|
On November 05 2010 12:35 pwadoc wrote:
I did a little playing around in a unit tester, and I found some interesting results that could impact how zerg reacts to this build. Interestingly, lings vs. marines alone, lings remain cost effective against marines until the marines are 3/3 (both units fully upgraded). In fact, lings actually beat an even number of marines in an open field until 3/3. The addition of even 2 banelings turns the tide of a 120 ling v. 60 marine battle.
What I'm getting at is that perhaps the reason this build works is that zerg have been favoring roach-heavy builds since the patch. Perhaps the correct response for a zerg is to play the same exact game. Favor minerals, build mostly lings with only a few infestors and banelings, and get a third hatch at your natural before a third expansion so you can get enough larva to support the number of lings you will need. Keep even with upgrades and you should be fine. I haven't tried this on the ladder yet, but it seems like a possible strategy.
The other possible advantage is that with the increased mineral expenditure, zerg players can conserve more gas once they do take a third, and tech hard in the lategame.
[edit] The other advantage is that the mobility and sheer number of zerglings decrease the effectiveness of ravens.
I think you're missing the point. Marines don't necessarily need to trade favorably, although i think with combat shield, stim, faster ups and not getting surrounded(very important detail your unit tester probably missed) I think they do. Their goal is to lock up larvae, roaches don't have anything to do with it and most zergs still don't mass them against bio. They are sticking with lings, banelings, and mutas. Medivacs are also very important to the cost effectiveness of the marines.
While lings are great against bio they are the most expensive in terms of zerg's most important and finite resource: larva.
|
lol, why???
instead of ravens you get tanks. wouldnt that be better? since,
1) tank dps > auto turrent and has splash
2) tank costs less
3) tanks demolish banelings lings roaches infestors
the likely hood of pulling off a good HSM is so slim, there are chances that u HSM their muta, their muta fly on top of ur marines, everything dies.. -_-
|
On November 05 2010 14:10 Senorcuidado wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2010 12:35 pwadoc wrote:
I did a little playing around in a unit tester, and I found some interesting results that could impact how zerg reacts to this build. Interestingly, lings vs. marines alone, lings remain cost effective against marines until the marines are 3/3 (both units fully upgraded). In fact, lings actually beat an even number of marines in an open field until 3/3. The addition of even 2 banelings turns the tide of a 120 ling v. 60 marine battle.
What I'm getting at is that perhaps the reason this build works is that zerg have been favoring roach-heavy builds since the patch. Perhaps the correct response for a zerg is to play the same exact game. Favor minerals, build mostly lings with only a few infestors and banelings, and get a third hatch at your natural before a third expansion so you can get enough larva to support the number of lings you will need. Keep even with upgrades and you should be fine. I haven't tried this on the ladder yet, but it seems like a possible strategy.
The other possible advantage is that with the increased mineral expenditure, zerg players can conserve more gas once they do take a third, and tech hard in the lategame.
[edit] The other advantage is that the mobility and sheer number of zerglings decrease the effectiveness of ravens. I think you're missing the point. Marines don't necessarily need to trade favorably, although i think with combat shield, stim, faster ups and not getting surrounded(very important detail your unit tester probably missed) I think they do. Their goal is to lock up larvae, roaches don't have anything to do with it and most zergs still don't mass them against bio. They are sticking with lings, banelings, and mutas. Medivacs are also very important to the cost effectiveness of the marines. While lings are great against bio they are the most expensive in terms of zerg's most important and finite resource: larva.
Actually, the real strength of this build is that is makes zerg fall back on gas heavy units to defend. Most zerg are going to get a lot of banelings and infestors v. mass bio, and the object is to army trade. The zerg ends up running out of gas, and the terran can continue producing marines off minerals. This is basically what the op said.
Larva is going to be a factor with mass lings, but that's why I'm going with a third hatch at my natural. It doesn't open me up to third base timing attack that this build relies on, and provides enough larva to constantly pump lings. 3 hatches on two saturated bases with 3 queens lets the zerg keep minerals at 0 with a few extra larva lying around. I still end up getting a baneling nest and a infestor pit, but I produce maybe 5 banelings for each wave of marines, and maybe an infestor or two. 5 banelings and an infestor is usually enough to negate the effect of medivacs and other support. After a few rounds of this, I'd expect that the terran is going to have a hard time keeping up with the ling production, (I'm actually pretty sure that a two-base zerg can outproduce a two-base terran with just pure zerglings v. pure marines), and the zerg will be able to take a third.
I won a game doing this tonight, but my opponent was pretty terrible. I'll post a replay if I get a decent opponent.
|
On November 05 2010 15:45 pwadoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2010 14:10 Senorcuidado wrote:On November 05 2010 12:35 pwadoc wrote:
I did a little playing around in a unit tester, and I found some interesting results that could impact how zerg reacts to this build. Interestingly, lings vs. marines alone, lings remain cost effective against marines until the marines are 3/3 (both units fully upgraded). In fact, lings actually beat an even number of marines in an open field until 3/3. The addition of even 2 banelings turns the tide of a 120 ling v. 60 marine battle.
What I'm getting at is that perhaps the reason this build works is that zerg have been favoring roach-heavy builds since the patch. Perhaps the correct response for a zerg is to play the same exact game. Favor minerals, build mostly lings with only a few infestors and banelings, and get a third hatch at your natural before a third expansion so you can get enough larva to support the number of lings you will need. Keep even with upgrades and you should be fine. I haven't tried this on the ladder yet, but it seems like a possible strategy.
The other possible advantage is that with the increased mineral expenditure, zerg players can conserve more gas once they do take a third, and tech hard in the lategame.
[edit] The other advantage is that the mobility and sheer number of zerglings decrease the effectiveness of ravens. I think you're missing the point. Marines don't necessarily need to trade favorably, although i think with combat shield, stim, faster ups and not getting surrounded(very important detail your unit tester probably missed) I think they do. Their goal is to lock up larvae, roaches don't have anything to do with it and most zergs still don't mass them against bio. They are sticking with lings, banelings, and mutas. Medivacs are also very important to the cost effectiveness of the marines. While lings are great against bio they are the most expensive in terms of zerg's most important and finite resource: larva. Actually, the real strength of this build is that is makes zerg fall back on gas heavy units to defend. Most zerg are going to get a lot of banelings and infestors v. mass bio, and the object is to army trade. The zerg ends up running out of gas, and the terran can continue producing marines off minerals. This is basically what the op said. Larva is going to be a factor with mass lings, but that's why I'm going with a third hatch at my natural. It doesn't open me up to third base timing attack that this build relies on, and provides enough larva to constantly pump lings. 3 hatches on two saturated bases with 3 queens lets the zerg keep minerals at 0 with a few extra larva lying around. I still end up getting a baneling nest and a infestor pit, but I produce maybe 5 banelings for each wave of marines, and maybe an infestor or two. 5 banelings and an infestor is usually enough to negate the effect of medivacs and other support. After a few rounds of this, I'd expect that the terran is going to have a hard time keeping up with the ling production, (I'm actually pretty sure that a two-base zerg can outproduce a two-base terran with just pure zerglings v. pure marines), and the zerg will be able to take a third. I won a game doing this tonight, but my opponent was pretty terrible. I'll post a replay if I get a decent opponent.
Correct me if im wrong, but i believe that style of play opens you up to timing attack just before your infestors come out. Once T scouts at 3rd hatch in base, he knows u wont be going for a third anytime soon, and can mass up on rines and pump medivacs/banshees instead of ravens and roll u with a timing push. And also i don't think 2 base z can keep up with 2 base t in terms of minerals. additionally marines with stim are much more cost effective than zerglings alone, or even a few banelings mixed in. also i dont think you will be able to keep up with t's worker count if you mass lings even with a 3rd hatch in base.
|
United States14 Posts
I wish the zerg I play would make just 5 blings per wave I send. I'd snipe them and it would be gg for the zerg soon. Practically all the zerg I play have tons of lings, blings, and a handful of mutas. What the blings don't kill the lings/mutas do.
|
Banshees definitely works well with Raven. It forces Z to spend gas on detection and perhaps AA and is almost invulnerable with PDD without significant infestor energy spent to kill it, while it can counter snipe infestors anywhere. If you force Z into muta/hydra it is pure win right there, and any infestor at base to catch banshees is one not at the front. It also adds options to the army, like killing spine forests or shooting on cliff tumors, while fitting well with the main army.
Ravens actually don't force that much of a gas heavy response, since turrets can be countered minerals only.
Larva is going to be a factor with mass lings, but that's why I'm going with a third hatch at my natural.
I guess the proper response to 3rd hatch in base is blue flame since nothing else probably would cost quite so much larva.
|
On November 05 2010 14:42 jHERO wrote:
lol, why???
instead of ravens you get tanks. wouldnt that be better? since,
1) tank dps > auto turrent and has splash
2) tank costs less
3) tanks demolish banelings lings roaches infestors
the likely hood of pulling off a good HSM is so slim, there are chances that u HSM their muta, their muta fly on top of ur marines, everything dies.. -_-
My guess would be that adding siege tanks to the mix will really lower the army mobility. One of the greatest advantage of this build is mobility you get from stimmed rine(and medivacs) and flying raven but when you add in siege tank, your fast rine ball becomes a supporting force for slow pushing siege tank line. Also, rine only costs mineral while raven costs crazy amount of gas which balances out. However, tanks costs a bit of both mineral and gas which will result in
1. Lower marine count (tanks = 3 supply and more mineral heavy than raven)
2. A lot of gas left over and not spent
But when you are forced to play little defensive for whatever the situation, my guess would be that tank will help more than raven. But when you are the aggressor (which you should be when doing this build) siege tank is too immobile.
|
There are of course many responses to massed lings, but the point of this build is to control what the zerg is building. Every build involves some sort of sacrifice or weakness. In this case, the terran can only support a limited number of production structures per base, and generally you see a bunch of barracks with reactors, and maybe one factory and a starport or two. If the terran is going to start building banshees and hellions to counter mass lings, the whole marine/raven part of the build goes out the window. Now you're attacking with a marine/banshee/hellion army, you have to start sinking gas into upgrades for multiple units, and zerg has an easier time tech switching than terran.
I also don't think the marine is as cost effective relative to the marine as people think. I did a number of test, using stim and combat shields, with equal mineral cost groups of marines and lings. The lings won every time until the marines got to 3/3, and even in that case, a few banelings in the mix turned the tide. Terrans are free to try to snipe the banelings, but when you're sniping banelings, you're not running away from the lings. Keep in mind that if the zerg is trying to keep mineral parity with the terran, he's going to have twice as many lings as there are marines, and he can replace them much much faster.
|
On November 05 2010 15:45 pwadoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2010 14:10 Senorcuidado wrote:On November 05 2010 12:35 pwadoc wrote:
I did a little playing around in a unit tester, and I found some interesting results that could impact how zerg reacts to this build. Interestingly, lings vs. marines alone, lings remain cost effective against marines until the marines are 3/3 (both units fully upgraded). In fact, lings actually beat an even number of marines in an open field until 3/3. The addition of even 2 banelings turns the tide of a 120 ling v. 60 marine battle.
What I'm getting at is that perhaps the reason this build works is that zerg have been favoring roach-heavy builds since the patch. Perhaps the correct response for a zerg is to play the same exact game. Favor minerals, build mostly lings with only a few infestors and banelings, and get a third hatch at your natural before a third expansion so you can get enough larva to support the number of lings you will need. Keep even with upgrades and you should be fine. I haven't tried this on the ladder yet, but it seems like a possible strategy.
The other possible advantage is that with the increased mineral expenditure, zerg players can conserve more gas once they do take a third, and tech hard in the lategame.
[edit] The other advantage is that the mobility and sheer number of zerglings decrease the effectiveness of ravens. I think you're missing the point. Marines don't necessarily need to trade favorably, although i think with combat shield, stim, faster ups and not getting surrounded(very important detail your unit tester probably missed) I think they do. Their goal is to lock up larvae, roaches don't have anything to do with it and most zergs still don't mass them against bio. They are sticking with lings, banelings, and mutas. Medivacs are also very important to the cost effectiveness of the marines. While lings are great against bio they are the most expensive in terms of zerg's most important and finite resource: larva. Actually, the real strength of this build is that is makes zerg fall back on gas heavy units to defend. Most zerg are going to get a lot of banelings and infestors v. mass bio, and the object is to army trade. The zerg ends up running out of gas, and the terran can continue producing marines off minerals. This is basically what the op said. Larva is going to be a factor with mass lings, but that's why I'm going with a third hatch at my natural. It doesn't open me up to third base timing attack that this build relies on, and provides enough larva to constantly pump lings. 3 hatches on two saturated bases with 3 queens lets the zerg keep minerals at 0 with a few extra larva lying around. I still end up getting a baneling nest and a infestor pit, but I produce maybe 5 banelings for each wave of marines, and maybe an infestor or two. 5 banelings and an infestor is usually enough to negate the effect of medivacs and other support. After a few rounds of this, I'd expect that the terran is going to have a hard time keeping up with the ling production, (I'm actually pretty sure that a two-base zerg can outproduce a two-base terran with just pure zerglings v. pure marines), and the zerg will be able to take a third. I won a game doing this tonight, but my opponent was pretty terrible. I'll post a replay if I get a decent opponent.
I believe you are right. The smarter zergs are now countering mass marines with just mass lings. If you fight in small numbers, the lings will rape even stim/shielded marines. If you fight in large numbers, a few blings or infestors will be thrown in. Lings are actually pretty fucking good against marines.
|
I like the dynamic that this build forces creep spread because units need to be fast to dodge missiles. But at the same time ravens help in clearing out creep tumors.
Would be fun to see a high level game where the zerg focuses largely on infestors to counter this. Could be some cluth spell casts in that game from both sides.
|
Sorry if this's been ask, but how are u dealing with just a 2 base 3 hatch all-in with slings/blings/roaches (all with speed).
I've been playing this build from both sides of the table. And really, to try and macro against this build is just rediculously hard. It'll take someone of Idra calibre to have the game sense and know how much to spend on units and drones.
I've done this quite a few times haha ( I love SK terran lol) with opponents both T and Z ranging from 1k dia to 2k dia =S. THey've all been good games so far haha.
Things i've picked up (both sides): Equal base ULTRA is pitiful against mass rines lol. They don't do bonus dmg, and good spread keeps splash to a minimum so ultras end up doing a pitiful 15 dmg.
Adding a 3rd reactored starport for vikes and vacs will increase this build's power greatly (shift-queue'ing drops should be abused way more). It'll at least force mutas which melts to rines or tie up infestor into base defense. VIkes at the very least will be able to hunt oves (reducing larva unit usage).
Losing your raven ball almost always spells gg
Maybe using the fact for tanks and delaying the 2nd starport will help in dealing with 2 base 3hatch all-in.
If any1's interested i'll gather the reps 2gether and post it for criticisim.
|
On November 05 2010 18:57 StarBrift wrote:
I like the dynamic that this build forces creep spread because units need to be fast to dodge missiles. But at the same time ravens help in clearing out creep tumors.
Would be fun to see a high level game where the zerg focuses largely on infestors to counter this. Could be some cluth spell casts in that game from both sides.
Lol I've actually got a rep of that against a 2k Z, teching straight infestor. and just getting infestor while def'ing. Some decent fungals in it it doesn't really do that much i think. INfestors are goddamn gas intensive. The thing that killed me was not realizing he took a 3rd -____-" till too many ultras came rampaging down lol.
I"ll ask him for the rep (I was at a LaN) if he wants to post it.
|
On November 05 2010 19:00 me_viet wrote:
Sorry if this's been ask, but how are u dealing with just a 2 base 3 hatch all-in with slings/blings/roaches (all with speed).
you have to know it's coming (not easy) and produce siege tanks immediatly, while simicitying in front of your expansion (hard on xel naga). You have to pump some marauders too, because unupgraded marines sux against roaches. And if you made a starport already, make 2 vikings because the zerg will not be able to do anything about them and you can reduce the pressure a lot if you snipe some ol. And lots of bunkers is good 
|
I dont understand how this build deals with banelings? You can separate your marines using micro to avoid the banelings but really if you're spending your gas on ravens you arent making tanks to counter them.
|
On November 05 2010 06:25 micjmac wrote:
I never tried HSM harassment on the mineral line. How effective is that? Does it wipe out a lot of drones?
I tried sometimes to blow up some drones, but most of the time it fails because zerg will move them or burrow them so fast  Turrets are better because they prevents drone from mining again and can destroy the hatchery/queen.
|
On November 05 2010 14:42 jHERO wrote:
lol, why???
instead of ravens you get tanks. wouldnt that be better? since,
1) tank dps > auto turrent and has splash
2) tank costs less
3) tanks demolish banelings lings roaches infestors
the likely hood of pulling off a good HSM is so slim, there are chances that u HSM their muta, their muta fly on top of ur marines, everything dies.. -_-
tanks kill your own units if there is a lot of lings on the field (you will need so much upgrades to be able to kill lings in 1 shot with tank's nerf).
Why do people want TANKS ?!! They are only good to defend your position (you don't wanna lose your 3rd PF on a 20+ blings rush) but not to attack with mass marines... Raven can harass, survive, protect your marine ball with a line of turrets, PDD, HSM infestors, deny creep tumors, etc...
But sure, late game when you have like 12+ raven you can go for something else, but having a critical mass of raven is a priority.
In fact, tanks cost MORE because they die.
|
Sorry OP, but this strategy is dead and gone (at least until balance is patched). It does not work at top levels, period.
I've personally tested many variations of the mass marine strat against a 2400 diamond Zerg player today to no success. The Boxer vs nestea games just confirmed it. The Foxer early mass marine pressure does not work against 15 hatch now that Zergs have learned the timing against this gimmick. That's all it is, a gimmick.
Speed lings >> marines in small-mid numbers even when you have stim and shields. Speed lings and banelings >> marines in large numbers. Mutas >> Ravens obviously.
There is no way to get a size-able number of Ravens before the Zerg gains complete map control and an extra saturated base on you.
|
On November 05 2010 20:30 link0 wrote:
Sorry OP, but this strategy is dead and gone (at least until balance is patched). It does not work at top levels, period.
I've personally tested many variations of the mass marine strat against a 2400 diamond Zerg player today to no success. The Boxer vs nestea games just confirmed it. The Foxer early mass marine pressure does not work against 15 hatch now that Zergs have learned the timing against this gimmick. That's all it is, a gimmick.
Speed lings >> marines in small-mid numbers even when you have stim and shields. Speed lings and banelings >> marines in large numbers. Mutas >> Ravens obviously.
There is no way to get a size-able number of Ravens before the Zerg gains complete map control and an extra saturated base on you.
Hey linko, do you mind sending me the reps? I'd like to study them to help me beat this strat myself.
But afaik, in my testing, if I know the attacks are coming, It gives me ALOT of time to drone up a fair bit b4 switching over to units prod. I think it's the uncertainty of wether the strat is being done or not.
|
On November 05 2010 20:30 link0 wrote:
Sorry OP, but this strategy is dead and gone (at least until balance is patched). It does not work at top levels, period.
I've personally tested many variations of the mass marine strat against a 2400 diamond Zerg player today to no success. The Boxer vs nestea games just confirmed it. The Foxer early mass marine pressure does not work against 15 hatch now that Zergs have learned the timing against this gimmick. That's all it is, a gimmick.
Speed lings >> marines in small-mid numbers even when you have stim and shields. Speed lings and banelings >> marines in large numbers. Mutas >> Ravens obviously.
There is no way to get a size-able number of Ravens before the Zerg gains complete map control and an extra saturated base on you.
Can I have reps? :D I want to see what zerg does to counter this so hopefully I can figure some things out. I was wondering if going mass zergling/sunken would kick in. Plus 2400+ Terran/Zerg reps are pretty entertaining. :D
As for old Boxer..
+ Show Spoiler +
He pretended zergbong was Yelloc and played silly each game.
@ Unit tester guy. I don't think that zerglings are very efficient against marines, it depends on positioning and number of units. Marines scale linearly while melee scale less than linearly.
|
I have question:
Can you build medivacs instead of ravens because i think ravens are to damn fragile.With medivacs you can do drops heal your marines and have a better support.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
