EPTIf their CONTEXT were changed. And this change would be for the better.
In defense of hard counters... - Page 7
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
LunarC
United States1186 Posts
If their CONTEXT were changed. And this change would be for the better. | ||
|
ComradeDover
Bulgaria758 Posts
On April 13 2010 11:37 buhhy wrote: 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. Which there always was, and in the few rare cases there wasn't a shuttle, the reaver would be behind a ton of zealots and dragoons, which means it would take a few more than a small number of any unit to get to it. On April 13 2010 11:37 buhhy wrote: 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. Come now, this happens in SC1 all the time. In TvZ when the Terran moves out with his early marine/medic group to pressure, the zerg player can do any of four things: 1) Get mutalisks, snipe units and keep the bioball away from his base and his potential expansions 2) Get Lurkers, establish a good position. 3) Concede defeat. 4) Throw down a ton of sunkens, and either get them busted in now, or get out-expanded now and outmacroed later (Basically conceding defeat). The zerg player can either get mutalisks, get lurkers, get both (In all these cases, getting a specific unit to counter), or they can lose. And yet, the marine/lurker dynamic is one of the most celebrated matchups in Broodwar. On April 13 2010 11:42 LunarC wrote: 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. Because your arguments are absurd. How can anybody build concensus here? Yesterday it was the mutalisk, today it's the roach/immortal/marauder trinity, tomorrow it will be come other innane thing that people feel the need to complain about. On April 13 2010 11:42 LunarC wrote: 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. Assuming your convoluted statement was true, how is this a problem, assuming all sides have an equal(ish) chance and getting them? It's not like Protoss players see a Terran's Marauder and type out GG instantly, same with Terran players seeing Immortals. You're making the critical mistake of trying to impose Broodwar's standards on a game that isn't Brood War. | ||
|
Synwave
United States2803 Posts
step 1) misconstrue the definition of a term within a given group step 2) put forth your argument based on this misinformation step 3) reap the replies and feel like you made a useful op optional step 4) respond to anything critical with childish antics | ||
|
LunarC
United States1186 Posts
What I'm actually trying to advocate is a look at the dynamics of the game and the roles the units play in creating those dynamics. Surely this will develop with time, but if there are such things as accessible and completely necessary hard counters in the game, this will severely limit such freedom of progression. Which would be fine if the end result is entertaining to watch and intense to play, but people are dissatisfied with the way Starcraft 2's dynamics are turning out as much as there are people who disagree (such as ComradeDover). | ||
|
miklotov
United States62 Posts
The zerg player can either get mutalisks, get lurkers, get both (In all these cases, getting a specific unit to counter), or they can lose. And yet, the marine/lurker dynamic is one of the most celebrated matchups in Broodwar. exactly... the difference is that in BW the dynamic was based on the MECHANICS of the unit, not some arbitrary +dmg number. this is the main issue... counters are good, we are not arguing that (even thought it seems like you think we are)... we're arguing that the use of +dmg to make counters way harder than they need to be is a bad choice for the game. we need MORE counter dynamics like the ones you mentioned... currently we don't have dynamics like that... the dynamics between roack/immortal or tank/immortal or roach/marauder are simply lame in relation to the kind of dynamics you mentioned from BW... it seems like we both want the same thing, you just don't realize it. | ||
|
buhhy
United States1113 Posts
On April 13 2010 12:15 miklotov wrote: exactly... the difference is that in BW the dynamic was based on the MECHANICS of the unit, not some arbitrary +dmg number. this is the main issue... counters are good, we are not arguing that (even thought it seems like you think we are)... we're arguing that the use of +dmg to make counters way harder than they need to be is a bad choice for the game. we need MORE counter dynamics like the ones you mentioned... currently we don't have dynamics like that... the dynamics between roack/immortal or tank/immortal or roach/marauder are simply lame in relation to the kind of dynamics you mentioned from BW... it seems like we both want the same thing, you just don't realize it. Lol, I thought you left this thread. Anyways, instead of going mutaling or lurkerling midgame, Zerg now has a choice of going roach hydra or roach hy- o... wait. | ||
|
ComradeDover
Bulgaria758 Posts
On April 13 2010 12:15 miklotov wrote: exactly... the difference is that in BW the dynamic was based on the MECHANICS of the unit, not some arbitrary +dmg number. this is the main issue... counters are good, we are not arguing that (even thought it seems like you think we are)... we're arguing that the use of +dmg to make counters way harder than they need to be is a bad choice for the game. we need MORE counter dynamics like the ones you mentioned... currently we don't have dynamics like that... the dynamics between roack/immortal or tank/immortal or roach/marauder are simply lame in relation to the kind of dynamics you mentioned from BW... it seems like we both want the same thing, you just don't realize it. See above about colossus vs roach, or hellions (even without preigniter upgrade) against massed zerglings. | ||
|
miklotov
United States62 Posts
See above about colossus vs roach, or hellions (even without preigniter upgrade) against massed zerglings. is roach vs immortal or tank vs immortal on the same level of fun and interest as the ones you mention?... NO.... could it be better?... YES... how do we get there?... by making counters less "hard" and making them based on actual mechanics instead of +dmg modifiers. i guess i should have said we don't have AS MANY dynamics like that.... because you're right that we do... but most people understood what i meant, even though i admit that i wasn't as clear as i should have been... but do you see how all you do is nitpick and find flaws that you can intentionally misinterpret so that you can avoid the argument i'm trying to make? talking to you is seriously like talking to a child... i challenge you to address my first paragraph without trying to change the subject or dismiss it because of some little nitpick detail that everyone but you was able to understand... good luck kiddo. | ||
|
ComradeDover
Bulgaria758 Posts
On April 13 2010 12:37 miklotov wrote: is roach vs immortal or tank vs immortal on the same level of fun and interest as the ones you mention?... NO.... could it be better?... YES... how do we get there?... by making counters less "hard" and making them based on actual mechanics instead of +dmg modifiers. StarCraft 2 is more than those specific unit matchups. Assuming you're right, my next question would be "so what"? At what point do you draw the line? Does every single unit need to be some kind of complex, intricate dynamic unit? If we have one or two units that have "hard counter" matchups, does that break the game? Are we going to bitch and whine and make a million complain threads about it until we get our way and Blizzard gives the baby it's bottle? On April 13 2010 12:37 miklotov wrote: i guess i should have said we don't have AS MANY dynamics like that.... because you're right that we do... but most people understood what i meant, even though i admit that i wasn't as clear as i should have been... but do you see how all you do is nitpick and find flaws that you can intentionally misinterpret so that you can avoid the argument i'm trying to make? talking to you is seriously like talking to a child... There you go again, blaming me for your inability to communicate clearly. How is it my fault that you can't make what you write match what you mean? On April 13 2010 12:37 miklotov wrote: i challenge you to address my first paragraph without trying to change the subject or dismiss it because of some little nitpick detail that everyone but you was able to understand... good luck kiddo. k. | ||
|
NihiloZero
United States68 Posts
On April 13 2010 12:09 LunarC wrote: What I'm actually trying to advocate is a look at the dynamics of the game and the roles the units play in creating those dynamics. Surely this will develop with time, but if there are such things as accessible and completely necessary hard counters in the game, this will severely limit such freedom of progression. I'm still not convinced that specific hard counters are always "completely necessary" and, to the extent that they may be... this is going to be temporary until one (and possibly both) of the players start building in a different direction. I really am not trying to be belligerent here, and don't want to continue being insulted (in random comments), but I really think that people are making too big of a deal in regard to certain units. Take, for example, the immortal -- in addition to its advantages, it's slow, has medium range, and falls to both lings and mutas. The simple fact of the matter is that when units come into combat the opponent must either come up with a counter or lose -- and that's true in a real battle or in an rts game. And this does not necessarily mean that the other player can't build other units as well but, rather, that those other units might not be made in great numbers at the moment or their appearance might be delayed a bit. But, obviously (and this is partly what the beta is for) what really needs to be done is a close examination of builds specifically to a certain level in the game and then it needs to be seen how different units fair against each other. (Blizzard should have some good AI to test this out in addition to the countless hours of play testing.) Since the immortal has been suggested as a problematic example, I'll use that. But one can't just say that this unit is particularly good against another unit type (or armor type) so we need to nerf it. This is because there are other factors at play. (And I know this will be somewhat pedantic, but please bear with me as I'm trying to be specific....) Cost: a unit may be effective but where it sits in the tech tree and how much it costs to get there and produce is very important! Speed: Even though the Immortal is good at combating armored units, it's not exceptionally mobile. If a player techs up to immortals immediately and moves straight out to attack the opponents base right away it will A) take a considerable amount of time to get to that base, and B) while it's on it's way some of the opponents units can blow right by it and attack the mineral line. And at the same time the opponent can be teching up to mutas or banshees or massing up large amounts of smaller units to combat it when it arrives (assuming they don't already have them). Counters to counters: if immortals are built... build will consequently have to adjusted, but if a banshee or two can be popped out quickly that TOTALLY counters immortals and then the player can switch back to building whatever their main idea was in the first place. I think the main thing is to be dynamic, be ready to use all your available units, and then get good at tech switching back and forth -- the top players do this all the time and and it makes for exciting and interesting matches. | ||
|
TheRunawayFound
64 Posts
Not that great son... | ||
|
miklotov
United States62 Posts
StarCraft 2 is more than those specific unit matchups. Assuming you're right, my next question would be "so what"? At what point do you draw the line? Does every single unit need to be some kind of complex, intricate dynamic unit? If we have one or two units that have "hard counter" matchups, does that break the game? Are we going to bitch and whine and make a million complain threads about it until we get our way and Blizzard gives the baby it's bottle? ok.. lets take this one step at a time because obviously larger steps are just not possible for you... so here is my simple yes/no, single sentence question... "would having a larger number of interesting and dynamic counters make for a better game?" | ||
|
ComradeDover
Bulgaria758 Posts
On April 13 2010 13:09 miklotov wrote: ok.. lets take this one step at a time because obviously larger steps are just not possible for you... so here is my simple yes/no, single sentence question... "would having a larger number of interesting and dynamic counters make for a better game?" That isn't a question that can be answered with a simple yes/no. The nearest I can come is "maybe", but apparently you aren't interested in concepts that can't be answered with a single sentence. | ||
|
fulmetljaket
482 Posts
On April 13 2010 00:30 fulmetljaket wrote: + Show Spoiler + 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 do you think they will notice? | ||
|
ComradeDover
Bulgaria758 Posts
Someone already did; but nobody cares. | ||
|
Daerthalus
Canada73 Posts
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? Say they eliminated the HARD counter by changing the immortal's damage from 20+30 to 40 + 10. The unit now counters mech less...since it lost 20 of its MECH only damage. But in essence it's no better for mech than before. It just looks better. Immortals are even better than they were before. Heck, I'd build Immortal vs anything on the ground at 40+10. So it is clear that 20+30 is fairer than 40+10, since damage to all units > damage to a single type. So lets try 30+10 instead of 20+30. What is the change to the Immortal's use now? AT 30+10 it is now no longer an anti-armored unit. Sure it's shields still enable it to take 10 from Siege hits (until it gets EMPed), but Terran would obviously feel that their mech options are a lot less restricted. In essence yes your tanks feel less persecuted, but my Immortal now slices and dices through your Marines, and other non-armored units alot easier... AT 30+10 my Immortal is much less countered by non-armored unit than before. So you'' build more tanks, but less non-armored units now. I'd still build more Immortals since they are better vs tanks than many other units, and now even if you don't build a single tank I'm better off than before. In essence you'd make my Immortal far more desirable in mass numbers. As yourself why does protoss make Immortals? Do they make them cuz they beat every unit Terran makes or do they build them to build the units that terran IS MAKING. Correct answer: Protoss makes immortals to beat Terran's Marauders. The side effect is your Tanks and Thors (thors somewhat less) are also countered. If you build nothing but Marines, Vultures, Medivacs, Banshees, Ghosts and BCs, you'll never see many immortals beyond the initial stages of the game. Why the initial stage? Protoss probably made a few figuring you'd be going Marauders. In reality, Immortal are made as a direct result of terran's unit choices. Colossi are the same, you mass marines, Protoss builds colossi. You mass Banshee's, meet massed Stalkers. That is the mark of a reactive and good player. | ||
|
Snipinpanda
United States1227 Posts
On April 13 2010 12:01 ComradeDover wrote: Come now, this happens in SC1 all the time. In TvZ when the Terran moves out with his early marine/medic group to pressure, the zerg player can do any of four things: 1) Get mutalisks, snipe units and keep the bioball away from his base and his potential expansions 2) Get Lurkers, establish a good position. 3) Concede defeat. 4) Throw down a ton of sunkens, and either get them busted in now, or get out-expanded now and outmacroed later (Basically conceding defeat). The zerg player can either get mutalisks, get lurkers, get both (In all these cases, getting a specific unit to counter), or they can lose. And yet, the marine/lurker dynamic is one of the most celebrated matchups in Broodwar. . Neither lurkers or mutas hard counter MnM though. Mutas stop terran pushes because they can reduce the size of Ts army while threatening lots of worker harass. It's their mobility that allows zerg to stop Terran from pushing. If you engage mutas against marines directly, in general, I'm willing to bet mutas will straight up lose. Lurkers stop marine medic pushes and forces T back because they burrow and Terran won't have constant detection till vessels are out. Lurkers maybe "hard" counter marines in a defensive position, but to actually "counter" them in an offensive position, you need good lurker ling micro(note: this has nothing to do with + or - damage, just the mobility of the unit). Ever seen a bad player lose their entire army because they can't do it? MnM vs lurker is an interesting aspect because it's about how well each player can micro. It's not really like either unit counters each other, but rather on how the player uses that unit. Similiarly, in TvP/PvT, tanks would eat goons alive if they are sieged(defensive), but while moving around they are really vulnerable. I don't really see this type of stuff in SC2, and I feel that's leads to some of the problems... | ||
|
ethos
Korea (South)26 Posts
By mechanics I mean, ranged vs melee, ground+air attack vs ground-air attack vs air-ground attack, flying, movement speed, splash damage, etc. If you look at the "hard counters" in SC1, they are usually between mechanically different units. The "hard counters" in SC2 are usually between units that are mechanically the same. The most notable example is Roaches, Marauders and Immortals; basically the same unit, scaled to cost. Personally, I think Blizzard made a mistake in the design philosophy of the game. Instead of focusing on making races as unique as possible, they decided to focus on making the units as unique as possible. | ||
|
mutantmagnet
United States3807 Posts
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. No the hard counter system is also flawed. It's becoming apparent that it isn't as sophisticated as SC1's previous counter system. | ||
|
ComradeDover
Bulgaria758 Posts
On April 13 2010 17:57 mutantmagnet wrote: No the hard counter system is also flawed. It's becoming apparent that it isn't as sophisticated as SC1's previous counter system. Mind telling me the difference? | ||
| ||
