|
Obviously inspired by the Muta thread.
A lot of the argument against the WarHound is that Marines are already more than enough AA for TvZ, and even Thors are mostly unnecessary so why are they trying to make a better Thor?
I personally have hated the Marine since beta. To keep from ranting, there is simply no reason to not make marines in SC2, even when faced with their "counter units" they are so cheap and effective that they should always be made.
As Zerg, currently, nothing in the game trumps marines. Banelings are mostly ineffective and infestors require 150 energy to kill X marines. Both units being high in gas cost and limited in their utility.
Protoss has it slightly better with the Colossus, unfortunately, that unit is just badly designed in general. HTs with storm are effective when the storm lands, unfortunately Marines move so fast, they often only take 30-40 damage before making it out, leaving them with 5hp, but their full DPS. Archons feel a lot like banelings. Nice if they hit, but generally ineffective.
TvT, I feel is actually the worst offender. Marine tank dominates the MU, and in pro games you often see silly displays of marine absurdity where one player has 10 marines and 10 siege tanks vs his opponent with 30 marines. It doesn't make sense that the 30 marines win the fight when looking at the cost of the armies, but they do... because they're marines...
So I ask: Are Marines OP? And if they are, why isn't Blizzard doing anything about it?
|
|
|
While its extremely annoying that marines only cost orbital energy, I think they make for some great game mechanics.
Marines are so dependent on micro that it adds extra to the game.
|
TvZ : energy > money, and infestors can kill so many marines so quickly it's unbelievable. Also, losing just a few marines at key times will lose a T the game outright to mutalingbling. I don't thing some people quite understand how much this matchup is on a knife-edge. Pro terrans make it a lot easier than it actually is.
TvP: 30-40 damage is still huge, and archons are extremely effective if your positioning is at all good.
TvT: I guess this showcases the worst of the marine, but realistically, in your example especially, if the opposing player is positioned even slightly well (ie. sieged), it shouldn't be a problem.
I think marines are an exciting unit with a lot of micro opportunity. Anybody who has watched Polt stim into a seemingly gargantuan army, just to make a perfect split and take out the opponents siege tanks knows just how exciting they are, and equally that they are not overpowered.
|
Are we really gonna make a thread for every unit now?
Tomorrow it's Are *insert random unit* Overpowered?
|
In the scheme of things you could claim any unit is OP given the right circumstances. Sure having 20 marines is great DPS but if 2 burrowed banelings go off then its something like 750 minerals for 100-50 and doesn't that make burrowed banelings OP now?
|
On November 01 2011 22:55 Kar98 wrote:
In the scheme of things you could claim any unit is OP given the right circumstances. Sure having 20 marines is great DPS but if 2 burrowed banelings go off then its something like 750 minerals for 100-50 and doesn't that make burrowed banelings OP now?
not really a valid comparison considering the amount of stealth detection terran has at his disposal yet refuses to use.
A more valid comparison would be banelings without speed vs marines with stim
gateway units vs conc shell
zerglings vs blue flame hellions.
|
I don't know about overpowered, but I'll call them the most versatile, cost effective unit in the game. I play random.
|
On November 01 2011 22:49 Jermstuddog wrote:
Obviously inspired by the Muta thread.
A lot of the argument against the WarHound is that Marines are already more than enough AA for TvZ, and even Thors are mostly unnecessary so why are they trying to make a better Thor?
I personally have hated the Marine since beta. To keep from ranting, there is simply no reason to not make marines in SC2, even when faced with their "counter units" they are so cheap and effective that they should always be made.
As Zerg, currently, nothing in the game trumps marines. Banelings are mostly ineffective and infestors require 150 energy to kill X marines. Both units being high in gas cost and limited in their utility.
Protoss has it slightly better with the Colossus, unfortunately, that unit is just badly designed in general. HTs with storm are effective when the storm lands, unfortunately Marines move so fast, they often only take 30-40 damage before making it out, leaving them with 5hp, but their full DPS. Archons feel a lot like banelings. Nice if they hit, but generally ineffective.
TvT, I feel is actually the worst offender. Marine tank dominates the MU, and in pro games you often see silly displays of marine absurdity where one player has 10 marines and 10 siege tanks vs his opponent with 30 marines. It doesn't make sense that the 30 marines win the fight when looking at the cost of the armies, but they do... because they're marines...
So I ask: Are Marines OP? And if they are, why isn't Blizzard doing anything about it?
Yes. Because they're afraid of removing combat shield? Why? I dunno, too lazy to balance after that?
|
no i disagree that they are overpowered. And btw, every race has there own mineral dump.
|
lol at your tvt example, i somehow skipped everything but the tvt argument but that makes ur thread invalid already so i dont bother reading the others :/
|
8 marines dropped at a Zerg's 4th or 5th makes them so cost effective it's absurd. the same amount of the same tier unit for Zerg (zergling) can't be anywhere that effective. 16 lings won't kill a planetary and an orbital will lift up. The marine is the best tier 1 unit even into the late game. When Zerg has tier 3 they become much less mobile and drops become so effective and marines are so cheap that it's a joke
|
On November 01 2011 22:49 Jermstuddog wrote:
Banelings are mostly ineffective
are you sure you are playing starcraft 2?
zerg starts with 2 expansions by default. zerg is supposed to be a race that throws billions of weak units to his opponent.
however zerg throws banelings at you and 1 baneling always has a potential to kill 10 or more marines.
baneling does not suit the game. terran is supposed to be the defender. not zerg.
|
I think marines are the best unit in the game, both in strength and in their design. They supplement the terran army so well and always make for a strong backbone, but are easily countered by themselves. They reward good unit control and have a million different uses.
That said, I think the game needs more "marines" and less "marauders and roaches". The role of the unit is fine and I wouldn't have it any other way. Tweak some numbers if you must, but do not change how the unit works.
|
On November 01 2011 22:55 Jakkerr wrote:
Are we really gonna make a thread for every unit now?
Tomorrow it's Are *insert random unit* Overpowered?
I think this is actually a valid discussion.
On paper, the Marine seems like a very valid, balanced unit
HOWEVER
When put into the hands of a skilled player, the Marine is a unit that scales very well with both Macro and Micro ability, letting skilled players turn the Marine into a very powerful, potent unit that only costs 50 Minerals and 1 Supply.
I think the main problem that exists with the Marine is that the units that most efficiently counter them all rely upon AoE damage. In order to effectively "counter the marine" to prevent it from being overpowered, I think Protoss and Zerg need a cheap, efficient RANGED answer to the Marine, that is weak against say....Hellions.
Keep in mind this is all off the top of my head and not something I've put a great amount of thought into, but you can bet I will be today, so expect me to stick around this thread for a bit.
|
Okay...
The Muta thread actually has a point about Blizzard and HotS. You're just saying that Terran has a unit that is useful in every matchup and therefore OP.
I don't even know.
|
Probably should just dedicate a subsection of the forums to [D]Overpowered, too bad the site was just revamped...sarcasm
Marines are the most micro dependent unit in SC2, they are making a "better thor" to give mech more of a backbone against mass muta because until you get ghosts out, thors really aren't the greatest AA option when a competent zerg magic boxes.
I cannot believe you discuss tvz without the infestor lol, sling bane muta is to allow for mid-early late game survivability until infestors and hive tech, you can't micro against banelings while they're fungaled ><
I cannot believe you discuss tvp without sentries...wtf good is a colossus without forcefields to STOP marines from taking them out, you speak as if every matchup takes place in a unit tester without micro.
And TvT is really a mixed bag of tricks, obviously you can open differently and end up with rine tank scenarios like you mention, but the matchup hasn't been explored enough mech-wise post patch to discern "RINE OP"
We have a dedicated balance forum btw...
|
in starcraft 1 terran turtles, in starcraft 2 zerg turtles. this is ridiculous.
|
On November 01 2011 23:02 RxBorG wrote:
8 marines dropped at a Zerg's 4th or 5th makes them so cost effective it's absurd. the same amount of the same tier unit for Zerg (zergling) can't be anywhere that effective. 16 lings won't kill a planetary and an orbital will lift up. The marine is the best tier 1 unit even into the late game. When Zerg has tier 3 they become much less mobile and drops become so effective and marines are so cheap that it's a joke
nice straw man , you pretend as if its marines alone with no tech.
This is a better argument, 1 overlord with 4 banes in it = GG all workers?
|
On November 01 2011 22:49 Jermstuddog wrote:
Obviously inspired by the Muta thread.
so a thread were a zerg is sarcasticly asking if muta is OP because he is worried that there will be too much anti muta stuff inspired you to make a thread were you are genuinely crying about something being OP?
Anyway, hope this gets closed as its just a blant whine thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
