|
Before the range of roaches was increased I made this test to see if roaches were a good counter to marines: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=147849
In most cases they weren't. The conclusion still stands, early-mid game zerg is a lot better off with banelings against giant marine balls. Here's the new data:
You'll notice this time around that unupgraded marines are infact bad against roaches. Once the terran has combat shield there's a clear break even point at 4 roaches. Once the terran has stim and shields it's at 2 roaches (an almost irrelevant statistic, it'll always be more marines and roaches by this time). So in the very early game roaches work ok, but once the mules finish a few cycles, you better have banelings or infestors. Another thing to note is that speed roaches don't fair much better at all.
Things I didn't test were burrow roaches and armor/damage upgrades so theory craft follows. Perfect burrow micro can completely break this graph in favor of roaches by hiding hurt roaches and avoiding the walk in to range which favors marines. 3/3 upgrades would also favor roaches because marines go from 5 damage per hit to 5 damage per hit (marine damage upgrade is perfectly negated by roach armor upgrade) while roaches go from 16 to 19 damage per hit against a 3/3 marine.
The replay with the testing: http://replayfu.com/r/GFVxVf
|
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.
|
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?
|
Thanks for the info, always love me some theorycrafting.
Since you rarely see marines without at least a few marauders, roaches are probably even worse than this table shows.
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.
This.
Ever since colossi, banelings, infestors, and tanks became standard units, I have been wondering why pros aren't finding ways to exploit the splash damage by spreading out their units. We have already figured out the magic box for mutas. Once someone finds an efficient way to scatter ground units without needing 500 apm, marines are going to rape everything.
|
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?
Well in his post he clearly said there is no "non-splash" cost-effective counter. And he also was talking about spreading units, which would nullify the usefulness of storm/fungal/banelings.
|
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 means anything in a straight up fight without using splash. And zealots do die to marines with stim if you get enough marines, they will mow the zealots down before they can do substantial damage (and kite chargealots)
|
So wait, let me get this straight:
Zerglings will die to marines in large numbers due to lack of surrounding and concavity Banelings will die to marines once they reach critical mass Roaches will die to marines if their upgraded with standard, non-EBay upgrades Hydralisks will die to marines in decent numbers Mutalisks will die to marines going face to face
Seems like marines really put a beating on Zerg as a whole. Maybe I missed something though. Like I didn't account for baneling wrecking marines with proper infestor combination.
|
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.
You seem to forget that both mutas, speedlings and roaches counter spread out marines.
|
Marines are weak. Try to spread them when you engage the second or third at steppes of war. Open, wide fields are not that common in sc2.
|
pros do spread, but it takes quiet a bit of apm to do that, so they use it to macro more marines instead, and they do spread occasionally, NaDa did, seemingly enought benelings to kill all his marines killed very little because of good spread and he won
|
On October 31 2010 01:36 Tef wrote: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. You seem to forget that both mutas, speedlings and roaches counter spread out marines.
No. If you account for the gas cost of roaches and mutas, pure marines rapes the heck out of that mix. Test it yourself. Nothing beats stim marines in a straight-up fight because they have no overkill and stim makes them fire TWICE as fast.
Zealots do not counter marines at all if you only mix in 4 marauders for their concussive and micro your marines in big chunks + play in a positionally smart manner. (i.e. dont micro until a zealot touches a part of your army, then micro the third that is closest to zealots back, while maximizing the time the stim-marines auto-fire with 0 overkill) I've killed many a Protoss that tried to go Zealot Sentry against my 8 minute heavy marine MMM push.
On October 31 2010 01:42 LeibSaiLeib wrote: pros do spread, but it takes quiet a bit of apm to do that, so they use it to macro more marines instead, and they do spread occasionally, NaDa did, seemingly enought benelings to kill all his marines killed very little because of good spread and he won
Leenock threw that game away so hardcore. NaDa put his marines in front of his thors and then went on the tiny ramp to Leenocks natural. Any good Zerg would have butt-raped that move since the marines cant run away. However Leenocks fed his banelings to his stim-ball bit by bit until not enough banelings were remaining. The 5 that attacked the ball on the ramp quickly got taken out by stim auto-fire.
|
On October 31 2010 01:30 Jeffbelittle wrote: So wait, let me get this straight:
Zerglings will die to marines in large numbers due to lack of surrounding and concavity Banelings will die to marines once they reach critical mass Roaches will die to marines if their upgraded with standard, non-EBay upgrades Hydralisks will die to marines in decent numbers Mutalisks will die to marines going face to face
Seems like marines really put a beating on Zerg as a whole. Maybe I missed something though. Like I didn't account for baneling wrecking marines with proper infestor combination.
Most certainly not.
|
On October 31 2010 01:42 Panoptic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2010 01:30 Jeffbelittle wrote: So wait, let me get this straight:
Zerglings will die to marines in large numbers due to lack of surrounding and concavity Banelings will die to marines once they reach critical mass Roaches will die to marines if their upgraded with standard, non-EBay upgrades Hydralisks will die to marines in decent numbers Mutalisks will die to marines going face to face
Seems like marines really put a beating on Zerg as a whole. Maybe I missed something though. Like I didn't account for baneling wrecking marines with proper infestor combination. Most certainly not.
benelings offcreep will die to microed marines, dosent matter the number...
and on creep you can kill alot of benes before your marines die, stim and studder steping for the win
|
On October 31 2010 01:47 LeibSaiLeib wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2010 01:42 Panoptic wrote:On October 31 2010 01:30 Jeffbelittle wrote: So wait, let me get this straight:
Zerglings will die to marines in large numbers due to lack of surrounding and concavity Banelings will die to marines once they reach critical mass Roaches will die to marines if their upgraded with standard, non-EBay upgrades Hydralisks will die to marines in decent numbers Mutalisks will die to marines going face to face
Seems like marines really put a beating on Zerg as a whole. Maybe I missed something though. Like I didn't account for baneling wrecking marines with proper infestor combination. Most certainly not. benelings offcreep will die to microed marines, dosent matter the number... and on creep you can kill alot of benes before your marines die, stim and studder steping for the win
But realistically...if you go and watch tons of high level games, banes rape marines plenty of times. I don't buy it.
|
On October 31 2010 01:51 Panoptic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2010 01:47 LeibSaiLeib wrote:On October 31 2010 01:42 Panoptic wrote:On October 31 2010 01:30 Jeffbelittle wrote: So wait, let me get this straight:
Zerglings will die to marines in large numbers due to lack of surrounding and concavity Banelings will die to marines once they reach critical mass Roaches will die to marines if their upgraded with standard, non-EBay upgrades Hydralisks will die to marines in decent numbers Mutalisks will die to marines going face to face
Seems like marines really put a beating on Zerg as a whole. Maybe I missed something though. Like I didn't account for baneling wrecking marines with proper infestor combination. Most certainly not. benelings offcreep will die to microed marines, dosent matter the number... and on creep you can kill alot of benes before your marines die, stim and studder steping for the win But realistically...if you go and watch tons of high level games, banes rape marines plenty of times. I don't buy it.
true, i was talking ideally, ive seen very few microed studder stepping marines vs benes(it works, but seen it rarely), its just not worth the micro/time, since if your doing that, it probably means rest of your army is allready dead.
|
On October 31 2010 01:47 LeibSaiLeib wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2010 01:42 Panoptic wrote:On October 31 2010 01:30 Jeffbelittle wrote: So wait, let me get this straight:
Zerglings will die to marines in large numbers due to lack of surrounding and concavity Banelings will die to marines once they reach critical mass Roaches will die to marines if their upgraded with standard, non-EBay upgrades Hydralisks will die to marines in decent numbers Mutalisks will die to marines going face to face
Seems like marines really put a beating on Zerg as a whole. Maybe I missed something though. Like I didn't account for baneling wrecking marines with proper infestor combination. Most certainly not. benelings offcreep will die to microed marines, dosent matter the number... and on creep you can kill alot of benes before your marines die, stim and studder steping for the win
Do you just forgot to upgrade speed for the banelings? You can't micro marines vs banelings on creep without marauder support. Or you need to have like 500 APM to micro every single marine away from eachother lol. Also banelings are only half a supply
|
Given the unit's size, it depends on the formation.You can pack more marines in the first line than roaches, so it comes down to micro and positioning.
I don't know if any human being has the apm to micro a critical mass of marines vs banelings perfectly. Also any obstacles on the map make this even more difficult. Ah yeah edit: moving marines means the critical mass to oneshot banelings is lost, because they run and can't focus fire effectively: they run in different directions spreading out, so only a few banelings stay in range.
|
|
On October 31 2010 01:57 xZiGGY wrote: not testing cara 1? ;/
I'd bet it makes a huge 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?
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?
|
On October 31 2010 02:12 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2010 01:19 Perscienter wrote:I would have liked to see a chart concerning marines just with stim. Probably the roaches will already lose that. On October 31 2010 01:13 ChickenLips wrote: I dont think it makes a lot of sense to compare anything non-splash to stim marines, because there simply isn't anything that is cost-effective vs them. Once Terrans learn how to spread their marines P and Z are gonna be in for a lot of trouble. Nothing is cost-effective against them? What about zealots and psionic storm? What about fungal growth and banelings? Z has no cost effective counter to Marines. This has always been the case even in BW. If the T player constantly attacks you with well timed infantry attacks and doesn't let you hit critical mass, you will have a tough time dealing with Marines simply because you are spending larave/gas on troops on a limited 2 bases, since there's no way you can saturate the 3rd without dying. Why do you think every T all of a sudden went to Marine/Tank now?
2 banelings blowing up 20 marines is definitely cost-effective, don't pull things out of your ass and pretend they're facts.
|
On October 31 2010 02:19 Saechiis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2010 02:12 superstartran wrote:On October 31 2010 01:19 Perscienter wrote:I would have liked to see a chart concerning marines just with stim. Probably the roaches will already lose that. On October 31 2010 01:13 ChickenLips wrote: I dont think it makes a lot of sense to compare anything non-splash to stim marines, because there simply isn't anything that is cost-effective vs them. Once Terrans learn how to spread their marines P and Z are gonna be in for a lot of trouble. Nothing is cost-effective against them? What about zealots and psionic storm? What about fungal growth and banelings? Z has no cost effective counter to Marines. This has always been the case even in BW. If the T player constantly attacks you with well timed infantry attacks and doesn't let you hit critical mass, you will have a tough time dealing with Marines simply because you are spending larave/gas on troops on a limited 2 bases, since there's no way you can saturate the 3rd without dying. Why do you think every T all of a sudden went to Marine/Tank now? 2 banelings blowing up 20 marines is definitely cost-effective, don't pull things out of your ass and pretend they're facts.
If you lost 20 Marines to 2 Banelings then you can't control your troops for shit. We're account for the fact that both players are on even grounds, and we're talking about pretty high level stuff, which means the T player knows how to stim kite Banelings. So as long as the T player doesn't walk into a two pronged trap, he's going to take out alot of Blings before you even touch him unless you can side swipe him. Even on creep as long as the T player knows how to Stim Kite, he shouldn't lose that many Marines unless he clumped like an idiot.
With good micro, you can make Marines cost effective vs Blings and just send wave after wave of Marines at the Z player and force him to continually make Blings, which will cut into his Infestor/Muta/Tech badly.
|
On October 31 2010 02:12 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2010 01:19 Perscienter wrote:I would have liked to see a chart concerning marines just with stim. Probably the roaches will already lose that. On October 31 2010 01:13 ChickenLips wrote: I dont think it makes a lot of sense to compare anything non-splash to stim marines, because there simply isn't anything that is cost-effective vs them. Once Terrans learn how to spread their marines P and Z are gonna be in for a lot of trouble. Nothing is cost-effective against them? What about zealots and psionic storm? What about fungal growth and banelings? Z has no cost effective counter to Marines. This has always been the case even in BW. If the T player constantly attacks you with well timed infantry attacks and doesn't let you hit critical mass, you will have a tough time dealing with Marines simply because you are spending larave/gas on troops on a limited 2 bases, since there's no way you can saturate the 3rd without dying. Why do you think every T all of a sudden went to Marine/Tank now?
Infestor baneling ????
|
Watch Loner vs Terious, 2 burrowed banelings kill 20 marines instantly.
Saying that things are cost-effective when your play flawless is nonsense since no-one has perfect play. If top players could pull this off all the time you wouldn't see so many marines melting in green goo.
|
On October 31 2010 02:27 Saechiis wrote: Watch Loner vs Terious, 2 burrowed banelings kill 20 marines instantly.
Saying that things are cost-effective when your play flawless is nonsense since no-one has perfect play. If top players could pull this off all the time you wouldn't see so many marines melting in green goo.
Things are cost effective when you control your troops effectively and engage in the proper positions. You think every Korean T just masses Marines mindlessly against Banelings because they are stupid? No; it's because they are trading minerals for gas. It's the same concept as in BW; watch how T's continually send wave after wave of Infantry/Tank against Lurker/Ling/Swarm and continue to do so, losing countless of armies early on, being 2 bases down, and STILL win the game.
T's haven't gotten their control groups down effectively yet, but if you watch the TvZ victories recently, for the most part, the T players have been going pure Marine/Tank and winning because they trade effectively.
Like I said, using one instance of a T player not effectively controlling his troops/walking into his traps is not a good way to convince anyone that Blings are an effective counter to Marines. You need Infestors to really make Blings good against T players; otherwise off creep they will just stim kite you all day. On creep, it's less effective, but he's still losing alot less then you are if he knows how to control his troops. Ask any Z if they can hit Blings against a good T player without doing a surround/using Infestors. It's pretty much impossible without doing one of the two, and the first one relies heavily on your T opponent not having proper map knowledge and walking across the map blind.
|
On October 31 2010 02:27 Saechiis wrote: Watch Loner vs Terious, 2 burrowed banelings kill 20 marines instantly.
Saying that things are cost-effective when your play flawless is nonsense since no-one has perfect play. If top players could pull this off all the time you wouldn't see so many marines melting in green goo.
so because loner couldnt be arsed to get A raven all the sudden banelings are cost effective vs marines? stop pulling facts that support whatever you want to pull out of your ass.
Once they are good enough people will begin to spread and stim kite their marines and banelings will either explode on sieged tanks or die doing pretty much nothing.
You cant discuss or measure something like banelings against bad play. You measure and discuss it towards the theoretical optimum. GOD YOU PEOPLE.
not testing cara 1? ;/ i would love to see some papers on +1 carapace, ill be testing that myself this instance.
How do you combat tank, marine?
is the optimal mix, zergling baneling roach?
or can you take one unit away from that mix and still perform good enough?
|
Against Medivac+Stim+Combat shield, it takes infinity roaches to kill 4 marines
|
I see people saying zealot<rine but zealot+sentry beats pure marine pretty easily even with stim... a couple FF maybe a gs and it's gg...
|
On October 31 2010 02:36 Tac-Tics wrote:Against Medivac+Stim+Combat shield, it takes infinity roaches to kill 4 marines
No i takes like 3 with focus fire..
Roaches are pretty damn good against marines for minerals cost. The only thing you really worry about is big balls of them but banelings can deal with that. Some kind of roach/baneling combo is quite effectve vs marine tank.
|
On October 31 2010 02:21 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2010 02:19 Saechiis wrote:On October 31 2010 02:12 superstartran wrote:On October 31 2010 01:19 Perscienter wrote:I would have liked to see a chart concerning marines just with stim. Probably the roaches will already lose that. On October 31 2010 01:13 ChickenLips wrote: I dont think it makes a lot of sense to compare anything non-splash to stim marines, because there simply isn't anything that is cost-effective vs them. Once Terrans learn how to spread their marines P and Z are gonna be in for a lot of trouble. Nothing is cost-effective against them? What about zealots and psionic storm? What about fungal growth and banelings? Z has no cost effective counter to Marines. This has always been the case even in BW. If the T player constantly attacks you with well timed infantry attacks and doesn't let you hit critical mass, you will have a tough time dealing with Marines simply because you are spending larave/gas on troops on a limited 2 bases, since there's no way you can saturate the 3rd without dying. Why do you think every T all of a sudden went to Marine/Tank now? 2 banelings blowing up 20 marines is definitely cost-effective, don't pull things out of your ass and pretend they're facts. If you lost 20 Marines to 2 Banelings then you can't control your troops for shit. We're account for the fact that both players are on even grounds, and we're talking about pretty high level stuff, which means the T player knows how to stim kite Banelings. So as long as the T player doesn't walk into a two pronged trap, he's going to take out alot of Blings before you even touch him unless you can side swipe him. Even on creep as long as the T player knows how to Stim Kite, he shouldn't lose that many Marines unless he clumped like an idiot. With good micro, you can make Marines cost effective vs Blings and just send wave after wave of Marines at the Z player and force him to continually make Blings, which will cut into his Infestor/Muta/Tech badly. i know that it's possible to stim kite banelings but saying a terran player has the capacity to do it all the time or that it is viable in all situations is really not true. as far as i know blings have lower attack priority than most of the zerg army so if you mix other units in with your blings (and keep the blings behind them) it increases the chance of them hitting enormously.
|
On October 31 2010 02:19 Saechiis wrote: 2 banelings blowing up 20 marines is definitely cost-effective, don't pull things out of your ass and pretend they're facts.
I always laugh when people talk about banelings like this.
First off, it's damn near impossible to kill more than 6 marines with 2 banelings, let alone 20.
Maybe if you had an overlord floating over a tightly-packed group of marines, you could kill 10, but actually getting in that situation means the Terran player screwed up long ago.
Second problem with that argument is, it takes 2 banelings to kill 1 marine. That's right folks, the rollie-pollie of death can't actually kill ANYTHING in the game (except zerglings) in one shot. For a 50/25 suicide unit, that's definitely OP.
I could go on about how stim is 100/100 and makes marines move just as fast as the 150/150 upgrade for banes while also providing a massive dmg boost, but people would tell me how that is needed due to lack of mobility (false preconception anyway)
How 1 stimmed marine does 1.4x the damage of a zergling while having 5 range, being able to shoot air, utilize bunkers, and the countless other bonuses marines have, but somebody would try to act like zergling speed makes up for that.
Blizzard has already acknowledged the OPness of the marine. It just has yet to be seen if they feel the need to do something about it.
|
On October 31 2010 02:46 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2010 02:21 superstartran wrote:On October 31 2010 02:19 Saechiis wrote:On October 31 2010 02:12 superstartran wrote:On October 31 2010 01:19 Perscienter wrote:I would have liked to see a chart concerning marines just with stim. Probably the roaches will already lose that. On October 31 2010 01:13 ChickenLips wrote: I dont think it makes a lot of sense to compare anything non-splash to stim marines, because there simply isn't anything that is cost-effective vs them. Once Terrans learn how to spread their marines P and Z are gonna be in for a lot of trouble. Nothing is cost-effective against them? What about zealots and psionic storm? What about fungal growth and banelings? Z has no cost effective counter to Marines. This has always been the case even in BW. If the T player constantly attacks you with well timed infantry attacks and doesn't let you hit critical mass, you will have a tough time dealing with Marines simply because you are spending larave/gas on troops on a limited 2 bases, since there's no way you can saturate the 3rd without dying. Why do you think every T all of a sudden went to Marine/Tank now? 2 banelings blowing up 20 marines is definitely cost-effective, don't pull things out of your ass and pretend they're facts. If you lost 20 Marines to 2 Banelings then you can't control your troops for shit. We're account for the fact that both players are on even grounds, and we're talking about pretty high level stuff, which means the T player knows how to stim kite Banelings. So as long as the T player doesn't walk into a two pronged trap, he's going to take out alot of Blings before you even touch him unless you can side swipe him. Even on creep as long as the T player knows how to Stim Kite, he shouldn't lose that many Marines unless he clumped like an idiot. With good micro, you can make Marines cost effective vs Blings and just send wave after wave of Marines at the Z player and force him to continually make Blings, which will cut into his Infestor/Muta/Tech badly. i know that it's possible to stim kite banelings but saying a terran player has the capacity to do it all the time or that it is viable in all situations is really not true. as far as i know blings have lower attack priority than most of the zerg army so if you mix other units in with your blings (and keep the blings behind them) it increases the chance of them hitting enormously.
Most Z players split their Blings and Splings and target Marines with Blings, thus making them run past any supporting units if you kite effectively. If you clump them up, it's even worse since Marines now can use Splings as a shield against Blings. So if you are coming in with Marine/Tank, he has Spling/Bling/Muta, you can usually sack your Tanks in order to kill off the Blings, and now it comes down to +1 Marines with Stim/CS vs Spling/Muta, which is a pretty good trade for the most part. Your timing attack made him spend way more gas then you did, at most you had 3-4 tanks, while he probably lost Mutas, Blings, and Splings defending your attack, which is absolutely huge trade in favor of you.
The only time it gets out of hand is when Infestors are added into his mix, but that's gas heavy, which means you certainly didn't do much pressuring early on if he has Infestor/Bling/Roach, or Infestor/Spling/Bling/Muta.
Most people don't realize it, but Marines overall are incredibly cost effective versus anything Z uses. When you add in Medivacs it gets even crazier. And because Marines are 50 minerals, you get tons of gas floating around to constantly upgrade your troops and stay ahead of the Z player on upgrades.
|
On October 31 2010 02:43 Slayer91 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2010 02:36 Tac-Tics wrote:Against Medivac+Stim+Combat shield, it takes infinity roaches to kill 4 marines No i takes like 3 with focus fire.. Roaches are pretty damn good against marines for minerals cost. The only thing you really worry about is big balls of them but banelings can deal with that. Some kind of roach/baneling combo is quite effectve vs marine tank.
This one made me lol too.
Roaches can focus fire through medivacs, but they're not really effective vs marines either. I've done some playing in the unit tester trying to find the best way to hold off early rax play without blings. Nothing works.
The best situation I could get was 1:1 roaches/lings with +1 carapace.
This works decently against marines, but as soon as you replace 4 marines with 2 marauders or give the marines stim, everything goes to crap.
Blings aren't the OP unit here. They're the only thing that allows zerg to scrap themselves through the early-game when faced with heavy marine pressure.
|
Want to balance your Starcraft 2?
Step 1) Create completely innovative strategies (IE: Marine + Raven) Step 2) Post it on Team Liquid Step 3) Have everybody bash it because they have this autistic generated idea of "hard counters" Step 4) Get no progression in the game at all in terms of strategies Step 5) Blame Blizzard
Honestly guys, think realistically here. You should at least try it a bit before you go "YEAH BUT 2 BANELINGS COUNTER 5 BILLION MARINES THEREFORE IT'S NOT VIABLE LOL!" I can't only be the one who saw that [G]Marine/Raven in the Strategy Forum, saw it being used in top top Diamond, and used it themselves in Ladder with success. What people don't understand is that if you're going MASS marine, you can support 6-8 raxes with half of them with Reactors easily. So you're pumping out like 15 marines per production cycle, and all your spending on your army is minerals. While the zerg is burning gas on Infestors and Banelings.
That's the point of going mass marine. You consistently pressure the zerg, make them waste larvae on gas units (IE: Banelings, Infestors, Mutalisks, Roaches, Hydra's) while you expand and get a Raven force. And they can't just counter push you, because guess what: When your push finishes, you got 25 more marines next to your nat with like 4 Ravens and you push out again. You're trading minerals (which are easily sustained with MULE's) for gas.
I'm not saying it's the perfect strategy, or that it's going to revolutionize the game, but stop seeing a strategy and then pulling out this preconceived idea of "HURRRRR HARD COUNTERS!!!!!!!! THEREFORE IT DOESN'T WORK LOOOOOL!!!!!" I mean shit, I could pull the same cards for PvT and say that since HT's can feedback a Ghost, EMP is fine. Or that since Vikings can shoot Colossi and Colossi can't shoot back, they hard counter so Colossi are useless in PvT. It's ridiculous. Yes, Banelings and Infestors absolutely destroy Marines. But you're macroing up so hard, and your Ravens can do so many lulzy things with Auto Turrets, PDD, and HSM when you get about 7 of them, you just overwhelm the Zerg.
|
spreading marines are invincible? not likely.
you haven't considered that as you spread out your marines, your dps becomes exponentially lower. to the point where you'll only have a small number of marines actually in damage dealing range.
marines aren't much different to the broodwar model. it's the addition of ghosts and marauders and the lack of goliath which makes marines more viable.
also, fungal growth is the best marine killer in the entire game. hitting 10-20 marines from 9 range, dealing 360-720 unavoidable damage over 8 seconds plus being immobilized... that's better than psionic storm and doesn't require special tech because you need tech to hive.
|
On October 31 2010 03:07 Fruscainte wrote: Want to balance your Starcraft 2?
Step 1) Create completely innovative strategies (IE: Marine + Raven) Step 2) Post it on Team Liquid Step 3) Have everybody bash it because they have this autistic generated idea of "hard counters" Step 4) Get no progression in the game at all in terms of strategies Step 5) Blame Blizzard
Honestly guys, think realistically here. You should at least try it a bit before you go "YEAH BUT 2 BANELINGS COUNTER 5 BILLION MARINES THEREFORE IT'S NOT VIABLE LOL!" I can't only be the one who saw that [G]Marine/Raven in the Strategy Forum, saw it being used in top top Diamond, and used it themselves in Ladder with success. What people don't understand is that if you're going MASS marine, you can support 6-8 raxes with half of them with Reactors easily. So you're pumping out like 15 marines per production cycle, and all your spending on your army is minerals. While the zerg is burning gas on Infestors and Banelings.
That's the point of going mass marine. You consistently pressure the zerg, make them waste larvae on gas units (IE: Banelings, Infestors, Mutalisks, Roaches, Hydra's) while you expand and get a Raven force. And they can't just counter push you, because guess what: When your push finishes, you got 25 more marines next to your nat with like 4 Ravens and you push out again. You're trading minerals (which are easily sustained with MULE's) for gas.
I'm not saying it's the perfect strategy, or that it's going to revolutionize the game, but stop seeing a strategy and then pulling out this preconceived idea of "HURRRRR HARD COUNTERS!!!!!!!! THEREFORE IT DOESN'T WORK LOOOOOL!!!!!" I mean shit, I could pull the same cards for PvT and say that since HT's can feedback a Ghost, EMP is fine. Or that since Vikings can shoot Colossi and Colossi can't shoot back, they hard counter so Colossi are useless in PvT. It's ridiculous. Yes, Banelings and Infestors absolutely destroy Marines. But you're macroing up so hard, and your Ravens can do so many lulzy things with Auto Turrets, PDD, and HSM when you get about 7 of them, you just overwhelm the Zerg.
If Infestors didn't pretty much hard-counter this strategy, progamers would be using it. If you think they haven't tried it, in almost every possible iteration, you're kidding yourself. They don't use it because the strategy isn't very good - it simply gets demolished by good infestor micro - all it takes is a single FG on your mass of ravens or marines and your army is gone, and a good Z player won't let you "instantly rebuild your army" or whatever nonsense people are spewing in that thread.
|
On October 31 2010 03:13 PanzerKing wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2010 03:07 Fruscainte wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Want to balance your Starcraft 2?
Step 1) Create completely innovative strategies (IE: Marine + Raven) Step 2) Post it on Team Liquid Step 3) Have everybody bash it because they have this autistic generated idea of "hard counters" Step 4) Get no progression in the game at all in terms of strategies Step 5) Blame Blizzard
Honestly guys, think realistically here. You should at least try it a bit before you go "YEAH BUT 2 BANELINGS COUNTER 5 BILLION MARINES THEREFORE IT'S NOT VIABLE LOL!" I can't only be the one who saw that [G]Marine/Raven in the Strategy Forum, saw it being used in top top Diamond, and used it themselves in Ladder with success. What people don't understand is that if you're going MASS marine, you can support 6-8 raxes with half of them with Reactors easily. So you're pumping out like 15 marines per production cycle, and all your spending on your army is minerals. While the zerg is burning gas on Infestors and Banelings.
That's the point of going mass marine. You consistently pressure the zerg, make them waste larvae on gas units (IE: Banelings, Infestors, Mutalisks, Roaches, Hydra's) while you expand and get a Raven force. And they can't just counter push you, because guess what: When your push finishes, you got 25 more marines next to your nat with like 4 Ravens and you push out again. You're trading minerals (which are easily sustained with MULE's) for gas.
I'm not saying it's the perfect strategy, or that it's going to revolutionize the game, but stop seeing a strategy and then pulling out this preconceived idea of "HURRRRR HARD COUNTERS!!!!!!!! THEREFORE IT DOESN'T WORK LOOOOOL!!!!!" I mean shit, I could pull the same cards for PvT and say that since HT's can feedback a Ghost, EMP is fine. Or that since Vikings can shoot Colossi and Colossi can't shoot back, they hard counter so Colossi are useless in PvT. It's ridiculous. Yes, Banelings and Infestors absolutely destroy Marines. But you're macroing up so hard, and your Ravens can do so many lulzy things with Auto Turrets, PDD, and HSM when you get about 7 of them, you just overwhelm the Zerg . If Infestors didn't pretty much hard-counter this strategy, progamers would be using it. If you think they haven't tried it, in almost every possible iteration, you're kidding yourself. They don't use it because the strategy isn't very good - it simply gets demolished by good infestor micro - all it takes is a single FG on your mass of ravens or marines and your army is gone, and a good Z player won't let you "instantly rebuild your army" or whatever nonsense people are spewing in that thread.
I don't see how you're not grasping that you're making 15 marines per production cycle. So a sizable army up in twoish production cycles, HSM one shots Infestors and Auto Turrets just rape everything.
What you're implying is that the Zerg can put so much immense pressure on the T, that they can't get two production cycles of units out. The point of the strategy is not to win battles constantly, it's to wither down your opponent by making them waste larvae and waste gas (therefore delaying tech). If you're constantly getting like 20-30 marines at your doorstep with Raven support, yes, you will consistently kill off their army, but if in just 30 seconds later you got an entire force outside your doorstep again, it's eventually going to wear you down.
Again, it's not perfect. Stop implying that it is, but you can't get anywhere with strategy if people go "YEAH UH, SORRY BUT X UNIT COUNTERS Y UNIT THEREFORE THIS STRATEGY WILL NEVER WORK LOL"
|
On October 31 2010 02:52 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2010 02:19 Saechiis wrote: 2 banelings blowing up 20 marines is definitely cost-effective, don't pull things out of your ass and pretend they're facts. I always laugh when people talk about banelings like this. First off, it's damn near impossible to kill more than 6 marines with 2 banelings, let alone 20. Maybe if you had an overlord floating over a tightly-packed group of marines, you could kill 10, but actually getting in that situation means the Terran player screwed up long ago. Second problem with that argument is, it takes 2 banelings to kill 1 marine. That's right folks, the rollie-pollie of death can't actually kill ANYTHING in the game (except zerglings) in one shot. For a 50/25 suicide unit, that's definitely OP. I could go on about how stim is 100/100 and makes marines move just as fast as the 150/150 upgrade for banes while also providing a massive dmg boost, but people would tell me how that is needed due to lack of mobility (false preconception anyway) How 1 stimmed marine does 1.4x the damage of a zergling while having 5 range, being able to shoot air, utilize bunkers, and the countless other bonuses marines have, but somebody would try to act like zergling speed makes up for that. Blizzard has already acknowledged the OPness of the marine. It just has yet to be seen if they feel the need to do something about it.
Blizzard has acknowledged the OPness of marines? Lol, I'd like to have a link to that statement.
2 banelings can kill 20 marines instantly, I gave a reference as proof, there's no denying it is possible. It was a reaction to the statement that Banelings aren't cost-effective against Marines, which they obviously are.
So 1 baneling can't kill anything, what does this prove? First of all it can kill a marine that stimmed so it isn't true in the first place, but in order to play your game I could say 1 marine can't kill an immortal. Yeah, that's right, marines counter immortals but 1 can't beat an immortal, it doesn't prove anything lol.
As for your speed "argument", Zergs seem to forget that a marine loses 10HP everytime it stims. Stim also requires micro whilst moving banelings towards marines requires 1 click.
You then continue to compare marines to zerglings and how marines do more damage ...
Not only is it a bullshit comparison, you also fail to mention that you get 2 Zerglings for the same price as 1 marine which together deal more damage than a marine, are faster and have more HP combined. I know that doesn't prove anything but apparently it's the way you reason.
I'm kinda getting bored of Zergs that are still popping into every thread concerning TvZ and claim every one of Terrans units is overpowered. Even when Terrans are losing left and right and are clueless on how to beat Zergs at the moment. Your golden times of Upness are over, get over it.
The OP shows that roaches are an even better answer to marines than before the patch. Until the marines are on the field in overwhelming numbers and upgrades, you can rely on pure roach if you wanted to (even though some banelings would blow them up cost effectively).
|
On October 31 2010 03:16 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2010 03:13 PanzerKing wrote:On October 31 2010 03:07 Fruscainte wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Want to balance your Starcraft 2?
Step 1) Create completely innovative strategies (IE: Marine + Raven) Step 2) Post it on Team Liquid Step 3) Have everybody bash it because they have this autistic generated idea of "hard counters" Step 4) Get no progression in the game at all in terms of strategies Step 5) Blame Blizzard
Honestly guys, think realistically here. You should at least try it a bit before you go "YEAH BUT 2 BANELINGS COUNTER 5 BILLION MARINES THEREFORE IT'S NOT VIABLE LOL!" I can't only be the one who saw that [G]Marine/Raven in the Strategy Forum, saw it being used in top top Diamond, and used it themselves in Ladder with success. What people don't understand is that if you're going MASS marine, you can support 6-8 raxes with half of them with Reactors easily. So you're pumping out like 15 marines per production cycle, and all your spending on your army is minerals. While the zerg is burning gas on Infestors and Banelings.
That's the point of going mass marine. You consistently pressure the zerg, make them waste larvae on gas units (IE: Banelings, Infestors, Mutalisks, Roaches, Hydra's) while you expand and get a Raven force. And they can't just counter push you, because guess what: When your push finishes, you got 25 more marines next to your nat with like 4 Ravens and you push out again. You're trading minerals (which are easily sustained with MULE's) for gas.
I'm not saying it's the perfect strategy, or that it's going to revolutionize the game, but stop seeing a strategy and then pulling out this preconceived idea of "HURRRRR HARD COUNTERS!!!!!!!! THEREFORE IT DOESN'T WORK LOOOOOL!!!!!" I mean shit, I could pull the same cards for PvT and say that since HT's can feedback a Ghost, EMP is fine. Or that since Vikings can shoot Colossi and Colossi can't shoot back, they hard counter so Colossi are useless in PvT. It's ridiculous. Yes, Banelings and Infestors absolutely destroy Marines. But you're macroing up so hard, and your Ravens can do so many lulzy things with Auto Turrets, PDD, and HSM when you get about 7 of them, you just overwhelm the Zerg . If Infestors didn't pretty much hard-counter this strategy, progamers would be using it. If you think they haven't tried it, in almost every possible iteration, you're kidding yourself. They don't use it because the strategy isn't very good - it simply gets demolished by good infestor micro - all it takes is a single FG on your mass of ravens or marines and your army is gone, and a good Z player won't let you "instantly rebuild your army" or whatever nonsense people are spewing in that thread. I don't see how you're not grasping that you're making 15 marines per production cycle. So a sizable army up in twoish production cycles, HSM one shots Infestors and Auto Turrets just rape everything. What you're implying is that the Zerg can put so much immense pressure on the T, that they can't get two production cycles of units out. The point of the strategy is not to win battles constantly, it's to wither down your opponent by making them waste larvae and waste gas (therefore delaying tech). If you're constantly getting like 20-30 marines at your doorstep with Raven support, yes, you will consistently kill off their army, but if in just 30 seconds later you got an entire force outside your doorstep again, it's eventually going to wear you down. Again, it's not perfect. Stop implying that it is, but you can't get anywhere with strategy if people go "YEAH UH, SORRY BUT X UNIT COUNTERS Y UNIT THEREFORE THIS STRATEGY WILL NEVER WORK LOL"
Your marine/raven force maybe be able to apply "continual pressure" but you're not going to be cost-effective against a Z player with good infestor micro. You will be losing more than you kill as soon as he lands a couple decent FGs. At that point, he can either continue to outmass you until he simply walks into your base and shits on the ~20-30 marines and handful of ravens that you have defending, or he'll simply tech up to ultras and wipe out your entire army without losing anything the next time he lands a FG.
That's not to say that a combination of marines and ravens is never effective, but to suggest that you can build an army around just these two units in the mid and late-game without transitioning is just absurd.
EDIT: And there's no point in saying "SM one-shots infestors!" Seeker Missile is range 6 and Fungal Growth is range 9 with 2 radius, you're not going to be sniping infestors against a competent Z who's spread creep and looks at his minimap.
|
Canada1637 Posts
I love how people say spread marines, true it works especially against banelings, but whoever is saying spread marines tvp doesn't have a clue... yeah I'll spread my range 5 unit to counter their range 9 unit? Marine DPS is so high because they can clump up and all fire together, if you're spreading them tvp your dps gets wrecked (same reason even if you dodge a storm damage is still done), spreading is really only effective against banelings, and even then you need to be pushing creep back, you can't allow the z to have baneling speed+creep, and as Z start using baneling drops more, it will only get worse. I'm not saying banelings are broken, I think they might be slightly too cost effective late game, but I think T needs to move away from marines more than anything else. IMO if a good Z scouts tank heavy play they will just rely on drops, whereas if its not tank heavy, creep+baneling speed>marines.
|
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
|
Hyrule18778 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.
|
|
|
|