EPT
? Average posts getting longer, people thinking more before they post, more old member, mods and gosus joining the discussions etc. I hope blizzard notice this and read many of the recent threads that have had realy good and creative discussions.Rock, Paper, Scissors, and Starcraft 1 - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
DrainX
Sweden3187 Posts
? Average posts getting longer, people thinking more before they post, more old member, mods and gosus joining the discussions etc. I hope blizzard notice this and read many of the recent threads that have had realy good and creative discussions. | ||
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On August 09 2007 20:06 Waxangel wrote: ah well like I said, it's mostly an argument about definition what is a "counter" anyway? By definition, it isn't somethign that situational. It should be called a situational counter then. Call it a situational counter in that case. Lurker is a situational counter to marines, if your micro is better. A "Hard counter" should mean a relationship where one unit will almost always win, regardless of other circumstances. SC doesn't have hard counters by that definition, units matchups sway hugely depending on the situation and micro. Well, actually Blizzard already defined hard vs soft counters in the past when they were asking gamers what their opinions were on hard vs soft counters in Warcraft 3, so I think we should stick to their definition (hard being one kind of unit vs one kind of unit, soft being multiple kinds of units vs multiple kinds of units). Maybe a better term would be "unconditional counter" (in contrast to "situational counter") for a relationship where one unit will almost always win. | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On August 09 2007 23:06 Bill307 wrote: Well, actually Blizzard already defined hard vs soft counters in the past when they were asking gamers what their opinions were on hard vs soft counters in Warcraft 3, so I think we should stick to their definition (hard being one kind of unit vs one kind of unit, soft being multiple kinds of units vs multiple kinds of units). Maybe a better term would be "unconditional counter" (in contrast to "situational counter") for a relationship where one unit will almost always win. I think you mean that a hard counter is when you only need 1 unit type to do it(Such as dryads vs gryphons) and a soft counter is when you need multiple units to do it(Such as raiders + grunts counters archers since raiders net and grunts kill them) While those definitons work well in wc in sc you cant really define it like that since theres not many support uniots in sc and also there are really hard counters there. But really, a counter is harder the less of the counter you need. For example to kill 1k min worth of unit a you might need 750 min worth of unit b, this can be seen as a soft counter. Second example to kill 1k min worth of unit c you need 250 worth of unit d, this counter is a lot harder than the previous one. The only thing needed to be defined is were the line is drawn, ofcourse anything that cant fight back is counterd hard. Also you need to consider that almost every counter in sc is conditional since they arent so much about damage types but instead range/splash etc, while in a game such as aoe you cant in any circumstance win with pikeunits over sword units or horse units over pike units or sword units over horse units, since theyre basically the same unit but with different armortypes, kinda like how hydras counters goons. | ||
| ||
