EPTSide note: Marines are strong at the start like everyone said, which obviously warrants more rax production, by the late game I don't think they're "that great" either, they are definately cost efficient but constantly producing mass rines is risky buisness against any other race in the late game. The only way marines are any good is if they hit critical mass, but that's like people who qq'd over mutaballs.
The Problem with Marines - Page 13
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
PartyBiscuit
Canada4525 Posts
Side note: Marines are strong at the start like everyone said, which obviously warrants more rax production, by the late game I don't think they're "that great" either, they are definately cost efficient but constantly producing mass rines is risky buisness against any other race in the late game. The only way marines are any good is if they hit critical mass, but that's like people who qq'd over mutaballs. | ||
|
Skrelt
Netherlands306 Posts
| ||
|
Mahavishnu
Canada396 Posts
| ||
|
Nimic
Norway1360 Posts
On December 08 2010 22:42 Fa1nT wrote: He also said vikings are bad. Must be one of those terrans that builds 5 vikings and loses them to a 25 mutalisk ball and ggs :/ Are you suggesting terrans go more vikings to counter mutas? Are you really? | ||
|
JamesJohansen
United States213 Posts
While there might be slight balance issues early game, i think its best if the other races (well... protoss, I play zerg and i think we're fine against terran early game and absolutely rock protoss early game barring flawless sentry play) were buffed instead of giving marines an early game nerf. That being said, marines HAVE TO be weaker late game for teh sake of the game IMO. After all, being able to mass one unit and marching to victory is grounds for a shallow game even when flawless micro comes into play. So why do terrans insist on building marines if they get demolished late game? The issue is unit costs IMO. Right now, I think SC2 is still in its infant stages in terms of some of the finer details such as resource allocation and management and its really easy to float on minerals for terran and zerg since all of their units costs ridiculous amounts of gas barring the basic T1. Units like hellions help this out but their use is narrow. Id like to see a slight buff to terran mech in the form of making at least one unit slightly less gas heavy. I say slightly less because the other issue is players not wanting to switch from whats semi effective. this might change when the next tournament comes around and some terran busts out some almighty mech play against a toss but until then, there probably won't be revolutions in gameplay. I play zerg so I understand if this might seem like a stupid shallow statement but as terrans, you all have many options over the other races so don't be afraid to try some crazy shit once in a while. Once in a while I play a terran that pulls something that I dont even know how to respond too and I feel somewhat less annoyed I lost because quite frankly I feel outdone since the dude pulled some creative shit out of his ass and used it on me. Thats cool, I like seeing that. More of that would go a long way especially with terrans as they have the biggest arsenal of units in SC2 | ||
|
jere
United States121 Posts
On December 08 2010 08:53 Hellye wrote: i really think the balance threads are starting to get old. With that said i completly agree with op when he said terran is forced to depend too much on marines. It is such a good unit and is used in so many roles it is crazy to go anything else. Nevertheless if blizzard really wants to "fix" this it should buff other less used units like battlecruiser, hellions and reapers. I am all for a game where the should be alot of viable options and not a clear dominant one. Even though the game seems kinda "balanced" it should be tweaked to introduce more depth to terran gameplay. How is this for a "fix" for hellions take away blue flame and add a reachable wider area with less range. So it can hit more than one zergling, zealot, or marine attacking it at a time Right now for hellions the only way they can really kill things is is if the enemy units get in a line, and most dont do that in SC2. Make them more like the way the voidray is going to. Less only harassment and more in the army mix unit. fixed a typo | ||
|
wristuzi
United Kingdom1168 Posts
I am also pro the fact that you are not talking about them being OP or whatever, people need to realise the difference between issues in game design and balance. So good thread! | ||
|
MegaTerran
214 Posts
On December 08 2010 23:45 JamesJohansen wrote: So why do terrans insist on building marines if they get demolished late game? The issue is unit costs IMO. Right now, I think SC2 is still in its infant stages in terms of some of the finer details such as resource allocation and management and its really easy to float on minerals for terran and zerg since all of their units costs ridiculous amounts of gas barring the basic T1. Units like hellions help this out but their use is narrow. Id like to see a slight buff to terran mech in the form of making at least one unit slightly less gas heavy. because if we dont marines we ll have to build other anti air. all terran anti air is very bad and costs much gas. so we have no other way then build marines even vs banelings because of muta. | ||
|
soulcrusher
United States143 Posts
Tanks... marines are toast. Storm destroys marine in a second. Banelings... don't even need to go into that. I think marines are fine the way they are. If a terran is massing marines, each race has a suitable way to deal with it in my opinion. | ||
|
LBo
Germany35 Posts
On December 08 2010 23:45 JamesJohansen wrote: So why do terrans insist on building marines if they get demolished late game? The issue is unit costs IMO. Right now, I think SC2 is still in its infant stages in terms of some of the finer details such as resource allocation and management and its really easy to float on minerals for terran and zerg since all of their units costs ridiculous amounts of gas barring the basic T1. Units like hellions help this out but their use is narrow. Id like to see a slight buff to terran mech in the form of making at least one unit slightly less gas heavy. It's probably because of production facilities too, I guess. I don't play Terran, but if you have 3+ Barracks later on how do you make good use of them? So you keep dumping minerals in Barracks units because you already have the infrastructure for it. | ||
|
Pewt
Canada201 Posts
On December 09 2010 00:12 soulcrusher wrote: I simply disagree, marines die very easily. Despite what some may say... it really is hard to kite zealots with marines. Tanks... marines are toast. Storm destroys marine in a second. Banelings... don't even need to go into that. I think marines are fine the way they are. If a terran is massing marines, each race has a suitable way to deal with it in my opinion. The issue is that when that suitable way comes into play Terran has a huge hole in what roles their units can fill efficiently, which is the point of this thread. It's probably because of production facilities too, I guess. I don't play Terran, but if you have 3+ Barracks later on how do you make good use of them? So you keep dumping minerals in Barracks units because you already have the infrastructure for it. Yeah, also because in many situations our only other mineral dump (the hellion) would be worse than Marines even if they are storming the shit out of us just because Marines do something like 6 times the DPS as hellions to armoured units for half the cost and hellions aren't all that much more durable. Hell, unless their units are lining up nicely Marines are even more efficient against light units than Hellions. Also, you can't really rely on Thors/Vikings for AA outside of TvT, so there's that. | ||
|
goneim
China201 Posts
| ||
|
Blacklizard
United States1194 Posts
On December 08 2010 14:00 Slago wrote: I'm a zerg and i even think marine micro against banes is just so sexy, but to me it ain't fair that the effectivness of a unit is based on one players micro ability not both I agree with this. This is partly due to marine range, but also very much related to the animation canceling that marines benefit more from better than any (?) other unit. Don't get me wrong... I love kiting around and stutter step with marines. I love watching it. Very fun. But you can't do nearly as much with melee units, stalkers, roaches, etc. Early on, this sometimes seems like a design problem. In BW my argument was that lurkers needed to be able to "attack ground", so they could aim ahead of kiting marines. In SC2 for Zerg and Protoss to get more out of their early game units is to directly upgrade them or make their army better with better tech (banelings, speed/charge, fungal gr., colossus, etc.) or positioning (FFs at a choke, burrowed banes, flanks, etc.). It's close, but something still feels missing when I can't outmicro a Terran as another race early on. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7260 Posts
On December 08 2010 12:44 Ridiculisk wrote: I actually agree with the OP. They're not Overpowered, but the production rate, and available upgrades make them the most versatile tier 1 unit in the game. Personally I think that Stim and combat shield should be tier 2 upgrades, OR they should cost more. That might shift that early game balance around abit? Alternativly an increase in the build time/cost of Reactors? This is a hard one to balance. Like you said Marines are important, but they are just too effective early game to be worth 50mins IMO. thats not what the post is about at all. Seriously..... They suck lategame is the entire point of this thread and fill too many roles to a point where terran doesnt really have a viable late game. | ||
|
MegaTerran
214 Posts
 | ||
|
Cerebrate.Monthly
United States21 Posts
I have no problem with intensive marine micro proving it's worth in early/mid game and the overall counters to it are balanced for the flow of the current games. The problem is how big of a crucial hole that marine is currently plugging in the Terran infrastructure because unlike Brood War (Omg it's a different game I know but who on TL would argue that the game shouldn't be a model?) there is no 'natural' next step away from marines. Technically you can step into Thors, but they aren't like Goliaths in a ton of fundamental ways: - Feel immobile on most maps which is made to balance it's raw power - Much more expensive due to it's super strength even in the GvG fight - Anti-Light air attack only, meaning you need vikings as well to produce a 'similar' anti-air effect to marines I'm not saying that "Marines are OP" or "Terran is UP late game" but that there is a general blandness in Terran Game design because the 'role' that Marines are forced to hold in the balance for the moment that affects how the other races have been forced to play in response. My personal feelings for changes (This is more my opinions than supported observations): 1) Give the Reaper a mid/late game purpose since devs effectively cut off it's extreme early game effectiveness (Still good to make one but the speed bonus comes too late for most players to not just leap right into hellion harass). Ideally like reducing their actual damage against light units (Hellions overlap this, and Blizzard removed the lurker because it overlapped Banelings right?) but keeping their vs building attack. And then reintroduce that mine type ability (That doesn't explode on a timer) which would allow a Bio based Terran army to hold ground (with micro if mines do friendly splash) while deny expansions momentarily and expand map awareness as well. 2) Change how hellions work in my opinion (atm arguably blue flames are one of the best harassing units in a mineral line) by making them more of a fighter unit by reducing it's damage and some of it's splash in exchange for faster rate of fire (Keep them an anti light unit that supplements tanks). - It's not really the same as Vultures + Spider mines but a variant idea from them by keeping hellions with splash still and positioning of them for attacks playing a big part in their effectiveness against light units still during skirmishes. | ||
|
morimacil
France921 Posts
On December 09 2010 00:09 MegaTerran wrote: because if we dont marines we ll have to build other anti air. all terran anti air is very bad and costs much gas. so we have no other way then build marines even vs banelings because of muta. Well yeah, appart from marines, you have to use some gas to deal with air. Every other race has to do it too, and it works out fine. a Ghost costs the same as 1.5 mutalisks, but easily beats a muta, plus can instantly kill 2 mutas that come within 10 range when he has energy. A very efficient solution to mutas, ans also still good against broodlords, and infestors, and decent against lings and banelings. Its not impossible to play without marines, or with less marines. It just requires a little more thought than just taking your standard army, and not making marines. | ||
|
Kyandid
Canada124 Posts
| ||
|
HyperDeath
United States64 Posts
honestly if the push comes too early i have the most trouble dealing with it as protoss. although a decent unit composition of stalkers and zealots works the best against them in my experience (if anyone could offer me better advice id appreciate it). as zerg banelings are as effective as how they are used. going sling/bling really crushes mass marines. or even just mass infestor/bling is a really good way to deal with mass marines if the push comes later. As terran its just a matter of scouting out a 2rax all in and getting a bunker or on a high ground or something. and i disagree that in the late game marines lose there usefulness. I find them just as useful as late game zealots and zerglings. they are good support for your army but not strong enough to build your army around. so if your opponent going tank thor with some infantry backup and your opponent goes mass collosus. marines wouldnt be the best choice to backup your army you should try and switch to mauraders. but if they are going immortals, then definately add marines to your army | ||
|
Unastheslayer
Scotland23 Posts
My personal feelings for changes (This is more my opinions than supported observations): 1) Give the Reaper a mid/late game purpose since devs effectively cut off it's extreme early game effectiveness (Still good to make one but the speed bonus comes too late for most players to not just leap right into hellion harass). Ideally like reducing their actual damage against light units (Hellions overlap this, and Blizzard removed the lurker because it overlapped Banelings right?) but keeping their vs building attack. And then reintroduce that mine type ability (That doesn't explode on a timer) which would allow a Bio based Terran army to hold ground (with micro if mines do friendly splash) while deny expansions momentarily and expand map awareness as well. I agree that Reapers need some kind of ability but I think that's the wrong way to go about it. As far as I'm concerned Reapers should be running away from ground armies because that's what they should be losing to in straight up fights. What kills Reapers in my book is the fact that the moment that your opponent gets a Banshee or a Void Ray or a Mutalisk, they're completely and utterly useless. They can outmaneuver ground units, but then along comes something more maneuverable and you might as well just start making Marauds. I think Reapers need some kind of researchable anti-air ability like an overboost on their jetpacks which lets them boost into the air for X amount of time and shoot air units (during this time they can be shot by Phoenixes, Vikings and all the other air superiority things). Give it similar mechanics to either Blink (cooldown) or something entirely different like they lose their cliffhopping and some speed for a time after the overboost and I think you'll have an ability that vastly improves Reaper usefulness. Now this could lead to some people choosing to forgo Mariners entirely in favour of Reapers if their Micro is good enough but I ask you: is that really such a bad thing? TL;DR: Make Reapers better to stop overreliance on Marines | ||
| ||
