EPTAll the Terran match-ups are botched because of this one unit. Every damn TvZ -- mass marine. Almost every TvT -- mass marine. TvP -- kinda have to mass marines. It's too damn good in the early game and it's not nearly good enough in the late game.
Zerg armies are supposed to get their strength from sheer numbers. Toss armies are supposed to get their strength from their durability and firepower. Terran armies are supposed to get their strength from efficiency. The kicker in SC2 is that every single race can get their strength from sheer numbers, efficiency, or durability/firepower.
The problem: The marine can be massed extremely easily, it's extremely efficient for it's cost, and it has a huge amount of firepower and durability with medivacs.
The real problem: The marine plays too many roles in a terran army for a late game army to succeed. If the marines are gone, the Terran is dead.
Result: The majority of terran victories are within 12 minutes with some sort of bumrush, usually involving a bunch of marines + scvs + other units before stuff that can kill marines come out.
To replace the marine, you need to get thors, vikings, or both to get anti air. You need hellions to make sure lings or zealots don't run you over. You need marauders to provide DPS. That's at least 350/100 and 3 different production buildings to replace a 50 mineral unit that can be easily massed out of reactored raxs.
You get the point.
The two methods people are using to work around this:
1. Mass so many marines that it doesn't matter if they die; as long as you have enough at the end, you win.
2. Use mech and air units more heavily, with marines only as a support
The first method is popular with Foxer in his TvZ games. Even though he loses a huge amount of marines, he always has enough left to do a huge amount of damage.
The second method is more popular in TvT, where tank/viking/banshee usually takes the game with marines only there to prevent mass marauders from working.
The only method that works in TvP : Marine/SCV rushes and Timing pushes. I can count the number of times a Terran won a head-to-head macro battle with a toss with two hands.
There is no "terran" playstyle right now; it's just a terran playing like a zerg or a terran playing like a protoss. The old terran style revolved around positioning and static defense; unless people start leapfrogging PF's, bunkers, turrets, and sensor towers, there is no such thing as positional play in SC2. Too many things like cost and strong, mobile units makes leapfrogging tanks look retarded.
What is Blizzard is gonna do about this? No clue. There are so many ways to go about fixing this; making shields or stim a T2 upgrade, giving the marine a range upgrade, making shields +20 health instead of +10, making tanks cheaper, nerfing collosi range...The difficult part is finding a way to nerf the marine in the early game and to boost it's strength in the late game without impacting the other 5 matchups.
Fixing the marine will fix most, if not all of the early/late game issues with the TvX matchups.
EDIT:
On December 07 2010 17:17 SuperBigFoot wrote:
Banelings work really well against mass marines. You should try them.
Banelings work really well against mass marines. You should try them.
Micro works really well against banelings. You should try it.
On December 07 2010 17:19 Durn wrote:
This. I think Blizzard needs to look at the core of the game first which is the maps.
Think about when a commentator begins the game. They don't straight up say "well marines counter zerglings pretty well so it'll be gg eventually." Most (decent) ones begin with analyzing positions on the map and there are few circumstances where Zerg is truly safe from the power of the marine. However IN THOSE FEW SITUATIONS, the marine's effectiveness is nothing due to Zerg's abiliity to defend so well.
Thusly, the problem is not necesarily the unit, but rather the situations the unit is in.
This. I think Blizzard needs to look at the core of the game first which is the maps.
Think about when a commentator begins the game. They don't straight up say "well marines counter zerglings pretty well so it'll be gg eventually." Most (decent) ones begin with analyzing positions on the map and there are few circumstances where Zerg is truly safe from the power of the marine. However IN THOSE FEW SITUATIONS, the marine's effectiveness is nothing due to Zerg's abiliity to defend so well.
Thusly, the problem is not necesarily the unit, but rather the situations the unit is in.
The map pool does have an impact on the effectiveness of the marine, but that's dependent, not independent of the balance between units. You can't go around changing dependent variables like the map pool and expect to standardize all the maps. We need to change the source of the problem before we start touching the maps, because I don't want to play on the same maps just to have a balanced game.
God damn. Lemme clear stuff up.
1. I play Terran
2. Fact: Marines are too strong in the early game and not strong enough in the late game due to higher tech units
3. Another fact: You absolutely need marines in any Terran matchup or else you're gonna die to hordes of T1 units or air units, both of which are extremely common.
4. To avoid dealing with the late game problem of "I need marines, but they die too easily," players are overproducing them, scv+marine rush in the early game, or trying to find an alternative which doesn't always work.
5. I'm not whining, I'm not proposing radical balance changes; I'm just fucking talking about the marine.
On December 07 2010 17:53 Morfildur wrote:
Am i the only one who thinks most of the problems with marines could be solved by using better positioning with your zerg units?
Zerglings have higher DPS and health per cost than marines (14 DPS, 70 health compared to something like 7 DPS/45 health for 50 minerals). Yes, marines have range and yes, marines are effective vs zerglings in a ball, but if you attack with zerglings from the front, banelings from the back there is no way the marines can kite the banelings without getting eaten alive by the zerglings (more spread = more surface area for zerglings, moving to spread = getting 1-2 extra hits without that marine shooting back) if both armies have around the same number of resources used.
Am i the only one who thinks most of the problems with marines could be solved by using better positioning with your zerg units?
Zerglings have higher DPS and health per cost than marines (14 DPS, 70 health compared to something like 7 DPS/45 health for 50 minerals). Yes, marines have range and yes, marines are effective vs zerglings in a ball, but if you attack with zerglings from the front, banelings from the back there is no way the marines can kite the banelings without getting eaten alive by the zerglings (more spread = more surface area for zerglings, moving to spread = getting 1-2 extra hits without that marine shooting back) if both armies have around the same number of resources used.
Early game, no. Late game, definitely. This just shows that marines are too strong early game and not durable enough in the late game. You need larvae for drones in the early game, which is where most zergs die to marines. Late game is not that much of a problem for zerg with mass ling/muta/bane
On December 07 2010 18:02 nath wrote:
dude Cool shows us how to handle marine scv allins, all good Z's are able to (but end up losing maybe half the time or slightly more due to losing the micro battle)
with 15 hatch you do have enough larva to hold it off, but just barely, so you're on a tightrope.
dude Cool shows us how to handle marine scv allins, all good Z's are able to (but end up losing maybe half the time or slightly more due to losing the micro battle)
with 15 hatch you do have enough larva to hold it off, but just barely, so you're on a tightrope.
Okay. So if the terran doesnt win right then and there, Terran has a difficult time getting an upper hand because marines play too many roles in the mid-game; they need to be anti-air, anti-mass, and DPS for armies. The terran doesn't want to deal with that problem in teh first place, which is why there's a trend of terrans going all-in.
On December 07 2010 18:12 qxc wrote:
This is a silly thread. Post replays. Sounds like you're just mad that marines are a good unit.
omg zealots are op. How would protoss play pvt without zealots? The short answer is it would look drastically different. Just because a unit is crucial to the core of your army doesn't mean it's overpowered.
Could you imagine zerg without speedlings? Or with much much worst speedlings that weren't actually useful or worth building almost all of the time (reapers or battlecruisers lololol?)
I wish more units were like the marine (strong/versatile/high skill potential)
This is a silly thread. Post replays. Sounds like you're just mad that marines are a good unit.
omg zealots are op. How would protoss play pvt without zealots? The short answer is it would look drastically different. Just because a unit is crucial to the core of your army doesn't mean it's overpowered.
Could you imagine zerg without speedlings? Or with much much worst speedlings that weren't actually useful or worth building almost all of the time (reapers or battlecruisers lololol?)
I wish more units were like the marine (strong/versatile/high skill potential)
I'm not mad marines are a good unit.
I'm saying the marine plays too many critical roles in the Terran army, and that if the marine is eliminated by HT, Collosi, or anything anti-marine, the terran army simply crumbles in the late game.
Terrans know that, so that is why they try to end it before late game tech comes out. The marine isn't overpowered, it's just too important.
Protoss and zerg can do without individual units. If you do not build zealots, you compensate by microing sentries to keep armies away from the collosi. If you don't build speedlings to surround, you build roaches to tank. If you don't build marines, you need to build hellions, marauders, vikings, and/or thors to provide the anti-air, anti-mass, and DPS that the marine provides
On December 07 2010 18:27 BetterFasterStronger wrote:
Ooo and with that I'll be suprised if this thread stays up much longer you just went from saying "The Marine is OP" to "Every Terran Army Fails Without Marines"
Ooo and with that I'll be suprised if this thread stays up much longer you just went from saying "The Marine is OP" to "Every Terran Army Fails Without Marines"
Just because I want to change something about the marine does not mean I think it's OP.
I never used the word or phrase "overpowered" in my post. Yes, I'm sorry, it does sound that way. I'm saying the marine plays too many important roles in the Terran army that it's too difficult to use any other army that doesnt involve marines.
This is why late game terran usually fails vs late game toss and late game zerg. My argument makes it sound like marines are OP, but there's a difference between OP and important.
OP means that a unit can't be beaten. Important means that if you don't have the unit, you're gonna be behind. The marine isn't OP; there are a bunch of counters to it. The marine is important, and since there are a lot of counters to mass marines in the late game, you're gonna be behind in the late game. Hence, most Terrans try to end it before the counters come out, resultign in mass marine/scv rushes.
On December 07 2010 18:34 us.insurgency wrote:
The marine is playing too many roles? have you heard of toss. Get rid of sentry there is no good tier 1 or 2. The whole set up of the race is to be able to ff the enemies army so you dont get overpowered (lol toss getting overpowered). You have to delay the enemy till you get to tier 3. The marine is just a good dps to have for 50 mins. In toss you have to have gateway units with your army. I dont get what you are complaining about.
The marine is playing too many roles? have you heard of toss. Get rid of sentry there is no good tier 1 or 2. The whole set up of the race is to be able to ff the enemies army so you dont get overpowered (lol toss getting overpowered). You have to delay the enemy till you get to tier 3. The marine is just a good dps to have for 50 mins. In toss you have to have gateway units with your army. I dont get what you are complaining about.
Can a toss army live without sentries in the late game? Can a terran live without marines in the late game? Sure both units play critical roles, but the marine plays too many important roles. Killing sentries first means no guardian shield or FF's. Big whoop in the late game. Killing marines first? Everything else falls apart.
On December 07 2010 18:36 nath wrote:
actually that was what you said in the OP, you're just changing it now...
actually that was what you said in the OP, you're just changing it now...
The only thing I did to the OP was adding some of my replies to prevent the topic from derailing further and changing "6 other matchups" to "5 other matchups."
So while I was at school, people have been bringing up the same counter arguments that I've been trying to refute for the first 4 or so pages.
One of the more prevalent counterarguments is that "Marines are not OP, they are countered by 'x' units." Yes, the topic is misleading, but please attempt to catch the gist of what I am arguing. In certain cases, marines are extremely powerful vs Z and P armies. In the late game, the marine is easily destroyed by AoE units. I'm stating that this is a fact -- marines are powerful, yet counterable. This isn't my argument, just an intro.
The next point that I presented is that the marine plays too many crucial roles; DPS, anti-air, and anti-mass. In the early game, you get all three benefits for the cost of a few marines. In the late game, you lose all three of those benefits because there are units out there that simply own marines
Therefore, the Terran loses too many critical roles in his army when the marine is killed in the late game by efficient AoE units, which is one reason why the terran late game is so weak. This then encourages, or even forces the Terran to cripple his opponent or win the game before those higher tech units comes out.
People are now referring to the MULE and citing that as a source of imbalance. This is definitely a contributory cause to the marine issue, but it is not the main cause. Zerg and Toss have ways to boost their worker counters rather quickly with chrono and spawn larvae. Terran needs MULEs to stay even with them. The terran does have the potential to outresource Z and P, but thats only if they have a mid game army capable of defending expansions, which right now is too reliant on marines.
One of my more outlandish claims was that TvT consists of mass marines. I was referring to the mass marine FE that some upper level Terrans have been using to some success. The strength of the marine shines in the early game, preventing most rushes, presenting a real threat, and allowing the player to safely tech up to tanks or whatever. Then in the late game, marines become rather useless vs AoE, and the terran loses a lot of the benefits the marine provides.
Then there are the balance nerf/buff people...
I respect Blizzards decisions to balance their own game. I don't like backseat drivers, and I especially don't like 100,000 backseat drivers telling me what to do. If they want our opinion, we will give them a reasonable opinion, not just "I think this might work, so go see if it works."
This one particular post though...
On December 08 2010 02:57 Krigwin wrote:
So how good are marines supposed to be, ideally, in the late game? You state that T falls apart in the late game due to the prevalence of counters against marines (despite the fact that all of these counters are themselves also easily countered by other T units), how would you change that without simultaneously making marines, and thus T early game, overpowered?
So how good are marines supposed to be, ideally, in the late game? You state that T falls apart in the late game due to the prevalence of counters against marines (despite the fact that all of these counters are themselves also easily countered by other T units), how would you change that without simultaneously making marines, and thus T early game, overpowered?
In the end, both Blizzard and the players must work together to find a way around this problem.
What blizzard can do: balance the game
The three main roles of the marine : anti-air, anti-mass, and a source of DPS, must be easily replaceable by other terran units. It's up to Blizzard to decide what to do. The main problem with this is that the replacements for those roles are at least twice the cost of a single marine, and those replacements (like the hellion, viking, and marauders) only cover one role, meaning I have to spend at least 6 times more money on my army + production buildings to cover everything the marine does.
I think the marine has taken the role from the BW siege tank as the go-to unit in SC2. However, the BW siege tank didn't atk air and really sucked vs hordes of T1 units like the zealot in the mid game. It was just the source of DPS, and everything else protected that source of DPS.
Give us something that will protect the current source of DPS.
Idea: Keep the current range and make 250mm cannon an AoE ability that prevents units from firing while taking hits from the cannon. The spell should be able to be moved around (i.e, the thor should be able to move the targeted area) and last for 4 seconds. Basically, a movable Dweb that does a small amount of damage.
Counter for this: Make Fungal able to spread like creep to immobilze any army attempting to pursue an army taking fire from a 250mm. Allow multiple phoenixes to lift a single thor.
It's a rough idea, but it seems like it'd work. Covering fire for the marine so that it can do it's job.
What the player base can do: find a way around it.
I've been experimenting with restricting the marines to only one role : DPS. I then focus on making a durable army while keeping mobility : adding thors + medivacs + ravens. However, that doesn't really work vs protoss because of the collosi/HT.
Trying to restrict them to anti-air has not worked at all because you need a significant number of them, and that takes minerals away from your main army (i tried marauder/mech, but it's too immobile)
Trying to restrict marines to anti-horde hasn't worked very well because you need a lot of them for the DPS to add up.
From playing and watching many games, the SC2 Terran lacks is a way to defend the primary source of DPS. PDD doesn't work vs the main things that kill marines (AoE attacks), and you can't (not supposed to ) put the marine in the back of the army because of their range compared to something like a thor, tank, or marauder.
NEWEST EDIT:
On December 09 2010 02:25 Kyandid wrote:
OP, I'm not sure if you're going to read this or not, but I agree with you, and am sorry that every fucking person in this thread is illiterate.
OP, I'm not sure if you're going to read this or not, but I agree with you, and am sorry that every fucking person in this thread is illiterate.
I read every single comment that people post in my threads. Illiterate people annoy me too lol, but that's their problem not mine.
The main thing people posted in the last 3 or 4 pages mainly revolved around
Design vs Balance, Mech, Builds, and the Mule.
Regarding Builds:
On December 09 2010 08:12 morimacil wrote:
Marines are good in the early and mid-game, and get worse in the later game, when the aoe gas units are out. That doesnt mean that terran lategame sucks though. What it means is that a terran that goes into the lategame without transitioning to depend less on marines will suck when faced with the dedicated counters. That is plain wrong, the correct way to say it would be "terrans build around the marine too much".
You CAN use vikings and ghosts to defend against air perfectly fine. And often, building marauders or hellions instead of marines is much better against ground. Marines are a good unit to have, because of how versatile they are, if you have marines, its hard to get caught off guard by a techswitch.
But really, if you go something like marine tank, and your opponent is going for zealot-templar, for example, then yeah, that is going to be pretty good against you. It doesnt mean that you cant fight in the lategame though, it just means that you have to adapt. Scout it early enough, and then switch your buildings around to go hellion ghost instead of marine tank, and with the exact same buildings, you will have much better results.
Marines are good in the early and mid-game, and get worse in the later game, when the aoe gas units are out. That doesnt mean that terran lategame sucks though. What it means is that a terran that goes into the lategame without transitioning to depend less on marines will suck when faced with the dedicated counters. That is plain wrong, the correct way to say it would be "terrans build around the marine too much".
You CAN use vikings and ghosts to defend against air perfectly fine. And often, building marauders or hellions instead of marines is much better against ground. Marines are a good unit to have, because of how versatile they are, if you have marines, its hard to get caught off guard by a techswitch.
But really, if you go something like marine tank, and your opponent is going for zealot-templar, for example, then yeah, that is going to be pretty good against you. It doesnt mean that you cant fight in the lategame though, it just means that you have to adapt. Scout it early enough, and then switch your buildings around to go hellion ghost instead of marine tank, and with the exact same buildings, you will have much better results.
On December 09 2010 05:17 CanadianStarcraft wrote:
Terran is the strongest race in the early game by far, players who recognize this choose the race for this reason. Both Protoss and Zerg play defensively in their opens with noteable exceptions, but solid builds require defensive opens. Solid Terran builds often revolve around a good timing and a key unit mixture or number. We saw Idra dismantled by something like this in the GSL 3.
My reaction to this, Zerg and Protoss players simply need to structure concrete opens that stop these specific timings and unit mixtures and the all in players will either stop their all ins or stop playing.
Terran is the strongest race in the early game by far, players who recognize this choose the race for this reason. Both Protoss and Zerg play defensively in their opens with noteable exceptions, but solid builds require defensive opens. Solid Terran builds often revolve around a good timing and a key unit mixture or number. We saw Idra dismantled by something like this in the GSL 3.
My reaction to this, Zerg and Protoss players simply need to structure concrete opens that stop these specific timings and unit mixtures and the all in players will either stop their all ins or stop playing.
I agree with the idea that builds should be structured less around the marine. But as other people have noted...
On December 09 2010 04:28 babyToSS wrote:
The OP makes a very good point. Marines are an absolute must unit in the terran army and without this one unit, any terran army composition has a huge glaring and easily exploitable weakness. I realized this sometime back when I tried experimenting with non-bio play in TvP. Against good players (2000+diamond) one of the two things would always happen -
1) I make some unit composition without marines and it would get owned because of bad anti-air, anti-t1 horde etc.
2) I lose marines to AOE units like psi-storm or colossus and then the rest of the army gets rolled over.
The OP makes a very good point. Marines are an absolute must unit in the terran army and without this one unit, any terran army composition has a huge glaring and easily exploitable weakness. I realized this sometime back when I tried experimenting with non-bio play in TvP. Against good players (2000+diamond) one of the two things would always happen -
1) I make some unit composition without marines and it would get owned because of bad anti-air, anti-t1 horde etc.
2) I lose marines to AOE units like psi-storm or colossus and then the rest of the army gets rolled over.
...its really difficult to make an army that isn't reliant on the marine for a single role.
Ideally, units should be able to fill in for each other's spot whenever one is quickly eliminated. Right now, it's really hard to fill in for the marine when they're eliminated first. Sure, there are alternatives, but how easy is it to get to viking/ghost/hellion/thor/marauder safely? Three production buildings, most units require gas, all units are at least twice as expensive as a marine, and you'd definately need more than 3 bases to support this kind of army. There's also no guarantee that this army will win a battle of attrition, so the build-times for all the units is also a huge downfall.
This then ties in to the numerous posts about mech and it's BW comparison. This is another argument for another day, but I'd like to point out that the durability and effectiveness in of the mech in BW came from the abuse of the spider mine and how it can come out on top of most battles with at least 1/2 1/3 of the original size. The fact that there is no real "wall" between the in front of the mech army and how difficult it is to keep mech units alive makes bio a more appealing choice.
So then is that our fault for not using it or is that Blizzards fault for not balancing the prices/build times? Is that a design flaw or balance flaw?
There's a very fine line between balance and design flaws, but the main difference is that balance is controlled only by blizzard -- design is controlled by the player base. The player base cannot demand balance/unit stat changes, and Blizzard cannot demand design/gameplay changes. The failure of mech is a combination of both, and currently, the burden of the blame is on Blizzard for balancing mech with bio instead of mech with the other armies.
Right now, the game is balanced around design, which I absolutely hate. What I mean by this is that Blizzard put units in the game with the mindset of giving us options of what they thought would be cool battles. Examples of this would be HTs vs Ghosts and the marauder/roach/immortal triangle. They didn't think about how well units from the same race worked with each other, only how imbalanced it would be vs P and Z, which is a huge problem why marines usurped multiple roles from other Terran units. Design vs Balance tweaking is a difficult process, and personally, Blizzard did not do a very good job with that.
Balance should be about how units work well with other units from the same race (i.e how well would reapers work with a mid game Terran army), not about how well those units would fare vs protoss or zerg. This then allows the design team (the player base) to utilize each race to it's full potential.
There's a difference between
"dude marines are OP, so go nerf the shields, nerf atk animation, nerf the atk speed, nerf the other races" <--nerfs and buffs
and
"Marines are too good in the early game and not good enough in the late game because the crucial roles of the terran army are all put solely on the marine. If we want to fix this, we need to make other units viable and we need a unit that can protect or keep away damaging units from the terran army, much like how the spider mine functioned in BW." <--roles of a unit
Lemme use the MULE as an example
The mule provides a huge early game benefit by essentially providing an extra 5 workers for every 50 energy. Knowing that the drone and probe are easier to mass compared to the SCV, the MULE has become a requirement for the Terran to survive past the early game. Result: the mule provides too many minerals for it's cost in the early game, and the advantages of the MULE slowly die out as the game progresses. MULEs have usurped the role of the SCV in some aspects, basically making marine/scv all-ins less risky and easier to mass because they're both mineral only units. The MULE needs a new role, not an overlapping role. Maybe if we gave MULEs a faster repair rate or maybe allowed the MULE to harvest gas while lowering the mineral intake, the gameplay would revolve less around marine/scv all-ins without completely killing the possibility of cheese.
On December 12 2010 09:24 Exxo wrote:
"2. Fact: Marines are too strong in the early game and not strong enough in the late game due to higher tech units."
lol? Marine's have to have a weakness, thank god it's higher tech. Ultralisks, Infestors, Colossi, High Templars, etc. These units were made to combat lower-tier units. The "FACT" that marines aren't strong enough in late game BECAUSE they get pwnd by higher tech units is preposterous. That's the core concept of "Higher Tech". It's not so a marine and a colossus have a fair fight, it's so the player who has spent their resources to advance his tech in the game gets to reap the benefits of that advanced tech, including making a massacre of marines.
The idea that Tier 3 units are better than Tier 1 units, and therefore require a buff, is incorrect. It isn't a "fact", and it is well off-base.
"2. Fact: Marines are too strong in the early game and not strong enough in the late game due to higher tech units."
lol? Marine's have to have a weakness, thank god it's higher tech. Ultralisks, Infestors, Colossi, High Templars, etc. These units were made to combat lower-tier units. The "FACT" that marines aren't strong enough in late game BECAUSE they get pwnd by higher tech units is preposterous. That's the core concept of "Higher Tech". It's not so a marine and a colossus have a fair fight, it's so the player who has spent their resources to advance his tech in the game gets to reap the benefits of that advanced tech, including making a massacre of marines.
The idea that Tier 3 units are better than Tier 1 units, and therefore require a buff, is incorrect. It isn't a "fact", and it is well off-base.
and
On December 12 2010 12:38 TheGiftedApe wrote:
I dont understand, making marines more useful in late game will 100% break the game completely. Terrans need to stop making 5-6-7-8 barracks all the time, SAVE SOME OF YOUR FUCKIGN MONEY FOR TECHING like every other race does. You DONT HAVE to all-in marine push everygame. Grab a fast factory, or a starport, dont forget you guys have flying dark templars, and siege tanks with more range than any-other ground based unit that ALSO HAS AREA EFFECT DAMAGE. Seriously this thread pisses me off, butt hurt terran like omg my marines aren't good against colossus wahh wahh. I can't believe people are trying to make a serious argument out of this.
Marines are best low tier unit, marauder is second best low tier unit, be happy. Thor's vikings siege tanks, banshee, those are all pretty fucking good high tier units as well, it's not like you have nothing to tech too. Stop basing your whole play on the fact that marines hard counter a lot of things. IF you keep making marines DUH NO SHIT the other guy is gonna get some high tech anti-marine units.
edit: and marine are still fuckign AWESOME in the late game, you just need to micro and protect them, they still own everyother tier1 unit, and they just massacre more expensive flying units liek mtuas or void rays. If anything should happen marines need a NERF. and a Late game nerf as well as terrans just keep making marines and need to be taught a lesson. The fact that MM play is still so powerful this far after launch honestly disgusts me. MM needs nerf not a late game boost, fucking A.
everyone in this thread is like omg mass this or mass that, ITS CALLED UNIT COMPOSITION, WORK ON IT, DIVERSIFY THERE ARE UNITS FOR TERRAN that dont start with the letters "MA"
I dont understand, making marines more useful in late game will 100% break the game completely. Terrans need to stop making 5-6-7-8 barracks all the time, SAVE SOME OF YOUR FUCKIGN MONEY FOR TECHING like every other race does. You DONT HAVE to all-in marine push everygame. Grab a fast factory, or a starport, dont forget you guys have flying dark templars, and siege tanks with more range than any-other ground based unit that ALSO HAS AREA EFFECT DAMAGE. Seriously this thread pisses me off, butt hurt terran like omg my marines aren't good against colossus wahh wahh. I can't believe people are trying to make a serious argument out of this.
Marines are best low tier unit, marauder is second best low tier unit, be happy. Thor's vikings siege tanks, banshee, those are all pretty fucking good high tier units as well, it's not like you have nothing to tech too. Stop basing your whole play on the fact that marines hard counter a lot of things. IF you keep making marines DUH NO SHIT the other guy is gonna get some high tech anti-marine units.
edit: and marine are still fuckign AWESOME in the late game, you just need to micro and protect them, they still own everyother tier1 unit, and they just massacre more expensive flying units liek mtuas or void rays. If anything should happen marines need a NERF. and a Late game nerf as well as terrans just keep making marines and need to be taught a lesson. The fact that MM play is still so powerful this far after launch honestly disgusts me. MM needs nerf not a late game boost, fucking A.
everyone in this thread is like omg mass this or mass that, ITS CALLED UNIT COMPOSITION, WORK ON IT, DIVERSIFY THERE ARE UNITS FOR TERRAN that dont start with the letters "MA"
I was stating that the marine was weak in the late game due to T3 tech that have AoE. Forget buffing or nerfing the marine for a second and look at the role of the marine. Look how much it does for the Terran army. The phrase "don't put your all your eggs in one basket" is exactly what the terran is forced to do -- make a single unit to do a bunch of jobs. You don't need that many baskets in the early game, but when the late game comes, there aren't any other baskets to put your eggs in.
The terran unit-composition is basically a bunch of specialized units that only work well when there are units supporting them. When you have specialized units supporting other specialized units, that forms a delicate balance where if one unit is removed, the whole thing collapses. This is why terrans choose to put that responsibility of staying alive and useful on the marine -- the one all-purpose unit the terran army has. Unfortunately, this unit isn't exactly easy to keep alive, especially in the late game.
It is clear that every unit has a counter in one form or another, rewording the fact that marines are too strong in the early game (lack of counters) and weak in the late game (a bunch of counters).
Terrans don't have a T2 or T3 alternatives that can take on the responsibilities of the marine or help the marine with those responsibilities efficiently. How many thors, vikings, tanks, marauders, hellions, and production buildings do you need to replace the marine? How long would it take to replace the marine? How many bases do you need to defend and utilize to support that?
The marine is irreplaceable, making it invaluable in the early game where efficiency is the most important aspect of an army. However, that is a handicap in the late game where durability is the most important aspect.
On December 12 2010 15:22 Jermstuddog wrote:
What can Zerg/Protoss mass that's good against everything?
Oh wait, that's right, nothing is good against everything for those races... Nerf the marine.
What can Zerg/Protoss mass that's good against everything?
Oh wait, that's right, nothing is good against everything for those races... Nerf the marine.
Go back and read the OP.
thats why i'm not a designer 
