|
On April 13 2010 14:30 fulmetljaket wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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?
marble? no,they wont
|
Mind telling me the difference?
we've said the difference many times but you just ignore it or try to skirt the issue like an american politician who is too stubborn to admit that he might be wrong... instead of actually addressing the issue you put your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and shout at a the top of your lungs at anyone with a different point of view than you.
the difference is that in SC1 the counter system was based around the mechanical properties of the unit (movement, range, special abilities, etc:...).. but in SC2 any counter involving roach/marauder/immortal is based MORE on arbitrary +dmg numbers than the actual mechanics of the unit.
counters based on unit mechanics are more fun and interesting and the game is better because of them. the examples you yourself give of good counters are based on mechanics, not +dmg modifiers.
so what we're trying to say is that blizz should reduce the use of +dmg values so as to bring the "hardness" of the counters down to a reasonable level where we can get back to situations where counters are determined by the mechanics of a unit, which we have already established makes the game more interesting.
now of course having a handful of "hard" counters based on +dmg does not break the game or anything... but the game would be more interesting with "softer" more mechanics based counters... so why would we not want to make a change that would be better for the game as a whole?
those out there that are in favor of hard counters, your goal should be to convince us that hard counters add something to the game that is more interesting than what "softer" mechanics based counters offer.
|
how do you hard counter a marauder?
|
You don't hardcounter a Marauder, you hardcounter Marauders. At least that's how I think it works. You have to look at it within the context of actual gameplay, otherwise I could simply respond to your question - Well, with a Mutalisk of course.
|
you sir op
is serving the wrong gods
|
On April 13 2010 21:25 Tadah wrote:
You don't hardcounter a Marauder, you hardcounter Marauders. At least that's how I think it works. You have to look at it within the context of actual gameplay, otherwise I could simply respond to your question - Well, with a Mutalisk of course.
Oh, you mean you counter a t1.5 unit with a t2 unit that takes forever to kill it?
Makes sense to me.
Kind of like how mutalisks counter roaches except they really don't because your base is dead before you can kill them?
|
On April 13 2010 21:35 Lollersauce wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2010 21:25 Tadah wrote:
You don't hardcounter a Marauder, you hardcounter Marauders. At least that's how I think it works. You have to look at it within the context of actual gameplay, otherwise I could simply respond to your question - Well, with a Mutalisk of course. Oh, you mean you counter a t1.5 unit with a t2 unit that takes forever to kill it? Makes sense to me. Kind of like how mutalisks counter roaches except they really don't because your base is dead before you can kill them?
You illustrate my point sort of. I mean, to say that a Tank is hardcountered by an Immortal is pretty given due to it 3-shotting them as well as being on the same tier more or less, but when it comes to other units this 1v1 scenario doesn't hold for the reasons you listed. The context of the game is important to consider and for that reason one would not say that a Mutalisk is a proper counter to a Marauder nor ask the question what single unit is the counter to this single unit even if that of course is what the harcouncer issue is mainly about.
But isn't the problem players are having with Marauders that they are in fact too allround and counters nearly everything and thus makes the game boring?
|
On April 13 2010 21:16 miklotov wrote:
we've said the difference many times but you just ignore it or try to skirt the issue like an american politician who is too stubborn to admit that he might be wrong... instead of actually addressing the issue you put your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and shout at a the top of your lungs at anyone with a different point of view than you.
Lol. Okay, Glenn Beck.
On April 13 2010 21:16 miklotov wrote:
the difference is that in SC1 the counter system was based around the mechanical properties of the unit (movement, range, special abilities, etc:...).. but in SC2 any counter involving roach/marauder/immortal is based MORE on arbitrary +dmg numbers than the actual mechanics of the unit.
Why do you feel these numbers are arbitrary? Are they any more arbitrary than any of the base damages in SC2? Or in Brood War, for that matter?
On April 13 2010 21:16 miklotov wrote:
counters based on unit mechanics are more fun and interesting and the game is better because of them. the examples you yourself give of good counters are based on mechanics, not +dmg modifiers.
This is only true because the +dmg modifiers are new to SC2. Well, that method of expressing damage is, at least. In Brood War we had, for all intents and purposes, a -dmg system. Why do Lurkers, Reavers, Siege Tanks, and Psi Storm counter marines? It certainly isn't because of the unit speed (As with vultures "countering" marines) or some other kind of mechanic involved, but because they deal enough damage to quickly deal with low-hp units.
On April 13 2010 21:16 miklotov wrote:
so what we're trying to say is that blizz should reduce the use of +dmg values so as to bring the "hardness" of the counters down to a reasonable level where we can get back to situations where counters are determined by the mechanics of a unit, which we have already established makes the game more interesting.
now of course having a handful of "hard" counters based on +dmg does not break the game or anything... but the game would be more interesting with "softer" more mechanics based counters... so why would we not want to make a change that would be better for the game as a whole?
Why would we not want to make a change? Because the game is good now. I don't know why you don't want to accept it, but at this moment SC2 is better balanced and more fun than any game Blizzard has ever made before it's launch. We have a good thing going. Don't fuck with it.
|
Too bad balance doesn't get you interesting units to play with.
Checkers is balanced.
|
On April 13 2010 22:11 Lollersauce wrote:
Too bad balance doesn't get you interesting units to play with.
Checkers is balanced.
Good thing is balance gives you ESPORTS.
StarCraft Broodwar is balanced.
|
I don't care about esports if it's to watch or play a game that isn't interesting.
What is the primary reason we all care about esports here? BW is a damn fun game with very interesting mechanics, that has kept our interest up for 10+yrs. At least that's my case since I got into SC back when it first came out.
But that's because it had mechanics like the Defiler's, like Irradiate, etc which as someone accurately pointed out, are broken on paper.
Right now we have units with very stale mechanics when they are even there (see the general lack of them for zerg as well as lack of general unit diversity), with a trio of superunits broken on paper not because of interesting mechanics, but just ridiculous tanking+dmg+cost stats.
Where are the cool mechanics in SC2? Cliff walking? Give me a break...
|
On April 13 2010 22:17 lolaloc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2010 22:11 Lollersauce wrote:
Too bad balance doesn't get you interesting units to play with.
Checkers is balanced. Good thing is balance gives you ESPORTS. StarCraft Broodwar is balanced.
So checkers should be a spectator sport like ESPORTS?
Starcraft Broodwar is balanced and FUN TO WATCH.
I'd rather spectate a Brood War match over a Starcraft 2 match hands down, and there's only one reason for it. Brood War games are more exciting to watch than Starcraft 2 games are.
@ComradeDover:
This is getting kind of ridiculous. It's still in beta and you're saying that we shouldn't fuck with it in the name of balance at the cost of being more interesting to watch? Granted beta is for balance but if balance is all that makes Starcraft 2 what it is, rather than interesting unit and army dynamics, well from a spectator's standpoint I think most people will prefer Brood War to the current state of the Starcraft 2 Beta. It's boring to watch. Fuck with it.
|
On April 13 2010 22:31 LunarC wrote:
So checkers should be a spectator sport like ESPORTS?
Starcraft Broodwar is balanced and FUN TO WATCH.
I'd rather spectate a Brood War match over a Starcraft 2 match hands down, and there's only one reason for it. Brood War games are more exciting to watch than Starcraft 2 games are. Hmmm... you're right. Clearly, Blizzard's challenge here is achieving this. The question is: Are they up for that challenge?
|
I maintain that while the comments stating that units should be countered by mechanics rather than + damage makes sense, any comparisons to SC1 more or less fail.
Biggest difference between SC1 and SC2 beyond the actual units/abilities, is that SC1 used a "hidden" damage nerf system, and SC2 uses a very visible bonus damage system. Your Dragoon in SC1 didn't say I deal less damage to X, Y, Z unit types. It just said X damage and the "hidden" system took it from there. Essentially SC1 had a counter system but they didn't make it obvious, so everyone assumes it wasn't there.
Roaches beat Lings, due to a Mechanic...it's called Armor, not due to a +bonus damage.
Marauder and Immortals counter Roaches and each other due to the + Damage bonus.
I would agree that Immortals shouldn't have 250% more damage on Armored, and that their bonus damage should be toned down to 30+10 or something similar. They would then hard counter tanks and other high damage slow attack units due to their Mechanic *Hardened Shields*...until they get EMPed.
|
those out there that are in favor of hard counters, your goal should be to convince us that hard counters add something to the game that is more interesting than what "softer" mechanics based counters offer.
The main reason hard counters are good for SC2 is that they force you to build a variety of units or lose. If you mass stalkers vs Terran they will Mass Marauders and u will lose. If Zerg masses Roaches, protoss will make Immortals. Contrary to popular opinion the game shouldn't end there. A bit of forward thinking should lead the Zerg player to plan for those immortals with Zerglings or with a future tech to Hydras or Mutas; thus the game would continue with each player either proactively trying to out think or by good scouting reactively counter the other player.
What prevent people from switching tech or units are 3 things:
1) Current unit comp is good enough.
2) Other unit comp tech costs are too expensive with respect to their bonuses.
3) Combination of 1 & 2.
The opportunity cost of changing tech can be measure in # of additional units that could be made with current tech. If those units are almost as good as the new tech's units, and the tech cost is high, you may just chose to make more of the units you already can build. That is the reasons protoss go for Robo early game and often skip Stargate or even Templar tech until much later.
Hard counters encourage you to change unit comp, since 1) Current unit comp is weak vs enemy counter comp and 2) New counter unit comp is strong vs enemy comp. So from Weak (-5) to Strong (+5) is a huge swing (10 arbitrary points), versus a soft comp scenario where you're going from so so (0) to a little bit better (+1).
|
On April 13 2010 18:35 fulmetljaket wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2010 14:30 fulmetljaket wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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? marble? no,they wont
oh so funny
|
On April 13 2010 23:24 Daerthalus wrote:Show nested quote +those out there that are in favor of hard counters, your goal should be to convince us that hard counters add something to the game that is more interesting than what "softer" mechanics based counters offer. The main reason hard counters are good for SC2 is that they force you to build a variety of units or lose. If you mass stalkers vs Terran they will Mass Marauders and u will lose. If Zerg masses Roaches, protoss will make Immortals. Contrary to popular opinion the game shouldn't end there. A bit of forward thinking should lead the Zerg player to plan for those immortals with Zerglings or with a future tech to Hydras or Mutas; thus the game would continue with each player either proactively trying to out think or by good scouting reactively counter the other player.
Are any of these things happening interesting and engaging to watch? As in is there an off-chance that if any of the Marauders or Stalkers are microed improperly, either side could take the win? Most likely not.
Even more unlikely is seeing a pure Marauder force take on a pure Stalker force, but is there anything diverse about 3 races with armies that move similarly, kite similarly, and focus fire similarly? No not at all. Mech is the only oddball I can spot so far.
|
remember sc1 had hard counters as well
|
The main reason hard counters are good for SC2 is that they force you to build a variety of units or lose.
the key word there is FORCE.
basically with a hard counter system, either you make the counter, or you die.
with a soft counter system the player has more possible decisions to make. he can either make a soft counter to give him a slight advantage, or he can make use of other units and mechanics to try and defeat the enemy's army without any explicit counters... for example instead of making immortals a protoss player could use stalkers and blink micro to defeat roaches... but since immortals are such a hard counter currently, you almost never see blink micro used, there is really no reason to do anything other than make immortals as soon as you scout roaches.... if immortals weren't such a hard counter we would see more interesting use of units and their mechanics because it opens up more possible options for the player.... as you lower the advantage of a particular "hard" counter, you open up the possibility to use new "soft" counters... a game with a lot of soft counters is more interesting than one with hard counters because it allows for so many more different ways to play.
the more valid options available to a player, the more interesting the game is to watch and play.
when there is only 1 valid option, there is no real thought involved... and no innovative or interesting ways to play... you either make use of the hard counter, or you die.
yes hard counters force you to build different units and vary your composition according to the other player's army... but you can also achieve that same thing with soft counters, the difference is that soft counters give you a choice... it's no longer a no-brainer and you actually have to put in a little thought to determine which particular choice you want to make in each situation.
now with that being said... you can't just remove the hard counters altogether and magically everything will get better... you have to LESSEN the counter so that it opens up more possible options to the player... we don't want to reduce the number of counters, we want to increase the number of USABLE counters... and in order to do that we have to "soften" the hard counters.
hope that makes sense...
|
On April 13 2010 23:42 LunarC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2010 23:24 Daerthalus wrote:those out there that are in favor of hard counters, your goal should be to convince us that hard counters add something to the game that is more interesting than what "softer" mechanics based counters offer. The main reason hard counters are good for SC2 is that they force you to build a variety of units or lose. If you mass stalkers vs Terran they will Mass Marauders and u will lose. If Zerg masses Roaches, protoss will make Immortals. Contrary to popular opinion the game shouldn't end there. A bit of forward thinking should lead the Zerg player to plan for those immortals with Zerglings or with a future tech to Hydras or Mutas; thus the game would continue with each player either proactively trying to out think or by good scouting reactively counter the other player. Are any of these things happening interesting and engaging to watch? As in is there an off-chance that if any of the Marauders or Stalkers are microed improperly, either side could take the win? Most likely not. Even more unlikely is seeing a pure Marauder force take on a pure Stalker force, but is there anything diverse about 3 races with armies that move similarly, kite similarly, and focus fire similarly? No not at all. Mech is the only oddball I can spot so far.
You ask if any of these things are interesting. Does this mean you have seen those or not?
In this particular example Marauders don't slow anything until they get upgraded and Stalkers are definitely faster. Later Stalkers can get Blink so even though Marauders get slow it depends entirely on player how effective Stalkers are.
It also ads possible timings once upgrades are finished.
There are also Sentries with their Force Field and no one is forced to use just a single hotkey - if all you've seen are 2 blobs meetings each other with no flanking at all (I mean mostly melee units by that) then don't even start talking about excitement.
Let's not forget about new Protoss shields regen too only because it's not always possible to abuse that.
It's not the devs fault that people don't like to use their brains and want good old 2-3 types of units through whole games and I'm inclined to believe that this is the biggest problem here.
I'd like to see your answer to what NihiloZero wrote on the previous page
+ Show Spoiler [I mean this] +On April 13 2010 12:54 NihiloZero wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Everything is in place, except people don't use that. EMPs are fun and make spreading Protoss units matter.
Marauders get killed easily by anything that's not armored - think BW Dragoons and Zerglings, goons can hit and run but stand no chance once surrounded.
It's the same with Roaches - they can't be a hard counter to Zealots if they get killed in 1 on 1 fight pre nerf, as has been proven by Ygosu.
+ Show Spoiler +http://sc2.ygosu.com/sc2_lab/?s_assort=&page=2&search=&searcht=&idx=6
Since Roaches can hit and run it suddenly matters where do you engage and how do you use Force Fields (or most likely both of those at the same time). Now that Zerglings don't need 50 hits to kill a Roach it should be possible to kill them with Zerglings too, we need to see how ZvZ changes.
Considering Immortal is T2, isn't that cheap, can't be warped in, has to be chrono boosted in most cases to get even few moderately fast and comes from a building that costs precious gas I don't think it's broken if it counters just armoured - Zealots and Zerglings can be used to take Immortal shots; Terran can use Marines - it's even easier because Marines have shorter range so by default they are in front of Marauders.
Protoss of course has Zealots and Colossi but it just means Terran needs maneuver his army and decide what to put in front.
Units being so close that nearly merging into clusterfuck is definitely problem... but that's a whole another topic. I want to believe that players who will not spread their units will die to AoE.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
