|
So i was in the ustream channels watching reps and stuff and came across a channel where people were chatting about sc2. Now some newer people were asking for advice and people were giving all the wrong advice.
"marauders are amazing vs zealots early game there really is no point in making zealots against a T early game"
...
except for the fact that marauders do 10 damage to zealots and with forcefield get absolutely fucking wrecked. They then proceeded to tell me that I can't just compare unit statistics and that you can stim marauders through forcefields.
Just wtf guys...I understand everyone may not be as addicted to the game as I am, but to say something as stupid as that just makes me want to punch a hole in the wall. I wish there was some sort of way we could like just delete these people from the internet because they are gonna be all the reasons why sc2 is gonna fucking suck big balls.
 
|
are you not used to the internet yet? everyone spreads misinformation everywhere
|
Hmm...
To those people, they are giving them good, quality advice
You can correct them and show them why, but other than that as long as they think they are correct, they will keep giving other people "good advice"
|
thats why you come to TL! where the sc elitists come and where people who post stupid/wrong advice get deleted ^^
|
relax its not like everyone's going to suck at the game
and marauders ARE amazing versus zealots early game, you just added the sentries into your side of the argument. but 3 marauders vs 3 zealots would be an easy marauder win even for someone in gold.
before you think you're king of beta you should analyze your own view of things
|
How many people were watching? It just sucks that people are going to think things like that. But in really early games situations I see so many naive terrans who kite and target the zealot. Much better is kiting and targeting the stalker, it goes down in far less hits.
|
Nah, what's going to ruin SC2 is that you, and people like you, think that someone shouldn't be allowed to talk about something if someone else thinks they are wrong.
|
Hahaha you let that bother you?
|
On July 25 2010 01:59 Chronopolis wrote:
How many people were watching? It just sucks that people are going to think things like that. But in really early games situations I see so many naive terrans who kite and target the zealot. Much better is kiting and targeting the stalker, it goes down in far less hits.
someone else adding another unit to the original argument
|
On July 25 2010 02:05 mOnion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2010 01:59 Chronopolis wrote:
How many people were watching? It just sucks that people are going to think things like that. But in really early games situations I see so many naive terrans who kite and target the zealot. Much better is kiting and targeting the stalker, it goes down in far less hits. someone else adding another unit to the original argument
Well, when do you have pure zealots or pure in early-game pvt?
"there really is no point in making zealots against a T early game"
|
Let the wrong advice spread imo, more noobs to rape on bnet is never a bad thing, it provides for some hilarious BM and a good self-confidence boost 
See the thing is, bad players are going to be bad even if you tell them "immortals kill roaches", and good players already don't need the advice, because it's so basic, it's innate for them to know it.
"The answers you seek lie within!" Improvement will always come from the individual's willingness to learn, not from outside advice.
|
On July 25 2010 02:07 Chronopolis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2010 02:05 mOnion wrote:On July 25 2010 01:59 Chronopolis wrote:
How many people were watching? It just sucks that people are going to think things like that. But in really early games situations I see so many naive terrans who kite and target the zealot. Much better is kiting and targeting the stalker, it goes down in far less hits. someone else adding another unit to the original argument Well, when do you have pure zealots or pure in early-game pvt? "there really is no point in making zealots against a T early game"
exactly you would never have pure zealots early game for the exact reason THAT marauders are good against them
im just pointing out this fallacy that I see TIME and TIME again in the sc2 forum
"banshees are good against zealots"
"no they're not cuz stalker support rapes banshees"
"...but I just said zealots"
over and over
|
isnt he kind of right? making zealots early game against terran does kinda render useless
and also adding to monions point, pure marauder rips pure zealot anyday.
|
How are they going to ruin the game? I was unaware that people talking about a game would somehow cause everyone to listen to this wrong advice and suddenly suck at the game.
Besides, that's not exactly terrible advice. Marauders with their concussive shells upgrade should be able to take out zealots fairly easily in the early game. Obviously there is a point to early zealots versus Terran, especially with sentries, but marauders can definitely do well against just zealots, and isn't that what that guy was talking about?
|
"marauders are amazing vs zealots early game there really is no point in making zealots against a T early game"
According to OP, thats what the people where saying. Since we are talking about the game itself and what to make, it is vital to consider other units. This isn't a discussion of mauraders v zealots early game, its a claim about what can be made in the early game; which means you need to consider what can else can be used. If forcefield enables zealots to be effective against maruaders early game, that certainly weakens the claim of the person the OP was arguing with.
|
On July 25 2010 02:13 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +"marauders are amazing vs zealots early game there really is no point in making zealots against a T early game" According to OP, thats what the people where saying. Since we are talking about the game itself and what to make, it is vital to consider other units. This isn't a discussion of mauraders v zealots early game, its a claim about what can be made in the early game; which means you need to consider what can else can be used. If forcefield enables zealots to be effective against maruaders early game, that certainly weakens the claim of the person the OP was arguing with.
no.
if the statement was
"you should only make pure marauders early game because they are great against zealots"
then obviously it would be a false conclusion and it would be vital to consider other units.
but this IS a discussion of mara vs lot early game. you're reading it wrong.
|
It was bad advice, zealot /sentry is pretty staple vs marauders. Let the silly advice spread, it makes laddering easier :/
|
Strat forum for BW is like that too....low level D players thinking they can give good advice cause they watch progamer reps and think that makes them knowledgeable. Thing with starcraft is that the game is deceptively simple until you actually try to play it.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
I think we're going to be a bit more liberal with the sc2strat forum ban upon release
|
Some advice I learned watching BW that might find application in SC2:
If you find yourself watching Starcraft and you start hearing words, then realize that those words aren't coming from the game but from a commentator, and then your notice that those words are comprehensible to you because they are in English, you must ask yourself a few simple questions: 1) Does this English commentator have any fucking clue or is he just trying to snap up some efame? 2) Why am I listening to this? 3) Isn't there a stream in Russian or Chinese or something less gruesome I can watch? 4) What albums have I downloaded recently?
The phrase "English commentator" has long been wrought with negative connotations. Stick only to watching the finest or turn off the nerd on the other end.
|
On July 25 2010 02:17 Tabbris wrote:
It was bad advice, zealot /sentry is pretty staple vs marauders. Let the silly advice spread makes laddering easier :/
it happened again
we're at what, 4 times on that one page? and this isn't even the actual sc2 forums
|
there are no 100% right advices, only 100% false advices. marauders with concussive shells are strong against nearly every gate unit, with micro.
for example:
zealots < marauders (with micro on T side) zealots > marauders (without micro on T side)
sentrys < marauders
stalkers = marauders
stalkers + zealots > marauders
stalkers + zealots + sentrys >> marauders
now you can make the same thing for the terran side. Right now there is no 100% right way to play, thats why you see so many different opening and strategies. the players only know the right counter unit composition at the moment. wait 3months and you will get some 100% right advices how to play.
as an other example watch TLO. i really dislike his style of play, because i think some weeks/months after release you wont see him ever go far in any tournament. his style is based on cheese and micro but bad multitask. thats why you see him often tech to BC, its not because the strategie is super, its because he cant spend his money in time and is too slow to use more units with less HP, but it works for him atm.
at the same time i like to see people like idra, nony and white-ra, they have a more solid ground of skill and i think that will help to stay longer on top.
if you want some short time success with less work, play like TLO
if you want long time success with much and hard work, play like IdrA
now you could tell me that i am wrong, but I think its all about the angle how you look at something ( point of view? or how you call it. i hope you understand what i want/try to say =( )
|
On July 25 2010 02:23 mOnion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2010 02:17 Tabbris wrote:
It was bad advice, zealot /sentry is pretty staple vs marauders. Let the silly advice spread makes laddering easier :/ it happened again we're at what, 4 times on that one page? and this isn't even the actual sc2 forums
The Argument was That you shouldest make zealots in the early game which is untrue. What point are u trying to make? Are you just arguing marauders are good vs zealots early game? That wasn't the complete advice
Here let me bold it for you
"marauders are amazing vs zealots early game there really is no point in making zealots against a T early game"
|
On July 25 2010 02:28 Tabbris wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2010 02:23 mOnion wrote:On July 25 2010 02:17 Tabbris wrote:
It was bad advice, zealot /sentry is pretty staple vs marauders. Let the silly advice spread makes laddering easier :/ it happened again we're at what, 4 times on that one page? and this isn't even the actual sc2 forums The Argument was That you shouldest make zealots in the early game which is untrue. What point are u trying to make? Are you just arguing marauders are good vs zealots early game? That wasn't the complete advice Here let me bold it for you Show nested quote +"marauders are amazing vs zealots early game there really is no point in making zealots against a T early game"
ya I understand that, but the way people are presenting their sides of the argument aren't conducive to reaching an appropriate solution
nvm i'm fighting a losing battle here anyway
|
On July 25 2010 02:34 mOnion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2010 02:28 Tabbris wrote:On July 25 2010 02:23 mOnion wrote:On July 25 2010 02:17 Tabbris wrote:
It was bad advice, zealot /sentry is pretty staple vs marauders. Let the silly advice spread makes laddering easier :/ it happened again we're at what, 4 times on that one page? and this isn't even the actual sc2 forums The Argument was That you shouldest make zealots in the early game which is untrue. What point are u trying to make? Are you just arguing marauders are good vs zealots early game? That wasn't the complete advice Here let me bold it for you "marauders are amazing vs zealots early game there really is no point in making zealots against a T early game" ya I understand that, but the way people are presenting their sides of the argument aren't conducive to reaching an appropriate solution nvm i'm fighting a losing battle here anyway
I'm sorry im trying really hard to figure out what your saying 
|
On July 25 2010 02:16 mOnion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2010 02:13 L_Master wrote:"marauders are amazing vs zealots early game there really is no point in making zealots against a T early game" According to OP, thats what the people where saying. Since we are talking about the game itself and what to make, it is vital to consider other units. This isn't a discussion of mauraders v zealots early game, its a claim about what can be made in the early game; which means you need to consider what can else can be used. If forcefield enables zealots to be effective against maruaders early game, that certainly weakens the claim of the person the OP was arguing with. no. if the statement was "you should only make pure marauders early game because they are great against zealots" then obviously it would be a false conclusion and it would be vital to consider other units. but this IS a discussion of mara vs lot early game. you're reading it wrong.
The person states that there is no point in making zealots against T early game. Okay, I suppose you could argue that he is literally meaning there is no point in making pure zealot early game, which is true because of marauders. However, I really don't think that is what he means, though if he is super ignornant he might not understand about sentries and would think that zealots can't have use at all early game.
If he is giving that as advice though, to not make zealots early game v T, thats bad advice either way. If he knows about forcefield then I don't have any idea why he would say that, and if he doesn't its still bad advice because zealots can have a use early game PvT.
|
On July 25 2010 02:19 Plexa wrote:
I think we're going to be a bit more liberal with the sc2strat forum ban upon release
Woohoo! I already feel like a mod patrolling for idiots and correcting them. I feel for ya guys.
|
I guess this entire thread is just proving the title of the blog :X
On topic, zealots are very bad early game vs marauders and are only decent with zeal/sentry. Even then, the DPS of marauders with stim will just rip through them. The guys advice wasn't too bad.
|
Once you get bothered by mindfucked people talking about stuff they know absolutely nothin' about, you've lost the battle!
|
On July 25 2010 02:23 AmstAff wrote:
there are no 100% right advices, only 100% false advices. marauders with concussive shells are strong against nearly every gate unit, with micro.
for example:
zealots < marauders (with micro on T side) zealots > marauders (without micro on T side)
sentrys < marauders
stalkers = marauders
stalkers + zealots > marauders
stalkers + zealots + sentrys >> marauders
now you can make the same thing for the terran side. Right now there is no 100% right way to play, thats why you see so many different opening and strategies. the players only know the right counter unit composition at the moment. wait 3months and you will get some 100% right advices how to play.
as an other example watch TLO. i really dislike his style of play, because i think some weeks/months after release you wont see him ever go far in any tournament. his style is based on cheese and micro but bad multitask. thats why you see him often tech to BC, its not because the strategie is super, its because he cant spend his money in time and is too slow to use more units with less HP, but it works for him atm.
at the same time i like to see people like idra, nony and white-ra, they have a more solid ground of skill and i think that will help to stay longer on top.
if you want some short time success with less work, play like TLO
if you want long time success with much and hard work, play like IdrA
now you could tell me that i am wrong, but I think its all about the angle how you look at something ( point of view? or how you call it. i hope you understand what i want/try to say =( )
I completely disagree with your entire post, which is kinda funny.
Stalkers lose to marauders 1v1 and cost a lot more. NOT including stim(!) or emp. So stalkers < marauders.
Now having zealots infront of stalkers lets him micro vs your zealots and avoid your stalkers so it doesn't help a lot so cost wise zealot/stalker<marauders.
Zealot/sentry or zealot/sentry/stalker can compete against marauders, but why make stalkers when you want more zealots/sentries anyway? (250/100 = 2 lot 1 sentry/2 stalker) If you have enough forcefields you shouldn't need any more range units than sentries.
TLO has proved time and time again he has one of the best multitasks in the game. He NEVER cheeses at all, I've seen him reaper rush once, no proxys, early pools, baneling busts, roach busts. Nothing. He does a LOT of harass (which takes multitask) and then macros hard with defensive play.
|
On July 25 2010 03:00 YoureFired wrote:
I guess this entire thread is just proving the title of the blog :X
On topic, zealots are very bad early game vs marauders and are only decent with zeal/sentry. Even then, the DPS of marauders with stim will just rip through them. The guys advice wasn't too bad.
...
lol wtf? The only way a marauder will win vs a zealot early game is if you can kite it. No kite = marauder gets fucked with stim, with shells. Marauders do less damage even WITH stim against zealots then marines do. Please learn the game before you comment and yes his advice was fucking terrible.
|
On July 25 2010 01:55 Trowabarton756 wrote:
but to say something as stupid as that just makes me want to punch a hole in the wall.
You should have done that, rather than making a whiny blog post.
|
On July 25 2010 03:26 Trowabarton756 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2010 03:00 YoureFired wrote:
I guess this entire thread is just proving the title of the blog :X
On topic, zealots are very bad early game vs marauders and are only decent with zeal/sentry. Even then, the DPS of marauders with stim will just rip through them. The guys advice wasn't too bad. ... lol wtf? The only way a marauder will win vs a zealot early game is if you can kite it. No kite = marauder gets fucked with stim, with shells. Marauders do less damage even WITH stim against zealots then marines do. Please learn the game before you comment and yes his advice was fucking terrible.
Who doesn't kite with marauders? and even if force fields are used, the marauders slow down the zealots and stop any sort of surround. I forgot to say that marines are also in the mix, behind the marauders, if the terran is competent.
Any time I tried to use mass gateway units versus marauder/marine, I was killed due to the fact that marauders and marines do sooo much damage, even if they're forcefielded.
Don't flame so much, no need to be a complete and utter prick.
|
Stream chats are the "fringe" channels of team liquid man. It's like the wild west out there. It's better to ignore, or make a strong point and then ignore.
|
On July 25 2010 02:19 Plexa wrote:
I think we're going to be a bit more liberal with the sc2strat forum ban upon release
God I hope so... unleash the banlings!
|
+ Show Spoiler +On July 25 2010 03:25 Slayer91 wrote:On July 25 2010 02:23 AmstAff wrote:
there are no 100% right advices, only 100% false advices. marauders with concussive shells are strong against nearly every gate unit, with micro.
for example:
zealots < marauders (with micro on T side) zealots > marauders (without micro on T side)
sentrys < marauders
stalkers = marauders
stalkers + zealots > marauders
stalkers + zealots + sentrys >> marauders
now you can make the same thing for the terran side. Right now there is no 100% right way to play, thats why you see so many different opening and strategies. the players only know the right counter unit composition at the moment. wait 3months and you will get some 100% right advices how to play.
as an other example watch TLO. i really dislike his style of play, because i think some weeks/months after release you wont see him ever go far in any tournament. his style is based on cheese and micro but bad multitask. thats why you see him often tech to BC, its not because the strategie is super, its because he cant spend his money in time and is too slow to use more units with less HP, but it works for him atm.
at the same time i like to see people like idra, nony and white-ra, they have a more solid ground of skill and i think that will help to stay longer on top.
if you want some short time success with less work, play like TLO
if you want long time success with much and hard work, play like IdrA
now you could tell me that i am wrong, but I think its all about the angle how you look at something ( point of view? or how you call it. i hope you understand what i want/try to say =( ) I completely disagree with your entire post, which is kinda funny. Stalkers lose to marauders 1v1 and cost a lot more. NOT including stim(!) or emp. So stalkers < marauders. Now having zealots infront of stalkers lets him micro vs your zealots and avoid your stalkers so it doesn't help a lot so cost wise zealot/stalker<marauders. Zealot/sentry or zealot/sentry/stalker can compete against marauders, but why make stalkers when you want more zealots/sentries anyway? (250/100 = 2 lot 1 sentry/2 stalker) If you have enough forcefields you shouldn't need any more range units than sentries. TLO has proved time and time again he has one of the best multitasks in the game. He NEVER cheeses at all, I've seen him reaper rush once, no proxys, early pools, baneling busts, roach busts. Nothing. He does a LOT of harass (which takes multitask) and then macros hard with defensive play.
dunno how you want to stop 2 rax marauder with sentry/zeal and i dont understand your "zealots block stalker" thing.
since the THREAD-starter was writing about the early game, i thought it makes sense to talk about the early game.
so if he is going to pressure you a little bit late and you have enough time, its best to get all 3 gate units to split his marauders on the ramp running in with zeals as meatshield and killing with stalkers/sentrys and maybe microing the zeals back. when the mauders on top of the ramp die the terran will lose sight and you stopped the push.
if the terran is just sending his first marauder directly in your base its better to get a zeal first to buy time. as you mentioned marauders are a little bit more costeffective than stalkers and they nearly kill each other so get a zeal as meatshield and kill the marauder with the stalker.
note that the zealot is just and only meatshield, while the stalker is the damage dealer.
the stalker is fater than both, zeal and marauder so i really dont understand the "block thing".
maybe you can enlighten me or tell me how you deal with 2 rax marauder rushes (maybe 1 of them proxy rax). some people even send 2-3 scv with the first 2 marauders.
|
On July 25 2010 02:10 mOnion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2010 02:07 Chronopolis wrote:On July 25 2010 02:05 mOnion wrote:On July 25 2010 01:59 Chronopolis wrote:
How many people were watching? It just sucks that people are going to think things like that. But in really early games situations I see so many naive terrans who kite and target the zealot. Much better is kiting and targeting the stalker, it goes down in far less hits. someone else adding another unit to the original argument Well, when do you have pure zealots or pure in early-game pvt? "there really is no point in making zealots against a T early game" exactly you would never have pure zealots early game for the exact reason THAT marauders are good against them im just pointing out this fallacy that I see TIME and TIME again in the sc2 forum "banshees are good against zealots" "no they're not cuz stalker support rapes banshees" "...but I just said zealots" over and over
Your example is flawed not applicable to this statement.
"marauders are amazing vs zealots early game
This is only true with pure zealots, and no where in this statment does the speaker exclude the possibility of unit mixes
there really is no point in making zealots against a T early game"
This is obviously untrue, I don't think I need an example to disvalidate this.
With stalker+zealots, the unit combination peforms FAR better against marauder than pure zealot OR pure stalker alone.
|
Yeah TL is one of the only online gaming forums where what people are talking about makes sense and is good advice. This is usually the case in BW strategy at least. You should have become used to the bad advice elsewhere.
If you're not check out creepcolony
http://www.creepcolony.com/.
|
On July 25 2010 02:19 Plexa wrote:
I think we're going to be a bit more liberal with the sc2strat forum ban upon release
Please do.
Strike fear once again :D
|
oh god we can't contain it
|
Blog went downhill fast T.T
|
On July 25 2010 06:21 Tabbris wrote:
Blog went downhill fast T.T
It already started off downhill.
|
On July 25 2010 02:19 Plexa wrote:
I think we're going to be a bit more liberal with the sc2strat forum ban upon release
Oh I hope so.
And for the OP, the best you can do is just politely correct them and explain your argument fluently. Or ignore them.
|
On July 25 2010 03:26 Trowabarton756 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2010 03:00 YoureFired wrote:
I guess this entire thread is just proving the title of the blog :X
On topic, zealots are very bad early game vs marauders and are only decent with zeal/sentry. Even then, the DPS of marauders with stim will just rip through them. The guys advice wasn't too bad. ... lol wtf? The only way a marauder will win vs a zealot early game is if you can kite it. No kite = marauder gets fucked with stim, with shells. Marauders do less damage even WITH stim against zealots then marines do. Please learn the game before you comment and yes his advice was fucking terrible.
You are just proving more and more that you dont really know what you are talking about. You are saying a maurader will only win vs a zealot if he kites it, which if the player has any form of common sense at all WILL KITE THE ZEALOT every time. Why wouldn't he kite it? Seriously, you are assuming someone will just run their maurader into a zealot and not micro it at all? The point of getting shells early is specifically TO KITE UNITS.
Lastly, once again you are proving that you're kinda clueless. Mauraders do worse with stim? Are you being serious right now? The point in stimming a maurader vs a zealot is to capitalize on THE KITING. You stim and kite, allowing more than just 1 shot, you can kite 1 shot, and stand still for 1 shot, then kite 1 shot, then stand still due to the shooting/moving speed of a stimmed maurader.
If you are actually sitting here attempting to argue that a zealot beats a maurader, then you honostly are the newbie giving bad advice.
BTW watch a few MorroW replays (his games against socke) He opens with really fast 1 rax maurader rush with really fast shells. He moves out with 2 mauraders, and it absolutely rapes any units attempting to attack him. If mauraders were really that bad against zealots, this build would be totally useless, yet it's actually really strong. Go do some research.
|
I don't know about you... but my Marauders are amazing vs Zealots. They get slowed and they basically have no chance. Sure force field, that just prevents your zealots from being able to attack me.
|
On July 25 2010 05:43 AmstAff wrote:Show nested quote ++ Show Spoiler +On July 25 2010 03:25 Slayer91 wrote:On July 25 2010 02:23 AmstAff wrote:
there are no 100% right advices, only 100% false advices. marauders with concussive shells are strong against nearly every gate unit, with micro.
for example:
zealots < marauders (with micro on T side) zealots > marauders (without micro on T side)
sentrys < marauders
stalkers = marauders
stalkers + zealots > marauders
stalkers + zealots + sentrys >> marauders
now you can make the same thing for the terran side. Right now there is no 100% right way to play, thats why you see so many different opening and strategies. the players only know the right counter unit composition at the moment. wait 3months and you will get some 100% right advices how to play.
as an other example watch TLO. i really dislike his style of play, because i think some weeks/months after release you wont see him ever go far in any tournament. his style is based on cheese and micro but bad multitask. thats why you see him often tech to BC, its not because the strategie is super, its because he cant spend his money in time and is too slow to use more units with less HP, but it works for him atm.
at the same time i like to see people like idra, nony and white-ra, they have a more solid ground of skill and i think that will help to stay longer on top.
if you want some short time success with less work, play like TLO
if you want long time success with much and hard work, play like IdrA
now you could tell me that i am wrong, but I think its all about the angle how you look at something ( point of view? or how you call it. i hope you understand what i want/try to say =( ) I completely disagree with your entire post, which is kinda funny. Stalkers lose to marauders 1v1 and cost a lot more. NOT including stim(!) or emp. So stalkers < marauders. Now having zealots infront of stalkers lets him micro vs your zealots and avoid your stalkers so it doesn't help a lot so cost wise zealot/stalker<marauders. Zealot/sentry or zealot/sentry/stalker can compete against marauders, but why make stalkers when you want more zealots/sentries anyway? (250/100 = 2 lot 1 sentry/2 stalker) If you have enough forcefields you shouldn't need any more range units than sentries. TLO has proved time and time again he has one of the best multitasks in the game. He NEVER cheeses at all, I've seen him reaper rush once, no proxys, early pools, baneling busts, roach busts. Nothing. He does a LOT of harass (which takes multitask) and then macros hard with defensive play. dunno how you want to stop 2 rax marauder with sentry/zeal and i dont understand your "zealots block stalker" thing. since the THREAD-starter was writing about the early game, i thought it makes sense to talk about the early game. so if he is going to pressure you a little bit late and you have enough time, its best to get all 3 gate units to split his marauders on the ramp running in with zeals as meatshield and killing with stalkers/sentrys and maybe microing the zeals back. when the mauders on top of the ramp die the terran will lose sight and you stopped the push. if the terran is just sending his first marauder directly in your base its better to get a zeal first to buy time. as you mentioned marauders are a little bit more costeffective than stalkers and they nearly kill each other so get a zeal as meatshield and kill the marauder with the stalker. note that the zealot is just and only meatshield, while the stalker is the damage dealer. the stalker is fater than both, zeal and marauder so i really dont understand the "block thing". maybe you can enlighten me or tell me how you deal with 2 rax marauder rushes (maybe 1 of them proxy rax). some people even send 2-3 scv with the first 2 marauders.
If we're talking early game you just get stalkers or zealots only with maybe 1 sentry to forcefield the ramp, i guess we're agreeing then. I figured since you were talking about unit composition you meant later on.
Stalkers are still worse than marauders but chrono boost gives you enough of a boost that any really fast proxy barracks or something you can defend because once you get warpgates out or a stargate he's in trouble.
|
On July 25 2010 08:07 vnlegend wrote:
I don't know about you... but my Marauders are amazing vs Zealots. They get slowed and they basically have no chance. Sure force field, that just prevents your zealots from being able to attack me.
/facepalm
If we're talking early game you just get stalkers or zealots only with maybe 1 sentry to forcefield the ramp, i guess we're agreeing then. I figured since you were talking about unit composition you meant later on.
Stalkers are still worse than marauders but chrono boost gives you enough of a boost that any really fast proxy barracks or something you can defend because once you get warpgates out or a stargate he's in trouble.
It rly depends wut build your going. I rly like pumping out early sentrys if Im gonna take my double gas early and have maybe 2/3 zealots. You pump sentrys very fast in the early game so you have the energy to do a timing push or if you just want to have a good army in the mid game b/c building sentrys later than the midgame isnt rly viable now. If your only taking 1 gas tho for a 4gate or really fast 3 gate expand then stalkers are defiently the better choice. Or if u have to deal with a proxy barracks
|
I think the lesson here is that pride comes before a fall.
|
Marauders suck without concussive shells dude. I feel your pain and you can't correct idiots because "there always right..."
|
On July 25 2010 02:19 Plexa wrote:
I think we're going to be a bit more liberal with the sc2strat forum ban upon release
Why would you do that?
|
The more people are misinformed, the more you can win.
thats why people troll strats strategies.
if they are clueless, leave em alone? doesnt matter if everyone else does worse than you does it?
|
Marauders aside, the UStream chat channels are full of a few people who sort of know what they are talking about, and a lot of people who have no idea what they are talking about. Taking game advice from a UStream chat channel is like taking fitness advice from Chris Farley.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
