Hate Hard Counters? Look here.

[Emzier]

You are completely missing the point of playing an RTS well. The point of an army that will survive is one that is balanced. You have units that have synergy, that cover each others' weaknesses, and that can beat different types of enemies.

Of course, if you one type against a mass of one type, the hard counter unit is going to win. Mass Roaches against Marauders, Marauders are probably going to win. Mass Roaches + Zerglings, Zerglings will beat the Marauders and you will win.

Make a balanced army, people. Cover your hard counter with a different unit. You do not have to build only one unit: make many. Make many different kinds of units so you can beat nearly anything you go up against. In the end, mass one; lose all.

[Jarethlegend]

I completely agree here with the op. I would argue that hard counters force you to create a more balanced army in order to survive and actually adds a whole other level of skill to the game. No longer can you count on just being able to mass one unit and out micro your opponent. Now you must create a varied army and then out micro your opponent.

[Chaosdragoon]

I don't think anybody is saying they hate Hard counters just that the counters in SC2 over say, SC1 seem a little much. I just think counters should give you an advantage not an absolute certainty that you are going to crush the unit in question because you're using It's counter.

[Arnath]

I don't think anybody is saying they hate Hard counters just that the counters in SC2 over say, SC1 seem a little much. I just think counters should give you an advantage not an absolute certainty that you are going to crush the unit in question because you're using It's counter.

I appreciate what you're saying but how would you calibrate that advantage? In the case where you simply tune down the power of certain units vs. other certain units you simply arrive at a group of middling units which all do pretty much the same thing: deal damage.

Look at it a different way: these units are not created as counters but as elite warriors. They are the best at something. That's what gives the unit character and flavor. If they happen to run across the obstacle against which they are the best, they will win. Without some weaknesses, you'd be seeing cries of "OP" ringing throughout the forums.

This not to say that the game is totally balanced and fair. There are tweaks that can be made. But those should be addressed singularly, instead of with broad statements about "hard counters."

[Shawabti]

I really don't think the hard counters are quite as bad as people are complaining about. Sure, Immortals might be the most extreme example as they can crush most armored units, but even a handful of light units focusing them with some micro on the other guys will change the tides. It's possible to beat "hard counter" enemies with terrain and micro.

For example, I was playing against a zerg player as terran the other day. I decided to go up'd marines and meds instead of the MMM, assuming he was going to go hydras/mutas after the initial roaches. Our first main fight consisted of equal number of roaches to my marines (I had ~1 med for every 4 marines as well) and BANELINGS. This should be one of the worst hard counters for a pure marine force, however I was able to win the fight rather decisively by movingmy army into two groups and jumping the marines that the banelings were targeting into the medivacs. Once the banes were gone, I focused the roaches from two sides, which was enough with FF to kill them all (the zerg player did not focus fire at all, apparently confused about what to do against 2 different marine balls).

I didn't even micro all that well and was able to overcome a supposed hard counter. It's not the end all be all of match ups.

[Nisco]

Hard Counters aren't a defining feature of an RTS.

SC1 had counters, some were kinda hard (archons and lings, lings and goons, the goons can still micro effectively in this situation)), but it wasn't as big of a deal as it is in SC2, where unit composition is key, and in many many cases more important than micro.

Marauders, being a tier 1.5 unit that now makes part of the core of the terran's army shouldn't have a 2x bonus damage. Instead of 10+10 make it something like 12+4.

Perhaps the Roach should start with one armor so marines and zerglings can still put up a decent fight.

Immortals are a bit ridiculous though. They have hardened shield, and people were already yelling "HARD COUNTER!" at that. I think the ability is great, but stacking on a +30 damage to armored is way over the top.

[Azureflames]

StarCraft had varying damage ranges just like SC2 does. SC2 is just a bit easier to understand.

Sunken Colony
Damage: 40
Type: Explosive

This means a sunken does 40 damage to Large units, e.g. a tank, 30 damage to Medium units, e.g. a goliath, and 20 damage to small units, e.g. a marine.

Terran Ghost
Damage: 10
Type: Concussive

A Ghost deals 10 damage to small units, Zerglings, 5 damage to medium units, Hydralisks, and 2.5 damage to large units, Ultralisks.

SC1 had hard counters similar to SC2. Reavers for example, completely crushed hydras/zerglings/MM if used correctly. PsiStorm pretty much hard countered zerg as a whole. Science vessels were a caster unit but they were a pretty hard counter for Zerg as well. Irradiate was a 1 shot on I think every zerg unit except an ultralisk(250 damage). It wasn't uncommon to see ~10 science vessels on a terran team flying around irradiating everything or each other and flying over your mineral lines. Scourge were a pretty good hard counter for Science Vessels. Vultures, with a little micro, completely crush units like Zealots/Zerglings/Marines and Spider Mines were absolutely devastating if used well. Lurk/Ling was a good counter for MM although good MM micro could beat it.

[Adamu]

You are completely missing the point of playing an RTS well.
Or you really enjoyed Starcraft.

*gasp*

[Kootness]

You are completely missing the point of playing an RTS well. The point of an army that will survive is one that is balanced. You have units that have synergy, that cover each others' weaknesses, and that can beat different types of enemies.

Of course, if you one type against a mass of one type, the hard counter unit is going to win. Mass Roaches against Marauders, Marauders are probably going to win. Mass Roaches + Zerglings, Zerglings will beat the Marauders and you will win.

Make a balanced army, people. Cover your hard counter with a different unit. You do not have to build only one unit: make many. Make many different kinds of units so you can beat nearly anything you go up against. In the end, mass one; lose all.

+1

Some dude starting talking about how Terran was so OP because he massed zealots and I went banshees.

? What did he expect?

[Zasz]

I don't think anybody is saying they hate Hard counters just that the counters in SC2 over say, SC1 seem a little much. I just think counters should give you an advantage not an absolute certainty that you are going to crush the unit in question because you're using It's counter.

A lot of people are saying that actually. In fact there have been several threads that claim hard counters are "ruining the game."

[Eloderung]

You are completely missing the point of playing an RTS well. The point of an army that will survive is one that is balanced. You have units that have synergy, that cover each others' weaknesses, and that can beat different types of enemies.

Of course, if you one type against a mass of one type, the hard counter unit is going to win. Mass Roaches against Marauders, Marauders are probably going to win. Mass Roaches + Zerglings, Zerglings will beat the Marauders and you will win.

Make a balanced army, people. Cover your hard counter with a different unit. You do not have to build only one unit: make many. Make many different kinds of units so you can beat nearly anything you go up against. In the end, mass one; lose all.

You're completely missing the point that hard counters did not exist in Starcraft I to the extent they do here, and Starcraft I is considered hands-down the greatest RTS of all time.

[Omniance]

You're completely missing the point that hard counters did not exist in Starcraft I to the extent they do here, and Starcraft I is considered hands-down the greatest RTS of all time.

This.

Hard counters aren't a terrible idea, but they do decide what units you have to build for you.

I've had games where 2-3 Immortals take out 4-6 Thors, with 4 Immortals taking out 4+ Thors and at least 4 Tanks in Siege, and I don't even have to watch the Immortals do it, knowing that regardless of if they die or not, I'll have lost less money than my opponent.

[Shawabti]

You're completely missing the point that hard counters did not exist in Starcraft I to the extent they do here, and Starcraft I is considered hands-down the greatest RTS of all time.

To be fair this is somewhat of a poor argument... "since the best RTS didn't have hard counters, it must be impossible for hard counters to add anything worth while to RTSes"

That's like say "since the highest rated movie of all time had no CGI, it must be impossible for CGI to add anything good to movies"

[Winge]

StarCraft had varying damage ranges just like SC2 does. SC2 is just a bit easier to understand.

Sunken Colony
Damage: 40
Type: Explosive

This means a sunken does 40 damage to Large units, e.g. a tank, 30 damage to Medium units, e.g. a goliath, and 20 damage to small units, e.g. a marine.

Terran Ghost
Damage: 10
Type: Concussive

A Ghost deals 10 damage to small units, Zerglings, 5 damage to medium units, Hydralisks, and 2.5 damage to large units, Ultralisks.

SC1 had hard counters similar to SC2. Reavers for example, completely crushed hydras/zerglings/MM if used correctly. PsiStorm pretty much hard countered zerg as a whole. Science vessels were a caster unit but they were a pretty hard counter for Zerg as well. Irradiate was a 1 shot on I think every zerg unit except an ultralisk(250 damage). It wasn't uncommon to see ~10 science vessels on a terran team flying around irradiating everything or each other and flying over your mineral lines. Scourge were a pretty good hard counter for Science Vessels. Vultures, with a little micro, completely crush units like Zealots/Zerglings/Marines and Spider Mines were absolutely devastating if used well. Lurk/Ling was a good counter for MM although good MM micro could beat it.

What's your definition of 'hard counter'? Most of those sound like soft counters. For example, Reavers did explosive damage (less against all the units you listed), but because they did 100 or 125 damage per shot and had aoe they worked against those units.

We might want to agree on definitions for hard and soft counters before starting ANOTHER one of these threads.

[Shinosai]

What's your definition of 'hard counter'? Most of those sound like soft counters. For example, Reavers did explosive damage (less against all the units you listed), but because they did 100 or 125 damage per shot and had aoe they worked against those units.

We might want to agree on definitions for hard and soft counters before starting ANOTHER one of these threads.

If reavers aren't a hard counter to zerglings and hydras then I don't know what is.

[Chaosdragoon]

If reavers aren't a hard counter to zerglings and hydras then I don't know what is.

Nuke?

[Shawabti]

4 Nukes.

And reavers.

[Omniance]

That's like say "since the highest rated movie of all time had no CGI, it must be impossible for CGI to add anything good to movies"

Not even close. A more accurate comparison would be that the best Drama movie of all time had good acting with a great script. So it would be highly improbable to make a better Drama without one or the other.

[Khanzure]

elite warriors

[Shawabti]

Not even close. A more accurate comparison would be that the best Drama movie of all time had good acting with a great script. So it would be highly improbable to make a better Drama without one or the other.

I disagree, since I find hard counters to be less intrinsic to game play as a screen play is to a movie. But to each their own.

[Chung]

Looks like most people here haven't played SC1. SC1's counters were harder than SC2's for the most part.

http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Damage_types

Certain attacks did half damage to certain units. Think about stalkers, who gets a measly +6 to armored bonus compared to their 8 attack.

In SC1, dragoons did +10 bonus to their otherwise 10 attack.

Some units still deal double damage versus their favored armor type, namely, marauders. But in general the counters aren't half as bad as SC1's, considering only very few units (I think 4?) were medium-sized. In fact, in some cases, some units did 4 times the damage against certain unit types.

[Wyndrunner]

The hard counter increase forces more strategic macro wins instead of just plain faster macro wins. It encourages increased scouting. I think it adds to the game both as a player and a viewer of other people's games.

[Adamu]

Nobody is saying damage bonuses didn't exist in the original Starcraft, they're saying they are far more prominent now than they were in the original game. Few people knew they even existed in the original game, which goes to show how well it was tuned.

[Azureflames]

Nobody is saying damage bonuses didn't exist in the original Starcraft, they're saying they are far more prominent now than they were in the original game. Few people knew they even existed in the original game, which goes to show how well it was tuned.

Let's see, units and abilities with damage penalties/bonus's.

Yamato cannon
firebat
ghost
goliath(air)
missle turret
seige tank(seige and tank mode)
vulture
spider mines
wraith(air)
valkyrie

Arbiter
Dragoon
scout(air)
corsair

hydralisk
infested terran
sunken colony
devourer

These units have either a concussive or explosive damage mod. There's a couple more units with damage mods that are only splash damage(like archon/lurker) that were not included. It's also possible I missed some but I think I got them all.

Of course they are 'far more pominent now,' they weren't displayed in-game before but there were a great many of them.

[Fodder]

You are completely missing the point of playing an RTS well. The point of an army that will survive is one that is balanced. You have units that have synergy, that cover each others' weaknesses, and that can beat different types of enemies.

Of course, if you one type against a mass of one type, the hard counter unit is going to win. Mass Roaches against Marauders, Marauders are probably going to win. Mass Roaches + Zerglings, Zerglings will beat the Marauders and you will win.

Make a balanced army, people. Cover your hard counter with a different unit. You do not have to build only one unit: make many. Make many different kinds of units so you can beat nearly anything you go up against. In the end, mass one; lose all.

Most logical post read so far about hard counters.

[Wat]

This.

Hard counters aren't a terrible idea, but they do decide what units you have to build for you.

I've had games where 2-3 Immortals take out 4-6 Thors, with 4 Immortals taking out 4+ Thors and at least 4 Tanks in Siege, and I don't even have to watch the Immortals do it, knowing that regardless of if they die or not, I'll have lost less money than my opponent. thats funny because immortals dont even counter thors i call bull#**#

[Bibdy]

Hard counters encourage two important RTS concepts:

1) Micromanagement
2) Unit variety

You want your units to provide the best bang for their buck during a fire fight. How do you do that? You get your units to attack the units they hard-counter, while trying to keep them safe from the units that hard-counter them. This is what micromanagement is all about.

You aren't going to succeed if you spam a single unit. Your opponent can just bring a few units that hard-counter your retarded-ass, tactically-inept cluster%#%! and beat you. In order for your units to do their jobs, without getting decimated, you need to field more unit TYPES to counter THEIRS.

People that are complaining about hard counters just don't get it. All they see is a boring game of 'he makes tons of cows, so I make a couple of slaughterhouse technicians to counter them'. The game is more dynamic than that, but honestly, people will gladly ignore important concepts in design in order to facilitate the time-honoured tradition of finding new and unique ways to complain about anything.

[Bibdy]

thats funny because immortals dont even counter thors i call bull#**#

lolwut? Thors have to hit Immortals TEN TIMES before they can even touch their health, because of their shield mechanic - If an Immortal's shields are still up, any attack that does over 10 damage, will only do 10 damage.

Thors ordinarily deal 45 damage, twice. That's an almost 80% damage reduction for the first 5 attacks (since they shoot twice at once) from a Thor. It then takes the Thor another 3 attacks to finish the Immortal off.

Whereas, an Immortal only has to hit a Thor 8 times itself to kill one, and is a heck of a lot cheaper in resources and supply.

The Immortal is the perfect front-line unit against things like Thors and Siege Tanks. Any unit that is Armoured and is intended to deal massive damage each individual strike is going to find Immortals are their counter.

[Nisco]

thats funny because immortals dont even counter thors i call bull#**#

Yes they do. Are you kidding?

Thors will only do 10 damage to Immortal's shield with the Thors slow attack. The Immortals will do like 50 damage to the Thors each.

[Wat]

lolwut? Thors have to hit Immortals TEN TIMES before they can even touch their health, because of their shield mechanic - If an Immortal's shields are still up, any attack that does over 10 damage, will only do 10 damage.

Thors ordinarily deal 45 damage, twice. That's an almost 80% damage reduction for the first 5 attacks (since they shoot twice at once) from a Thor. It then takes the Thor another 3 attacks to finish the Immortal off.

Whereas, an Immortal only has to hit a Thor 8 times itself to kill one, and is a heck of a lot cheaper in resources and supply.

The Immortal is the perfect front-line unit against things like Thors and Siege Tanks. Any unit that is Armoured and is intended to deal massive damage each individual strike is going to find Immortals are their counter. 250mm cannon 1 shots immortals sry 10 thors vs 10 immortals thors win every time

[Bibdy]

250mm cannon 1 shots immortals sry 10 thors vs 10 immortals thors win every time

Well yeah, I can see that. 10 Thors with 100 energy can. What about 10 Thors without 100 Energy? High Templar can just run in there and Feedback it all off.

[Wat]

Yes they do. Are you kidding?

Thors will only do 10 damage to Immortal's shield with the Thors slow attack. The Immortals will do like 50 damage to the Thors each. thors attack twice at the same rate as an immortal does once immortal takes 8 shots to kill a thor

thor takes 5 to kill the shield and 3 to kill the hp so its also 8 volleys

and thors 250mm cannon that kills immortals in one channel and prevents immortals from doing anything


of course thors are more expensive require more tech and take longer to build than immortals but 1-1 in a vacuum there is no way for immortals to beat thors assuming they have energy

[Wat]

thors also have more range : |

[Chung]

Nobody is saying damage bonuses didn't exist in the original Starcraft, they're saying they are far more prominent now than they were in the original game. Few people knew they even existed in the original game, which goes to show how well it was tuned.

That was exactly my point. Counters were way more prominent in the original StarCraft, which was what my post was about. Quadruple damage existed in that game. Here, the highest you can get is double damage against a certain unit type.

Maybe people didn't know the system as well because it wasn't obvious in the UI. They still countered dragoons with tanks and zealots with vultures. My point is, counters were harder in SC1 whether you like it or not. And the fact that "people don't know that" doesn't change it. If, in fact, the harder counters weren't a problem because the SC1 was so well tuned (whatever that means), perhaps they should "tune" SC2 instead of 'softening' the counters?

[Eloderung]

Looks like most people here haven't played SC1. SC1's counters were harder than SC2's for the most part.

http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Damage_types

Certain attacks did half damage to certain units. Think about stalkers, who gets a measly +6 to armored bonus compared to their 8 attack.

In SC1, dragoons did +10 bonus to their otherwise 10 attack.

Some units still deal double damage versus their favored armor type, namely, marauders. But in general the counters aren't half as bad as SC1's, considering only very few units (I think 4?) were medium-sized. In fact, in some cases, some units did 4 times the damage against certain unit types.

+6 damage to a +8 attack is SIGNIFICANT in the Starcraft universe.

They did not readjust base hp levels to account for units getting damage BONUSES instead of damage PENALTIES.

The difference is huge

By the way, blizzard is trying to make gameplay that is similar to Starcraft I. If blizzard wanted to reinvent the wheel, SC2 would have heroes and five races in it. But no, it doesn't. SC2 is intended to play very, very similarly to SC1.

Hard counters are bad because soft counters were present in the Starcraft universe previously.

If you think the hard counters in SC2 are good, then you may as well add heroes, an extra race, neutral buildings and hireable NPCs, a third resource type, and tier4 units. Because, you know, the more different this game is from Starcraft One, the better it'll be.

Explosive and Concussive damage functioned vastly different than do arbitrary damage bonuses to arbitrarily-defined unit armor types.

[Fohobogah]

People that say hard counter in SC2 are harder then in SC1 need to be remembered that :

http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Damage_types

25%!!!!

The only difference, SC1 hard counter were hidden and worked the other way around, you had a hard counter when your dmg was not reduced instead of when you have a bonus. Biggest diff is that their are less units with no "favored enemies". I mean, making Large units Vs concussion units was a BIG deal and was better then any hard counter SC2 have....

[Nisco]

SC1 had some hard counters.

The difference between SC1 and SC2 counters is the following:

Core units didn't hard counter other core units.

Zerglings, Hydras, Marines, Zealots, and Dragoons. Sure, some countered others somewhat, but it wasn't overdone as seen in SC2. Zerglings vs Dragoons was probably the biggest counter in terms of core units in SC1, and the Dragoons could still position and micro effectively to overcome.

In SC2, marauders %%#% roaches, zerglings %%#% marauders, roaches %%#% zlots, Immortals %%#% roaches, zerglings %%#% immortals,

Things like Collossi *#@@@# smaller units etc are fine. It's the more core units that shouldn't be as hard-countery.

Marauders bonus damage should be toned down but it's primary damage turned up. Roaches perhaps should get -1 armor. Immortals aren't actually a core unit, so they should still have a high bonus damage (to give them a role), but right now it's over the top. Something like 25+20.

Obviously I'm just throwing numbers out there, but it would be a good point to start balancing and tweaking the numbers.

People that say hard counter in SC2 are harder then in SC1 need to be remembered that :

http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Damage_types

25%!!!!

The only difference, SC1 hard counter were hidden and worked the other way around, you had a hard counter when your dmg was not reduced instead of when you have a bonus. Biggest diff is that their are less units with no "favored enemies". I mean, making Large units Vs concussion units was a BIG deal and was better then any hard counter SC2 have....

Vultures were the only commonly used unit with concussive damage. (other two were firebat and ghost)

Explosive dealing units were Siege Tanks, Hydras, and Goons (and a few like arbiter, who's attack wasn't worth a !#*# anyway). Siege tanks had a high attack anyway so they @***d smaller units regardless. That leaves Hydras and Goons. Granted, goons were @***d by zerglings, they could hit and run against both zeals and marines effectively. Hydras could hit and run zeals, and they still did alright against marines, though yeah you would need something other than hydras against 'rines.

Everything else had normal attack damage, or an explosive attack against air only.

As you see, the core units in SC1 had a few counters, but they were all really soft counters. Zerglings against Goons are really the only one somebody may call a "hard counter", and protoss could ovecome it with good positioning and micro.

SC2 needs to get rid of these core units hard counters.

[Eloderung]

People that say hard counter in SC2 are harder then in SC1 need to be remembered that :

http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Damage_types

25%!!!!

The only difference, SC1 hard counter were hidden and worked the other way around, you had a hard counter when your dmg was not reduced instead of when you have a bonus. Biggest diff is that their are less units with no "favored enemies". I mean, making Large units Vs concussion units was a BIG deal and was better then any hard counter SC2 have....

A 25% penalty is a soft counter in Starcraft.

A near-double-damage bonus is a hard counter in Starcraft, given that the baseline hp values are nearly identical.

Counters in Starcraft II are designed to be bane weapons against one type of unit. Counters in Starcraft I were designed to be penalized according to a sliding scale based on the unit being attacked.

If you don't understand why SCI's system of sliding penalty scales for Explosive/Concussive damage makes for a worse counter system than SCII's system of bane-units against a single type of unit is bad, you probably aren't that understanding of game mechanics in either game.

"Hard" counters in Starcraft I came from unit abilities and attack mechanics, NOT a bane-type damage bonus against a single unit type.

SCI "hard" counter: Psi-storm against a large zerg swarm.
SC2 hard counter: attack-move your repears against that swarm of light units.

SC1 "hard" counter: properly-positioned seige tanks against tightly-clumped units.
SC2 hard counter: attack-move your roaches against a swarm of light units.

SC1 "hard" counter: use dark swarm to allow zerg melee units to tear up enemy ranged units.
SC2 hard counter: attack-move your Void Rays onto structures.

SC1 "hard" counter: vultures only get 50% damage to zealots, so they get...oh wait, with proper micro, and clever positioning, vultures can kill their counter, zealots.
SC2 hard counter: attack-move your Immortals against enemy Roaches.

I can see why the FPS Xbox Live crowd prefers Starcraft II hard counters to in-depth Starcraft I strategy and gameplay, however.

[Azureflames]

SC1 had some hard counters.

The difference between SC1 and SC2 counters is the following:

Core units didn't hard counter other core units.

Zerglings, Hydras, Marines, Zealots, and Dragoons. Sure, some countered others somewhat, but it wasn't overdone as seen in SC2. Zerglings vs Dragoons was probably the biggest counter in terms of core units in SC1, and the Dragoons could still position and micro effectively to overcome.

In SC2, marauders %%#% roaches, zerglings %%#% marauders, roaches %%#% zlots, Immortals %%#% roaches, zerglings %%#% immortals,

Things like Collossi *#@@@# smaller units etc are fine. It's the more core units that shouldn't be as hard-countery.

Marauders bonus damage should be toned down but it's primary damage turned up. Roaches perhaps should get -1 armor. Immortals aren't actually a core unit, so they should still have a high bonus damage (to give them a role), but right now it's over the top. Something like 25+20.

Obviously I'm just throwing numbers out there, but it would be a good point to start balancing and tweaking the numbers.

Zealots were a pretty good counter to zerglings. For zerglings to beat zealots you needed superior numbers(a lot) and be able to surround the zealots. If you couldn't surround them(which you can't at high numbers/anywhere near a base entrance) zerglings got chopped up. If the toss got a weapon upgrade and the zerg didn't have an armor upgrade it was completely one-sided. Zerglings were a decent counter for dragoons and were pretty decent against marines(until stim)

As far as your statement for units completely destroying units...

Marauders do crush roaches.
Zerglings do not crush marauders.
Roaches do crush zealots(until charge, but roaches still do fine then) unless stalkers are supporting them.
Immortals do crush roaches but they are much higher on the tech tree and a lot more expensive.
Zerglings are pretty good for killing immortals if you can get to them.

I think one of the big problems with Marauders is stim. Stim is an insane dps ability and gives so much movespeed it makes the marauder a bit too strong imo. That, and they increased the duration of stim by 50% in SC2. If marauders didn't get the movespeed bonus from stim I think they'd be a lot more balanced.

What would be the point of lowering the bonus damage for marauders and then increasing their normal damage? It's exactly as if every unit is slightly armored then. The last thing marauders need is a damage buff. As it stands right now, it's not uncommon to see a measly 4-5 marines supporting 6-8 marauders with stim in an early push. The only things that can survive stimmed marauders are higher tech units like immortals/air units/hydras/collos with range upgrade or completely outnumbering/outpositioning. Something like speedlings swarming and/or roaches blocking escape.

[Fohobogah]

The 25% of concussive is not a penalty, it's the damage left. That mean this unit did 4 time the damage it did on heavy unit to small units.

Plus, Attack move is not an hard counter it's a micro tactic, and it's been used in SC1 a lot too. If you don'T move units here and their, you get out micro-ed.

SC2 hard counter: attack-move your reapers against that swarm of light units.
Reaper range and dmg is to low to allow that in a timely fashion.

SCI "hard" counter: Psi-storm against a large zerg swarm.
Still works wonder....

SC1 "hard" counter: properly-positioned siege tanks against tightly-clumped units.
Except now you can use em unpacked for very good results as well. Well positioned in siege mod, they are as awesome as they used to be.

SC1 "hard" counter: use dark swarm to allow zerg melee units to tear up enemy ranged units.
Dark swarm was sorta op VS Terran.... Now you actually have to work to destroy a Terran's front door, booohooo....

SC2 hard counter: attack-move your Void Rays onto structures. Hmmm hmmm... you've been smoking... Attack moove structure? You mean micro you're rays for hit and run? fine

SC1 "hard" counter: vultures only get 50% damage to zealots, so they get...oh wait, with proper micro, and clever positioning, vultures can kill their counter, zealots. Vultures always #!##ed up Zealots... With mine and with concussion dmg...

SC2 hard counter: attack-move your Immortals against enemy Roaches. You're definitely are troll not worth my time... But what is written is written...

[Chaosdragoon]

You're definitely are troll not worth my time... But what is written is written...

Just because you don't agree with what he says doesn't mean you should label him as a troll. I agree with him, pretty much any unit that counters another unit in SC2 can just attack move and utterly destroy another unit, no micro required.

[Azureflames]

SCI "hard" counter: Psi-storm against a large zerg swarm.
SC2 hard counter: attack-move your repears against that swarm of light units.

Are you implying storming was insanely difficult? Unless the storm just whiffed altogether, a good 2 ticks would go off on most units, which for zerg is 50-100% of the units HP, excluding ultralisks. Unless your units were moving before the storm went off, and never stopped moving, then some of them would only take 1 tick. The real skill involved with storming is for the one being stormed to be properly spread out and move his units quickly. Landing storms is not the skilled part.

Attack-move your reapers die. Speedlings even kill micro'd reapers unless they are at the edge of a cliff.

SC1 "hard" counter: properly-positioned seige tanks against tightly-clumped units.
SC2 hard counter: attack-move your roaches against a swarm of light units.

Units like dragoons didn't have to be clumped to get crushed by tanks. And how hard is it to properly position tanks? The only times tank positioning can be an issue is if you are moving up your army as one clump and get attacked or if you get pincered and your tanks are unprotected. Zealots were a pretty hard counter for seiged tanks. Attack-move your zealots towards terran army, splash damage kills his own units, win.

Attack-move roaches actually don't do so well against zealots for example. The reason why they destroy zealots is they have a high damage low attack speed attack which lets them run for almost 3 seconds after every shot, negating a large portion of the zealot damage. Not to mention they run slightly faster.


SC1 "hard" counter: use dark swarm to allow zerg melee units to tear up enemy ranged units.
SC2 hard counter: attack-move your Void Rays onto structures.

Dark swarm was an insanely strong ability. With consume being how it was it was pretty easy to keep it properly applied. The skill involved was getting your first ones down in the right places at the right time when you were attacked. If you failed at using it offensively you could always just bring more zerglings and apply it from out of range and work your way in.

Void Rays versus structures...? I don't understand this argument. How do you want Void Rays to work against buildings? It's not as if they 1 shot them.


SC1 "hard" counter: vultures only get 50% damage to zealots, so they get...oh wait, with proper micro, and clever positioning, vultures can kill their counter, zealots.
SC2 hard counter: attack-move your Immortals against enemy Roaches.


In SC1 protoss shields took full damage from attacks regardless of damage type. So vultures actually dealt 20 damage until shields were gone, and then proceeded to deal 10 damage. There's no clever positioning about it. It's similar to roach micro versus zealots except vultures moved faster(insanely faster with the ion boost upgrade or whatever) and vultures had a longer range. Not even going to go into detail about spider mines.

Immortals still do well against roaches even if attack-moved, assuming it's only roaches and not a roach/ling mix. They do insanely well against roaches if focus fire is used.


I can see why the FPS Xbox Live crowd prefers Starcraft II hard counters to in-depth Starcraft I strategy and gameplay, however.

K.

[Eloderung]

The 25% of concussive is not a penalty, it's the damage left. That mean this unit did 4 time the damage it did on heavy unit to small units.



Vultures did not destroy light units, though.

A vulture in Starcraft 2 would be doing 40 (+30 damage) against light units, one-shotting most infantry.

That is how the new hard counter system is. And if you don't believe me, you can just look at the opinions of the majority of platinum-level players in beta.

[Azureflames]

Vultures did not destroy light units, though.

A vulture in Starcraft 2 would be doing 40 (+30 damage) against light units, one-shotting most infantry.

That is how the new hard counter system is. And if you don't believe me, you can just look at the opinions of the majority of platinum-level players in beta.

Look at hellions. They are the vultures of this game. They do destroy lightly armored units but not in 1 shot.

edit: Oh, and I guess I can throw in that I am a platinum level player and most of the people I play with/talk with have similar views, though not identical. Some people are strongly biased against individual units like Mutalisks.

[Eloderung]

Look at hellions. They are the vultures of this game. They do destroy lightly armored units but not in 1 shot.

Hellions have AoE damage. And thanks for proving my point.

edit: Oh, and I guess I can throw in that I am a platinum level player and most of the people I play with/talk with have similar views, though not identical. Some people are strongly biased against individual units like Mutalisks.

I should rephrase: platinum-level players who played SCI competitively.

I wouldn't care about SC2 ladder balance as-is if it didn't have a predecessor called Starcraft. But since it does, blizzard should really stick more closely to SC1 balance and mechanics than trying to reinvent the wheel. SCI balance was achieved after half a decade of careful balancing and small tweaks. The system is tried and proven. SC2 is trying to throw that all away just so they can cater to a different crowd.

[Lampanator]

+6 damage to a +8 attack is SIGNIFICANT in the Starcraft universe.

They did not readjust base hp levels to account for units getting damage BONUSES instead of damage PENALTIES.

The difference is huge

By the way, blizzard is trying to make gameplay that is similar to Starcraft I. If blizzard wanted to reinvent the wheel, SC2 would have heroes and five races in it. But no, it doesn't. SC2 is intended to play very, very similarly to SC1.

Hard counters are bad because soft counters were present in the Starcraft universe previously.

If you think the hard counters in SC2 are good, then you may as well add heroes, an extra race, neutral buildings and hireable NPCs, a third resource type, and tier4 units. Because, you know, the more different this game is from Starcraft One, the better it'll be.

Explosive and Concussive damage functioned vastly different than do arbitrary damage bonuses to arbitrarily-defined unit armor types.


I'm very sorry, but you just have no idea what you're talking about.

yes, HP values remained roughly the same in SCII, but damage was lessened in many cases.

one of my favorite examples was an explosive damage in SCI(iirc) the missle turret for terrans.

tooltip listed in SCI as 20 damage, in SCII it is listed as 7 damage (+7) light.

14 damage. that's a nerf to damage. even with the bonus coefficient.

another great example is zealots, who with the introduction of attack x (n) have become more versatile units. instead of 16 base damage, they now do 8 x2, making them viable immortal counters with +2+2,

Marines do the same damage, so do lings,

Hydras, as a T2 unit understandably do 2 damage bonus and have a modifier.

Tanks do less damage, 15 base and +10 v armored. that's 25. it was 30 base in SCI.

The modifiers in SCII are actually fantastic creations, they allow the game designers to superfine tune attack damages without causing rolling waves that affect other areas.

for instance, if they wanted tanks to do more damage to armored, they could add to the armor coefficient, but not the base, making them more effective against armored , but staying at the same power against light/bio. adding this extra coefficient is very beneficial from the persepctive as a designer, who can now adjust only one instead of causing rolling changes to the entire unit and all units that would be affected by it.

In SCI 1-2 points of damage being changed could force entire strats to be wiped away because suddently some units don't do enough damage, or do too much, or are no longer cost efficient.

in SCII, i see the more lengthy coefficient system as being a great boon to the ability of the designers to balance effectively.

People don't realize that just because SCI didn't display bonuses or reductions, didn't mean that they were not there. SCII's system is friendlier, faster, and more effective.

[Eloderung]

I'm very sorry, but you just have no idea what you're talking about.

yes, HP values remained roughly the same in SCII, but damage was lessened in many cases.

one of my favorite examples was an explosive damage in SCI(iirc) the missle turret for terrans.

tooltip listed in SCI as 20 damage, in SCII it is listed as 7 damage (+7) light.

14 damage. that's a nerf to damage. even with the bonus coefficient.

And you didn't care to check attack speeds?

Hydralisks do "less" damage now, but they attack quite a bit faster. Zerglings do the same damage now, but they attack a bit slower when fully upgraded.

another great example is zealots, who with the introduction of attack x (n) have become more versatile units. instead of 16 base damage, they now do 8 x2, making them viable immortal counters with +2+2,

This mechanic was present in SCI as well. Zealots went through two armor checks in the original title.

Marines do the same damage, so do lings,

See above. And false; see stimpack changes.

Hydras, as a T2 unit understandably do 2 damage bonus and have a modifier.

See above, hydras do significantly more damage than their SCI counterparts.

People don't realize that just because SCI didn't display bonuses or reductions, didn't mean that they were not there. SCII's system is friendlier, faster, and more effective.

Competitive Starcraft players were idiots then, and didn't know how to read up on basic game mechanics?

Clearly, you are far more intelligent than every single pro SCI player, including Korean professionals who are paid millions a year to play Starcraft.

Ironically, you are a perfect example of what you're talking about. Dps is not listed on SC2 units, so people like you misjudge the relative strength of said units compared to their SCI counterparts. That doesn't mean everyone does not care to research the game.

[Lampanator]

And you didn't care to check attack speeds?

Hydralisks do "less" damage now, but they attack quite a bit faster. Zerglings do the same damage now, but they attack a bit slower when fully upgraded.



you contradicted yourself . I said that hydras do more damage now, being T2 units instead of 1.5.


This mechanic was present in SCI as well. Zealots went through two armor checks in the original title.



Irrelevant, zealots had no modifiers and so as base units did full damage with all attacks. the point i was trying to make here was that making fuller use of the x(n) attack feature leads to more depth, such as using units with a 10 or under attack that attacks twice to shoot immortals, which have hardened shields.


See above. And false; see stimpack changes.



What stimpack changes are you referring to exactly?


See above, hydras do significantly more damage than their SCI counterparts.



see above, you contradicted yourself here.


Competitive Starcraft players were idiots then, and didn't know how to read up on basic game mechanics?



Don't put words in my mouth, let's be realistic, many people figured it out through trial and error, but this system makes the game easier to understand and play.


Clearly, you are far more intelligent than every single pro SCI player, including Korean professionals who are paid millions a year to play Starcraft.


Again, you're making extensions of my argument to make it seem rediculous. It's a fallacy to do so and only makes you look foolish. of course i don't think myself better at SC than Jaedong etc.


Ironically, you are a perfect example of what you're talking about. Dps is not listed on SC2 units, so people like you misjudge the relative strength of said units compared to their SCI counterparts. That doesn't mean everyone does not care to research the game.
[/quote]

there's a chart on the forums listing DPS. trial and error teaches us the final interpretation, but the coefficient system that's clearly shown takes alot of mystery out of how damage is dealt.

Also, you failed to address my points on game design and balance and how the split coefficient system is better.

[Bibdy]

Just because you don't agree with what he says doesn't mean you should label him as a troll. I agree with him, pretty much any unit that counters another unit in SC2 can just attack move and utterly destroy another unit, no micro required.

And when there's multiple unit types in both armies? The one who focus fires down units, using the proper counters, is going to be the victor.

The guy Attack-Moving his Immortals to shoot down Zerglings, instead of moving them forward and focus firing Roaches, is going to have a lot of dead Zealots and nothing to keep that wall of Zerglings from overrunning his Immortals.

[Eloderung]

And when there's multiple unit types in both armies? The one who focus fires down units, using the proper counters, is going to be the victor.

The guy Attack-Moving his Immortals to shoot down Zerglings, instead of moving them forward and focus firing Roaches, is going to have a lot of dead Zealots and nothing to keep that wall of Zerglings from overrunning his Immortals.

1v1s don't last long enough to make rich, varied armies.

[Dagger]

Not even close. A more accurate comparison would be that the best Drama movie of all time had good acting with a great script. So it would be highly improbable to make a better Drama without one or the other.

Zing!!

[Lampanator]

1v1s don't last long enough to make rich, varied armies.

well, at least not right now.

I'm sure about 6 months to a year after release we'll start seeing the pros hit the 30 min mark on a regular basis.

Rome wasn't built in a day, and starcraft wasn't balanced for a long time.

perfect balance comes from intelligent designers with the right tools and large enough numbers(data) to make the changes effectively.

[Eloderung]

Rome wasn't built in a day, and starcraft wasn't balanced for a long time.

So for Starcraft II, which is largely and closely based around Starcraft I (their intent is not to change the game), they'll have to go through another five years of balancing before they get things right?

They shouldn't throw away 12 years of progress.

[Lampanator]

maybe not 5 years, but maybe 1 year, maybe 2.

Adding even a single new unit can completely change the balance of the game. it's as if you'd rather just play SCI with SCII graphics.

they aren't throwing away 12 years of experience, they're taking that 12 years, slapping new stuff into it, and then having to deal with new balancing issues along with new mechanics.

it would be insane to think that it would be perfectly balanced within a month or two.

if you want to play SCI balance, go play SCI. there's no way to maintain a perfect balance with the new units playing uniquely unless you're willing to shift the blocks around a bit. that takes time, experience, and testers who provide useful critism. at this point blizz is not going to remove the base mechanic that defines this(SCII) game because a minority of people are crying about it. instead of adding to the problem, why don't you contribute to the solution by helping them figure out how to balance this new method?

[Newcomplex]

People need to make their claims a little bit more insular. If you want a valid point that hard counters are ruining SC2, the amount of Data your going to process in order to reach a relatively provable conclusion is ridiculous. Even blizzards stat jockeys working 24/7 on this stuff for dustin probably can't do that.

Instead, you guys should focus on making small, bite sized criticisms like "Roach hard counters too many untis and makes XvZ stale" or something. Then you could cite a variety of games showing high level players being forced to go roaches, with no other tech options.

[Eloderung]

Adding even a single new unit can completely change the balance of the game. it's as if you'd rather just play SCI with SCII graphics.

That's blizzard's intention. Otherwise 75% of the units wouldn't be the same from the original.

If they want to make it like the original, they should. If they want to make an entirely new game, they're free to do that. If they want to go half and half..

they aren't throwing away 12 years of experience, they're taking that 12 years, slapping new stuff into it, and then having to deal with new balancing issues along with new mechanics.

*cough chat rooms hard counter system 1998 latency*

it would be insane to think that it would be perfectly balanced within a month or two.

Yea, it would be insane, because they introduced a very un-Starcraft-like hard counter system.

if you want to play SCI balance, go play SCI. there's no way to maintain a perfect balance with the new units playing uniquely unless you're willing to shift the blocks around a bit.

So you agree with me, then, that the hard counter system is a bad idea?

[Nisco]

Let me just say this, then I'll hop out of the convo.

Anyone saying that the countering system in SC2 is similar to counters in SC1 are dead wrong. That's not even a valid argument, stop using it. It was quickly realized by many beta players that SC2 is taking a bigger focus on unit composition and countering than SC1.

The only thing really to argue over is whether or not it is good for the game.

Hard Countering does the following

-Forces players to have varied armies
-Puts more pressure on players to have their units attack the units they are more powerful against.
-Takes away freedom from the player, feels more pidgeonholed into a certain build or unit composition
-Makes it much harder for units to fight against the odds.
-Battles are quicker.

Pretty much all of those could be seen as helping the game, or making it worse. Though it's hard to look at #3 and be like "Oh that's good".

[Lampanator]

That's blizzard's intention. Otherwise 75% of the units wouldn't be the same from the original.

If they want to make it like the original, they should. If they want to make an entirely new game, they're free to do that. If they want to go half and half..



They wanted to make the a very similar game, with new twists. it's much like the original, but it's not supposed to play exactly the same.



*cough chat rooms hard counter system 1998 latency*



Playing RTS' with no hard counter system gets.... boring after a while. i don't think you really understand the concept of hard counter to begin with, much less when a system only has soft counters. have you ever played C&C? stack apocolypse tanks, game over. anti armor anything? no problem. tank still kills it.

IF you ever want to see a true hard counter game, go play sudden strike II.

1 tank > 500 infantry. when it runs out of ammo, it will run over them. infantry did no damage to tanks because it was armor and their guns were infantry class.



Yea, it would be insane, because they introduced a very un-Starcraft-like hard counter system.


you're purposefully misunderstanding. It's fairly clear to see that I meant that any game that's new requires more than a month or two to fully balance. starcraft II should have a shorter balance time, since blizzard has many years of experience with SCI, but it will not be an incredibly short period of time.


So you agree with me, then, that the hard counter system is a bad idea?

No, i don't know what ever gave you that idea, other than your own twisting of my words, purposeful misunderstandings, and exaggeration of arguments to make them seem silly. oh, and of course your masterful ignoring of my perfectly valid arguments.

Also, your sig is kind of ignorant.

You ask people to complain away, and citing that it's the point of a beta, but you don't mention that complaining mindlessly on things that A) are too late to change, B) fine for the most part, and C) rabidly attacking anyone with a diffrent viewpoint are bad.

to be an effective beta tester, you should offer constructive criticism, write detailed posts using hard evidence and testing and math, and play the game often so as to allow them to collect data at their end.

[Johnson]

the problem here isnt the fact that there are hard counters, its the fact that every uniot is a hard counter to something, there arent really any true all around units.


part of the reason zerg seem so powerful is simply the have mutas and hydras which really are about the only all around units.

hard counters need to be something that a player makes a concious decision to create at the cost of a more versatile unit. currently that isnt the case, because most units are hard counters. make more soft counters

[Lampanator]

the problem here isnt the fact that there are hard counters, its the fact that every uniot is a hard counter to something, there arent really any true all around units.


part of the reason zerg seem so powerful is simply the have mutas and hydras which really are about the only all around units.

hard counters need to be something that a player makes a concious decision to create at the cost of a more versatile unit. currently that isnt the case, because most units are hard counters. make more soft counters

marines. marines are the most beautiful unit in the game. durable, hard hitting, fast shooting, and cheap.

(upped of course)

the best soft counter is micro.

[Lendari]

I don't think anybody is saying they hate Hard counters just that the counters in SC2 over say, SC1 seem a little much. I just think counters should give you an advantage not an absolute certainty that you are going to crush the unit in question because you're using It's counter.

I don't like units like immortal where the bonus is 2-3x greater against specific targets. I'm all for counter based play but I am not for units with dmaage stats that look like this.

20 dmg + 30 dmg vs. armored

Also the idea of armored units being armor counters creates some strange armies where both armies are effectively the hard counter to each other in a very circular logic type fashion. This makes battles that are over so fast there is no time to perform any meaningful micromanagment.

That feels a bit wrong to me.

This isn't about "hard vs. soft" that is an oversimplification. This is about the feel of the gameplay, the enjoyment of game observation and the overall depth of strategy available.

[Lampanator]

I don't like units like immortal where the bonus is 2-3x greater against specific targets. I'm all for counter based play but I am not for units with dmaage stats that look like this.

20 dmg + 30 dmg vs. armored

Also the idea of armored units being armor counters creates some strange armies where both armies are effectively the hard counter to eachother. This makes battles that are over so fast there is no time to perform micro.

That feels wrong to me.

This isn't about "hard vs. soft" that is an oversimplification. This is about the feel of the gameplay, the fun and the depth of strategy.

although i don't mind hard counters, immortals are just out of hand. 50 damage base on a mass produceable unit is simply over the top. this is a great example of something that should be tested, math posted on, maybe some vids showcasing the power, and then discussed in depth.

[Dreyo]

A good example of an interesting "counter" was vultures vs dragoons.

By the numbers, dragoons should win. Yeah, the vulture will strip the shields damn fast, but it'll take *forever* to kill the dragoon once that happens due to dealing 1/4 of the damage to its large amount of hp. Vultures, as medium units, took 75% damage from the dragoon shots, which given the vultures' relatively low hp meant that if they fought straight up they usually died.

So how did heavy metal come to be so dominant? People figured out how to make vultures beat dragoons, and here's how: you run the vulture up, shoot the dragoon a few times, drop a mine at its feet and wait for it to blow up. A single vulture at 75 minerals takes out its supposed counter at 125m50g. And oh yeah, it's still great at killing zealots and probes, even after it runs out of mines.

Very few of the units have things as cool as vulture mines - I seriously doubt anyone is going to get a roach to beat an immortal straight up.


The point behind the complaint is simple: micro in SC1 could mitigate the degree to which units were countered by damage type. In many of the cases in SC2, you don't even get *time* to micro as your units just vaporize. Theoretically, hive-tech roaches should be fantastic units to micro properly and be truly devastating as they heal to full in only a few seconds while burrowed. Too bad they get killed in 3 hits by immortals, which means that any significant number of immortals will lead to you losing roaches faster than you can identify the hurt ones and burrow them.

If someone attack-moves a bunch of immortals into a bunch of roaches, and the roaches are micro'd, I would *like* to see the roaches have a chance of winning. Right now it's just a complete slaughter.

[Shawabti]

marines. marines are the most beautiful unit in the game. durable, hard hitting, fast shooting, and cheap.

(upped of course)

the best soft counter is micro.

/highfive

[Lampanator]

@dreyo
@ poster above, /returns high-five I was a huge fan of M&M in SCBW. So sexy.
turn on full unit frames, it shows hp bars of all units. much easier to pick out the hurt roaches.

or alternatively, just drop them all for 2 seconds, pop up and the immortals will pick out new roaches to hit.

if the protoss player was braindead enough to attack move, punish him by forcing his immortals to pick a new target every 3 seconds. move the roaches into the center of the group and start shift+clicking his units with focus fire and burrow spam.

[Johnson]

although i don't mind hard counters, immortals are just out of hand. 50 damage base on a mass produceable unit is simply over the top. this is a great example of something that should be tested, math posted on, maybe some vids showcasing the power, and then discussed in depth.

for an example of power,

i had 2 immotals and 2 zealots
i attacked a terran wall that had 2 tanks and 1-2 bunkers


i killed 2 tanks and a bunker with the immortals hard counter present in the fight.

got destroyed in the game though.

[Eloderung]

They wanted to make the a very similar game, with new twists. it's much like the original, but it's not supposed to play exactly the same.

New twists = worse balance?

[Lampanator]

yeah immortals need to be fixed. they make all static defense tottally worthless (as if they weren't already weak enough) and tear through anything designed to hold a position like siege tanks.

i think they should nerf the damage of the bonus down to like 10 at the most, or maybe make them shoot slower?

perhaps less HP and a little more shields, and less damage on them would work better, making them rely more on shield management. and micro to achieve the same thing instead of facerolling.

[Pwn]

I don't know, "hard counters" don't seem as hard as everyone depicts it.

Sure they have weaknesses but that doesn't mean they're at a complete disadvantage. Marauders may be advantageous to Zealots, but it's still very possible for Zealots to wipe out an equivalent amount of Marauders, especially with Charge.

[Lampanator]

New twists = worse balance?

You're running out of steam i see.

if that's the best argument you can put out against me, then you're in trouble haha.

Again, if you didn't want new twists, go play SCI. it's still there.

SCII is for new twists, new twists means that some things need to be rebalanced and this is the system blizzard choose for it. contribute constructively and let's just make the game great, even if it isn't done our way 100%

The way i see it, blizzard was nice enough to A) make SCII, and B) invite me to its beta. The least i can do as a tester is help them make their game shine with the mechanics they've provided and are going to go foward with in general.

edit:

nice change to the sig line. that's a little better.

[Lampanator]

I don't know, "hard counters" don't seem as hard as everyone depicts it.

Sure they have weaknesses but that doesn't mean they're at a complete disadvantage. Marauders may be advantageous to Zealots, but it's still very possible for Zealots to wipe out an equivalent amount of Marauders, especially with Charge.

as i said earlier, the best soft counter is micro.

an intelligent player will beat a poor player any day of the week, outnumbered and outgunned or not.


it's when we have situations like 3 units demolishing 40 units(or 3 immortals wiping out heavily entrenched positions alone) that we have a huge problem, not 3 units designed specifically to take down a unit killing 7 units and then being overwhelmed.

[Krintar]

If, in fact, the harder counters weren't a problem because the SC1 was so well tuned (whatever that means), perhaps they should "tune" SC2 instead of 'softening' the counters?
Don't be preposterous; to do that, they'd need to run some kind of beta test intended to iron out the kinks. Who ever heard of such a thing?!

[Lampanator]

Don't be preposterous; to do that, they'd need to run some kind of beta test intended to iron out the kinks. Who ever heard of such a thing?!

INCONCEIVABLE.

[Shawabti]

Don't be preposterous; to do that, they'd need to run some kind of beta test intended to iron out the kinks. Who ever heard of such a thing?!

Absolutely preposterous, they'd never do something so silly.

[Eloderung]

You're running out of steam i see.

if that's the best argument you can put out against me, then you're in trouble haha.

Again, if you didn't want new twists, go play SCI. it's still there.

SCII is for new twists, new twists means that some things need to be rebalanced and this is the system blizzard choose for it. contribute constructively and let's just make the game great, even if it isn't done our way 100%

The way i see it, blizzard was nice enough to A) make SCII, and B) invite me to its beta. The least i can do as a tester is help them make their game shine with the mechanics they've provided and are going to go foward with in general.

edit:

nice change to the sig line. that's a little better.

It really isn't my fault if you want this game to be a flop compared to Starcraft One. Really, I don't care. I'll go play my custom games and be happy as Starcraft II becomes the next WarIII.

[Ravenstill]

In defense of immortals vs entrenched terrans...Without the reaver -- what exactly is the toss player to do? The only option he has is to tech to Void Rays...

Siege tanks do 60 base dmg plus splash...Without micro (hell without even watching) a few sieged tanks can pretty much dominate a choke. Where is the balance in that? God-forbid you have to watch your choke and like actually defend it.

That being said...I'm sorry the zerg queen lost their spawned broodlings...tanks are bad for zerg. Good thing they have easy air! (not to mention a fairly cheap mass of sapper bombs)

[Psionic]

In defense of immortals vs entrenched terrans...Without the reaver -- what exactly is the toss player to do? The only option he has is to tech to Void Rays...

Siege tanks do 60 base dmg plus splash...Without micro (hell without even watching) a few sieged tanks can pretty much dominate a choke. Where is the balance in that? God-forbid you have to watch your choke and like actually defend it.

That being said...I'm sorry the zerg queen lost their spawned broodlings...tanks are bad for zerg. Good thing they have easy air! (not to mention a fairly cheap mass of sapper bombs)

I was gonna say that but you beat me to it. Everyone is complaining about immortal damage but no one seems to care that siege tanks do more damage, have splash, and (duh) Siege range. god forbid the protoss have a unit that can do a push through a choke like the other races! :P