On January 25 2012 02:26 Bergys wrote: In ZvT I think they're fine. Marines handle mutas extremely well and ghosts are incredible against brood lords.
It's not because of marines... It's because of thors. If you do a head-on engagement with marines vs. mutas then the marines will obviously win but that should never happen. Mutas will keep dancing around marines forcing them to stim and walk around long ledges as they harass and constantly pick off marine stragglers. It's only when a Thor pops out that the muta-harass effectively stops (think Science Vessel in SC:BW).
Thors are great deterrents but absolutely horrendous in a head on fight with mutas. For that you need marines.
Just give me an option to mount Valkyrie missile pods into my vikings. Then life would be so much easier. But that's not how it works. =/
One thing annoying about TvZ is that you can't really contest for Air dominance. but it's not like you really had to anyways in the history of TvZ from BW till now. but still nice to have the option. Terran always tried to win the battle from the ground.
they beat them extremly costefficiently in even supply battles. guess why noone goes mass muta against thormech (=thor as only antiair). i dont get whats so horrendous about that in battles.
Banelings beat Marines extremely cost efficiently in even supply battles. guess why noone goes mass marine against banelings?
because of this
That's right micro. Marines can split as much as mutalisks can magic box. Taking an advantage of the slow rate of fire thors have and their lack of mobility. Mutas can easily out match Thors in head on combat. If anything Thors have to commit to an attack Mutas can just run.
On January 25 2012 02:26 Bergys wrote: In ZvT I think they're fine. Marines handle mutas extremely well and ghosts are incredible against brood lords.
It's not because of marines... It's because of thors. If you do a head-on engagement with marines vs. mutas then the marines will obviously win but that should never happen. Mutas will keep dancing around marines forcing them to stim and walk around long ledges as they harass and constantly pick off marine stragglers. It's only when a Thor pops out that the muta-harass effectively stops (think Science Vessel in SC:BW).
Magic Box.
I think the point he is trying to make is that there are many different way for a Terran to effectively combat mutas (Thor, Turrets, marines ect). Protoss only have blink stalkers (which are pretty poor vs just about everything else zerg has).
Also, Templar damage muta balls, but never kill it. Archons will never get in range and phoenix die to muta splash.
On January 25 2012 02:26 Bergys wrote: In ZvT I think they're fine. Marines handle mutas extremely well and ghosts are incredible against brood lords.
It's not because of marines... It's because of thors. If you do a head-on engagement with marines vs. mutas then the marines will obviously win but that should never happen. Mutas will keep dancing around marines forcing them to stim and walk around long ledges as they harass and constantly pick off marine stragglers. It's only when a Thor pops out that the muta-harass effectively stops (think Science Vessel in SC:BW).
Thors are great deterrents but absolutely horrendous in a head on fight with mutas. For that you need marines.
Just give me an option to mount Valkyrie missile pods into my vikings. Then life would be so much easier. But that's not how it works. =/
One thing annoying about TvZ is that you can't really contest for Air dominance. but it's not like you really had to anyways in the history of TvZ from BW till now. but still nice to have the option. Terran always tried to win the battle from the ground.
they beat them extremly costefficiently in even supply battles. guess why noone goes mass muta against thormech (=thor as only antiair). i dont get whats so horrendous about that in battles.
Banelings beat Marines extremely cost efficiently in even supply battles. guess why noone goes mass marine against banelings?
That's right micro. Marines can split as much as mutalisks can magic box. Taking an advantage of the slow rate of fire thors have and their lack of mobility. Mutas can easily out match Thors in head on combat. If anything Thors have to commit to an attack Mutas can just run.
yeah, nice video about marines and banes... i guess you're capable of finding/making a video of 30 mutas beating 10thors too now to back up your statement of mutalisks beating thors in a head on fight. at least if your statement was true...
just because marine micro against banes is somewhat efficient, doesnt mean that muta micro against thors is as efficient...
On January 25 2012 02:26 Bergys wrote: In ZvT I think they're fine. Marines handle mutas extremely well and ghosts are incredible against brood lords.
It's not because of marines... It's because of thors. If you do a head-on engagement with marines vs. mutas then the marines will obviously win but that should never happen. Mutas will keep dancing around marines forcing them to stim and walk around long ledges as they harass and constantly pick off marine stragglers. It's only when a Thor pops out that the muta-harass effectively stops (think Science Vessel in SC:BW).
Thors are great deterrents but absolutely horrendous in a head on fight with mutas. For that you need marines.
Just give me an option to mount Valkyrie missile pods into my vikings. Then life would be so much easier. But that's not how it works. =/
One thing annoying about TvZ is that you can't really contest for Air dominance. but it's not like you really had to anyways in the history of TvZ from BW till now. but still nice to have the option. Terran always tried to win the battle from the ground.
they beat them extremly costefficiently in even supply battles. guess why noone goes mass muta against thormech (=thor as only antiair). i dont get whats so horrendous about that in battles.
Banelings beat Marines extremely cost efficiently in even supply battles. guess why noone goes mass marine against banelings?
That's right micro. Marines can split as much as mutalisks can magic box. Taking an advantage of the slow rate of fire thors have and their lack of mobility. Mutas can easily out match Thors in head on combat. If anything Thors have to commit to an attack Mutas can just run.
yeah, nice video about marines and banes... i guess you're capable of finding/making a video of 30 mutas beating 10thors too now to back up your statement of mutalisks beating thors in a head on fight. at least if your statement was true...
just because marine micro against banes is somewhat efficient, doesnt mean that muta micro against thors is as efficient...
On January 25 2012 02:26 Bergys wrote: In ZvT I think they're fine. Marines handle mutas extremely well and ghosts are incredible against brood lords.
It's not because of marines... It's because of thors. If you do a head-on engagement with marines vs. mutas then the marines will obviously win but that should never happen. Mutas will keep dancing around marines forcing them to stim and walk around long ledges as they harass and constantly pick off marine stragglers. It's only when a Thor pops out that the muta-harass effectively stops (think Science Vessel in SC:BW).
Thors are great deterrents but absolutely horrendous in a head on fight with mutas. For that you need marines.
Just give me an option to mount Valkyrie missile pods into my vikings. Then life would be so much easier. But that's not how it works. =/
One thing annoying about TvZ is that you can't really contest for Air dominance. but it's not like you really had to anyways in the history of TvZ from BW till now. but still nice to have the option. Terran always tried to win the battle from the ground.
they beat them extremly costefficiently in even supply battles. guess why noone goes mass muta against thormech (=thor as only antiair). i dont get whats so horrendous about that in battles.
Noone goes "thormech".
This is why:
Granted that there are 24 mutas vs just 5 thors who are positioned pretty badly you can still see that it's nowhere near extremely cost-efficient. You will also never have as much supply in thors as your opponent will have in mutas.
As a P player I can say that battling mass muta is extremely difficult, unless you all-in on 2 base. Even saw Naniwa in some tournament just get rolled by mass mutas, even tho his counter seemed perfect (quick +2,2 blink stalkers into archom/storms, with obs all over to spot mutas), trying to get a third opened too many places to be attacked from.
That aside, I didn't see anyone think about what the expansion truly holds - NO MAMMA SHIP. That means no way to battle a broodlord, corruptor army, unless 2 base all-in before that... Boring to watch the same all-in constantly, don't you think so? So they give Protoss a big, splash dealing superior weapon to take out clumped up air units. I find it reasonable and understanding. Protoss won't be afraid of late game depending on one clutch vortex, and zerg will use more late game compositions available.
On January 25 2012 02:26 Bergys wrote: In ZvT I think they're fine. Marines handle mutas extremely well and ghosts are incredible against brood lords.
It's not because of marines... It's because of thors. If you do a head-on engagement with marines vs. mutas then the marines will obviously win but that should never happen. Mutas will keep dancing around marines forcing them to stim and walk around long ledges as they harass and constantly pick off marine stragglers. It's only when a Thor pops out that the muta-harass effectively stops (think Science Vessel in SC:BW).
I don't agree with this at all. Thors don't do much versus mutas unless they have marine support. They're very good for defending against mutas sniping tanks and catching them off-guard with stacked mutas but you can't leave a thor in your base and expect to be safe against a muta pack. Of course you can leave a thor with marine support but I'd argue you'd be better off with pure marine/medivac.
The thing is as a terran a zerg nearly never right-clicks and kills your marines unless your at a massive disadvantage, and when they do you only lost a few marines which are easily replacable. As protoss if you leave 15 stalkers to fight and 30 mutas come flying by they just die. Considering 15 stalkers are worth 1875/750 that's quite a massive hit. If you leave 20 marines and a few medivacs and focus fire you will always be cost-effective vs 30 mutas and you gain time to send reinforcements.
When did I say you can leave 1 at your base and be safe? This thread is getting rather ridiculous with people going from one extreme to the other. When did I say 'no marine support'? Why the fuck are you quoting me?
Actually... my bad for posting in balance threads. Why do I keep thinking people will be rationale in these?
On January 25 2012 02:26 Bergys wrote: In ZvT I think they're fine. Marines handle mutas extremely well and ghosts are incredible against brood lords.
It's not because of marines... It's because of thors. If you do a head-on engagement with marines vs. mutas then the marines will obviously win but that should never happen. Mutas will keep dancing around marines forcing them to stim and walk around long ledges as they harass and constantly pick off marine stragglers. It's only when a Thor pops out that the muta-harass effectively stops (think Science Vessel in SC:BW).
I don't agree with this at all. Thors don't do much versus mutas unless they have marine support. They're very good for defending against mutas sniping tanks and catching them off-guard with stacked mutas but you can't leave a thor in your base and expect to be safe against a muta pack. Of course you can leave a thor with marine support but I'd argue you'd be better off with pure marine/medivac.
The thing is as a terran a zerg nearly never right-clicks and kills your marines unless your at a massive disadvantage, and when they do you only lost a few marines which are easily replacable. As protoss if you leave 15 stalkers to fight and 30 mutas come flying by they just die. Considering 15 stalkers are worth 1875/750 that's quite a massive hit. If you leave 20 marines and a few medivacs and focus fire you will always be cost-effective vs 30 mutas and you gain time to send reinforcements.
When did I say you can leave 1 at your base and be safe? This thread is getting rather ridiculous with people going from one extreme to the other. When did I say 'no marine support'? Why the fuck are you quoting me?
Actually... my bad for posting in balance threads. Why do I keep thinking people will be rationale in these?
Then let us discuss rationally, what do you think we should have in a base as a reasonable Muta defense? 5 Turrets? 6 Marines? a Thor? 2 Thors?
I refrain from posting in balance threads because I feel like me being about mid master doesn't give me a right to talk about balance as I don't know jack shit about the game and am completely awful at it. I find it sad that so many people even on TL feel that being somewhere between bronze and diamond gives them the right to talk about balance all they want because they feel like they know everything.
On January 25 2012 02:26 Bergys wrote: In ZvT I think they're fine. Marines handle mutas extremely well and ghosts are incredible against brood lords.
It's not because of marines... It's because of thors. If you do a head-on engagement with marines vs. mutas then the marines will obviously win but that should never happen. Mutas will keep dancing around marines forcing them to stim and walk around long ledges as they harass and constantly pick off marine stragglers. It's only when a Thor pops out that the muta-harass effectively stops (think Science Vessel in SC:BW).
Thors are great deterrents but absolutely horrendous in a head on fight with mutas. For that you need marines.
Just give me an option to mount Valkyrie missile pods into my vikings. Then life would be so much easier. But that's not how it works. =/
One thing annoying about TvZ is that you can't really contest for Air dominance. but it's not like you really had to anyways in the history of TvZ from BW till now. but still nice to have the option. Terran always tried to win the battle from the ground.
they beat them extremly costefficiently in even supply battles. guess why noone goes mass muta against thormech (=thor as only antiair). i dont get whats so horrendous about that in battles.
Banelings beat Marines extremely cost efficiently in even supply battles. guess why noone goes mass marine against banelings?
That's right micro. Marines can split as much as mutalisks can magic box. Taking an advantage of the slow rate of fire thors have and their lack of mobility. Mutas can easily out match Thors in head on combat. If anything Thors have to commit to an attack Mutas can just run.
yeah, nice video about marines and banes... i guess you're capable of finding/making a video of 30 mutas beating 10thors too now to back up your statement of mutalisks beating thors in a head on fight. at least if your statement was true...
just because marine micro against banes is somewhat efficient, doesnt mean that muta micro against thors is as efficient...
That video would be irrelevant. If you go pure thors the zerg player will build 60 lings in a larva-inject and open a can of ass-rape on your thors. Your only options are thor/hellion or thor/hellion/tank. Thor/hellion is not good vs roaches (I guess atleast, never seen anyone do this composition unless in a early-game timing attack) and if you're playing thor/hellion/tank you need to have a good amount of tanks which would effectively reduce your thor count. Also 10 thors don't beat 30 mutas "extremely cost-efficiently" as you claimed.
On January 25 2012 02:26 Bergys wrote: In ZvT I think they're fine. Marines handle mutas extremely well and ghosts are incredible against brood lords.
It's not because of marines... It's because of thors. If you do a head-on engagement with marines vs. mutas then the marines will obviously win but that should never happen. Mutas will keep dancing around marines forcing them to stim and walk around long ledges as they harass and constantly pick off marine stragglers. It's only when a Thor pops out that the muta-harass effectively stops (think Science Vessel in SC:BW).
I don't agree with this at all. Thors don't do much versus mutas unless they have marine support. They're very good for defending against mutas sniping tanks and catching them off-guard with stacked mutas but you can't leave a thor in your base and expect to be safe against a muta pack. Of course you can leave a thor with marine support but I'd argue you'd be better off with pure marine/medivac.
The thing is as a terran a zerg nearly never right-clicks and kills your marines unless your at a massive disadvantage, and when they do you only lost a few marines which are easily replacable. As protoss if you leave 15 stalkers to fight and 30 mutas come flying by they just die. Considering 15 stalkers are worth 1875/750 that's quite a massive hit. If you leave 20 marines and a few medivacs and focus fire you will always be cost-effective vs 30 mutas and you gain time to send reinforcements.
When did I say you can leave 1 at your base and be safe? This thread is getting rather ridiculous with people going from one extreme to the other. When did I say 'no marine support'? Why the fuck are you quoting me?
Actually... my bad for posting in balance threads. Why do I keep thinking people will be rationale in these?
Then let us discuss rationally, what do you think we should have in a base as a reasonable Muta defense? 5 Turrets? 6 Marines? a Thor? 2 Thors?
Thank you =).
In my opinion, a Thor or 2 patrolling with a small group of marines between bases which contain a few turrets (2-3 per base) should shut down any muta harass.
However, shutting down harass via defence isn't the *only* solution. Having more turrets and being keen on getting those scvs repairing them while pressuring the zerg expansions/main with marines and medivacs works too!
Also, it's worthwhile pointing out that, at higher levels of play, getting your mutas hurt is a big deal as it means the player can't use them as effectively until they regenerate to a reasonable level again. This means your defense does not have to *kill* the mutas but just hurt them enough. This means you don't need your whole army back at the base defending the harass.
I can understand that people have a lot of problems with muta harass in the hands of a skilled micro player but people would complain about the same thing in Brood War. Maybe it's because the skill of most 'Americas' server players are based around build order and macro rather than micro that it's such an issue here?
On January 25 2012 04:49 hunts wrote: I refrain from posting in balance threads because I feel like me being about mid master doesn't give me a right to talk about balance as I don't know jack shit about the game and am completely awful at it. I find it sad that so many people even on TL feel that being somewhere between bronze and diamond gives them the right to talk about balance all they want because they feel like they know everything.
This, a million times over this.
Why do you even bother posting in a balance thread player if you're not a top player? You don't know shit about what you're trying to discuss, 99% of the people are complaining about "balance issues" when it's a skill issue. I'd prefer if TL had a section where only the pros could discuss.
On January 25 2012 02:26 Bergys wrote: In ZvT I think they're fine. Marines handle mutas extremely well and ghosts are incredible against brood lords.
It's not because of marines... It's because of thors. If you do a head-on engagement with marines vs. mutas then the marines will obviously win but that should never happen. Mutas will keep dancing around marines forcing them to stim and walk around long ledges as they harass and constantly pick off marine stragglers. It's only when a Thor pops out that the muta-harass effectively stops (think Science Vessel in SC:BW).
I don't agree with this at all. Thors don't do much versus mutas unless they have marine support. They're very good for defending against mutas sniping tanks and catching them off-guard with stacked mutas but you can't leave a thor in your base and expect to be safe against a muta pack. Of course you can leave a thor with marine support but I'd argue you'd be better off with pure marine/medivac.
The thing is as a terran a zerg nearly never right-clicks and kills your marines unless your at a massive disadvantage, and when they do you only lost a few marines which are easily replacable. As protoss if you leave 15 stalkers to fight and 30 mutas come flying by they just die. Considering 15 stalkers are worth 1875/750 that's quite a massive hit. If you leave 20 marines and a few medivacs and focus fire you will always be cost-effective vs 30 mutas and you gain time to send reinforcements.
When did I say you can leave 1 at your base and be safe? This thread is getting rather ridiculous with people going from one extreme to the other. When did I say 'no marine support'? Why the fuck are you quoting me?
Actually... my bad for posting in balance threads. Why do I keep thinking people will be rationale in these?
Then let us discuss rationally, what do you think we should have in a base as a reasonable Muta defense? 5 Turrets? 6 Marines? a Thor? 2 Thors?
Thank you =).
In my opinion, a Thor or 2 patrolling with a small group of marines between bases which contain a few turrets (2-3 per base) should shut down any muta harass.
However, shutting down harass via defence isn't the *only* solution. Having more turrets and being keen on getting those scvs repairing them while pressuring the zerg expansions/main with marines and medivacs works too!
Also, it's worthwhile pointing out that, at higher levels of play, getting your mutas hurt is a big deal as it means the player can't use them as effectively until they regenerate to a reasonable level again. This means your defense does not have to *kill* the mutas but just hurt them enough. This means you don't need your whole army back at the base defending the harass.
I can understand that people have a lot of problems with muta harass in the hands of a skilled micro player but people would complain about the same thing in Brood War. Maybe it's because the skill of most 'Americas' server players are based around build order and macro rather than micro that it's such an issue here?
Alright, I will give my opinion on that, Thors on patrol might easily get caught out of position due to their mobility or the lack of, what you suggest of course is a very good deterrent. however are not good enough against the dreaded Muta cloud. Also in your theory I find that you may be committing way too much supply in defense which will dent your offense by quite a bit.
On January 25 2012 02:26 Bergys wrote: In ZvT I think they're fine. Marines handle mutas extremely well and ghosts are incredible against brood lords.
It's not because of marines... It's because of thors. If you do a head-on engagement with marines vs. mutas then the marines will obviously win but that should never happen. Mutas will keep dancing around marines forcing them to stim and walk around long ledges as they harass and constantly pick off marine stragglers. It's only when a Thor pops out that the muta-harass effectively stops (think Science Vessel in SC:BW).
I don't agree with this at all. Thors don't do much versus mutas unless they have marine support. They're very good for defending against mutas sniping tanks and catching them off-guard with stacked mutas but you can't leave a thor in your base and expect to be safe against a muta pack. Of course you can leave a thor with marine support but I'd argue you'd be better off with pure marine/medivac.
The thing is as a terran a zerg nearly never right-clicks and kills your marines unless your at a massive disadvantage, and when they do you only lost a few marines which are easily replacable. As protoss if you leave 15 stalkers to fight and 30 mutas come flying by they just die. Considering 15 stalkers are worth 1875/750 that's quite a massive hit. If you leave 20 marines and a few medivacs and focus fire you will always be cost-effective vs 30 mutas and you gain time to send reinforcements.
When did I say you can leave 1 at your base and be safe? This thread is getting rather ridiculous with people going from one extreme to the other. When did I say 'no marine support'? Why the fuck are you quoting me?
Actually... my bad for posting in balance threads. Why do I keep thinking people will be rationale in these?
Then let us discuss rationally, what do you think we should have in a base as a reasonable Muta defense? 5 Turrets? 6 Marines? a Thor? 2 Thors?
Thank you =).
In my opinion, a Thor or 2 patrolling with a small group of marines between bases which contain a few turrets (2-3 per base) should shut down any muta harass.
However, shutting down harass via defence isn't the *only* solution. Having more turrets and being keen on getting those scvs repairing them while pressuring the zerg expansions/main with marines and medivacs works too!
Also, it's worthwhile pointing out that, at higher levels of play, getting your mutas hurt is a big deal as it means the player can't use them as effectively until they regenerate to a reasonable level again. This means your defense does not have to *kill* the mutas but just hurt them enough. This means you don't need your whole army back at the base defending the harass.
I can understand that people have a lot of problems with muta harass in the hands of a skilled micro player but people would complain about the same thing in Brood War. Maybe it's because the skill of most 'Americas' server players are based around build order and macro rather than micro that it's such an issue here?
Alright, I will give my opinion on that, Thors on patrol might easily get caught out of position due to their mobility or the lack of, what you suggest of course is a very good deterrent. however are not good enough against the dreaded Muta cloud. Also in your theory I find that you may be committing way too much supply in defense which will dent your offense by quite a bit.
Good points. However, you should only invest this much if you see a huge muta cloud (in which case the zerg shouldn't have much else besides zerglings). If they have a mediumish group of mutas out and it looks like they want to keep it that size, down-scale defence appropriately. Glad we see eye to eye =).
On January 25 2012 04:49 hunts wrote: I refrain from posting in balance threads because I feel like me being about mid master doesn't give me a right to talk about balance as I don't know jack shit about the game and am completely awful at it. I find it sad that so many people even on TL feel that being somewhere between bronze and diamond gives them the right to talk about balance all they want because they feel like they know everything.
This, a million times over this.
Why do you even bother posting in a balance thread player if you're not a top player? You don't know shit about what you're trying to discuss, 99% of the people are complaining about "balance issues" when it's a skill issue. I'd prefer if TL had a section where only the pros could discuss.
There's really no harm in them posting their ideas if they're open to criticism and don't defend their blatantly stupid ideas. A lower level player can see wholes in balance. Anyone looking at their own play to decide if something is balanced or not is biased since they don't admit their mistakes (well, everyone is but to a much greater extent). And if you're looking at pro players playing lower level players with strategic mindsets can understand aswell.
On January 25 2012 04:49 hunts wrote: I refrain from posting in balance threads because I feel like me being about mid master doesn't give me a right to talk about balance as I don't know jack shit about the game and am completely awful at it. I find it sad that so many people even on TL feel that being somewhere between bronze and diamond gives them the right to talk about balance all they want because they feel like they know everything.
This, a million times over this.
Why do you even bother posting in a balance thread player if you're not a top player? You don't know shit about what you're trying to discuss, 99% of the people are complaining about "balance issues" when it's a skill issue. I'd prefer if TL had a section where only the pros could discuss.
There's really no harm in them posting their ideas if they're open to criticism and don't defend their blatantly stupid ideas. A lower level player can see wholes in balance. Anyone looking at their own play to decide if something is balanced or not is biased since they don't admit their mistakes (well, everyone is but to a much greater extent). And if you're looking at pro players playing lower level players with strategic mindsets can understand aswell.
No. Lower level player cannot weigh in on balance. The large skill deficiencies make that impossible. They don't play the game right (or rather efficiently), so they cannot tell what is balanced or not. Secondly, why the hell is this thread still open and being bumped. Mutas are not OP. Period. ZvP: storms, archon, pheonix, and stalkers (until mass muta arises, in which case storm shreds them). ZvT: marines, thor, HSM ravens (not always as practical).
More than enough options for each race. P has a few more choices, but T gets to use the stupid cheap T1 unit to counter.
On January 25 2012 02:26 Bergys wrote: In ZvT I think they're fine. Marines handle mutas extremely well and ghosts are incredible against brood lords.
It's not because of marines... It's because of thors. If you do a head-on engagement with marines vs. mutas then the marines will obviously win but that should never happen. Mutas will keep dancing around marines forcing them to stim and walk around long ledges as they harass and constantly pick off marine stragglers. It's only when a Thor pops out that the muta-harass effectively stops (think Science Vessel in SC:BW).
I don't agree with this at all. Thors don't do much versus mutas unless they have marine support. They're very good for defending against mutas sniping tanks and catching them off-guard with stacked mutas but you can't leave a thor in your base and expect to be safe against a muta pack. Of course you can leave a thor with marine support but I'd argue you'd be better off with pure marine/medivac.
The thing is as a terran a zerg nearly never right-clicks and kills your marines unless your at a massive disadvantage, and when they do you only lost a few marines which are easily replacable. As protoss if you leave 15 stalkers to fight and 30 mutas come flying by they just die. Considering 15 stalkers are worth 1875/750 that's quite a massive hit. If you leave 20 marines and a few medivacs and focus fire you will always be cost-effective vs 30 mutas and you gain time to send reinforcements.
When did I say you can leave 1 at your base and be safe? This thread is getting rather ridiculous with people going from one extreme to the other. When did I say 'no marine support'? Why the fuck are you quoting me?
Actually... my bad for posting in balance threads. Why do I keep thinking people will be rationale in these?
Then let us discuss rationally, what do you think we should have in a base as a reasonable Muta defense? 5 Turrets? 6 Marines? a Thor? 2 Thors?
Thank you =).
In my opinion, a Thor or 2 patrolling with a small group of marines between bases which contain a few turrets (2-3 per base) should shut down any muta harass.
However, shutting down harass via defence isn't the *only* solution. Having more turrets and being keen on getting those scvs repairing them while pressuring the zerg expansions/main with marines and medivacs works too!
Also, it's worthwhile pointing out that, at higher levels of play, getting your mutas hurt is a big deal as it means the player can't use them as effectively until they regenerate to a reasonable level again. This means your defense does not have to *kill* the mutas but just hurt them enough. This means you don't need your whole army back at the base defending the harass.
I can understand that people have a lot of problems with muta harass in the hands of a skilled micro player but people would complain about the same thing in Brood War. Maybe it's because the skill of most 'Americas' server players are based around build order and macro rather than micro that it's such an issue here?
Alright, I will give my opinion on that, Thors on patrol might easily get caught out of position due to their mobility or the lack of, what you suggest of course is a very good deterrent. however are not good enough against the dreaded Muta cloud. Also in your theory I find that you may be committing way too much supply in defense which will dent your offense by quite a bit.
Good points. However, you should only invest this much if you see a huge muta cloud (in which case the zerg shouldn't have much else besides zerglings). If they have a mediumish group of mutas out and it looks like they want to keep it that size, down-scale defence appropriately. Glad we see eye to eye =).
Of course, but if I do invest this much when I take the fight to the Zerg he will be able to engage me with Lings and Mutas, because of the amount of mobility that Mutas have, While a third of my army is still home defending the attack that may, or may not be coming. There is always the option of taking the fight to the zerg and forcing his mutas to engage your army, this me and other Terran players have been doing with varying levels of success, you do risking losing alot in your bases though. And sometimes becomes a base trade type of situation.
On January 25 2012 04:49 hunts wrote: I refrain from posting in balance threads because I feel like me being about mid master doesn't give me a right to talk about balance as I don't know jack shit about the game and am completely awful at it. I find it sad that so many people even on TL feel that being somewhere between bronze and diamond gives them the right to talk about balance all they want because they feel like they know everything.
This, a million times over this.
Why do you even bother posting in a balance thread player if you're not a top player? You don't know shit about what you're trying to discuss, 99% of the people are complaining about "balance issues" when it's a skill issue. I'd prefer if TL had a section where only the pros could discuss.
There's really no harm in them posting their ideas if they're open to criticism and don't defend their blatantly stupid ideas. A lower level player can see wholes in balance. Anyone looking at their own play to decide if something is balanced or not is biased since they don't admit their mistakes (well, everyone is but to a much greater extent). And if you're looking at pro players playing lower level players with strategic mindsets can understand aswell.
No. Lower level player cannot weigh in on balance. The large skill deficiencies make that impossible. They don't play the game right (or rather efficiently), so they cannot tell what is balanced or not. Secondly, why the hell is this thread still open and being bumped. Mutas are not OP. Period. ZvP: storms, archon, pheonix, and stalkers (until mass muta arises, in which case storm shreds them). ZvT: marines, thor, HSM ravens (not always as practical).
More than enough options for each race. P has a few more choices, but T gets to use the stupid cheap T1 unit to counter.
When you post like that it makes you seem very unreasonable and angry. Let's be open to discussions there's no harm in having one.
On January 25 2012 04:49 hunts wrote: I refrain from posting in balance threads because I feel like me being about mid master doesn't give me a right to talk about balance as I don't know jack shit about the game and am completely awful at it. I find it sad that so many people even on TL feel that being somewhere between bronze and diamond gives them the right to talk about balance all they want because they feel like they know everything.
This, a million times over this.
Why do you even bother posting in a balance thread player if you're not a top player? You don't know shit about what you're trying to discuss, 99% of the people are complaining about "balance issues" when it's a skill issue. I'd prefer if TL had a section where only the pros could discuss.
Because this a game for a large audience so everyone should be allowed a word about issues that might affect their playtime ? If you want a game balanced for pro only, you make a game for competition and that's it.
On January 25 2012 02:26 Bergys wrote: In ZvT I think they're fine. Marines handle mutas extremely well and ghosts are incredible against brood lords.
It's not because of marines... It's because of thors. If you do a head-on engagement with marines vs. mutas then the marines will obviously win but that should never happen. Mutas will keep dancing around marines forcing them to stim and walk around long ledges as they harass and constantly pick off marine stragglers. It's only when a Thor pops out that the muta-harass effectively stops (think Science Vessel in SC:BW).
I don't agree with this at all. Thors don't do much versus mutas unless they have marine support. They're very good for defending against mutas sniping tanks and catching them off-guard with stacked mutas but you can't leave a thor in your base and expect to be safe against a muta pack. Of course you can leave a thor with marine support but I'd argue you'd be better off with pure marine/medivac.
The thing is as a terran a zerg nearly never right-clicks and kills your marines unless your at a massive disadvantage, and when they do you only lost a few marines which are easily replacable. As protoss if you leave 15 stalkers to fight and 30 mutas come flying by they just die. Considering 15 stalkers are worth 1875/750 that's quite a massive hit. If you leave 20 marines and a few medivacs and focus fire you will always be cost-effective vs 30 mutas and you gain time to send reinforcements.
When did I say you can leave 1 at your base and be safe? This thread is getting rather ridiculous with people going from one extreme to the other. When did I say 'no marine support'? Why the fuck are you quoting me?
Actually... my bad for posting in balance threads. Why do I keep thinking people will be rationale in these?
Then let us discuss rationally, what do you think we should have in a base as a reasonable Muta defense? 5 Turrets? 6 Marines? a Thor? 2 Thors?
Thank you =).
In my opinion, a Thor or 2 patrolling with a small group of marines between bases which contain a few turrets (2-3 per base) should shut down any muta harass.
However, shutting down harass via defence isn't the *only* solution. Having more turrets and being keen on getting those scvs repairing them while pressuring the zerg expansions/main with marines and medivacs works too!
Also, it's worthwhile pointing out that, at higher levels of play, getting your mutas hurt is a big deal as it means the player can't use them as effectively until they regenerate to a reasonable level again. This means your defense does not have to *kill* the mutas but just hurt them enough. This means you don't need your whole army back at the base defending the harass.
I can understand that people have a lot of problems with muta harass in the hands of a skilled micro player but people would complain about the same thing in Brood War. Maybe it's because the skill of most 'Americas' server players are based around build order and macro rather than micro that it's such an issue here?
Well the reasoning I said 1 thor is because you can't leave too much supply. If you're going to have 1 or 2 thors in your bases + some marines thats like 30 supply + easily that's not in your army which leaves your front open to attacks. The 1 thor and 5 marines can also be sniped by 20 mutas in a few seconds so one might argue how good this defense is in reality. The reason leaving marines is a much better idea imo is because they are very quick and extremely good vs mutas.
On January 25 2012 02:26 Bergys wrote: In ZvT I think they're fine. Marines handle mutas extremely well and ghosts are incredible against brood lords.
It's not because of marines... It's because of thors. If you do a head-on engagement with marines vs. mutas then the marines will obviously win but that should never happen. Mutas will keep dancing around marines forcing them to stim and walk around long ledges as they harass and constantly pick off marine stragglers. It's only when a Thor pops out that the muta-harass effectively stops (think Science Vessel in SC:BW).
I don't agree with this at all. Thors don't do much versus mutas unless they have marine support. They're very good for defending against mutas sniping tanks and catching them off-guard with stacked mutas but you can't leave a thor in your base and expect to be safe against a muta pack. Of course you can leave a thor with marine support but I'd argue you'd be better off with pure marine/medivac.
The thing is as a terran a zerg nearly never right-clicks and kills your marines unless your at a massive disadvantage, and when they do you only lost a few marines which are easily replacable. As protoss if you leave 15 stalkers to fight and 30 mutas come flying by they just die. Considering 15 stalkers are worth 1875/750 that's quite a massive hit. If you leave 20 marines and a few medivacs and focus fire you will always be cost-effective vs 30 mutas and you gain time to send reinforcements.
When did I say you can leave 1 at your base and be safe? This thread is getting rather ridiculous with people going from one extreme to the other. When did I say 'no marine support'? Why the fuck are you quoting me?
Actually... my bad for posting in balance threads. Why do I keep thinking people will be rationale in these?
"It's only when a Thor pops out that the muta-harass effectively stops (think Science Vessel in SC:BW)." A thor implies ONE, and then you state "effectively stops" - reading over that pretty much gives off the idea that one thor = herp derp I'm safe. Also, you never stated anything about having marine support either. Choose your words wisely next time, people tend to pick a part posts here.
EPT
