|
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.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
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.
LOL yes this needs to happen
|
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.
|
10387 Posts
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!
|
I'm with Kinos. I like the idea of an advantage, but not as extreme as it is now.
|
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 17:05 NihiloZero wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On April 12 2010 16:52 ArvickHero wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2010 16:43 Plexa wrote:
Hard counters have always existed, they were only highlighted in SC2 thanks to the new damage system. Just think Archons vs Muta, Vultures vs Zealots, Firebats vs Zerglings etc If you have insanely good micro, you can beat Archons with Mutas. Unmicroed Vultures vs Zealots is not necessarily a hard counter, and Firebats need to be in sizable numbers to be a real hard counter to Zerglings.
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 16:47 mOnion wrote:Show nested quote +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. LOL yes this needs to happen
Maybe like THIS? :p
Explanation for non-Warhammers:
+ Show Spoiler +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.
How are any of these good things.
|
ive got your hard counter for ya right here
|
On April 12 2010 19:04 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2010 16:43 Plexa wrote:
Hard counters have always existed, they were only highlighted in SC2 thanks to the new damage system. Just think Archons vs Muta, Vultures vs Zealots, Firebats vs Zerglings etc The original hard counters are hard counters because of the way they deal damage. Splash damage used against closely packed units in all of the cases above. 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. Show nested quote +On April 12 2010 16:47 mOnion wrote: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. LOL yes this needs to happen Maybe like THIS? :p Explanation for non-Warhammers: + Show Spoiler +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.
|
yesnokinda
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
