|
My thoughts are.. mutas are really strong because there isn't really a GREAT counter for them as Terran or Toss. Seeing as how there is no more Irradiate or Corsairs and storm has has a smaller radius. So bringing in more aoe units is a nice thing so everyone is balanced out evenly but we won't know how it plays out until we see it.
The whole explanation of how thors getting owned by mutas because of the magic box was.. well when have you ever seen Terran building a good number of thors, say 4+ and having them together to ward off mutas? Because I haven't unless the Terran is going mech. I've seen just 1-3 and they just get destroyed by 30+ mutas while the rest of the Zerg army killed everything else. I see thors getting picked off all the time because they're alone at an expansion with only a few turrets and I believe Terran isn't building enough turrets and yes I know they're quite expensive. Either way I think the thor is a horrible unit who is still really slow and bulky.
Blink stalkers do a good job at warding off mutas and storm seems great but the radius is too small that you can just dodge/move out of it while taking minimal damage. Again I'm not seeing that much static defense from either toss or terran here~ also toss isn't leaving an archon or even a high templar at each base just like how they did it in bw to fend off lings / mutas of course they also had the help of the reaver but~. Why aren't we seeing more protection from expansion from toss? I don't know.. but I think it's a little problem that Zerg can get that critical number of mutas without getting too punished from it besides hindering their ground army. Obviously I'm no pro, but this is just my speculation.
One last thing.. I'm surprised no Zerg has yet to split up their 30+ mutas and attack multiple bases at once. You don't need all of your fucking mutas attacking a single mineral line lol.
|
mutas are not op for sure... it leads to a huge vulnerability because mutalisks are not good in a direct engagement, never just against zealots of course *lol*. mutas are good to pin the opponent into his base, but not to kill him. and they can becountered very easily... mutas are a game winner against noobs, or in hands of very good players
|
On October 25 2011 19:49 Zeon0 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2011 19:46 Turbo.Tactics wrote:On October 25 2011 19:44 Zeon0 wrote:
Mutas are not barely useful im ZvP, they are great, if u scout and rule out a gateway heavy pressure. Because gateway heavy pressure is so uncommon in ZvP... maybe in your Platinum league people do it every game...
Running out of arguements? Do you want to argue that gateway heavy PvZ is not common in masters/professional level or just question my credibility? I admit saying they are "barely useful" in ZvP might be too generalized but I think people (with certain exceptions) catch my drift. The discussion is based on the metagame and I don't see a bright future for Mutas in all matchups based on the proposed changes and new units.
|
My take on mutas: I dont think they're overpowered, but I hate the gameplay and kind of matches they produce.
What I mean is that it
A) Makes it incredibly frustrating and boring to play against as the receiver of someone going up against mass mutas, and also forcing reactive play, not creative
B) Makes matches uninteresting to watch.
C) In mostly ZvP, creates an obvious yet very hard to counter strategy
A because you always have to deal with the threat of massive muta balls. And thats not really fun. Mutas come from north? Oh, run your army to the north part of your base then. From west? Well time to run west. Etc. And its not fun to run around like a madman like that. Its purely reactive play and there little to no creative strategies or micro things you can do to deal with it. You stim your marines or blink your stalkers and hope to catch 1 or 2 before they fly away. And you're forced to do that over and over again until you feel you can make that one big push, which you know will be game deciding. And thats not fun.
B because as a spectator, you know what gonna happen. Its predictable and uninteresting to watch. And theres little micro involved. When was the last time you saw en engagement between marines and mutas, and you were impressed by either players micro/positioning/strategy? And it also make the game consist of one unit against another unit too much. Its boring to see only mutas vs only stalkers. Its boring to see only roaches against only marines. Its boring to see only hellions against zerglings. Or whatever. Its much more interesting to see marine+tank+thor+medievac+ghost+viking against zergling+baneling+muta+infestor+broodlords. It creates much more dynamic fights and its much more fun to watch. You can appreciate both terrans and zergs handling their armies well and all its parts. You dont appreciate mutas vs marines or mutas vs stalkers anywhere as much.
C because you know what gonna happen, yet you cant deal with it easily. It a zerg makes only zergling against a terran, the terran will know how to counter it with marines or hellions. If a terran makes only marines against protoss, the protoss can easily get a few colossi out and get an easy win. If a zerg knows a protoss is going 100% stalkers, you can get millions of zerglings out to deal with it. The point is that, even though marines or stalkers do very well against mutas cost-wise, they still cant necessarily deal with them. In ZvT its not a huge issue, as marines are so good against mutas (and boy am I glad they are in this case, say what you want about marine strength, but in this case its really needed imo), and together with a thor or two they're awesome. In ZvP its more of an issue, because stalkers arent as cost effective against them (and phoenixes cant be produced at a high rate enough unless you already had stargate tech going), and they also dont annihilate them as fast should mutas be caught off guard. This makes it so that even if the protoss knows exactly what the zerg is doing, he might just not be able to handle it. Because even if he can defend his base, he must eventually move out, which will cause a counter attack (and once again he know the counter will come, its obvious, yet he cant deal with it easily). And he will end up in a risky base trade situation which the zerg will have the upper hand in because the protoss base starts being killed much faster.
TLDR: Mutas arent necessarily overpowered, but because its "kind of" a strong combat unit yet a great harass unit, you can mass them up and always go for counterattacks. Ps and Ts cant do that with banshees or phoenixes for obvious reasons. And that kind of gameplay it creates situations where one player knowing what happening yet not being able to combat it easily. It also creates boring battles and predictable fights without interesting unit synergies or intensive micro situations. And even if the strategy isnt OP, its bad design. If you ask me, a perfect design would be if zergs seldom wanted to get more than 10-15 mutas because it became weaker if you massed them too much. That would still preserve its harass role, lesser combat role and still make it a used unit. But right now, thats not the case. And Im very happy Blizz is adding better ways of dealing with them, from a design point of view.
|
I was under that impression too after watching all of those videos. They kept explaining how all these aoe air units were to fight mutas and apparently phoenix and thors weren't enough.
Am I wrong in thinking the "don't let it happen" mentality is bad for this game? Is my goal supposed to be make 50 muta, while protoss are supposed to stop me? That doesn't make for exciting games, nor does the "lazer ball" collosi, stalker, voidray, mothership. I think it's better to give each race units to deal with that situation rather than say didn't prevent it by allin or making 25 phoenix.
|
tbh I reallz dont like the warhound, its gonna destroy mutas in the MU which is really bad, terran doesnt need to have a hard counter for everything just because in some sutiations mutas can kill the unit that was supposed to counter them.
Why not go back to the good old goliath, a long range single targe shot was pretty good in bw, you just had to make a lot of them, which is exactly how it should be. Better macro should win games, not stupid unit counters and shit.
|
mutas are hard for toss to deal with when zerg do a fast switch and they are not prepared for it
|
Hai, high masters protoss here.
The main problem is PvZ I believe. Since hardcore muta play - only muta ling - will end up in a base trade scenario and in most of the time there is not much protoss can do. Maybe I say that only cause of frustration but I think it is really stupid that someone make a strat thinking about the long plan where he will go to a base trade and will win. Seems pretty obvious who will have the upper hand in PvZ base race.
Especially in big maps, like taldarim, when you go to base trade Z can just throw down a hatchery at each corner of the map and there is no way you will kill everything in time. Tempest will most likely be used not as an offensive unit, but maybe to let 1-2 in your main natural to hold muta harass with some cannons and 1-2 archons. So protoss can leave the base and actually MAKE zerg engage instead of just running. Which is the big problem in PvZ. Z doesn't have to engage with his mutas all game long.
Another big problem is that Stalkers are not comparable to the Marines. Marines with stim have more dps, more speed, costs less supply and, the biggest deal, marines don't overkill. When Z has the big flock of mutas and makes a mistake that finally lets you blink and actually hit the mutas he will lose only 3-4 - at best. At the same time if he makes a mistake against a big ball of marines he will lose a TON of mutas in seconds. Just as high templars are not comparable with Thors. Thors have ridiculous range, instant huge against aoe damage against balls of mutas and a shit ton of life. While storm has 'low range' against the fast mutas, high templars can be easily picked off and storm is kind dodgeable.
The only REAL way to MAKE Z engage with the 'protoss army' is massing phoenix. Which is very hard tech switch, especially if go for a non stargate opening. At the same time you wait for the key number of phoenix he can just switch to roach/hydra AND take all the bases on the map with some spines + spores. In the end phoenixs will be kind useless in straight up fight. Since your ground army will get smashed by his overwhelming power. You will have very few sentries cause of your lack of gas. Making easy for Z to literally A move into your army.
That's why most of the protoss used to go for 6 gates when they knew about the spire. Cause it is damn hard to deal with. You never know how many bases zerg actually have cause of your lack of map control. You may think ' ok i can kill his 3 bases faster than he kill my 2 '. Then when you only have 2 pylons left you find out that he expanded to the other side of the map :~~. He will keep expanding/reinforcing and you will not be able to defend the few pylons you have left.
At first when the metagame switched from 3 gate expo to FFE, most of protoss used to open stargate making mutas kind dealable or just making Z think twice about spire tech. But Zs learned to defend against FFE --> stargate with almost no damage. Making stargate less popular and instead protoss will go to DT, hardcore warp gate timings. And in that situation it is possible to Z just turtle 2 bases vs 2 bases + 1203918230 spines til the mutas are out. Then the problem begins.
You can't just let some cannons and archons to leave your base with stalkers. They will eventually get useless to defend your mineral line. And you can pick off a HT with 3-4 mutas while the ball can harass somewhere else. There is no way protoss can let half of his army at his base and the other half attacking - only MAYBE in some VERY specifics timings. But most likely one of those fronts will be overwhelmed and there you will have your gg.
All of this I am counting with the possibility of the protoss actually scouting the spire. Cause there is still the situation where you as Z can throw down a Roach Warren at his main and hide a Spire. Protoss will expect roachs, go to robo tech and then suddenly 10 mutas are killing his probes. I learned that immortals/colossus are not that good against mutas. If you don't already have a twilight council to research blink, zerg will have a big window of time where he can unstoppable harass you and expand.
That's just opinion thou.
Oh and answering the question. No, I don't think it is overpowered. It is just really fucking hard to deal with it. Since you never know exactly what Z is doing and where he is.
+ Show Spoiler +Sorry for any miss written shit. English is not my main language. 
|
United Kingdom20326 Posts
On October 25 2011 20:15 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2011 19:12 Jemesatui wrote:
-Thors don't counter muta, unless you have 5+ of them.
-High templar dont counter muta, because they're too slow, and you'd hav to be retarded to actually lose health from a storm.
- Archons dont counter muta, they are also too slow and can't get where you need to be in time. Plus theyre so big that they get stuck fucking everywhere
- Marines counter muta
-Stalkers (semi) counter muta, but once muta reach the 20/30+ numbers, muta> stalker in a 1 for 1 fight because of splash.
The main problem is, muta's are so easy to use and hard to defend against, so the skill balance difference is enormous. And there is SOME validity to balancing units based on how hard they are to use. Why do people expect 1-2 thors or 1-2 HT to counter 20+ mutas that are worth 2000/2000? Same with archons. If zerg invested so much resources into mutas you need to invest a similar number to counter it. It is as simple as that. Only thing that I know of that breaks this formula are 8marine+medivac drops. Those drops need much more resources to stop unless the terran player is an idiot and lets 2 banelings kill all marines. Then you got marines that counter mutas while actually being way under the cost of mutas and you consider that OK. Then you expect Stalkers alone to counter mutas in 1vs1 scenario where Stalkers are both lower cost and lower tech. Seriously people! I don't understand your way of thinking.
Mutas are faster and fly.
If you have 10 mutas, and they are as powerful as stalkers, if i have 20 stalkers i need to leave 10 of them in my main to protect my gateways etc if i want to attack you without loosing all my probes or my gateway power.
Cannons exist but you cant protect a nexus from all sides and all production without investing veeery heavily, and that is where the argument comes from
|
On October 25 2011 20:35 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2011 20:15 -Archangel- wrote:On October 25 2011 19:12 Jemesatui wrote:
-Thors don't counter muta, unless you have 5+ of them.
-High templar dont counter muta, because they're too slow, and you'd hav to be retarded to actually lose health from a storm.
- Archons dont counter muta, they are also too slow and can't get where you need to be in time. Plus theyre so big that they get stuck fucking everywhere
- Marines counter muta
-Stalkers (semi) counter muta, but once muta reach the 20/30+ numbers, muta> stalker in a 1 for 1 fight because of splash.
The main problem is, muta's are so easy to use and hard to defend against, so the skill balance difference is enormous. And there is SOME validity to balancing units based on how hard they are to use. Why do people expect 1-2 thors or 1-2 HT to counter 20+ mutas that are worth 2000/2000? Same with archons. If zerg invested so much resources into mutas you need to invest a similar number to counter it. It is as simple as that. Only thing that I know of that breaks this formula are 8marine+medivac drops. Those drops need much more resources to stop unless the terran player is an idiot and lets 2 banelings kill all marines. Then you got marines that counter mutas while actually being way under the cost of mutas and you consider that OK. Then you expect Stalkers alone to counter mutas in 1vs1 scenario where Stalkers are both lower cost and lower tech. Seriously people! I don't understand your way of thinking. Mutas are faster and fly. If you have 10 mutas, and they are as powerful as stalkers, if i have 20 stalkers i need to leave 10 of them in my main to protect my gateways etc if i want to attack you without loosing all my probes or my gateway power. Cannons exist but you cant protect a nexus from all sides and all production without investing veeery heavily, and that is where the argument comes from
Nah you dont have to leave 10 Stalkers... you can build some cannons and warpin when you need to. With the new "make a building to a cannon" tossers will have an additional reactionary spell to help fight the mutas and have even less monetary Commitment inbase.
|
United Kingdom20326 Posts
On October 25 2011 20:40 Turbo.Tactics wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2011 20:35 Cyro wrote:On October 25 2011 20:15 -Archangel- wrote:On October 25 2011 19:12 Jemesatui wrote:
-Thors don't counter muta, unless you have 5+ of them.
-High templar dont counter muta, because they're too slow, and you'd hav to be retarded to actually lose health from a storm.
- Archons dont counter muta, they are also too slow and can't get where you need to be in time. Plus theyre so big that they get stuck fucking everywhere
- Marines counter muta
-Stalkers (semi) counter muta, but once muta reach the 20/30+ numbers, muta> stalker in a 1 for 1 fight because of splash.
The main problem is, muta's are so easy to use and hard to defend against, so the skill balance difference is enormous. And there is SOME validity to balancing units based on how hard they are to use. Why do people expect 1-2 thors or 1-2 HT to counter 20+ mutas that are worth 2000/2000? Same with archons. If zerg invested so much resources into mutas you need to invest a similar number to counter it. It is as simple as that. Only thing that I know of that breaks this formula are 8marine+medivac drops. Those drops need much more resources to stop unless the terran player is an idiot and lets 2 banelings kill all marines. Then you got marines that counter mutas while actually being way under the cost of mutas and you consider that OK. Then you expect Stalkers alone to counter mutas in 1vs1 scenario where Stalkers are both lower cost and lower tech. Seriously people! I don't understand your way of thinking. Mutas are faster and fly. If you have 10 mutas, and they are as powerful as stalkers, if i have 20 stalkers i need to leave 10 of them in my main to protect my gateways etc if i want to attack you without loosing all my probes or my gateway power. Cannons exist but you cant protect a nexus from all sides and all production without investing veeery heavily, and that is where the argument comes from Nah you dont have to leave 10 Stalkers... you can build some cannons and warpin when you need to. With the new "make a building to a cannon" tossers will have an additional reactionary spell to help fight the mutas and have even less monetary Commitment inbase.
Warping in takes time and its not uncommon to loose 3-4 stalkers during a warp in of 5 without them actuly doing anything... If we warp and you turn around, going for our other group of stalkers (attacking, in this example) then our warped forces are committed and useless
|
I think the Tempest is meant to protect Colossi from Mass Corruptor or other stuff.
We rarely see mass muta againt Protoss, its a barely viable strategy.
|
Having a more mobile version of the Thor can't be bad to be honest.
The unit was so clucnky and not fun to use against muta anyway.
|
On October 25 2011 20:41 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2011 20:40 Turbo.Tactics wrote:On October 25 2011 20:35 Cyro wrote:On October 25 2011 20:15 -Archangel- wrote:On October 25 2011 19:12 Jemesatui wrote:
-Thors don't counter muta, unless you have 5+ of them.
-High templar dont counter muta, because they're too slow, and you'd hav to be retarded to actually lose health from a storm.
- Archons dont counter muta, they are also too slow and can't get where you need to be in time. Plus theyre so big that they get stuck fucking everywhere
- Marines counter muta
-Stalkers (semi) counter muta, but once muta reach the 20/30+ numbers, muta> stalker in a 1 for 1 fight because of splash.
The main problem is, muta's are so easy to use and hard to defend against, so the skill balance difference is enormous. And there is SOME validity to balancing units based on how hard they are to use. Why do people expect 1-2 thors or 1-2 HT to counter 20+ mutas that are worth 2000/2000? Same with archons. If zerg invested so much resources into mutas you need to invest a similar number to counter it. It is as simple as that. Only thing that I know of that breaks this formula are 8marine+medivac drops. Those drops need much more resources to stop unless the terran player is an idiot and lets 2 banelings kill all marines. Then you got marines that counter mutas while actually being way under the cost of mutas and you consider that OK. Then you expect Stalkers alone to counter mutas in 1vs1 scenario where Stalkers are both lower cost and lower tech. Seriously people! I don't understand your way of thinking. Mutas are faster and fly. If you have 10 mutas, and they are as powerful as stalkers, if i have 20 stalkers i need to leave 10 of them in my main to protect my gateways etc if i want to attack you without loosing all my probes or my gateway power. Cannons exist but you cant protect a nexus from all sides and all production without investing veeery heavily, and that is where the argument comes from Nah you dont have to leave 10 Stalkers... you can build some cannons and warpin when you need to. With the new "make a building to a cannon" tossers will have an additional reactionary spell to help fight the mutas and have even less monetary Commitment inbase. Warping in takes time and its not uncommon to loose 3-4 stalkers during a warp in of 5 without them actuly doing anything... If we warp and you turn around, going for our other group of stalkers (attacking, in this example) then our warped forces are committed and useless
It all depends on the number of units really. Yes, for mutas mobility is key, but Blinkstalkers function in a similar way. Your arguement was that mutas are as powerful as a higher number of Stalkers and I am saying you don't have to make as much of a commitment as described to defend against 10 mutas.
Of course the numbers change when the mutaflock gets bigger but you can still defend on reaction with toss. Storms/warpins/Cannons/Blinkstalkers
|
United Kingdom20326 Posts
On October 25 2011 20:48 Turbo.Tactics wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2011 20:41 Cyro wrote:On October 25 2011 20:40 Turbo.Tactics wrote:On October 25 2011 20:35 Cyro wrote:On October 25 2011 20:15 -Archangel- wrote:On October 25 2011 19:12 Jemesatui wrote:
-Thors don't counter muta, unless you have 5+ of them.
-High templar dont counter muta, because they're too slow, and you'd hav to be retarded to actually lose health from a storm.
- Archons dont counter muta, they are also too slow and can't get where you need to be in time. Plus theyre so big that they get stuck fucking everywhere
- Marines counter muta
-Stalkers (semi) counter muta, but once muta reach the 20/30+ numbers, muta> stalker in a 1 for 1 fight because of splash.
The main problem is, muta's are so easy to use and hard to defend against, so the skill balance difference is enormous. And there is SOME validity to balancing units based on how hard they are to use. Why do people expect 1-2 thors or 1-2 HT to counter 20+ mutas that are worth 2000/2000? Same with archons. If zerg invested so much resources into mutas you need to invest a similar number to counter it. It is as simple as that. Only thing that I know of that breaks this formula are 8marine+medivac drops. Those drops need much more resources to stop unless the terran player is an idiot and lets 2 banelings kill all marines. Then you got marines that counter mutas while actually being way under the cost of mutas and you consider that OK. Then you expect Stalkers alone to counter mutas in 1vs1 scenario where Stalkers are both lower cost and lower tech. Seriously people! I don't understand your way of thinking. Mutas are faster and fly. If you have 10 mutas, and they are as powerful as stalkers, if i have 20 stalkers i need to leave 10 of them in my main to protect my gateways etc if i want to attack you without loosing all my probes or my gateway power. Cannons exist but you cant protect a nexus from all sides and all production without investing veeery heavily, and that is where the argument comes from Nah you dont have to leave 10 Stalkers... you can build some cannons and warpin when you need to. With the new "make a building to a cannon" tossers will have an additional reactionary spell to help fight the mutas and have even less monetary Commitment inbase. Warping in takes time and its not uncommon to loose 3-4 stalkers during a warp in of 5 without them actuly doing anything... If we warp and you turn around, going for our other group of stalkers (attacking, in this example) then our warped forces are committed and useless It all depends on the number of units really. Yes, for mutas mobility is key, but Blinkstalkers function in a similar way. Your arguement was that mutas are as powerful as a higher number of Stalkers and I am saying you don't have to make as much of a commitment as described to defend against 10 mutas. Of course the numbers change when the mutaflock gets bigger but you can still defend on reaction with toss. Storms/warpins/Cannons/Blinkstalkers
You cant move out your army without base trading.
50-60 mutas will kill 15 cannons in a base with few losses and unpower everything, as well as stopping all mining
|
if a zerg gets 50-60 mutas the game ended a long time ago
|
I dont think that the mutalisk is overpowered in Wings of Liberty, but they may get very strong in HotS.
As stated a hundred times already a Terran player with Thors and Marine support deals quite well with the Mutalisk.
This applies only if the Terran user decided to go the "biomech" route.
Looking at pure mech play, the Mutalisk seems too strong as there is no good way to deal with them efficiently, because of the magic box technique. So maybe Blizzard wants to strengthen mech-play in HotS versus the Zerg.
Protoss in general have a little more trouble defending against Mutalisks than the Terran do. They lack long range / mobile aoe anti-air. Although Blinkstalkers are very strong against Mutalisks in fewer numbers, they lose a bit of efficency against Mutalisks when they reach the 30-40 mark.
Lets consider they havnt shown everything about HotS at Blizzcon.
Maybe they will implement an ability or a unit that will strengthen the Mutalisk so much that Protoss and Terran need the new units to fight them.
Even the Viper ability helps Mutalisks if the Zerg player manages to land it on the important anti-mutalisk part of the Army.
long story short: Lets discuss this after we know every little detail about HotS
|
On October 25 2011 20:51 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2011 20:48 Turbo.Tactics wrote:On October 25 2011 20:41 Cyro wrote:On October 25 2011 20:40 Turbo.Tactics wrote:On October 25 2011 20:35 Cyro wrote:On October 25 2011 20:15 -Archangel- wrote:On October 25 2011 19:12 Jemesatui wrote:
-Thors don't counter muta, unless you have 5+ of them.
-High templar dont counter muta, because they're too slow, and you'd hav to be retarded to actually lose health from a storm.
- Archons dont counter muta, they are also too slow and can't get where you need to be in time. Plus theyre so big that they get stuck fucking everywhere
- Marines counter muta
-Stalkers (semi) counter muta, but once muta reach the 20/30+ numbers, muta> stalker in a 1 for 1 fight because of splash.
The main problem is, muta's are so easy to use and hard to defend against, so the skill balance difference is enormous. And there is SOME validity to balancing units based on how hard they are to use. Why do people expect 1-2 thors or 1-2 HT to counter 20+ mutas that are worth 2000/2000? Same with archons. If zerg invested so much resources into mutas you need to invest a similar number to counter it. It is as simple as that. Only thing that I know of that breaks this formula are 8marine+medivac drops. Those drops need much more resources to stop unless the terran player is an idiot and lets 2 banelings kill all marines. Then you got marines that counter mutas while actually being way under the cost of mutas and you consider that OK. Then you expect Stalkers alone to counter mutas in 1vs1 scenario where Stalkers are both lower cost and lower tech. Seriously people! I don't understand your way of thinking. Mutas are faster and fly. If you have 10 mutas, and they are as powerful as stalkers, if i have 20 stalkers i need to leave 10 of them in my main to protect my gateways etc if i want to attack you without loosing all my probes or my gateway power. Cannons exist but you cant protect a nexus from all sides and all production without investing veeery heavily, and that is where the argument comes from Nah you dont have to leave 10 Stalkers... you can build some cannons and warpin when you need to. With the new "make a building to a cannon" tossers will have an additional reactionary spell to help fight the mutas and have even less monetary Commitment inbase. Warping in takes time and its not uncommon to loose 3-4 stalkers during a warp in of 5 without them actuly doing anything... If we warp and you turn around, going for our other group of stalkers (attacking, in this example) then our warped forces are committed and useless It all depends on the number of units really. Yes, for mutas mobility is key, but Blinkstalkers function in a similar way. Your arguement was that mutas are as powerful as a higher number of Stalkers and I am saying you don't have to make as much of a commitment as described to defend against 10 mutas. Of course the numbers change when the mutaflock gets bigger but you can still defend on reaction with toss. Storms/warpins/Cannons/Blinkstalkers You cant move out your army without base trading. 50-60 mutas will kill 15 cannons in a base with few losses and unpower everything, as well as stopping all mining
If you let Zerg get 30+ mutas you losing is your fault. That the Zerg at that moment can only win with mutas by base trading is actually a sign that mutas are weak (or as should be), not that they are OP.
If in HotS 3 Tempest will keep your base safe from these 30+ mutas while your deathball goes out and kills the Zerg without Zerg having a chance will only make mutas never again be seen in ZvP (and they are already rarely seen).
|
50-60 mutas is 120 supplies, 40 mutas is scary already though
|
On October 25 2011 20:51 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2011 20:48 Turbo.Tactics wrote:On October 25 2011 20:41 Cyro wrote:On October 25 2011 20:40 Turbo.Tactics wrote:On October 25 2011 20:35 Cyro wrote:On October 25 2011 20:15 -Archangel- wrote:On October 25 2011 19:12 Jemesatui wrote:
-Thors don't counter muta, unless you have 5+ of them.
-High templar dont counter muta, because they're too slow, and you'd hav to be retarded to actually lose health from a storm.
- Archons dont counter muta, they are also too slow and can't get where you need to be in time. Plus theyre so big that they get stuck fucking everywhere
- Marines counter muta
-Stalkers (semi) counter muta, but once muta reach the 20/30+ numbers, muta> stalker in a 1 for 1 fight because of splash.
The main problem is, muta's are so easy to use and hard to defend against, so the skill balance difference is enormous. And there is SOME validity to balancing units based on how hard they are to use. Why do people expect 1-2 thors or 1-2 HT to counter 20+ mutas that are worth 2000/2000? Same with archons. If zerg invested so much resources into mutas you need to invest a similar number to counter it. It is as simple as that. Only thing that I know of that breaks this formula are 8marine+medivac drops. Those drops need much more resources to stop unless the terran player is an idiot and lets 2 banelings kill all marines. Then you got marines that counter mutas while actually being way under the cost of mutas and you consider that OK. Then you expect Stalkers alone to counter mutas in 1vs1 scenario where Stalkers are both lower cost and lower tech. Seriously people! I don't understand your way of thinking. Mutas are faster and fly. If you have 10 mutas, and they are as powerful as stalkers, if i have 20 stalkers i need to leave 10 of them in my main to protect my gateways etc if i want to attack you without loosing all my probes or my gateway power. Cannons exist but you cant protect a nexus from all sides and all production without investing veeery heavily, and that is where the argument comes from Nah you dont have to leave 10 Stalkers... you can build some cannons and warpin when you need to. With the new "make a building to a cannon" tossers will have an additional reactionary spell to help fight the mutas and have even less monetary Commitment inbase. Warping in takes time and its not uncommon to loose 3-4 stalkers during a warp in of 5 without them actuly doing anything... If we warp and you turn around, going for our other group of stalkers (attacking, in this example) then our warped forces are committed and useless It all depends on the number of units really. Yes, for mutas mobility is key, but Blinkstalkers function in a similar way. Your arguement was that mutas are as powerful as a higher number of Stalkers and I am saying you don't have to make as much of a commitment as described to defend against 10 mutas. Of course the numbers change when the mutaflock gets bigger but you can still defend on reaction with toss. Storms/warpins/Cannons/Blinkstalkers You cant move out your army without base trading. 50-60 mutas will kill 15 cannons in a base with few losses and unpower everything, as well as stopping all mining
Weeeeeeell ok when I said it depends on the numbers I was anticipating something like 20-30 but you are right 50-60 Mutas will wreck cannons... assuming you have not teched to 3/3 Blinkstalker with HT support by that time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
