EPT[D]Are mutalisks overpowered in WOL?? - Page 66
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
SeaSwift
Scotland4486 Posts
| ||
|
snarl
Canada812 Posts
On November 10 2011 07:24 SeaSwift wrote: I'm amazed that people are concerned about the Muta design, when there are units like the Colossus, Sentries, Infestors, Marauders and Roaches in the game. Mutas are some of the best design, and they're ported almost directly from BW. and in case you haven't been reading the thread at all, corsairs are not in sc2 | ||
|
Kharnage
Australia920 Posts
muta 100/100 pheonix 150/100 Why? muta is better in every way. it can shoot DOWN for crying out loud! imho get rid of pheonix lift or make it an upgrade from the fleet becon and drop the cost of pheonix to 100/75 or even 100/50. considering you need equal number of pheonix to counter muta and pheonix has hardly any utility apart from killing mutas and overlords the cost seems stupid. | ||
|
lololol
5198 Posts
On November 10 2011 05:45 Belha wrote: This. The problem is not the unit itself, is the AWFUL design. - Phoenix should counter mutas, but they do not, not even for the cost. - The mobility of a muta cloud in the hands of a skilled player is too much eficiency for a pack of the same units, is much more efficient that, for example, in bw. - Mutas should be a amazing harassing unit, like hellion, banshee or so, not a masseable hypermobile death cloud. - The main issue is PvZ. T have marines that rapes mutas for the cost. P havo not an answer for the cost. The match ups is so flawed that even the top korean Z's are allowed to make 3 base, roach ling, or infestor ling, then make a killer muta switch with like +12 mutas (that mean an 1400min /1400gas) with the P not being able to punish that insane investment. They do beat mutas cost for cost, but you can't produce them as fast as zerg can produce mutas, they aren't a strong counter to mutas and they aren't versatile(while mutas are). Compare to the corsair, you still have 2 of the problems - production/tech path and versatility, however corsairs are a strong counter to mutalisks due to their insane splash, the outer radius is 100 pixels, which would equal an AoE of over 3 in SC2. For comparison: Fungal growth - 2, Psi Storm - 1.5, EMP - 1.5, Tank splash - 1.25, Baneling splash - 2.2 | ||
|
Ocedic
United States1808 Posts
[B]On November 09 2011 05:20 Coffee Zombie wrote: It's not that the unit is overpowered. Small Muta wolfpacks are excellent. But the bad design just ends up erasing the unit's core flaw in huge clouds. It's why you see big muta clouds, and not tons of Banshees or Phoenixes, even if they might be theoretically better. Their weaknesses are not solved by massing up. That fundamental design flaw forces ugly counterdesigns like Warhounds and the Tempest. You just can't put the fear in muta clouds without brutal, instant AoE. Ugly as they are, I welcome the Tempest and Warhound. It hopefully means mutas will act like Banshees and Phoenix - either as small harassing forces and/or as a component of a normal army, not as marauding hypermobile deathballs. Honestly this post should have ended the discussion completely. Fact is, Mutalisks scale up in numbers to a crazy extent due to their bouncing attack. In BW, this was fine due to the amount of crazy aoe (Irradiation, Corsairs, Storm, Archons, Valkeries.) The Warhounds and Tempest help fill that role that is missing in SC2. That's all there is to it. Mutalisks aren't overpowered. If they were, they would be nerfed. To help illustrate that point, notice how badly Infestors counter Mutalisks in ZvZ, and notice that Zerg did not get a similar anti-cloud unit to their arsenal. Because they already have one. EDIT: I'd like to point out that the thread topic is rather bothersome. The OP is framing the discussion as an imaginary attack on Zerg through the addition of two new units to OTHER races. Basically, the thread topic itself is a strawman argument. What the OP meant to ask was: Are the Warhound and Tempest overpowered? A lot of the 'race wars' that occurred in this thread could have been avoided if a sensationalist topic question wasn't used. | ||
|
mr_flux
23 Posts
one other thing. someone said something along the lines - "one misclick and mutas die like flies". I personally don't want sc2 to be a game about misclicks. it's a game of strategy, let's not decide our wins by such trivial things. | ||
|
Blasterion
China10272 Posts
On November 10 2011 09:06 mr_flux wrote: a couple of comments to op, one they're removing thors, so it's not just adding warhounds. two blizzard is balancing the game at every level, for bronze players as well as pros so your argument that there is no muta problem in sc2 is kinda baseless. I'm pretty sure that mutas are super effective in lower leagues. one other thing. someone said something along the lines - "one misclick and mutas die like flies". I personally don't want sc2 to be a game about misclicks. it's a game of strategy, let's not decide our wins by such trivial things. They are not removing Thors Thors will be a high tier fusion core A-Move unit | ||
|
Share_The_Land
Canada152 Posts
On November 10 2011 08:08 Ocedic wrote: Honestly this post should have ended the discussion completely. Fact is, Mutalisks scale up in numbers to a crazy extent due to their bouncing attack. In BW, this was fine due to the amount of crazy aoe (Irradiation, Corsairs, Storm, Archons, Valkeries.) The Warhounds and Tempest help fill that role that is missing in SC2. That's all there is to it. Mutalisks aren't overpowered. If they were, they would be nerfed. To help illustrate that point, notice how badly Infestors counter Mutalisks in ZvZ, and notice that Zerg did not get a similar anti-cloud unit to their arsenal. Because they already have one. EDIT: I'd like to point out that the thread topic is rather bothersome. The OP is framing the discussion as an imaginary attack on Zerg through the addition of two new units to OTHER races. Basically, the thread topic itself is a strawman argument. What the OP meant to ask was: Are the Warhound and Tempest overpowered? A lot of the 'race wars' that occurred in this thread could have been avoided if a sensationalist topic question wasn't used. I can't help but agree with this strongly in conjunction with the original post. I especially agree with your edit, it seems that if even just the thread title were changed a lot of pointless discussions/arguments would have been avoided. Either way though people have brought up some interesting points back and forth and have helped entertain me during slow hours at work  | ||
|
DaveVAH
Canada162 Posts
On November 10 2011 05:19 Fuhrmaaj wrote: I want to make it clear that I don't necessarily agree with the thor timing logic - it was something which David Kim and Dustin Browder discussed at Blizzcon. I believe the intent was to stop the thor rush, but it wasn't made clear imo. I don't know if I agree that the thor scales poorly, but it's not the point I'm trying to make. I think the mutalisk in ZvT is fine. I don't follow your logic though, it looks like the Warhound will have a range similar to the marine, rather than the thor. It seems to me that I would rather build warhounds instead of marines, rather than to complement them because you can go mech and increase upgrade efficiency. Warhounds have range 11 AA, 7 Ground and higher splash radius. Your zergish fatansy of a further buff to mutas are unfounded. | ||
|
Cajun2k1
Netherlands399 Posts
On November 10 2011 09:11 Blasterion wrote: They are not removing Thors Thors will be a high tier fusion core A-Move unit It's a hero-unit like Toss Mothership, meaning you'll be able to make only one and it has only ground attack. | ||
|
Blasterion
China10272 Posts
On November 10 2011 09:40 Cajun2k1 wrote: It's a hero-unit like Toss Mothership, meaning you'll be able to make only one and it has only ground attack. I Think it might have anti air too, It's just strong, and a move | ||
|
JohnnyBanana
Canada493 Posts
On November 10 2011 10:07 Blasterion wrote: I Think it might have anti air too, It's just strong, and a move They don't have AA. Why do you keep saying a move? Everything you've said regarding thors has been pretty inaccurate. They're not even meant to counter air anymore. You know that a lot of units are a move right? Like Broodlords/Ultras/Colossus...yeah all the T2.5-T3 units for the other races are pretty a move bro. New Tempest unit is fairly a move too. Same with the Swarm host, except you don't even to move after you burrow it, it just auto attacks, even simpler than a move. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 10 2011 09:37 DaveVAH wrote: Warhounds have range 11 AA, 7 Ground and higher splash radius. Your zergish fatansy of a further buff to mutas are unfounded. Stats may still change... Also I'm really looking forward to mech vs zerg battles, when terrans really need to be spot on with their decisions wether they produce tanks (vs roach) or warhounds (vs mutalisks) unlike now when they can have a really low tank count vs roaches, because thors are already OK vs roaches and good vs mutas (not to mention how hard it is to kill thors with scv support, when your only midgame "combatunit" choices are the lowest dps units in your whole arsenal) | ||
|
QueueQueue
Canada1000 Posts
Not saying this is the best choice for the game or not... But likely a reason. | ||
|
Heston
Canada18 Posts
On November 10 2011 07:09 Fuhrmaaj wrote: Great post, I strongly agree with all of this. Conversely, there are some types of builds or openers which can put mutas down before they become an issue in PvZ. The best counter to this is to scout and see whether or not mutas are safe. Zerg needs to scout to see if they can go mutas, Protoss needs to scout to see if they're going to get destroyed by mutas. All's fair. You're wrong, even with stargate opening zergs can still go into a mass muta style and fight pheonix ineffiently simply because you cannot produce phoenix anywhere near as fast. As for "builds or openings" that can put down if you meant a stargate opening take a look at this, WhiteRa Vs Idra | ||
|
Fuhrmaaj
167 Posts
On November 10 2011 09:37 DaveVAH wrote: Warhounds have range 11 AA, 7 Ground and higher splash radius. Your zergish fatansy of a further buff to mutas are unfounded. Where are you getting this from? The post on Reddit didn't give any range for the air attack. The HotS custom maps are operating with range 7 (which is 2 range shorter than a thor's volley). 11 range is ludicrous; vikings only have 9 range and siege tanks have 13 in siege mode. I can't find a video of the warhound shooting air units right now, but I'm pretty sure 11 range is straight off the table. Anyhow, I was under the impression that the warhound would have a range of 5 or 6 based on the Q&A. I imagine that the range will be shorter if there are going to be more warhounds in a HotS terran army than thors in a WoL army. Of course, this is all subject to change. Also, I don't entertain "zergish fantas[ies]" of buffing mutas. I don't know what you mean by a further buff to mutas either - I don't think the mutalisk has been patched at all since WoL was released. Personally, I think the mutalisk is fine the way it is, and I worry that warhounds will either make mutalisk not viable or make them stronger. At any rate, I'm willing to see what will happen. I don't want to comment on whether or not I like the warhound because I haven't decided yet. It looks like it will change the game, but I'm not sure if the change is for the better or not. | ||
|
Spessi
304 Posts
Similarly, I think designing units SOLELY for the purpose of countering mutas is batshit retarded horrible design. Will you see the tempest in pvp? no. Will you see them in tvp? Maybe. Maybe if you have colossi and he goes viking youll get one or two tempests to assure that, if he gets your colossi, he's going to lose his vikings...but that's easily fixable by just going ghost instead, then Tempest are worthless in tvp. against MM? No. It'd just be silly, and marines would absolutely murder them before your tempest killed the medivacs, even pretending that there were enough medivacs to justify getting them. And what happens in zvp when zerg just use their already good muta control to just avoid the tempest? To break the mutas into two smaller groups to harass you more. To simply fly away from your tempests and attack a different base you have? The goliath isn't in a much better place. Yeah it gets +mech damage, which makes it at least possible in other situations and worth playing with for mech in general and will be interesting depending on that +damage and the cost of the goliath. And none of that has to do with "balance". It's pre-beta, so...anything can and will change. numbers and costs and damage will change. Except the goliath since it's point on being useful in mech was sort of related to that. It could very well just be an ugly as sin doesnt fit in starcraft ground tempest, since it's getting splash aoe for air too. It's just that you're designing a unit...solely to counter one unit in one matchup. And that's it. That is literally it. it's a coin flippy, lazy design strategy that takes the depth out of the game, and really won't be that effective anyway or REALLY change the match-up in the first place, except maybe pre-gold league...and i thought that the game wasn't balanced around that. which is naive of me, because blizzard caters to their carebears and everyone is special all around. I'm sure it will be fine. I'm sure fixing the carrier would have been better. I'm sure that if MASSING mutas became a problem they could just deal with that in some way instead of making a unit that literally just black and white and boring, counters mutas. But to simplify this whole point, no, I dont think mutas are a problem for other races. It's like saying zerglings, sentries, marines, or hellions are a "problem" for other races. | ||
|
Fuhrmaaj
167 Posts
On November 10 2011 13:05 Heston wrote: You're wrong, even with stargate opening zergs can still go into a mass muta style and fight pheonix ineffiently simply because you cannot produce phoenix anywhere near as fast. As for "builds or openings" that can put down if you meant a stargate opening take a look at this, WhiteRa Vs Idra I didn't mean a stargate opening, I was thinking of the 3 gate pressure expand or 6 gate timing attack styles which caused zerg to switch to do roaches instead of mutas a long time ago. But those aren't the only builds, just the first ones which came to mind. I'm not sure which unit you are saying is inefficient: the muta or the phoenix, but I'm not sure that it's relevant. Protoss makes cannons and tries to engage with the phoenix over the cannons and blinks stalkers over to help. I view this as a delay tactic which is viable if you've already got a stargate or two down. I personally don't endorse putting a stargate down to hold off mutas. I think that archons are the ultimate goal in this style of play, and cannons do very well against mutas in conjunction with gateway units (or phoenix) until the archons come out. | ||
|
SWPIGWANG
Canada482 Posts
Similarly, I think designing units SOLELY for the purpose of countering mutas is batshit retarded horrible design. Valkeries and Corsairs..... lol.....and how mutas made SC1 ZvZ what it is.... Its kinda funny the old problem is the new problem.... | ||
|
DaveVAH
Canada162 Posts
Blizzcon player. Thor AA range is 10.5. btw. Not 9. | ||
| ||
