|
On October 31 2011 22:46 Ruscour wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2011 22:40 blooblooblahblah wrote:On October 31 2011 21:25 Alpina wrote:On October 31 2011 21:10 blooblooblahblah wrote:On October 31 2011 20:33 Alpina wrote:On October 31 2011 20:24 DrGreen wrote:On October 31 2011 20:16 ILoveCoffee wrote:On October 31 2011 20:00 DrGreen wrote:
Increasing Phoenix range to 5 would be totally enough buff if blizzard consider buffing P vs muta. That would make phoenixes too good vs mutas. It gives a lot of micro room for the phoenixes so that they are never hit by mutas. Right now phoenixes are totally useless vs muta, unless u opened with 2 stargate. Increasing their range by 1 would be better idea then adding some Tempest shit. On October 31 2011 20:19 Phlatline wrote:
[...]
And if Toss can't deal with mutas with what they got they're doing something wrong... Pros tosses doing something wrong all the time then. I think that what u'r missing is that pros zergs muta control is better then any diamond/master player on ladder, and perfectly controlled mutas > perfectly controlled protoss army. how the hell phoenixes are useless vs. muta? You scout spire, add 2 stargates and own mutas, that's how simple is that. If you trying to build phoexes just from 1 stargate then think why should you counter unit in which zerg is investing everything. Zerg invests 100% of their gas into mutas so you can't expect to counter them with few phoenixes. I am not even talking that blind 2 stargate is a hard counter to mutas, because zerg won't outnumber you if you keep fighting his mutas. Reactively adding 2 stargates for phoenixes is a terrible idea and a lot of the pros agree. If u do tht, the mutas have already done its job. If u don't pre-emptively have a stargate, phoenix is definitely not the way to go. then scout and act accordingly. People are complaining about phoenixes being shit against mutas when they start adding stargates after mutas already in their mineral lines.. Which means ur reactively going phoenix which is bad... Absolutely, not only will you have to sacrifice ground army to get a sizeable number but it hogs all your chronoboost as well. If you don't see anything but lings you have to assume muta play, if you misread when scouting and the mutas take you by surprise...get blink and hope to god he's bad and doesn't let you turtle to 200
Blink stalkers destroy mutas, even when they hit a high level, just get... more stalkers. Don't tell me they don't because i'll hop in a unit tester and the best part is that stalkers/marines will almost always be ahead on upgrades. Even phoenix hard counter mutas in a straight on battle without any micro. I'm sorry that with mutas we can keep you on your base, i'm also sorry that as protoss you already have the ability to make a deathball that more often than not, u can just A move across the map and win unless we have a huge amount of expos to your 2. As for Terran, not only does the thor counter it, but marines, a tier 1 unit, destroy mutas so hard its not even funny, with medivacs it just becomes ridiculous how many 10 marines can kill.
|
On October 31 2011 21:47 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2011 21:29 HaXXspetten wrote:On October 31 2011 21:21 Big J wrote:On October 31 2011 21:01 graNite wrote:On October 31 2011 20:51 Velr wrote:On October 31 2011 20:48 graNite wrote:
It is so easy: mutas are a harassment unit, so they should be countered very easy by many other units the other player has.
Think of the reaper: it has its specialties, but you cant mass it because you cant use it i a real 200/200 fight. the only difference between the reaper and the mutalisk is that he is not that quick when you want to retreat, and that you dont need air attacks.
i think mutas should get less health or permanent defense should get a bonus attack to light units WTF? Are you on Drugs? In what universe can you compare a 50/25 Reaper to a 100/100 Mutalisk? they are both a harassment unit, that can easily get into an enemie's base, kills workers fast, costs gas and which is supposed to be not in your main army composition. how can you not compare these two? so? Mutas get hardcountered in even (cost-) numbers by phoenix, Archon, blink stalker, Carrier. Mutas lose to stalkers. I'm not even sure if 50Mutas can beat 50sentries with guardian shields... (if you remember that old husky beta video about 100 mutalisks vs 100 sentries, sentries demolished the mutas, but I'm not sure if that was before the sentry damage nerf from 8-->6, so could be kind of even now... Still sentries will usually have better upgrades and a sentry costs less than a mutalisk) Out of all the Protoss units, only the VoidRay (out of all the antiair units from protoss) is bad in direct engagements against mutalisks costwise, so what is the problem? The game works exactly is you want it to work. Muta=HarassUnit-->loses to nearly any Protoss unit in an equal engagement. (which means if costwise compared) Except that due to Zergs production they will always have so many more than any of the units you mentioned, so you will never have a "cost-numbers" engagment. There will always be much more army value in that fight for the zerg. The only exception to that is blink stalkers, which can match the muta cloud in numbers, however once a certain mass has been reached, the mutas will still win, because they have a bounce attack. Once there are enough mutas for the bounce shot to be a one-hit-kill it's lights out for the stalkers. That's why mutas are, in my opinion, OP in ZvP. If you can't match zergs production, it means that he at least had a temporary income advantage.
Then it's not the mutalisk, that is your problem, but the economy. You lost the game somewhere else. And zerg built mutalisks, because he is annoyed by your "bunker in my base until I'm maxed" play and now kills you costinefficient, but he doesn't care, because win is win. And though I haven't tested the maxed scenarios (100stalkers vs 100mutas on full upgrades), I'm pretty certain that the stalkers will win easily, probably even without blink micro. And then apart from muta 3/3 being an unrealistic scenario, Stalkers 4 armor on 3/3 completly deny bounce 2 and 3 of fully upgraded mutas. (which do 4 and 1,3333333 damage) So in a realistic scenario in which neither party got an advantage, there should be like 3/2times stalkers with some armor and weapon upgrades vs mutalisks with hardly any upgrades. But to acknowledge that, Protoss would first of all have to acknowledge that their PvZ play relies on aggressive play of lower economy, and therefore they will always lose against a competent zerg, that wins the first engagement. Mutalisks are just one of the easier ways to end a game, after getting terribly ahead.
Unless you're actively crippling the zerg (or they're crippling themselves), Zerg will be ahead on econ in every matchup. There is no step of greed that any race can take where Zerg can't respond in an even more greedy fashion.
|
On October 27 2011 20:33 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 13:46 Belisarius wrote:
As much as I've been hating on the 30 billion "my thoughts on hots" threads that have sprung up lately, this one is a worthwhile discussion.
As a protoss, I agree. Mutas aren't really a problem. Sure they can be annoying, downright scary at times, but I think there are far bigger issues.
Also, more to the point, the tempest is even completely useless at the role it's supposed to fill. It's a slow capital ship; that's the worst possible unit type for scramble-defense except, ironically, the thor. It's only useful in straight up fights.
You know what protoss has even less trouble with than muta harass? A zerg who uses mutas in straight up fights. Well, I don't think that blizzard really wants to create the tempest for dealing with mutalisk harass or combats. They know that this won't be a great idea. What I rather think is, that they saw that the carrier has no use because the way it is designed it is good vs ground, medium vs air. This overlaps with colossus utility (both T3), as the colossus is already great vs ground and nonexistent vs air. --> both units when massed get countered by corruptors By making a capital ship that is great vs air, medium/bad vs ground, they create a metagame, in which tempests (maybe with little support - few stalkers, void rays, templar) might be able to take out a mostly corruptor zerg in the endgame, thus creating an endgame scenario, in which Protoss is superior to zerg in the air, but zerg can go hydralisks to counter this, because Protoss now loses it's air to ground hydra hardcounter. I'd think of it as rather a metagame experiment, trying to give Protoss an air army that zerg just can't counter as easily with air themselves, but also opening a window for the hydralisk. (note how Protoss right now gets stuck when going air against zerg, because investing into carriers is absolutly useless, due to zerg air beating protoss air already, before one invests into a unit that is already cost/supply inefficient against zerg air)
archon toilet not good enough eh?
|
On October 31 2011 21:29 antilyon wrote:
Overpowered in WOL?
You should see in BW, those damned things were surgical knifes.
yeah but only a selected few could control more then 11 mutas/wraith (terrans stole muta micro and wraith are way more evil) to make em that, added to that they became useless if the terran toss reached t3 and got out 1 unit, again only a selected few could handle that. While in WoL muta micro is one of the least apm costing micro out there since they auto unstack themself.
Added to the resistance against AoEs the (that got nerfed alot in beta and when the game was out, where magic boxing wasn't something people knew about) the single target anti air got weaker in most cases (marines less range, stalkers less damage vs light, turrets more expensive).
And a zerg able to control 2 groups of mutas could win the game with only them in bw against a terran. Now its no problem to control 40 mutas while their conters are weaker.
I think the problem were the quick nerfs done before people found out some mechanics in sc2. (now resulting in caster aoes becoming 1.5 instead of 2, fungal will follow soon for sure)
The biggest issue though is that you have to react preemptive to mutas, because the zerg can just save up ressources fake that they will stay low on numbers and tech, suddenly 12 mutas join the 6. And your static defenses at home are to weak and you can't base trade against muta ling. Its hard to check on the zerg hatches constantly and their waypoint if you can't move out on the map and need mules to set up turrets etc or need observers that can be driven of by spores with a range of 10 detection. (and we all know the zerg complaints about not being able to scout the main early game, well midgame whole map is even more worse).
So i would be happy if air unit eggs would just look different. In Bw mutas where no issue because you would never see more then 11 most of the time and they really could only harass and not fight an army head on. But in sc2 air units are deadly i mean you can even see what type of air unit terrans and tosses are getting because they are so damn evil.
But getting better conters in HotS is better then nerving something so i don't mind, and the units are not solely made to fight mutas so its not to big of a deal. (bw also got a unit solely to fight mutas heh.)
|
On October 31 2011 22:38 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2011 22:32 malaki wrote:
they kill turrets way too fast, you cant repair them fast enough when the mutas are in big enough numbers,
and after that you lose 10 20 of your workers Maybe because your 300-400cost defense fights an 3000/3000 cost army? That's why good terrans just have 2-3 troops of marines all over the place and just stim in, once the turrets start to fall. But ofc, I you like 10min pushes and lose all marines/tanks without killing his mutas, his mutanumbers will slowly get out of control.
not 30 15+ are enough to 1shot turrets, and turrets should hard counter muta balls
you know how many marines you need to kill 30 mutalisks?
30 mutalisks kill 20 marines with only losing 5 mutas
so you're gonna keep 20 marine balls at all your bases all the time?
|
On October 31 2011 22:52 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2011 21:47 Big J wrote:On October 31 2011 21:29 HaXXspetten wrote:On October 31 2011 21:21 Big J wrote:On October 31 2011 21:01 graNite wrote:On October 31 2011 20:51 Velr wrote:On October 31 2011 20:48 graNite wrote:
It is so easy: mutas are a harassment unit, so they should be countered very easy by many other units the other player has.
Think of the reaper: it has its specialties, but you cant mass it because you cant use it i a real 200/200 fight. the only difference between the reaper and the mutalisk is that he is not that quick when you want to retreat, and that you dont need air attacks.
i think mutas should get less health or permanent defense should get a bonus attack to light units WTF? Are you on Drugs? In what universe can you compare a 50/25 Reaper to a 100/100 Mutalisk? they are both a harassment unit, that can easily get into an enemie's base, kills workers fast, costs gas and which is supposed to be not in your main army composition. how can you not compare these two? so? Mutas get hardcountered in even (cost-) numbers by phoenix, Archon, blink stalker, Carrier. Mutas lose to stalkers. I'm not even sure if 50Mutas can beat 50sentries with guardian shields... (if you remember that old husky beta video about 100 mutalisks vs 100 sentries, sentries demolished the mutas, but I'm not sure if that was before the sentry damage nerf from 8-->6, so could be kind of even now... Still sentries will usually have better upgrades and a sentry costs less than a mutalisk) Out of all the Protoss units, only the VoidRay (out of all the antiair units from protoss) is bad in direct engagements against mutalisks costwise, so what is the problem? The game works exactly is you want it to work. Muta=HarassUnit-->loses to nearly any Protoss unit in an equal engagement. (which means if costwise compared) Except that due to Zergs production they will always have so many more than any of the units you mentioned, so you will never have a "cost-numbers" engagment. There will always be much more army value in that fight for the zerg. The only exception to that is blink stalkers, which can match the muta cloud in numbers, however once a certain mass has been reached, the mutas will still win, because they have a bounce attack. Once there are enough mutas for the bounce shot to be a one-hit-kill it's lights out for the stalkers. That's why mutas are, in my opinion, OP in ZvP. If you can't match zergs production, it means that he at least had a temporary income advantage.
Then it's not the mutalisk, that is your problem, but the economy. You lost the game somewhere else. And zerg built mutalisks, because he is annoyed by your "bunker in my base until I'm maxed" play and now kills you costinefficient, but he doesn't care, because win is win. And though I haven't tested the maxed scenarios (100stalkers vs 100mutas on full upgrades), I'm pretty certain that the stalkers will win easily, probably even without blink micro. And then apart from muta 3/3 being an unrealistic scenario, Stalkers 4 armor on 3/3 completly deny bounce 2 and 3 of fully upgraded mutas. (which do 4 and 1,3333333 damage) So in a realistic scenario in which neither party got an advantage, there should be like 3/2times stalkers with some armor and weapon upgrades vs mutalisks with hardly any upgrades. But to acknowledge that, Protoss would first of all have to acknowledge that their PvZ play relies on aggressive play of lower economy, and therefore they will always lose against a competent zerg, that wins the first engagement. Mutalisks are just one of the easier ways to end a game, after getting terribly ahead. Unless you're actively crippling the zerg (or they're crippling themselves), Zerg will be ahead on econ in every matchup. There is no step of greed that any race can take where Zerg can't respond in an even more greedy fashion.
That's not right. FFE is ahead in workers vs Zerg until 8min, if you start to mine a third around 10mins and constantly chronoboosted probes, you should even out around 70 workers around 11-12mins. It's simply not worth building more than 80workers, especially not in a MU, in which zerg uses roaches heavily, which don't need a ton of eco, but a ton of supply (ZvZ and ZvP).
If Protoss aims for fast 3bases with 70-80probes, Zerg can't top it...
Also even if Zerg would get slight advantages over Protoss, no matter what Protoss did: 2000gas is the income of 6geysers in 3mins (note, the full income, not the difference between a player that has 6 and a player that has 4). Such an advantage is not achieved by just having 10more drones for some minutes. Protoss needs to screw up incredibly, to reach that point.
also lategame terran economy just would beats the hell out of zergs, due to mules costing no supply. And the current TvZ Metagame with hellion openings preventing fast thirds and 3 fast CCs for Terran (sometimes even taking a third before zerg) usually end with Terran outmacroing or being even with Zerg. (GSL style)
|
On November 01 2011 00:21 malaki wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2011 22:38 Big J wrote:On October 31 2011 22:32 malaki wrote:
they kill turrets way too fast, you cant repair them fast enough when the mutas are in big enough numbers,
and after that you lose 10 20 of your workers Maybe because your 300-400cost defense fights an 3000/3000 cost army? That's why good terrans just have 2-3 troops of marines all over the place and just stim in, once the turrets start to fall. But ofc, I you like 10min pushes and lose all marines/tanks without killing his mutas, his mutanumbers will slowly get out of control. not 30 15+ are enough to 1shot turrets, and turrets should hard counter muta balls you know how many marines you need to kill 30 mutalisks? 30 mutalisks kill 20 marines with only losing 5 mutas so you're gonna keep 20 marine balls at all your bases all the time?
yeah. Watch the GSL and learn. I'm not doing it, MVP does. MMA does. Happy does. GanZi does.
|
Dude forget about the warhound...did you see the battle hellions like roflstomp those marines and absorb that tank fire? Lol O.O
|
On November 01 2011 00:21 malaki wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2011 22:38 Big J wrote:On October 31 2011 22:32 malaki wrote:
they kill turrets way too fast, you cant repair them fast enough when the mutas are in big enough numbers,
and after that you lose 10 20 of your workers Maybe because your 300-400cost defense fights an 3000/3000 cost army? That's why good terrans just have 2-3 troops of marines all over the place and just stim in, once the turrets start to fall. But ofc, I you like 10min pushes and lose all marines/tanks without killing his mutas, his mutanumbers will slowly get out of control. not 30 15+ are enough to 1shot turrets, and turrets should hard counter muta balls you know how many marines you need to kill 30 mutalisks? 30 mutalisks kill 20 marines with only losing 5 mutas so you're gonna keep 20 marine balls at all your bases all the time?
No shit..
You mean those 3000/3000, 60 supply mutas kill the 1000/0, 20 supply Marines while ONLY losing 500/500 (which is more than 1000/0-.-)?
HOW IMBALANCED IS THAT FFS!
|
On November 01 2011 00:36 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2011 00:21 malaki wrote:On October 31 2011 22:38 Big J wrote:On October 31 2011 22:32 malaki wrote:
they kill turrets way too fast, you cant repair them fast enough when the mutas are in big enough numbers,
and after that you lose 10 20 of your workers Maybe because your 300-400cost defense fights an 3000/3000 cost army? That's why good terrans just have 2-3 troops of marines all over the place and just stim in, once the turrets start to fall. But ofc, I you like 10min pushes and lose all marines/tanks without killing his mutas, his mutanumbers will slowly get out of control. not 30 15+ are enough to 1shot turrets, and turrets should hard counter muta balls you know how many marines you need to kill 30 mutalisks? 30 mutalisks kill 20 marines with only losing 5 mutas so you're gonna keep 20 marine balls at all your bases all the time? No shit.. You mean those 3000/3000, 60 supply mutas kill the 1000/0, 20 supply Marines while ONLY losing 500/500 (which is more than 1000/0-.-)? HOW IMBALANCED IS THAT FFS!
not to mention upgrades, it's impossible to keep up with marine upgrades. When mutas are at 1/0 or 1/1 max, marines are already at 2/2 so they just gonna rape mutas.
|
Fwiw if I went phonix,stalker,templer,archon I'd have few problems
1) imgoing to struggle to get this unit comp with out going for it blind, this biulds dies really hard to any other Zerg biuld (apart form ling infetster)
2) if I don't go this biuld blind I would often have to switch 1-2 tech paths mid game to get this uni comp which any Protoss will tell you is really really really hard to do without us getting super behind in the process.
Mutas them selves aren't really imbalced in the units themselves, however the ease and speed of the switch can't be kept up with by the toss and there in lies the problem there trying to fix
|
On November 01 2011 00:36 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2011 00:21 malaki wrote:On October 31 2011 22:38 Big J wrote:On October 31 2011 22:32 malaki wrote:
they kill turrets way too fast, you cant repair them fast enough when the mutas are in big enough numbers,
and after that you lose 10 20 of your workers Maybe because your 300-400cost defense fights an 3000/3000 cost army? That's why good terrans just have 2-3 troops of marines all over the place and just stim in, once the turrets start to fall. But ofc, I you like 10min pushes and lose all marines/tanks without killing his mutas, his mutanumbers will slowly get out of control. not 30 15+ are enough to 1shot turrets, and turrets should hard counter muta balls you know how many marines you need to kill 30 mutalisks? 30 mutalisks kill 20 marines with only losing 5 mutas so you're gonna keep 20 marine balls at all your bases all the time? No shit.. You mean those 3000/3000, 60 supply mutas kill the 1000/0, 20 supply Marines while ONLY losing 500/500 (which is more than 1000/0-.-)? HOW IMBALANCED IS THAT FFS!
1 marines should hardcounter mutas
2 imagine the fight with phoenix instead of mutas, what would happen to the phoenix
3 we can talk about the rest when marines can fly around the map, killing all your workers while flying
|
Fleet Beacon takes 60s to build and the first Tempest another 75s minus chrono. Aren't many people here saying getting Blink, Phoenixes, etc takes too long once you know mutas are coming? How is the Tempest any quicker?
I really don't see the added benefit of the Tempest.
On November 01 2011 02:29 malaki wrote:
1 marines should hardcounter mutas
2 imagine the fight with phoenix instead of mutas, what would happen to the phoenix
3 we can talk about the rest when marines can fly around the map, killing all your workers while flying
Marines are really good vs Mutalisks.
I can understand Protoss frustration about Mutas, although I'm not sure it's as much of a problem as some say it is. But complaining about 20 marines only killing 5 Mutas when facing 30, seriously?
|
On November 01 2011 02:29 malaki wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2011 00:36 Velr wrote:On November 01 2011 00:21 malaki wrote:On October 31 2011 22:38 Big J wrote:On October 31 2011 22:32 malaki wrote:
they kill turrets way too fast, you cant repair them fast enough when the mutas are in big enough numbers,
and after that you lose 10 20 of your workers Maybe because your 300-400cost defense fights an 3000/3000 cost army? That's why good terrans just have 2-3 troops of marines all over the place and just stim in, once the turrets start to fall. But ofc, I you like 10min pushes and lose all marines/tanks without killing his mutas, his mutanumbers will slowly get out of control. not 30 15+ are enough to 1shot turrets, and turrets should hard counter muta balls you know how many marines you need to kill 30 mutalisks? 30 mutalisks kill 20 marines with only losing 5 mutas so you're gonna keep 20 marine balls at all your bases all the time? No shit.. You mean those 3000/3000, 60 supply mutas kill the 1000/0, 20 supply Marines while ONLY losing 500/500 (which is more than 1000/0-.-)? HOW IMBALANCED IS THAT FFS! 1 marines should hardcounter mutas 2 imagine the fight with phoenix instead of mutas, what would happen to the phoenix 3 we can talk about the rest when marines can fly around the map, killing all your workers while flying
Although I do think mutas are really powerful when massed, marines shouldn't hard counter anything. Any terran who things they should just wants the game to be easier.
That being said, mutas do get out of control at times, specificly with protoss. If you watched Sase's stream today, you can see the most brutal game against zerg player going mass mutas. It is like the most messed up game of wack a mole as he moves around the map denying expansion. The best part is the mutas never die, they just avoid the army until the zerg is out of money. It takes about 20 minutes.
I could do with a little less of that in my SC 2.
|
On November 01 2011 03:20 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2011 02:29 malaki wrote:On November 01 2011 00:36 Velr wrote:On November 01 2011 00:21 malaki wrote:On October 31 2011 22:38 Big J wrote:On October 31 2011 22:32 malaki wrote:
they kill turrets way too fast, you cant repair them fast enough when the mutas are in big enough numbers,
and after that you lose 10 20 of your workers Maybe because your 300-400cost defense fights an 3000/3000 cost army? That's why good terrans just have 2-3 troops of marines all over the place and just stim in, once the turrets start to fall. But ofc, I you like 10min pushes and lose all marines/tanks without killing his mutas, his mutanumbers will slowly get out of control. not 30 15+ are enough to 1shot turrets, and turrets should hard counter muta balls you know how many marines you need to kill 30 mutalisks? 30 mutalisks kill 20 marines with only losing 5 mutas so you're gonna keep 20 marine balls at all your bases all the time? No shit.. You mean those 3000/3000, 60 supply mutas kill the 1000/0, 20 supply Marines while ONLY losing 500/500 (which is more than 1000/0-.-)? HOW IMBALANCED IS THAT FFS! 1 marines should hardcounter mutas 2 imagine the fight with phoenix instead of mutas, what would happen to the phoenix 3 we can talk about the rest when marines can fly around the map, killing all your workers while flying Although I do think mutas are really powerful when massed, marines shouldn't hard counter anything. Any terran who things they should just wants the game to be easier. That being said, mutas do get out of control at times, specificly with protoss. If you watched Sase's stream, you can see the most brutal game against zerg player going mass mutas. It is like the most messed up game of wack a mole as he moves around the map denying expansion. The best part is the mutas never die, they just avoid the army until the zerg is out of money. It takes about 20 minutes. I could do with a little less of that in my SC 2.
Marines should be.... good against anything yet terrible against everything, that's how i think of it.
|
On October 25 2011 18:16 GhostFall wrote:
Which brings me to my point. For the Warhound, why do the Terran need another unit to help with Mutalisks? They handle mutalisks extremely well because of the Marine. You're effectively nerfing Mutalisk harassment, which is something that doesn't really need nerfing in the TvZ matchup. Yes, they are removing the thor, but the warhound is being introduced specifically to be better than the Thor against mutalisks.
I don't understand the mentality that "Terran has marines". Right now, not only are us Terrans pigeon-holed into making a lot of marines at all stages of a TvZ game, but having that as the only effective AA unit in TvZ prevents it from being nerfed in any way. I'm sure everybody knows how many "marine OP" threads have been made on the battle.net forums and community sites.
I think it's silly to use marine as the answer when many people have a problem with the marine in its current state, but the hole in mech AA needs to be filled before any adjustments to bio can be made. Just my thoughts, and one of the big reasons why I look forward to HotS.
|
On October 31 2011 22:46 Alpina wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2011 22:40 blooblooblahblah wrote:On October 31 2011 21:25 Alpina wrote:On October 31 2011 21:10 blooblooblahblah wrote:On October 31 2011 20:33 Alpina wrote:On October 31 2011 20:24 DrGreen wrote:On October 31 2011 20:16 ILoveCoffee wrote:On October 31 2011 20:00 DrGreen wrote:
Increasing Phoenix range to 5 would be totally enough buff if blizzard consider buffing P vs muta. That would make phoenixes too good vs mutas. It gives a lot of micro room for the phoenixes so that they are never hit by mutas. Right now phoenixes are totally useless vs muta, unless u opened with 2 stargate. Increasing their range by 1 would be better idea then adding some Tempest shit. On October 31 2011 20:19 Phlatline wrote:
[...]
And if Toss can't deal with mutas with what they got they're doing something wrong... Pros tosses doing something wrong all the time then. I think that what u'r missing is that pros zergs muta control is better then any diamond/master player on ladder, and perfectly controlled mutas > perfectly controlled protoss army. how the hell phoenixes are useless vs. muta? You scout spire, add 2 stargates and own mutas, that's how simple is that. If you trying to build phoexes just from 1 stargate then think why should you counter unit in which zerg is investing everything. Zerg invests 100% of their gas into mutas so you can't expect to counter them with few phoenixes. I am not even talking that blind 2 stargate is a hard counter to mutas, because zerg won't outnumber you if you keep fighting his mutas. Reactively adding 2 stargates for phoenixes is a terrible idea and a lot of the pros agree. If u do tht, the mutas have already done its job. If u don't pre-emptively have a stargate, phoenix is definitely not the way to go. then scout and act accordingly. People are complaining about phoenixes being shit against mutas when they start adding stargates after mutas already in their mineral lines.. Which means ur reactively going phoenix which is bad... either fast 1 stargate phoenix or halliucination. What's wrong with them?
Fast 1 stargate pheonix is awful vs Zerg. Any 1 base tech play is awful vs Zerg, really. If you're talking about 2 base fast stargate, you have to make at least 1/2 void rays first to stop all ins + roaches, you can't go straight pheonixes.
Also even if a hallucination spots a spire to begin building it's already way too late to make stargates to fend off mutas.
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/images/usericons/P3.gif) ---> What pheonixes SHOULD be
|
It's not the fact that you have to keep 30 supply of your army in every base when Zerg goes muta. It's that once you're sitting back like that the zerg can attack your front and face your 70 supply army with a 130 supply army.
It isn't that protoss and to a lesser extent terran don't have answers, it's that once you get those answers out the zerg player can completely dominate the map. Is there a way for Protoss players to have map control at any point in ZvP? I haven't found it, and the GSL is showing that top level protoss haven't either.
|
I don't see how you can state that the Warhound will do better than the Thor. I believe it should be faster and will do a bit less damage. Nothing has been mentioned about the Warhound's AA range (could be shorter than the Thor's). Remember that these numbers will be tweaked during the beta. I think you are over-reacting and assuming things.
Aside from that. I believe Blizzard thinks mutalisks might be a bit powerful below pro levels if controlled well and wanted stronger hard counters for them (I don't think pros will use the Tempest unless they are going full air and might build 1-2 to round out the ball).
|
is someone having nightmares about mutas being just out of vision? i think mutas serve a purpose similar to hellions in this regard, and hellions are far cheaper.
mutas are a big investment ... as those above noted, and so a flock of 25-30 should be damn powerful
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
