TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

In defense of hard counters in real time strategy games

158 点作者 aw1621107将近 4 年前

11 条评论

AussieWog93将近 4 年前
Supreme Commander&#x27;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).<p>The gameplay is deep and revolves around scouting and predicting what the enemy will do and when they&#x27;ll do it. It&#x27;s still very active today, through to a mod called FAF.<p>[1]The exception to this is the Cybran SACU, which I believe has no true counter once you take into account the gun, EMP and SAM upgrades.<p>Mass for mass, they beat just about every land unit including Percivals, GCs, Monkeylords and Ilshavohs.<p>They hard counter all air units, even T3 bombers, as their SAML can fire while (rapidly) constructing and&#x2F;or fortifying an ED4 which they can then reclaim afterwards.<p>I just wish I had the skill to deploy them in a real setting!
评论 #27979239 未加载
评论 #27979367 未加载
评论 #27981471 未加载
评论 #27979245 未加载
评论 #27983352 未加载
评论 #27979641 未加载
ironman1478将近 4 年前
I think its cool seeing what factors are considered in RTS balancing. I guess an equivalent for fighting games would be invincible vs non-invincible DPs or weird things like movement options.<p>In RTS games balancing seems a bit more quantifiable. In fighting games there is a lot of guessing at what actually counters what unless its extremely obvious. Its hard to tell if a matchup or strat is good&#x2F;bad due to the character&#x2F;move properties or if its because one player is way better.
评论 #27978023 未加载
评论 #27976715 未加载
tobyhinloopen将近 4 年前
I feel like there’s been little going on in RTS land. Did I miss any significant releases?
评论 #27975831 未加载
评论 #27976281 未加载
评论 #27976596 未加载
评论 #27976049 未加载
评论 #27976205 未加载
评论 #27975896 未加载
评论 #27977102 未加载
评论 #27977026 未加载
评论 #27975888 未加载
评论 #27976380 未加载
评论 #27975970 未加载
评论 #27977149 未加载
评论 #27978569 未加载
评论 #27979347 未加载
评论 #27978218 未加载
评论 #27975832 未加载
评论 #27978741 未加载
评论 #27975787 未加载
评论 #27979653 未加载
评论 #27976322 未加载
评论 #27979380 未加载
评论 #27981485 未加载
评论 #27978333 未加载
评论 #27978508 未加载
评论 #27979250 未加载
评论 #27978050 未加载
Animats将近 4 年前
There&#x27;s a real world version of this, the DePuy Quantified Judgement Method.[1] It&#x27;s fairly simple - weapons have a weight value (sword=1.0), you add that up for the forces committed, there&#x27;s a quality of troops multiplier for each side, some adjustments for defensive preparations, and you get a measure of combat strength.<p>DePuy was a US. Army colonel, and the weights come from analysis of real-world battles. His observation is that the side with a 2x advantage almost always wins. If nobody has a 2x advantage, either side can win.<p>So, real-world war has a &quot;hard counter&quot;.
评论 #27978454 未加载
评论 #27978127 未加载
评论 #27978646 未加载
评论 #27978511 未加载
thom将近 4 年前
First half of the title got my hopes up as a Magic: the Gathering player, but alas, it was not an argument in defence of hard counters costing only two mana.
评论 #27977362 未加载
ajuc将近 4 年前
&gt; The ground unit cannot hurt the air unit in any way, and the air unit can hurt the ground unit. This relationship is based on innate and immutable differences between the two unit types.<p>There are some ways in which ground unit can still win the game in this scenario. For example if you can flood the enemy with zerglings and kill his buildings just ignoring the air units slowly picking the zerglins apart.<p>So, in a way - there are no hard counters either :)
评论 #27979646 未加载
scotty79将近 4 年前
If you want to see really brutal hard counters try Clash Royale.<p>Game is really fun, and requires a lot of thinking but it&#x27;s absolutely ruthless.<p>Every single unit has multiple hard counters. When it comes to combinations everything gets more messy and fun.
Teknoman117将近 4 年前
One of the games I used to play that wasn&#x27;t reviewed very well was Tom Clancy&#x27;s End War (the online multiplayer died pretty quick). It was the one with the gimmick &#x2F; sometimes really useful attribute of being purely controllable via speech recognition.<p>It was certainly more forgiving of casual players - you could only have 12 &quot;addressable&quot; units in the game at a given time. A unit was 4 vehicles or 4 groups of 5 infantry. Rather than having to produce one soldier or vehicle at a time, they&#x27;d deploy in their groups. &quot;Healing&quot; them could be achieved by evacuating the unit off the map, which would return half the unit&#x27;s deployment cost. They could then be redeployed later at full health. Infantry units could be evacuated by air, vehicles had to drive off the map&#x27;s boundary.<p>There was a fairly simple circle of vehicle hard counters - Helicopters were highly effective against Tanks, which were highly effective against IFVs (infantry fighting vehicles), which where highly effective against Helicopters, etc.<p>There were two types of infantry units - rifleman and combat engineers, and were vulnerable to everything, but could be placed in cover to drastically increase their defense stat. Rifleman (in cover) were highly effective against other infantry units and combat engineers (in cover) were highly effective against all vehicles. Rifleman could capture control points &#x2F; forward deployment points faster than combat engineers.<p>IFVs could be used to move infantry units quickly around the map, and rifleman could be redeployed by air at the cost of some deployment points.<p>Artillery was effective against everything but helicopters (which were highly effective against them), whether units where in cover or not. Downside was that it was vulnerable to everything, but this rarely mattered because they could engage from half the map away.<p>There was also a command vehicle which could manufacture robots. You had a UAV for spotting and guard robots which would be tasked to guard a control point or a unit.<p>Match start had you select 3 units to deploy first. A common strategy was to start with a command vehicle, an artillery unit, and a rifleman unit. You&#x27;d immediately send the rifleman unit to capture the nearest control point, and by the time they finished you&#x27;d have had enough time to get an IFV unit in to pick them up.<p>You&#x27;d deploy your UAV to the enemy&#x27;s side of the map to see what they were up to, and have the command unit build defense robots for the artillery to cover for their extreme vulnerability to air units.<p>I had fun with it anyways.
im3w1l将近 4 年前
I think the big issue with soft counters is rather that attention and APM is very scarce. Spamming a well rounded unit means you can spend your attention on other stuff.<p>If each side had a team of people controlling their units then you could imagine one guy could focus on the economy another on producing the right units and a third on combat micro. This could make soft counters become more important.
评论 #27982858 未加载
BlueTemplar将近 4 年前
Hmm, kind of reads like a worse <i>Rock Paper Scissors - A Method for Competitive Game Play Design</i> ?<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.gamasutra.com&#x2F;view&#x2F;feature&#x2F;130150&#x2F;rock_paper_scissors__a_method_for_.php" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.gamasutra.com&#x2F;view&#x2F;feature&#x2F;130150&#x2F;rock_paper_sci...</a><p>(Mostly worse because he&#x27;s offering multiple, somewhat idiosyncratic, contradictory and incoherent definitions of &quot;hard&quot; and &quot;soft&quot; counters ?)
imwillofficial将近 4 年前
I had so much fun reading this! Brought back my star craft and CandC days. Hell I even have a Nod tattoo.<p>(Long live Kane!)