|
At the risk of offending Day9, I recognize that everyone sees banelings as the counter to the marine ball, or in even bigger numbers of banelings, everything on the ground.
However, think about the other "counters" in SC2. Immortals vs. roaches. Marines vs. mutalisks. Speedlings vs. stalkers.
In all of these matchups, and many others, the "counter" absolutely destroys the unit it's supposed to, AND (this is the key) still retains many units at the end of the battle.
Fly a flock of mutas into a ball of 50 marines, the mutas evaporate and maybe 3 marines died. You get the idea.
But with banelings, you roll into the ball of 50 marines, evaporate it, and 95% of your banelings are gone. You need to reproduce them for the next wave.
This, in my opinion, makes banelings a fake counter.
In BW, you countered bio with lurkers, which could kill tons of marines, firebats and medics without incurring any losses.
In SC2, sure, Zerg can handle a marine ball, but when it's all over, Zerg has to try to do damage to the Terran economy or infrastructure with the remaining few zerglings/banelings and wait for the next round of reinforcements to arrive. Admittedly, this is not a long time, provided the Zerg has been macroing well, but it's a little annoying.
By way of contrast, if a Protoss 4-gate stomps your initial resistance, they can then roll into your base and win. No need to wait for reinforcements at all.
Is this just a matter of "Well, banelings are pretty cost-effective vs. what they kill, so I don't worry about it"?
Thoughts welcome.
|
My other problems with banelings is that a-move vs a-move they don't do that well. If you micro them vs an a-move you do great. Then once the Terran's are good and learn to micro their back to being very difficult to make cost effective. It's so touch for noob players (like me) to deal with mass marine... very demoralizing :-(
|
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
|
That is the reason to why terran goes mass marine against zerg. There is no "real" counter to marines except for banelings which isn't cost-effective unless you have the better micro.
(no QQ-ing on balance, just sayin')
|
If you had 50 banelings and amoved into 50 marines, you would still have many left over. How is that different to your other examples.
|
On December 05 2010 09:39 skirmisheR wrote:
That is the reason to why terran goes mass marine against zerg. There is no "real" counter to marines except for banelings which isn't cost-effective unless you have the better micro.
(no QQ-ing on balance, just sayin')
Unless you have the better micro? You mean if the terran has bad micro? I don't recall seeing any baneling splits even in the GSL. Anyhow, I think banelings are only a proper counter if they're backed up by sufficient speedlings like a 1:2 ratio of blings to slings.
|
On December 05 2010 09:35 Kelsin wrote:
My other problems with banelings is that a-move vs a-move they don't do that well. If you micro them vs an a-move you do great. Then once the Terran's are good and learn to micro their back to being very difficult to make cost effective. It's so touch for noob players (like me) to deal with mass marine... very demoralizing :-(
A touch disingenuous.
A-move vs banelings doesn't work if you run into a thor or marauder (basic micro: keep those in front of marines at all times. harder than it sounds!)
The corresponding zerg tactic is to use a little basic micro to not ram the thor. At this point, banes rock marines hard. Foxer splits are absolutely nuts to pull off, which is why we constantly see GSL pros failing to do so.
|
50 marines = 2500 minerals
50 banelings = 2500 minerals and 1250 gas
they better kill all of the marines or you are in trouble.
In fact 25 of them would have to kill all 50 for it to be an even exchange in terms of non-time resources. That is assuming a 1:1 value of gas and minerals which isn't really true.
|
I think the point is not to a-move banes into marines. The best Zergs I've seen have hidden banes and flanked and trapped marines. In that case, they're extremely cost-effective. It's not about micro really, but positioning.The problem is on maps with narrow chokes and hallway paths where you can't effectively flank with banes or lings.
|
On December 05 2010 09:53 PirateGus wrote:
50 marines = 2500 minerals
50 banelings = 2500 minerals and 1250 gas
they better kill all of the marines or you are in trouble.
In fact 25 of them would have to kill all 50 for it to be an even exchange in terms of non-time resources. That is assuming a 1:1 value of gas and minerals which isn't really true.
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.
|
You need to understand the importance of army trade-offs. Almost always Terran falls behind because Protoss and Zerg have an easier way to warp in our instantly produce mass larvae for a new army while Terran takes time to get those 50 marines out.
|
If your ONLY making banelings you're doing it wrong. The goal of banelings is to kill all the marines while spending half the resources that the terran player spent on making those marines. You should have some other units to finish him off when all your banelings suicide.
|
|
|
I think the definition of a counter in the OP is deceptively insufficient, and is why there appears to be a problem. When my opponent attempts to enact a plan and I plan to specifically stop that, it is a counter. Whether it is successful or a good counter is up for debate after, but a plan to stop another's plan is a counter, even on a micro scale.
As such most of the successful counters are obvious things like mass marines vs mass muta's, the outcome is fairly obvious and so it's recognised as a successful counter. When a zerg player wants to prevent an enemies bio play with banelings it can fairly regularly be seen that that banelings are a good counter. Just because they may have all died achieving it is irrelevant. Even if there's no follow up at all, the banelings countered the bio play. The discussion after that is how to move on from that and whether there are better counter play's available.
|
Banelings aren't a counter so much as a force multiplier against marine heavy compositions. Even if the banelings aren't cost effective (they usually aren't), the rest of your force is a lot more cost effective due to the fact that zerg units are best in small confrontations where surrounds are effective.
|
This is being approached completely the wrong way in my opinion.
1. banelings will destroy a marine ball barring one of two things - poor usage/a clicking by the zerg or outstanding micro by the terran.
2. while you may have spent equal minerals but additional gas to have army traded; zerg rebuilds the ENTIRE army at once. Even with a reactor, Terran can't hope to accomplish that type of production
3. Banelings are not good against protoss. They are alright vs zealots, but for equal cost the roach is much more effective. Comparing to a 4gate is not appropriate. If you baneling bust and destroy the wall, you will win. If you don't, you will lose. If you 4 gate and do not do significant damage, you will lose. Otherwise, you generally win.
4. Other than for baneling busts, banelings are not an attacking unit. They are a morph on the staple attacking unit (zergling) into being a more defensive unit. How many times do you make 30 speedlings to throw at an army to help you surround, knowing full well that almost all the lings will die? Similar concept to banelings. I will take killing an entire bio push in split seconds any day of the week. There are few things more demoralizing to a terran opponent.
5. If you ONLY are using banelings, that is the mistake. Banelings are meant to be a part of your overall unit composition, not your only unit. Banelings are terrifying for terrans when they know there's a mutalisk ball to defend- since they can't possibly risk losing all the marines to a few banelings.
The baneling IS definitely a counter. I think the real problem here is your misconception of what a counter is. Not all units need to a-click and stomp the units they hard counter. Think Raven vs Stalker. Raven's cant shoot, but PDD wins games.
|
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.
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..
|
In practical terms, the power of banelings is that they take out the versatile, high DPS marines very quickly, leaving the rest of the terran army vulnerable to other zerg units with favourable matchups against unsupported terran units. A baneling's combination of mobility and splash damage makes them perfect marine killers.
|
You missunderstood the use of Banelings. Sure, they're no Game-Winning unit, but they aren't suppose to be one. Banelings exist to be a defensive "Landmine", sure, the mine is gone after someone walked over it, but the person is probably very dead too.
And like Durp already mentioned, Zerg has this huge mechanical advantage in Lategame, which normally kicks in after denying a push.
|
If marines split to mitigate baneling damage, then there's tons of exposed surface area for zerglings to attack. A terran ball of marines is strong against lings; marines in trios or pairs are not all that great.
The Zerg plan is typically to outexpand their opponent while crushing their pushes. They usually don't need to completely crush their opponent's base; they just have to live. As the player with more expos and large potential drone production, it's generally up to the other guy find ways to hurt you, rather than you hurting them (not that you shouldn't exploit what vulnerabilities present themselves).
|
it would be silly to only have banelings, even vs mass marine, they can kite, so you can kiss your 'counter' units goodbye. should always have zerglings to cut off the escape route and then when they cant move and are paying attention to the lings you run your banelings in, hell if you do it well enough you'll probably still have some banelings and at least half of your lings left. really no point in morphing more banelings when they'll be just as useful as lings, plus you can do some more teching with all that spare gas, probably on lair or upgrades.
|
|
|
If this game was designed around counters it'd be terribly boring. Certain units are effective against certain units. Banelings are effective against marines. I took my eye off the map for a second while dropping some supply depots and I instantly lost my entire marine ball to banelings. After watching the replay I saw that he did a banelings drop on me.
Marines can also be microed against siege tanks effectively.
|
Stimmed marines outrun banelings unless they have both the rolly speed upgrade and creep. So, uh... marines need micro to win but not sick marine king level micro. They just have to run away and occasionally stop to shoot. If I spread my creep far, every fucking terran I play nowadays spends a scan or two to push it back.
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.
|
Think of banelings as "how much would you pay to have XXXX dead?" Often times that's more than the value of XXXX. Think about baneling busts. You break the wall to give your zerglings a positional advantage that lets you win the game. Likewise, think about killing that massive blob of marines. Maybe you can't do it cost-effectively, but you'd pay anything to avoid autolosing right? It's gonna be somewhere in between.
|
I'd think comparing cost versus cost is a little unfair isn't it? At least the way I see it banelings take less time to reproduce, and I'm not sure but i think they're still 1/2 food while a marine is 1 food. I do agree that it seems like banelings aren't amazing against marines but they are the best in certain situations. As for cost efficiency it seems that zerg is based more around being able to outproduce their opponent and just have more stuff than their opponent. Infestors change everything, a good fungal growth will annihilate marine based armies. But as we've seen, good micro'd marines will beat banes especially if they're backed up by tanks.
|
Well I mean banes were never really a cost-effective unit. They were mainly constructed on the entire premise to weaken the terran force for YOUR real army. In the case of banelings, using them and sacrifice my economy (since banelings aren't cost-effective, it's hardly likely each baneling kills three marines), I get to wipe out your army, and send my speedings around and kill everything. It's like a baneling bust. It doesn't "work economically", as 100 minerals and a supply -8 isn't worth the banelings (or is it? Let's just say it isn't for the sake of argument), but then when you have the lings inside, they win you the game. So basically banelings are army supporters that counter marines. By using MORE gas, you're maximizing your army.
----
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.
|
Worth pointing out that even with 8+ Barracks, on 3+ bases, Terran has a tough time re-maxing has fast as a well-saturated Zerg.
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.
|
In regards to OP post.
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.
|
On December 05 2010 10:43 pigtheman wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
Banelings are an interesting thing, realistically they have their place, but in the long run, they are somewhat useless and more of an "oh shit" thing to do with your remaining Zerglings in my opinion. I take injured Zerglings and turn em into Banelings just to give them some more versatile use than just run and be cannon fodder, usually as a base crack, I do thin, small waves to just split the defenses up a little bit so I can move my other units in.
|
Banelings may die when they get used, but the rest of your army doesn't have to. And once your banelings kill the terran army, speedlings can do crazy damage to a terran base. Banelings are great, but. wow, you actually need to have other units.
|
Bannelings are counter to marines = yes. Try to burrow 1 banneling and clump up as much marines as you can to see how many marines 1 banneling can kill. Or just 1 banneling roll to a clump up marines group. Bannelings is just like Thor vs mutas. If you see a bunch of mutas, you would need to get a thor out. When you see a bunch of marines clump up, speedlings can't do anything but bannelings can. When the marines spread out, good micro speedliings will destroy them.
|
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.
|
IN bW lurkers almost killed close to no marines. Lol defensive matrix marine split dodge. Now banelings evaporate entire marine ball, and its quite mineral effective. 2 banelings costing 100/50 take up only 1 supply and if these 2 banelings hits a blob of 8 marines, you just killed 400 minerals worth of marines while you used up 100/50.
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.
|
i just want to add that marines splitting is good vs banelings, but bad against lings, coz you get better surround. So dont just pure baneling, that's ridiculous!
|
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.
|
i see baneling as the 'support' unit akin to sentries(eg. sentries alone are near worthless but make your army infinitely more effective). keep a few of them in your army along with a bunch of lings and you should be fine. with a lot of lings mixed with the banes, if the marines do the baneling spread speedlings can surround better. if they don't, banes wipe them all out.
|
On December 05 2010 10:02 EmilA wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2010 09:53 PirateGus wrote:
50 marines = 2500 minerals
50 banelings = 2500 minerals and 1250 gas
they better kill all of the marines or you are in trouble.
In fact 25 of them would have to kill all 50 for it to be an even exchange in terms of non-time resources. That is assuming a 1:1 value of gas and minerals which isn't really true. 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.
|
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.
|
Well I've done multiple tests in Baneling vs Marine Medivac on the Unit Tester Map
Banelings have a 200% cost efficiency, yes they can kill double the worth of their cost especially on creep.
Getting +1 carapace makes a HUGE difference in baneling vs Marines. Terran must have +2 in order to Equalize it (so imagine +2 or +3.....you better transition out of mass marines lol)
Banelings are not only just a force multiplier, they are also a defensive deterrent. If Terran feels he does not have enough units, he certainly wont go onto the creep. That buys you time to drone up and generate more creep.
I as Terran (I do random for team games so I do have experience with the other races) FEAR banelings the most. What usually happens is
Muta / Ling / Baneling moves to attack
Marine Medivac Siege Tank defends position
Ling take initial damage, then banelings swipe entire Terran army with some muta losses
Zerg rebuilds speedlings and attack the main
Banelings give u time to get more speedlings which can finish off the Terran if u can get to his production facilities. Terran will not be able to recover if u have a lot of speedlings in his main.
|
Well
"without banelings you would never get to that pesky terran deathball, in forcing the terran to "retreat" from his tanks allows you to kill them, and we all know how important killing tanks is!!
secondly .. there are many ways u can make banes SO ridiculously cost effective.. banedropping on mineral lines (i love doing this vs protoss its seriously badass) and in TvZ burrow banes totally rapes terran bio, everytime he has to scan (270 minerals) for your 2 banelings (that are 100 mineral + 50 gas) id say that is cost effective
not to mention that you can drop onto balls of terran units i will agree that mabye banelings are "overused" but in reality they are needed so heavily in tvz i would never discount there value
|
Uhm... Broodwar had Scourge. They are also suicide counter units.
I guess your argument is in pieces now.
|
You missed a few points here. One is that a "counter" should either give you an advantage or take away an existing disadvantage. Terran having a giant ball of very deadly units that decimate a number of the units Zerg likes to mass seems like it could be construed disadvantage. If that ball is suddenly gone, you took away an advantage, and your goal was accomplished.
Additionally, you're forgetting that, in general, if both a Terran player and a Zerg player suddenly have no army, the Zerg player is in better shape.
From where I'm sitting, Banelings sound like a great idea against mass Marines. Now, if only someone can tell me why Terran insists on continuing to build mass Marine against a slew of Banelings...
|
|
|
On December 07 2010 06:09 3xiLe wrote:
Keep in mind that Zerg will usually be 1 base ahead and therefore will have twice the economy. "roughly"
Zerg: 4 bases
Terran: 3 bases
4-3 = 1, 1=1, check
4/3 = 1.33, 1.33 != 2, wrong
If the Terran has one Orbital Command:
4-3 = 1, 1=1, check
4/(3.25) = 1.23, 1.23 != 2, wrong
If the Terran has two Orbital Commands:
4-3 = 1, 1=1, check
4/(3.5) = 1.14, 1.14 != 2, wrong
If the Terran has three Orbital Commands:
4-3 = 1, 1=1, check
4/(3.75) = 1.06, 1.06 != 2, wrong
That's some very rough math.
|
People get too many banelings
ie; 50 banelings vs 50 marines
IMO 40 speedlings and 10 banelings is MUCH better for many reasons
1) speedlings can surround marines and prevent retreat.
2) if he spreads his marines you get a bunch of free hits and more effective surround
3) if he stays in a ball banes will do so much damage
he needs intense studder step micro with a mix of units.
I don't think banelings are a unit meant to be massed, and are rather suporting units that have to be used creatively (burrow, flanking) to be effective. Speed roaches are also a great addition and with speedbanes and speedlings they destroy mass marine assuming you don't engage in chokes (hence don't play jungle basin)
|
im pretty sure that day9 mentioned that banelings for marines is a good trade for terran cause ur trading minerals for gas
|
I think people aren't using Banelings in the right way. They make too many.
One should try using them as landmines by baiting the Terran ground army over them. I have NEVER seen this in a single professional match yet and can't understand why.
|
On December 07 2010 06:49 TheGiz wrote:
I think people aren't using Banelings in the right way. They make too many.
One should try using them as landmines by baiting the Terran ground army over them. I have NEVER seen this in a single professional match yet and can't understand why.
This happens ALL the time. Are you watching the GSL? Baneling landmines are fairly common in TvZ, and FruitDealer even did it in a PvZ today (although he lost).
Also, you say too many banelings, but banelings are not very effective until they reach a critical mass, otherwise they ALL get sniped before hitting their target.
|
On December 05 2010 09:39 skirmisheR wrote:
That is the reason to why terran goes mass marine against zerg. There is no "real" counter to marines except for banelings which isn't cost-effective unless you have the better micro.
(no QQ-ing on balance, just sayin')
You mean you have to *gasp* land a fungal and a click your (bane)lings while the Terran must seperate his marines from his marauders, split them into seperate forces, snipe your infestors, and dodge your fungals. Huh.
|
On December 07 2010 06:49 TheGiz wrote:
I think people aren't using Banelings in the right way. They make too many.
One should try using them as landmines by baiting the Terran ground army over them. I have NEVER seen this in a single professional match yet and can't understand why.
Pro's generally scan upfront before they attack in TvZ, which will destroy your burrowed blings. You'd have thrown away huge amount of resources you could've spent elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
