Hard Counters are ruining Starcraft. Period.

[Xaviar]

There are a huge number of threads out there regarding this topic.

It is a huge problem, it is causing pigeonhole-gameplay on a grand level, and abolishing creative strategy. It is lowering the replayability and enjoyment of the game. Every match feels like it is engineered, and there are no surprises or any interesting things happening.

You know a game is not going to be interesting when you know for certainty what you and your opponent are going to build.

Flowchart gameplay is NOT fun.

[Shaede]

This game is not fun.
Platinum League.
Division 6.

[Primoris]

There are a huge number of threads out there regarding this topic.

It is a huge problem, it is causing pigeonhole-gameplay on a grand level, and abolishing creative strategy. It is lowering the replayability and enjoyment of the game. Every match feels like it is engineered, and there are no surprises or any interesting things happening.

You know a game is not going to be interesting when you know for certainty what you and your opponent are going to build.

Flowchart gameplay is NOT fun.

I think you've got it backwards. In a game where hard counters don't matter then countering in general no longer becomes a goal of anyone. So then everyone will just go with some default "best" build order and tech to the most powerful units they can in the shortest amount of time they can. So if there were no hardcounters then the game comes down 100% to micro and APM. No strategy, no diversity.

[Faelara]

Where's my hard counter for mutalisks as protoss?

[Krazytrumpet]

So I guess hard counters ruined SC1, as well?

[Serath]

Where's my hard counter for mutalisks as protoss?

Sentries seem to work pretty well, Mostly because they hurt the bounce damage a lot.

[Newcomplex]

CUZ I SAID SO.

[Minos]

This game is not fun.
Platinum League.
Division 6.

i lold

[Sizro]

There are a huge number of threads out there regarding this topic.

It is a huge problem, it is causing pigeonhole-gameplay on a grand level, and abolishing creative strategy. It is lowering the replayability and enjoyment of the game. Every match feels like it is engineered, and there are no surprises or any interesting things happening.

You know a game is not going to be interesting when you know for certainty what you and your opponent are going to build.

Flowchart gameplay is NOT fun.

I didn't quit get what you where saying up until the last line and now I understand and completely agree. I feel the exact same way to the point where I don't really feel like playing the beta that much anymore. The same games over and over and over are incredibly dull. If opponent is doing A, you do B. That's it. There is no C, D or E option and that's really taking the fun out of this game.

Knowing the counter for a unit and implementing it doesn't make for a good game. I enjoy Blizzard games because they don't follow cookie cutter rules like so many other RTS games do. SC2 however, falls right into this style of play.

[Inoob]

I think you've got it backwards. In a game where hard counters don't matter then countering in general no longer becomes a goal of anyone. So then everyone will just go with some default "best" build order and tech to the most powerful units they can in the shortest amount of time they can. So if there were no hardcounters then the game comes down 100% to micro and APM. No strategy, no diversity.

actually he is right. hard countering should have more layers to it. not just A vs B, X vs Y

if it came to be where a hard counter could still be slowed down, or still fought to the best of the players ability to cause some damage to the enemy army .. while he prepared his main army to counter the enemy it would be a better game for it. but since your units are 100% useless against a said unit.. that isnt possible. you might as well waste what you have and just build new units to counter.

its all about layers, depth, and fun.

A vs B is none of those. that is why if this game stays as it is, it will have nowhere the same legs that sc1 or war3 did. granted there are fanboys to sustain the community but theres only so long you can play with a flowchart type gameplay before you move onto cod 7 or some other game ;)

[Nataku]

Where's my hard counter for mutalisks as protoss?

besides stalker and pheonix?

[Solidham]

So I guess hard counters ruined SC1, as well?

[Krazytrumpet]

besides stalker and pheonix?

You're joking, right?

[Burgerofdoom]

So I guess hard counters ruined SC1, as well?

[aaron]

Feel free to correct me on this, but from what I recall in SC1, there wasn't much for options on countering a certain attack. I mean like there's the obvious stuff of against zealots you could use banshees or battlecruisers or hellions, or tanks + marines. Just like in SC1 you could use various units. I realize the opponent wont just have straight zealots end game, a mix of units comes in to play.

Well then that's where more areas of the fight are covered, and you need to cover those areas yourself. Guys that can hit air, hit heavy, light opponents, etc. I guess really what I am saying is you can counter things in different ways, but really there is on best way.

[Colrath]

So I guess hard counters ruined SC1, as well?

1-2 sentries with an equal number of stalkers as mutes (Which is easier because they're much cheaper than mutes) will rip the mutes apart.

[Mdzealot]

There's nothing wrong with Hard Counters. It's just right now we either haven't discovered enough soft counters or there just aren't any. Play the game out and wait for changes. This is a Beta test. You shouldn't of came into the test thinking it was going to be perfectly balanced and that you'd learn the proper ways to micro every unit right away.

That being said. Bring back the Lurker/Science Vessel/Goliath/Old Defiler skills back, make units survive longer/do less overall damage so battles last longer, and reduce the AoE of units like the Colossus and stuff.

[Xaviar]

So I guess hard counters ruined SC1, as well?

Errm, SC1 had no where near the hard-counters we are seeing in SC2. Not by a long shot.

[Octsober]

Errm, SC1 had no where near the hard-counters we are seeing in SC2. Not by a long shot.

Are you joking?

[Xaviar]

Are you joking?

Are you?

There was depth to SC1's counters. It wasn't as simple as "you build x unit, therefore you will never ever beat y unit", which is basically what it is in sc2 right now.

[Adamu]

Are you joking?
No, hes not. Can you tell me of a few examples where one Starcraft unit demolished another SPECIFICALLY because it got a damagae bonus against the other unit? Because the Starcraft I remember had more to do with splash damage, cloaks, range, aerials versus ground, etc.

Call my memory foggy but I just don't remember there being such a significant disadvantage given from an arbitrary damage bonus.

[Endrick]

Counters are important to the game as a whole, but it's pretty clear that some counters need to be toned back a bit.

[Skribble]

There are a huge number of threads out there regarding this topic.

It is a huge problem, it is causing pigeonhole-gameplay on a grand level, and abolishing creative strategy. It is lowering the replayability and enjoyment of the game. Every match feels like it is engineered, and there are no surprises or any interesting things happening.

You know a game is not going to be interesting when you know for certainty what you and your opponent are going to build.

Flowchart gameplay is NOT fun.

Is it arrogant or stupid, or both, to think you understand the game after playing the beta with a bunch of noobs for one week.

Idiot.

[Adamu]

Is it arrogant or stupid, or both, to think you understand the game after playing the beta with a bunch of noobs for one week.

Idiot.
You have some anger issues.

[Xaviar]

Is it arrogant or stupid, or both, to think you understand the game after playing the beta with a bunch of noobs for one week.

Idiot.

Moron,


You might be playing against noobs in your little copper league, but its general consensus amongst platinum players that this is happening, and is resulting in top players getting bored of the game very quickly.

When you've played over 300 games in Platinum league and are seeing the exact same thing happen every game, you may post in this thread. Till then, keep trying to climb up the ranks in your copper league.

Yours sincerely,
- A beta tester who's opinion is more valid than yours.

[blind]

Try and give constructive criticism please. Whining and complaining about certain things will only get you what you want in World of War-craft. This is a Beta. If you can come up with better ideas. I advise you share them, since we all love this game so much.

[Dragoon]

I agree. The lack of hard counter units is what made sc1 so unique and so damn competitive.

[Payback]

Where's my hard counter for mutalisks as protoss?Archons?

[Balanced]

im in silver league rank 9th and id like to say this game is awesome!
i learn alot day by day even though i was a hardcore sc1 player in the 90s....
this game is different... the chart is there to give advantage to noobs such as myself because lets face it... ur gonna google it anyway.. ur gonna watch pro replays and find out what the go is...
ive had 40+ min games... and this means that the 2 players going head to head have similar understandings of the opponents race and similar skill level when u break it down to micro and macro... the only disadvantage one could have is to not know how to counter or be countered due to game education...

i believe this will make all of us better players so we learn how to micro units even though the opponent may have more counter units.... u could win the battle and maybe win the game....

[Jwray]

1-2 sentries with an equal number of stalkers as mutes (Which is easier because they're much cheaper than mutes) will rip the mutes apart.



Except that force can't catch the mutas or be everywhere at once. Your base will crumble if the mutas are microed properly to avoid engaging the mass of stalkers.

[Naha]

- A beta tester who's opinion is more valid than yours.

Wrong.

You make good points, don't throw it away with egocentric hogwash.

[Jwray]

Moron,


You might be playing against noobs in your little copper league, but its general consensus amongst platinum players that this is happening, and is resulting in top players getting bored of the game very quickly.

When you've played over 300 games in Platinum league and are seeing the exact same thing happen every game, you may post in this thread. Till then, keep trying to climb up the ranks in your copper league.

Yours sincerely,
- A beta tester who's opinion is more valid than yours.

5/10

[Essentia]

Archons?

ROFL, r u kidding me?

[Cordyceps]

I have to agree. I haven't played nearly as much as most of you yet, so I could be wrong, but as a crotchety-old-man strategy gamer from Ye Olde School I do have some experience with what does and doesn't work in a game like this, and so far I unfortunately just don't feel the magic. And I really think the prevalence of hard-counters and shortage of soft-counters are the problem; Rock-Paper-Scissors is fun for about 10 seconds, whereas chess is fun for much, much longer than that because a pawn can still capture a rook, and a king can still capture a queen, if you play well.

Heck, look at Go, for that matter; now there's a rich strategy game for you.

Long story short: a good game tells a player how to play, not how to win. "Minutes to learn, lifetime to master" and all that. SC2 is so far shaping up, IMO, to be a great party game, and maybe even a decent twitch game, but overall a fairly shallow strategy game. Which is fine if Blizz wants that, but it's not going to have the staying power that SC1 had.

[Brin]

Ok, what is wrong with Archons? I have a few replays of me countering mass mutas with just a handful of archons.

On Topic:
Also, I am a bit confused here, as the OP mentions that they are tired of flow-chart style gameplay, and that they want more diversity. Even with "extra layers" I still imagine a flow chart... it's just that the flowchart now has more branching. Doesn't solve the "problem."

The only way I can imagine this game NOT being "flow-charty" is if random events are introduced in to the game. That's nonsense, of course.

But to make a point, this game is only predictable, or requires massing if the players who are playing are single minded/lacking in creativity. The bonuses that you are complaining about seem constructed to protect against "massing" of units. It requires that you pack a few bonused units in to your pocket, and bring along a variety of units to the party. I have trouble finding any complaints worth considering after watching the battle reports on the SC2 site - after watching those guys duke it out with some awesome micro, I still believe this is very SC1 still. But with a largely unimaginative player base.


Uh, except immortals maybe which feel a little OP (I can just mass these and destroy bases in seconds).

Yours truly, a silver/bronze player.

[Thedestroyer]

Starcraft 1 had hard counters, it just didnt adverstise them.

for example you had three attack types. Normal, Explosive and Concussive. You also had three sizes, small, medium and large. Depending on your attack type vs your opponents size resulted in modifers to your damage. Thats right it happened.

For example zerglings owned Dragoons. Dragoons did pretty decent damage and in numbers could decimate a lot of things... yet somehow they just couldnt kill a swarm of lings very well... hmmm a hard counter? I think so!

Then we have Zealots and Firebats... learnt that one the hard way. Firebats just shredded my blue flaming death.

Science Vessel EMP seemed tailor made to take out Archons as well.

Sorry, SC1 had hard counters it just wasnt written on the screen.

Also this Flowchart thing amuses me. You see, If I know my opponent is going to do A I do B right? But he knows that! So he'll do C... so I do D so hes doing E... but my B is good vs his E...Suddenly maybe we should have units of A + C vs D + E.

The point of counters is so the game flows. Your not suppose to go mass marines, swarm the other guy then type in GG. It will come. Eventually the top players will... evolve... or Koreans will start playing and they'll google their strats.

[Thezizz]

Every undeveloped RTS has its top players doing the same #!!# over and over. How many of these Platinum players do you think are willing to risk defeat for the sake of originality?

I say let the metagame develop a bit before you sound the alarm.

[Frozen]

So I guess hard counters ruined SC1, as well?

SC1 had dmg reduction effects to certain units. Hard Counters as they exist now, are not the same.

When a unit gets a dmg bonus vs a unit type that doesn't have a dmg bonus vs the former unit, that makes it a hard counter.

[Cheong]

Starcraft 1 had hard counters, it just didnt adverstise them.

for example you had three attack types. Normal, Explosive and Concussive. You also had three sizes, small, medium and large. Depending on your attack type vs your opponents size resulted in modifers to your damage. Thats right it happened.

For example zerglings owned Dragoons. Dragoons did pretty decent damage and in numbers could decimate a lot of things... yet somehow they just couldnt kill a swarm of lings very well... hmmm a hard counter? I think so!

Then we have Zealots and Firebats... learnt that one the hard way. Firebats just shredded my blue flaming death.

Science Vessel EMP seemed tailor made to take out Archons as well.

Sorry, SC1 had hard counters it just wasnt written on the screen.

Also this Flowchart thing amuses me. You see, If I know my opponent is going to do A I do B right? But he knows that! So he'll do C... so I do D so hes doing E... but my B is good vs his E...Suddenly maybe we should have units of A + C vs D + E.

The point of counters is so the game flows. Your not suppose to go mass marines, swarm the other guy then type in GG. It will come. Eventually the top players will... evolve... or Koreans will start playing and they'll google their strats.

Yes, the original Starcraft did have hard counters, they just weren't shown in the tooltips. Refer to the link below
http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Damage_types

I would also like to add that this is only the first stage of Starcraft 2, there are TWO more expansions coming with new units which will add many different strats to the game. Imagine Starcraft without BW, no lurker or medic? Warcraft 3 without TFT: no race shops, neutral heros and two races without dispell? I don't even need to go into the WoW expansions. The good stuff are coming, just be patient...

Zerg is the only race that I find is lacking in diverse units. Hopefully Blizzard gives Zerg 1 or 2 more units before the release.

[aaron]

AFAIK, the expansions are just releasing campaign material, not new units.

[Hob]

There were counters in SC1, just not hard ones. The damage bonuses were there but very little compared to what we have in SC2. They made a difference on a large scale of 2 homogenised forces going up against each other, not just on a couple units butting heads.

For example, did you know that if you were in a tree doodad in SC1, you had 70% chance of being hit? Or something like 50% if you were on high ground? I'm not a professionnal player, I just LIKED SC1 and played a lot with my friends and if was fun to see fights that weren't decided by the unit composition.

The problem is not in the fact that people do B if other player does A, but more in the vibes of "if you DON'T do B, you lose." Were kind of forced to counter, you can't try and play with a unit that's not necessarilly a counter but is still good all around because you'll get beat.

[Shinosai]

There were counters in SC1, just not hard ones. The damage bonuses were there but very little compared to what we have in SC2. They made a difference on a large scale of 2 homogenised forces going up against each other, not just on a couple units butting heads.

For example, did you know that if you were in a tree doodad in SC1, you had 70% chance of being hit? Or something like 50% if you were on high ground? I'm not a professionnal player, I just LIKED SC1 and played a lot with my friends and if was fun to see fights that weren't decided by the unit composition.

The problem is not in the fact that people do B if other player does A, but more in the vibes of "if you DON'T do B, you lose." Were kind of forced to counter, you can't try and play with a unit that's not necessarilly a counter but is still good all around because you'll get beat.

I find the marine isn't really a counter to roaches, but in large numbers with stim packs they do pretty well against them. Well, there ya go.

[Cheong]

AFAIK, the expansions are just releasing campaign material, not new units.

The expansion sets will add new content to each race for use in multiplayer matches. This could include additions such as new units, abilities, and structures, along with new maps and Battle.net updates.

Quoted from Blizzard's official SC2 FAQ...

[Eloderung]

Platinum League
Division 6

Means he knows more about this game, its balance, and its intricacies more than most of you.

Also agree with the flowchart gameplay comment, even though I'm only high-ranked gold league.

[Halogen]

Means he knows more about this game, its balance, and its intricacies more than most of you.

Also agree with the flowchart gameplay comment, even though I'm only high-ranked gold league.

wrong, it means he cares more about winning than trying anything new, oh those strats he uses, probably developed by someone in a low tier.

[Banno]

That being said. Bring back the Lurker/Science Vessel/Goliath/Old Defiler skills back, make units survive longer/do less overall damage so battles last longer, and reduce the AoE of units like the Colossus and stuff.

+1

Battles are over insanely fast, 1 lag spike where it speeds up at the wrong time, seals the game.

[Redscare]

we should pass legislation that only lets platinum league people vote

[Galen]

- A beta tester who's opinion is more valid than yours.

This is the type of arrogance that pisses me off royally. Opinions are like a$$holes everyones got one and they all stink.

[Nephrahim]

I don't get this argument that hard counters ruin the game.

You want to be able to just build anything and win with it? If there aren't counters, then there will just be ONE strat that everybody uses, the one that gets the best unit.

The game isn't different from SC significantly in this regard.

[Omniance]

I don't get this argument that hard counters ruin the game.

You want to be able to just build anything and win with it? If there aren't counters, then there will just be ONE strat that everybody uses, the one that gets the best unit.

The game isn't different from SC significantly in this regard.

Just because there would be no hard counters doesn't mean counters wouldn't exist. SC1's counters were easily defended against with sufficient skill and resourcefulness. SC2 seems to just be "Player A is getting W and X units, so Player B will be getting Y and Z units." with no real reward for how well you micro.

[Ravn]

No, hes not. Can you tell me of a few examples where one Starcraft unit demolished another SPECIFICALLY because it got a damagae bonus against the other unit? Because the Starcraft I remember had more to do with splash damage, cloaks, range, aerials versus ground, etc.

Call my memory foggy but I just don't remember there being such a significant disadvantage given from an arbitrary damage bonus.

http://classic.battle.net/scc/GS/damage.shtml

[Typho]

http://classic.battle.net/scc/GS/damage.shtml

I've always wondered why people are complaining about hard counters when there's also the same system in SC1. All blizz really did was getting rid of confusing concussive/explosive damage type and write out explicitly the damage bonus. Just the fact that it's easier to read does not mean it's easier to counter.

I mean, try hitting siege tanks w/ firebats or shooting zerglings with dragoons. Of course, if you mass zealots or zerglings the opponent would get some muta/wraith and still beat you single handedly.

Hard counter was already in SC1. People who are pissed about hard counter probably do so because they mass one unit and got scouted and outplayed. Imagine if you're the losing side and scout massive army of roaches and there's no way you can catch up. Is that fun?

Hard counter makes the game more balance and allow good players to close in the gap when they made mistake.

[Wingless]

Honestly most of the hard counters can be overcome with micro. Marines can survive banelings if they are microd enough and a bit of luck. Ive beaten back marauders and stalkers with roaches. You can surround a colossus with tier 1 units if they aren't in a line its less effective.

The only real hard counters that cant be overcome seem to be air vs something that cant attack air and immortals vs roaches maybe. Hell mass marines will wipe my mutas out but Terran is gonna have to work for it to get their marines near my mutas.

I also think the game will get better as beta goes on and as they add new units in the expac. Do you guys even remember the game without the brood war units? Its a big change.

[Stompey]

+1 OP

THIS GAME IS NOT FUN CURRENTLY and needs DRASTIC changes

Anyone who disagrees just hasnt played enough games yet, you will see

So true about knowing exacly what they will do everygame...

You KNOW most high level terran will marauder rush you
You KNOW the ones that dont marauder rush you are banshee rushing you
You KNOW zerg is setting up that fast expand while you cannot set one up yourself because he will just mass roaches and own you if you do
You KNOW you have to get a starport in PvZ and PvT since both muta and banshee cripple stalkers so bad its a joke

[Nick]

wouldn't getting a wide variety of units work against a countering strategy?
i only just started playing the beta last night and i've never been great at rts, but your opponent can't counter a little of everything at once

[Wingless]

I think the opposite the more people have learned the game the better they get and the more dynamic the game has become. Think about what roaches were able to do to people in the first week of beta and think about what they do now. There was a few days were a roach rush gave me a win 90% of the time.

I say stop being so butt-hurt and lets see how the game develops. And "If you don't agree with me you haven't played enough" isn't the sign of a being correct.

[Stompey]

Fundamentally, this game punishes you for expanding or teching without massing tons of units....

[Bibdy]

Are you?

There was depth to SC1's counters. It wasn't as simple as "you build x unit, therefore you will never ever beat y unit", which is basically what it is in sc2 right now.

So, you think against like 10 Roaches, 1 Immortal is going to save you?

[Airstorm]

+1 OP

THIS GAME IS NOT FUN CURRENTLY and needs DRASTIC changes

Anyone who disagrees just hasnt played enough games yet, you will see

So true about knowing exacly what they will do everygame...

You KNOW most high level terran will marauder rush you
You KNOW the ones that dont marauder rush you are banshee rushing you
You KNOW zerg is setting up that fast expand while you cannot set one up yourself because he will just mass roaches and own you if you do
You KNOW you have to get a starport in PvZ and PvT since both muta and banshee cripple stalkers so bad its a joke


1. Scouting in this game is easy and cheap. If you scout your opponent and see many tech labs, you should be prepared with a counter strategy. Likewise, your opponent should counter scout, see your preperations, and prepare a counter of his own. Therein lies the STRATEGY part of a real time STRATEGY game.

2. You can't be banshee rushed as banshees are a tier 3 unit. There's no such thing as a tier 3 rush, unless your definition of rush is any attack you weren't prepared for.

3. Fast expanding still costs resources, and takes a while before it can pay off for itself. If your opponent can manage filling out his expo and he's still out-roaching you, the problem isn't the game balance.

4. Stalkers aren't designed to counter light-air. Through mad micro and overwhelming resources you might be able to win, but you might as well complain that your zealots can't counter mutas or banshees... they aren't designed too. It's not a sign of "hard" counters ruining the game.

On a general note, there really aren't that many hard counters in this game. You don't even have a clue what a hard counter is until you've played something from the C&C series. Even units that are designed to directly counter another unit don't do so at "hard" counter levels for the most part. A hard counter is typically something that can take out many times its resources in units that it counters. If you've played C&C Generals, try beating a gatling tank with infantry and you'll see the definition of a hard counter. Or watch in C&C3: KW as a few missile soldiers in a building take out many times their resource cost in tanks. However, both SC1 and SC2 do have an occasional "hard" counter present. For example, reavers could take out a ton of clustered marines in SC1, and it's SC2 counterpart, the collosus, can take on a ton of clustered marines in SC2.

Most posters in this thread seem to be confusing a counter system with a hard counter system. As illustrated above, most of the counters and counter-counters in SC2 are really quite soft. There are a few exceptions to this, of course, but those exceptions were present in SC1 too. Now, if you're complaining about having a counter system at all, well not only does this not make sense from a game lineage perspective, it really doesn't make sense from a game design perspective either. Not only would all units need to be able to attack air, buildings, and ground equally (otherwise there are hard counters present inherently), but everything would come down to pure micro, and there would be no strategy component to the game.

[Nick]

Fundamentally, this game punishes you for expanding or teching without massing tons of units....
well if it didn't then there would be no downside to expanding and teching right away

[Entropia]

wc3 had a hard counter system and it's still a fantastic rts with lots of variation.

Try fighting spellstealers vs sorcs/priests or crypt fiends with web vs wyverns.

It forces you to get a mixed balanced army. M&M&M is an example of a fairly mixed balanced army, thats why it's so successful. It's even more successful when you add a couple vikings and a couple siege tanks. The same that in wc3 you need sorcs/priests/spellbreakers AND knights to make a balanced human army.

immortals counter roaches, so make some air. stalkers + sentries counter mutas (sort of lol) so make some zerglings. Collosi counter zerglings so make some corruptors and banelings. All of a sudden you have a balanced army.

You can't just mass one unit and win or else you'll get countered. This is nothing new.

[Vheissu]

Sentries own da mutas I SWEAR.

[Shurimpu]

If you don't like the game, leave. If you like the game, quit !#@@%ing and give CONSTRUCTIVE feedback.

I'm truly tired of all of the "X/Y/Z are RUINING STARCRAFT FOREVER MY BUTT HURTS" threads that don't offer any alternatives. It's beta, things will change even AFTER ship, and we still have two expansions and many years of shelf life to go.

Why don't you take a break for a couple years and come back later so you can complain about how OP Thors and Hellions are and how the achievement system is ruining the casual gameplay experience.

[Dark]

In my experience in the lowly gold league I've seen much variation i how games have played out. I've lost more than I should because I've been playing poorly, but that doesn't change the fact that there's more than just one winning strat.

I'm also in the same boat as people saying just because there is currently a more popular strat all the platinum players are using doesn't mean it's the only one out there. It's early, why don't you try some new things. You think the best strats or all the successful strats from SC1 were found in the first 6 months? No, try something new. I don't know why the platinum players are so worried about their rank anyways, it's a Beta, they don't matter...

As for "Hard Counters", SC1 had a ton of them. Seige tanks, reavers, lurkers, templars all demolished infantry. Templars and mass marines @*#*d Mutas, Zerglings @*#*d Dragoons, firebats/vultures @*#*d zealots. Every single unit in SC1 had a counter unit that @*#*d it, what made groups strong was diversity in an attacking army. Same thing holds true with SC2 from my experience so far.

[Eloderung]

I'm amazed that people are still bashing the OP, saying that he hates Starcraft because he's bad at the game.

Platinum League
Division 6

Nobody knows how to read anymore.

The people who like SC2 strategy/depth right now are the same ones who enjoyed mindless, boring, repetitive rep grinds in WoW. Follow flowchart, win game. Execute flowchart better than your opponent and you win. Deviate from the flowchart and you lose.

[bryso]

1. Scouting in this game is easy and cheap. If you scout your opponent and see many tech labs, you should be prepared with a counter strategy. Likewise, your opponent should counter scout, see your preperations, and prepare a counter of his own. Therein lies the STRATEGY part of a real time STRATEGY game.

2. You can't be banshee rushed as banshees are a tier 3 unit. There's no such thing as a tier 3 rush, unless your definition of rush is any attack you weren't prepared for.

3. Fast expanding still costs resources, and takes a while before it can pay off for itself. If your opponent can manage filling out his expo and he's still out-roaching you, the problem isn't the game balance.

4. Stalkers aren't designed to counter light-air. Through mad micro and overwhelming resources you might be able to win, but you might as well complain that your zealots can't counter mutas or banshees... they aren't designed too. It's not a sign of "hard" counters ruining the game.

On a general note, there really aren't that many hard counters in this game. You don't even have a clue what a hard counter is until you've played something from the C&C series. Even units that are designed to directly counter another unit don't do so at "hard" counter levels for the most part. A hard counter is typically something that can take out many times its resources in units that it counters. If you've played C&C Generals, try beating a gatling tank with infantry and you'll see the definition of a hard counter. Or watch in C&C3: KW as a few missile soldiers in a building take out many times their resource cost in tanks. However, both SC1 and SC2 do have an occasional "hard" counter present. For example, reavers could take out a ton of clustered marines in SC1, and it's SC2 counterpart, the collosus, can take on a ton of clustered marines in SC2.

Most posters in this thread seem to be confusing a counter system with a hard counter system. As illustrated above, most of the counters and counter-counters in SC2 are really quite soft. There are a few exceptions to this, of course, but those exceptions were present in SC1 too. Now, if you're complaining about having a counter system at all, well not only does this not make sense from a game lineage perspective, it really doesn't make sense from a game design perspective either. Not only would all units need to be able to attack air, buildings, and ground equally (otherwise there are hard counters present inherently), but everything would come down to pure micro, and there would be no strategy component to the game.


Very articulate and accurate post. These people whining are those who were to young to really remember SC1 and are still stuck in WC3 mode.

+1

[Eloderung]

Very articulate and accurate post. These people whining are those who were to young to really remember SC1 and are still stuck in WC3 mode.

+1

Clearly, every single person who is platinum league (the people who are VASTLY superior to you skill-wise, and are likely platinum league because they played SCI extensively) are all bad and wrong, and you all are right.

[Mdzealot]

3. Fast expanding still costs resources, and takes a while before it can pay off for itself. If your opponent can manage filling out his expo and he's still out-roaching you, the problem isn't the game balance.

I don't really know about this. Zerg get a ridiculous amount of mineral flow early on due to the Queen. The cost of the hatchery is nothing and doesn't stop production of roaches at all. I'm no Zerg expert, but they're easy as hell to keep an economy up.. so I imagine the experts have an even better eco. than me.

4. Stalkers aren't designed to counter light-air. Through mad micro and overwhelming resources you might be able to win, but you might as well complain that your zealots can't counter mutas or banshees... they aren't designed too. It's not a sign of "hard" counters ruining the game.

I think what he's getting at is the rate that the other races can pump out air units, the Protoss Phoenix (our pretty much only viable source of AA) has to be massed, taking focus off other units, to do any harm to opposing air forces. The viking and mutalisk are both superior to the Phoenix due to ability to be mass produced.


On a general note, there really aren't that many hard counters in this game. You don't even have a clue what a hard counter is until you've played something from the C&C series. Even units that are designed to directly counter another unit don't do so at "hard" counter levels for the most part. A hard counter is typically something that can take out many times its resources in units that it counters. If you've played C&C Generals, try beating a gatling tank with infantry and you'll see the definition of a hard counter. Or watch in C&C3: KW as a few missile soldiers in a building take out many times their resource cost in tanks. However, both SC1 and SC2 do have an occasional "hard" counter present. For example, reavers could take out a ton of clustered marines in SC1, and it's SC2 counterpart, the collosus, can take on a ton of clustered marines in SC2.


You can't compare other RTS games with Starcraft. They may be in the same genre, but they are completely different. Starcraft players have and use different definitions of RTS terms than C&C or AoE players. There are hard counters in SC2, and their definition should be completely unrelated to C&C definitions of hard counter. Just simply looking at armor-type damage buffs that units get and you can understand the method of hard counters in Starcraft.


Most posters in this thread seem to be confusing a counter system with a hard counter system. As illustrated above, most of the counters and counter-counters in SC2 are really quite soft. There are a few exceptions to this, of course, but those exceptions were present in SC1 too. Now, if you're complaining about having a counter system at all, well not only does this not make sense from a game lineage perspective, it really doesn't make sense from a game design perspective either. Not only would all units need to be able to attack air, buildings, and ground equally (otherwise there are hard counters present inherently), but everything would come down to pure micro, and there would be no strategy component to the game.

Again, the definitions between games differ. Soft counters, in its original essence, has to do with microing units to counter other units that it would not originally be able to beat. People do not complain about any type of counter system, but rather the current system where there are such damage boosts/AoE type counters that units die in a matter of seconds rather than having to be micro'd in any medium sized or large battle. As such, unless your unit is capable of kiting its hard counter, effective micro has been quite inefficient as it is much easier to just a+click your way to victory since units die so fast. If your ideal method of micro is just kiting then I guess your lucky, but there isn't a whole lot else aside from the sentry that can be effectively micro'd so far.


Very articulate and accurate post. These people whining are those who were to young to really remember SC1 and are still stuck in WC3 mode.

/facepalm

[Rackdude]

wrong, it means he cares more about winning than trying anything new, oh those strats he uses, probably developed by someone in a low tier.

Sorry, that argument doesn't work because below gold you can basically build anything and win. People don't know how to macro at low levels, it's worse than D- on ICCUP! When you're at that level of play, all I can say is "well, the reason you think your strategy works is because your opponant's BO was 1 minute late, he was already queuing his workers 30 seconds in, and he died with 3k minerals."

I can trust a Platinum because they actually are building and using the game to its full potential.

[Arkan]

I dont like the damage bonus to light/heavy units, but since I doubt Blizz will take them out completely some of the hard counters should be nerfed just a tad to allow atleast a chance of winning with good microing. Im still a copper noob (use to be a SC1 veteran years ago) and I find a lot of lower level players still fail to use hard counters properly and in a way give a more dynamic/exciting game, but I can picture them becoming a burden as players get better. Game is still beta though and im pretty sure Blizz looking to incorporate a broader audience to the game so I doubt the hardcore gamers will ever be completely happy.

[Dakarian]

I do wish to ask this question: how many of those "SC2 is ruined" Plat players played SC1 when it first came out?

How many of them remember how zerg dominated everything at the early stages, or had a REAL reason to fear the 4 pool?

How many of them remember how no one had a good clue how to deal with mutas when BW units didn't exist and cannons were explosive damage?

Bah, how many at least remember how lurkers were the Doom of All Terrans early on into BW before the terrans learned how to manage them?

Bah how long did it take for Terrans to even be considered capable of holding their own? I still remember when the Heavy Metal build came out.

And since I'm being nostalgic, remember when 2 hatch hydras dominated the middle ranks? When Cracklings became a word? When Vultures were deemed useless? When Dragoons had no good purpose? When Carriers WERE useless? How about the OLD sunken colonies and ultras and how wonderful they were? How many remember how mutas dominated ANYTHING Terran BEFORE stacking?

To get back to the point.. do you guys remember back then?

If not then let me welcome you to March of 1998 with Starcraft v1.01. It'll be another 8 months before you even start seeing a game you may begin to like.


Does that mean your arguments are wrong? No? In fact, I've helped prove that the plats ARE making sense by showing that the Legendary Game of Before was pretty darn painful in it's early days as well.


Btw, Starcraft was ALWAYS a rush game? After a good few years we just learned how to fight those counters while Blizzard learned how to balance the game properly.

[Nephrahim]

Oh god 4 pool.

*Shutters*

No, no! Get those lings away from meeee!

[Eloderung]

I do wish to ask this question: how many of those "SC2 is ruined" Plat players played SC1 when it first came out?

How many of them remember how zerg dominated everything at the early stages, or had a REAL reason to fear the 4 pool?

How many of them remember how no one had a good clue how to deal with mutas when BW units didn't exist and cannons were explosive damage?

Bah, how many at least remember how lurkers were the Doom of All Terrans early on into BW before the terrans learned how to manage them?

Bah how long did it take for Terrans to even be considered capable of holding their own? I still remember when the Heavy Metal build came out.

SCI was the first game released in the genre.

SC2 was designed to play and feel very similar to the original. They used hp/damage values from the original very closely in designing the sequel. It shouldn't take another three years to balance SC2. Many of the replacements of certain units in SC2 field very similar roles to the old units.

This isn't War2 --> War3, where the entire backbone of the game was completely redesigned going from one game to the sequel. It's Starcraft: three races, with the same fast-paced gameplay, extremely similar hp/damage values on everything, same spells available to each race, and so on. It's also been in a playable state for a VERY long time. That is why people are raising so many complaints about SC2 beta, because they are perfectly valid at this point of the game's life whereas the same complaints back in SC1 beta or WarIII beta weren't applicable given the amount of experience and underlying infrastructure blizzard had for designing said games.


Btw, Starcraft was ALWAYS a rush game? After a good few years we just learned how to fight those counters while Blizzard learned how to balance the game properly.

Static defenses in SCI v. static defenses in SC2.

In SCI, static defenses used to supplement your army was viable for rush defense.

In SC2, every race is heavily reliant on a ramp and counter-rush unit production to survive T1.

The SC2 style of early game restricts strategy, creativity, and game depth quite a bit compared to the original.

[Julian]

1. Scouting in this game is easy and cheap. If you scout your opponent and see many tech labs, you should be prepared with a counter strategy. Likewise, your opponent should counter scout, see your preperations, and prepare a counter of his own. Therein lies the STRATEGY part of a real time STRATEGY game.

2. You can't be banshee rushed as banshees are a tier 3 unit. There's no such thing as a tier 3 rush, unless your definition of rush is any attack you weren't prepared for.

3. Fast expanding still costs resources, and takes a while before it can pay off for itself. If your opponent can manage filling out his expo and he's still out-roaching you, the problem isn't the game balance.

4. Stalkers aren't designed to counter light-air. Through mad micro and overwhelming resources you might be able to win, but you might as well complain that your zealots can't counter mutas or banshees... they aren't designed too. It's not a sign of "hard" counters ruining the game.

On a general note, there really aren't that many hard counters in this game. You don't even have a clue what a hard counter is until you've played something from the C&C series. Even units that are designed to directly counter another unit don't do so at "hard" counter levels for the most part. A hard counter is typically something that can take out many times its resources in units that it counters. If you've played C&C Generals, try beating a gatling tank with infantry and you'll see the definition of a hard counter. Or watch in C&C3: KW as a few missile soldiers in a building take out many times their resource cost in tanks. However, both SC1 and SC2 do have an occasional "hard" counter present. For example, reavers could take out a ton of clustered marines in SC1, and it's SC2 counterpart, the collosus, can take on a ton of clustered marines in SC2.

Most posters in this thread seem to be confusing a counter system with a hard counter system. As illustrated above, most of the counters and counter-counters in SC2 are really quite soft. There are a few exceptions to this, of course, but those exceptions were present in SC1 too. Now, if you're complaining about having a counter system at all, well not only does this not make sense from a game lineage perspective, it really doesn't make sense from a game design perspective either. Not only would all units need to be able to attack air, buildings, and ground equally (otherwise there are hard counters present inherently), but everything would come down to pure micro, and there would be no strategy component to the game.

Fine post if I do say so myself...

[Neoscout]

bump

[Shinosai]

I don't understand why people think that hard counters are ruining the game. In sc1: Did you attack siege tanks with mass hydralisks? Marines? Dragoons? Did you fight vultures with zealots? Did you fight hydralisks with wraiths?

There are plenty of units that completely murdered the other in sc1. And as a fairly high ranked platinum player myself, I just want to say that my sc2 experience has been beautiful, and scouting counters makes the game interesting and dynamic. And I've enjoyed every moment of it. That's my opinion, feel free to disagree. =)

[Adamu]

I don't understand why people think that hard counters are ruining the game. In sc1: Did you attack siege tanks with mass hydralisks? Marines? Dragoons? Did you fight vultures with zealots? Did you fight hydralisks with wraiths?
Yes, no, yes, and yes. Potentially you could win by straight numbers even if you had the wrong unit. Cloaking wraiths allowed you to crush hydralisks no problemo.

[Shinosai]

Yes, no, yes, and yes. Potentially you could win by straight numbers even if you had the wrong unit. Cloaking wraiths allowed you to crush hydralisks no problemo.

Potentially you can beat roaches with marines if by straight numbers even though they are the wrong unit. Marauders can beat immortals by straight numbers even though they are the wrong unit.

[Terranosaur]

I feel that this game is lacking many of the micro elements from SC1, and this is due in part to missing a number of key units:

PROTOSS
1) Shield batteries: these help you enormously with defending the choke (replaced by forcefield?). They are also useful late game for semi countering EMP and plague.
2) Psi storm: the old psi storm was useful against everything from mass hydras to carriers. I made it a point to have templar every game. The new psi storm with the reduced damage is so useless that I have seen templar deployed in less than 10% off the games I played.
3) Reaver: The old reaver required much more micro than the current colossus, especially with building the scarabs and the requirement to pop them from the (speed upgraded) shuttle.
4)Corsair: Disruption web was much more useful and used far more often than the phoenix gravity thing. This could still be fixed if the Phoenix wasn't so expensive or otherwise worthless.
5) Arbiter: I know the mothership is supposed to be some kind of super arbiter, but frankly with a higher speed, lower cost, the ability to hallucinate copies, and field multiple units, the old arbiter allowed for a lot more strategy. Recalling a mass of dragoons and zealots into someone's base was a viable strategy. How often do you see anyone use recall with the mothership? And stasis was much more useful than vortex, since you could cast it repeatedly from multiple arbiters.

TERRAN
1) The science vessel: This was the most useful terran unit in the game. EMP was great for protoss. Irradiate was great for zerg, and defensive matrix was great all around but especially useful in tank wars or on battle cruisers. EMP on the ghost is not nearly as good, because that unit lacks the same flexibility against the zerg and terran that the science vessel had. The ghosts also lack mobility -- compare EMP's against carriers. The seeker missile fulfills the irradiate function on the mutalisk I guess, but its much less flexible. It also does not force the zerg to micro out the irradiated mutas and hydras like the science vessel does.
2) Wraith: the big weakness of the banshee is that is cannot attack air. with the wraith you used to be able to comsat, find their observers or overlords and kill them before quickly cloaking. You could follow this up with a fast nuke or a raid on their mineral line. This strategy doesn't work as well anymore, because the vikings are vulnerable to the hordes of hydras or stalkers after you kill the detector, where as it used to be the other way around.
3) Nuke: the SC one nuke was much more powerful. Combine this with the synergy from the science vessels and wraiths and nuking was actually useful. I now see a nuclear missile about as often as I see a templar.

ZERG
1) Queen: Note only was parasite insanely annoying, but it forced your enemy to make a choice about how they placed their units (especially carriers). Spawn broodling was a great counter to the terran siege tanks and protoss templar that could otherwise devastate zerg forces.
2) Defiler: Plague was an insanely great counter to the carrier and the battle cruiser, but even more so because it could be combined with dark swarm, which actually makes ultralisks and late game zerglings insanely scary. Darkswarm itself could be countered by psi storm, maelstrom, irradiate and disruption web (for the hydras). It seems like the new zerg caster (investor) hardly get any use.

Overall, I'd say that there seem to be not as many useful special abilities in sc2 as there are in sc1. Exceptions seem to be blink and roach burrow, which I often see used to great effect. Forcefield is sometimes, but less often, deployed brilliantly as well. I see a few players using the raven, but not nearly as much as the science vessel. The new queen is used mostly for spawning larva and sometimes for creep tumors. I never see anyone using transfusion. The ghosts, templar and infestors all see to be MIA.

[Endymon]

As many people have pointed out in this thread the counter system has existed in in sc1 the same as sc2, except it is more diverse and easier to understand.

In sc1 you had penalties for fighting certain things, and it was difficult to tweek values as needed, because the damage types vs armor types were locked. You could either modify the damage type of the unit, the armor type of the unit, its base damage, or change the coefficents.

This is why in wc3 they expanded the armor/attack type tables so massively.... and even more confusingly. Theres something like 6 types of armor, 7 types of damage. With various coefficents between each of those.

SC2 fixed the massive attack/armor table from wc3 by making bonuses to specific armor types on a per unit basis. This allows them to tweek the bonus independently for each unit as necessary. That way changes to 1 unit's damage value or damage type won't have ripple effects to other units that use the same damage type.

Now admittedly the damage types seem to be far more liberally used than they were in SC1, but it doesn't mean its a bad system. It just means the values need a lot of tweeking. Blizzard has adequate controls in place to tweek numbers so that they don't feel so devestatingly effective as they do now.

If something feels like too much of a hard counter, likely it is, and will be tweeked when they finally start doing real balance patches.
I don't know if anyone has actually realized this, but the 4 patches they have put out so far... have done almost nothing. That doesn't mean they think the game is perfect and needs very few changes, it just means they don't want to jump the gun and change things that don't really need it. Plenty of strats that were thought overpowered in week 1, are now beaten fairly easily. If they had run in with the nerf bat after the first week, things that ended up being perfectly fine, would have been changed. They are letting things shake out for a while before making drastic rebalance moves. I think you'll all be fairly surprised when the first real patch comes down the pipe.

For anyone who is complaining that the game doesn't feel right at the moment... congratulations, the game is beta suck it up or quit playing.... this isn't a retail game, you didn't pay anything to get in here, it isn't perfect, and they didn't claim it to be.

[Adamu]

Potentially you can beat roaches with marines if by straight numbers even though they are the wrong unit. Marauders can beat immortals by straight numbers even though they are the wrong unit.
Thats the problem; its far less likely. You bring Marauders to an Immortal and you'd have to outnumber them a good 7:1 just to stand a chance. Thats not fun.

[Ravenstill]

SCI was the first game released in the genre.



Oh?

Warcraft...Warcraft 2?

[Shinosai]

Thats the problem; its far less likely. You bring Marauders to an Immortal and you'd have to outnumber them a good 7:1 just to stand a chance. Thats not fun.

How many marines does it take to beat 5 siege tanks on a cliff?

[Eloderung]

Oh?

Warcraft...Warcraft 2?

The two races were identical except for a small handful of abilities and graphics.

[Nephrahim]

Starcraft was not the first RTS with distinct factions any more then Superman was the first Super Hero. It's just the most famous oldie.

[Madhotsoup]

Bring back the Lurker

This

[Adamu]

How many marines does it take to beat 5 siege tanks on a cliff?
You've proven my point. The tank being on a cliff is the advantage and thats how it should be; not an arbitrary damage bonus.

[Essentia]

The people who like SC2 strategy/depth right now are the same ones who enjoyed mindless, boring, repetitive rep grinds in WoW. Follow flowchart, win game. Execute flowchart better than your opponent and you win. Deviate from the flowchart and you lose.


The problem is like 80 percent of the beta testers are WoW players.......

[Shinosai]

You've proven my point. The tank being on a cliff is the advantage and thats how it should be; not an arbitrary damage bonus.

Even in the open field 5 tanks could probably take on 100 marines.

[Comtrav]

The game is more fun with soft counters. I was thinking earlier about about harassing Mutas. I can drive them away with stimmed Marines, but they'll just come back and he's keeping me in my base by doing this. I was thinking about how I could trap him against his likely escape route with Vikings, and how that would work pretty well because Vikings have a huge range advantage over Mutalisk.

Doings this kind of match-up is more fun to think about then a huge +Damage to mutalisk.

The existing counter system is harder in some areas then others. I actually think some of the common balance issues people post about are because the counter system is incompletely implemented. I would like to see softer counters all around though I expect at least a few hard counters to survive to retail. (Air units will always hard counter Colossi....)

[Essentia]

Even in the open field 5 tanks could probably take on 100 marines.

Are you a moron?

[Dakarian]

I feel that this game is lacking many of the micro elements from SC1, and this is due in part to missing a number of key units:


Snipped..

Someone else commented on that very well on a particular article. The micro game is made easier since the units are alot smarter. It's not so much that tricks don't exist: it's just easier.

As for the tricks themselves, you don't see them for the same reason why this game isn't in stores now: we're in beta and not JUST the game. Defilers took about a year or two for the community to get used to, queens most of the community NEVER got used to. I remember distinctly when Scis showed up in every Terran game and we were well into BW when that happened. Bah, muta stacking didn't show up until I stopped playing.

As for the SC2 tricks.. oh they are there, though we're still too busy playing around to use them right. Zerg is a mess with them at the moment with Nydas EVERYTHING, roach burrowing, pop up banelings, temp MC via investors, proxy battles with overlord poop, and so on. It's less spellcasty and more "2 reavers in a shuttle" style dirty deeds.

I know less about the others, but from what I hear, EMP on the ghost has actually made EMP more dangerous: to the point where Toss is screaming for help on how to handle MvMvM+EMP. EMP seems to be less of a hit and run and more of a part of the main fight now. If there's a group that's lost a lot of micro, it might be toss since it seems to have a feel of using the right unit for the job rather than using the right tricks. Funny that since that was Zerg's job in SC1.

So the micro game has changed, but it's far from gone. It just won't show up for a while, just like how it was back in SC1.

[Maniakal]

ITT, better game designers than Blizzard.

They should make their own game.

[Joey]

As a platinum in 2v2 AT, I guess I have the right to post in here without being flamed.


Have you tried making an assortment of units, or are you just massing one, being countered, crying and leaving?

[Adamu]

As a platinum in 2v2 AT, I guess I have the right to post in here without being flamed.


Have you tried making an assortment of units, or are you just massing one, being countered, crying and leaving?
Honest question, why can't he mass one unit? In the original Starcraft you could with some degree of success even if it wasn't as successful as mixing in other types. This alone is probably why the lesser skilled players are bothered by the counter changes.

[Shinosai]

Are you a moron?

Are you?

[Eloderung]

You've proven my point. The tank being on a cliff is the advantage and thats how it should be; not an arbitrary damage bonus.

This.

It's also a reason why seige tanks are more or less useless compared to their SCI counterparts. Why bring a seige tank which requires deployment time into siege mode when you could simply bring a unit that gains nearly double damage to smaller units? Smaller units could still counter a seige tank easily if you used it wrong, or if the opponent was clever.


As a platinum in 2v2 AT, I guess I have the right to post in here without being flamed.


Have you tried making an assortment of units, or are you just massing one, being countered, crying and leaving?

Right now AT faces Random Team, which makes the bracket largely worthless compared to people who play solo or random team. Congratulations on roflstomping two people who have never met each other before that game, over and over again.

[Shinosai]

This.

It's also a reason why seige tanks are more or less useless compared to their SCI counterparts. Why bring a seige tank which requires deployment time into siege mode when you could simply bring a unit that gains nearly double damage to smaller units? Smaller units could still counter a seige tank easily if you used it wrong, or if the opponent was clever.




Right now AT faces Random Team, which makes the bracket largely worthless compared to people who play solo or random team. Congratulations on roflstomping two people who have never met each other before that game, over and over again.

Uhm.... the reason siege tanks aren't used often in tvp is because of lol immortals, not because other units do better damage for less work... in tvz even in sc1 siege tanks weren't used nearly as much as m&M and science vessels, looks like that's carried over to sc2.

But guess what, in tvt the siege tank is constantly used. So, yea. The reason tanks aren't used as much as their sc1 counterparts has nothing to do with what you've said.

[Space]

Can someone please make a chart showing who counters what? It would dramatically decrease my learning curve and probably several other players'....

[Shinosai]

Can someone please make a chart showing who counters what? It would dramatically decrease my learning curve and probably several other players'....

There is one in game if you go to the help menu. Although admittedly it doesn't list every possible counter, it can be pretty helpful.

[Jwray]

Hard counters only exist if you're massing 1 unit.

[Adamu]

in tvz even in sc1 siege tanks weren't used nearly as much as m&M and science vessels, looks like that's carried over to sc2.
Are you on crack?

[Rackdude]

Are you on crack?

He just must have never watched Fantasy or Flash go mech... or even lategame bio. So not on crack, just a noob.

[Skybound]

Where's my hard counter for mutalisks as protoss?

Yeah. The Phoenix is useless against Mutas and the Void Ray isn't really designed for that kind of combat. The Voids even struggle against Carriers. I haven't played much of the other races, but I'm feeling a little bit like Protoss doesn't have many hard counters. The Immortals seem like a hard counter to siege tanks, but you have to be good at micro... it's not really a unit for beginners.

[Captinhammer]

Personally I think that hard counters are what will eventually make Starcraft a fun DYNAMIC game.

I should qualify myself as rank 9th in bronze at the moment I guess, but I've been playing RTS since WC2 pre ToD (Tides of Darkness). (Of course, it took a while for Battle.net to come out but I bought B.net eddition asap). Since then I've played SC, original and Broodwar, and WC3 and TFT. And of course other RTS from other companies as well, but this isn't the place to go into that, or how Myth is a highly underappreciated game.

ANYWAYS, I've had a blast with the counters, and my enjoyment is just as valid as anyone else's enjoyment of the game, that part is not arguable. I mean sure, there will be people who get crushed at the start in a rush... but then there's those who counter the rush. And there counter assault is met with base defense and a few t1 and 1.5 units, and then it goes back and forth until two players are trying to get the just perfect amount of each unit to defeat your opponents army. I've had several games like this. True, only one of them was not PvP or TvT, but that's what the beta is for. There certainly are underpowered and overpowered units right now, and that'll get ironed out.

IMO, for toss the phoenix is underpowered, it's meant to be anti light air. The only light air right now that you really want to use them on rather than building void rays are mutalisks, and they eat pheonix's for breakfast. MAYBE Vikings if they're taking out your collosi, but even then void rays arn't much worse than phoenixes. (I say that due to obliterating a Viking army of maybe 12 or so with 5 or 6 void rays that were already firing at full power, might have just been lucky, I'm not sure, I've certianly seen vikings destroy void ray armadas before for sure). Stalkers require some pretty excellent micro to be used effectively, and even then mutas kill them pretty quick.

In any case, late game I'm finding more and more that my force of a few immortals, some zealots as a meat shield a collosus, (or two depending on what this is against, Collosi work just SO well against zerg and decent against MMM too) a few void rays, stalkers, and phoenixes generally beats the opponents force. If they go heavy air then I go heavy air. That may be why there are so few good AA units actually, although that's pretty circular logic:

We don't want people massing top tier units
People mass top tier units because they beat everything
We have to have top tier not beating everything, so we put in AA.
People don't want a hard counter to their best units so we make the AA suck.
People mass top tier air units.


So that's just my opinion. It allows for adaptive macro to be a major part of the game once it's balanced, otherwise it's ALL micro, and if it's all micro then it's WC3 without the heroes... Which is OK but I prefer a blend of Micro and Macro and I think many players, ESPECIALLY the casual RTS gaming crowd prefer this as well.

[Adamu]

Personally I think that hard counters are what will eventually make Starcraft a fun DYNAMIC game.
Stop right there. Starcraft was ALREADY a fun, dynamic game. Thats why its considered by many to be the greatest RTS game ever made. Thats also why thousands of people still play it online to this day. Thats also why people are upset over this arbitrary rock paper scissor game being added for no reason.

[Eloderung]

Stop right there. Starcraft was ALREADY a fun, dynamic game. Thats why its considered by many to be the greatest RTS game ever made.

Quoted for emphasis.

[Chalon]

I think what would be much more useful feedback would be specifically listing which units need to be tweaked so they are not quite as hard counters.

As Protoss, I would say that really the only "hard counter" units are probably the Immortal and Colossus. Everything else that gets bonus damage is more of a soft counter I'd argue.

The problem is, with the current balance if you decrease the strength of the Immortal vs. Roaches, Protoss will really have no good answer for them.

Similarly, Colossus might be too good against a mass of T1/T2 ground units, but at the same time with the removal of the Reaver, and with Psi Storm being an expensive route to go, the Colossus kind of needs to exist.

So while I do see the argument that some units are too hard of a counter, at the same time there would need to be balance done on the other end so that the hard counter is not necessary, if that makes sense.

[Gkaine]

just read the first post, gonna go ahead and say the original poster doesn't know how to play the game yet as there are plenty of options for most any encounter, you're playing the game wrong if you think its too hardlocked at this point. be creative till it works sir.

[Tehschoolbus]

You're joking, right?

Actually, stalkers + sentries dominate mutas. Phoenix are more of a high-damage support to this combo, because of their +light


That being said, I think that it's not hard-counters that need to be removed. In fact, sc1 had some had counters... for example, zealots vs tanks, firebats vs lings, etc. If you play toss and strictly build dragoons, you'll get %*!#d by tanks, so you need zealots. Firebats splash and stim both make them elite against lings. This was all just because of the way gameplay mechanics worked.

So I think that a major problem in sc2 is that new gameplay mechanics have been implemented. Now, instead of just range, area of effect, and spells we have cliffs denying sight to units attacking from above, we have map advantages such as xel naga towers and gold, and we have type-specific damage. I think that a nerf to ALL units type-specific damage is needed and that all units need a buff to their natural damage. This would take the edge off counters and make units more useful than just being the counter for A vs B. It might level things out so that A works very well against B, but A when used properly can also deal with C or D.

[Hawg]

Most of the hard counters in SC2 can be worked around. For example, I have seen marauders both win and lose versus melee infantry, depending on micro and tactics. However, some things are quite severe when compared to SC:BW, such as the Roach and the Immortal. Roaches devastate early game protoss and stop them from FE'ing efficiently. The Immortal completely nullifies the siege tank, the core unit of terran. The races should be unique in playstyle, like they were in SC:BW, instead of all being about building the right unit to counter. There isnt much of that in SC2, but there is enough that it ought to be changed where it occurs.

[Hback]

SCI was the first game released in the genre.

Static defenses in SCI v. static defenses in SC2.

In SCI, static defenses used to supplement your army was viable for rush defense.

In SC2, every race is heavily reliant on a ramp and counter-rush unit production to survive T1.

The SC2 style of early game restricts strategy, creativity, and game depth quite a bit compared to the original.



what about warcraft2??! i bet no one remembers the grunt rush in that game.

I agree that we need more maps without ramps. But you can survive the first wave of T1 pretty well without matching their production. It will boil down to building placement and micro. marines can take on zealots if you micro and block the zealots with scvs. You can still micro 3 zealots to kill 4-5. After you survive the first wave of t1, your t2 units better be comign shortly after that.

If your minerals have built up while trying to fend off their T1, your tech build was unsuccessful.

[sc2scoorge]

tha'ts not true............ that's why you scout every game to see what your opponent is doing. It's not ruining the game. SC1 has hard counter and look how popular it is still.