EPTBanelings really a "counter"? - Page 2
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
Slix36
United Kingdom145 Posts
| ||
|
GinDo
3327 Posts
On December 05 2010 09:32 Falcon-sw wrote: In BW, you countered bio with lurkers, which could kill tons of marines, firebats and medics without incurring any losses. Apparently you haven't seen Boxer's Micro  Banlings efficiently counter Marines, unless they micro REALLY WELL. Micro in order to change the notion of a counter is good for the game. Lurkers vs. Marines Vultures vs Dragoons Wraith+Corsairs vs Scourge Carriers vs Goliaths All these are examples of how micro can change the effectiveness of a unit. This is GREAT for the game as it make for interesting game play rather then. Marines turning into giant Green Puddle every game. + Show Spoiler + Losing to MASS marines? Get infestors!!! Their FestorTastic | ||
|
Troublmaker
Canada3 Posts
Marines can also be microed against siege tanks effectively. | ||
|
Lavitage
United States71 Posts
Infestors have a different problem: They tend to face huge marine balls, and they can only get close enough to fungal the front half of it without dying. So they let banelings counter half the marine ball, yay. The survivors, with their shields and stim and medivac support, are still pretty fucking dangerous. You're also more likely to be facing ravens at that stage in the game, so say goodbye to all your creep advantage. | ||
|
SharkSpider
Canada606 Posts
| ||
|
Fiercegore
United States294 Posts
| ||
|
sas911
Canada113 Posts
---- EDIT: And a main reason why banelings work so well, is because with zerg, they can rebuild their army at an unbelievable speed, unlike terran, meaning by using them in say a timing push, or a critical moment of defence, you'll have a strong advantage. Banelings can also be used to drop end game (into overlords with speed), and they'll just DEMOLISH the terran army, because the banelings at that point are cost effective, and they can't rebuild army fast enough to stop your 170 supply army (if you had 60 banelings..) Early game, they are used as baneling busts, or to stop terran from pushing out, as if they overextend themselves, banelings can be used to wipe out their army, and your army can finish the opponent off. Mid game you can use various flanks, using burrow and unburrowing below them (making them extremely cost efficient), or used to try and sneak into the mineral line and devastate economy. So are they really a "counter"? They are, but banelings are such a different type of unit, that works largely only with the zerg-style production, that it's hard to define. | ||
|
ComTrav
United States1093 Posts
MarineKing is famous for his micro for a reason: it's really hard, and very unforgiving. There are lots of TvZs from the GSL, MLGs and elsewhere where very good Terrans slip up their micro for just a second and lose everything. Zerg can use positioning and micro to his advantage, too. | ||
|
Powda
United States116 Posts
I have to agree with everything OP said. Not that Zerg needs a counter to marines. I have discussed this in great depth with my friends since I wish Lurkers were in the game instead of Banelings (Their replacement). I have to say, although there is no official definition for "counter", Banelings in my opinion wouldn't be a counter to anything unless the cost efficiency worked. If that weren't the case one could claim a nuke would be the counter to stalkers or roaches, we all know that isn't the case. Having the ability to beat something doesn't make it a counter, thus to me, Banelings can not be considered a counter to any unit as they are just a landmine that cost a lot resources....unlike Spider mines from Broodwar that were free and stationary. If anything I would consider Banelings to be Zerg's best option against marines, not a counter. It is my opinion that the meta game of sc2 is still EXTREMELY young, I mean that in the loudest way possible. Pouring over replays and commentary of the current pro scene makes that very evident. That being said, I pray banelings are replaced by lurkers in the expansion the way they were in alpha. | ||
|
Falcon-sw
United States324 Posts
On December 05 2010 10:43 pigtheman wrote: did you even play sc1? or terran for that matter? or even zerg? its called micro T.T its not the marines just walk around the lurkers getting raped.. Yes and yes. I know lurkers don't autokill bio, but they can rack up kills without ceasing to exist. | ||
|
Creegz
Canada354 Posts
| ||
|
Treadmill
Canada2833 Posts
| ||
|
whomybuddy
United States620 Posts
| ||
|
Setev
Malaysia390 Posts
On December 05 2010 09:36 Demus wrote: well, each baneling needs to hit 3 marines on average for them to be "somewhat" effective ( this is assuming a 1:1 mineral - gas value ratio, which in itself is skewed). banelings cost 50/25, marines 50/50 and it takes 2 banelings to kill a marine. Also, even without micro some Blings will die before they hit the marine ball thanks to the marines actually shooting at them. In itself, Blings aren't really a counter to mass marine. They can become one, though, with the proper support. Both infestors and ovie drops vastly improve the capacity of the Bling, making them very effective Yo since when do marines started costing gas? I thought its 50 minerals per marine lolz. But I agree, blings need infestor support to be really effective. Ovie not so much, coz they may get sniped even before they get into position above marines, if the marines stim and kite shoot, or if there are vikings around. | ||
|
tournamentnow
Australia111 Posts
maxed out banelings 200 pop worth of them vs 200 pop vikings. Guess who wins cost effectively? The banelings do, there's a youtube video of this. Banelings are time efficient and larvae efficient. Mop up enemy and you can continue to drop more. | ||
|
Douillos
France3195 Posts
| ||
|
Rowen
United States76 Posts
On December 05 2010 11:39 SharkSpider wrote: Think of banelings as "how much would you pay to have XXXX dead?" I've been struggling with rationalizing my baneling usage, too, until I read this quote. This is EXACTLY how it feels! I will pay more than the cost-effective amount to make sure that the big scary bio ball you have is reduced to green goo. The other side of that coin is that essentially you're already invested in the zerglings. Nobody gets lings JUST to make banelings. I have never once said "Oh, better make 12 zerglings so I can get 12 banelings," because zerglings are typically (past early-game) a filler unit. "Oh, I have extra minerals but I don't feel safe enough to expo and I'm already saturated. Best pump lings." Suddenly, you have 40-50 zerglings and nothing to do with them. Well any mid- or late-game army will just crush zerglings. Every matchup includes at least one unit that's just ridiculously good against lings (colossi or high templar, blue-flame hellions or properly positioned tanks, infestors or banelings) that are likely to be present in their army composition. Face it -- any zergling you make will die unless you're so massively better than your opponent that it doesn't matter WHAT you do, you'll win. If every zergling will die anyway, then we have to find the equalization point where paying 25/25 (~75 min, or another three zerglings without the food cost) will increase their total damage output before death. Let me put it this way: if a zergling will attack four times each (on average) then it will do equal damage to non-light units as if it turned into a baneling, but for less cost. You can even think of it as becoming cost-effective to start investing in banelings when four zerglings will do less damage than one baneling (since 100min for 4 zerglings is equivalent to 50/25 for 1 baneling), for the simple fact that you will have the zerglings there anyway. What they kill is irrelevant. Mainly, blings are a force-multiplier. Especially useful in early-game ZvZ and mid-/late-game ZvT, their job is to make holes in your opponent's army for your zerglings to fill in and create a better surround. You can try unit-testing some seemingly non-sensical matchups for ling/bling and see the force multiplied. Try cost-equivalent amounts of ling/bling (4 lings per bling I find is best) against stalkers. Depending on the numbers involved, the zerg will still lose, but then try that with JUST lings or JUST blings and see the difference in remaining units? Blasting holes is a good thing. Sudden damage is a good thing. Being one-and-done is just fine if there's nothing left afterwards. Screw the cost, you're the motherf*%(ing ZERG. Expand again and saturate it in one production cycle and your cost will be refunded immediately. Drive your enemies before you and hear the lamentations of their medivacs. | ||
|
FirstQT
United States115 Posts
| ||
|
Slayer91
Ireland23335 Posts
On December 05 2010 10:02 EmilA wrote: Not really fair to make these cost-effectiveness comparisons across races. A stalker is supposed to counter roaches, and it costs accordingly much more, but in equal costs and especially with upgrades, roaches will still rip stalkers to shreds. Anyhow, 50 banelings a moved against 50 marines with shield on creep will result in 30 banelings living through. Misconception. Stalkers are countered by roaches with speed on creep. Immortals counter roaches. In attack move, you 50 banelings will definitely not all die vs 50 marnies. As long as they're cost effective they're a counter. | ||
|
evanthebouncy!
United States12796 Posts
On December 05 2010 19:07 tournamentnow wrote: IN bW lurkers almost killed close to no marines. Lol defensive matrix marine split dodge. Now banelings evaporate entire marine ball, ... Are you joking or what? Lurkers definitely rips marines, why do you think people use lurkers vs terran? to NOT kill marines? Please... Have you even seen lurker under a dark swarm holding off 32143 marines that couldn't do shit until the lurkers are irradiated? Do you have anything of that effectiveness in SC2? I don't think so. Baneling is one time usage but lurkers, you can really use them for a long long time. Think of it this way: 3 lurkers on ramp = unkillable base w/o tanks against endless marine/medics. Now you try to put 10 banelings somewhere, I highly doubt that can save your base against any descent army. | ||
| ||
