|
On April 12 2010 16:46 Funchucks wrote:
I, on the other hand, am completely opposed to hard counters, and believe that the game is unplayable as long as zerglings are not able to climb up on each others' shoulders to reach air units.
Funchucks, haven't seen you post in a while! And lol!
EDIT: I think hard counters have their place, but not everything should have a hard counter. Similar to SC, each army combination had a specific combination that would be most *effective* but it would just completely rape it just because of those units. It was more like, they'd compliment each other to have a more effective synergistic effect against that particular army.
|
Some people are making good arguments in favor of "soft" counters but, even as they are described in this thread, that system can be abused too -- and possibly with more regularity. For example... a weak-hitting unit with incredibly long range would still probably be imbalanced because it could easily be microed to destroy just about anything -- especially if was cheap and in massive numbers. A devastating spell, also suggested as a "soft" counter, which does an incredible amount of damage at short ranges could still be highly imbalanced depending on the strength of the spell, it's casting distance, radius, and the hit points of the caster, etc.. And in these cases the player possessing the units might not have to do much of a tech switch at all (which I feel would be bad for the game). I'm not saying that things like storm or tanks are imbalanced, but merely that the system of proposed soft counters could, potentially, just as easily (if not moreso), be broken & abused.
Another thing to consider about soft counters is micro in terms of APM. You have to remember that this game isn't designed simply to be played by pros with a 200+ APM rating. So any spells or slightly ranging units might not be feasible for 99% of the players depending on how those abilities need to be used. For example... it's nice seeing all those force fields and blink being used by protoss players in the commentary vids, but I have to wonder if the average player has the micro to perfectly place (spam) those force fields or if they are capable of executing a long intricate attack using the stalker's blink ability. I'm not saying that intricacies like this are unnecessary, but I'm just pointing out that even effective abilities might not be used feasibly by most players in most games if they require perfect micro and high APM all the time.
But I'm glad I started this thread, I'm learning a lot, and I am confident that Blizzard is going to release a top-notch product when SC2 finally comes out.
|
Of course what you're suggesting is that players with bad micro should be less punished for it and that micro and good army control should not be a differentiating factor when units face off...
You basically said that hardcounters are good because they reduce the micro requirement for units to be used effectively. This is seriously detrimental to the game.
|
While hard counters make sense in theory, that's never what star craft was about. The counters should come as experience - not what blizzard tells us.
|
On April 13 2010 23:24 Daerthalus wrote: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.
They end up achieving quite the opposite. Specialized units tend to fall out of favor and the reason why we saw Maurader/Roch/Immortal fest was because those were the most versatile units that were still good.
People will always min/max; adding hard counters won't really change that. What they need to do is add OPTIONS, not just turn the game into glorified rock, paper, scissors.
|
On April 14 2010 12:33 Ocedic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2010 23:24 Daerthalus wrote: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.
They end up achieving quite the opposite. Specialized units tend to fall out of favor and the reason why we saw Maurader/Roch/Immortal fest was because those were the most versatile units that were still good. People will always min/max; adding hard counters won't really change that. What they need to do is add OPTIONS, not just turn the game into glorified rock, paper, scissors.
They need to make units that scale in use with micromanagement and army control. The difference between losing a battle completely or dominating should revolve around how you position, group, and control your units moreso than it currently does.
|
Regarding unit diversity, I do believe most people do not want to have to control too many different attacking units since managing units that attack differently is cumbersome awkward. Example: try managing an army of Marines, Firebats, Tanks, Goliaths and BC or an army of Zealots, Stalkers, Immortals, Colossi and VRays, and you'll see what I mean.
I know I wouldn't want to control an army of 4 different combat units. It's a lot easier to build a few core units and control them than to build every type of unit and maximize their efficiency. It's why people mass units, and why people will try to find an efficient unit or unit combo to mass regardless of what you do to prevent it, unless you make a cumbersome system like in CNC 4. (Speaking of which, take a look at that game for hard counters gone wrong)
|
Not everyone is destined to play in gold or platinum.
|
On April 14 2010 12:36 LunarC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2010 12:33 Ocedic wrote:On April 13 2010 23:24 Daerthalus wrote: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.
They end up achieving quite the opposite. Specialized units tend to fall out of favor and the reason why we saw Maurader/Roch/Immortal fest was because those were the most versatile units that were still good. People will always min/max; adding hard counters won't really change that. What they need to do is add OPTIONS, not just turn the game into glorified rock, paper, scissors. They need to make units that scale in use with micromanagement and army control. The difference between losing a battle completely or dominating should revolve around how you position, group, and control your units moreso than it currently does.
I agree with this point. The example I usually point to are Hydralisks. They are simply too slow to micro, so they are simply glass cannons that you attack move around. If their damage was reduced and their speed increased, then it would actually take some micro to use them to their fullest potential.
|
On April 14 2010 13:02 beetlelisk wrote:
Not everyone is destined to play in gold or platinum.
Starcraft 2 should be designed to be balanced, strategically deep, and micro-intensive at the highest level of play. Why? That's where E-Sports is, and that's where the game should be the most fun to spectate.
|
The thing people seem to miss is that the original StarCraft was full of hard counters as well. Heck, forget the units, abilities like Irradiate, Dark Swarm and EMP were the very embodiment of hard counters. Infact, if it weren't for hard counters, StarCraft would be a very boring game. You would lose out on a lot of unit dynamics and would be just left with a mass number of "generalist" units.
What made StarCraft's implementation of hard counters different from other games, though, was the fact that, with proper micro, one could nullify the advantage a certain unit held over another. Lings could surround Firebats so that they took minimal damage from the splash, Mutalisks could attack an Archon without getting hit etc. That does not mean that there were no hard counters in StarCraft, just that hard counters were not something that could not be overcome.
Listen to this man! Some hard counters are OK, but in general you want Soft Counters. Because that means players actually have to control their units, and can turn the battle this way and that depending on tactics and positioning.
2 lurkers at a ramp vs 8 marines 2 medics is very different when played out on flat ground. Vultures are still useful vs Dragoons thanks to intelligent use of spider mines. That's what they should strive for.
A game where a blob of X simply attack moves into a blob of Y and wins because its a hard counter is much more boring.
|
Some people seem to be turning this into an either/or discussion. But I hope that nobody is saying there should only be hard counters or only soft-counters that require precision micro. For those potentially pushing the latter... I think they are underestimating the value, importance, and skill of good scouting because then it wouldn't matter what units they popped out at us or how many because everyone with their flawless micro skills should be able to stop any attack from any unit combination. But the simple fact of the matter is that a micro savant should not be able to beat a savant at the macro aspect by bringing out any unit and destroying everything with it using finesse. Don't get me wrong, there is a place for that -- but it shouldn't comprise the entirety of the game. If that's what you want you should play a FPS or something.
One of the great things about the Broodwar is that it isn't all about macro or all about micro or all about hard or soft counters -- it's about a good combination of those things versus a particular opponent. So let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater in any of these regards. That's why the game is still in beta and we all want it to be a good, fun, challenging game on multiple levels.
|
They need to concentrate on balancing it based on Unit Upgrade typing (Infantry vs Mech vs Air) (Melee vs Range vs Air) (Gateway Tech vs Robo Tech vs Air) etc. more. This creates more variety in play due to having to choose between what tech to invest in and stay there. It also would encourage different and unique playstyles.
It shouldn't be based solely on individual unit hard counters, that just makes SC2 turn into a game of one big blob of units and the person with the better composition based on counters wins.. That's just boring and people will get tired of gameplay right away.
|
On April 14 2010 17:43 NihiloZero wrote:
Some people seem to be turning this into an either/or discussion. But I hope that nobody is saying there should only be hard counters or only soft-counters that require precision micro. For those potentially pushing the latter... I think they are underestimating the value, importance, and skill of good scouting because then it wouldn't matter what units they popped out at us or how many because everyone with their flawless micro skills should be able to stop any attack from any unit combination. But the simple fact of the matter is that a micro savant should not be able to beat a savant at the macro aspect by bringing out any unit and destroying everything with it using finesse. Don't get me wrong, there is a place for that -- but it shouldn't comprise the entirety of the game. If that's what you want you should play a FPS or something.
It's somewhat of a strawman to say that soft-counters allow you to build whatever you want. There will still be advantages to be had and to be lost, and how effective that advantage or disadvantage is should be regulated by how good your micro is, but not entirely. Hard counters have their place only when the mechanics necessitate it, like ground to air. Not because you have +30 damage to armor.
|
On April 14 2010 14:26 LunarC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2010 13:02 beetlelisk wrote:
Not everyone is destined to play in gold or platinum. Starcraft 2 should be designed to be balanced, strategically deep, and micro-intensive at the highest level of play. Why? That's where E-Sports is, and that's where the game should be the most fun to spectate.
And how do I disagree with this in any of my 4 posts in this thread?
I know I wouldn't want to control an army of 4 different combat units. It's a lot easier to build a few core units and control them than to build every type of unit and maximize their efficiency.
This is the exact opposite of strategically deep, there is a lot of less stress put on scouting and decision making.
All it takes to negate damage bonuses is throw in units that aren't affected by them yet so many people want damage bonuses to be drastically reduced or removed.
How is Immortal doing 30+10 supposed to be balanced? How is it role supposed to be defined?
How is it supposed to be strategically deep when it matters what it attacks that much less?
People 1A armies of 2 types of units so they get boring games, it all depends on them.
I ask you to quote and reply to what I wrote on the previous page please.
You need to change your mindset from "I've seen everything and there isn't anything else people can come up with".
|
I strongly disagree with the OP. In SC1 you had natural counter mechanics. With this I mean that some units countered other units naturally by their design, their uniqueness and their way of attack, and not by just adding insane amounts of extra damage to the unit Blizzard felt it had to counter.
For evidence why the hard counter system of SC2 fails so badly one just have to look at Zerg: It is obvious it was the last race to be finished and the lack of uniqueness and overall staleness of the new Zerg is directly related to the fact that Blizzard had to design it while constantly trying to make it counter the hard counters already existing in the T and P arsenal. Instead, they should have made the race unique from the beginning, and counters should have arisen naturally, without the need of Blizzard trying to squeeze in bonus damages. The infamous unholy trio is another example if this poor design choice of Blizzard.
|
On April 15 2010 00:33 HowardRoark wrote:
I strongly disagree with the OP. In SC1 you had natural counter mechanics. With this I mean that some units countered other units naturally by their design, their uniqueness and their way of attack, and not by just adding insane amounts of extra damage to the unit Blizzard felt it had to counter.
On April 12 2010 19:04 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +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 The original hard counters are hard counters because of the way they deal damage. Splash damage used against closely packed units in all of the cases above.
Posters from the first to the last page have pinpointed the issue.
SC:BW had hard counters. But they were usually implemented through mechanics. That made them interesting to use. It also made them interesting to watch.
SC2's hard counters are pretty much just a flat +dmg to armour type. They may be balanced or if not, Blizzard can easily tweak the numbers. But they're boring. And this is a far bigger sin.
This ties in with a thread I started about ranged armies looking the same.
Now what worries me is that the armour type/attack type counter system is very similar to the one seen in Warcraft III. Rather than the mechanics based system that made SC great. And since War3 was their most recent RTS development, maybe SC was just a fluke...
|
On April 12 2010 16:52 ArvickHero wrote:Show nested quote +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 If you have insanely good micro, you can beat Archons with Mutas. Unmicroed Vultures vs Zealots is not necessarily a hard counter, and Firebats need to be in sizable numbers to be a real hard counter to Zerglings.
yea.. same with sc2? well microd hellions can kill 100 zeals/lings
stalkers/marauders kiting can kill A LOTTT
2 banshees properly microd can kill 50 marines
colossus micro can be pretty sick
plexa is 100% right, and you are being a troll
|
i guess people want 1-2 unit armies every single game vs anything the opponent has ;(
|
On April 15 2010 00:26 beetlelisk wrote:
This is the exact opposite of strategically deep, there is a lot of less stress put on scouting and decision making.
All it takes to negate damage bonuses is throw in units that aren't affected by them yet so many people want damage bonuses to be drastically reduced or removed.
How is Immortal doing 30+10 supposed to be balanced? How is it role supposed to be defined?
How is it supposed to be strategically deep when it matters what it attacks that much less?
People 1A armies of 2 types of units so they get boring games, it all depends on them.
I ask you to quote and reply to what I wrote on the previous page please.
You need to change your mindset from "I've seen everything and there isn't anything else people can come up with".
On April 15 2010 01:42 duckhunt wrote:
i guess people want 1-2 unit armies every single game vs anything the opponent has ;(
You missed my point, I wasn't commenting on SC2 concepts or balance. What I'm talking about is how the people in general will react when encountering a problem. Humans attempt to simplify, it's how we become efficient. If there is a simple solution (massing 2 units) that gives good results and a slightly better but more complicated solution (having 4 different units) that give slightly better results, most people would choose the simpler solution.
For an example, look at the Queen in SC1, people have found ensnare can be very useful but people rarely build it because it's too much effort for the bonus. It's also the reason why people put their army in 1 control group; because they can, and it won't hurt them that much to do it. It may be more exciting to watch, but the returns on effort is not large enough justify complicating a task.
Now, what methods can you use to encourage people to use more units? You can improve their return on investment (make tanks stronger), reduce the investment needed (reduce costs/build times), or make them necessary (detection etc). The problem with the marauder and roach mainly, is that they fulfill too many roles. There is little investment on them and huge returns, plus they overlap in roles with other units. It's hard to justify using different units when these guys can cover almost every role, and don't even pale in comparison to units that specialize in that role.
Case in point, let's compare Marines to Marauders, units that are supposed to complement each other. Marauders have higher DPS, higher survivability, higher range and a ground slow. Marines just have an air attack and costs less. As you can see, there is rarely a need to build Marines since Marauders are just so much better. All you need now are spellcasters like the Medivac and the Ghost and your army is pretty much complete.
If you have a solution, I'll consider it. Regarding Immortals actually, if they stay in the game as-is, they need a ridiculous bonus like 20+30, otherwise, people won't use them.
I also prefer having 1-2 core units than some random chain of counters. Metagame leads to guessing and luck, and should be minimized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
