EPT[D]Are mutalisks overpowered in WOL?? - Page 10
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
euroboy
Sweden536 Posts
| ||
|
TERRANLOL
United States626 Posts
In my opinion, the ONLY good use of the thor vs mutas is as an anti harassment tool, or if there are only like 4 or 5 mutas. Once the numbers get larger than that, the thors don't seem to actually do any damage to the mutas and to make it even worse, they're incredibly slow. With hellions being a unit that's capable of dealing with zealots better and the warhound being a unit that is capable of being massed and dealing with mutalisks, it seems like their main focus for HOTS is making mech viable. Personally I agree with this decision, as tank play is a lot more fun than bioball. WoL had a big focus on one ball of units vs another ball of units... whereas things with tanks, swarm hosts and shredders are likely to involve small clusters of armies being used for other purposes | ||
|
Goshdarnit
United States540 Posts
On October 25 2011 18:23 Whiplash wrote: Mmm blizzard should have just made the phoenix actually counter the muta instead of adding a whole new unit I think... So by counter you mean you want 1 phoenix to be able to kill 8 mutas without perfect micro... how else counter phoenix's "counter" mutas anymore than they already do. Most of the people whining about mutas being even slightly overpowered in this thread fail to mention the cost efficency of thier exchanges and of the huge cost it takes to make the theoretical 30 muta flock they are fighting. I also feel like people are rating archons/HT too lowly against mutalisk. you could lose 5 HT as long as the mutas eat 1 storm. By the same logic you could lose 10 HT as long as the mutas eat two storms. Because as a protoss I would only be losing 1500 gas, whereas the zerg with his theoretical 30+ muta ball would be losing more than twice my amount of gas, and six times my amount of minerals. | ||
|
S2Lunar
1051 Posts
I always turret my base up in the late game with 2 - 3 per base and a lot of Turrets around my production, because Mutas are very deadly in large numbers. I don't think Mutalisk are overpowered, but maybe a buff to Thor or something would suffice, magic box seems to easy and mitigates all the splash damage of the Thor. | ||
|
Toadvine
Poland2234 Posts
On October 25 2011 23:23 turdburgler wrote: i couldnt disagree more. i think it makes the strategy area of the game really shallow and boring when even when the enemy gets out a massive muta cloud (therefore is probably miles ahead and the game should be over) that theres this straight up answer, oh ye you just make a tempest its ezpz. theres no depth to that choice, you dont analyse your gameplay, you dont go back through the 20 minutes before looking for improvements to your game, risks to take, better scouting that could be done. people like tyler and day9 have said this before, and they are able to get the point across a lot better than me ;/ but one of bw's strengths as a long standing rts was the lack of a simple answer, there were 100 answers to each question, depending on your style, strengths and the situation. that kept the game interesting a fresh (and rewarding) for 10 years, now if we are going to have this simple answer for the situation, the game will get stale and boring. but it should be desirable for have 50 stalkers, or 100 marines? you're argument is completely arbitrary. in theory having 100 marines vs a zerg who scouts it, and goes banelings should be a 'bad choice'. but even though he has the advantage (as he should have, scouting you and acting on that information) you can use greater control to still swing the battle in your favour. this balances the effects of having great micro, macro, decision making. with strong counters, micro and to a lesser extent macro start to matter a lot less. Uh, but that was exactly how it was in BW. Corsairs and Archons were the answer to Mutas, and could destroy a control group of them in a few seconds. In fact, BW specifically made a lot of anti-Muta changes, because they were extremely overpowered in vanilla. And really, being able to mass a super-mobile flying unit that hits both air and ground is silly, and leads to stupid gameplay, as well as stupid design decisions. Again, Mutas in general don't need a hard counter, but there should be something thar prevents making 40 of them and winning that way. On October 25 2011 23:44 Goshdarnit wrote: So by counter you mean you want 1 phoenix to be able to kill 8 mutas without perfect micro... how else counter phoenix's "counter" mutas anymore than they already do. Most of the people whining about mutas being even slightly overpowered in this thread fail to mention the cost efficency of thier exchanges and of the huge cost it takes to make the theoretical 30 muta flock they are fighting. I also feel like people are rating archons/HT too lowly against mutalisk. you could lose 5 HT as long as the mutas eat 1 storm. By the same logic you could lose 10 HT as long as the mutas eat two storms. Because as a protoss I would only be losing 1500 gas, whereas the zerg with his theoretical 30+ muta ball would be losing more than twice my amount of gas, and six times my amount of minerals. That's actually not true. Well, it kind of would be true if Storm and Archons were better against Zerg in general. But currently, if you scout the Spire and then tech to Storm/Blink off 2 bases, you can land however many good Storms you want, but the Zerg has already double expanded and reached his desired number of drones, at which point he can just switch into mass Roach, and never let you take a third, because Storm and Archons suck against Roaches. TLDR: It doesn't matter how cost-inefficient the Zerg is with Mutas, if they allow him to have twice as many mining bases as you do. | ||
|
Response
United States1936 Posts
| ||
|
Zorgaz
Sweden2951 Posts
The war hound is also a addition to make mech viable TvP, we're the Thor rarely was seen. You are looking at it in the wrong way, the warhound wasn't implemented just to give terran better defense against mutas... And yes the warhound is needed. Now in ZvP i can't really say because I haven't had too much experience with mass muta lategame. But the Carrier wasn't a very good capital ship, and this new Tempest does seem better. Seems fair that Tempest can ''counter'' mass mutas since Protoss if protoss are struggling with it. It's not like Zerg have a hard time tech switching ^^. I don't like the fact that it may become an addition to a deathball though =/ | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10292 Posts
 On October 25 2011 23:50 Zorgaz wrote: No Mutas aren't overpowered, not in most games anyway. But the Thor wasn't a very good unit because it was so large and slow. The new ''Goliath'' is a unit better suited for the competitive game, and it scales much better with the muta pack, which the Thor didn't (Magic box) ^^. The war hound is also a addition to make mech viable TvP, we're the Thor rarely was seen. You are looking at it in the wrong way, the warhound wasn't implemented just to give terran better defense against mutas... And yes the warhound is needed. Now in ZvP i can't really say because I haven't had too much experience with mass muta lategame. But the Carrier wasn't a very good capital ship, and this new Tempest does seem better. Seems fair that Tempest can ''counter'' mass mutas since Protoss if protoss are struggling with it. It's not like Zerg have a hard time tech switching ^^. I don't like the fact that it may become an addition to a deathball though =/ Actually, the larger the numbers the more in favor it is for the thors o.o | ||
|
nam nam
Sweden4672 Posts
On October 25 2011 23:49 Response wrote: At this point unless you scout the spire while its building it can be very difficult to counter mutas ... It's quite easy for zerg to pick a random corner of the map and hide its spire so it becomes increasingly difficult to scout fast enough and if you take damage from the initial set of mutas it allows zerg to double expo and things quickly spiral out of control, when you realize you cannot leave your base. I think they should bring back something similiar to maelstrom to deal with this current problem as it would make it much riskier to just continue to building mutas and also from a spectator perspective maelstrom seems like a pretty exciting option to see how many mutas they hit and whether they hit alot or miss .. I'm not sure how this would be balanced as far as other match ups but I think its worth looking at In how many pro games have a zerg hidden a spire at a random corner of the map? I rarely even see zergs hiding them in their base. Also if you don't see any gas units and no other tech building like infestor pit, what do you think your opponent is going for? | ||
|
Gamegene
United States8308 Posts
I imagine protoss players have the same problem, except no thor. Honestly it's up to the Zerg player and not the Terran player to keep his mutalisks alive, so in a weird way I don't want to rely on my Zerg opponent on not making any mistakes. | ||
|
Fig
United States1324 Posts
On October 25 2011 18:29 Toadvine wrote: One thing I don't entirely like about Mutalisks in SC2 is how effective they are when massed. Balance aside, it just looks and feels weird. I know that Zerg use Mutas as a crutch in ZvT especially, but ideally I would prefer huge Muta clouds to be undesirable. On that note, I do understand why they would want to give Protoss a straight-up answer to huge Muta numbers, because nowadays the answer is simply "don't let it happen". None of the Protoss anti-Muta measures are especially good against like 30+ Mutas. However, their solution is really dumb. Protoss already have an "anti-Muta" air unit, so why not accomplish the same thing by buffing the Phoenix, for example by giving it an upgrade on the Fleet Beacon that enables an energy-based anti-light aoe attack? If there's one thing Protoss does not need, it's extremely expensive reactionary units. Besides, buffing Phoenix makes for better gameplay, as they're way more interesting than huge a-move wonders like the Tempest. Please do this instead of the stupid A-move Deathball Tempest! | ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
Carrier removed due to uselessness - ie, corrupter bonus vs massive completely hard counters carrier, and well, interceptors suck as well. So why will the tempest be any different? Oh, apparently they do well against corrupter too. So if the tempest can hard counter both muta and corrupter, great. Oh, don't forget oracle completely shutting down muta+corrupter production. In another thread I asked this, and speed hydra was the answer I got to this. But then hydras are already pretty ass against colossus death ball (I doubt protoss will waste all their food into tempest). So to alleviate this, colossus can now be sniped with GET OVER HERE spell. Its starting to sound more and more ridiculous. Cannot wait to see how blizzard tries to balance this. | ||
|
AndreiDaGiant
United States394 Posts
| ||
|
Ktk
Korea (South)753 Posts
| ||
|
Deletrious
United States458 Posts
The Thor is too expensive and too slow to serve as a mech anti-mutalisk unit. Let's make an expensive high tech slow moving capital ship the new toss anti-mutalisk unit! The mother ship failed as a one at a time super unit, let's get rid of it. Let's make the thor a one at a time super unit! | ||
|
TutsiRebel
United States172 Posts
Not much of an issue, however, because there's almost always some sort of pressure you can place on a zerg to keep the muta ball from getting out of hand. Mutas are incredibly expensive. On October 25 2011 18:29 Toadvine wrote: One thing I don't entirely like about Mutalisks in SC2 is how effective they are when massed. Balance aside, it just looks and feels weird. I know that Zerg use Mutas as a crutch in ZvT especially, but ideally I would prefer huge Muta clouds to be undesirable. On that note, I do understand why they would want to give Protoss a straight-up answer to huge Muta numbers, because nowadays the answer is simply "don't let it happen". None of the Protoss anti-Muta measures are especially good against like 30+ Mutas. However, their solution is really dumb. Protoss already have an "anti-Muta" air unit, so why not accomplish the same thing by buffing the Phoenix, for example by giving it an upgrade on the Fleet Beacon that enables an energy-based anti-light aoe attack? If there's one thing Protoss does not need, it's extremely expensive reactionary units. Besides, buffing Phoenix makes for better gameplay, as they're way more interesting than huge a-move wonders like the Tempest. Wow, this is a fantastic idea. | ||
|
m4gdelen4
United States416 Posts
| ||
|
Fus
Sweden1112 Posts
| ||
|
Azzur
Australia6253 Posts
I consider mutas to be a "skill-less" unit, in that it's quite easy to use but hard to deal with. If you compare with BW, mutas are hard-countered by science vessels. | ||
|
KevinIX
United States2472 Posts
| ||
| ||
