|
On October 31 2010 03:30 PanzerKing wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2010 03:16 Fruscainte wrote: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.
You realize that the player we're talking about in those replays faced Roach/Infestor/Bling and won pretty much every single one of those games. He had more workers, more minerals, and more gas then the Z did, and was ahead on upgrades the entire time because the Z player was forced to make tons of gas units and he couldn't upgrade at all. Eventually he just ran out of larvae and couldn't keep up.
|
Why the fuck are people arguing about banelings vs marines or Marine/raven ?
Stay on topic and discuss that stuff elsewhere.
I'd love to see tests with +1 carapace and +2 carapace.
|
On October 31 2010 03:42 ChickenLips wrote: Why the fuck are people arguing about banelings vs marines or Marine/raven ?
Stay on topic and discuss that stuff elsewhere.
I'd love to see tests with +1 carapace and +2 carapace.
With +2 Roaches murder Marines pretty badly, but the issue is that getting +2 means you are delaying your tech or cutting into Infestor/Bling count which is really important in fighting Marine heavy armies.
|
It should be known that marines en masse are actually the biggest ranged dps that you can get. Thats why there is stuff like banelings and storms. But thats besides the point.
Great information. I never knew that roaches fared that mediocre against lots of marines. However I like to get +1 ranged attack and quickly move to +2 because roaches are so amazing at defending versus thor pushes. I would love to see how +2 roaches do versus marines but I think the difference is marginal.
|
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. Show nested quote +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?
Except for the zealots, all you listed was splash damage attacks. Which is exactly what the guy you quoted was talking about. *fp*
|
Dunno, I think the main problem is rather that the roach is more universally good than the blings. Sure the blings might be better against rines, but roaches can deal with mech play too. Also at the numbers where marines start to outshine roaches the most(32 with both upgrades), you are likely able to afford a few banes too, which will make the rines micro a lot more intense and if nothing else, makes them have to split their concave/ball formation and loose some dps.
I personally thought rines did worse mind, but the larger comparisons aren't the best example of ingame practise, similar to husky's comparison a while back of rauder vs each type of gateway unit wasn't really reflecting how things go ingame.
|
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?
A couple infestors plus fungal growth eat marines for breakfast. If u see terran marching out, send a few sacrificial lings out to force the marines to clump up for better fungal growth; As someone else said, if they spread too much they are vulnerable to speedling surrounds.
|
On October 31 2010 03:30 PanzerKing wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2010 03:16 Fruscainte wrote: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" 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.
That's the point batman.
You push out with your first Raven and STOP CREEP TUMORS. You go to his nat, and kill off his creep spread. If there is none, great. If there is, which there usually is, you can usually stop his entire creep wave and bring it all the way back to his hatch at his nat or pretty damn close to it. The main purpose of the build is to STOP CREEP. It just feels like the Z is trading his entire army of banelings and potentially losing his infestors to Auto Turrets + HSM (IE: Heavy Gas down the drain) for only taking down a marine army (IE: Only minerals, which are plenty a ton for Terrans)
Again, I'm not implying this is the son of Zeus or something. You're right, if a Z can spread creep well, get really nice Fungal Growths consistently and do good with banelings, he will win. But if he lets himself get pressured and overwhelmed and out teched, he will lose. It's like any other build, it has a lot of strengths and a decent amount of weaknesses to be exploited. Every strategy has a glaring counter to it, does not make it not viable. (lol double negative)
But we should take this to PM, if you so incline to further debate instead of murking up this thread.
|
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. Show nested quote +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?
notice he said non-splash.
|
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. Show nested quote +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?
he said other than splash units. storm and fg are both splash.... did i mention zealots suck vs marines lol.
|
On October 31 2010 07:53 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2010 03:30 PanzerKing wrote:On October 31 2010 03:16 Fruscainte wrote: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" 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. That's the point batman. You push out with your first Raven and STOP CREEP TUMORS. You go to his nat, and kill off his creep spread. If there is none, great. If there is, which there usually is, you can usually stop his entire creep wave and bring it all the way back to his hatch at his nat or pretty damn close to it. The main purpose of the build is to STOP CREEP. It just feels like the Z is trading his entire army of banelings and potentially losing his infestors to Auto Turrets + HSM (IE: Heavy Gas down the drain) for only taking down a marine army (IE: Only minerals, which are plenty a ton for Terrans) Again, I'm not implying this is the son of Zeus or something. You're right, if a Z can spread creep well, get really nice Fungal Growths consistently and do good with banelings, he will win. But if he lets himself get pressured and overwhelmed and out teched, he will lose. It's like any other build, it has a lot of strengths and a decent amount of weaknesses to be exploited. Every strategy has a glaring counter to it, does not make it not viable. (lol double negative) But we should take this to PM, if you so incline to further debate instead of murking up this thread.
Honestly, this thread was moot from the beginning. Everyone knows that you need splash to counter stimmed marines, cost-effectively (although BCs do fairly well.) And these sorts of charts don't account for terrain, presence or absence of creep, target acquisition/overkill, etc., so they're of limited value in any comparison.
But that said, I don't want to take the mass rine thing any further. I've tried it, won against some 1800 Z, lost many more than I won. When I see Korean progamers using it in a tournament with money on the line, I'll believe that it's viable, but until then, IMO it's just a lopsided strat that relies on your opponent making mistakes, which can never really be the basis of a good build.
|
On October 31 2010 13:59 PanzerKing wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2010 07:53 Fruscainte wrote:On October 31 2010 03:30 PanzerKing wrote:On October 31 2010 03:16 Fruscainte wrote: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" 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. That's the point batman. You push out with your first Raven and STOP CREEP TUMORS. You go to his nat, and kill off his creep spread. If there is none, great. If there is, which there usually is, you can usually stop his entire creep wave and bring it all the way back to his hatch at his nat or pretty damn close to it. The main purpose of the build is to STOP CREEP. It just feels like the Z is trading his entire army of banelings and potentially losing his infestors to Auto Turrets + HSM (IE: Heavy Gas down the drain) for only taking down a marine army (IE: Only minerals, which are plenty a ton for Terrans) Again, I'm not implying this is the son of Zeus or something. You're right, if a Z can spread creep well, get really nice Fungal Growths consistently and do good with banelings, he will win. But if he lets himself get pressured and overwhelmed and out teched, he will lose. It's like any other build, it has a lot of strengths and a decent amount of weaknesses to be exploited. Every strategy has a glaring counter to it, does not make it not viable. (lol double negative) But we should take this to PM, if you so incline to further debate instead of murking up this thread. Honestly, this thread was moot from the beginning. Everyone knows that you need splash to counter stimmed marines, cost-effectively (although BCs do fairly well.) And these sorts of charts don't account for terrain, presence or absence of creep, target acquisition/overkill, etc., so they're of limited value in any comparison. But that said, I don't want to take the mass rine thing any further. I've tried it, won against some 1800 Z, lost many more than I won. When I see Korean progamers using it in a tournament with money on the line, I'll believe that it's viable, but until then, IMO it's just a lopsided strat that relies on your opponent making mistakes, which can never really be the basis of a good build.
I can respect that.
|
On October 31 2010 04:01 Chaosvuistje wrote: I would love to see how +2 roaches do versus marines but I think the difference is marginal. +2 Attack Roaches will 3-shot a Marine with Combat shields again, unless the Marines get +1 Armor, in which case it goes back to 4-shots.
I imagine it would be quite a difference.
|
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. Show nested quote +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?
you won't mass marines versus a protoss with HT... and Marines+ somes ravens > blings+lings+infestors with a good micro.
|
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.
if a terran miss-microes ONCE, he is at a huge disadvantage. micro'ing marines to avoid baneling damage is much harder than micro'ing banelings to damage a large amount of terran bio units such as marines.
one mess-up and you are at a huge disadvantage
|
Hyrule18773 Posts
First off, the Mineral:Supply ratio of Marines:Roaches is 3:2, not 2:1. Also, you tested upgraded Marines against unupgraded Roaches. There should be tests with combinations of Speed+Burrow+Glial Reconstitution.
|
On November 01 2010 06:17 BigMEAT wrote: if a terran miss-microes ONCE, he is at a huge disadvantage. micro'ing marines to avoid baneling damage is much harder than micro'ing banelings to damage a large amount of terran bio units such as marines.
one mess-up and you are at a huge disadvantage
He's not really, the terran playstyle is so broken at this point that even losing huge balls of marines is not really detrimental. Because terrans have the best options of aggression and defense, there are very few counter-attack possibilities, and a terran can macro up another marine ball almost immediately.
|
On November 01 2010 06:17 BigMEAT wrote: if a terran miss-microes ONCE, he is at a huge disadvantage. micro'ing marines to avoid baneling damage is much harder than micro'ing banelings to damage a large amount of terran bio units such as marines.
one mess-up and you are at a huge disadvantage
He's not really, the terran playstyle is so broken at this point that even losing huge balls of marines is not really detrimental. Because terrans have the best options of aggression and defense, there are very few counter-attack possibilities, and a terran can macro up another marine ball almost immediately.
|
I think the main issue is 2 things:
1. Its in the terrans court on whether Marines and Banelings connect, besides infestors which are sometimes difficult to get good fungals down due to tanks. If the terran plays like a hero, there's not much you can do.
2. You can hold 3 marine pushes with banelings perfectly, but if you mess up once, you are going to lose a base and fall behind. Even if you win, the army you finish with is usually pretty small as all/most of your banelings are dead. If you go for a counter attack, you'll either be pushing against a PF at a third/4th, or against the natural which is where the new units are being rallied.
|
On November 20 2010 08:03 tofucake wrote: First off, the Mineral:Supply ratio of Marines:Roaches is 3:2, not 2:1. Also, you tested upgraded Marines against unupgraded Roaches. There should be tests with combinations of Speed+Burrow+Glial Reconstitution.
This. Marines that have been upgraded with stim and combat shields should demolish unupgraded roaches. I would like to see roaches with attack/armor upgrades against mass marine in the next test, because I think that would make a huge difference. I'm not sure if Burrow + Glial Reconstitution need to be tested, I don't think they're the most logical response to mass marines because marines are too mobile to be easily caught by burrowed roaches. If anyone wants to test this, though, I'd be interested in the results.
Also, there is entirely too much theorycrafting going on in this thread. Ubershmekel was kind enough to make us a nice, well-organized spreadsheet that breaks down the effectiveness of roaches vs marines. Everyone else has debated about pretty much everything but roaches vs marines. There are great discussions to be had about banelings vs marines + ravens or whatever else, but I'm not sure if this is the best place to have them.
|
|
|
|