|
On August 05 2010 04:37 Egnarts wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 04:32 Grimjim wrote:On August 05 2010 04:19 Philip2110 wrote:
Pretty sure lack of bonus damage has nothing to do with balance of the game
This, whats your point OP Oh, lack of bonus damage has nothing to do with the balance? Then let's take it all out then. Let's see how that changes things. I think you missed the point, since Zerg does fine without these specific bonus damage versus x, and terran does fine with bonus damage, it's balanced, ergo it would be unbalanced without bonus damageVsX.
Exactly. For example if we remove ultralisk + bonus attack but then it should be compensated by giving health, speed or some ability. This game isn't balanced around all races having same amount of units doing +damage against armored units.
|
Good point, I didn't notice before. I guess thats another why zerg is doing really bad
|
Thor - Nay, and thankfully too. It doesn't even need it.
I'm surprised nobody has brought this up, but the thor DOES have bonus damage (GtA attack versus light -- and it has splash, too). In my opinion, this is the most gamebreaking example of bonus damage with AoE, since mutalisks are the logical T2 zerg response to tanks/hellions/marauders, but are nullified by a mech unit unlocked by a building a mecher would build early anyway (who goes mech without attack upgrades -- siege mode tanks get +5 damage per upgrade)!
|
While not wanting to get into the whole discussion of whether or not something is OP, some people here seem to fail to realize that Bonus damage is not free bonus damage. You can also read a unit like, for example, the marauder, which does 10 (+ 10 vs armored) as if he would do 20 (- 10 vs not armored). That means exactly the same. But in this case, it does not sound like it is a good thing, but rather that it is a bad thing. If the marauder would not do bonus damage at all, he probably would do something like 14 or 15 damage to everything.
Bonus damage is not something you get for free, it is more like a tradeoff. You get to be more effective vs one thing, but less effective versus other stuff. Also, Bonus damage is not the only mechanic that works that way. Movement speed, range, and many other things also make units counter other units. The only difference is that in this case, it is made obvious by a tooltip.
You could just add up the total range of the units, and probably terran would come out on top, and from that comparison conclude that terran is Op. Or the total Movement speed, and maybe find out that Zerg has in total the fastest units if you average between on creep and off creep, or something like that. Than you conclude that Zerg is best because they have faster stuff. This is also obviously stupid.
|
I'm not a huge fan of the bonus damage system but it is what it is. Nothing is more annoying to me than watching 4 marauders get dropped by a nexus of mine and they destroy it in a matter of seconds.
I really believe that a basic unit comp and knowing what you're doing with micro will get your much farther than trying to counter with a better unit comp and 1-Aing.
|
On August 05 2010 03:54 AyJay wrote:
Pretty sure lack of bonus damage has nothing to do with balance of the game
Of course it does. It's no coincidence that Terran units have the most bonus damage and are also the strongest race. Bonus damage means your "counter" units counter better, which can translate into a huge advantage.
|
United States47024 Posts
On August 05 2010 05:53 Graven wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 03:54 AyJay wrote:
Pretty sure lack of bonus damage has nothing to do with balance of the game Of course it does. It's no coincidence that Terran units have the most bonus damage and are also the strongest race. Bonus damage means your "counter" units are counter better, which can translate into a huge advantage.
Then how come Terran had the most units with bonus damage in SC1, and that was reasonably balanced?
Bonus damage in and of itself is irrelevant to balance. It's all a numbers tweak. Suppose you have 3 otherwise identical units. One does 30 damage, the other does 15+15 vs armored, and the other does 30+15 vs armored. The 2nd one is strictly worse than the first one. The third one is always better than the first one. This should imply that there is some intermediate that is of equal utility to the first one.
|
On August 05 2010 05:57 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 05:53 Graven wrote:On August 05 2010 03:54 AyJay wrote:
Pretty sure lack of bonus damage has nothing to do with balance of the game Of course it does. It's no coincidence that Terran units have the most bonus damage and are also the strongest race. Bonus damage means your "counter" units are counter better, which can translate into a huge advantage. Then how come Terran had the most units with bonus damage in SC1, and that was reasonably balanced? Bonus damage in and of itself is irrelevant to balance.
I find it both difficult and illogical to revolve arguments concering SC2 around SC1. There's simply no reason to involve SC1 in this discussion -- they're entirely different games with entirely different mechanics. Not to mention, SC1 was balanced in the same way you'd use duct tape to fit a round peg in a square hole. There's no reason to assume the same should be done for SC2 right now -- the game is in its infancy and it's not too late to make changes to the foundation.
|
thors do more damage to light units anti air.
|
On August 05 2010 05:57 TheYango wrote:
Pretty sure lack of bonus damage has nothing to do with balance of the game
Bonus damage in and of itself is irrelevant to balance. It's all a numbers tweak. Suppose you have 3 otherwise identical units. One does 30 damage, the other does 15+15 vs armored, and the other does 30+15 vs armored. The 2nd one is strictly worse than the first one. The third one is always better than the first one. This should imply that there is some intermediate that is of equal utility to the first one.
Not at all. You are ignoring a few variables, such as cost and the units that are in battle. The second unit is not strictly worse than the first if it costs less and you only make it when you know the opponent is using armored units. The third one is not always better than the first if it costs more and your opponent is only making light units.
Bonus damage changes counters, which are a huge part of SC2.
|
United States47024 Posts
On August 05 2010 06:02 Graven wrote:
I find it both difficult and illogical to revolve arguments concering SC2 around SC1. There's simply no reason to involve SC1 in this discussion -- they're entirely different games with entirely different mechanics. Not to mention, SC1 was balanced in the same way you'd use duct tape to fit a round peg in a square hole. There's no reason to assume the same should be done for SC2 right now -- the game is in its infancy and it's not too late to make changes to the foundation.
Even if you disagree, you have to admit that in SC1, the game was balanced *in spite* of the bonus damage disparity--the game was balanced while still maintaining Terran's racial identity of highly specialized responses. It would be preferable to tweak the game in such a way to preserve that racial identity, rather than just handing it to another race and homogenizing things--especially when it's been proven to be doable in the past.
On August 05 2010 06:06 Graven wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 05:57 TheYango wrote:
Pretty sure lack of bonus damage has nothing to do with balance of the game
Bonus damage in and of itself is irrelevant to balance. It's all a numbers tweak. Suppose you have 3 otherwise identical units. One does 30 damage, the other does 15+15 vs armored, and the other does 30+15 vs armored. The 2nd one is strictly worse than the first one. The third one is always better than the first one. This should imply that there is some intermediate that is of equal utility to the first one. Not at all. You are ignoring a few variables, such as cost and the units that are in battle. The second unit is not strictly worse than the first if it costs less and you only make it when you know the opponent is using armored units. The third one is not always better than the first if it costs more and your opponent is only making light units. Bonus damage changes counters, which are a huge part of SC2.
Did you miss the words "otherwise identical"?
My point was that for a given zerg unit that you want to give bonus damage, you could select some constant amount of non-bonus damage that would give it the exact same utility.
|
On August 05 2010 06:06 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 06:02 Graven wrote:
I find it both difficult and illogical to revolve arguments concering SC2 around SC1. There's simply no reason to involve SC1 in this discussion -- they're entirely different games with entirely different mechanics. Not to mention, SC1 was balanced in the same way you'd use duct tape to fit a round peg in a square hole. There's no reason to assume the same should be done for SC2 right now -- the game is in its infancy and it's not too late to make changes to the foundation. Even if you disagree, you have to admit that in SC1, the game was balanced *in spite* of the bonus damage disparity--the game was balanced while still maintaining Terran's racial identity of highly specialized responses. It would be preferable to tweak the game in such a way to preserve that racial identity, rather than just handing it to another race and homogenizing things--especially when it's been proven to be doable in the past.
Terran weren't nearly as versatile in SC1, making it less of an issue. The designers have given them the ability to swap reactors and tech labs at will, and given them every cute trick/gimmick in the game, in addition to preserving their "racial identity" of tons of bonus damage.
|
As a Zerg player I see all these threads about ZvT, and I rarely see people complaining about the infestor nerfs that have taken place. Am I the only Zerg player that thinks if the took of the upgrade for neural parasite everything would be ok again?
|
United States47024 Posts
On August 05 2010 06:10 Graven wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 06:06 TheYango wrote:On August 05 2010 06:02 Graven wrote:
I find it both difficult and illogical to revolve arguments concering SC2 around SC1. There's simply no reason to involve SC1 in this discussion -- they're entirely different games with entirely different mechanics. Not to mention, SC1 was balanced in the same way you'd use duct tape to fit a round peg in a square hole. There's no reason to assume the same should be done for SC2 right now -- the game is in its infancy and it's not too late to make changes to the foundation. Even if you disagree, you have to admit that in SC1, the game was balanced *in spite* of the bonus damage disparity--the game was balanced while still maintaining Terran's racial identity of highly specialized responses. It would be preferable to tweak the game in such a way to preserve that racial identity, rather than just handing it to another race and homogenizing things--especially when it's been proven to be doable in the past. Terran weren't nearly as versatile in SC1, making it less of an issue. The designers have given them the ability to swap reactors and tech labs at will, and given them every cute trick/gimmick in the game, in addition to preserving their "racial identity" of tons of bonus damage.
Their intent was probably to give everyone "cute gimmicks", its just that the ones they gave to other races (or at least to Zerg--Warp Gates are pretty damn good) are more lackluster. Again, it should be possible to deal with those things, rather than just upping the bonus damage.
|
On August 05 2010 06:06 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 06:02 Graven wrote:
I find it both difficult and illogical to revolve arguments concering SC2 around SC1. There's simply no reason to involve SC1 in this discussion -- they're entirely different games with entirely different mechanics. Not to mention, SC1 was balanced in the same way you'd use duct tape to fit a round peg in a square hole. There's no reason to assume the same should be done for SC2 right now -- the game is in its infancy and it's not too late to make changes to the foundation. Even if you disagree, you have to admit that in SC1, the game was balanced *in spite* of the bonus damage disparity--the game was balanced while still maintaining Terran's racial identity of highly specialized responses. It would be preferable to tweak the game in such a way to preserve that racial identity, rather than just handing it to another race and homogenizing things--especially when it's been proven to be doable in the past. Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 06:06 Graven wrote:On August 05 2010 05:57 TheYango wrote:
Pretty sure lack of bonus damage has nothing to do with balance of the game
Bonus damage in and of itself is irrelevant to balance. It's all a numbers tweak. Suppose you have 3 otherwise identical units. One does 30 damage, the other does 15+15 vs armored, and the other does 30+15 vs armored. The 2nd one is strictly worse than the first one. The third one is always better than the first one. This should imply that there is some intermediate that is of equal utility to the first one. Not at all. You are ignoring a few variables, such as cost and the units that are in battle. The second unit is not strictly worse than the first if it costs less and you only make it when you know the opponent is using armored units. The third one is not always better than the first if it costs more and your opponent is only making light units. Bonus damage changes counters, which are a huge part of SC2. Did you miss the words " otherwise identical"?
Oh, so we're discussing imaginary units. My apologies. I thought we were discussing Terran units, which do not fall under your hypothetical. The fact is simple, when you combine these variables, Terran have an advantage when they know what they need to respond to. You can't play all of this out on paper or in a unit tester. Players controlling the race do not build things randomly.
|
IMHO there is a reason for this, one aspect that zerg players aren't taking advantage of is being able to make super rapid tech switches by building a single building, by allowing too many units with bonus damage those tech switches would be overpoweringly strong.
The zerg strength is the rapid tech switch, no other race is as easily able to do it as the zerg. Take advantage of it, and you won't need the bonus damage.
|
On August 05 2010 05:57 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 05:53 Graven wrote:On August 05 2010 03:54 AyJay wrote:
Pretty sure lack of bonus damage has nothing to do with balance of the game Of course it does. It's no coincidence that Terran units have the most bonus damage and are also the strongest race. Bonus damage means your "counter" units are counter better, which can translate into a huge advantage. Then how come Terran had the most units with bonus damage in SC1, and that was reasonably balanced?
I agree with what you're saying, but it's incorrect to talk about "bonus" damage in SC1 since the system was completely different (it still operated on damage type but used reductions, not bonuses, for units of different types).
If anything, you could be making the argument that SC1 reductions by type was/is a superior system to bonuses since SC1 is obviously balanced and SC2 is possibly balanced (it's too early to tell -- it was released less than a month ago).
I think the OP is simply making the observation that Zerg seems to have the least dedicated, limited-role counter units of the 3 races. It's not necessarily a good or bad thing and it's an interesting facet of balance that hasn't really been explored before (as I've said above, the SC1 system was pretty different). I agree that using these observations as ammunition for claiming Zerg is underpowered is probably premature at best, but we shouldn't refrain from an impartial discussion of what the current bonus system means in terms of balance (and developer intent).
|
Terran units cost more, Terran units take longer to build.
Zerg can reproduce their army in seconds, Zerg has units with many insane abilities like the muta hitting several targets, queen with many abilities, broodlords which are insane with their mass broodling tank/damage, Banelings absolutely DESTROY bio units with "a-move".
Im not saying that it is a balanced matchup, but im just so sick of all these zerg players making these threads of zerg being so horrible and unplayable vs terran. Terran has free win vs zerg and there is not a single thing zerg can do to stop it.
Give me a break please!
|
United States47024 Posts
On August 05 2010 06:13 Graven wrote:
Oh, so we're discussing imaginary units. My apologies. I thought we were discussing Terran units, which do not fall under your hypothetical. The fact is simple, when you combine these variables, Terran have an advantage when they know what they need to respond to. You can't play all of this out on paper or in a unit tester. Players controlling the race do not build things randomly.
Ok, suppose we use a more concrete example:
Suppose you want to give the roach some amount of bonus damage, say, +10 vs armored. Shouldn't there be some some amount of non-bonus damage that you can buff the Roach by that would give it the exact same amount of utility (e.g. +7 lets you 2-shot marines)? It may not be better in the exact same situations--but its overall utility has been increased, which should mean that matchup-wide you've achieved a similar effect.
Another thing to note: in the case of SC1, bonus damage was actually also a poor indicator of what units were good against what. Hydralisks do explosive damage. Siege Tanks are large, and do explosive damage. However, Hydralisks end up not fighting Siege Tanks very cost-effectively. Zealots are small. Hydralisks actually do very well against zealots.
|
On August 05 2010 04:59 Craton wrote:
It's quite frustrating having your armies so readily countered by standard T compositions.
agreed.
plus, the funny thing is: u dont really counter anything with zerg, u try and hope not to get countered.. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
