EPTMutas will never be "dead."
[D] The State of Mutalisks in ZvT - Page 4
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
hypnobean
89 Posts
Mutas will never be "dead." | ||
|
drbrown
Sweden442 Posts
On March 16 2012 09:20 Oxyjon wrote: I'll quote you all day. The number of times I've seen 1/0 mutas get lunched by 3/3 marines is unreal. The thing I do have to wonder though is that in the final of GSL november we saw leenock go double spire in that game on tal'darim. So the pros have known about it for a long time. I struggle to believe it hasn't been tested in practice, so the only explanation I can find for it not catching on is that zergs have found it less effective than going down a different route entirely. Seems a shame really as getting fast 3/3 air always sounded like a good set up for broodlords. You're investing even more gas into a unit that STILL won't be cost effective vs marines. You are too vulnerable with that much gas invested into mutas, you need banelings, ground upgrades and quicker infestors. | ||
|
ETisME
12384 Posts
Now that early upgraded marines are so predominate, I have seen quite a few terrans defending the early batch of muta with only 1 or 2 turrets each base in comparison to 3-4 and there are more terrans trying to trap mutas with marines. Maps also have less dead space for muta to fly around. | ||
|
ExCder
Germany2 Posts
In ZvT Mutas are great for map control, its kind of a unit I like to use when I know that I am ahead and which will help me get more ahead. If im not ahead im gonna usa Ling/Infestor which is way more cost efficient if used correctly. You have to make sure that u get a good clump of mutas for effective harrassing and that u dont lose them in pointless spots. I personally think that Mutas are even harder to micro than infestors, because one big blunder will make you lose them all and ure screwed. However watching pros like DRG microing his mutas non stop and beeing so annoying and dominant with them, is a great inspiration to continue the struggle for proper Muta-Control. In ZvP Mutas are still a great great unit. I use a Roach/Ling opener into mutas for Mapcontrol, and its very unlikely P will get up 2 stargates for phoenixes + the upgrade to defend the muta harras, so the phoenix buff doest not effect the mutaplay in most situations. Ling/Roach/Muta is a great combo against Toss to prevent them from having their 3rd Base. In ZvZ is use Mutas for the MetaGame, i.e. I defend my 2 base with ling baneling and safe gas for ~12 mutas, I get them out and start harrasing and get map control. If my opponent has no AA at all, I continue massing mutas and win. If he got spores and stuff, I will go snipe overlords etc., he eventually loses his pace in macro and make false decisions and I take my 3rd and transition to Roach/Infestor for a final killing blow. Im High-Plat in eu which is basically nothing, but If i can make use of mutas, every1 can and furthermore, I see mutas in A LOT of the GSL games to be used. Bottom Line, I think Mutas are perfectly fine the way they are right now. | ||
|
Tachion
Canada8573 Posts
On March 17 2012 03:40 hypnobean wrote: I think a lot of you guys are overthinking this. Is this a discussion about what is happening in GSL or what happens to anyone here playing ladder? I can guarantee that DRG can play muta ling bane against 99.99% of the Terrans in the world and win because he is better than them and uses the mutas well, has impeccable macro and control and timings. I bet he can also use infestor ling into some kind of hive tech and do the same. Does it mean anything that ling/infestor is now DRG's go-to strategy in ZvT? Out of his last 20+ ZvT games from MLG and GSL he's been twice as likely to go ling/infestor. Maybe it is a map issue as other posters have previously stated, but even so there's no doubting that their use is on the decline. | ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
| ||
|
Let it Raine
Canada1245 Posts
| ||
|
Oboeman
Canada3980 Posts
On March 17 2012 03:55 drbrown wrote: You're investing even more gas into a unit that STILL won't be cost effective vs marines. You are too vulnerable with that much gas invested into mutas, you need banelings, ground upgrades and quicker infestors. The cool thing about double spire was that he could trade efficiently with small groups of marines (ie drops, or 8 marines coming out of a barracks to defend, or the 6 marines left at a PF). But then jjakji just made a few more than the usual number of thors (ie more than one), and Leenock STILL couldn't engage his army without losing everything. Even if 3/3 marines aren't quite good enough, you can still add a second thor to his army (in addition to the defensive thor). Sure the thor cuts into his tank count, but a second spire seriously cuts into the baneling count as well. His double spire naturally transitioned well into broodlords, all of which got killed by 5 ghosts. The double spire to broodlord transition should actually be insanely powerful after the patch, since 3/3 corruptors will be laughing all over vikings. | ||
|
HyperionDreamer
Canada1528 Posts
On March 17 2012 03:40 hypnobean wrote: I think a lot of you guys are overthinking this. Is this a discussion about what is happening in GSL or what happens to anyone here playing ladder? I can guarantee that DRG can play muta ling bane against 99.99% of the Terrans in the world and win because he is better than them and uses the mutas well, has impeccable macro and control and timings. I bet he can also use infestor ling into some kind of hive tech and do the same. This suggests that any problems or preferences people have with the dominant ZvT styles are related to skill in the game and not which is "better" or whether mutas are a "dying" unit. In fact the same thing happened months ago too. People get accustomed to playing a certain way, so other people change it up and get a little advantage until the other people switch it up again too. Metagame is not some anthropomorphic force in the universe, it's just collective strategic momentum among groups of people interacting and sharing ideas. Mutas will never be "dead." /thread this guy has it dead on. On March 17 2012 05:09 Oboeman wrote: The cool thing about double spire was that he could trade efficiently with small groups of marines (ie drops, or 8 marines coming out of a barracks to defend, or the 6 marines left at a PF). But then jjakji just made a few more than the usual number of thors (ie more than one), and Leenock STILL couldn't engage his army without losing everything. Even if 3/3 marines aren't quite good enough, you can still add a second thor to his army (in addition to the defensive thor). Sure the thor cuts into his tank count, but a second spire seriously cuts into the baneling count as well. His double spire naturally transitioned well into broodlords, all of which got killed by 5 ghosts. The double spire to broodlord transition should actually be insanely powerful after the patch, since 3/3 corruptors will be laughing all over vikings. Again, /thread. Mutas are simply harder to play, and that's why a lot of zergs are not playing them right now. They have just as many upsides to them as infestors, and the only downside is technical and mechanical difficulty. The stephano stuff where you go infestor/ling with like 20 spines in the middle of the map and mass infestor brood is just mechanically poor. It's like those terrans who make 20+ turrets at each edge of their base. Both are equally as flawed. | ||
|
ShatterZer0
United States1843 Posts
On March 16 2012 08:39 danl9rm wrote: I said it months ago and I'll say it now. If you go mutas in ZvT you have to douple-up them. That means 2 spires and get to 3/3. Mutas aren't going anywhere in ZvT. If the pros aren't using them now, it's because they aren't getting double upgrades. Quote me all day, I beg you. If they die, they'll make a resurgence, and it'll come with 2 spires. Instead of 9 mutas and +1, 7 mutas and 1/1 (20 second delay)? Who knows, maybe. | ||
|
JDub
United States976 Posts
On March 17 2012 06:02 ShatterZer0 wrote: Instead of 9 mutas and +1, 7 mutas and 1/1 (20 second delay)? Who knows, maybe. 7 mutas with 1/1 is way worse than 9 mutas with 1/0 (not to mention spire and +1 defense is 300 gas, not 200). In fact 8 mutas with 0/0 is better than 7 mutas with 1/0 (Belial made a whole thread specifically about upgrading mutas to show this). The point of going double spire would not be to hit some timing when 1/1 kicks in, but to have a much more powerful army once you hit max. If you get your upgrades late or with 1 spire, you can hit max supply when you only have 1-2 upgrades finished. The problem is upgrades take a long time and there will be no way to make your maxed army stronger besides just waiting for them to finish (assuming you stay on ling/bling/muta). If you go double spire then your muta flock will be weaker than it would be otherwise for a while, but as you max out and reach 3/3 with your mutas, you end up with a flock that doesn't just melt against fully upgraded units of your opponent. All that is to say, I agree with you ShatterZer0 -- "who knows, maybe". | ||
|
Amui
Canada10567 Posts
ZvP I have mixed feelings. In ZvP a mutalisk based army loses straight up to almost any standard deathball horribly when they can't do damage, and pretty much lose the game if protoss has 3 bases and tech up because the mutalisks flat out suck in fights. At the same time though, when ahead, Muta's are probably the simplest way to finish off protoss, albeit drawn out. | ||
|
Wilsonator
46 Posts
On March 16 2012 08:51 FairForever wrote: If people individually fired banelings with tanks, then you'd need less tanks, and could use extra gas to get more medivacs. Possible, but highly unrealistic seeing as it is so difficult to split banelings while micro'ing ten other things, similar to how you would never individually target separate lings or banelings with each tank. If Terrans have time to stim, split marines, target fire tanks, micro viking/emp infestors, in addition to stutter stepping (which top Terrans do) I am sure that zergs should be able to handle adding bane ling splitting to their micro routine. In fact it has always baffled me that zergs continue to clump their banelings, and that protoss continue to clump their templar. If you guys started splitting I would be terrified..... Imagine 8 templar split throughout a protoss army, now I can no longer just emp all the templar at once, terrifying concept. Also you are completly wrong, Terrans routinely shift target all banelings in sight with tanks. It reduces the need for splits, and in fact I DO reduce my tank number for just this reason, I am very glad to have the extra marines/upgrades. | ||
|
Belial88
United States5217 Posts
Get rid of broken maps, and you get rid of gimmicky play. Mutas are fine. Just like in ZvP, the point of mutas is keep terran in their base while you tech up to broodlords. It was never meant to be the endall, but terrans used to have a hard time dealing with them, like toss did, so a lot of games ended in that stage of the game. Zerg uses mutas to keep map control. And I don't know about builds 'hard countering' them - as long as you keep your mutas alive, you will crush any terran push before he has lots of ghosts out. The problem with them is that you can't necessarily kill T with ling/bane/muta against entrenched sieged tanks and defensive terran, so you gotta get broodlords, to which T gets ghosts, and then when they get enough ghosts, no amount of ling/bane/muta will win, so you have to make more and more bl/infestor. If Terrans have time to stim, split marines, target fire tanks, micro viking/emp infestors, in addition to stutter stepping (which top Terrans do) I am sure that zergs should be able to handle adding bane ling splitting to their micro routine. In fact it has always baffled me that zergs continue to clump their banelings, and that protoss continue to clump their templar. If you guys started splitting I would be terrified..... Imagine 8 templar split throughout a protoss army, now I can no longer just emp all the templar at once, terrifying concept. Most zergs these days do split their banes. right? I mean i do, it may not be perfect, but I atleast box over the banes, or half of them, and send them one way or another, then cut another half box, etc. Anyways the idea mutas don't work is ridiculous. It's these maps that are the problem. You aren't supposed to kill anything with the mutas, you just force T to stay in his base otherwise you run in with your entire ling/bane/muta army and win the base trade, and you cut off reinforcements so eventually your army is bigger than his by the time he reaches your base and you kill him because his whole army isn't perfectly sieged up. So then when T finally pushes out, you have a ton of broodlords. | ||
|
ThomasHobbes
United States197 Posts
I love Muta play on Korhal and Shakuras, where your 3rd is always far away and (if cross-positions) exposed. TDA lends itself naturally to Mutas, and I find I use them every game there as well. What i never understood is the tendency of Zergs to rush for Muta. They are a harassment unit, they are not meant to defend pushes or end the game. They grant map control, defend against drops, and punish an undefended Terran. Once you get a flock, you can start pressuring the Terran, forcing him to remain in his base until he gets the defensive infrastructure in place to deal with you. Even then, he's going to be hesitant about leaving his base entirely undefended, and will leave behind small groups of marines, all of which weakens his inevitable push. Mutas are not something you mass 40+ of and then run into his thors, they're a harassment unit that allows you to naturally get your spire / start upgrades before hive, and which transitions nicely into hive when you finally do get it. I left this out, but it should be noted that infestor / ling is usually defensive, and it's hard to apply consistent pressure, especially if the Terran is dropping every which way. I find the opposite is true of muta play, the Terran is always on the defensive (unless he's launching a large push), and you have ample opportunity to counter-attack, mass banelings to take out his 3rd, or attempt runbys. | ||
|
BinxyBrown
United States230 Posts
I am starting to feel like there are major holes in the ling infestor build as well, if terran keeps up on upgrades it becomes really hard to trade effectively in the mid game and be effective vs terran drops. The ling infestor style makes zerg t3 much stronger when you get there though which is awesome. | ||
|
K3Nyy
United States1961 Posts
| ||
|
Goldbullet
United States88 Posts
| ||
|
Belial88
United States5217 Posts
What i never understood is the tendency of Zergs to rush for Muta. They are a harassment unit, they are not meant to defend pushes or end the game. They grant map control, defend against drops, and punish an undefended Terran. yea that was horrible. the days of 30 supply lair in zvt was so terrible. Even drg did it against thorzain on tda. Nowadays the earliest lair you'll see is maybe 55 supply in zvt. Seems like the trend is later and later lair, a lot of zvt's now go past 70 supply before getting lair. I think Mutas have lost its effectiveness because of the fast 3rds from Terran and their micro has improved also. Mutas are more or less not that strong in straight up engagements so there's a bunch of inefficient supply for the Zerg when the battles happen and with Terran being able to secure 3 bases easily, it doesn't matter if the muta flock picks off some turrents here and there. It's still not bad, but I think the ling/infestor is a superior choice. Mutas are never meant to be shot at, so they are incredibly strong. I don't know how you can say that. When terran pushes out with some 170 supply army, Zerg will have 200/200 with about 25 mutas. 200/200 of ling/bane/muta just rapes ~170 marine/tank/medivac (thors are pretty useless) because the ling/bane soaks up damage while the mutas just shred everything. That's why it's important to keep the mutas alive. Keep the mutas alive, and terran is forced to stay in his base, and if he does push out, you will just rape his army because your dps will be so high with the mutas. If you lose the mutas, terran pushes out, and your ling/bane gets owned because of the tanks, and kiting, and simply won't be doing enough dps. I don't think fast third 'counters' muta play either, in such a case, as long as zerg purely droned up his third before making any units at all, he will max out quickly and forever deny the fourth from terran, grab their own fourth, and tech up quickly. Of course, it's a hard game, but I don't think third 'counters' muta play. What it 'counters' is zergs who dont drone up their third. infestors hard counter marines. makes game more balanced Is this a balance whine? Really, quality post. It's medivacs that are 'imbalanced', not marines. 0/0 speedlings will absolutely rape 3/3 marines, especially if you have a couple banes in there too. But add a medivac, and speedlings will never win. And I find that infestor play gets owned by marines, while mutas so much better. The reason pure bio sucks against muta, is that you have this ling/bane army, and terran can't kite it or micro or split against it, because the mutas will just wreck them if they do. So they are damned if they split and kite because of the mutas, and they are damned if they just sit there and take the bane hits. Then, the mutas just push and pull them in every direction on the map. At least marines can drop against infestors. | ||
|
Tachion
Canada8573 Posts
0/0 speedlings will absolutely rape 3/3 marines, especially if you have a couple banes in there too. But add a medivac, and speedlings will never win. Is just utter nonsense. | ||
| ||
