Live data from Hacker News

In defense of hard counters in real time strategy games

waywardstrategy.com

171–180 of 194 posts

Re: In defense of hard counters in real time strategy games

#171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since nobody has figured out how to integrate loot boxes or gambling into RTS yet, other genres are currently much more profitable.

I'd love to see a competent PvE-oriented RTS with the MMO-lite treatment: co-op missions, entire campaigns, customizable armies, unlockable units, mission rewards, purchasable (with in-game currency) items, bigass raids, the whole shebang. SC2 co-op mode took a big step in that direction, and it was well received and has become fairly popular...but a game built around that as its primary locus could be so much more.…

It’s far from what you asked for, but Mindustry is kinda PvE-RTS-like. It’s also open source, i’d recommend to give it a try. It’s an ugly game though, but I do like the concept.

Re: In defense of hard counters in real time strategy games

#172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, fighting games do offer high crush/low crush options, where hurtboxes (the vulnerable portion of your character) are shifted higher or lower, to make a move suited to cleanly beat either approaches from the air or sweeps. Beneficial properties like this can be balanced by a number of things -- speed, recovery time, damage, range, for a few examples! I realise you may already be familiar, but I figured it'd be w…

High / Low options are rarely the option people think about at the high level. That's just a simple mixup (worst case scenario, you're forced to guess in case you can't react in time). What he was talking about is the DP, the "Dragon Punch", also known as Shoryuken, that Ryu / Ken are famous for in Street Fighter. The mindgame is that Shoryuken is 100% invincible: no matter what your opponent is doing, the Shoryuken…

I would argue that it's a bit different in RTS games because there are different unit types you can bring into a single battle.

In StarCraft 2 if your opponent builds one unit there's another unit that hard counters it but you rarely bring just one kind of unit into battle last the very early game. Early zerglings are countered by marines are countered by hellions are countered by roaches are countered by marauders are countered by flying mutalisks are countered by marines again...etc etc.

If you bring marines and marauders and some hellons with healing medivacs it becomes about numbers and engagement positions. Sometimes you have no chance of winning but you have a chance of getting an economical trade that will put you in a better position in the future - without the trade the next fight your opponent might have too many units for you to win.

I guess it depends on what game you're playing but in RTS there's the fight you're in, the economy, production,upgrades, as well as the overall balance of the current game that all can change the way the game is going.

Re: In defense of hard counters in real time strategy games

#173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

High / Low options are rarely the option people think about at the high level. That's just a simple mixup (worst case scenario, you're forced to guess in case you can't react in time). What he was talking about is the DP, the "Dragon Punch", also known as Shoryuken, that Ryu / Ken are famous for in Street Fighter. The mindgame is that Shoryuken is 100% invincible: no matter what your opponent is doing, the Shoryuken…

I would argue that it's a bit different in RTS games because there are different unit types you can bring into a single battle. In StarCraft 2 if your opponent builds one unit there's another unit that hard counters it but you rarely bring just one kind of unit into battle last the very early game. Early zerglings are countered by marines are countered by hellions are countered by roaches are countered by marauders a…

StarCraft 2 doesn't seem to have hard counters aside from Immortals from earlier builds. (Zerglings beat Immortals. Immortals beat Roaches), back when the 10 dmg cap vs shields was a thing.

You have to play red alert to really know what the author is talking about. 50 riflemen probably loses to one flametank in command and conquer. Even the Immortal doesn't stand up to such odds and/or resource advantage. The flame tank isn't a capital ship either (not a battlecruiser or a mammoth tank in C&C world), it's just an anti-infantry tank that is highly effective at it's role.

That is, I'm pretty sure 50 Roaches beat one Immortal. And that's the closest thing to a hard counter I've seen from the StarCraft world.

Re: In defense of hard counters in real time strategy games

#174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that it's a bit different in RTS games because there are different unit types you can bring into a single battle. In StarCraft 2 if your opponent builds one unit there's another unit that hard counters it but you rarely bring just one kind of unit into battle last the very early game. Early zerglings are countered by marines are countered by hellions are countered by roaches are countered by marauders a…

StarCraft 2 doesn't seem to have hard counters aside from Immortals from earlier builds. (Zerglings beat Immortals. Immortals beat Roaches), back when the 10 dmg cap vs shields was a thing. You have to play red alert to really know what the author is talking about. 50 riflemen probably loses to one flametank in command and conquer. Even the Immortal doesn't stand up to such odds and/or resource advantage. The flame t…

3 colossus and some zealots to slow advance vs 50 marines is a close fight and much cheaper on the Protoss side.

Dark Templar vs anything on the ground without detection? Burrowed investors against anything without detection?

Re: In defense of hard counters in real time strategy games

#175
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure feels like the genre is mostly dead. Kind of sad

Concentrated, rather than dead. SC2 and AoE2 are the only games still running strong. SC2 seems quite alive. I play AoE2 competitively, and it's stronger than ever. In terms of new games, yeah it's pretty dead. AoE4 looks cool, but I'd be pleasantly surprised if its near as fun to play competitively as AoE2. Wacky civ specific strategies make games more predictable, and 2d is more ergonomic than 3d.

I also will be pleasantly surprised if AOE4's online multi is anywhere close to AOE2's scene.

Definitely managing my expectations due to what I've seen graphically regarding the micro/non-intuitive unit design as well as potential balancing issues due to the vastly divergent civ play styles/age-up mechanics (e.g. Mongol nomad movement & the dynasty system).

Re: In defense of hard counters in real time strategy games

#176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

StarCraft 2 doesn't seem to have hard counters aside from Immortals from earlier builds. (Zerglings beat Immortals. Immortals beat Roaches), back when the 10 dmg cap vs shields was a thing. You have to play red alert to really know what the author is talking about. 50 riflemen probably loses to one flametank in command and conquer. Even the Immortal doesn't stand up to such odds and/or resource advantage. The flame t…

3 colossus and some zealots to slow advance vs 50 marines is a close fight and much cheaper on the Protoss side. Dark Templar vs anything on the ground without detection? Burrowed investors against anything without detection?

Colossus vs Marines is closer to the hard counter idea, but Flame Tank vs Riflemen makes the Colossus vs Marine fight look fair.

The "Stealth vs Detection" thing isn't quite the same. When you have a mixed-army (ex: Light Tanks + Flame Tanks) go up against another mixed army (ex: Riflemen + Rocket Launchers), the "Hard Counter" remains in fact, a hard counter.

No amount of "support" will allow those Riflemen to damage the Flametank in any reasonable manner. (And Light Tanks may not be able to damage Riflemen, but Riflemen can't damage Light tanks either). The few rocket soldiers you have allow some degree of DPS, but its just a matchup destined to lose no matter the support you put into the mix. In all situations in all manners of various support and/or mixed army compositions, the Riflemen will be useless against Flame Tanks.

Riflemen don't do much damage (maybe 1HP??) to Flame Tanks. Riflemen are slower than Flame Tanks, while Flame Tanks one-shot Riflemen with a large area-of-effect damage. Flame Tanks also kill Riflemen by movement (if you move into a squad of Riflemen, they all get squished before the flames even come out). The Riflemen have to constantly micro away from the Tank's movement to remain alive.

Effectively: imagine if those Colossus in SC2 had armor that only took 1-dmg from Marines, had special code to "step" on Marines to kill them (aka: instant-kill any marines that are under the Colossus), and had a movement speed roughly 2.5x faster than Marines. Also imagine that Marines didn't have stimpacks. Colossus retain the area-of-effect lasers, except the lasers one-shot marines. And you're beginning to see how hopeless Flametank vs Riflemen look like in C&C.

--------

In contrast, 12 Zealots will probably beat 12 Dark Templar (or roughly go even there-abouts) as long as detection is nearby. Its a very different mechanic from the C&C-style "Hard Counter".

A "Hard Counter" remains a counter, even in the presence of supporting units.

--------

Starcraft 1 / Starcraft 2 just aren't as "counter-heavy" as other RTS games. In Age of Empires: Scouts lose vs Pikemen. Archers lose against Scouts. Castles lose to Trebuchets.

Age of Empires 2 isn't as "hard counter" as C&C, but its closer to the spirit of C&C's hard counters than anything in the Starcraft / Starcraft 2 world.

Case in point: A 4800 HP Castle shoots 4-arrows of 11-damage against 35-HP Crossbowmen who shoot only 1-arrow of 1-damage back in the same time period. (The 8-damage a Crossbow normally deals is turned into only 1-damage vs stone-structures like Castles or Walls) The Castle "Hard Counters" Archers. There's no composition where an archer would ever be useful at anti-Castle warfare in Age of Empires 2.

(Castles don't truly "counter" Archers however, because Castles can't move. Within the scope of mobile armies, various units get random bonuses against each other however, which plays somewhere in between SC2's soft-counter style vs C&C's hard-counter style. Nonetheless, strong players will bring 20 villagers to combat if only to build a castle during a fight, because of the ability for a "pop-up Castle" to beat so many different kinds of units. Especially in the Castle Age... the "Hard Counters" for Castles is locked away in Imperial Age (Trebuchets and/or Bombard Cannons))

Re: In defense of hard counters in real time strategy games

#177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

3 colossus and some zealots to slow advance vs 50 marines is a close fight and much cheaper on the Protoss side. Dark Templar vs anything on the ground without detection? Burrowed investors against anything without detection?

Colossus vs Marines is closer to the hard counter idea, but Flame Tank vs Riflemen makes the Colossus vs Marine fight look fair. The "Stealth vs Detection" thing isn't quite the same. When you have a mixed-army (ex: Light Tanks + Flame Tanks) go up against another mixed army (ex: Riflemen + Rocket Launchers), the "Hard Counter" remains in fact, a hard counter. No amount of "support" will allow those Riflemen to damag…

In sc2 it's sort of armor that makes that....I unupgraded marines against ultralisks maybe.

Re: In defense of hard counters in real time strategy games

#178
Hmm, kind of reads like a worse Rock Paper Scissors - A Method for Competitive Game Play Design ?

https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/130150/rock_paper_sci...

(Mostly worse because he's offering multiple, somewhat idiosyncratic, contradictory and incoherent definitions of "hard" and "soft" counters ?)

Re: In defense of hard counters in real time strategy games

#179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I should get back on that one, I loved playing it at the time (against CPU, never a fan of online play), just building layers of defenses and have a constant stream of CPU forces get destroyed against it. The one I'm thinking of had early support for multi-core and multi-screen, with the minimap / overview on the other screen. But it was still constrained; would have loved to test that defense of mine against all 7 o…

Yeah, loved doing that exact same thing too :-) Turtling was incredibly fascinating in SC for some reason. Especially once you built the Tier 4 infinite power generator from one of the races. And yes, I tried it couple years ago and unfortunately I don't think it's that well optimized for multi-core CPUs, the game was massively slowing down for me, but my i7 was at like 50% usage at most.

> Turtling was incredibly fascinating in SC for some reason.

Well, surely the long-range artillery and shields have something to do with that ! ;)

Re: In defense of hard counters in real time strategy games

#180
post #120

Supreme Commander's gameplay is nothing but hard counters[1], especially with the reclaim system (you can harvest a dead unit to reclaim 80% of the mass used in creating it). The gameplay is deep and revolves around scouting and predicting what the enemy will do and when they'll do it. It's still very active today, through to a mod called FAF. [1]The exception to this is the Cybran SACU, which I believe has no true c…

This is the tldr of hard counter play in most RTS games. It’s fun for experienced players who understand the rules/decision tree and enjoy learning the tricks and edge cases - terrible for new players who just get crushed by rules they don’t know and can’t know without going online for 10 hours. In many cases, the joy of RTS for new players is map control. Hard counters tend to break this gameplay loop for them as th…

10 hours isn't much.

Also new players might still lose with 80% of the map because they might not know how to scale their economy properly, or, in RTSes, just lack the speed to execute that.

Post reply on HN