EPT[D]Corruptors as a response to Mutalisks - Page 2
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
Grndr101
Belgium125 Posts
| ||
|
Soluhwin
United States1287 Posts
On January 21 2012 23:15 Cereb wrote: Lol. People are so stubborn in their ways. I bet most of the people who replied here have no actual experience with it. Imo, Curroptors are actually brilliant vs mutas... I faced this guy some time ago, I scouted around and it appeared that we were both going for a spire so I was ready to get some huge muta battles rolling... Then when his lair was done he made an overseer to scout my base which really confused me cause I thought he was going mutas too. He scouts my spire being done and then for a little while nothing happens but when I'm ready to go out with my mutas he shows up with a bunch of curroptors. My mutas became completely useless and when I finally tried to fight him I just lost every muta. From that point on he just went around killing every overlord I had. Only to do a roach timing afterwards.. I got absolutely smashed, I think it's a sick good metagame kinda strategy. I don't like to go spire but if I did I would go curroptor every game if I scouted spire. It was not even close. The boldfaced text is your issue, you don't engage with the Mutalisks against corropturs, hell, when you go mutas you should never plan to directly engage, regardless of the matchup. As for how your opponent killed your overlords... don't spread your overlords blindly in ZvZ. Here's my take on why corroptors are just bad: 1) Corruptors are a 'defencive' counter to mutalisks in that they don't kill mutas especially quickly, they just don't die fast. In a pure mutalisk vs. pure corruptor battle, sure the corruptors win. But what if the corruptoring player wants to integrate a few mutalisks to try and deny bases? A smart mutalisking player will simply focus the mutas then run, rendering you unable to do any damage. 2) Corruptors render no counter-attacking options. As many people above me have said, you just can't deny the mutalisking player anything if you severely invest in an only AA unit. This gives a mutalisk player exactly what he/she wants: safety. You never go mutalisks to kill your opponent, and if you do then you're doing it wrong. You go mutalisks to assert map control and have a fast core army that can cover multiple bases and force certain investments out of your opponent. 3) Corruptors are slow, they just can't keep up with mutalisks. The mutalisking player gets to pick his/her battles. Even if the corruptor player is flying around killing overlords, what's stopping you from just going into their drone line? Even if they can defend in a direct engagement, who said you have to directly engage? What becomes worse about this is that you have no way to force a fight, such as fungle growthing the mutas in place or building enough missle turrets to be safe and sending your marine/tank army to the zerg's third. | ||
|
ETisME
12712 Posts
On January 21 2012 23:56 Grndr101 wrote: When I see him teching to spire I will tech to infestor. Granted infestors don't have much mobility, but if he keeeps harassing all his mutas will die to fungal. high league player can spread their muta and sent one or two to kill your infestors. that being said, one mistake and most muta dead is quite the world's most horrible feeling, which is why I don't go muta often lol I think most people have said it already. Gas heavy for a unit that don't really "counter" muta that well because they are too slow to deal with muta harass and also they are quite useless other than hunting overlords. | ||
|
Clouttt
United States33 Posts
thinkify. | ||
|
llKenZyll
United States853 Posts
1) Corruptors own mutas pretty hard. I'm not exactly sure of the ratio, but I believe you need 1 corruptor for every 1.5 mutalisks, or a 2:3 ratio. That adds up to 300/200 spent on corruptors for every 300/300 spent on mutas, a price deficit that will add up incredibly quickly. 2) Unlike hydra/infestor, corruptors will give you complete map control, rendering their muta switch much less effective. 3) Corruptors are much more mobile than either hydralisks or infestors, thus making muta harass easier to deal with. 4) Corruptors can eventually be morphed into broodlords, and since you took away map control your opponent will have an even harder time dealing with them. 5) As long as you are on top of your scouting you will never have a worse ground army than your opponent (until you go into broodlords). 1. Not really, Mutalisks are better than Corruptors because a Mutalisk can harass more. A mutalisk has more mobillity. 2. You don't need map control as long as you have three base roach/hydra/festor. You can just do a push and you have a 95% chance of winning. Corruptors don't give you map control, either. They are fairly slow so you cant move out with them. 3. Yes, but hydra/infestor is better than the corruptor in a straight up engagement. 4. Ok, I guess so. 5. Yes you will, mass ling baneling will destroy you. Once you kill all of his mutalisks, then what? You have a huge amount of corruptors just sitting there as the speed lings and speed banes wreck your mass roach army and start to eat away at your bases. | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
Basically what most people said in the thread are true. Corruptors neither prevent the opponent from taking extra bases, nor give you the ability to take expansions and keep up with him. The moment you try to take a 3rd and defend it, the Mutas will be able to harass again and there's nothing you can do to stop them without overbuilding Corruptors (you have to split them and still have enough) and/or static defense at every base - which sets you even further behind. | ||
|
DarKcS
Australia1237 Posts
| ||
|
ThePlayer33
Australia2378 Posts
UNLESS for some reason your opponent is makinga lot of banelings as they expect hydras, and a roach/ corrupter composition may work. | ||
|
Mr Showtime
United States1353 Posts
| ||
|
sanddbox_sc2
United States173 Posts
| ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
2) Unlike hydra/infestor, corruptors will give you complete map control, rendering their muta switch much less effective. 3) Corruptors are much more mobile than either hydralisks or infestors, thus making muta harass easier to deal with. 4) Corruptors can eventually be morphed into broodlords, and since you took away map control your opponent will have an even harder time dealing with them. 5) As long as you are on top of your scouting you will never have a worse ground army than your opponent (until you go into broodlords). How can 5 be true? there is no way to turn the corruptors into ground units? say your opponent got 21 mutas (42 suply) and you get 14 corruptors (28 suply) Then they clash and you are left with the useless corruptors and he can replace his mutas instandly for ground units You could then kill off your own corruptors but is that realy a reasonable way to go? Annyway: also wondered why zergs didnt use corruptor more against muta and this the only reason i could think of Can agree with post above btw, armour is a realy good counter against mutas as it removes all the splash | ||
|
Burns
United States2300 Posts
1) Corruptors own mutas pretty hard. I'm not exactly sure of the ratio, but I believe you need 1 corruptor for every 1.5 mutalisks, or a 2:3 ratio. That adds up to 300/200 spent on corruptors for every 300/300 spent on mutas, a price deficit that will add up incredibly quickly. 2) Unlike hydra/infestor, corruptors will give you complete map control, rendering their muta switch much less effective. 3) Corruptors are much more mobile than either hydralisks or infestors, thus making muta harass easier to deal with. 4) Corruptors can eventually be morphed into broodlords, and since you took away map control your opponent will have an even harder time dealing with them. 5) As long as you are on top of your scouting you will never have a worse ground army than your opponent (until you go into broodlords). Yet, other than morphing into broods, we hardly ever see corruptors come into play in ZvZ, and I just want to know why. Hydras and infestors are a more cost efficient way of dealing with mutas, and are more usefull in a zerg army composition corrupters cant shoot ground units so its not much of map control, the most you can do is kill overlords and unless you are rushing for hive tech and then Greater spire, and even if you are, you will have a flock of corrupters sitting there waiting to be used until you can even morph them into brrods | ||
|
archonOOid
1983 Posts
| ||
|
HardCorey
United States709 Posts
| ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
| ||
ToKoreaWithLove
Norway10161 Posts
| ||
|
babysimba
10466 Posts
1. You do not produce corruptors together with mutas. Corruptors thrash mutas in low numbers because of their 'tanklebilty' not dps. You get a half-assed composition, they will just focus-fire the mutas and retreat. Have an overseer to scout they are indeed going spire, and commit to corruptors fully. 2. Strength of this build is raw firepower. Mobility has almost no relevance. What do you do when you have a more cost efficient anti-air? You invest more into your ground army (banelings). Simple logic tells you that if you attack now, you will win the ground battle and force their mutas to defend. Lose this timing window and it's game over. If you manage to kill off some mutas and gain enough air dominance, start adding mutas and play like a normal spire vs ground tech game. Mobility to buy time to build a huge muta flock is not a valid argument. The player with corruptors is the aggressor. A better argument would be mutas have the ability to snipe enemy's larger quantity of banelings so your own banelings can own. So in the end it pretty much comes down to micro, similar to how bw zergs utilise mutas to snipe off HTs. | ||
|
Murdaa
United States32 Posts
You need less gas to counter muta then it takes to make mutas if you go hydra spore,and you make the muta's useless its gg | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On January 24 2012 03:05 babysimba wrote: I have explained this before in a muta zvz thread, but it got shot down terribly. I have experimented it quite a bit and also experience the receiving end of this build. It's up to you guys to believe and try it out for yourselves since i don't have any replays. 1. You do not produce corruptors together with mutas. Corruptors thrash mutas in low numbers because of their 'tanklebilty' not dps. You get a half-assed composition, they will just focus-fire the mutas and retreat. Have an overseer to scout they are indeed going spire, and commit to corruptors fully. 2. Strength of this build is raw firepower. Mobility has almost no relevance. What do you do when you have a more cost efficient anti-air? You invest more into your ground army (banelings). Simple logic tells you that if you attack now, you will win the ground battle and force their mutas to defend. Lose this timing window and it's game over. If you manage to kill off some mutas and gain enough air dominance, start adding mutas and play like a normal spire vs ground tech game. Mobility to buy time to build a huge muta flock is not a valid argument. The player with corruptors is the aggressor. A better argument would be mutas have the ability to snipe enemy's larger quantity of banelings so your own banelings can own. So in the end it pretty much comes down to micro, similar to how bw zergs utilise mutas to snipe off HTs. You're completely wrong. Mobility is everything, and I've played with and vs corrupters many times, and they're simply not good. It's the entire fact you can't retreat vs mutas. And you won't have a larger ground army either when each corrupter is costing 50 more minerals. Mutas can deny a third, corrupters cannot. Mutas can avoid the corrupters and still deny the third. As you say, corrupters are good for tankability, not DPS, so even on the offchance some mutas do fly past some corrupters, like one muta dies max, oh well. If you were going to try anti muta - you might as well have gone for infestor/hydra. | ||
|
greenknight999
69 Posts
Get the HSC4 replay pack off liquipedia and go to groupstage 2 -> group a -> dimaga vs darkforce -> meta That is how you counter mutalisks. The counter to muta is just attacking, they are a weak battle unit that gets destroyed by micro. Queen / Hydra / Infestor hard counter the mutalisk, throw in a few more units to deal with enemy ground army and they will collapse to a push. Zerg have the most effective anti-mutalisk spell with fungal growth with the other spell for the same caster being rapid spam of free anti-air infested terrans(!), it's always a bit eye-brow raising to see substantial numbers of mutas in z v z. I really don't like this corruptor talk because it does not exploit the weakness of the enemy strategy. It is an attempt to beat the enemy unit, not the enemy strategy. I feel that is fundamentally wrong. | ||
| ||
