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?
Fine :/ I just don't see the Reaver as a conventional combat unit, just like how I don't see the HT as one. Not very good at explaining.
This goes back to the old discussion on hard to use, but big payoff. What I was trying to get at was that the easy to use units are way more powerful in SC2 than in SC1.
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?
Fine :/ I just don't see the Reaver as a conventional combat unit, just like how I don't see the HT as one. Not very good at explaining.
This goes back to the old discussion on hard to use, but big payoff. What I was trying to get at was that the easy to use units are way more powerful in SC2 than in SC1.
ComradeDover stop nitpicking. The essential argument is that units in Starcraft 2 ON AVERAGE do more damage than units in Starcraft 1.
ComradeDover is acting just like the right wing crazies here in america... he doesn't actually want to have any meaningful discussion, he's just nitpicking at anyone who doesn't agree with him... he doesn't want to actually prove a point, he just wants to nitpick everyone else's point... it's obvious to anyone intelligent why reavers and high templar were left out... but because you didn't explicitly state why in the post, it allows him to nitpick and try to wear away at your credibility... unlucky for him, i think most Team Liquid members are a little smarter than the average american and realize what game he's playing at and look down on him as the argumentative child that he is.
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?
Fine :/ I just don't see the Reaver as a conventional combat unit, just like how I don't see the HT as one. Not very good at explaining.
This goes back to the old discussion on hard to use, but big payoff. What I was trying to get at was that the easy to use units are way more powerful in SC2 than in SC1.
It's always been the unconventional combat units that have been the strongest. HTs and Defilers are contenders for the most powerful units in SC1. EMPs and irradiates from sci vessels can cripple an army, and the arbiter was so ridiculously powerful it's not even funny.
Go back to my roach vs colossi example. Both parties involved require micro to get the most out of their units. The protoss force can't just run back to base right away when they see the roaches and don't have colossi yet. -- that gives the zerg an easy push and contain. Same for the zerg if they see colossi but don't have tunneling claws yet. A full retreat means an easy time pushing across the map. In both cases the defender does a little dance with his units, trying to kite and delay for every second. Even the humble roach which everyone decries as "boring" is really difficult to use to it's full potential in a situation like that, especially without taking on losses.
And that's just an example from before I was able to play the beta, just from watching streams on the second day.
On April 13 2010 10:33 LunarC wrote: ComradeDover stop nitpicking. The essential argument is that units in Starcraft 2 ON AVERAGE do more damage than units in Starcraft 1.
And the extreme damage of Reavers and Siege Tanks don't affect that average? Get a grip.
On April 13 2010 10:39 miklotov wrote: ComradeDover is acting just like the right wing crazies here in america... he doesn't actually want to have any meaningful discussion, he's just nitpicking at anyone who doesn't agree with him... he doesn't want to actually prove a point, he just wants to nitpick everyone else's point...
Your ad hominem upsets me, sir.
On April 13 2010 10:39 miklotov wrote: it's obvious to anyone intelligent why reavers and high templar were left out...
Obviously not, or I wouldn't be making this arguement. Why should they be left out? What makes them so special?
On April 13 2010 10:39 miklotov wrote: but because you didn't explicitly state why in the post, it allows him to nitpick and try to wear away at your credibility... unlucky for him, i think most Team Liquid members are a little smarter than the average american and realize what game he's playing at and look down on him as the argumentative child that he is.
You guys should stop with the personal insults... And I had a good reply to you ComradeDover in the first paragraph of one of my previous posts... that was probably missed because it was on the last page.
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).
On April 13 2010 11:01 heyitsme wrote: You guys should stop with the personal insults... And I had a good reply to you ComradeDover in the first paragraph of one of my previous posts... that was probably missed because it was on the last page.
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).
But the same can be said for SC2. The damage output on the colossus is impressive, +dmg or not, but it's pretty fragile and can be attacked by both air and ground, which is a pretty serious drawback when you see zergs going corruptors or terrans going vikings solely for the purpose of removing those things. It's damage output comes at the cost of it's increased fragility.
I would disagree with changing the movement speed on the immortal. They move maybe twice as fast and they deal half the damage, and even then that's only if they're firing at an armored target, nor do they deal AoE damage.
I agree that the damage system isn't a problem. I'm glad we can find some common ground.
Actually, I just had an idea. What if you brought the reaver back and gave it the immortal's shield ability? :S
On April 13 2010 11:13 Synwave wrote: Arguments on both sides make sense according to a false definition but the OP misunderstands the definition of hard counters in rts.
When one unit can wipe out numerous opposing units because its the 'hard counter' it adds simplicty and dare I say it non-realism to the game.
On April 13 2010 11:13 Synwave wrote: Arguments on both sides make sense according to a false definition but the OP misunderstands the definition of hard counters in rts.
When one unit can wipe out numerous opposing units because its the 'hard counter' it adds simplicty and dare I say it non-realism to the game.
Like a High Templar or a Reaver in SC1. Gotcha.
Kill the shuttle and you can kill the Reaver easily with 4 rines, 8 lings or 2 zealots, or even miners. HT are so easy to snipe it's not even funny and laying down a blanket of storms is extremely hard without smartcast (which is why storm had to be nerfed in the first place).
It's much harder to use Reavers and HT well in SC1 than Immortals/Colossi/HT in SC2.
and there he goes again nitpicking and intentionally misinterpreting just so he can feel like he's winning an argument.
i bet you were a force to be reckoned with on the elementary school playground... maybe you should go back there and leave Team Liquid to the big boys.
On April 13 2010 11:13 Synwave wrote: Arguments on both sides make sense according to a false definition but the OP misunderstands the definition of hard counters in rts.
When one unit can wipe out numerous opposing units because its the 'hard counter' it adds simplicty and dare I say it non-realism to the game.
Like a High Templar or a Reaver in SC1. Gotcha.
Kill the shuttle and you can kill the Reaver easily with 4 rines, 8 lings or 2 zealots, or even miners. HT are so easy to snipe it's not even funny and laying down a blanket of storms is extremely hard without smartcast (which is why storm had to be nerfed in the first place).
It's much harder to use Reavers and HT well in SC1 than Immortals/Colossi/HT in SC2.
Is it? Just one EMP is all that's keeping the immortals from becoming pulp, and it's so much easier to snipe a colossus with vikings and their ridiculous 9-range attacks.
and there he goes again nitpicking and intentionally misinterpreting just so he can feel like he's winning an argument.
i bet you were a force to be reckoned with on the elementary school playground... maybe you should go back there and leave Team Liquid to the big boys.
I refuse to be drawn into some kind of pissing match by a 5-post user not making any real points.
But the same can be said for SC2. The damage output on the colossus is impressive, +dmg or not, but it's pretty fragile and can be attacked by both air and ground, which is a pretty serious drawback when you see zergs going corruptors or terrans going vikings solely for the purpose of removing those things. It's damage output comes at the cost of it's increased fragility.
You point out the Colossus in SC2 and I don't really have a problem with that particular unit because of the drawbacks that you mentioned. Corruptors aren't as good as Vikings against Colossus however this is not an issue to me because Zerg is supposed to have a better economy and an infrastructure that promotes tech switching.
Now Blizzard needs to find a similar weakness for the Immortal that can be taken advantage of by a factory unit in TvP...
On April 13 2010 10:15 radynom wrote: I think the problem with hard counter is not the system itself. It's just that people using it to explain their frustration/hatred towards the roaches and marauders because they can't think of how else to fix those units.
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.
Agreed.
I think what people are complaining about are not hard counters but rather, "units that hard counter another unit because it does +X bonus damage". The biggest (and maybe only?!) offenders seems to be the unholy trinity R/M/I.
But I also don't like how they make the Archon do +light damage to define it as a hard counter to light units. The old Archon countered light pretty well without an arbitrary +bonus damage.
But the same can be said for SC2. The damage output on the colossus is impressive, +dmg or not, but it's pretty fragile and can be attacked by both air and ground, which is a pretty serious drawback when you see zergs going corruptors or terrans going vikings solely for the purpose of removing those things. It's damage output comes at the cost of it's increased fragility.
You point out the Colossus in SC2 and I don't really have a problem with that particular unit because of the drawbacks that you mentioned. Corruptors aren't as good as Vikings against Colossus however this is not an issue to me because Zerg is supposed to have a better economy and an infrastructure that promotes tech switching.
Now Blizzard needs to find a similar weakness for the Immortal that can be taken advantage of by a factory unit in TvP...
Step 1) EMP Step 2) Select your measly two tanks and have them fire on the now sheildless immortal.
Of course, this may mean that you'll be investing some of your gas into ghosts, which means less huge tank lines and more marines to compensate, but I'm okay with that. This is SC2, not just a reboot of SC1, and I see no reason for pure mech to be viable any more than pure terran air should be viable.
On April 13 2010 11:13 Synwave wrote: Arguments on both sides make sense according to a false definition but the OP misunderstands the definition of hard counters in rts.
When one unit can wipe out numerous opposing units because its the 'hard counter' it adds simplicty and dare I say it non-realism to the game.
Like a High Templar or a Reaver in SC1. Gotcha.
Kill the shuttle and you can kill the Reaver easily with 4 rines, 8 lings or 2 zealots, or even miners. HT are so easy to snipe it's not even funny and laying down a blanket of storms is extremely hard without smartcast (which is why storm had to be nerfed in the first place).
It's much harder to use Reavers and HT well in SC1 than Immortals/Colossi/HT in SC2.
Is it? Just one EMP is all that's keeping the immortals from becoming pulp, and it's so much easier to snipe a colossus with vikings and their ridiculous 9-range attacks.
Yeah, but the beauty of the Reaver was that a small number of any unit could kill it, you didn't need a specify unit to counter it unless there was a shuttle to complement it. And now, we're back to the hard counter discussion. I don't believe having units that require a unit counter to be good for gameplay.
ok i'm officially done with anything ComradeDover related... so i'll try and get back to the topic at hand.
what we should be discussing is what do hard counters bring to the game that soft counters don't... basically, if you "softened" the hard counters would it make the game better or worse?
so lets think about the immortal since it's basically the epitome of the hard counter in SC2 currently... what would happen to the game if the immortal lost its +30 dmg to armored? it would still counter all the units it is supposed to counter like roaches and tanks, thanks to its hardened shield ability... but it wouldn't be so amazingly good that as soon as a protoss player sees roaches they immediately have to go immortals if they want to live.
now i understand that if the immortal lost all of its +dmg then there would probably have to be other adjustments made, possibly increasing it's base damage or decreasing the cost or build time... but assuming the necessary changes are made so that the immortal moves from being a hard counter, to a softer counter... how would that affect the game? would it be good or bad for the game?
this is the basic question that blizzard is asking themselves and it's something we can help them answer here... so what is everyone else's thoughts?... be as detailed as possible in how you think a change like this would affect the overall game and please try to stick with the immortal example just so we can all be on the same page... the effects of changing the immortal can probably be safely generalized to other hard counter units anyway.
I think what people are complaining about are not hard counters but rather, "units that hard counter another unit because it does +X bonus damage". The biggest (and maybe only?!) offenders seems to be the unholy trinity R/M/I.
But I also don't like how they make the Archon do +light damage to define it as a hard counter to light units. The old Archon countered light pretty well without an arbitrary +bonus damage.
ComradeDover, your approach to argumentation is much too similar to modern politics where people simply argue for the sake of defending their position rather than trying to reach a consensus. In fact, too many people approach argumentation this way, not only ComradeDover. However, you seem to be inclined to simplifying arguments to the point of rendering them absurd, so I'll try to be comprehensive for you.
What I meant by the average damage output is that the majority of units that can conventionally be massed without losing the game early on to a player that can take advantage of obvious openings that massing a high-tech high-damage army entails have higher attack strengths in Starcraft 2 than it is in Starcraft 1. This is due to the fact that high-damage and highly survivable units can be accessed relatively early in the game without significant economic sacrifice or a heavy micro investment.
@miklotov: I don't think you understand the extent to which Protoss needs Immortals to live. It's a little too essential as of now to nerf it on its own. It already has a build time of 40 which can be reduced to about 26.8 seconds using consistent Chrono Boost, which is relatively short. What needs to happen is a situation where the Immortal is not as necessary for survival and then a nerf that makes it more situational than essential. Like the Reaver.
I think a problem people have is that hard counters are being applied to tier 1 and 1.5 units. Banelings and marauders to be exact. These guys shouldn't hard counter entire armies. Banelings can own all of terran tier 1-1.5 units. Marauders do the same thing to protoss.
In Sc1 PvT, terran didn't go marine not because maraine/medic lost to zealot/dragoon. Terran avoided marines because storm/reaver owned it, which is perfectly fine because storm/reaver is later in the tech tree.
you're absolutely right LunarC... nothing happens in a vacuum and there would have to be other changes in order to make the immortal work within the protoss army as a "softer" counter.... the problem is that i can't even begin to establish an example that would do this justice... so i just say to...
assume the necessary changes are made so that the immortal moves from being a hard counter, to a softer counter... how would that affect the game?
so just assume that the necessary changes are made so that the protoss doesn't rely so heavily on the immortal for survival, so that it's possible to have a balanced game where the immortal is a "softer" counter... and tell me what affect you think that would have on the game.
EPT
