conveniently left out: Reaver - 100 + 25 ALL TARGETS AOE WHAT THE FUCK | ||
|
NihiloZero
United States68 Posts
On April 13 2010 09:38 gogogadgetflow wrote: The fact that this thread was the OP's first post (or so) on tl along with a few of his comments in the thread indicate to me that he has little to no experience with the true excitement of a solid rts, probably never played BW, and is definitely not playing the Beta. Straw man. And wrong anyway. The reason I wrote this is because I do actually read the forums and do watch the video commentaries and do play SC2. And your flawed intuition may not be the only thing wrong with your overall analysis. But thanks for welcoming me to the community and finally trying to get involved with the discussions. | ||
|
buhhy
United States1113 Posts
On April 13 2010 09:57 ComradeDover wrote: You conveniently left out: Reaver - 100 + 25 ALL TARGETS AOE WHAT THE FUCK Reaver's attack costs money and can be dodged. It also conveniently needs a shuttle to get anywhere and is one of the most micro intensive units. There are no sc2 comparisions. | ||
|
ComradeDover
Bulgaria758 Posts
On April 13 2010 10:01 buhhy wrote: Reaver's attack costs money and can be dodged. It also conveniently needs a shuttle to get anywhere and is one of the most micro intensive units. There are no sc2 comparisions. I'm not debating any of those points, nor am I saying the reaver is overpowered or imbalanced. But it's ridiculous to leave the unit out just because it proves you wrong about damage being higher in SC2. Unless you want to quantify your original statement and say "SC2 has higher damage when you exclude units that require micro or shuttles", which kind of loses it's luster, doesn't it? | ||
|
Legendre
Afghanistan10 Posts
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 BW system of 20 damage dragoons/half damage to small and the SC2 system of 10+10 to armored dragoons? BW - Many units countered units even though they have -X damage penalty to them. Goliath countered Mutalisks even though it did -50% damage. Corsairs countered Mutalisks even though they do explosive damage (-50% to Mutalisks). Lurkers for example countered mass Zealots and Marines even though they do not get any damage bonus. Ghost don't counter light even though they have "+bonus damage to light". SC2 - Many units are defined by their damage bonus. Immortals countered armored because of their +30 damage. Banelings countered light because of their +damage. Archons, who used to counter zerglings and mutalisks while doing normal damage, now do +light damage to define their role. | ||
|
ComradeDover
Bulgaria758 Posts
On April 13 2010 10:09 Legendre wrote: SC2 - Many units are defined by their damage bonus. Immortals countered armored because of their +30 damage. Banelings countered light because of their +damage. Colossi counter mass roaches because...Oh shi- | ||
|
radynom
Canada8 Posts
Those who disagree with me think about the game of TheLittleOne vs LiquidNazgul: . Many people liked that game and I bet some of those are people who argue against hard counter. But isn't that an excellent example of hard counters being used? How many people realized that the game is interesting because TheLittleOne keep adapting his play to counter Nazgul's unit? Now consider examples where hard counters are not available. Sc1 ZvZ: it's all about mutalings vs mutalings because hydras don't counter muta well enough. Sure, it's takes a lot of micro and skills to play, but very few enjoy it. So is sc2 ZvZ, because unlike other races, zerg don't have a hard counter to roaches. The only example I see people complaining as hard counter is immortal vs roaches. No one seem to complain about other examples like void rays vs battle cruisers. Those who argue against hard counters need to think carefully about whether or not they really dislike hard counters or just roaches/marauders/immortal. | ||
|
Legendre
Afghanistan10 Posts
On April 13 2010 10:11 ComradeDover wrote: Colossi counter mass roaches because...Oh shi- Which is why I said "many" and not "all". :p SC2's Siege Tanks has a penalty vs light but it counters mass Marines still. So I guess there are some overlap. But don't you think SC2 units are much more defined by their +bonus damage than SC1? | ||
|
heyitsme
153 Posts
On April 13 2010 10:05 ComradeDover wrote: I'm not debating any of those points, nor am I saying the reaver is overpowered or imbalanced. But it's ridiculous to leave the unit out just because it proves you wrong about damage being higher in SC2. Unless you want to quantify your original statement and say "SC2 has higher damage when you exclude units that require micro or shuttles", which kind of loses it's luster, doesn't it? That's exactly the point. In SC1, extreme damage usually comes with a price... and no it's not only mineral and gas : Siege Tanks deal 70 dmg splash because they cannot move while in Siege Mode.Reavers deal 100 dmg splash because they move very slowly so they need to be constantly carried by a Shuttle. I swear, the Immortal would be twice as interesting if it moved at the speed of a Reaver. Also, I think some people really derailed the discussion in this thread by trying to compare the bonus damage systems used in BW and SC2 while this isn't the actual problem.SC2 could still have the BW damage system and by tweaking the stats of every unit, everything would be the same. The OP's point is that hard counters are good because it favors a game that is geared around tech switches. I played a game like this before (Halo Wars) and I gotta say that it does require skill. The early game is really micro heavy, however the main skills required after that is good scouting (for neutral buildings) and being able to guess what tech switch your opponent is going to do to be able to counter it. What me and some others in this thread believe is that soft counters (like BW) are better than hard counters because it promotes gameplay that uses a more diverse set of skills : not only being able to micro, macro and predict tech switches, but also being able to strategize (mass expanding to take advantage of mech in ZvT) or using tactics (taking a high ground to have an advantage in battle with lower numbers). | ||
| ||
