I hear a lot of talk opposed to hard counters and it has been suggested that Blizzard is trying to phase them out. Personally, I think hard counters make sense, add realism to the game, and add necessary complexity to the game.
Let me begin by describing what I think hard counters are and why I think they make sense... A hard counter is when a particular unit is more effective at either dealing or receiving damage from another unit type. For example, an Immortal with its big guns and shield does a lot of damage against (usually big [excepting the roach]) armored units while its shield type prevents bigger attacks from getting through completely. If you think of it in terms of realism, this makes sense. A real cannon, for example, might do a lot of damage against a large stationary target (plus damage) while it would be inefficient at targeting smaller fast units. Similarly, it might be armored so that massive bombing of it wouldn't be effective while an individual soldier could walk up and drop in a small grenade to disable it. This is why in actual, historical warfare, tank divisions are accompanied by infantry -- it makes sense for defensive and offensive purposes.
Secondly... I think players should be required to adjust to the units their opponents are producing -- that adds complexity to the game which makes it fun to watch and exciting to play. It makes people have to adjust their builds rather than always using the same old build order every game. A lack of hard counters would lead to some very standard and boring builds.
Finally... I hope that blizzard doesn't neutralize hard counters simply because people want an easy answer to a complex situation. They've added this complex element into the game and should expand it rather than diminish it -- especially considering that they will, in all likelihood, add expansion units. With a greater diversity of units, hard counters will make even more sense in the future -- and the added units will likely be hard counters themselves!
So... that's my opinion. Let me know what you think. At the very least I hope you'll be willing to compromise on this issue because doing away with hard counters completely is, hopefully and probably, somewhat unlikely anyway.
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
I Miss super effective things like high damage storms and scarabs. I miss powerful stuff. I wish a baneling in the mineral line would be a huge deal. More expensive but more effective, that's how I want things. Makes for more ahhh! Moments and makes micro more exciting. I'm not sure if this relates to the thread as much or not? Hard counters
On April 12 2010 16:33 NihiloZero wrote: I hear a lot of talk opposed to hard counters and it has been suggested that Blizzard is trying to phase them out. Personally, I think hard counters make sense, add realism to the game, and add necessary complexity to the game.
I don't understand how a Pikeman can always do bonus damage against Skirmishers and Cavalries.
In my opinion, it doesn't add realism. I think it's too artificial for its own good and more of a "forced" complexity.
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.
I don't think hard counters should stay, i do like the bonus damage part but i'd preffer a unit having 20 Damage with +5 against armoured then 10 damage and +15 against armored. The old system was just way too one sided.
Of course some units will beat some units but not ALL units should be hard counters to eachothers.
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.
hard counters have always existed, but are currently way too extreme. example? immortals COMPLETELY shut down any sort of mech play that terran attempts which is counter intuitive to making the game more complex.
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.
On April 12 2010 16:52 ArvickHero wrote: 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.
This is an excellent point and another reason to be in favor of hard counters. Even if a player builds hard counters they still have to use them properly! It's not like hard counters are the end all, be all, to any particular game but merely a reasonable aspect of it. You can macro perfectly, and make the perfect unit combination, but if you can't micro it doesn't necessarily matter much anyway!
On April 12 2010 16:50 da_head wrote: immortals COMPLETELY shut down any sort of mech play that terran attempts which is counter intuitive to making the game more complex.
The complexity is in the production switch (or better scouting in the first place). If the 'toss is building immortals, then maybe the terran should consider switching to banshees to support mass bio units. If someone sees immortals coming into play and keeps going with the same mech build, it's their fault, not the games. Tech switches make sense and add necessary complexity to the game in order to make it more dynamic and interesting.
On April 12 2010 16:52 ArvickHero wrote: 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.
This is an excellent point and another reason to be in favor of hard counters. Even if a player builds hard counters they still have to use them properly! It's not like hard counters are the end all, be all, to any particular game but merely a reasonable aspect of it. You can macro perfectly, and make the perfect unit combination, but if you can't micro it doesn't necessarily matter much anyway!
No, that's not a reason to be in favor for them. You don't need to use your Marauders properly to hard counter roaches. You don't need to use your Immortals properly to hard counter Marauders... etc. There are exceptions, like you need to micro reapers or they lose to zealots, but the majority of damage type hard counters in SC2 currently require no micro at all.
The problem with hard counters now is that we really only have 2 actual armor types: armored, light (maybe massive too). Because all attacking units and buildings have one or the other, you are now forced to mass the hard counter. Since its not like X unit counters Y unit, we have X unit counters everything light, or Y unit counters everything armored. Which is just as stupid as having a rock/paper/scissors balance with only 2 of the counters instead of 3.
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.
And if you have insanely good micro you can beat an immortal with a marauder without being hit (if you have concussive shells) (yes it's possible, Naruto did it). It works the same in SC2 as it does in SC1!
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.
The new hard counters simply deal bonus damage to a flat type of armor. Quite boring, because it ALWAYS works. Spider Mines work only when you plant them right; if you screw up tank placement you will lose; if your Archons arent where the Mutas are you lose ... No skill is required for "new hard counters".
Imagine a truly realistic hard counter: A tank versus a Marine. If you make it 100% realistic the Marine should do "1+4 vs light" damage instead of flat 5. As a result you are screwed if one tank shows up in front of your 30 Marines. The fight would be over without any real excitement, because the outcome is clear. As a result the "damage number hard counters" should be reduced as much as possible and the "mechanics based hard counters" should stay.
Maybe that is one of the reasons why Zerg is relatively boring to play / watch: The Lurker is gone and got replaced by the one-shot Baneling. They dont really have a persistent "mechanics based hard counter" anymore while Terran (Marauder slow shot, Hellion flamethrower, Tank splash, Thor) and Protoss (Colossus) have several. I dont count Infestors, Sentries and Phoenix as a "mechanics based hard counter", because they are casters.
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.
The goblins wear a metal spike on the head and simple wings and launch themselves into the air to sail a few moments before plummeting down and suiciding on their target.
Hardcounter = micro nearly insignificant should the wrong units be employed. Hardcounter = diversity but little synergy. Hardcounter = hardcoded and nearly nonnegotiable.
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.
The new hard counters simply deal bonus damage to a flat type of armor. Quite boring, because it ALWAYS works. Spider Mines work only when you plant them right; if you screw up tank placement you will lose; if your Archons arent where the Mutas are you lose ... No skill is required for "new hard counters".
Imagine a truly realistic hard counter: A tank versus a Marine. If you make it 100% realistic the Marine should do "1+4 vs light" damage instead of flat 5. As a result you are screwed if one tank shows up in front of your 30 Marines. The fight would be over without any real excitement, because the outcome is clear. As a result the "damage number hard counters" should be reduced as much as possible and the "mechanics based hard counters" should stay.
Maybe that is one of the reasons why Zerg is relatively boring to play / watch: The Lurker is gone and got replaced by the one-shot Baneling. They dont really have a persistent "mechanics based hard counter" anymore while Terran (Marauder slow shot, Hellion flamethrower, Tank splash, Thor) and Protoss (Colossus) have several. I dont count Infestors, Sentries and Phoenix as a "mechanics based hard counter", because they are casters.
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.
The goblins wear a metal spike on the head and simple wings and launch themselves into the air to sail a few moments before plummeting down and suiciding on their target.
No. The original hard counters worked exactly the same way. It's just now being displayed to the user.
Goons were 10 + 10armored. Hydras were 5 + 5 armored. Etc. etc.
where once was small, medium, large, we now have a stupid boolean system. does it have a bonus or not? nothing in between.
and yes, e.g. hydras or vultures were medium sized. they took 100% from normal attacks, 75% from "large weaponry" (explosive) or 50% from "small" stuff (concussive).
and normal damage wasn't that high unless it was a unit costing 200+ gas. a unit such as the 16(+2+2+2) normal-dmg roach was unthinkable.
This game isn't realistic. If it was drones wouldn't morph into buildings, bunkers couldn't be salvaged instantly, carriers would make no sense, spawn larva would make no sense
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.
How is this different than the things you are complaining about in SC2? Do you really think there are units which just completely stop other units from being useful and no micro tricks can change this?
Plus, some of your examples are retarded. In SC1, "unmicroed vultures vs zealots is not necessarily a hard counter" "firebats need to be in sizable numbers to bea real hard counter to zerglings." The first of these is just stupid, and the latter isn't accurate unless "sizable" means "having 3 in addition to your M&M squad.
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. That is the reason why, unlike most people, I actually supported Marauders having slow (although it is a good thing that they made it an upgrade). There is nothing wrong with Marauders being able to fend off Zealots if the Terran player has good micro.
Overall, I do not think hard counters are necessarilly a problem across the board. That said, there are problems with specific units. The two I can think of are:
- Immortal - This unit is actually fairly decent even without it's bonus to Armoured. Hardened Shields are a really useful ability and 20 damage is a hefty amount. For that reason, the enormous bonus to Armoured it has just seems quite over the top and it should be reduced.
- Hellion - While the Immortal is fairly decent even without it's bonus, the Hellion, however, is nearly useless without it. Even with splash damage, the Hellion is just too weak against non-Light units to be a mainstay of any Mech-heavy build. As such, it would require a buff to it's base damage.
Soft counters would address all three of those points and take the complexity to a higher level.
It's realism because real life is as as unpredictable as you can get. It's forcing your opponents hand because you'll still have or lose an advantage. And it's even more interesting because micro affects the odds and the outcome.
Stalkers are in a good position now because they soft-counter Roaches by virtue of their inherent properties (range and mobility) rather than +5 to Kill Roaches. It's analogous to the Lurker/Marine dynamic. Lurkers didn't have a +20 damage to light when they owned Marines. And Marines didn't have a +20 damage to Lurkers when they could micro themselves out of the attack. By relying more on those other properties of the units, we see much more ambiguity at the end of the day with who actually has the advantage.
hard counters are based on arbitrary +dmg numbers.
soft counters are based on the actual mechanics of the unit.
if you take away hellion's +dmg to light, but increase their base damage, they would still own zerglings and hydralisks, but it would be because of their mechanics as a unit, (their line based aoe and fast movement speed) not some arbitrary number system... this would make them a much more interesting unit, and actually add more depth and complexity than the game has now.
using arbitrary +dmg numbers to create counters is a sign of poor design.. it's like saying "well the only way we know how to make 1 unit better than another is to give 1 unit bigger numbers"... there are MUCH better and more interesting ways to balance units than just arbitrary numbers... i'm very disappointed in Blizz... but i have faith that they'll see the error of their ways and correct it.
I'm not completely opposed to +dmg stuff... but it should be used as a last resort to tweak balance, not the backbone of the whole balancing system... there's no reason to have +15 or +30 dmg bonuses... but +3 or +5 to get the balance just right is perfectly fine... how it is right now blizz seems to be using this system like a sledge hammer to jam things into place instead of like a cloth to polish the balance till it shines.
basically this type of system should be used as a last resort, and the fact that blizz is relying on it so hard and using it as the backbone for balancing is a very, very bad sign... they should focus on mechanics first, then add small tweaks with the +dmg system after you have the mechanics down.
i think blizz has realized this and has started and will continue to move further and further toward soft counters and only use hard counters as a last resort.
I think the problem is simply that there are some hard counters in the game, while not every unit has a hard counter. For example while you can easy counter ultras with marauders but try coutering BCs with antiair it just wont work nearly as cost efficient.
Another thing that i personally dont like is that there are synergys that dont have a really good counter. Like MMM whatever you build to counter it Terran is almost never forced to switch his strat or adept much or anything. Fungal or storm is good vs mmm but terrans still win alot of games by just keep massing mmm even vs storm or infestors.
Thats imo a game design flaw. I d like to see more adepting and switching going on.Keep the games interesting dont make cookie cutter builds work all the time. Prevents seeing the same strats going on in most matchups.
As far as i can tell the main argument for hard counters is that they add a new level of strategy in build orders, while taking away from micro.
But think, as a spectator, what is more interesting. Warching a pack of muta perfectly microed to take out an archon, or watching a player steamroll another players army because of some thinking done earlier.
it was those intense micro moments that made starcraft so fun to watch, such as muta harras, marines dodging lurker spines, reaver micro, that kind of thing. if a game is always decided before the battles just due to build order and army composisition then it may be hard to play but is also kind of boring to watch.
I'm really puzzled by all this discussion regarding what "counter" this or that, especially with the Beta having been out for a good while now. People need to really step back a bit and think for a second how they're evaluating what is a good build/unit vs what unit composition.
Taking the Immortal in PvZ for a very basic example, they see "20+30" and go "wow, these do a ton of damage vs roaches and negate some of their damage i should build a lot of these"; when in fact they should also consider how it performs on the battlefield and not just on paper. Once people have gotten familiar with the game, people will have figured out ways to soft counter hard counters. Things such as Thors stunning immortals are a prime example of this and I think it can only get more interesting as time goes on.
edit: to clarify, hard counters are going to be more obvious because everyone can look down at a unit card and see "+10 to bio" etc, but soft counters only appear as time goes on and people get more familiar with how units perform on the battlefield itself.
On April 12 2010 22:25 SubtleArt wrote: This game isn't realistic. If it was drones wouldn't morph into buildings, bunkers couldn't be salvaged instantly, carriers would make no sense, spawn larva would make no sense
How would you know? You're neither an morphing alien race nor a psionic being.
And besides spawn larvae makes perfect sense. Do you not know how bugs work?
People make totally wrong statements in this thread. Like hard counters are the reason that there is less important micro or that soft counters work on the mechanics of the unit instead of numbers. A hard counter is simply something that counters something HARD ie. they will be very cost effective against the thing they counter, soft counters are the same but less cost effective. It really has little to do with many of the complaints about the game made in this thread such as mechanics and positioning mattering much less.. Hard counters make attacking the correct unit much more important then soft counters so that actually increases micro. It´s just not the kind that makes for flashy graphics or watching as it´s hard to see in big battle´s if your immortasl were attacking marauders or marine´s.
People just seem to miss some of the cool mechanics sc1 had which I agree with. This has nothing to do with hard counters though but simply that sc2 has less effective spell casters or mechanics then sc1 most upgrades simply improve combat stats. To solve these issues casters, especially infestors, need to become better and perhaps some mechanics be added.
Units are still able to beat their supposed counters by micro in this game, marauders can beat zealots, colossi can beat immortals, hydra/roach can beat pure roach, sentry/stalker can beat zerglings etc.
This thread is just completely wrong in it´s premise that hard counters have anything to do with these problems. Hard counters vs soft counters only matter for the extent in which unit mixing is important. Very hard counters make unit mixing incredibly important with the well mixed army beating any other army, whereas soft counters lean more to massing one or 2 types of units. I actually think there is a fine balance between the 2.
The game has some underused units (infestor, ultralisk, carrier/mothership, reaper beyond rushes, battlecruiser) but these can be buffed in time.
I think the problem with this discussion is that the words "hard counter" have too much of a negative annotation. There is nothing wrong with hard counters. An RTS NEEDS hard counters, otherwise the game lacks any sort of unit dynamics. If everything was good against everything, players would simply spam the most cost-efficient unit and the game would quickly become stale. There NEEDS to be a relationship in which certain units are more effective against certain other units.
But as I mentioned before, just beacuse a certain unit hard counters a certain other unit damage-wise does not mean that proper micro cannot nullify that advantage. That is what made StarCraft so great....not that it lacked hard counters (infact, it had plenty of them), but that efficient control allowed the player to make the dynamic between units less one-sided.
As long as it doesn't become large scale hard counters (protoss beats zerg, zerg beats terran, zerg beats protoss), I think we can add a small amount of soft counters. - I think hard counters is when a unit can kill another unit without taking any damage, which would make the counters in Starcraft soft.
On April 12 2010 23:36 Markwerf wrote: People make totally wrong statements in this thread. Like hard counters are the reason that there is less important micro or that soft counters work on the mechanics of the unit instead of numbers. A hard counter is simply something that counters something HARD ie. they will be very cost effective against the thing they counter, soft counters are the same but less cost effective. It really has little to do with many of the complaints about the game made in this thread such as mechanics and positioning mattering much less.. Hard counters make attacking the correct unit much more important then soft counters so that actually increases micro. It´s just not the kind that makes for flashy graphics or watching as it´s hard to see in big battle´s if your immortasl were attacking marauders or marine´s.
People just seem to miss some of the cool mechanics sc1 had which I agree with. This has nothing to do with hard counters though but simply that sc2 has less effective spell casters or mechanics then sc1 most upgrades simply improve combat stats. To solve these issues casters, especially infestors, need to become better and perhaps some mechanics be added.
Units are still able to beat their supposed counters by micro in this game, marauders can beat zealots, colossi can beat immortals, hydra/roach can beat pure roach, sentry/stalker can beat zerglings etc.
This thread is just completely wrong in it´s premise that hard counters have anything to do with these problems. Hard counters vs soft counters only matter for the extent in which unit mixing is important. Very hard counters make unit mixing incredibly important with the well mixed army beating any other army, whereas soft counters lean more to massing one or 2 types of units. I actually think there is a fine balance between the 2.
The game has some underused units (infestor, ultralisk, carrier/mothership, reaper beyond rushes, battlecruiser) but these can be buffed in time.
You can't attack one definition of hard-counter/soft-counter and substitute it for a worse one. It just doesn't work that way. In reality, whether or not a unit is hard or soft depends on how much strategic effort you must put into the game to match the threat. The effort ratios then define who's in what tier. Hard counters polarize the effort amounts enough where micro opportunities are reduced. Think about it. Since making an Immortal is no harder than any other unit and "+30 damage to Armored" always works in ALL situations, the limited number of choices and sacrifice involved makes it boring. On the other hand, Linear AoE and Range only work in certain situations. That qualitative difference between parameters shows why this overreliance on hard numbers is an anathema to the variety of tactical positions.
I don't really think immortals are a hard counter to roaches because the way the game is set up you pretty much have an even resource total worth of immortals versus an even resource total worth of roaches facing off. Both of those units are designed to be built in the context of an entire army.
For example, a zerg army will almost for sure include zerglings. if the protoss sends in an army of immortals to kill of roaches, but gets surrounded by the zerglings, then he is going to lose.
The protoss will almost for sure have zealots, so if he has good micro he can use those as a shield between the roaches/zerglings and the immortals. Or if you got the upgrades for the roaches, and your are really fast, you can burrow a roach and move it away after it gets hit, etc.
In other words, there are still a lot of dynamic factors involved in pvz even with the way roaches and immortals are designed.
On April 12 2010 23:09 miklotov wrote: Cloak is absolutely right.
hard counters are based on arbitrary +dmg numbers.
soft counters are based on the actual mechanics of the unit.
if you take away hellion's +dmg to light, but increase their base damage, they would still own zerglings and hydralisks, but it would be because of their mechanics as a unit, (their line based aoe and fast movement speed) not some arbitrary number system... this would make them a much more interesting unit, and actually add more depth and complexity than the game has now.
using arbitrary +dmg numbers to create counters is a sign of poor design.. it's like saying "well the only way we know how to make 1 unit better than another is to give 1 unit bigger numbers"... there are MUCH better and more interesting ways to balance units than just arbitrary numbers... i'm very disappointed in Blizz... but i have faith that they'll see the error of their ways and correct it.
I'm not completely opposed to +dmg stuff... but it should be used as a last resort to tweak balance, not the backbone of the whole balancing system... there's no reason to have +15 or +30 dmg bonuses... but +3 or +5 to get the balance just right is perfectly fine... how it is right now blizz seems to be using this system like a sledge hammer to jam things into place instead of like a cloth to polish the balance till it shines.
basically this type of system should be used as a last resort, and the fact that blizz is relying on it so hard and using it as the backbone for balancing is a very, very bad sign... they should focus on mechanics first, then add small tweaks with the +dmg system after you have the mechanics down.
i think blizz has realized this and has started and will continue to move further and further toward soft counters and only use hard counters as a last resort.
Yes of course because Hellions burning down Ultras and Tanks makes perfect sense.
There aren't huge bonuses in BW at all. I mean Hydras, Tanks in both modes, Dragoons, Wraiths, Goliaths, Valkyries, Corsairs and Scouts don't have +50% against large which translates to Armoured; Firebats +50%, Ghosts and Vultures +75% against small which translates to Light.
On April 12 2010 22:25 SubtleArt wrote: This game isn't realistic. If it was drones wouldn't morph into buildings, bunkers couldn't be salvaged instantly, carriers would make no sense, spawn larva would make no sense
How would you know? You're neither an morphing alien race nor a psionic being.
And besides spawn larvae makes perfect sense. Do you not know how bugs work?
A small drone instantly morphing to the size of a gigantic building makes no senses...the point is this game isn't exactly hell bent on realism
As for the argument, I think the line that summed it up best is soft counters are due to the mechanics of a unit. for example Sc1 vultures soft counter zealots. Is this done by inflicting massive amounts of damage instantly? No, it's because vultures stop zealots from reaching your tanks, so they dont splash damage each other. This is a clever soft counter..
Yes tanks might counter dragoons by simply doing a lot of damage but the difference isn't THAT large when u see the economy protoss can get compared to terran. Also, tanks are immobile which adds further depth and often times can make dragoons better (threat of a backstab, engaging unseiged, etc).
Also, marines and lurkers. Which counters which? Does the lurkers ability to do a lot of splash damage counter mass marines or do marine's mobility and ability to spread counter lurkers
On April 12 2010 16:50 da_head wrote: hard counters have always existed, but are currently way too extreme. example? immortals COMPLETELY shut down any sort of mech play that terran attempts which is counter intuitive to making the game more complex.
Well, there are ways around that, like ghosts for example.
I still dont understand the Immortal. Does his hardened shield cut off all damage above 10? If thats true, those motherfucking could live after being nuked in the head?? Holy shit, thats why the are called immortals...
Nobody went mass ling against speed vultures in SC1, now people hear hard counter and think it blasphemy to be part of the starcraft world. It's always been there, just more a part of the game now. Personally, i love it. This means you can't just go your strict build order every game blind, cause if you go straight roaches, your opponent just has to go straight marauder. Isn't this game about gaining advantage with intelligence anyway?
On April 13 2010 00:45 fabiano wrote: I still dont understand the Immortal. Does his hardened shield cut off all damage above 10? If thats true, those motherfucking could live after being nuked in the head?? Holy shit, thats why the are called immortals...
hardened shield upgrade makes it so while their shield is active, their damage is capped at 10, but non-shield damage still effects them normally. so against immortals with shield upgrades you're gonna want to use a lot of T1 units with high hit-rate. Never nuke lol
On April 12 2010 23:09 miklotov wrote: Cloak is absolutely right.
hard counters are based on arbitrary +dmg numbers.
soft counters are based on the actual mechanics of the unit.
if you take away hellion's +dmg to light, but increase their base damage, they would still own zerglings and hydralisks, but it would be because of their mechanics as a unit, (their line based aoe and fast movement speed) not some arbitrary number system... this would make them a much more interesting unit, and actually add more depth and complexity than the game has now.
using arbitrary +dmg numbers to create counters is a sign of poor design.. it's like saying "well the only way we know how to make 1 unit better than another is to give 1 unit bigger numbers"... there are MUCH better and more interesting ways to balance units than just arbitrary numbers... i'm very disappointed in Blizz... but i have faith that they'll see the error of their ways and correct it.
I'm not completely opposed to +dmg stuff... but it should be used as a last resort to tweak balance, not the backbone of the whole balancing system... there's no reason to have +15 or +30 dmg bonuses... but +3 or +5 to get the balance just right is perfectly fine... how it is right now blizz seems to be using this system like a sledge hammer to jam things into place instead of like a cloth to polish the balance till it shines.
basically this type of system should be used as a last resort, and the fact that blizz is relying on it so hard and using it as the backbone for balancing is a very, very bad sign... they should focus on mechanics first, then add small tweaks with the +dmg system after you have the mechanics down.
i think blizz has realized this and has started and will continue to move further and further toward soft counters and only use hard counters as a last resort.
Yes of course because Hellions burning down Ultras and Tanks makes perfect sense.
There aren't huge bonuses in BW at all. I mean Hydras, Tanks in both modes, Dragoons, Wraiths, Goliaths, Valkyries, Corsairs and Scouts don't have +50% against large which translates to Armoured; Firebats +50%, Ghosts and Vultures +75% against small which translates to Light.
Not at all lol.
But the damage to HP ratio is so much lower in starcraft so your argument is invalid
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.
This thread should be locked and stickied to immortalise this beacon of human achievement.
On April 12 2010 22:25 SubtleArt wrote: This game isn't realistic. If it was drones wouldn't morph into buildings, bunkers couldn't be salvaged instantly, carriers would make no sense, spawn larva would make no sense
How would you know? You're neither an morphing alien race nor a psionic being.
And besides spawn larvae makes perfect sense. Do you not know how bugs work?
Since a drone has signficantly less mass than a hatchery it's implausible that it could morph into one. For other buildings it could be implied that the creep is providing the additional matter.
Some units in Brood War countered other units even though they do less damage to them.
Examples: - Siege Tank suffers a -50% penalty vs small units like Marines but it hard countered mass Marines. - Corsair does 5 explosive damage, which is halved (-50% penalty) vs Mutalisks but they hard countered mass Mutalisks. - Valkyries does explosive damage (-50% vs small) and too countered mass Mutalisks. - Hydralisks and Dragoons do explosive damage (-50% vs small) but countered Zealots and could stand up to Marines. - Goliaths do explosive damage (-50% vs small) but countered Mutalisks. [not sure about this one! sorry, I am a little out of touch with Brood War.] - Interestingly, the Ghost's "bonus damage" to small units did jack shit. :p
Starcraft 2 units appeared to be defined by their damage bonus. E.g. Immortals countered armored because it does +30 to armored. Are there SC2 units that hard countered a unit that it does less damage against? (excluding Marauders, which countered Zealots with Concussive Shells)
On April 13 2010 00:50 Stropheum wrote: Nobody went mass ling against speed vultures in SC1, now people hear hard counter and think it blasphemy to be part of the starcraft world. It's always been there, just more a part of the game now. Personally, i love it. This means you can't just go your strict build order every game blind, cause if you go straight roaches, your opponent just has to go straight marauder. Isn't this game about gaining advantage with intelligence anyway?
Which is why it would be nice if it wasn't as mechanical as I see unit X so I'll build unit Y.
Compared to deciding how many Corsairs to build against Mutas (soft counter here) based on scouting information, I'd hesitantly call hard counters intelligent.
and ofc there's the problem with (almost) everything (important) being armored.
therefore i'm not really sure the current system does enable these so-called hard counters: we can mass marauders and plow through those numerous armored units... and buildings. thanks to quite-high normal base damage (boosted by stim) through everything else as well.
i'd say reduce the number of armored units. beginning with the ultralisk. then (unsieged) tank. possibly stalker as well. if you still wish to have a specialized unit against the latter, feel free to introduce a unit that does extra damage to mechanical units.
and although this will open a whole new can of worms, it'll be worth the trouble/braincells
On April 12 2010 16:50 da_head wrote: immortals COMPLETELY shut down any sort of mech play that terran attempts which is counter intuitive to making the game more complex.
The complexity is in the production switch (or better scouting in the first place). If the 'toss is building immortals, then maybe the terran should consider switching to banshees to support mass bio units. If someone sees immortals coming into play and keeps going with the same mech build, it's their fault, not the games. Tech switches make sense and add necessary complexity to the game in order to make it more dynamic and interesting.
why wouldn't you go immortals as protoss? its good against marauders or mech (which is pretty much what 99% of terrans do)
People keep saying that hard counteres exist in SC1, i.e. scarabs/scourges, explosive/normal damage, etc. But how much did that change the base damages?
This broke down to: 1. Core units have slight bonuses 2. Reavers died very easily (if not controlled well of course), scourges suicided, but both did terrible, terrible damage...to EVERYTHING. What you were aiming for was probably going to die.
The problem is that they fucked up the bonuses. Hard countering is now instead being applied to core units now and in a larger degree. Core units should not all be hard counterable to one another.
Immortals? Mauraders? Roaches?
Specifically the bonus towards armor issue. It's way too damn skewed and pretty much makes using armored units counter-productive. There should be no reason to feel vulnerable when using a bunch of armored units. They should only be physically countered, i.e. air or cloaked, not easily countered by 83918947291 bonus fucking damage. All this stuff leads the game more towards a massing rock paper scissors battle.
Example of something they fuxed: Clip the wings of the scourge to the baneling, cool. Now make it useless against half the units in the game even though it still suicides.
I think it really all just boils down to bonuses. They are all way too extreme. Also, as mentioned before numbers dictate counters now instead of mechanics. I doubt blizz will ever change that, though, because Dustin likes it when everything does Terrible, Terrible Damage to everything else. They see every single unit hard countering another being a dynamic game, but fail to see that it's like balancing on a fucking spike on your tiptoes. It makes for faster, uninteresting games.
On April 12 2010 23:09 miklotov wrote: Cloak is absolutely right.
hard counters are based on arbitrary +dmg numbers.
soft counters are based on the actual mechanics of the unit.
if you take away hellion's +dmg to light, but increase their base damage, they would still own zerglings and hydralisks, but it would be because of their mechanics as a unit, (their line based aoe and fast movement speed) not some arbitrary number system... this would make them a much more interesting unit, and actually add more depth and complexity than the game has now.
using arbitrary +dmg numbers to create counters is a sign of poor design.. it's like saying "well the only way we know how to make 1 unit better than another is to give 1 unit bigger numbers"... there are MUCH better and more interesting ways to balance units than just arbitrary numbers... i'm very disappointed in Blizz... but i have faith that they'll see the error of their ways and correct it.
I'm not completely opposed to +dmg stuff... but it should be used as a last resort to tweak balance, not the backbone of the whole balancing system... there's no reason to have +15 or +30 dmg bonuses... but +3 or +5 to get the balance just right is perfectly fine... how it is right now blizz seems to be using this system like a sledge hammer to jam things into place instead of like a cloth to polish the balance till it shines.
basically this type of system should be used as a last resort, and the fact that blizz is relying on it so hard and using it as the backbone for balancing is a very, very bad sign... they should focus on mechanics first, then add small tweaks with the +dmg system after you have the mechanics down.
i think blizz has realized this and has started and will continue to move further and further toward soft counters and only use hard counters as a last resort.
Yes of course because Hellions burning down Ultras and Tanks makes perfect sense.
There aren't huge bonuses in BW at all. I mean Hydras, Tanks in both modes, Dragoons, Wraiths, Goliaths, Valkyries, Corsairs and Scouts don't have +50% against large which translates to Armoured; Firebats +50%, Ghosts and Vultures +75% against small which translates to Light.
Not at all lol.
But the damage to HP ratio is so much lower in starcraft so your argument is invalid
What are you talking about? Are you one of those people who would like to mass pure Stalkers but can't because Marauders are there?
On April 12 2010 23:09 miklotov wrote: Cloak is absolutely right.
hard counters are based on arbitrary +dmg numbers.
soft counters are based on the actual mechanics of the unit.
if you take away hellion's +dmg to light, but increase their base damage, they would still own zerglings and hydralisks, but it would be because of their mechanics as a unit, (their line based aoe and fast movement speed) not some arbitrary number system... this would make them a much more interesting unit, and actually add more depth and complexity than the game has now.
using arbitrary +dmg numbers to create counters is a sign of poor design.. it's like saying "well the only way we know how to make 1 unit better than another is to give 1 unit bigger numbers"... there are MUCH better and more interesting ways to balance units than just arbitrary numbers... i'm very disappointed in Blizz... but i have faith that they'll see the error of their ways and correct it.
I'm not completely opposed to +dmg stuff... but it should be used as a last resort to tweak balance, not the backbone of the whole balancing system... there's no reason to have +15 or +30 dmg bonuses... but +3 or +5 to get the balance just right is perfectly fine... how it is right now blizz seems to be using this system like a sledge hammer to jam things into place instead of like a cloth to polish the balance till it shines.
basically this type of system should be used as a last resort, and the fact that blizz is relying on it so hard and using it as the backbone for balancing is a very, very bad sign... they should focus on mechanics first, then add small tweaks with the +dmg system after you have the mechanics down.
i think blizz has realized this and has started and will continue to move further and further toward soft counters and only use hard counters as a last resort.
Yes of course because Hellions burning down Ultras and Tanks makes perfect sense.
There aren't huge bonuses in BW at all. I mean Hydras, Tanks in both modes, Dragoons, Wraiths, Goliaths, Valkyries, Corsairs and Scouts don't have +50% against large which translates to Armoured; Firebats +50%, Ghosts and Vultures +75% against small which translates to Light.
Not at all lol.
But the damage to HP ratio is so much lower in starcraft so your argument is invalid
What are you talking about? Are you one of those people who would like to mass pure Stalkers but can't because Marauders are there?
No... but I don't think anyone can argue units die a lot faster in Starcraft 2. Battles that would take like half a minute in sc1 generally end up taking like 15 seconds at most in Sc2. Therefore all the damage buffs are made more apparent.
In comparison, look at how quickly stimmed marines or even 10 dragoons killed a hatchery and compare that to stimmed marauders. 12 Hydras vs 8 Dragoons was a hell of a lot slower than 12 hydras vs 12 stalkers is in Sc2.
This is also why people complain about the absence of micro. If battles happen quicker, it sometimes becomes detrimental to micro too much instead of letting the AI just shoot a lot.
EVERYTHING is exactly the same style bonus/hp/armor as SC1 except the 'Big 3'... Roach/Immortal/Marauder. Those three need to be removed. They are warping the balance of the entire game because of how out of place they are.
I am not opposed to hard counters, but to echo what has been said in this thread: When certain units shape your entire strategy, things are out of whack. The roach got toned down and is in a good place now, in my opinion, but marauders and immortals are still playing too big of a role I think.
Immortals are preventing terran from using the factory at all, and marauders as a result are the definitive terran strategy since nearly all toss units are armored. I think toning down marauder/immortals would make interesting changes to the TvP matchup.
It's one thing when a unit hard counters a single unit, it's another when a unit hardcounters an entire fucking building.
I postulate a new law in relation to Godwin's law:
Every discussion on SC2 Beta balance will eventually converge into a discussion on the Roach, the Marauder and the Immortal, unless it gets locked by a moderator before that happens.
What about the notion that hard counters increase micro, not decrease it?
I'll play a little devils advocate (or Blizzards advocate).
One thing that hard counters SHOULD do is create army diversity, which is a good thing. With proper scouting you and your opponent should have an idea of what eachother are doing. If we accept that there exists a counter for most all units, then if they "mass" a single unit, you could just "mass" the counter to that unit. If this happens over the course of the game you will constantly adjust to what the opponent is making. Because of that you SHOULD diversify your army to include units that would in turn counter that as well as reinforce your primary unit, whaterver that may be.
From this what should happen (and does in a lot of games) is two armies will clash with a variety of units. In this situation micro will be the deciding factor since it comes down to who can use specific parts of their armies to counter specific parts of the enemy army requiring a great deal of orginization and micro mid-fight.
You might say "but all you see in games is people massing a few single units." Well this is because one of the players in that game doesn't know what they are doing and they end up getting rolled by the other person who actually adjusted. If your opponent chooses to build nothing but zerglings at all then you can't blame the other player for just sticking with hellions and such. People who complain about getting hard countered can only blame themselves for being the last player to adjust. Don't think SC was any different... people didn't keep building mutas once goliaths and valks were in the field (unless they are Action).
TLDR: I'd contend (and seeing some tournaments confirms this) that at the highest levels of play you will see a lot of army diversity because people know how to respond to eachother. This will result in more varied armies which in turn will result in great shows of micro once these armies oare engaged in order to maximize each individual unit against specific enemy units.
On April 12 2010 23:18 killerdog wrote: But think, as a spectator, what is more interesting. Warching a pack of muta perfectly microed to take out an archon, or watching a player steamroll another players army because of some thinking done earlier.
I think it's both... it's nice to see a an expert micro mutalisks versus an archon, but it's also nice to then see a Templar pop up and fry a dozen of them in an instant -- very dramatic.
On April 13 2010 01:43 Legendre wrote: Some units in Brood War countered other units even though they do less damage to them.
I agree. I didn't mean to solely imply that hard counters should be strictly damage based, merely that damaged base counters do make some sense and can force an interesting tech switch. Countering should certainly also include factors like range, micro-ability, splash damage, and spells.
On April 12 2010 23:09 miklotov wrote: Cloak is absolutely right.
hard counters are based on arbitrary +dmg numbers.
soft counters are based on the actual mechanics of the unit.
if you take away hellion's +dmg to light, but increase their base damage, they would still own zerglings and hydralisks, but it would be because of their mechanics as a unit, (their line based aoe and fast movement speed) not some arbitrary number system... this would make them a much more interesting unit, and actually add more depth and complexity than the game has now.
using arbitrary +dmg numbers to create counters is a sign of poor design.. it's like saying "well the only way we know how to make 1 unit better than another is to give 1 unit bigger numbers"... there are MUCH better and more interesting ways to balance units than just arbitrary numbers... i'm very disappointed in Blizz... but i have faith that they'll see the error of their ways and correct it.
I'm not completely opposed to +dmg stuff... but it should be used as a last resort to tweak balance, not the backbone of the whole balancing system... there's no reason to have +15 or +30 dmg bonuses... but +3 or +5 to get the balance just right is perfectly fine... how it is right now blizz seems to be using this system like a sledge hammer to jam things into place instead of like a cloth to polish the balance till it shines.
basically this type of system should be used as a last resort, and the fact that blizz is relying on it so hard and using it as the backbone for balancing is a very, very bad sign... they should focus on mechanics first, then add small tweaks with the +dmg system after you have the mechanics down.
i think blizz has realized this and has started and will continue to move further and further toward soft counters and only use hard counters as a last resort.
Yes of course because Hellions burning down Ultras and Tanks makes perfect sense.
There aren't huge bonuses in BW at all. I mean Hydras, Tanks in both modes, Dragoons, Wraiths, Goliaths, Valkyries, Corsairs and Scouts don't have +50% against large which translates to Armoured; Firebats +50%, Ghosts and Vultures +75% against small which translates to Light.
Not at all lol.
But the damage to HP ratio is so much lower in starcraft so your argument is invalid
What are you talking about? Are you one of those people who would like to mass pure Stalkers but can't because Marauders are there?
No... but I don't think anyone can argue units die a lot faster in Starcraft 2. Battles that would take like half a minute in sc1 generally end up taking like 15 seconds at most in Sc2. Therefore all the damage buffs are made more apparent.
In comparison, look at how quickly stimmed marines or even 10 dragoons killed a hatchery and compare that to stimmed marauders. 12 Hydras vs 8 Dragoons was a hell of a lot slower than 12 hydras vs 12 stalkers is in Sc2.
This is also why people complain about the absence of micro. If battles happen quicker, it sometimes becomes detrimental to micro too much instead of letting the AI just shoot a lot.
Don't 2 Marines have DPS of about 1 Marauder? And they deal the same damage to everything.
SC2 Hydras are more expensive and stronger. Gas alone is more valuable so I don't think it's that easy to compare amount of damage the same units / their equivalents do in both games.
I like the term Day[9] used in one of his casts: people suffer from 1 hotkey syndrom. That's why most of battles are 2 blobs meeting each other. I think army positioning is something players themselves have to develope. It's defferent if Zealots or Roaches just chase Marauders instead of coming at them from different sides and prevent from escaping.
I like how order queing is improved and it's possible to order a Siege Tank to shoot something even before it started Sieging. It surprises me everytime I read about Broodlords hardcountering Siege Tanks. With amount of units that can be selected at once Siege Tanks shooting Broodlings should impossible IMO (as long as there is something else in range).
On April 13 2010 02:32 roemy wrote: if you still wish to have a specialized unit against the latter, feel free to introduce a unit that does extra damage to mechanical units.
and although this will open a whole new can of worms, it'll be worth the trouble/braincells
Indeed, a unit (I'm thinking a spellcaster) for each of the races to specifically counter the majority of the other race's units would make sense. It would be tricky, but this is supposed to be a new and improved game AND, since they have the classifications built in... they might as well make use of those distinctions.
On April 13 2010 02:41 da_head wrote: why wouldn't you go immortals as protoss? its good against marauders or mech (which is pretty much what 99% of terrans do)
Because then they could go air (i.e. Banshees) supported by mass marine medivac.
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. I can't actually write out a full explanation right now, so maybe someone else can talk about
1. positional counter system 2. counter by economics 3. RPS 9rock-paper-scissor) build order and strategy counter system 4. counter by critical mass 5. soft counter system (think reaver vs turrets)
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
I like how two of those arent' even hard counter in my mind
I think they need to fix the big things first. Like cliff missing. This is one of the points that fucks up a lot of gameplay abilities.
Example: ONE immortals comes running alone with an obs. *ladidadida* 2 Tanks in on a cliff kinda beside each other. They start shooting and the immortal slaps his head against em and start banging.. boom boom boom, next target, boom boom boom. GG
This Strongness wouldnt exist if there would be 25 or 30% miss chance (30% was in bw) Then the immortal would maybe kill 1-1.5 tank instead of ALL.
Fix the important things that matters A LOT before even starting to balance it. Or else we can just have flat maps as cliffs has no real use.
On April 13 2010 04:10 shinosai wrote: Immortals are preventing terran from using the factory at all, and marauders as a result are the definitive terran strategy since nearly all toss units are armored. I think toning down marauder/immortals would make interesting changes to the TvP matchup.
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.
On April 13 2010 04:10 shinosai wrote: Immortals are preventing terran from using the factory at all, and marauders as a result are the definitive terran strategy since nearly all toss units are armored. I think toning down marauder/immortals would make interesting changes to the TvP matchup.
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.
Wait you seriously, seriously think that a single unit countering an entire building is ok? That it makes the game better? Just clarifying here.
On April 13 2010 04:56 MeSaber wrote: I think they need to fix the big things first. Like cliff missing. This is one of the points that fucks up a lot of gameplay abilities.
Example: ONE immortals comes running alone with an obs. *ladidadida* 2 Tanks in on a cliff kinda beside each other. They start shooting and the immortal slaps his head against em and start banging.. boom boom boom, next target, boom boom boom. GG
This Strongness wouldnt exist if there would be 25 or 30% miss chance (30% was in bw) Then the immortal would maybe kill 1-1.5 tank instead of ALL.
I am in favor of high ground advantage as well -- although it shouldn't be overdone.
On April 13 2010 05:06 shinosai wrote: Wait you seriously, seriously think that a single unit countering an entire building is ok? That it makes the game better? Just clarifying here.
I do think an emphasis should be placed on not letting slow, ground-to-ground enemy units into your base.
I honestly think if the "big 3" units only did a small amount of bonus, with most of their damage being their base damage, that would solve a whole lot.
Pretty much if all bonuses were limited to something like 5 dmg max, we would see more plays based on mechanics rather than mass x>y>z.
Spellcasters should be the ones doing the most damage, i.e. EMP, Plaguu, and storm. Not the normal attack of 3 certain units.
Also the high ground advantage, too.
In summary, remove Terrible, Terrible damage bonuses.
On April 12 2010 16:44 pzea469 wrote: I Miss super effective things like high damage storms and scarabs. I miss powerful stuff. I wish a baneling in the mineral line would be a huge deal. More expensive but more effective, that's how I want things. Makes for more ahhh! Moments and makes micro more exciting. I'm not sure if this relates to the thread as much or not? Hard counters
Tell that to my bio army that got the daylights stormed out of it, or the 1000k+ worth of minerals and gas group of ghosts that got stormed by a templar that got warped in and I didn't see it in time. Tell that to the two banelings that make it into the mineral line and put you so far behind that you gg out.
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?
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 SC2 system of 20 damage dragoons/half damage to small and 10+10 to armored dragoons?
One is like, making it less, and the other is like, totally making it more.
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 SC2 system of 20 damage dragoons/half damage to small and 10+10 to armored dragoons?
One is like, making it less, and the other is like, totally making it more.
Duh.
The 10+10 is coming from a Terran unit. That can use Stimpack. That's the problem.
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 SC2 system of 20 damage dragoons/half damage to small and 10+10 to armored dragoons?
One is like, making it less, and the other is like, totally making it more.
Duh.
The 10+10 is coming from a Terran unit. That can use Stimpack. That's the problem.
Oh, so it's just an issue of "this specific unit deals too much damage", not "BWAHH +DMG VS ARMORED RUINED SC2!!1!"? Why aren't the complaint threads being more specific then? Instead of complaining about this specific grievence about one specific unit, the entire damage system of SC2 has aspersions cast on it.
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 SC2 system of 20 damage dragoons/half damage to small and 10+10 to armored dragoons?
One is like, making it less, and the other is like, totally making it more.
Duh.
The 10+10 is coming from a Terran unit. That can use Stimpack. That's the problem.
Oh, so it's just an issue of "this specific unit deals too much damage", not "BWAHH +DMG VS ARMORED RUINED SC2!!1!"? Why aren't the complaint threads being more specific then? Instead of complaining about this specific grievence about one specific unit, the entire damage system of SC2 has aspersions cast on it.
Alright, don't get your panties in a knot. I was addressing only one unit because that's what the argument was addressing. Where the problem lies is in the damage inflation, which is a trend more than something that can be pinpointed on any single unit.
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%/50% damage from explosive and 25%/50%/100% damage from concussive, 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.
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. >:[
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.
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.
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 SC2 system of 20 damage dragoons/half damage to small and 10+10 to armored dragoons?
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.
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.
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..."
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.
On April 13 2010 04:10 shinosai wrote: Immortals are preventing terran from using the factory at all, and marauders as a result are the definitive terran strategy since nearly all toss units are armored. I think toning down marauder/immortals would make interesting changes to the TvP matchup.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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-
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?
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).
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: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGP1-R9rugo. 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.
I think Immortals will become more of a "Oh shit, Protoss is going for an early break on the Terran! Let's see if the Terran can scout this early enough to hold it off, because this is battle is completely determined by who has the better micro" type of unit instead of a "Yeah. Protoss made Immortals. And Colossi. As usual." type of unit.
If their CONTEXT were changed. And this change would be for the better.
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.
ComradeDover, of course you would call my arguments absurd because you aren't willing to consider any of them at all.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
See above about colossus vs roach, or hellions (even without preigniter upgrade) against massed zerglings.
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.
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.
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.
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?"
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?"
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.
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.
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...
I think what people mean, but don't really know they mean, when they use the term "hard counter" in describing a problem with SC2, is not "hard counter" as it is typically defined, but counters between units that are mechanically the same unit, scaled to cost.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 21:25 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.
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 22:11 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).
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.
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.
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
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 +
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.
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.
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 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)
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 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 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 16:43 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
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.
Soft counters are best, and STILL require that you react to your opponent. Hard counters are terrible imo. And it's even better when a unit counters another BECAUSE of another unit.
For example, goons soft counter lurkers. If you have a bunch of lurkers bunched up near each other, they are actually quite effective vs goons. But because you know there are going to be high templar, you have to space your lurkers about, making goons a very good counter to lurkers, so much taht in a 1v1 fight goons will straight up rape spaced out lurkers.
And we're talking a unit with like ~180 hp (goon) dealing 20 dmg vs a unit with 125 hp dealing 20 dmg that has splash and is burrowed. It's not the goon dealing 40-50 dmg or some retarded shit to the lurker.
Imo, the Immortal should be completely revamped. Have it do something like 20+15 instead of 20+30 (or even 25+15), and have it slightly cheaper, and more emphasis on shields. Like 200 shields and 50 hp. But the shields reduce dmg by 50% at dmgs over 10 (meaning large attacks like siege tanks still do a lot more dmg). Just my opinion.
On April 15 2010 07:13 buhhy wrote: Well, if it becomes cheaper, with smaller bonuses against armor, wouldn't it be a stronger Stalker that doesn't attack air, but has a hardened shield?
And that doesn't have blink and is much less mobile? And wouldn't it thus be a COMPLETLEY different unit? And still a relatively hard counter to mech with like 2x the HP?
Differences between the two would be...
Stalker - Lower HP, more mobile, blink ability, able to be warped in, anti air, not a good counter vs armored (14 dmg total), multipurpose unit, medium range
Immortal - Very high HP unit, slow moving, no antiair ability, cannot be warped in, hardened shields reduce high damage attacks, incredibly high attack (35) vs armored (whoever says 35 isn't a high attack is ridiculous), short range
How in the world are those two descriptions similar at all? Besides the fact the two units are quadrapeds? That's literally all I can think of.
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.
TBH I can't really argue with that, it's just that 1-2 core units seem low to me and I don't like assuming that everything else is "random chain of counters". I want to believe that the whole talk about Roaches and Marauders is like pulling BW Siege Tanks and Dragoons out of context and claiming BW is boring because of that as if there is nothing else to see, I believe there is a lot we just haven't seen yet.
You touched my softspot talking about SC1 Queen ;D
Talking about Immortals, they are so different to fight against when they do and do not have their shields. Can't be ways to take their shields down called mechanics?
EPT
(if you have concussive shells) (yes it's possible, Naruto did it). It works the same in SC2 as it does in SC1!
