I am convinced you are trolling
Donât even try with that guy. Most terran players you can have a decent and enjoyable argument with, like Bourne, Raver, Miro, Terranicll, Crusader (even if we disagree), etc, and have a meaningful conversation, maybe draw some conclusions, whatever. But that platys guy is just a brick wall. In his head you just amove 200/200 banelings and everything dies. In his head you use banelings to kill thors cost effectively and if you donât manage to trade banelings cost effectively vs thors it is because you suck.
At least funkymonk and RBT are just pure entities of hatred and are sometimes funny, that guy has 0 value. He will just deny everything that does not make terran underpowered. You cannot argue with somebody like that.
No, 1-2 Banelings have very similar power to one Mine, and they have a lot more mobility to get into range and deal damage.
Unless you are targeting an individual unit with a relatively large health pool or air units specifically, Banelings are the much stronger unit; and the fact that Banelings are used to destroy armies in all match-ups (at least until Fungal and Lurkers are out in ZvZ) while Widow Mines are see much rarer use is proof of this.
ww w.rank edftw.c om/team/1267265/#td= world&ty=c&ra=best& tyz=0&tx=a&tl=1
Stay bad, Iâll stay top 2%, aka real masters.
They really donât. 1 baneling costs the same gas as a wm and 25 less minerals, yet:
- A baneling does 20 (+15 vs light) damage while a widow mine does 125 on the target and 40 splash damage, increased to 160 with 65 splash vs shield. That is mindbogglingly stronger for only 25 more minerals.
- A widow mine can hit air
- A baneling suicides, making it a 25/25 investment to attack once, while a widow mine can recharge
- A widow mine has 5 range, a baneling is melee
- A widow mine has 90 health vs a banelingâs 30 (+5)
- A burrowed mine can be left unattended while burrowed banelings require manual detonation
The baneling meanwhile has certain advantages over the mine:
- A baneling can hit buildings
- A baneling does not need to burrow to attack
- A baneling has a larger radius of 2.2 vs the widow mineâs 1.75
- A widow mine costs 2 supply vs the banelingâs 0.5
- A widow mine does friendly fire
All in all, the widow mine seems like the stronger unit in being able to generate more cost effectiveness by not suiciding, being able to one-shot most units in the game, and having the ability to shoot air, all of which are game changers if you gave a single one of these characteristics to the baneling. Reverse that and youâll find the advantages of the baneling wonât make anywhere near as big a difference when given to the widow mine.
Banelings are used in all MUâs because of zergâs lack of other aoe units. For example, in zvz you make banelings because they one shot speedlings, and speedlings are prevalent in early game zvz because zerg has a harder time walling off than t/p, even more so given zergâs incentive to take an early third. In zvp banelings arenât used as often and are primarily an alternative to roaches vs zealot heavy play, as well as in midgame harass. In zvt, banelings are used vs bio, but are nearly nonexistent vs mech, which has seen increasing popularity in the latest patch.
Letâs compare this with the widow mine. In tvt, mines arenât used often because terran gets access to tanks, the 13 range siege unit, around the time they get access to the mine. Since mines donât do anything tanks couldnât, and you need tanks to combat tanks, tvt has very little room for mines because of the strength of the tank. In tvp, widow mines are very powerful in early-midgame drops, as well as remain an option for terran splash vs non-collosi compositions. In tvz, mines have steadily seen increasing use since their drilling claws and build time buff, particularly to combat lbm, such as in game 3 of serral vs innovation at the recent hsc.
Widow mines seeing less use than banelings is a symptom of the strength of the tank, especially vs the nydus meta this past year, as well as zergâs limited options for splash and terranâs multiple splash options available at the same time they get access to mines, rather than the strength of the baneling.
To reiterate, banelings are 50/25 suicide units that deal less splash and a lot less burst than 75/25 mines, which can also shoot air, recharge, has upgradeable cloak, and 5 range. If youâre seriously making the argument that banelings are op, then you should also be making that argument against the widow mine. But you wonât since youâre just a gold level terran player whoâs shed his veil of objectivity long ago so he could jump on the terran whine bandwagon.
Nydus has been gutted, ITâs have been flat out removed, brood lords have been nerfed, and creep has suffered a minor nerf. Why donât you wait at least 1-2 months before suggesting another zerg nerf (or in this case defending a ridiculous one)? Take a look at the recent hsc, serral and reynor were both having a lot of trouble vs mech, even with the viper bug giving them 3+ bcâs for free each game (see: reynor vs cure g1, serral vs uthermal g1. Also of note are serral vs innovation g2 and reynor vs cure g3.).
Youâve got the costs backwards.
Against a single durable target, the Widow Mine is stronger.
Against other targets, not so much.
Banelings deal similar damage to light targets in a larger radius, and two Banelings will usually output the same amount of damage as a Widow Mine in a larger radius.
And thatâs fine considering the setup time and the range or mobility of most air units. Widow Mines attacking air does not cause any problems. Banelings attacking air definitely would, because the Baneling is a much stronger unit.
Zerg has a significantly higher production rate compared to Terran and Protoss. This is why Zerg is able to use suicide units where the other races cannot. A suicide version of the Widow Mine was tested in HOTS beta and found to be too weak to be useful.
Furthermore, suicide units like Banelings or Scourge are always able to rush straight towards their target. Immobile suicide units (Spider Mines at 2 unburrow range and 12.6 speed and 5 range jumping Widow Mines from beta) do not work in the SC2 engine; as they are far too easy to avoid and counter.
Yes, and the Widow Mine has to burrow and wait for its shot, so it cannot just rush forward or flank like a Baneling. If Widow Mines could fight the way that Banelings do, then they would be overpowered with that 90 health; but since they cannot that health (about 3x as much) barely allows them to get in and deal damage in most situations (outside of an under-defended mineral line that is, but Banelings are far more devastating to Mineral lines anyway).
Most strategies involving Widow Mines depend on the opponent to walk/fly over an area without detection or to get baited over the mines by other Terran units. These tactics generally do not work against ranged units and are relatively easy to counter even with Zergling/Baneling without detection.
Meanwhile Banelings can charge straight into Bio, Battle-mech, Zealot/Archon/HT/Sentry/Immortal comps (basically any Protoss all-in composition), or other Zerg compositions and devastate the enemy army unless the opponent responds almost perfectly. Widow Mines are far easier to counter and rarely as devastating in those same situations, despite the health advantage, range advantage, and the slightly higher damage to individual targets.
You can right-click the unburrow button to set it to auto-cast. Banelings will automatically unburrow and attack nearby enemies if you do this.
The main reason why players do not do this is that the Banelings will explode on the first unit that gets close, hitting less than half of the units that it would with a manual fire. Widow Mines and Siege Tanks also target the first unit in range and hit about half as many units as they could if you do not manually target.
The reason why giving any one of those characteristics to the Baneling is a game-changer is because Banelings are a mobile unit that can be mass-produced with Zergâs production mechanics very easily. Banelings are far more numerous and they can nearly always utilize their splash damage unless the opponent has enough splash damage or forcefields to prevent them from ever reaching the army.
If Widow Mines could charge into the enemy and explode without burrowing or waiting for a 1.5 second channel, they would also be far stronger and need to lose their range, health, single-target damage, ability to hit air, etc.
That assessment is just wrong.
Siege Tanks are not the reason why Widow Mines are useless in TvT.
Widow Mines are useless in TvT because every combat unit except the Hellbat has equal or better range, and because all of the equal-range units can easily take advantage of the Widow Mineâs 1.5 second cast time to fire and get out without taking damage. The Hellbat doesnât typically need to worry about Widow Mines either, because it can transform into Hellions and win a ranged battle, rely on its durability and splitting to survive mine hits, or rely on the Tanks/Thors that it is normally used to support to kill the Widow Mines as it just stays out of range.
Widow Mines are similarly useless against Zerg compositions comprised mostly of Roaches, Hydralisks, Ravagers, Infestors, and/or Lurkers; and Protoss ranged compositions (with the exceptions of Archons that are out-ranged and Blink Stalkers that happen to blink on top of a Mine).
1 Like
Minor typo, fixed, thank you.
The problem with your comparison is that you are using 2 banelings, which have a total cost of 100/50 to say that they have comparable damage to a single mine, costing 75/25.
Except the setup time is less than a second with drilling claws, they travel almost as fast as a speed baneling, have 5 range, and almost 3 times the durability. Nevermind the fact that terran dropships can zoom them on top of entire armies much faster than overlords. Itâs easy to say âmines attacking air causes no problemsâ coming from the race with the best anti air units in the game and 3 options to deal with air units at just factory tech, 2 of those being aoe and 1 having up to 15 range.
So then make the argument against zerg production, which actually has some merit, instead of the baneling, which is incredibly cost inefficient when compared to the mine. Not sure why youâre mentioning spider mines. And once again, wm move almost as fast as speed banes, can be sped up in dropships, take less than 1 sec to burrow with dc, and have 5 range compared to the banelingâs melee.
Wm absolutely do more damage to an undefended worker line, as well as have the ability to recharge there, which is frequently seen even in pro games. In addition, being used in conjunction with speed dropships make them much harder to defend against than baneling drops. Widow mines can be used the same way banelings do, itâs just terran has no need to experiment with gimmicky aoe when they get access to the tank the same time they do the mine.
First of all, this âslightlyâ higher individual damage is a difference of 120 to 35 lmao. Secondly, banelings âdevastateâ these army comps because of the massive difference in army investment as well as the fact that these units suicide on attack, making them only useful for that fight. Furthermore, banelings are typically only massed to close out games youâre already winning or to deal with an all-in. Look at the resources lost in fights with mass banelings and youâll find it heavily against zerg. In addition, banelings can ONLY charge at units, they are melee suicide bombers, what else do you expect them to do? Once again it seems youâd be better off making an argument against zerg production than the baneling.
There we go, I was wondering when youâd get to the actual point instead of complaining about the baneling.
It really isnât, tanks are prevalent in literally every tvt, try going mines in a game where tanks donât exist and youâll find them a lot more effective vs marines than youâd think. Yes, the wide availability of terran ranged units has an impact as well, but the most significant impact is the ubiquity of the 13 range siege unit.
Are you trying to imply that roach ravager is in any way a standard composition in zvt, or even one that the mine should counter? And against roach based armies, the mines are still more often than not dealing a good amount of damage for their cost.
The ravager that launches corrosive biles should be a feasible counter to mines. And lurkers are near nonexistent in zvt because of the existence of the tank.
Yes, mines are less effective than protoss ranged units, but when was the last time you saw a protoss not make zealots?
m1 b1tch, nice try tho. Watch serral vs innovation game 3 for some tips, maybe itâll help you get out of gold.
Is that why inno beat serral 3-1 with exclusively bio? Because itâs not viable? Once again, mines were buffed, they now have cheaper dc and even faster build time in exchange for having cloak on dc. Btw my rankedftw is in this thread, cause unlike you I actually back my claims up.
Banes are not âsupplyless unitâ lmfao. Yes, they are one of zergâs only supply efficient units and that is in exchange for being incredibly cost inefficient. If youâre losing to mass banes then you were either already behind or need to learn to split.
Lel, too scared to back up his ranked claims, too mad to make any real argument. Last season was on old patch, zerg just got gutted this patch, why are you still crying?
LOL, the literal admission that your claims were bs. nice try tho, masters in 2v2 LOL.
Please do remind me with your sick 2v2 winrstes, cause with the recent hsc winrates the game appears to be anything but favouring zerg.
Not even available LOL. Once again if youâre really gm, youâd have no problem putting your rankedftw. But the highest âBattleOozeâ on there is a masters 2v2 player LOL.
âCanât prove it but Iâm gmâ Strange for a gm to not be on rankedftw or any other ranked tracker⌠LOL
Why would you tell me to click on a random terran gm if you werenât even in gm league LOL
The Banelings cover an area that is more than 50% larger, which easily makes up for the cost difference.
The total time (in normal speed) is 1 second to burrow and 1.5 seconds to fire; or 2.5 seconds for Widow Mines to do anything. On faster that is 1.07 seconds to fire and 1.78 seconds to burrow and fire respectively.
A Baneling off creep can cover 7.375 distance in the time that it takes a Widow Mine with Drilling Claws to burrow and fire, or 4.25 distance in the time that it takes a pre-burrowed Widow Mine to fire off. This easily makes up for the range difference.
The fact that Widow Mines have the same speed as Banelings off creep is irrelevant because of its need to burrow; which allows most units to escape before the Widow Mine can actually shoot. Even an unsieged Tank or an Immortal can escape before a Widow Mine goes off if the Widow Mine started burrowing right next to it with Drilling Claws. They will both cover 5.625 range in that time and cancel the shot.
Terranâs other air units do not matter in this case. The fact is that with the Widow Mineâs design (requiring a burrow, taking 1.5 seconds to fire, getting out-ranged by most ranged units in the game, etc) itâs ability to attack air does not cause any problems; whereas Banelings that could hit air definitely would.
Zergâs production does not make Hydralisks, Roaches, Ravagers, Ultralisks, or even Mutalisks problematic; nor did I imply that Zergâs production rate was a problem in this thread.
Banelings are the unit that tends to overperform and they are barely kept in check (often not) by Force-fields, Archons, spells like Fungal/Storm, and Widow Mines. They wouldâve definitely been nerfed back in WOL if the pros were just a little worse at splitting and focus-firing or if the maps were larger.
As for the cost-efficiency of both units, yes Widow Mines look more cost-efficient when looked at in a vacuum with the assumption that they will consistently hit a large number of Zerglings/Banelings or a particularly expensive unit that they can one-shot (most of these actually out-range Widow Mines, so they will beat Widow Mines easily if micromanaged properly). In practice, Widow Mines tend to be far less efficient than that and either get countered easily by splitting cheap units or killing them from outside of their range; or end up dealing large amounts of friendly-fire as the Terran player tries to bait the opponent into the mines (which is one of the only ways to prevent armies with ranged units from just killing the mines from out of range).
When taken in a vacuum with the assumption that Widow Mines will consistently get their shots off, yes Widow Mines do look more cost-efficient on paper. That is often not the case in practice; given the Widow Mineâs limitations and friendly-fire.
I brought up spider mines because they are another example that proves suicide units do not work for Terran or Protoss like they do for Zerg. SC2 Spider Mines had to be given explicit invulnerability once unborrowed to ensure that they didnât just get deleted the second they tried to attack; and are simply useless against ranged compositions with detection even when you try to distract and bait the enemy with other units (something that was commonly successful in the Brood War engine).
As I already pointed out, the combined time needed to burrow and shoot gives even most slow units more than enough time to get out of range. This basically negates the range advantage whenever you use Widow Mines offensively. Banelings are actually more likely to reach their targets and will hit far more units when they do.
That is false. Banelings 1-shot all of the workers that Widow Mines do by +2 weapons. They also hit a much larger radius, have more control over when and where they go off (you can manually detonate a Baneling right where you want it instead of needing to predict where a worker will be 1.5 seconds later), and they are harder for workers to escape from.
Widow Mine drops are more common because of the Medivac (which most Terran players need to make for Bio anyway) and because Terran players are used to playing aggressively since they are forced to play that way on a regular basis; but they are not actually stronger than Baneling drops.
Yes, Widow Mines can kill an individual target more easily. They would be quite weak if they couldnât because of their numerous restrictions; but Banelings are generally more reliable and more devastating to armies.
You are clearly missing the point.
Widow Mines cannot do that. Their need to burrow makes them much easier to avoid and counter and often requires the Terran player to bait the opponent over them. The fact that Banelings can charge straight at the enemy and attack immediately usually ensures that they are more devastating than Widow Mines outside of certain monobattles.
Banelings have the option to burrow as traps just like a Widow Mine. This is just less common.
Yes it is.
If two players agreed to play TvT together without either player making a single Siege Tank, Widow Mines will still be a worthless unit in the match-up; because almost everything that both Terran players can make either destroys Widow Mines on a-move or defeats them with a little micro.
This makes the existence of Siege Tanks basically irrelevant to the Widow Mineâs viability in TvT. It is just one unit out of an entire arsenal that hard-counters Widow Mines out of use.
The answer to both questions is no, although Roach-Ravager was often used in TvT before the Tank buff and still occasionally sees some use.
Once again, unless you are explicitly fighting with Bio or Cyclone/Hellions near the Widow Mines to bait Zealots and Archons into them, Protoss does not have trouble fighting Widow Mines.
Not when the area they are covering deals 20 (+15 vs light) compared to 125 burst and 40 splash. In addition, the widow mine is able to fire from five range and while cloaked, making a single mine much more likely to inflict its damage than a single or even 2 banelings.
Yes, so less than 1 second. Why is normal speed relevant except to make it seem longer?
Just tested your mine claim regarding tanks/immortals in the tester, and it was indeed true that you can outmaneuver burrowing mines if youâre paying attention even with slow units. However in practice, because mines have 5 range and upgradeable cloak, mine shots often chase targets outside of the intended 5 range when players fail to spot the tiny grooves of a burrowed mine, which are near impossible to spot on creep. This makes counter micro vs burrowed mines on creep harder than even fighting banelings on creep, from a zerg perspective.
They absolutely do, because I was making the point the especially because of zergâs lackluster aa, giving the baneling an air attack would be absolutely gamebreaking, which you seem to agree with. However that ability on the widow mine is just another aa tool in the vast array of aa tools in the terran arsenal. Zergs would kill to have a unit that deals 125 (+35 vs shield) burst and 40 (+25 vs shields) splash that costs the same resources and supply as a roach, can fire while cloaked, and has 5 range. They would gladly accept the tradeoffs of friendly fire and 1.5 seconds targetting for a unit like that, without a doubt.
Highly doubt it, banelings werenât op in wings, you saw this by the widespread lackluster results of zerg players using lbm before infestor/broodlord became meta. But terrans did split better back then no doubt. Maps were more terran favoured because of not just their size, but also because of backdoors to mainbases, plentiful air space, and random highground inaccessible to the zerg where terran could siege on.
I disagree completely, you seem to be confusing cost-effectiveness with the success in killing the opponents army. The thing is, terran players are building mines off 1-2 factories most of the time, having maybe up to 12 with their main army as a high point, whereas zerg frequently invests in upwards of 30 banelings just to make sure they can handle whatever the the t/p throws at them without suffering economic damage/creep recession. Zergs invest more resources into banelings than a terran does into mines.
You see, I heavily doubt the friendly fire argument against the mines because of terranâs long range units typically used in conjunction with mines, i.e. tanks, marines, and medivacs.
This is straight up wrong from a cost for cost perspective, the average baneling will not have as much cost effectiveness as the average mine because banelings are melee, and thus need to be massed to have an impact against ranged compositions such as marine tank.
Yes banelings 1 shot workers at +2, but +2 melee is rather late in the midgame as well as not an option in all games. You can also manually target with mines and juggle between targets, a mechanic that terrans rarely use.
Wm drops are absolutely stronger than baneling drops because of the larger investment needed from the opponent to deal with the mines (how often has a wm drop one shotted a stalker or oracle?), as well as the speed that the medivac can come in.
I completely disagree regarding their effectiveness, one wm can blow up an entire group of banelings or destroy half the shields on a protoss army, whereas one baneling wonât have anywhere near that impact. Even if banelings donât have to burrow, their effectiveness in isolation is almost nonexistent whereas widow mines can be a âburrow and forgetâ type unit that is almost guaranteed to be cost effective. Baneling traps are less common because they are straight up worse than burrowing mines that can 1 shot most units.
Absolutely not, try a moving into 3 cloaked mines with your bio ball and see what happens. Try a moving into them with hellions, with medivacs, with vikings, even plop down a scan or bring a raven and see what happens. Widow mines will consistently make cost effective trades vs units with equal or less range despite their 1.5 seconds targeting time. The tank is whatâs keeping widow mines from seeing much use in tvt.
Widow mines are exceptionally effective against protoss and see widespread use in the mu in pro play.
Baneling do 304 (532 vs Light) damage * area. Widow Mine do 384 (625 vs Shields) damage * area. Itâs 26.5% for basic (17.5% for bonus) damage * area more. Baneling cost 50/25, Widow Mine cost 75/25. Itâs 22.2% to 33.3% more (evaluation dependant). So these are 2 quite equal units resource wise.
1 Like
Except that widow mines also do 125 burst, one shotting most units in the game.
Single target damage burst that depends on target hp and can be 90 damage overkill make Widow Mine better than Baneling by maximum 20% resourcewise if full damage applied. Not nearly to 2-to-1.
1 Like
I never claimed it was 2 to 1, just that it was more cost efficient than a baneling, and it is.