I hate having to make observers and overseers. I need them to detect cuz dts and banshees just insta win if I dont get them, but they don't shoot. Lets fix it so I don't need to rush for these detectors early on and can make more army instead.
Also, stalkers are useful for AA and range and their speed, but they just don't do well against mmm and roach/hydra. I have to get phoenix, immortals, and collosus to make up for this. Blizzard should fix this by giving immortal shield upgrades to the stalker and maybe make them flying units too, perhaps with multi-shot like that stalker hero in Dota.
Roaches are nice, but they lose to mmm once stim gets up, and they don't do well in massive numbers against protoss cuz they can't all shoot at once without a good concave. Lets fix this by making roaches have their own form of stim and 9 range upgrades. Better make them hit air too, because otherwise I need hydras and corruptors for AA.
With these changes every race will have one unit/composition that is their obvious choice against everything, and support units will be just for those players that want to be fancy.
I've been uncertain what to think of this thread, because I honestly do feel there are problems with the marine and with several other units. I think these problems are one's of degree and could probably be fixed with small tweaks, and I actually think it would be wise for Blizzard to go slow on making these changes as so much of the game has still been unexplored by players. Still, this attitude that so many people are taking is so short-sighted. mmm are very cost effective, and other races have tech choices that help combat this. Somehow, rather than shift your unit composition to something that is slightly less cost effective against pure t1 and t2 units but more durable for the long run, people want their mmm ball to be equally effective forever.
This 2rack marine pressure is TOTALLY BROKEN zvt, close positions basically its auto-loss, marines simply DONT DIE to zerglings, this is ridiculous seriously, even speed lings wont deal with the marines, but some people could say (make banelings), but how? the pressure with 3~5marines and few scvs are FUCKING STRONG, and there is a big variety of openings going 2rack, u can pressure with 2~3 marines and 2~3 scvs and try a bunker rush or block on the ramp, you can pressure with 5~7 marines, you can go all in with 5~9 rines and a lot of scvs, you can pressure only with marines and fast expand, you can constantly make pressure with the marines and open your 2 gases and tech to something, i just gave some examples...
Its good to remind that the zerg wont be able to scout since these marines will be making pressure and wont let anything run by their main, so the zerg in most of the times will be playing in the dark... This ridiculous, this sick pressure just prevent you to PLAY, you cant take your gas, you cant drone up, 1sunken with few lings while droning up wont help u, cause if the terran decide to all in with 9 marines and 10scvs you gonna lose badly.
Zerg cant drone up and will always be behind against this strat on close positions because rines are ridiculous strong early game especially against zerg, so the zergs need to constantly produce zerglings, when the terran is massing scv´s with mule and even getting expansion while pumping marines non-stop on the 2racks. Some people can say (why did u expand, dont go hat 14, go gas pool), are u fucking joking? this is even worst, if u go gas pool u gonna have only 1 hat to use, so you will never be able to make drones, since the terran will be making marines non-stop, the only way is to make roach warren or go all in 1hat baneling bust, but a decent terran that scout a gas pool obviously will just pressure a little bit with the marines to prevent the zerg expansion and then move back and make a solid wall or bunker up teching to banshee or whatever they want with a lot of scvs, so in my opinion the only way to play thinking about macro mid-late game is going hat14~15...
Im sure isnt hard to see that there is something really wrong here, im tired of losing to trash 80 apm terrans that go this kind of bullshit, just making marines and pressing 1a killing ton of lings queens because rines are unstoppable, and btw im 2800 zerg with 63% win ratio, so i know what im talking about, and i know how hard is for a zerg to play against this kind of build and how easy is for a terran to do this shit... I honestly dont know what blizzard can do to fix it without broke the game, nerfing banelings and marines? idk, but these annoying imortal marines early game cant continue -_-.......
On December 13 2010 06:37 lamo wrote: All three races depend on their main base units: MM, zealot/stalker, zergling/roach. All other units are supporting units. This is how Blizz designed it and we just have to live with it. But with two expansions, I believe we will see units that will take off the burden from the main T1 units, and give more variable play.
Yes, all three races depend on T1 quite a bit and require T2 and T3 as supporting units. Some people are going one step ahead and claiming that I want to nerf/buff something so marines are super good.
That's not what I'm saying.
Look at how the role of the zergling and zealot can be replaced by higher tech units. I'm talking about the role -- not the unit itself. The stalker and hydralisk are in a similar predicament, but mutalisks serve as better anti air in most cases and stalkers aren't the main source of DPS (meaning they're not on the front line -- they're behind zealots or being covered by HT/collosi -- so they are free to do their job).
The marine is overworked for numerous reasons that I've repeated over and over.
People that think my OP is still retarded or stupid need to stop looking at the unit itself and look at the role the unit plays. The marine is technically fine -- it's a T1 unit that's ranged and has low HP. But at what the marine has to do in a battle: kill the air units, kill lots of small units, and dish out a bunch of damage. The marine is fully capable of doing any of those three with great efficiency. But that efficiency diminishes overtime as their numbers go up and it goes down even more when units that counter marines come into the game.
How can we fix that? Get more marines. Why? Cause Terran T2 and T3 are mostly specialized killer units rather than a unit that can help carry out basic responsibilities. The thor, BC, tank, and marauders are the four units that come closest to helping out the marine, but in the battle when the marines die first (low hp, at the front of the line b/c of their range compared to everything else, clumped, etc), the thor, bc, tank, and marauders will get quickly wiped out if the marines die too quickly, not to mention how long and expensive the thor, bc, and tank take to produce. The marauder doesn't even have AA or a fast enough atk rate to kill masses of light, T1 units.
Every battle revolves around keeping the marines alive for as long as possible, which is not practical at all. This isn't the case with zealots or with zerglings or even stalkers. P and Z support units are capable of functioning without T1 units. Terran T2 and T3 units can't do their jobs without marines. The synergy between Terran T1 and Terran tech is extremely thin, whereas the bond between P and Z armies function quite well for the most part.
On December 13 2010 08:01 dshsdhk wrote: This 2rack marine pressure is TOTALLY BROKEN zvt, close positions basically its auto-loss, marines simply DONT DIE to zerglings, this is ridiculous seriously, even speed lings wont deal with the marines, but some people could say (make banelings), but how? the pressure with 3~5marines and few scvs are FUCKING STRONG, and there is a big variety of openings going 2rack, u can pressure with 2~3 marines and 2~3 scvs and try a bunker rush or block on the ramp, you can pressure with 5~7 marines, you can go all in with 5~9 rines and a lot of scvs, you can pressure only with marines and fast expand, you can constantly make pressure with the marines and open your 2 gases and tech to something, i just gave some examples...
Its good to remind that the zerg wont be able to scout since these marines will be making pressure and wont let anything run by their main, so the zerg in most of the times will be playing in the dark... This ridiculous, this sick pressure just prevent you to PLAY, you cant take your gas, you cant drone up, 1sunken with few lings while droning up wont help u, cause if the terran decide to all in with 9 marines and 10scvs you gonna lose badly.
Zerg cant drone up and will always be behind against this strat on close positions because rines are ridiculous strong early game especially against zerg, so the zergs need to constantly make zerglings, when the terran is massing scv´s with mule and even getting expansion while pumping marines non-stop on the 2racks. Some people can say (why did u expand, dont go hat 14, go gas pool), are u fucking joking? this is even worst, if u go gas pool u gonna have only 1 hat to use, so you will never be able to make drones, since the terran will be making marines non-stop, the only way is to make roach warren or go all in 1hat baneling bust, but a decent terran that scout a gas pool obviously will just pressure a little bit with the marines to prevent the zerg expansion and then move back and make a solid wall or bunker up teching to banshee or whatever they want with a lot of scvs, so in my opinion the only way to play thinking about macro mid-late game is going hat14~15...
Im sure isnt hard to see that there is something really wrong here, im tired of losing to trash 80 apm terrans that go this kind of bullshit, just making marines and pressing 1a killing ton of lings queens because rines are unstoppable, and btw im 2800 zerg with 63% win ratio, so i know what im talking about, and i know how hard is for a zerg to play against this kind of build and how easy is for a terran to do this shit... I honestly dont know what blizzard can do to fix it without broke the game, nerfing banelings and marines? idk, but these annoying imortal marines early game cant continue -_-.......
Not what this thread is about. Read it more closely.
Hmm.......I think I agree most with the fact that P/T/Z all can mass, have durability, and have firepower....
Maybe that's why I'm soooo turned off by SC2....>.>
And the other stuff about the marine is pretty nice. I'm not gonna really debate, but I think you make a fair point when addressing recent trends in Terran play.
On December 10 2010 09:05 imBLIND wrote: Yea, but you notice how the marine is involved in every unit composition you can think of (that actually works)? Very few compositions work without the marine, and the armies that do are generally more expensive than a marine-centric or marine-supported army. I'm okay with having the marine as the backbone of the army, it's just that the marine shouldn't be the only backbone. This is like having one giant pillar hold up an entire bridge; sure it works, but it's a lot easier to take out as well, no matter how well it's reinforced.
Consider: BW zealot. Let's say for a minute you're right about the marine's strength & weakness. Since the same problems you point out with the marine (strong early game, weaker late game but still essential to every unit mix) apply to the zealot in Brood War, if you're right - and all other things being equal - should we eventually expect Terran to end up as the weakest race in SC2?
I'm kind of wandering out on a limb here, but there's obviously an advantage to having distinct tech paths (mech vs bio, ling/muta vs hydra/lurk) to basically one (zeal/something).
Of course, by the same token we do have to remember that there are two expansions coming, with what has to be a minimum total of three more units per race, so it's still premature to talk about final game balance.
I don't agree on the mule. It allows to play more conservatively. Without its power, T's economy would be to weak compared to a chrono-boosting P for instance.
Marines are so dominant, because they nerfed everything else. I really hate to have to commit to marines all the time. I'm constantly thinking about my strategy and think "Man, you just can't build only marines, you darn newbie, THINK about your unit composition." Then I still end up building marines even against sling/bling/muta. That's a good example since marines are good vs mutalisks, unlike thors. Thors are just their to enforce the Zerg not to use attack or a-move with the mutalisks.
That's an interesting point -- SC2 has too many viable army compositions, making it difficult to be prepared for all of the possible scenarios.
Past the first few minutes of the game, you do NOT have to be prepared for all the possible army compositions that your opponent can make, you just have to scout, and be prepared for the one he is actually making.
Do you really not see that if it was possible to make a terran army that beats every single possible army composition from toss or zerg, that would be incredibly imbalanced? Open your eyes. No matter what type of army you make, your opponent can beat it, and no matter what type of army he makes, you can beat it. There is no single army composition that beats everything your opponent can throw at you, from templar to collossus to void rays to DTs to carriers. If there was, that would be imbalance at its highest point, and when you are asking for an army that can deal with anything without having to scan, you are dreaming, and being utterly retarded.
This is where you ask yourself what can i afford off of one base? What can I afford of my main and my natural? What can I afford once I get my third?
I will use my mech tvp as an example. Of one base I can afford 2 factory (1 reactor, 1 techlab), a rax, and a starport(with a techlab if I build a raven it cuts into my gas and I am forced to build 3 hellions on a build by cycle instead of 1 tank and 2 hellions).
This setup allows for me to get the occasional upgrade too and the build up of minerals for the natural to go down. This brings me to my setup off of my main and my natural.
4factories (2 reactor and 2 techlabs), rax (techlab) for ghosts, and a starport (still with techlab).
the second 2 factories and the ghost academy are thrown when the CC is almost complete so by the time the OC flies to the natural the other production facilities have just finished.
Why is all of this important? All air units cost gas. I don't care what race you are. All production buildings that produce air units require gas. (excluding the hatchery but you need it for the spire.) My transition from adding an expansion at my natural was to add an additional 2 production facilities (3 if you include the rax as it is switching from marine production to ghost production). So if I for example scout that I need to transition into getting more air units or infantry or what not. (Whether this is caused by me scouting my opponent or I decide to go for a surprise and make my opponent react to me is irrelevant.) I know that under my normal build once my natural comes online I could afford 350 gas worth of production facilities (2 factories and a ghost academy) followed by additional production of units totaling to 275 gas per production cycle. (1 tank and ghost per cycle)
What is to say I cant instead producing one of those factories produce a starport instead add a techlab and now have 2 starports making banshees. Banshees and tanks are roughly the same cost in gas so I already know I can afford it. Likewise if I know when I establish my third that I am going to drop 3 more factories (2 reactor 1 tech lab). If I see that it would be benefical why not drop a factory with a tech lab and 4 reactor raxes and with the gas I save by building 2 raxes instead of factories I can use the tech lab on my starting rax to get marine upgrades.
(also forgive me if any of these toss numbers are wrong I don't play toss too much) There is no reason that a toss player can't do the same thing once the production facilities are up it would be unwise not to use them and let them sit idly. So for example of one base as toss you get 2gate robo and of 2 you get 5-6 gate plus your orginal robo. What is to say that instead of 2 of those gateways you couldn't get a stargate instead. To begin producing air.
morimacil you are right to an extent. You won't have to worry about surprise air units after the first few minutes in the game however, the threat of an air unit build up occurs every time the toss takes an expo. As every time they take an expo they can potentially build and support 1-2 stargates.
Edit: In addition adding a bunch of raxes early on in the early game means that you are kinda forced into producing with them all game. Meaning if I open with 3 rax pressure once I arrive at late game I have 3 raxes that if I don't produce something out of them I will have idle buildings. So you are forced to either put tech labs or reactors on them so every production cycle you can spend 100 minerals (25gas) on marauders or marines respectively. Its not like zerg where if you produce a spire you are forced to make mutas all game long. Tech for zerg is a one time cost (excluding building sniping). Or toss where the gateway has to continue building T1 units the whole game. The toss can switch to their composition out of their gateways to solely templar on build cycles if they have the resources to do so.
Terran must produce T1 units out of their rax and thats it so buidling them in early game will force them into your army composition whether you want to tech to something else or not.
The OP's argument is based on the assumption that in mid/late game higher tech units cannot be massed efficiently to fill the roles that marines play.
I don't agree with this assumption. I think a lot of people are blinded by the cost effectiveness of the marine and some of the micro-intensive marine play recently where people just sort of assume that higher tech units are unattainable.
I would invite you to watch some of Pain.User's replays from MLG Dallas. By gradually teching in macro games, by the late game Pain.User will often have very scary high tech armies. (MLG Dallas replay pack: http://www.mediafire.com/?gd00m9sgmw2f0k1 )
I don't think it's a question of the marine is too good early game at fulfilling many roles, and not good enough late game. I think it's a question of early game marines are so good that I think there's been a lack of experimentation with Terran late game.
On December 11 2010 21:34 casshern wrote:[Q/B] what is this? what rank are all of you? marines are marines, they're not overpowered early game and they're not weak late game. a unit is only as strong as the player who controls it, marines included.
Quality of TL posters really makes me sad. I strongly recommend you reading main post as it seems you did not. What is more I will give you short version of it if you got problems with reading more than 50 words.
"Marine is strong early game and easy to counter late game. Despite you agree with that or not due to marine universality there is no good army composition for Terran without marines."
If you're so sad, please light a candle and write in your diary instead of assuming I got a problem reading more than 50 words. The topic here is marines and I gave my opinion as an SC2 player who plays terran. And your comment about no good army composition without marines makes me laugh. You think this game is about having a "one size fits all" army and a-moving in? I probably don't have to tell you this, because I know you know, but SC is about strategy. You gotta have unit counters. If zerg makes lings only, make hellions. If he goes muta only, make marine/thor. Late game I like to marine drop with 2-3 medivacs and snipe opponents tech and harass. Although they're not great to gung ho all in late game with units like siege tanks, colossus, or infestors out, they still play a significant roll in the overall strategy. And marines early game being strong? I mean yeah they're OK but they're not overpowered or anything. If a terran shows up with 50 marines all of a sudden and runs over you, it just means you didn't scout enough or build an appropriate counter. I often find that people who complain about a certain unit or have wrong assumptions about them are usually bad.
On December 11 2010 21:34 casshern wrote: what is this? what rank are all of you? marines are marines, they're not overpowered early game and they're not weak late game. a unit is only as strong as the player who controls it, marines included.
Seriously... "A unit is only as strong as the player who controls it".. where have you been lately?
With this quote, u are saying that all units are.. what? i dont get it. you sound like a lame movie kung fu instructor...
Ok... what? So you're saying absolutely nothing except I resemble a line from a kung fu movie? You don't understand what I'm saying? So you think lings in the hands of a C rank player is the same as that of Jaedong? Maybe what I'm trying to say is MICRO
Whats funny is that back in beta I remember everyone saying how useless the marine was, and now its overpowered early game? Then blizzard nerfed terran BO and you gotta make depot before rax. People will find ways to counter anything eventually. This 2 rax build is just a natural progression to that depot nerf. Someone will find a counter to this build too.
I don't know about what others have said, but I have been watching this thread for quite some time now. I re-read your edited post and I simply can't understand why ppl don't understand your point.
Despite what others think, this guy here speaks truth. He has listed and analyzed so much information and examples on the marine that I am simply astounded. His replies to ignorant people are quirky yet straight to the point.
The marine's problem, imho, is that it is too all-rounded a unit compared to any other unit in the Terran arsenal or any other races' arsenal. Every units has some sort of physical or in-game mechanical restriction. Like, Maurauders can't hit air, Phoenixes can't hit ground(without lifting), Zealots are melee and the Thor moves slowly compared to other units. Marines don't have any of those physical problems. Upgraded marines are even better. They can do anything anywhere, kill anything, defend anything, hit anything with a respectable efficiency. They are not specialists, they aren't insanely effective in a special situation, but they are ALWAYS effective in almost any situation. That's why they are insanely effective against strategies which use the power of surprise or catching players off-guard. Marines are never caught off-guard. With stim-pack, they can traverse most maps with relative ease, giving them added mobility and the shield gives them abit more durability. And they are ranged, giving them numerous ways to be microed.
In the late game, AoE hits are rampant and the marines simply don't have enough health to hold their own, unless you use the pure massed marine strategy with 7 or 8 rax and full infantry upgrades. If so, the sheer number of marines will render most AoE attacks ineffective. Coupled with good reinforcing capabilities and fast build speed of the pure marine army, it is truly unstoppable. But if marines are used in the late game with other units, the other units usually act as meat shields for the DPS output or specialist-killers, leaving the job of damage output still to the marine, who has no handicap in terms of damage. That's why in Terran lategame, marines need to be shielded effectively, especially when not massing them.
To solve this, the root of the problem must be addressed, for its DPS output, the marine must be given some sort of physical restraint and specialization. If the marine is reinstated as a DPS unit, I don't understand the use of the shield. I'd rather the old marine range upgrade. I don't know exactly what sort of restraint would be appropriate, but it has to be some sort. OP seems to have done quite some testing on this and he has reached the conclusion that pure anti-air doesn't work(lore-wise either), but Blizzard will have to come up with something to restrict the marine to change the current situation.
@casshern
No, he's saying that two lings controlled by Jaedong would still be fried by an archon controlled by a C-rank player.
On December 12 2010 22:06 Apolo wrote: I don't agree on a buff for the marine. When you see a lategame PvT you a lot of times can see the protoss with about 5-6 different units while the terran has the usual MMM. And now you want to buff one of them "because our other units are only good for specifif situations"? That's ridiculous. If the problem is that terran has a lot of units for specific situations, broaden their situations of action. What's the logic behind "we have a unit that's good aggainst almost everything, the others aren't, so instead of changing the others let's buff this one, so we just need to mass them more.
Get grips, if other races have to mix units, so should you. If you are complaining about the importance of the role of the marine and that it needs to be buffed, perhaps you should think that other units should be buffed so they take over the marine. No one needs to play aggainst terrans having always only MMM in their army composition. Boring to watch and play.
@morimacil why do you even bother replying to someone that is arguing that he can't mass a unit because he will be countered? That's the kind of players we have posting here, seriously. No wonder so many ppl voted for a pro strategy only subforum.
I don't think the OP said straight up that marines sucked lategame and needed a huge buff so they could be massed and a-moved into victory. He did propose changes to the marine itself, but also hinted at the fact that other units could have their design/roles in a lategame T army changed which would lead into more unit diversity.
This could 1. Should these units surpass the marine in certain roles, give the terran the possibility (and to a certain extent, force him) into having more unit diversity. 2. Should they be designed towards assisting marines, the very fact that those redesigned units would make your lategame army better forces you to get a better unit mix (and, inherently, less marines).
By the way, I play Terran, and I don't like playing MMM against protoss every game from minute 1 all the way to the end.
PS: Thanks a lot to the OP for keeping the OP updated.
On December 12 2010 23:57 Dromar wrote: OP, I read your post, and it brings up an interesting point.
You say the marine fills too many roles too efficiently (compared to other Terran options). But, what I thought is, maybe the problem is there are too many roles to be filled.
What I mean is, in SC2 there are so many different units/compositions for each race that you have to be prepared for, and it wasn't that way in BW.
The biggest example is air units. Air units are inherently mobile, excepting extremely open maps with barely any terrain. In BW, there were 2 types of air units: capital ships (BC, Carrier) which were very powerful, but required a significant investment in time and money, and smaller air units that weren't nearly as powerful. They had a significant drawback that kept them from being too formidable as an army, because they are already inherently mobile. The only way they were viable were in large numbers.
ex. If I'm playing a standard ZvT in BW, and suddenly a few wraiths fly into my main and start shooting drones, I make a few scourge and continue playing normally. No big deal. Even a few wraiths with cloak, I just get an overlord over there with my scourge. Again no big deal. Corsairs are pretty good units; very mobile and fast attack with splash, but they can only hit other air units. Corsairs are good, but unless they're in large numbers, only for scouting and as a deterrant to a muta ball. Mutas are the strongest of these three, but still weak. In general, mutas were very mobile, and had the best ground attack but worst air attack, but most importantly, they didn't fare well per cost against basically anything that could fight back. In fact, the only reason mutas became a viable standard unit is that Zerg could make 9 of them at once.
The general trend of these 3 units is that they are mobile because they fly, but not very strong against ground units. So there are 2 ways to combat them: either have a stronger air force, or get a reasonable ground force (which is much cheaper, but less mobile, so you may have to deal with harass). A large number of wraiths/mutas/corsairs can be a threat, but that requires a large investment.
The point is, small numbers of "surprise" air units weren't a big deal. This ineffectiveness with "surprise!" units rewarded strong, standard play with basic yet functional unit compositions. This is what people want to see in spectator games, not "oh, player A is making unit X and player B is making unit Y, so player A wins, we just have to wait for the gg."
But now let's look at SC2: If 2 banshees fly into your base and you're not ready for them, "surprise!" you lose, or at least take quite significant damage. Similarly with Void Rays. These units have air mobility, but also have power in small numbers. The two options I mentioned before, for dealing with surprise air units, don't work very well here. In BW, the common response was to get cheap ground units that can shoot up, since they were both (1) easily available, and (2) very efficient cost for cost against air units in BW.
But the banshee and void ray are pretty damn strong against ground units. Sure, they can be killed for less cost, but not nearly as efficiently. And, to use the example again, if 3 wraiths fly into my base in BW, I lose a couple drones and then kill the wraiths with scourge. OTOH, if 3 banshees fly into my base in SC2, even if I have mutas or hydras, I'm losing a lot of shit really fast. And if I have ground units to defend, I better have enough of them, because banshees aren't even that bad against ground units.
The exception, surprisingly, is mutas. 3 mutas flying into your base isn't gonna do much. Only mutas in large numbers actually pose a threat. And at that point, the Zerg player has made a significant investment into that army, which allows a skilled player to try to deal with it more cheaply to gain an advantage.
This turned out pretty long, so I'll summarize: The overall point I'm trying to make is: what if you didn't have to have anti-air ready at all times to deal with these potential "surprise!" units that are so much stronger now? You could go marine/tank, marine/marauder, or you could go marauder/hellion or tank/hellion. Protoss could make armies that don't have to be based on stalkers, because they don't have to worry about 2 banshees destroying their entire base. It would allow players to come up with solid macro openings without having to worry about every kind of surprise attack there is. (I mean, they still would have to do that, but there would be less to worry about, allowing for more solid standard builds).
Currently, if you have an army composition that doesn't have ample air defense, your opponent needs only to get a few banshees/voidrays, and he can deal significant enough damage to win an engagement or force a rout and gain an advantage. If he continues making more, you'll have a hard time dealing with them, because they are much more mobile than, but not much weaker than the anti-air ground units that are meant to deal with them.
That's an interesting point -- SC2 has too many viable army compositions, making it difficult to be prepared for all of the possible scenarios. That is definitely something that affects gameplay in all 6 matchups, not just the Terran ones. The marine is the best response in the early game to these possibilities while Toss and Zerg have average responses. However, can a T1 response be the only viable response to a threat? Currently, it is the only one Terrans have against these variations. We are, in a sense, forced to use marines throughout the game, no matter what the other side builds. This, in my eyes, is a handicap.
I was going to reply with some example of how a Terran could get away from marines by developing some strategy revolving around clever use of the interchangable addons, but in the end I realized that I was thwarted by the simple fact that, other than the "surviving splash damage" category, marines are just more powerful, cost efficient, and versatile than everything else Terran has. This is exemplified by the fact that the solution Terrans often use to counter marine-countering compositions is actually just more marines. I'm sure you've elaborated on this exact point already, so I'll stop there.
But from my point quoted above, and from another post mentioning future expansions adding 3 or so new units to each race, I'm really interested to see how this pans out in the next few years. It seems counterintuitive if correct: that more units could actually be worse for a competitive, balanced game. And also, where does it end? Is Terran gonna end up with 17 unit choices? All of which are trumped in quality by the lowly marine? That would be a bit funny.
Anyway, it's really interesting. Creating an engaging, entertaining, balanced spectator sport isn't as easy as it seems. Maybe BW really was a gift from the Gods.
That's an interesting point -- SC2 has too many viable army compositions, making it difficult to be prepared for all of the possible scenarios.
Past the first few minutes of the game, you do NOT have to be prepared for all the possible army compositions that your opponent can make, you just have to scout, and be prepared for the one he is actually making.
Do you really not see that if it was possible to make a terran army that beats every single possible army composition from toss or zerg, that would be incredibly imbalanced? Open your eyes. No matter what type of army you make, your opponent can beat it, and no matter what type of army he makes, you can beat it. There is no single army composition that beats everything your opponent can throw at you, from templar to collossus to void rays to DTs to carriers. If there was, that would be imbalance at its highest point, and when you are asking for an army that can deal with anything without having to scan, you are dreaming, and being utterly retarded.
This is where you ask yourself what can i afford off of one base? What can I afford of my main and my natural? What can I afford once I get my third?
I will use my mech tvp as an example. Of one base I can afford 2 factory (1 reactor, 1 techlab), a rax, and a starport(with a techlab if I build a raven it cuts into my gas and I am forced to build 3 hellions on a build by cycle instead of 1 tank and 2 hellions).
This setup allows for me to get the occasional upgrade too and the build up of minerals for the natural to go down. This brings me to my setup off of my main and my natural.
4factories (2 reactor and 2 techlabs), rax (techlab) for ghosts, and a starport (still with techlab).
the second 2 factories and the ghost academy are thrown when the CC is almost complete so by the time the OC flies to the natural the other production facilities have just finished.
Why is all of this important? All air units cost gas. I don't care what race you are. All production buildings that produce air units require gas. (excluding the hatchery but you need it for the spire.) My transition from adding an expansion at my natural was to add an additional 2 production facilities (3 if you include the rax as it is switching from marine production to ghost production). So if I for example scout that I need to transition into getting more air units or infantry or what not. (Whether this is caused by me scouting my opponent or I decide to go for a surprise and make my opponent react to me is irrelevant.) I know that under my normal build once my natural comes online I could afford 350 gas worth of production facilities (2 factories and a ghost academy) followed by additional production of units totaling to 275 gas per production cycle. (1 tank and ghost per cycle)
What is to say I cant instead producing one of those factories produce a starport instead add a techlab and now have 2 starports making banshees. Banshees and tanks are roughly the same cost in gas so I already know I can afford it. Likewise if I know when I establish my third that I am going to drop 3 more factories (2 reactor 1 tech lab). If I see that it would be benefical why not drop a factory with a tech lab and 4 reactor raxes and with the gas I save by building 2 raxes instead of factories I can use the tech lab on my starting rax to get marine upgrades.
(also forgive me if any of these toss numbers are wrong I don't play toss too much) There is no reason that a toss player can't do the same thing once the production facilities are up it would be unwise not to use them and let them sit idly. So for example of one base as toss you get 2gate robo and of 2 you get 5-6 gate plus your orginal robo. What is to say that instead of 2 of those gateways you couldn't get a stargate instead. To begin producing air.
morimacil you are right to an extent. You won't have to worry about surprise air units after the first few minutes in the game however, the threat of an air unit build up occurs every time the toss takes an expo. As every time they take an expo they can potentially build and support 1-2 stargates.
Edit: In addition adding a bunch of raxes early on in the early game means that you are kinda forced into producing with them all game. Meaning if I open with 3 rax pressure once I arrive at late game I have 3 raxes that if I don't produce something out of them I will have idle buildings. So you are forced to either put tech labs or reactors on them so every production cycle you can spend 100 minerals (25gas) on marauders or marines respectively. Its not like zerg where if you produce a spire you are forced to make mutas all game long. Tech for zerg is a one time cost (excluding building sniping). Or toss where the gateway has to continue building T1 units the whole game. The toss can switch to their composition out of their gateways to solely templar on build cycles if they have the resources to do so.
Terran must produce T1 units out of their rax and thats it so buidling them in early game will force them into your army composition whether you want to tech to something else or not.
Indeed, its possible for someone to make an expo, and then add on stargates. But really, you should know when he takes an expo. And at that point, if you are feeling weak to air, you have a scan, a cloaked banshee harrass, a drop, and so on, there are multiple ways to scout, and to see what your opponent is doing. Also, with the current pace of the game, and map sizes, by the time most players take a 4th, they are mined out in their main. Thus appart from the initial potential air rush, there are really only 2 points where your opponent can add air to his army, not too hard to scout, when you know exactly when and for what to look (extra production buildings when an expo is going down).
And sure, if you open with 3 rax, its a good idea to keep using them. One naked rax making marines, one making marauders, and one making ghosts, thats not going to be that many marines in the lategame when you are on 3 bases The problem doesnt come from having 3 raxes and using them, the problem is when you start adding another 2-3 raxes to the mix, and put reactors on half of them.
If you open with infantry pressure, and want to transition to something else, you can also have a rax dedicated to flying around, and making addons. It allows you to transition faster and more smoothly, and keeps the barrack useful. You can also use it as a scout
On December 12 2010 12:40 NightHawk929 wrote: Well there's nothing wrong with those choices, but you caan't mass hellions, or your opponent will just mass roaches/marauders/stalkers
same applies to marauders, you're opponent will just get mutas/void rays/banshees The reason so many terran players get marines is that they're good against everything, and they're massable. Most of the problems for marines can be avoided with good micro, you can't easily beat mass tank with mass hellion, or (especially) mass hellion vs mass void ray
First of all, you need to realize that there is no unit that you can make that will win against everything. Thinking that lategame will be balanced only if terran can have a maxed army that can win against any type of maxed army from their opponent is a bit stupid really. Second, techswitching isnt always an option. Sure, in theory, if you make marauders, your opponent can just throw down 4 stargates, and begin massing void rays. In practice though, if he does that, you can just go and kill him.
The idea here would be to scout what your opponent is doing, and to transition accordingly, not to blindly transition into mass hellion, and get roflstomed because he went for void rays. Protoss doesnt make a huge colossus ball while thinking: Hey, if my opponent suddenly transitions into mass air, those coloxen are sure going to be useful, this army can deal with ANYTHING! Nope, they just think: Hes going mass infantry, thus I make coloxen.
Another thing is that what units act like on paper, isnt always how it plays out in-game. Marines are better than marauders against zealots on paper, but when faced with storm, its better to be kiting zealots with half-life marauders than to have twice the amount of dead marines.
Hellions dont get much credit, but they are surprisingly effective, as long as they are used correctly. Attack moved hellions are absolutely terrible at mostly anything. However, due to the splash, a hellion in melee range can deal up to 6 times the amount of damage later in the game. When attack moved, 40 hellions will lose to 32 stalkers (equal amounts of mineral), however, 40 hellions that are moved into melee range for a surround while attacking easily clean up that amount of stalkers if they are in a ball.
this fight wouldn't happen though... both players wouldhave various units mixed in 40 hellions x2food = 80 food vs 32 stalkers x2food = 64... former can only hit ground units that situation would rarely happen, and several of them would have died trying to surround something auto surround works for melee units, but attack moved hellions don't auto surround wouldn't the player see that and and move accordingly? provided resources are easy to obtain ( not really, but for this purpose ), you be using 8 ( with upgrades or not 0/0 vs 0/0 and 3/3 vs 3/3/3 is the same ) damage hellions hitting units that take a bit of space ( damage vs mech ) and they don't have the greatest cooldowns ( 2.50 under "Normal" and 1.875 under "Faster" ) foodcost would hold you back a bit when you're rebuilding an army with different units you'd need a forward scan or two with tanks so you don't siege the moment they're coming at you, meaning less shots fired
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.
I miss the old terran play style as well. But I am afraid your Analysis on this fall in to the same category as another game mechanic analysis, which is "cure one problem, might cause another"
The current stage of sc2 remind me of SC1 without BW. Imagine TVZ with no medic while zeg has no Lurker. It will seems broken of course. So the solution seems to be that we should be patient, wait for expansions.
EPT
