|
I don't think this is a rule. And if they blow the game we can always move to something else as the starcraft 1 community will probably be destroyed 
Imagine Zerg had a different breed of zergling that's tougher, more powerful and more expensive. Let's call it the Alphaling, with the following stats: 70 HP, 10 damage claws, base armor 0, same cooldown on its attacks as the zergling, and one of these costs 50 min. It's like one zergling that combines the stats of two. Sounds fair enough, right?
Actually, it's quite overpowered. If you made it fight against two zerglings, it would win (kills first zergling in 4 hits, and takes 40 hp of damage; kills second zergling in 4 hits, takes another 20 damage and survives); it's more resistant to psi storm and other forms of AoE damage; you'd get fewer collision problems and bottlenecks wouldn't be such a problem.
You're describing something that's more present in games that rely less on terrain and softer counters eg: age of empires 3. It's really hard to measure how strong a unit is based on its stats
I used (and made up) the efficiency formula sqrt(attack*hp/cooldown)/cost as one value
so alphaling is sqrt(70*10/8)/50
zergling is sqrt(35*5/8)/25
But I don't think it works that well.
(I'm assuming that attack animations don't take any time and unit pathing is perfect and many other things: no regen, no micro)
Cyclohexane, a well respected member of AOE3 made this unit ranking guide here:http://www.aoe3clan.com/index.php?name=Downloads&get=8
Since there are more unit statistics but less variation in battles in Age of Empires 3, the guide works moderately well. However there are lapses, such as the bolas warrior being ranked first in ranged infantry but being useless because of it's damage cap. In addition the ratings factor in speed and range and not attack animation time. So in tests musketeers actually beat their counter: the longbowman when the efficiency calculator says otherwise.
It's also better if the efficiency formula is applied to the number of hits rather than attack and hp...
Generally speaking stronger units come out ahead because of their micro advantage so the alphaling you described would be significantly overpowered(I agree). Also, while one alphaling would defeat 2 zerglings as described, it's different when its 20 alphalings vs 40 zerglings. The zerglings do better. It's strange.
tl:dr balancing units is hard. It's harder in a fast game like starcraft. In game testing is the best way to fix this so people with keys, please submit feedback to blizzard!.
|
On February 24 2010 17:09 Zato-1 wrote:
I understand the OP's basic argument, but I disagree with it.
There are so few durable units in BW, you can't really make a convincing case for the rule he describes. The carrier is relatively tough, and it hits like a truck. The archon is tough unless it's getting shot at by marines, vultures or hydras, and it also hits really hard. Those are two examples of tough units that hit hard. The only other examples of particularly tough fighting units (ultralisk and BC) don't hit too hard, I'll admit that. Still, when 2/4 of tough units do hit quite hard, I can't agree that the aforementioned rule applies to BW.
Yes, nothing is quite as efficient as zerglings at killing stuff, and zerglings are weak on survivability. That has more to do with the zergling's cost than anything else, however.
Let me explain this by way of an example:
Imagine Zerg had a different breed of zergling that's tougher, more powerful and more expensive. Let's call it the Alphaling, with the following stats: 70 HP, 10 damage claws, base armor 0, same cooldown on its attacks as the zergling, and one of these costs 50 min. It's like one zergling that combines the stats of two. Sounds fair enough, right?
Actually, it's quite overpowered. If you made it fight against two zerglings, it would win (kills first zergling in 4 hits, and takes 40 hp of damage; kills second zergling in 4 hits, takes another 20 damage and survives); it's more resistant to psi storm and other forms of AoE damage; you'd get fewer collision problems and bottlenecks wouldn't be such a problem.
If you wanted to balance this unit, you'd have to make it weaker in some way. For instance, by reducing its damage; it would probably be a little more balanced with 8 damage per attack.
This is because its damage is indivisible compared to that of two zerglings; if you deal 35 damage to the pair of zerglings, one of them dies, and their damage output decreases- but if you deal 35 damage to the alphaling, its damage remains intact. To compensate for this (the fact that a group of individually weaker units loses firepower more quickly once it starts taking damage), the damage efficiency of cheaper units has to be higher. This rule DOES apply in BW- marines have more damage efficiency than hydras, which in turn have higher damage efficiency than dragoons; zerglings have more damage efficiency than zealots, which have more damage efficiency than ultralisks.
The enormous damage efficiency of zerglings, therefore, is a necessary consequence of how cheap and 'divisible' the unit is- it's more a direct consequence of mathematics than a conscious design choice. Of course there is a conscious design choice in creating the zergling- making it a fast, cheap and very massable melee unit. The stats that make it balanced, including its damage output, however, are all determined through balance- by math.
and therefore this alphaling should either cost more than 50 min or have less power output. If the choice is to lower power output then it follows the (i guess you can call it secondary principle of more health of the alphaling corrolates to less attack and viceversa with lings being glass cannons.
In sc2 they're not following this principle e.g. immortals because they are choosing the other option of making the unit cost more. With the rescources of an immortal one should be able to make enough comparably weak units to put up a closer fight.
|
On February 24 2010 17:26 lolaloc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2010 15:04 EmeraldSparks wrote:
mighty ultralisk, have surprisingly low raw damage output. False. They have high HP, high armor and decent attack. IIRC, 5-3 ultralisks kill 3-3 marines in one to two hits. Zerg players tend to mass Ultras coupled with a handful of Defilers in ZvT lategame (in D level at least).
Ultralisks do seem to have low damage output compared to zerglings (cost wise). But no big deal if you don't agree.
|
On February 24 2010 17:26 lolaloc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2010 15:04 EmeraldSparks wrote:
mighty ultralisk, have surprisingly low raw damage output. False. They have high HP, high armor and decent attack. IIRC, 5-3 ultralisks kill 3-3 marines in one to two hits. Zerg players tend to mass Ultras coupled with a handful of Defilers in ZvT lategame (in D level at least).
Most people who know how to use ultraling will tell you that its the zerglings that actually deal the damage, reason being (as someone already mentioned) the cost-effective DPS.
Zerglings have a DPS of 13.3 (+3 and adrenals) in the late game (which is when you would be using ultraling), and effectively cost only 25 minerals each. Compare that to an ultralisk, that deals less than double, 19.3 (+3) and costs 200 minerals and 200 gas, eight times the total resources. Assuming all resources are the same, that's 154.4 cost-effective DPS opposed to the ultralisks' 19.3.
And if you consider the fact that in the late game gas is a more precious resource, then ultralisks are even less cost-effective if you use them for damage.
|
This touches on something that I learned a while back about SC2 that took away a lot of my faith in it being a suitable successor to SC1.
That is the approach to the unit relationships like is mentioned in the OP, specifically units that do special types of damage to other units. When I heard that x unit does additional damage to armor, I knew that the wrong approach was being used.
In SC1 there were three types of damage, and three types of unit sizes. What this did is make certain units counter other units, but not such hard counters as we see in SC2. It created a natural cyclic relationship with this simple scheme in combination with unit cool-down time, speed, and size. This is more mathematically consistent and has allowed SC1 to evolve over the years imo. Unit sizes, cool-down times, speeds, and basic damage types are fundamental and allow a natural flow.
When a unit is designed to destroy another specific unit (for example, having specific attributes such as doing extra damage to another unit), and an interlocked set of three races are created this way, the game can never play in a way other than what the developers intended at the time of creation.
Now this is just complete theory on my part, and I haven't played the game and actually don't know all the details of it. It may actually be how I just described SC1, I don't know. But if it is tweaked so that units have too complex a set of attributes, I believe my theory has merit.
I think they have a great game engine, and a lot of other things going for them. They also have pros scrutinizing this and they intend on making a trilogy, so I'm confident that if the scenario I described is accurate, it will get fixed. And even if it doesn't, the tools will be available for a user to create their own version of the game.
|
op doesn't even have a beta key and he's speculating.
|
this rule along with many many others were broken between sc1 and sc2.
it's a new game. it will have its own rules.
and since the game is only in beta, it's gonna be quite a while before anyone knows sc2's rules, and whether or not they're better than sc1's.
don't fret.
|
I halfway agree.
The critical factor units in starcraft 1 aren't present as much in starcraft 2, but part of this is really timing. players haven't found that "critical point" where they can perfectly time something in the face of another player during that match.
Take the 3tank-1SV push in TvZ.
This timing is incredibly critical; pushing earlier before the SV means lurker doom. Pushing just 30seconds later means defiler counters. In essence, the three tanks and the SV are "critical units." They're the staple. Just like the reaver loss sways the tide.
Starcraft 2 players right now have a lot of "my mentality is to mass this unit and kill this off." Mutas/lurkers/reavers/archons/siegetanks/SVs show such an amazing advantage tech-wise when players make these critical choices.
We're seeing a lot of this "NERF THIS NERF THAT" mindset, while buffing things that're too weak. Starcraft 1 pointed each unit towards specialization. Units that are jack of all trades needed to be massed (goons, hydras), while units that are good at something do it incredibly well (again, SVs, etc.) Right now, we need to seesomething like reapers buffed in speed and/or attack, but make sure they're fragile enough to bat off (something similar to how the vulture was strong as a raider, but against a sunken or some cannons individually it wouldn't be effective).
|
On February 24 2010 18:06 fight_or_flight wrote:
This touches on something that I learned a while back about SC2 that took away a lot of my faith in it being a suitable successor to SC1.
That is the approach to the unit relationships like is mentioned in the OP, specifically units that do special types of damage to other units. When I heard that x unit does additional damage to armor, I knew that the wrong approach was being used.
In SC1 there were three types of damage, and three types of unit sizes. What this did is make certain units counter other units, but not such hard counters as we see in SC2. It created a natural cyclic relationship with this simple scheme in combination with unit cool-down time, speed, and size. This is more mathematically consistent and has allowed SC1 to evolve over the years imo. Unit sizes, cool-down times, speeds, and basic damage types are fundamental and allow a natural flow.
When a unit is designed to destroy another specific unit (for example, having specific attributes such as doing extra damage to another unit), and an interlocked set of three races are created this way, the game can never play in a way other than what the developers intended at the time of creation.
Now this is just complete theory on my part, and I haven't played the game and actually don't know all the details of it. It may actually be how I just described SC1, I don't know. But if it is tweaked so that units have too complex a set of attributes, I believe my theory has merit.
I think they have a great game engine, and a lot of other things going for them. They also have pros scrutinizing this and they intend on making a trilogy, so I'm confident that if the scenario I described is accurate, it will get fixed. And even if it doesn't, the tools will be available for a user to create their own version of the game.
lol man it's really similar to the previous system
a dragoon makes twice the damage against an other goon(actually all big units) than it makes against a zergling. How is that not "doing extra damage against a type of units"?
also firebats against zerglings seem pretty hard counter to me
|
On February 24 2010 18:20 freelander wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2010 18:06 fight_or_flight wrote:
This touches on something that I learned a while back about SC2 that took away a lot of my faith in it being a suitable successor to SC1.
That is the approach to the unit relationships like is mentioned in the OP, specifically units that do special types of damage to other units. When I heard that x unit does additional damage to armor, I knew that the wrong approach was being used.
In SC1 there were three types of damage, and three types of unit sizes. What this did is make certain units counter other units, but not such hard counters as we see in SC2. It created a natural cyclic relationship with this simple scheme in combination with unit cool-down time, speed, and size. This is more mathematically consistent and has allowed SC1 to evolve over the years imo. Unit sizes, cool-down times, speeds, and basic damage types are fundamental and allow a natural flow.
When a unit is designed to destroy another specific unit (for example, having specific attributes such as doing extra damage to another unit), and an interlocked set of three races are created this way, the game can never play in a way other than what the developers intended at the time of creation.
Now this is just complete theory on my part, and I haven't played the game and actually don't know all the details of it. It may actually be how I just described SC1, I don't know. But if it is tweaked so that units have too complex a set of attributes, I believe my theory has merit.
I think they have a great game engine, and a lot of other things going for them. They also have pros scrutinizing this and they intend on making a trilogy, so I'm confident that if the scenario I described is accurate, it will get fixed. And even if it doesn't, the tools will be available for a user to create their own version of the game. lol man it's really similar to the previous system a dragoon makes twice the damage against an other goon(actually all big units) than it makes against a zergling. How is that not "doing extra damage against a type of units"? also firebats against zerglings seem pretty hard counter to me
you're not understanding his idea.
the idea: when you make a game to be played out a certain way it will be stuck that way. if you make a unit for a specific task it will only be for that task and nothing else. In sc1, units weren't made to fight another specific unit besides the firebat vs zerglings (1 exception, they probably were thinking, man firebats would be great against zerglings).
I like the point that units should just be made to be fun with a bunch of cool abilities. Let the roles be developed by us. We'll figure it out. Instead of "roach will be your tankers, lets give it more health and regen." How about we see a unit with a lot of health and say i'm going to move that in front.
|
On February 24 2010 17:53 Centric wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2010 17:26 lolaloc wrote:On February 24 2010 15:04 EmeraldSparks wrote:
mighty ultralisk, have surprisingly low raw damage output. False. They have high HP, high armor and decent attack. IIRC, 5-3 ultralisks kill 3-3 marines in one to two hits. Zerg players tend to mass Ultras coupled with a handful of Defilers in ZvT lategame (in D level at least). Most people who know how to use ultraling will tell you that its the zerglings that actually deal the damage, reason being (as someone already mentioned) the cost-effective DPS. Zerglings have a DPS of 13.3 (+3 and adrenals) in the late game (which is when you would be using ultraling), and effectively cost only 25 minerals each. Compare that to an ultralisk, that deals less than double, 19.3 (+3) and costs 200 minerals and 200 gas, eight times the total resources. Assuming all resources are the same, that's 154.4 cost-effective DPS opposed to the ultralisks' 19.3. And if you consider the fact that in the late game gas is a more precious resource, then ultralisks are even less cost-effective if you use them for damage.
and you failed to factor in how hard armor plays a part in skewing that zergling dps down
|
Ultralisks actually deal a good deal of damage, its just eclipsed by how crazy efficient late game zerglings are. But that can be easily remedied in SC2 by simply pushing up the units that seem to get "outclassed" as the game goes on, in terms of DPS.
Essentially, we only have a problem if units get outclassed in late game. The fact that tier 1 units were still very important in the late game was one of the best aspects of SC1.
Another concern someone mentioned was valid- what if every race's playstyle becomes like Protoss from SC1? In particular, I'm thinking about the Terran. They really did have the "concentrated ranged firepower with low/med HP" model. Combine that with the mechanics of siege tanks and spider mines, and you have the classic, brutal terran "push", which worked like no other race. I'd like to see that as an option for Terrans in SC2...
|
What you're writing pretty much goes hand-in-hand with what's bothering me a bit about SC2 as it is right now: There are nowhere near as many Units that deal heavy damage if microed correctly. In SC1 we had:
Protoss:
- Reaver
- High Templar (with intelligent casting it's never as microintensive as in SC1)
Zerg:
- Mutalisk (Mutamicro doesn't seem to exist in SC2 compared with SC1 Mutastacking, Hold-Button and Patrol-Button Mutacontrol etc.)
- Defiler (again very Micro-intensive but devestating if used correctly and again intelligent casting will make new Zerg-caster in SC2 A LOT easier to micro)
- Scourge (Very hard to Micro correctly, but DMG is huge)
Terran:
- Vessel (Again: Intelligent Casting in SC2)
- Vultures (Mines required lots of Micro from opponent and Patrol-Button Vulture-Micro a lot of Micro by the Vulture-User himself)
- Wraith (often gamewinners if microed correctly)
And those very hard to micro but very interesting Units get replaced by IMHO really boring Units like the Colossus, Immortal and air-units like new mutas, banshee, valkyrie, phoenix with whom the SC1-like micro of the air-unit-equivalents isn't possible or at least I haven't seen anything like SC1-Mutamicro/Wraithmicro in SC2 so far.
Don't get my wrong: I really like SC2 from what I've seen so far, but this particular Aspect of the Game is sth I don't really like and I don't know why Blizzard chose to remove nearly ALL of the really amazing to play/watch Mid-Tier Heavy-Dmg Units or just the ability to micro them in a way you can really maximize their potential.
Of course, you can just make Mutas stronger and yes, Mutamicro was more or less a Bug, but it enriched the SC1-experience a lot, so when Blizzard said that they've been working hard on making Mutamicro similar to SC1 possible in SC2, I was really happy but I've not seen anything near as Mutamicro in SC1...
|
On February 24 2010 17:09 Zato-1 wrote:
I understand the OP's basic argument, but I disagree with it.
There are so few durable units in BW, you can't really make a convincing case for the rule he describes. The carrier is relatively tough, and it hits like a truck. The archon is tough unless it's getting shot at by marines, vultures or hydras, and it also hits really hard. Those are two examples of tough units that hit hard. The only other examples of particularly tough fighting units (ultralisk and BC) don't hit too hard, I'll admit that. Still, when 2/4 of tough units do hit quite hard, I can't agree that the aforementioned rule applies to BW.
Wrong. A carrier isn't tough, it needs to abuse terrain otherwise it will be shredded by goliaths. Same goes for the archon, it doesn't tank damage nearly as well as the zealot.
You're comparing these units' hitpoints to that of lesser units, which is obviously flawed. Instead you should compare their hp for their cost. This ratio is actually quite low.
|
SC2s Rule would rather be: "The more specialised a unit is the stronger it is (at that task) and the weaker it´s at everything else".
Take Reapers: Decimate buildings and workers but melt to harsh looks.
|
I think this thread was spot on and if this doesn't change I feel sc2 will not posses the same level of depth that the original posses
|
Don't forget how many WoW "pros" is the majority of people who got keys.
A generation of gamers bred from forum whine.
|
Unit counters were so dynamic in SCBW because they changed according to early/mid/late-game, critical mass, terrain, micro, and each parties' unit count
Example: ZvP
early game:
- lings vs zealots = 4:1 ratio.
- when z gets speed, ratio turns to about 3:1, because of micro.
- When P has terrain advantage through chokes (2 on ramp, 7+ in natural, etc), zealot is counter
mid game:
- lings vs zealots +1 timing attack. zealots melt lings away.
late game:
- cracklings vs zealots, equal armor, zergling is the counter.
Similar dynamic balances occur in many other situations. Other even more interesting dynamic balances are when unit combos are achieved. For example, hydras can rape zealots hard. Put speedlots in there and HTs and zerg has a really tough time dealing with it.
My point? We need to determine through beta-testing whether these dynamic balances are still present in SC2
|
On February 24 2010 17:26 lolaloc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2010 15:04 EmeraldSparks wrote:
mighty ultralisk, have surprisingly low raw damage output. False. They have high HP, high armor and decent attack. IIRC, 5-3 ultralisks kill 3-3 marines in one to two hits. Zerg players tend to mass Ultras coupled with a handful of Defilers in ZvT lategame (in D level at least). False. When you look at how much damage output an equivalent cost of zerglings will do Ultralisks have very low DPS for what you're paying.
On February 24 2010 19:31 Disarray wrote:
and you failed to factor in how hard armor plays a part in skewing that zergling dps down
Armor bonuses are linear. So it's just +3 -3. Base armor does skew it down a little bit vs some things, but the gulf between the damage output of ultras and lings is already so extreme that it's not invalidating the point.
|
On February 25 2010 05:45 Zanno wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2010 17:26 lolaloc wrote:On February 24 2010 15:04 EmeraldSparks wrote:
mighty ultralisk, have surprisingly low raw damage output. False. They have high HP, high armor and decent attack. IIRC, 5-3 ultralisks kill 3-3 marines in one to two hits. Zerg players tend to mass Ultras coupled with a handful of Defilers in ZvT lategame (in D level at least). False. When you look at how much damage output an equivalent cost of zerglings will do Ultralisks have very low DPS for what you're paying.
I read these posts in my head with Dwight Schrute's voice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
