|
On February 12 2011 19:24 morimacil wrote:Not really. Its a sure way to lose if your opponent actually has something that can punish you for splitting up your units, thats true. Against something like muta-ling, if you split up your army, then the full zerg army can engage each split up part separately, meaning that zerg wins the battles easily. If you spread it out, then not everything is shooting at once, and lings get super nice surrounds, so its awesome for the zerg. Just imagine for example a single zealot attacking your expo. You are going muta-ling: Great, a free zealot! You are going roach hydra: Great, a free zealot! You are going infestor baneling: Uh. Use up 5 banelings to kill a single zealot? Or fungal growth it with a few infested marines? The issue is, with other styles, any stray units are free pickings, forcing the toss units to stay together, and eventually form what we came to know as the deathball. With just infestor-bling, you dont have that. Single colossus wandering around, away from his deathball. Against other styles: wohoo! free colossus! :D But against bling-infestor? Using up 18 banelings to blow it up isnt really a great option. Neural parasite and a bunch of infested tewrrans is probably the best thing to take it out, but even then, its still 175 energy from your infestors, so its still not a super awesome deal really.
What are you talking about? I don't even...
You do realize the zerg player is going to have mountains of zerglings at his disposal right? Splitting up your colossi against zerglings, blings, and infestors is not a smart idea.
He isn't going to tunnel vision himself into only having baneling and infestor as you're implying.
|
Well that really seems to be the main focus of his post though.
"The goal is to get a solid baneling/infestor composition with all relevant upgrades to these units"
"What is different about this is, you rely purely on banelings and queens to survive"
"It will blow ass against 40 banelings + whatever infestors you mustered."
And so on, the OP doesnt really mention using lings at any point in his game, and goes outof his way to mention he will be going pure infestor baneling multiple times.
It could just be that the OP's post isnt descriptive of what he actually meant, and perhaps he is just going for ling-bling-infestor instead of ling-bling muta. In which case its probably a good idea to point out that the style has been done a lot in ZvT, usually with a few roaches in there, so there might be stuff to gain from it, and it might be worth incorporating some roaches, since they are more efficient against toss than terran in general, and are integral to the ZvT build to efficiently punish small groups of units, something that fungal and blings cant really do.
|
On February 13 2011 04:19 morimacil wrote:
Well that really seems to be the main focus of his post though.
"The goal is to get a solid baneling/infestor composition with all relevant upgrades to these units"
"What is different about this is, you rely purely on banelings and queens to survive"
"It will blow ass against 40 banelings + whatever infestors you mustered."
And so on, the OP doesnt really mention using lings at any point in his game, and goes outof his way to mention he will be going pure infestor baneling multiple times.
It could just be that the OP's post isnt descriptive of what he actually meant, and perhaps he is just going for ling-bling-infestor instead of ling-bling muta. In which case its probably a good idea to point out that the style has been done a lot in ZvT, usually with a few roaches in there, so there might be stuff to gain from it, and it might be worth incorporating some roaches, since they are more efficient against toss than terran in general, and are integral to the ZvT build to efficiently punish small groups of units, something that fungal and blings cant really do.
Check out his conclusion.
|
On February 13 2011 04:19 morimacil wrote:
Well that really seems to be the main focus of his post though.
"The goal is to get a solid baneling/infestor composition with all relevant upgrades to these units"
"What is different about this is, you rely purely on banelings and queens to survive"
"It will blow ass against 40 banelings + whatever infestors you mustered."
And so on, the OP doesnt really mention using lings at any point in his game, and goes outof his way to mention he will be going pure infestor baneling multiple times.
It could just be that the OP's post isnt descriptive of what he actually meant, and perhaps he is just going for ling-bling-infestor instead of ling-bling muta. In which case its probably a good idea to point out that the style has been done a lot in ZvT, usually with a few roaches in there, so there might be stuff to gain from it, and it might be worth incorporating some roaches, since they are more efficient against toss than terran in general, and are integral to the ZvT build to efficiently punish small groups of units, something that fungal and blings cant really do.
You should really read the whole OP before making blanket statements...
|
Canada749 Posts
On February 12 2011 19:07 Ziggitz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2011 18:29 Lochat wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but banelings are more larva efficient than roach. Take a simple case to hold some early pressure - 10 larva worth of lings vs 10 larva worth of roaches. You get 10 roaches which are nice defenders but they immediately cost 75/25. If you just build the 20 zerglings and wait to morph them until you absolutely need them, you will be able to get more drones out because you only spent 50 mins instead of 75 right at that moment when you committed the larva to defense. You can get on 4 gas quicker, and take a 3rd quicker.
I'm not sure if you know what larvae efficiency means. The point is, 10 larvae worth of roaches tends to be stronger than 10 larvae worth of Lings. That means, instead of using 10 larvae to make Roaches, you make, say, 5. But you need 10 Larvae worth of Lings for the same defense. That means there's 5 extra drone larvae to use. I'm not sure how you try to argue against larvae efficiency by completely ignoring larvae efficiency. It's sorta like arguing against a unit being cost efficient by ignoring how much they actually cost. Not if you morph them into banelings. a roach is more larva efficient than 2 lings, but not two banelings. That's 1 larva for 100/50 worth of army. Against a large ball of units that works out to be way way more efficient when you consider how many attacks a roach will get off on average before it dies to the death ball compared to how many units a baneling can splash.
Except for the fact that they have to kill themselves when they attack and thus you have absolutely no army after the battle, not really putting you ahead unless you've really been able to out expand him (in which case any other army could have done it).
|
On February 12 2011 21:17 jamesmax wrote:
Im sure you two above posters realize he doesnt have to morph every ling right
so what? what the hell are 15 lings and a few banes gonna do against a colossus and 5-8 gateway units?
|
I don't play Protoss as competitively as Terran, but I'm much more comfortable vs Blings/Infestors with a Protoss ball as I am with a Terran ball (which I think speaks for itself). I've always been jealous at how much easier it is for Protoss to stop this. I usually just spam a few storms, blink a couple of Stalkers in the way, throw up a couple forcefields, and "run away" to spread my units and attack move back into the BLings to minimize damage. Protoss units are so bulky I've never thought it was cost effective to throw masses of BLings at a Protoss ball of death. Even under FG, Forcields, storms, stalker, and colossus fire are enough to kill a lot of the BLings before they get to you. IMO, this becomes especially true if Protoss has no fear of getting shot down (or have their colossus sniped by Hydras/Roaches) in the process.
I guess this would work better on some maps than others, but I'd have a hard time seeing this work properly on Metalopolis for example.
Edit: And as someone has pointed out, even when I play Terran, my usual response to heavy BLing play is splitting up my forces into 2, and even adding drops (which is extremely effective). The effectiveness of mass BLings is when all the BLings are together, so have you to split them up, the effectiveness of the build drops dramatically.
|
just went and watched all the reps, and I will say that the build is very interesting. The use of NP was pretty sweet because nobody ever uses it. I already go ling/bane/infestor vs most terran (favor infestor over muta, if i ever end up getting muta) so I don't think it will be hard to use in this situation, scary thing about this is storm but nowhere in the OP do you say you have to stick bane/infestor all game ^.^ thanks for the reps, they were very helpful
|
http://www.sc2replayed.com/replays/139159-1v1-protoss-zerg-metalopolis vs a 2700-something Protoss, really fun
Have been trying to mix in banelings in a lot of ways in ZvP, most recently I've been going LingBanelingInfestor and trying to delay him until Ultralisks so I can smash down the forcefields so my banes actually deal some damage. I love that you don't run into supply problems near as much as RoachHydra, feels so good :D
Played a bunch of close position meta games too, in scrappy games ling/baneling is great, especially for counter attacking.
|
FF>Baneling. However, I think banelings are really strong and underused in this matchup. I've recently had success using them early game to stop 4 gate pressure. I've also used them to great effect late game. But midgame before you get OV speed/drop or ultralisk I feel banelings just get dominated by forcefields. For this reason I really think midgame zerg needs something more then banes.
|
|
|
I absolutely love baneling drops in ZvP. They are quite cost efficient against almost any composition, and as evidenced in this game they still do well against big deathballs of stalkers and immortals. Later, baneling drops can be absolutely devastating when supported by endgame units. I'm still trying to find a place for infestors in my build because gas is hard to come by.
This is vs a 3.1K masters:
![[image loading]](http://www.gamereplays.org/community/uploads/repimgs/repimg-33-188979.jpg)
|
On February 12 2011 19:07 Ziggitz wrote:
Not if you morph them into banelings. a roach is more larva efficient than 2 lings, but not two banelings. That's 1 larva for 100/50 worth of army. Against a large ball of units that works out to be way way more efficient when you consider how many attacks a roach will get off on average before it dies to the death ball compared to how many units a baneling can splash.
You're talking about supply efficiency more than larvae efficiency at this point. Larvae efficiency is less of a concern when Protoss has a 200/200 deathball than supply efficiency is. When Protoss has a deathball, you're not concerned about droning up at that stage in the game, you're concerned about being steam-rolled, and hoping you have enough resources to re-max and hope your second wave doesn't get smashed. I don't think anyone is saying banelings aren't supply efficient in this thread.
|
I've tried baneling openers in ZvP and had some success. I've tried busting expo+cannon setups but that hasn't worked against good FFs. However it does feel fairly safe against gateway pressure, especially with a relatively quick hydra den. Burrow is another potential first pick at lair tech, if you're worried about pure gateway pressure at your natural. Ling bane hydra into spire tech can play out fairly well, since your early composition almost forces colossus, at which point you roll out the corruptors. Lategame, your broodlings max out on upgrades quickly since you've favored melee upgrades.
|
As a Protoss player I find that this composition is very hard to deal with without HT. the infestors absolutely destroy Colossi with Neural Parasite, and the usual composition within a Colossi army is sentry, stalker which without Colossi gets demolished by banelings and lings. If its unscouted (which is hard to do since a simple poke will reveal all the units that zerg has and what composition he is going for) then it destroys. HT/Zeal/Immortal/Archon destroys it handily by feedbacking the infestors as well as storming everything else. at that point if the zerg doesnt switch it up fast the game is over in P's favor. Voids are generally bad against this as they have a lot of trouble killing all of the lings. but Colossi/Void or Colossi/Phoenix will do well as the void/phoenix will snipe all of the infestors and the well rounded P death ball will finish off the rest (using FF to defend from/snipe banes)
|
My idea of the Protoss death ball versus Zerg includes Void Rays, which pure baneling + infestor play is going to have a damn hard time stopping.
|
I stopped reading when the post asserted making banelings to defend was more larva efficient than making roaches.
|
i've been using something like this in zvp i'm about 3400 masters, im not decided yet if it's viable or not, i've been winning pretty decently with it
|
So, I've tried this, and it does work pretty well against people who go robo off 2 base. However I can't survive a 6gate with lingbane. I've tried various things, like getting really fast +1/+1, or getting a quick macro hatch and rely on numbers, go heavy on the banelings.
The problem is that baneling speed barely finishes by the time they hit so you are confined on your creep. this does not allow you to make him waste too many forcefields by dancing in front of his army before he is in your base. and a typical 6gate has TONS of forcefields available which will nullify your first banelings and you really don't have time to morph any more when he is at your door esp since once he is inrange of your ramp it gets ffed infinetly.
This is the number one problem with this style as if you are forced to go roach to survive a 6gate it's pretty rough to transition into lingbane afterwards.
|
On February 14 2011 14:56 unit wrote:
As a Protoss player I find that this composition is very hard to deal with without HT. the infestors absolutely destroy Colossi with Neural Parasite, and the usual composition within a Colossi army is sentry, stalker which without Colossi gets demolished by banelings and lings. If its unscouted (which is hard to do since a simple poke will reveal all the units that zerg has and what composition he is going for) then it destroys. HT/Zeal/Immortal/Archon destroys it handily by feedbacking the infestors as well as storming everything else. at that point if the zerg doesnt switch it up fast the game is over in P's favor. Voids are generally bad against this as they have a lot of trouble killing all of the lings. but Colossi/Void or Colossi/Phoenix will do well as the void/phoenix will snipe all of the infestors and the well rounded P death ball will finish off the rest (using FF to defend from/snipe banes)
As a sidebar, its really hard to feedback the infestors when theres a ling/bling carpet all around you. Just putting that out there. And it doesn't destroy it "handily". More than likely your HT are going to get pounded by banelings. Also, ideally you would want that unit composition in the late game, true, but getting there on equal footing is a bit more tricky.
Again, its hard to snipe infestors with phoenix or void ray because of fungal growth and ITs. By the time you are looking to snipe infestors hes hemorrhaging energy. I've tried it, its hard for the phoenix to be effective past the initial 3-4 you make after harassing. The best case scenario is to keep your phoenix alive to mitigate NP via graviton beam, which means not flying them by the zerg's base when his infestors are in play.
Lastly...... forcefield doesn't defend against banes in overlords. Forcefield becomes so useless after a certain period in the game and you're just wasting your gas. Maybe if someone can provide a replay that uses sentries decently; I haven't been able to use them effectively though. The zerg just has too much flexibility in maneuvering so I tend not to get sentries after the 7-10 minute mark and use my gas elsewhere (although I still use them for hallucination scouts).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
