|
On October 31 2010 02:12 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2010 01:19 Perscienter wrote:I would have liked to see a chart concerning marines just with stim. Probably the roaches will already lose that. On October 31 2010 01:13 ChickenLips wrote: I dont think it makes a lot of sense to compare anything non-splash to stim marines, because there simply isn't anything that is cost-effective vs them. Once Terrans learn how to spread their marines P and Z are gonna be in for a lot of trouble. Nothing is cost-effective against them? What about zealots and psionic storm? What about fungal growth and banelings? Z has no cost effective counter to Marines. This has always been the case even in BW. If the T player constantly attacks you with well timed infantry attacks and doesn't let you hit critical mass, you will have a tough time dealing with Marines simply because you are spending larave/gas on troops on a limited 2 bases, since there's no way you can saturate the 3rd without dying. Why do you think every T all of a sudden went to Marine/Tank now?
2 banelings blowing up 20 marines is definitely cost-effective, don't pull things out of your ass and pretend they're facts.
|
On October 31 2010 02:19 Saechiis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2010 02:12 superstartran wrote:On October 31 2010 01:19 Perscienter wrote:I would have liked to see a chart concerning marines just with stim. Probably the roaches will already lose that. On October 31 2010 01:13 ChickenLips wrote: I dont think it makes a lot of sense to compare anything non-splash to stim marines, because there simply isn't anything that is cost-effective vs them. Once Terrans learn how to spread their marines P and Z are gonna be in for a lot of trouble. Nothing is cost-effective against them? What about zealots and psionic storm? What about fungal growth and banelings? Z has no cost effective counter to Marines. This has always been the case even in BW. If the T player constantly attacks you with well timed infantry attacks and doesn't let you hit critical mass, you will have a tough time dealing with Marines simply because you are spending larave/gas on troops on a limited 2 bases, since there's no way you can saturate the 3rd without dying. Why do you think every T all of a sudden went to Marine/Tank now? 2 banelings blowing up 20 marines is definitely cost-effective, don't pull things out of your ass and pretend they're facts.
If you lost 20 Marines to 2 Banelings then you can't control your troops for shit. We're account for the fact that both players are on even grounds, and we're talking about pretty high level stuff, which means the T player knows how to stim kite Banelings. So as long as the T player doesn't walk into a two pronged trap, he's going to take out alot of Blings before you even touch him unless you can side swipe him. Even on creep as long as the T player knows how to Stim Kite, he shouldn't lose that many Marines unless he clumped like an idiot.
With good micro, you can make Marines cost effective vs Blings and just send wave after wave of Marines at the Z player and force him to continually make Blings, which will cut into his Infestor/Muta/Tech badly.
|
On October 31 2010 02:12 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2010 01:19 Perscienter wrote:I would have liked to see a chart concerning marines just with stim. Probably the roaches will already lose that. On October 31 2010 01:13 ChickenLips wrote: I dont think it makes a lot of sense to compare anything non-splash to stim marines, because there simply isn't anything that is cost-effective vs them. Once Terrans learn how to spread their marines P and Z are gonna be in for a lot of trouble. Nothing is cost-effective against them? What about zealots and psionic storm? What about fungal growth and banelings? Z has no cost effective counter to Marines. This has always been the case even in BW. If the T player constantly attacks you with well timed infantry attacks and doesn't let you hit critical mass, you will have a tough time dealing with Marines simply because you are spending larave/gas on troops on a limited 2 bases, since there's no way you can saturate the 3rd without dying. Why do you think every T all of a sudden went to Marine/Tank now?
Infestor baneling ????
|
Watch Loner vs Terious, 2 burrowed banelings kill 20 marines instantly.
Saying that things are cost-effective when your play flawless is nonsense since no-one has perfect play. If top players could pull this off all the time you wouldn't see so many marines melting in green goo.
|
On October 31 2010 02:27 Saechiis wrote: Watch Loner vs Terious, 2 burrowed banelings kill 20 marines instantly.
Saying that things are cost-effective when your play flawless is nonsense since no-one has perfect play. If top players could pull this off all the time you wouldn't see so many marines melting in green goo.
Things are cost effective when you control your troops effectively and engage in the proper positions. You think every Korean T just masses Marines mindlessly against Banelings because they are stupid? No; it's because they are trading minerals for gas. It's the same concept as in BW; watch how T's continually send wave after wave of Infantry/Tank against Lurker/Ling/Swarm and continue to do so, losing countless of armies early on, being 2 bases down, and STILL win the game.
T's haven't gotten their control groups down effectively yet, but if you watch the TvZ victories recently, for the most part, the T players have been going pure Marine/Tank and winning because they trade effectively.
Like I said, using one instance of a T player not effectively controlling his troops/walking into his traps is not a good way to convince anyone that Blings are an effective counter to Marines. You need Infestors to really make Blings good against T players; otherwise off creep they will just stim kite you all day. On creep, it's less effective, but he's still losing alot less then you are if he knows how to control his troops. Ask any Z if they can hit Blings against a good T player without doing a surround/using Infestors. It's pretty much impossible without doing one of the two, and the first one relies heavily on your T opponent not having proper map knowledge and walking across the map blind.
|
On October 31 2010 02:27 Saechiis wrote: Watch Loner vs Terious, 2 burrowed banelings kill 20 marines instantly.
Saying that things are cost-effective when your play flawless is nonsense since no-one has perfect play. If top players could pull this off all the time you wouldn't see so many marines melting in green goo.
so because loner couldnt be arsed to get A raven all the sudden banelings are cost effective vs marines? stop pulling facts that support whatever you want to pull out of your ass.
Once they are good enough people will begin to spread and stim kite their marines and banelings will either explode on sieged tanks or die doing pretty much nothing.
You cant discuss or measure something like banelings against bad play. You measure and discuss it towards the theoretical optimum. GOD YOU PEOPLE.
not testing cara 1? ;/ i would love to see some papers on +1 carapace, ill be testing that myself this instance.
How do you combat tank, marine?
is the optimal mix, zergling baneling roach?
or can you take one unit away from that mix and still perform good enough?
|
Against Medivac+Stim+Combat shield, it takes infinity roaches to kill 4 marines
|
I see people saying zealot<rine but zealot+sentry beats pure marine pretty easily even with stim... a couple FF maybe a gs and it's gg...
|
On October 31 2010 02:36 Tac-Tics wrote:Against Medivac+Stim+Combat shield, it takes infinity roaches to kill 4 marines
No i takes like 3 with focus fire..
Roaches are pretty damn good against marines for minerals cost. The only thing you really worry about is big balls of them but banelings can deal with that. Some kind of roach/baneling combo is quite effectve vs marine tank.
|
On October 31 2010 02:21 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2010 02:19 Saechiis wrote:On October 31 2010 02:12 superstartran wrote:On October 31 2010 01:19 Perscienter wrote:I would have liked to see a chart concerning marines just with stim. Probably the roaches will already lose that. On October 31 2010 01:13 ChickenLips wrote: I dont think it makes a lot of sense to compare anything non-splash to stim marines, because there simply isn't anything that is cost-effective vs them. Once Terrans learn how to spread their marines P and Z are gonna be in for a lot of trouble. Nothing is cost-effective against them? What about zealots and psionic storm? What about fungal growth and banelings? Z has no cost effective counter to Marines. This has always been the case even in BW. If the T player constantly attacks you with well timed infantry attacks and doesn't let you hit critical mass, you will have a tough time dealing with Marines simply because you are spending larave/gas on troops on a limited 2 bases, since there's no way you can saturate the 3rd without dying. Why do you think every T all of a sudden went to Marine/Tank now? 2 banelings blowing up 20 marines is definitely cost-effective, don't pull things out of your ass and pretend they're facts. If you lost 20 Marines to 2 Banelings then you can't control your troops for shit. We're account for the fact that both players are on even grounds, and we're talking about pretty high level stuff, which means the T player knows how to stim kite Banelings. So as long as the T player doesn't walk into a two pronged trap, he's going to take out alot of Blings before you even touch him unless you can side swipe him. Even on creep as long as the T player knows how to Stim Kite, he shouldn't lose that many Marines unless he clumped like an idiot. With good micro, you can make Marines cost effective vs Blings and just send wave after wave of Marines at the Z player and force him to continually make Blings, which will cut into his Infestor/Muta/Tech badly. i know that it's possible to stim kite banelings but saying a terran player has the capacity to do it all the time or that it is viable in all situations is really not true. as far as i know blings have lower attack priority than most of the zerg army so if you mix other units in with your blings (and keep the blings behind them) it increases the chance of them hitting enormously.
|
On October 31 2010 02:19 Saechiis wrote: 2 banelings blowing up 20 marines is definitely cost-effective, don't pull things out of your ass and pretend they're facts.
I always laugh when people talk about banelings like this.
First off, it's damn near impossible to kill more than 6 marines with 2 banelings, let alone 20.
Maybe if you had an overlord floating over a tightly-packed group of marines, you could kill 10, but actually getting in that situation means the Terran player screwed up long ago.
Second problem with that argument is, it takes 2 banelings to kill 1 marine. That's right folks, the rollie-pollie of death can't actually kill ANYTHING in the game (except zerglings) in one shot. For a 50/25 suicide unit, that's definitely OP.
I could go on about how stim is 100/100 and makes marines move just as fast as the 150/150 upgrade for banes while also providing a massive dmg boost, but people would tell me how that is needed due to lack of mobility (false preconception anyway)
How 1 stimmed marine does 1.4x the damage of a zergling while having 5 range, being able to shoot air, utilize bunkers, and the countless other bonuses marines have, but somebody would try to act like zergling speed makes up for that.
Blizzard has already acknowledged the OPness of the marine. It just has yet to be seen if they feel the need to do something about it.
|
On October 31 2010 02:46 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2010 02:21 superstartran wrote:On October 31 2010 02:19 Saechiis wrote:On October 31 2010 02:12 superstartran wrote:On October 31 2010 01:19 Perscienter wrote:I would have liked to see a chart concerning marines just with stim. Probably the roaches will already lose that. On October 31 2010 01:13 ChickenLips wrote: I dont think it makes a lot of sense to compare anything non-splash to stim marines, because there simply isn't anything that is cost-effective vs them. Once Terrans learn how to spread their marines P and Z are gonna be in for a lot of trouble. Nothing is cost-effective against them? What about zealots and psionic storm? What about fungal growth and banelings? Z has no cost effective counter to Marines. This has always been the case even in BW. If the T player constantly attacks you with well timed infantry attacks and doesn't let you hit critical mass, you will have a tough time dealing with Marines simply because you are spending larave/gas on troops on a limited 2 bases, since there's no way you can saturate the 3rd without dying. Why do you think every T all of a sudden went to Marine/Tank now? 2 banelings blowing up 20 marines is definitely cost-effective, don't pull things out of your ass and pretend they're facts. If you lost 20 Marines to 2 Banelings then you can't control your troops for shit. We're account for the fact that both players are on even grounds, and we're talking about pretty high level stuff, which means the T player knows how to stim kite Banelings. So as long as the T player doesn't walk into a two pronged trap, he's going to take out alot of Blings before you even touch him unless you can side swipe him. Even on creep as long as the T player knows how to Stim Kite, he shouldn't lose that many Marines unless he clumped like an idiot. With good micro, you can make Marines cost effective vs Blings and just send wave after wave of Marines at the Z player and force him to continually make Blings, which will cut into his Infestor/Muta/Tech badly. i know that it's possible to stim kite banelings but saying a terran player has the capacity to do it all the time or that it is viable in all situations is really not true. as far as i know blings have lower attack priority than most of the zerg army so if you mix other units in with your blings (and keep the blings behind them) it increases the chance of them hitting enormously.
Most Z players split their Blings and Splings and target Marines with Blings, thus making them run past any supporting units if you kite effectively. If you clump them up, it's even worse since Marines now can use Splings as a shield against Blings. So if you are coming in with Marine/Tank, he has Spling/Bling/Muta, you can usually sack your Tanks in order to kill off the Blings, and now it comes down to +1 Marines with Stim/CS vs Spling/Muta, which is a pretty good trade for the most part. Your timing attack made him spend way more gas then you did, at most you had 3-4 tanks, while he probably lost Mutas, Blings, and Splings defending your attack, which is absolutely huge trade in favor of you.
The only time it gets out of hand is when Infestors are added into his mix, but that's gas heavy, which means you certainly didn't do much pressuring early on if he has Infestor/Bling/Roach, or Infestor/Spling/Bling/Muta.
Most people don't realize it, but Marines overall are incredibly cost effective versus anything Z uses. When you add in Medivacs it gets even crazier. And because Marines are 50 minerals, you get tons of gas floating around to constantly upgrade your troops and stay ahead of the Z player on upgrades.
|
On October 31 2010 02:43 Slayer91 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2010 02:36 Tac-Tics wrote:Against Medivac+Stim+Combat shield, it takes infinity roaches to kill 4 marines No i takes like 3 with focus fire.. Roaches are pretty damn good against marines for minerals cost. The only thing you really worry about is big balls of them but banelings can deal with that. Some kind of roach/baneling combo is quite effectve vs marine tank.
This one made me lol too.
Roaches can focus fire through medivacs, but they're not really effective vs marines either. I've done some playing in the unit tester trying to find the best way to hold off early rax play without blings. Nothing works.
The best situation I could get was 1:1 roaches/lings with +1 carapace.
This works decently against marines, but as soon as you replace 4 marines with 2 marauders or give the marines stim, everything goes to crap.
Blings aren't the OP unit here. They're the only thing that allows zerg to scrap themselves through the early-game when faced with heavy marine pressure.
|
Want to balance your Starcraft 2?
Step 1) Create completely innovative strategies (IE: Marine + Raven) Step 2) Post it on Team Liquid Step 3) Have everybody bash it because they have this autistic generated idea of "hard counters" Step 4) Get no progression in the game at all in terms of strategies Step 5) Blame Blizzard
Honestly guys, think realistically here. You should at least try it a bit before you go "YEAH BUT 2 BANELINGS COUNTER 5 BILLION MARINES THEREFORE IT'S NOT VIABLE LOL!" I can't only be the one who saw that [G]Marine/Raven in the Strategy Forum, saw it being used in top top Diamond, and used it themselves in Ladder with success. What people don't understand is that if you're going MASS marine, you can support 6-8 raxes with half of them with Reactors easily. So you're pumping out like 15 marines per production cycle, and all your spending on your army is minerals. While the zerg is burning gas on Infestors and Banelings.
That's the point of going mass marine. You consistently pressure the zerg, make them waste larvae on gas units (IE: Banelings, Infestors, Mutalisks, Roaches, Hydra's) while you expand and get a Raven force. And they can't just counter push you, because guess what: When your push finishes, you got 25 more marines next to your nat with like 4 Ravens and you push out again. You're trading minerals (which are easily sustained with MULE's) for gas.
I'm not saying it's the perfect strategy, or that it's going to revolutionize the game, but stop seeing a strategy and then pulling out this preconceived idea of "HURRRRR HARD COUNTERS!!!!!!!! THEREFORE IT DOESN'T WORK LOOOOOL!!!!!" I mean shit, I could pull the same cards for PvT and say that since HT's can feedback a Ghost, EMP is fine. Or that since Vikings can shoot Colossi and Colossi can't shoot back, they hard counter so Colossi are useless in PvT. It's ridiculous. Yes, Banelings and Infestors absolutely destroy Marines. But you're macroing up so hard, and your Ravens can do so many lulzy things with Auto Turrets, PDD, and HSM when you get about 7 of them, you just overwhelm the Zerg.
|
spreading marines are invincible? not likely.
you haven't considered that as you spread out your marines, your dps becomes exponentially lower. to the point where you'll only have a small number of marines actually in damage dealing range.
marines aren't much different to the broodwar model. it's the addition of ghosts and marauders and the lack of goliath which makes marines more viable.
also, fungal growth is the best marine killer in the entire game. hitting 10-20 marines from 9 range, dealing 360-720 unavoidable damage over 8 seconds plus being immobilized... that's better than psionic storm and doesn't require special tech because you need tech to hive.
|
On October 31 2010 03:07 Fruscainte wrote: Want to balance your Starcraft 2?
Step 1) Create completely innovative strategies (IE: Marine + Raven) Step 2) Post it on Team Liquid Step 3) Have everybody bash it because they have this autistic generated idea of "hard counters" Step 4) Get no progression in the game at all in terms of strategies Step 5) Blame Blizzard
Honestly guys, think realistically here. You should at least try it a bit before you go "YEAH BUT 2 BANELINGS COUNTER 5 BILLION MARINES THEREFORE IT'S NOT VIABLE LOL!" I can't only be the one who saw that [G]Marine/Raven in the Strategy Forum, saw it being used in top top Diamond, and used it themselves in Ladder with success. What people don't understand is that if you're going MASS marine, you can support 6-8 raxes with half of them with Reactors easily. So you're pumping out like 15 marines per production cycle, and all your spending on your army is minerals. While the zerg is burning gas on Infestors and Banelings.
That's the point of going mass marine. You consistently pressure the zerg, make them waste larvae on gas units (IE: Banelings, Infestors, Mutalisks, Roaches, Hydra's) while you expand and get a Raven force. And they can't just counter push you, because guess what: When your push finishes, you got 25 more marines next to your nat with like 4 Ravens and you push out again. You're trading minerals (which are easily sustained with MULE's) for gas.
I'm not saying it's the perfect strategy, or that it's going to revolutionize the game, but stop seeing a strategy and then pulling out this preconceived idea of "HURRRRR HARD COUNTERS!!!!!!!! THEREFORE IT DOESN'T WORK LOOOOOL!!!!!" I mean shit, I could pull the same cards for PvT and say that since HT's can feedback a Ghost, EMP is fine. Or that since Vikings can shoot Colossi and Colossi can't shoot back, they hard counter so Colossi are useless in PvT. It's ridiculous. Yes, Banelings and Infestors absolutely destroy Marines. But you're macroing up so hard, and your Ravens can do so many lulzy things with Auto Turrets, PDD, and HSM when you get about 7 of them, you just overwhelm the Zerg.
If Infestors didn't pretty much hard-counter this strategy, progamers would be using it. If you think they haven't tried it, in almost every possible iteration, you're kidding yourself. They don't use it because the strategy isn't very good - it simply gets demolished by good infestor micro - all it takes is a single FG on your mass of ravens or marines and your army is gone, and a good Z player won't let you "instantly rebuild your army" or whatever nonsense people are spewing in that thread.
|
On October 31 2010 03:13 PanzerKing wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2010 03:07 Fruscainte wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Want to balance your Starcraft 2?
Step 1) Create completely innovative strategies (IE: Marine + Raven) Step 2) Post it on Team Liquid Step 3) Have everybody bash it because they have this autistic generated idea of "hard counters" Step 4) Get no progression in the game at all in terms of strategies Step 5) Blame Blizzard
Honestly guys, think realistically here. You should at least try it a bit before you go "YEAH BUT 2 BANELINGS COUNTER 5 BILLION MARINES THEREFORE IT'S NOT VIABLE LOL!" I can't only be the one who saw that [G]Marine/Raven in the Strategy Forum, saw it being used in top top Diamond, and used it themselves in Ladder with success. What people don't understand is that if you're going MASS marine, you can support 6-8 raxes with half of them with Reactors easily. So you're pumping out like 15 marines per production cycle, and all your spending on your army is minerals. While the zerg is burning gas on Infestors and Banelings.
That's the point of going mass marine. You consistently pressure the zerg, make them waste larvae on gas units (IE: Banelings, Infestors, Mutalisks, Roaches, Hydra's) while you expand and get a Raven force. And they can't just counter push you, because guess what: When your push finishes, you got 25 more marines next to your nat with like 4 Ravens and you push out again. You're trading minerals (which are easily sustained with MULE's) for gas.
I'm not saying it's the perfect strategy, or that it's going to revolutionize the game, but stop seeing a strategy and then pulling out this preconceived idea of "HURRRRR HARD COUNTERS!!!!!!!! THEREFORE IT DOESN'T WORK LOOOOOL!!!!!" I mean shit, I could pull the same cards for PvT and say that since HT's can feedback a Ghost, EMP is fine. Or that since Vikings can shoot Colossi and Colossi can't shoot back, they hard counter so Colossi are useless in PvT. It's ridiculous. Yes, Banelings and Infestors absolutely destroy Marines. But you're macroing up so hard, and your Ravens can do so many lulzy things with Auto Turrets, PDD, and HSM when you get about 7 of them, you just overwhelm the Zerg . If Infestors didn't pretty much hard-counter this strategy, progamers would be using it. If you think they haven't tried it, in almost every possible iteration, you're kidding yourself. They don't use it because the strategy isn't very good - it simply gets demolished by good infestor micro - all it takes is a single FG on your mass of ravens or marines and your army is gone, and a good Z player won't let you "instantly rebuild your army" or whatever nonsense people are spewing in that thread.
I don't see how you're not grasping that you're making 15 marines per production cycle. So a sizable army up in twoish production cycles, HSM one shots Infestors and Auto Turrets just rape everything.
What you're implying is that the Zerg can put so much immense pressure on the T, that they can't get two production cycles of units out. The point of the strategy is not to win battles constantly, it's to wither down your opponent by making them waste larvae and waste gas (therefore delaying tech). If you're constantly getting like 20-30 marines at your doorstep with Raven support, yes, you will consistently kill off their army, but if in just 30 seconds later you got an entire force outside your doorstep again, it's eventually going to wear you down.
Again, it's not perfect. Stop implying that it is, but you can't get anywhere with strategy if people go "YEAH UH, SORRY BUT X UNIT COUNTERS Y UNIT THEREFORE THIS STRATEGY WILL NEVER WORK LOL"
|
On October 31 2010 02:52 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2010 02:19 Saechiis wrote: 2 banelings blowing up 20 marines is definitely cost-effective, don't pull things out of your ass and pretend they're facts. I always laugh when people talk about banelings like this. First off, it's damn near impossible to kill more than 6 marines with 2 banelings, let alone 20. Maybe if you had an overlord floating over a tightly-packed group of marines, you could kill 10, but actually getting in that situation means the Terran player screwed up long ago. Second problem with that argument is, it takes 2 banelings to kill 1 marine. That's right folks, the rollie-pollie of death can't actually kill ANYTHING in the game (except zerglings) in one shot. For a 50/25 suicide unit, that's definitely OP. I could go on about how stim is 100/100 and makes marines move just as fast as the 150/150 upgrade for banes while also providing a massive dmg boost, but people would tell me how that is needed due to lack of mobility (false preconception anyway) How 1 stimmed marine does 1.4x the damage of a zergling while having 5 range, being able to shoot air, utilize bunkers, and the countless other bonuses marines have, but somebody would try to act like zergling speed makes up for that. Blizzard has already acknowledged the OPness of the marine. It just has yet to be seen if they feel the need to do something about it.
Blizzard has acknowledged the OPness of marines? Lol, I'd like to have a link to that statement.
2 banelings can kill 20 marines instantly, I gave a reference as proof, there's no denying it is possible. It was a reaction to the statement that Banelings aren't cost-effective against Marines, which they obviously are.
So 1 baneling can't kill anything, what does this prove? First of all it can kill a marine that stimmed so it isn't true in the first place, but in order to play your game I could say 1 marine can't kill an immortal. Yeah, that's right, marines counter immortals but 1 can't beat an immortal, it doesn't prove anything lol.
As for your speed "argument", Zergs seem to forget that a marine loses 10HP everytime it stims. Stim also requires micro whilst moving banelings towards marines requires 1 click.
You then continue to compare marines to zerglings and how marines do more damage ...
Not only is it a bullshit comparison, you also fail to mention that you get 2 Zerglings for the same price as 1 marine which together deal more damage than a marine, are faster and have more HP combined. I know that doesn't prove anything but apparently it's the way you reason.
I'm kinda getting bored of Zergs that are still popping into every thread concerning TvZ and claim every one of Terrans units is overpowered. Even when Terrans are losing left and right and are clueless on how to beat Zergs at the moment. Your golden times of Upness are over, get over it.
The OP shows that roaches are an even better answer to marines than before the patch. Until the marines are on the field in overwhelming numbers and upgrades, you can rely on pure roach if you wanted to (even though some banelings would blow them up cost effectively).
|
On October 31 2010 03:16 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2010 03:13 PanzerKing wrote:On October 31 2010 03:07 Fruscainte wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Want to balance your Starcraft 2?
Step 1) Create completely innovative strategies (IE: Marine + Raven) Step 2) Post it on Team Liquid Step 3) Have everybody bash it because they have this autistic generated idea of "hard counters" Step 4) Get no progression in the game at all in terms of strategies Step 5) Blame Blizzard
Honestly guys, think realistically here. You should at least try it a bit before you go "YEAH BUT 2 BANELINGS COUNTER 5 BILLION MARINES THEREFORE IT'S NOT VIABLE LOL!" I can't only be the one who saw that [G]Marine/Raven in the Strategy Forum, saw it being used in top top Diamond, and used it themselves in Ladder with success. What people don't understand is that if you're going MASS marine, you can support 6-8 raxes with half of them with Reactors easily. So you're pumping out like 15 marines per production cycle, and all your spending on your army is minerals. While the zerg is burning gas on Infestors and Banelings.
That's the point of going mass marine. You consistently pressure the zerg, make them waste larvae on gas units (IE: Banelings, Infestors, Mutalisks, Roaches, Hydra's) while you expand and get a Raven force. And they can't just counter push you, because guess what: When your push finishes, you got 25 more marines next to your nat with like 4 Ravens and you push out again. You're trading minerals (which are easily sustained with MULE's) for gas.
I'm not saying it's the perfect strategy, or that it's going to revolutionize the game, but stop seeing a strategy and then pulling out this preconceived idea of "HURRRRR HARD COUNTERS!!!!!!!! THEREFORE IT DOESN'T WORK LOOOOOL!!!!!" I mean shit, I could pull the same cards for PvT and say that since HT's can feedback a Ghost, EMP is fine. Or that since Vikings can shoot Colossi and Colossi can't shoot back, they hard counter so Colossi are useless in PvT. It's ridiculous. Yes, Banelings and Infestors absolutely destroy Marines. But you're macroing up so hard, and your Ravens can do so many lulzy things with Auto Turrets, PDD, and HSM when you get about 7 of them, you just overwhelm the Zerg . If Infestors didn't pretty much hard-counter this strategy, progamers would be using it. If you think they haven't tried it, in almost every possible iteration, you're kidding yourself. They don't use it because the strategy isn't very good - it simply gets demolished by good infestor micro - all it takes is a single FG on your mass of ravens or marines and your army is gone, and a good Z player won't let you "instantly rebuild your army" or whatever nonsense people are spewing in that thread. I don't see how you're not grasping that you're making 15 marines per production cycle. So a sizable army up in twoish production cycles, HSM one shots Infestors and Auto Turrets just rape everything. What you're implying is that the Zerg can put so much immense pressure on the T, that they can't get two production cycles of units out. The point of the strategy is not to win battles constantly, it's to wither down your opponent by making them waste larvae and waste gas (therefore delaying tech). If you're constantly getting like 20-30 marines at your doorstep with Raven support, yes, you will consistently kill off their army, but if in just 30 seconds later you got an entire force outside your doorstep again, it's eventually going to wear you down. Again, it's not perfect. Stop implying that it is, but you can't get anywhere with strategy if people go "YEAH UH, SORRY BUT X UNIT COUNTERS Y UNIT THEREFORE THIS STRATEGY WILL NEVER WORK LOL"
Your marine/raven force maybe be able to apply "continual pressure" but you're not going to be cost-effective against a Z player with good infestor micro. You will be losing more than you kill as soon as he lands a couple decent FGs. At that point, he can either continue to outmass you until he simply walks into your base and shits on the ~20-30 marines and handful of ravens that you have defending, or he'll simply tech up to ultras and wipe out your entire army without losing anything the next time he lands a FG.
That's not to say that a combination of marines and ravens is never effective, but to suggest that you can build an army around just these two units in the mid and late-game without transitioning is just absurd.
EDIT: And there's no point in saying "SM one-shots infestors!" Seeker Missile is range 6 and Fungal Growth is range 9 with 2 radius, you're not going to be sniping infestors against a competent Z who's spread creep and looks at his minimap.
|
Canada1637 Posts
I love how people say spread marines, true it works especially against banelings, but whoever is saying spread marines tvp doesn't have a clue... yeah I'll spread my range 5 unit to counter their range 9 unit? Marine DPS is so high because they can clump up and all fire together, if you're spreading them tvp your dps gets wrecked (same reason even if you dodge a storm damage is still done), spreading is really only effective against banelings, and even then you need to be pushing creep back, you can't allow the z to have baneling speed+creep, and as Z start using baneling drops more, it will only get worse. I'm not saying banelings are broken, I think they might be slightly too cost effective late game, but I think T needs to move away from marines more than anything else. IMO if a good Z scouts tank heavy play they will just rely on drops, whereas if its not tank heavy, creep+baneling speed>marines.
|
|
|
|