On November 12 2011 01:43 Dakkon B wrote: Sadly Nay. Stargate doesn't do enough damage to be effective. The best you can do is a few queens, drones and an overlord or two. While that seems like a lot in reality zerg just power drones, throws up a spore or 2 at each base (rendering your air useless)
4-5 voids will erase anything in front of them in seconds. Including a spore or 2.
As seen in the Naniwa vs Nestea game where Nestea had several spores at every base and something like 7-8 queens.
On November 12 2011 01:08 Feidspar wrote: I'm no expert, but wouldn't aggressive stargate play be a good counter to fast mutas? Stargates hit before mutas come up. Something along the lines of FFE -> 2 stargates -> chronoing out several void rays and then reinforcing with phoenixes. I believe this hits before mutas or hydras come up, and phoenixes can handle either one of those in small numbers very well, while also pinning queens for voids.
yay/nay?
Sadly Nay. Stargate doesn't do enough damage to be effective. The best you can do is a few queens, drones and an overlord or two. While that seems like a lot in reality zerg just power drones, throws up a spore or 2 at each base (rendering your air useless) LOL ever see the Mondragon ZvP unit counter chart?
IMO Muta is effective atm. Its high risk but effective still. The thing vs both match ups is that mutas are fast enough that they do not have to engage unless the Z player wants to. You can harass, pick off 2-3 "things" and run away without losing anything. Cause ground units for both P and T may win in a death ball vs death ball match but Z should never go toe to toe with mutas anyways. The power of them is they allow you to choose the engagement.
I think P defiantly needs an effective air unit that counters a muta ball but a tier 3 slow moving unit isn't it. Unless the attack range on the tempest is higher than the muta vision range why would you ever attack it when you can just dance around it rendering it unless. I REALLY wish they would just make Carrier effective. It can easily be a solid unit with a little work but blizzard would rather replace it than try to fix it. Also on that note WTF on the mothership drop are you at least going to give me back my arbiter's?
This is getting long BUT last note. On the warhound vs thor. State of the game talked about it and I'm just going to direct you to that as they covered it very well.
Proxy Nexus Recall will be sick.... but in practical, at this point Phoenix's Overload that was availbale in the alpha, is very desireable
On November 12 2011 01:08 Feidspar wrote: I'm no expert, but wouldn't aggressive stargate play be a good counter to fast mutas? Stargates hit before mutas come up. Something along the lines of FFE -> 2 stargates -> chronoing out several void rays and then reinforcing with phoenixes. I believe this hits before mutas or hydras come up, and phoenixes can handle either one of those in small numbers very well, while also pinning queens for voids.
yay/nay?
Sadly Nay. Stargate doesn't do enough damage to be effective. The best you can do is a few queens, drones and an overlord or two. While that seems like a lot in reality zerg just power drones, throws up a spore or 2 at each base (rendering your air useless) LOL ever see the Mondragon ZvP unit counter chart?
IMO Muta is effective atm. Its high risk but effective still. The thing vs both match ups is that mutas are fast enough that they do not have to engage unless the Z player wants to. You can harass, pick off 2-3 "things" and run away without losing anything. Cause ground units for both P and T may win in a death ball vs death ball match but Z should never go toe to toe with mutas anyways. The power of them is they allow you to choose the engagement.
I think P defiantly needs an effective air unit that counters a muta ball but a tier 3 slow moving unit isn't it. Unless the attack range on the tempest is higher than the muta vision range why would you ever attack it when you can just dance around it rendering it unless. I REALLY wish they would just make Carrier effective. It can easily be a solid unit with a little work but blizzard would rather replace it than try to fix it. Also on that note WTF on the mothership drop are you at least going to give me back my arbiter's?
This is getting long BUT last note. On the warhound vs thor. State of the game talked about it and I'm just going to direct you to that as they covered it very well.
One stargate is definitely not enough to do enough damage in time to Zerg as they can build a few spores and next mass drones but double Stargate plays seem to be more effective.
On November 12 2011 01:43 Dakkon B wrote: Sadly Nay. Stargate doesn't do enough damage to be effective. The best you can do is a few queens, drones and an overlord or two. While that seems like a lot in reality zerg just power drones, throws up a spore or 2 at each base (rendering your air useless)
4-5 voids will erase anything in front of them in seconds. Including a spore or 2.
4-5 vr with 5-6 phoenix and nestea was upgrading ground attack for some reason even tho he seen the air. He made some rather big mistakes that game but if you want I can post several videos where SG play was shut down by this same defense and the P is so far behind he couldn't recover?
Good control and a solid timing can make anything work.
Neat Thor improvement i thought of. Thor's have a small splash because Blizz seems to want them to only be able to splash a few Muta's at a time. Why not give the Thor, or soon to be the Warhound, the ability to target 2 or 3 nearby air-units at once instead of using splash to hit more than one unit. Would look neat seeing missiles taking off in two directions from one unit.
On November 12 2011 02:55 Dakkon B wrote: but if you want I can post several videos where SG play was shut down by this same defense and the P is so far behind he couldn't recover?
On November 12 2011 03:24 FAAAwesome wrote: Neat Thor improvement i thought of. Thor's have a small splash because Blizz seems to want them to only be able to splash a few Muta's at a time. Why not give the Thor, or soon to be the Warhound, the ability to target 2 or 3 nearby air-units at once instead of using splash to hit more than one unit. Would look neat seeing missiles taking off in two directions from one unit.
Because then, having Thor / warhound on the field is not a big " dun't clump your muta to harass me " anymore.
Void Ray play seems like interesting option, but what when Z decides to counter it by Corruptors? Mutalisk harass as it is looks risky - especially in terms of timing push, when P can punish Z for trying to get mutas. I do think though, that mutas are too effective when P misses this timng
On November 12 2011 01:34 -Archangel- wrote: I am waiting for Terrans to finally start using Ravens against muta play. Mid/late game terrans seem to accumulate a lot of gas. Having at least 1 raven per base to drop PDD or fire off HSM is a great thing to do. Many zergs will not be able to get the right muta away from the flock before HSM hits. They would be able to run away with all mutas but in that case terran "won". Those mutas would not be attacking towers, workers or buildings.
Though I do see your point, I don't see why a highlevel terran would want to build a 200gas unit, when they can deal with anything that the raven provides with orbitals (scans-->detection, mules=marines-->mutaliskdefense). Just kidding with the marine-mule-imbaness . Ravens might be good, but I think right now the builds aren't tight enough for that level of play, and people just prefer to have 2more tanks and a little less marines (more scans, less mules) instead of a raven, which can be sniped rather "easily" on the current level of play, while marinecounts are still not that critical in your main army, as long as you have "a good amount".
On November 12 2011 01:08 Feidspar wrote: I'm no expert, but wouldn't aggressive stargate play be a good counter to fast mutas? Stargates hit before mutas come up. Something along the lines of FFE -> 2 stargates -> chronoing out several void rays and then reinforcing with phoenixes. I believe this hits before mutas or hydras come up, and phoenixes can handle either one of those in small numbers very well, while also pinning queens for voids.
yay/nay?
While you are correct low numbers of phoenix vs mutalisks favors towards phoenix, large numbers greatly favors mutalisks, unless of course you have the perfect phoenix micro or very high apm. Then phoenix will most likely win regardless of how many mutalisks, but that is not something that feels really possible due to the other things you have to do besides micro your phoenixes.
Yeah, it was Huskies great betamicro that let him win the 100 phoenix vs 100mutalisks battle of his unittest series. 100 Phoenix vs 100 Mutalisks-Test from the beta. Unitstats unchanged since then. Are some of you people even thinking before you post such stuff? "Thors suck vs mutalisks", "phoenix lose vs mutalisks", "stalkers lose vs mutalisks", "storms suck vs mutalisks"... Just waiting to hear a zerg player complain that his mutalisks suck vs mutalisks... Honestly. Get your "facts" straight before you post them.
There is a lot of problems with going 2base phoenix vs 3base zerg, inefficentness vs mutalisks isn't one of them.
On November 12 2011 03:43 Deimos0 wrote: Void Ray play seems like interesting option, but what when Z decides to counter it by Corruptors? Mutalisk harass as it is looks risky - especially in terms of timing push, when P can punish Z for trying to get mutas. I do think though, that mutas are too effective when P misses this timng
then you retreat your void rays to your army and expand or push him. Protoss players that go into heavy phoenix play have the problem that their vs ground army isn't good, guess which problem zerg players that go heavy into corruptors have. The difference is that void rays are still great vs ground, just be sure to focus the corruptors with your stalkers when you engage, void rays do the rest.
On November 12 2011 01:34 -Archangel- wrote: I am waiting for Terrans to finally start using Ravens against muta play. Mid/late game terrans seem to accumulate a lot of gas. Having at least 1 raven per base to drop PDD or fire off HSM is a great thing to do. Many zergs will not be able to get the right muta away from the flock before HSM hits. They would be able to run away with all mutas but in that case terran "won". Those mutas would not be attacking towers, workers or buildings.
Though I do see your point, I don't see why a highlevel terran would want to build a 200gas unit, when they can deal with anything that the raven provides with orbitals (scans-->detection, mules=marines-->mutaliskdefense). Just kidding with the marine-mule-imbaness . Ravens might be good, but I think right now the builds aren't tight enough for that level of play, and people just prefer to have 2more tanks and a little less marines (more scans, less mules) instead of a raven, which can be sniped rather "easily" on the current level of play, while marinecounts are still not that critical in your main army, as long as you have "a good amount".
On November 12 2011 01:08 Feidspar wrote: I'm no expert, but wouldn't aggressive stargate play be a good counter to fast mutas? Stargates hit before mutas come up. Something along the lines of FFE -> 2 stargates -> chronoing out several void rays and then reinforcing with phoenixes. I believe this hits before mutas or hydras come up, and phoenixes can handle either one of those in small numbers very well, while also pinning queens for voids.
yay/nay?
While you are correct low numbers of phoenix vs mutalisks favors towards phoenix, large numbers greatly favors mutalisks, unless of course you have the perfect phoenix micro or very high apm. Then phoenix will most likely win regardless of how many mutalisks, but that is not something that feels really possible due to the other things you have to do besides micro your phoenixes.
Yeah, it was Huskies great betamicro that let him win the 100 phoenix vs 100mutalisks battle of his unittest series. 100 Phoenix vs 100 Mutalisks-Test from the beta. Unitstats unchanged since then. Are some of you people even thinking before you post such stuff? "Thors suck vs mutalisks", "phoenix lose vs mutalisks", "stalkers lose vs mutalisks", "storms suck vs mutalisks"... Just waiting to hear a zerg player complain that his mutalisks suck vs mutalisks... Honestly. Get your "facts" straight before you post them.
There is a lot of problems with going 2base phoenix vs 3base zerg, inefficentness vs mutalisks isn't one of them.
On November 12 2011 03:43 Deimos0 wrote: Void Ray play seems like interesting option, but what when Z decides to counter it by Corruptors? Mutalisk harass as it is looks risky - especially in terms of timing push, when P can punish Z for trying to get mutas. I do think though, that mutas are too effective when P misses this timng
then you retreat your void rays to your army and expand or push him. Protoss players that go into heavy phoenix play have the problem that their vs ground army isn't good, guess which problem zerg players that go heavy into corruptors have. The difference is that void rays are still great vs ground, just be sure to focus the corruptors with your stalkers when you engage, void rays do the rest.
Meh Raven's are alright, they are really expensive, not very fast, and Mutas outrun HSM, It would be cool if HSM can catch up to mutas and pros have to split their death cloud to avoid utter destruction.
Despite what I said about thors and turrets, Mutas aren't OP, but there should be better ways to deal with them
On November 12 2011 01:34 -Archangel- wrote: I am waiting for Terrans to finally start using Ravens against muta play. Mid/late game terrans seem to accumulate a lot of gas. Having at least 1 raven per base to drop PDD or fire off HSM is a great thing to do. Many zergs will not be able to get the right muta away from the flock before HSM hits. They would be able to run away with all mutas but in that case terran "won". Those mutas would not be attacking towers, workers or buildings.
Though I do see your point, I don't see why a highlevel terran would want to build a 200gas unit, when they can deal with anything that the raven provides with orbitals (scans-->detection, mules=marines-->mutaliskdefense). Just kidding with the marine-mule-imbaness . Ravens might be good, but I think right now the builds aren't tight enough for that level of play, and people just prefer to have 2more tanks and a little less marines (more scans, less mules) instead of a raven, which can be sniped rather "easily" on the current level of play, while marinecounts are still not that critical in your main army, as long as you have "a good amount".
On November 12 2011 01:15 eYeball wrote:
On November 12 2011 01:08 Feidspar wrote: I'm no expert, but wouldn't aggressive stargate play be a good counter to fast mutas? Stargates hit before mutas come up. Something along the lines of FFE -> 2 stargates -> chronoing out several void rays and then reinforcing with phoenixes. I believe this hits before mutas or hydras come up, and phoenixes can handle either one of those in small numbers very well, while also pinning queens for voids.
yay/nay?
While you are correct low numbers of phoenix vs mutalisks favors towards phoenix, large numbers greatly favors mutalisks, unless of course you have the perfect phoenix micro or very high apm. Then phoenix will most likely win regardless of how many mutalisks, but that is not something that feels really possible due to the other things you have to do besides micro your phoenixes.
Yeah, it was Huskies great betamicro that let him win the 100 phoenix vs 100mutalisks battle of his unittest series. 100 Phoenix vs 100 Mutalisks-Test from the beta. Unitstats unchanged since then. Are some of you people even thinking before you post such stuff? "Thors suck vs mutalisks", "phoenix lose vs mutalisks", "stalkers lose vs mutalisks", "storms suck vs mutalisks"... Just waiting to hear a zerg player complain that his mutalisks suck vs mutalisks... Honestly. Get your "facts" straight before you post them.
There is a lot of problems with going 2base phoenix vs 3base zerg, inefficentness vs mutalisks isn't one of them.
On November 12 2011 03:43 Deimos0 wrote: Void Ray play seems like interesting option, but what when Z decides to counter it by Corruptors? Mutalisk harass as it is looks risky - especially in terms of timing push, when P can punish Z for trying to get mutas. I do think though, that mutas are too effective when P misses this timng
then you retreat your void rays to your army and expand or push him. Protoss players that go into heavy phoenix play have the problem that their vs ground army isn't good, guess which problem zerg players that go heavy into corruptors have. The difference is that void rays are still great vs ground, just be sure to focus the corruptors with your stalkers when you engage, void rays do the rest.
Meh Raven's are alright, they are really expensive, not very fast, and Mutas outrun HSM, It would be cool if HSM can catch up to mutas and pros have to split their death cloud to avoid utter destruction.
Despite what I said about thors and turrets, Mutas aren't OP, but there should be better ways to deal with them
But which sense would building mutalisks - hell even going spire before broodlords - make, if it was easy to shut down huge mutaflocks? Small mutaliskflocks are shut down by a few turrets, canons and low tier units before the mutalisks pay off anyways. The spire is worthless as a reactionary antiair because there are no scourges in SC2 (and even if there were scourges, they would simply suck vs 9range vikings and phoenix, not to mention blink stalkers). You can't even morph the mutalisks into guardians anymore, once they become useless. And in the big numbers, there is your "easy way to deal with them", so you're not going to build more mutalisks anyway.
The only ways to make that work would be, to either make mutalisks some kind of zerg reaper unit (so it might do damage very early, unless the opponent scouts it and the investment isn't to big for you) - which is just bullshit design... we really don't need more units that have no mid-lategame use - or to ridicoulosly nerf early game units that can shoot mutalisks and turrets and canons and rebalance the whole game around that...
As you said, Mutalisks aren't OP. They are really hard to deal with, but that's true for every form of aggression in SC2, and though I would like to have a little less allin options for every matchup in the game, I think the only way to have a good variation of short-longlasting entertaining games is that SC2 is designed with the defender having the advantage, but with the aggressor having the options.
Meh Raven's are alright, they are really expensive, not very fast, and Mutas outrun HSM, It would be cool if HSM can catch up to mutas and pros have to split their death cloud to avoid utter destruction.
Yes mutas outrun HSM. But if the Mutas outrun it, they are away and cant do anything except running. If HSM could catch up the following would happen:
1) range 6 + Speed greater then 3,75 means it will reach them almost instantly, so basically you get another splash which will never ever miss. 2) mutas are not the only target for a HSM which is basically 100 dmg with splash radius of 2 (more than fungal or storm and cant be dodged with that speed)
On November 12 2011 01:34 -Archangel- wrote: I am waiting for Terrans to finally start using Ravens against muta play. Mid/late game terrans seem to accumulate a lot of gas. Having at least 1 raven per base to drop PDD or fire off HSM is a great thing to do. Many zergs will not be able to get the right muta away from the flock before HSM hits. They would be able to run away with all mutas but in that case terran "won". Those mutas would not be attacking towers, workers or buildings.
Though I do see your point, I don't see why a highlevel terran would want to build a 200gas unit, when they can deal with anything that the raven provides with orbitals (scans-->detection, mules=marines-->mutaliskdefense). Just kidding with the marine-mule-imbaness . Ravens might be good, but I think right now the builds aren't tight enough for that level of play, and people just prefer to have 2more tanks and a little less marines (more scans, less mules) instead of a raven, which can be sniped rather "easily" on the current level of play, while marinecounts are still not that critical in your main army, as long as you have "a good amount".
On November 12 2011 01:15 eYeball wrote:
On November 12 2011 01:08 Feidspar wrote: I'm no expert, but wouldn't aggressive stargate play be a good counter to fast mutas? Stargates hit before mutas come up. Something along the lines of FFE -> 2 stargates -> chronoing out several void rays and then reinforcing with phoenixes. I believe this hits before mutas or hydras come up, and phoenixes can handle either one of those in small numbers very well, while also pinning queens for voids.
yay/nay?
While you are correct low numbers of phoenix vs mutalisks favors towards phoenix, large numbers greatly favors mutalisks, unless of course you have the perfect phoenix micro or very high apm. Then phoenix will most likely win regardless of how many mutalisks, but that is not something that feels really possible due to the other things you have to do besides micro your phoenixes.
Yeah, it was Huskies great betamicro that let him win the 100 phoenix vs 100mutalisks battle of his unittest series. 100 Phoenix vs 100 Mutalisks-Test from the beta. Unitstats unchanged since then. Are some of you people even thinking before you post such stuff? "Thors suck vs mutalisks", "phoenix lose vs mutalisks", "stalkers lose vs mutalisks", "storms suck vs mutalisks"... Just waiting to hear a zerg player complain that his mutalisks suck vs mutalisks... Honestly. Get your "facts" straight before you post them.
There is a lot of problems with going 2base phoenix vs 3base zerg, inefficentness vs mutalisks isn't one of them.
On November 12 2011 03:43 Deimos0 wrote: Void Ray play seems like interesting option, but what when Z decides to counter it by Corruptors? Mutalisk harass as it is looks risky - especially in terms of timing push, when P can punish Z for trying to get mutas. I do think though, that mutas are too effective when P misses this timng
then you retreat your void rays to your army and expand or push him. Protoss players that go into heavy phoenix play have the problem that their vs ground army isn't good, guess which problem zerg players that go heavy into corruptors have. The difference is that void rays are still great vs ground, just be sure to focus the corruptors with your stalkers when you engage, void rays do the rest.
Meh Raven's are alright, they are really expensive, not very fast, and Mutas outrun HSM, It would be cool if HSM can catch up to mutas and pros have to split their death cloud to avoid utter destruction.
Despite what I said about thors and turrets, Mutas aren't OP, but there should be better ways to deal with them
But which sense would building mutalisks - hell even going spire before broodlords - make, if it was easy to shut down huge mutaflocks? Small mutaliskflocks are shut down by a few turrets, canons and low tier units before the mutalisks pay off anyways. The spire is worthless as a reactionary antiair because there are no scourges in SC2 (and even if there were scourges, they would simply suck vs 9range vikings and phoenix, not to mention blink stalkers). You can't even morph the mutalisks into guardians anymore, once they become useless. And in the big numbers, there is your "easy way to deal with them", so you're not going to build more mutalisks anyway.
The only ways to make that work would be, to either make mutalisks some kind of zerg reaper unit (so it might do damage very early, unless the opponent scouts it and the investment isn't to big for you) - which is just bullshit design... we really don't need more units that have no mid-lategame use - or to ridicoulosly nerf early game units that can shoot mutalisks and turrets and canons and rebalance the whole game around that...
As you said, Mutalisks aren't OP. They are really hard to deal with, but that's true for every form of aggression in SC2, and though I would like to have a little less allin options for every matchup in the game, I think the only way to have a good variation of short-longlasting entertaining games is that SC2 is designed with the defender having the advantage, but with the aggressor having the options.
Well in a sense, the same way brood war players dealt with Irradiate tha costed 75 mana and is guarenteed to kill at least 1 mutalisk if not half/all of them, Mutas are still very popular in BW TvZ despite the way irradiate is instant and cheap
On November 12 2011 01:34 -Archangel- wrote: I am waiting for Terrans to finally start using Ravens against muta play. Mid/late game terrans seem to accumulate a lot of gas. Having at least 1 raven per base to drop PDD or fire off HSM is a great thing to do. Many zergs will not be able to get the right muta away from the flock before HSM hits. They would be able to run away with all mutas but in that case terran "won". Those mutas would not be attacking towers, workers or buildings.
Though I do see your point, I don't see why a highlevel terran would want to build a 200gas unit, when they can deal with anything that the raven provides with orbitals (scans-->detection, mules=marines-->mutaliskdefense). Just kidding with the marine-mule-imbaness . Ravens might be good, but I think right now the builds aren't tight enough for that level of play, and people just prefer to have 2more tanks and a little less marines (more scans, less mules) instead of a raven, which can be sniped rather "easily" on the current level of play, while marinecounts are still not that critical in your main army, as long as you have "a good amount".
On November 12 2011 01:15 eYeball wrote:
On November 12 2011 01:08 Feidspar wrote: I'm no expert, but wouldn't aggressive stargate play be a good counter to fast mutas? Stargates hit before mutas come up. Something along the lines of FFE -> 2 stargates -> chronoing out several void rays and then reinforcing with phoenixes. I believe this hits before mutas or hydras come up, and phoenixes can handle either one of those in small numbers very well, while also pinning queens for voids.
yay/nay?
While you are correct low numbers of phoenix vs mutalisks favors towards phoenix, large numbers greatly favors mutalisks, unless of course you have the perfect phoenix micro or very high apm. Then phoenix will most likely win regardless of how many mutalisks, but that is not something that feels really possible due to the other things you have to do besides micro your phoenixes.
Yeah, it was Huskies great betamicro that let him win the 100 phoenix vs 100mutalisks battle of his unittest series. 100 Phoenix vs 100 Mutalisks-Test from the beta. Unitstats unchanged since then. Are some of you people even thinking before you post such stuff? "Thors suck vs mutalisks", "phoenix lose vs mutalisks", "stalkers lose vs mutalisks", "storms suck vs mutalisks"... Just waiting to hear a zerg player complain that his mutalisks suck vs mutalisks... Honestly. Get your "facts" straight before you post them.
There is a lot of problems with going 2base phoenix vs 3base zerg, inefficentness vs mutalisks isn't one of them.
On November 12 2011 03:43 Deimos0 wrote: Void Ray play seems like interesting option, but what when Z decides to counter it by Corruptors? Mutalisk harass as it is looks risky - especially in terms of timing push, when P can punish Z for trying to get mutas. I do think though, that mutas are too effective when P misses this timng
then you retreat your void rays to your army and expand or push him. Protoss players that go into heavy phoenix play have the problem that their vs ground army isn't good, guess which problem zerg players that go heavy into corruptors have. The difference is that void rays are still great vs ground, just be sure to focus the corruptors with your stalkers when you engage, void rays do the rest.
Meh Raven's are alright, they are really expensive, not very fast, and Mutas outrun HSM, It would be cool if HSM can catch up to mutas and pros have to split their death cloud to avoid utter destruction.
Despite what I said about thors and turrets, Mutas aren't OP, but there should be better ways to deal with them
But which sense would building mutalisks - hell even going spire before broodlords - make, if it was easy to shut down huge mutaflocks? Small mutaliskflocks are shut down by a few turrets, canons and low tier units before the mutalisks pay off anyways. The spire is worthless as a reactionary antiair because there are no scourges in SC2 (and even if there were scourges, they would simply suck vs 9range vikings and phoenix, not to mention blink stalkers). You can't even morph the mutalisks into guardians anymore, once they become useless. And in the big numbers, there is your "easy way to deal with them", so you're not going to build more mutalisks anyway.
The only ways to make that work would be, to either make mutalisks some kind of zerg reaper unit (so it might do damage very early, unless the opponent scouts it and the investment isn't to big for you) - which is just bullshit design... we really don't need more units that have no mid-lategame use - or to ridicoulosly nerf early game units that can shoot mutalisks and turrets and canons and rebalance the whole game around that...
As you said, Mutalisks aren't OP. They are really hard to deal with, but that's true for every form of aggression in SC2, and though I would like to have a little less allin options for every matchup in the game, I think the only way to have a good variation of short-longlasting entertaining games is that SC2 is designed with the defender having the advantage, but with the aggressor having the options.
Well in a sense, the same way brood war players dealt with Irradiate tha costed 75 mana and is guarenteed to kill at least 1 mutalisk if not half/all of them, Mutas are still very popular in BW TvZ despite the way irradiate is instant and cheap
yeah, because in Broodwar mutalisks work like in the second way I described. Turrets, marines and canons are worse, dragoons don't have blink and the pathing of a drunken monkey that sees bananas in every direction but the one you clicked them, and mutalisks are limited to 12 in the first place. It is just a completly differently designed game in which actual "unit X beats unit Y" battles are less important than in SC2, because most of the time you're fighting against the AI to just make the units do what you want them to do. (I'm exaggerating... But I guess you can see the point I'm trying to make) Also with units clumping so hard in SC2 and unit battles usually being fought at high supplies (so there is always a ball of units), things like irradiate get out of hand really quickly when implemented. That's why the HSM was designed as weak as it was and has only been buffed slightly. Blizzard really has to be extremly careful with it! (and other forms of splash... see all the templar nerfs, infestors first being designed as rather weak damage dealers, then redesigned, then nerfed..., ghost nerfs, tank nerfs - it's always been the splash that was the most problematic in SC2, due to bigger armies and more blobbing than in BW)
On November 12 2011 01:34 -Archangel- wrote: I am waiting for Terrans to finally start using Ravens against muta play. Mid/late game terrans seem to accumulate a lot of gas. Having at least 1 raven per base to drop PDD or fire off HSM is a great thing to do. Many zergs will not be able to get the right muta away from the flock before HSM hits. They would be able to run away with all mutas but in that case terran "won". Those mutas would not be attacking towers, workers or buildings.
Though I do see your point, I don't see why a highlevel terran would want to build a 200gas unit, when they can deal with anything that the raven provides with orbitals (scans-->detection, mules=marines-->mutaliskdefense). Just kidding with the marine-mule-imbaness . Ravens might be good, but I think right now the builds aren't tight enough for that level of play, and people just prefer to have 2more tanks and a little less marines (more scans, less mules) instead of a raven, which can be sniped rather "easily" on the current level of play, while marinecounts are still not that critical in your main army, as long as you have "a good amount".
On November 12 2011 01:15 eYeball wrote:
On November 12 2011 01:08 Feidspar wrote: I'm no expert, but wouldn't aggressive stargate play be a good counter to fast mutas? Stargates hit before mutas come up. Something along the lines of FFE -> 2 stargates -> chronoing out several void rays and then reinforcing with phoenixes. I believe this hits before mutas or hydras come up, and phoenixes can handle either one of those in small numbers very well, while also pinning queens for voids.
yay/nay?
While you are correct low numbers of phoenix vs mutalisks favors towards phoenix, large numbers greatly favors mutalisks, unless of course you have the perfect phoenix micro or very high apm. Then phoenix will most likely win regardless of how many mutalisks, but that is not something that feels really possible due to the other things you have to do besides micro your phoenixes.
Yeah, it was Huskies great betamicro that let him win the 100 phoenix vs 100mutalisks battle of his unittest series. 100 Phoenix vs 100 Mutalisks-Test from the beta. Unitstats unchanged since then. Are some of you people even thinking before you post such stuff? "Thors suck vs mutalisks", "phoenix lose vs mutalisks", "stalkers lose vs mutalisks", "storms suck vs mutalisks"... Just waiting to hear a zerg player complain that his mutalisks suck vs mutalisks... Honestly. Get your "facts" straight before you post them.
There is a lot of problems with going 2base phoenix vs 3base zerg, inefficentness vs mutalisks isn't one of them.
On November 12 2011 03:43 Deimos0 wrote: Void Ray play seems like interesting option, but what when Z decides to counter it by Corruptors? Mutalisk harass as it is looks risky - especially in terms of timing push, when P can punish Z for trying to get mutas. I do think though, that mutas are too effective when P misses this timng
then you retreat your void rays to your army and expand or push him. Protoss players that go into heavy phoenix play have the problem that their vs ground army isn't good, guess which problem zerg players that go heavy into corruptors have. The difference is that void rays are still great vs ground, just be sure to focus the corruptors with your stalkers when you engage, void rays do the rest.
Meh Raven's are alright, they are really expensive, not very fast, and Mutas outrun HSM, It would be cool if HSM can catch up to mutas and pros have to split their death cloud to avoid utter destruction.
Despite what I said about thors and turrets, Mutas aren't OP, but there should be better ways to deal with them
But which sense would building mutalisks - hell even going spire before broodlords - make, if it was easy to shut down huge mutaflocks? Small mutaliskflocks are shut down by a few turrets, canons and low tier units before the mutalisks pay off anyways. The spire is worthless as a reactionary antiair because there are no scourges in SC2 (and even if there were scourges, they would simply suck vs 9range vikings and phoenix, not to mention blink stalkers). You can't even morph the mutalisks into guardians anymore, once they become useless. And in the big numbers, there is your "easy way to deal with them", so you're not going to build more mutalisks anyway.
The only ways to make that work would be, to either make mutalisks some kind of zerg reaper unit (so it might do damage very early, unless the opponent scouts it and the investment isn't to big for you) - which is just bullshit design... we really don't need more units that have no mid-lategame use - or to ridicoulosly nerf early game units that can shoot mutalisks and turrets and canons and rebalance the whole game around that...
As you said, Mutalisks aren't OP. They are really hard to deal with, but that's true for every form of aggression in SC2, and though I would like to have a little less allin options for every matchup in the game, I think the only way to have a good variation of short-longlasting entertaining games is that SC2 is designed with the defender having the advantage, but with the aggressor having the options.
Well in a sense, the same way brood war players dealt with Irradiate tha costed 75 mana and is guarenteed to kill at least 1 mutalisk if not half/all of them, Mutas are still very popular in BW TvZ despite the way irradiate is instant and cheap
yeah, because in Broodwar mutalisks work like in the second way I described. Turrets, marines and canons are worse, dragoons don't have blink and the pathing of a drunken monkey that sees bananas in every direction but the one you clicked them, and mutalisks are limited to 12 in the first place. It is just a completly differently designed game in which actual "unit X beats unit Y" battles are less important than in SC2, because most of the time you're fighting against the AI to just make the units do what you want them to do. (I'm exaggerating... But I guess you can see the point I'm trying to make) Also with units clumping so hard in SC2 and unit battles usually being fought at high supplies (so there is always a ball of units), things like irradiate get out of hand really quickly when implemented. That's why the HSM was designed as weak as it was and has only been buffed slightly. Blizzard really has to be extremly careful with it! (and other forms of splash... see all the templar nerfs, infestors first being designed as rather weak damage dealers, then redesigned, then nerfed..., ghost nerfs, tank nerfs - it's always been the splash that was the most problematic in SC2, due to bigger armies and more blobbing than in BW)
Yes, you are making a very valid point and of course I cannot question that SC1 and SC2 functions similarly and paths differently, but I feel HSM shouldn't be at the point that it does no damage, in the most likely case. It suffers from the same symptoms as Psi Storm vs Mutalisks
On November 12 2011 01:34 -Archangel- wrote: I am waiting for Terrans to finally start using Ravens against muta play. Mid/late game terrans seem to accumulate a lot of gas. Having at least 1 raven per base to drop PDD or fire off HSM is a great thing to do. Many zergs will not be able to get the right muta away from the flock before HSM hits. They would be able to run away with all mutas but in that case terran "won". Those mutas would not be attacking towers, workers or buildings.
Though I do see your point, I don't see why a highlevel terran would want to build a 200gas unit, when they can deal with anything that the raven provides with orbitals (scans-->detection, mules=marines-->mutaliskdefense). Just kidding with the marine-mule-imbaness . Ravens might be good, but I think right now the builds aren't tight enough for that level of play, and people just prefer to have 2more tanks and a little less marines (more scans, less mules) instead of a raven, which can be sniped rather "easily" on the current level of play, while marinecounts are still not that critical in your main army, as long as you have "a good amount".
On November 12 2011 01:15 eYeball wrote:
On November 12 2011 01:08 Feidspar wrote: I'm no expert, but wouldn't aggressive stargate play be a good counter to fast mutas? Stargates hit before mutas come up. Something along the lines of FFE -> 2 stargates -> chronoing out several void rays and then reinforcing with phoenixes. I believe this hits before mutas or hydras come up, and phoenixes can handle either one of those in small numbers very well, while also pinning queens for voids.
yay/nay?
While you are correct low numbers of phoenix vs mutalisks favors towards phoenix, large numbers greatly favors mutalisks, unless of course you have the perfect phoenix micro or very high apm. Then phoenix will most likely win regardless of how many mutalisks, but that is not something that feels really possible due to the other things you have to do besides micro your phoenixes.
Yeah, it was Huskies great betamicro that let him win the 100 phoenix vs 100mutalisks battle of his unittest series. 100 Phoenix vs 100 Mutalisks-Test from the beta. Unitstats unchanged since then. Are some of you people even thinking before you post such stuff? "Thors suck vs mutalisks", "phoenix lose vs mutalisks", "stalkers lose vs mutalisks", "storms suck vs mutalisks"... Just waiting to hear a zerg player complain that his mutalisks suck vs mutalisks... Honestly. Get your "facts" straight before you post them.
There is a lot of problems with going 2base phoenix vs 3base zerg, inefficentness vs mutalisks isn't one of them.
On November 12 2011 03:43 Deimos0 wrote: Void Ray play seems like interesting option, but what when Z decides to counter it by Corruptors? Mutalisk harass as it is looks risky - especially in terms of timing push, when P can punish Z for trying to get mutas. I do think though, that mutas are too effective when P misses this timng
then you retreat your void rays to your army and expand or push him. Protoss players that go into heavy phoenix play have the problem that their vs ground army isn't good, guess which problem zerg players that go heavy into corruptors have. The difference is that void rays are still great vs ground, just be sure to focus the corruptors with your stalkers when you engage, void rays do the rest.
Meh Raven's are alright, they are really expensive, not very fast, and Mutas outrun HSM, It would be cool if HSM can catch up to mutas and pros have to split their death cloud to avoid utter destruction.
Despite what I said about thors and turrets, Mutas aren't OP, but there should be better ways to deal with them
But which sense would building mutalisks - hell even going spire before broodlords - make, if it was easy to shut down huge mutaflocks? Small mutaliskflocks are shut down by a few turrets, canons and low tier units before the mutalisks pay off anyways. The spire is worthless as a reactionary antiair because there are no scourges in SC2 (and even if there were scourges, they would simply suck vs 9range vikings and phoenix, not to mention blink stalkers). You can't even morph the mutalisks into guardians anymore, once they become useless. And in the big numbers, there is your "easy way to deal with them", so you're not going to build more mutalisks anyway.
The only ways to make that work would be, to either make mutalisks some kind of zerg reaper unit (so it might do damage very early, unless the opponent scouts it and the investment isn't to big for you) - which is just bullshit design... we really don't need more units that have no mid-lategame use - or to ridicoulosly nerf early game units that can shoot mutalisks and turrets and canons and rebalance the whole game around that...
As you said, Mutalisks aren't OP. They are really hard to deal with, but that's true for every form of aggression in SC2, and though I would like to have a little less allin options for every matchup in the game, I think the only way to have a good variation of short-longlasting entertaining games is that SC2 is designed with the defender having the advantage, but with the aggressor having the options.
Do we really think games of 30-40 mutalisks just moving and killing things is desireable? In broodwar unit control limitations prevented that scenario where mutalisks could almost exclusively be made and destroy you. And hell even then the corsair existed because well microed mutaballs were incredible (Damn you Shiine!).
Right now we have scenarios in which a zerg can just mass mutalisks against Toss after a certain point and with no variation or transition in strategy win. I think the scope of the asymetry and the level of vulnerability is not at the right balance to make this scenario entertaining/fun to playout or good high level design.
Splash units would limit mutalisks to reasonable sized numbers in which they could "harass" and do damage but be only a part of a greater strategy in PvZ rather than the end all be all. I think the reaper comparison is hyperbole. The mobility and ability to mass quantities of mutas on a moment's notice are among several features that make that comparison a poor one.
To reiterate, I am open to persuasion, but I think currently the strength of Mutalisks in the PvZ matchup doesn't result in good competitive balance or entertaining matches. I would qualify that I could be persuaded that mutalisks are a momentum play and it's not unreasonable for there to be game states in which one race cannot win after a certain path has been completed (to dramatize big carrier switches in BW or large 3-3 tank armies. Winable but with an extremely low % and after an extremely arduous path to attain.)
On November 12 2011 01:34 -Archangel- wrote: I am waiting for Terrans to finally start using Ravens against muta play. Mid/late game terrans seem to accumulate a lot of gas. Having at least 1 raven per base to drop PDD or fire off HSM is a great thing to do. Many zergs will not be able to get the right muta away from the flock before HSM hits. They would be able to run away with all mutas but in that case terran "won". Those mutas would not be attacking towers, workers or buildings.
Though I do see your point, I don't see why a highlevel terran would want to build a 200gas unit, when they can deal with anything that the raven provides with orbitals (scans-->detection, mules=marines-->mutaliskdefense). Just kidding with the marine-mule-imbaness . Ravens might be good, but I think right now the builds aren't tight enough for that level of play, and people just prefer to have 2more tanks and a little less marines (more scans, less mules) instead of a raven, which can be sniped rather "easily" on the current level of play, while marinecounts are still not that critical in your main army, as long as you have "a good amount".
On November 12 2011 01:15 eYeball wrote:
On November 12 2011 01:08 Feidspar wrote: I'm no expert, but wouldn't aggressive stargate play be a good counter to fast mutas? Stargates hit before mutas come up. Something along the lines of FFE -> 2 stargates -> chronoing out several void rays and then reinforcing with phoenixes. I believe this hits before mutas or hydras come up, and phoenixes can handle either one of those in small numbers very well, while also pinning queens for voids.
yay/nay?
While you are correct low numbers of phoenix vs mutalisks favors towards phoenix, large numbers greatly favors mutalisks, unless of course you have the perfect phoenix micro or very high apm. Then phoenix will most likely win regardless of how many mutalisks, but that is not something that feels really possible due to the other things you have to do besides micro your phoenixes.
Yeah, it was Huskies great betamicro that let him win the 100 phoenix vs 100mutalisks battle of his unittest series. 100 Phoenix vs 100 Mutalisks-Test from the beta. Unitstats unchanged since then. Are some of you people even thinking before you post such stuff? "Thors suck vs mutalisks", "phoenix lose vs mutalisks", "stalkers lose vs mutalisks", "storms suck vs mutalisks"... Just waiting to hear a zerg player complain that his mutalisks suck vs mutalisks... Honestly. Get your "facts" straight before you post them.
There is a lot of problems with going 2base phoenix vs 3base zerg, inefficentness vs mutalisks isn't one of them.
On November 12 2011 03:43 Deimos0 wrote: Void Ray play seems like interesting option, but what when Z decides to counter it by Corruptors? Mutalisk harass as it is looks risky - especially in terms of timing push, when P can punish Z for trying to get mutas. I do think though, that mutas are too effective when P misses this timng
then you retreat your void rays to your army and expand or push him. Protoss players that go into heavy phoenix play have the problem that their vs ground army isn't good, guess which problem zerg players that go heavy into corruptors have. The difference is that void rays are still great vs ground, just be sure to focus the corruptors with your stalkers when you engage, void rays do the rest.
Meh Raven's are alright, they are really expensive, not very fast, and Mutas outrun HSM, It would be cool if HSM can catch up to mutas and pros have to split their death cloud to avoid utter destruction.
Despite what I said about thors and turrets, Mutas aren't OP, but there should be better ways to deal with them
But which sense would building mutalisks - hell even going spire before broodlords - make, if it was easy to shut down huge mutaflocks? Small mutaliskflocks are shut down by a few turrets, canons and low tier units before the mutalisks pay off anyways. The spire is worthless as a reactionary antiair because there are no scourges in SC2 (and even if there were scourges, they would simply suck vs 9range vikings and phoenix, not to mention blink stalkers). You can't even morph the mutalisks into guardians anymore, once they become useless. And in the big numbers, there is your "easy way to deal with them", so you're not going to build more mutalisks anyway.
The only ways to make that work would be, to either make mutalisks some kind of zerg reaper unit (so it might do damage very early, unless the opponent scouts it and the investment isn't to big for you) - which is just bullshit design... we really don't need more units that have no mid-lategame use - or to ridicoulosly nerf early game units that can shoot mutalisks and turrets and canons and rebalance the whole game around that...
As you said, Mutalisks aren't OP. They are really hard to deal with, but that's true for every form of aggression in SC2, and though I would like to have a little less allin options for every matchup in the game, I think the only way to have a good variation of short-longlasting entertaining games is that SC2 is designed with the defender having the advantage, but with the aggressor having the options.
Well in a sense, the same way brood war players dealt with Irradiate tha costed 75 mana and is guarenteed to kill at least 1 mutalisk if not half/all of them, Mutas are still very popular in BW TvZ despite the way irradiate is instant and cheap
yeah, because in Broodwar mutalisks work like in the second way I described. Turrets, marines and canons are worse, dragoons don't have blink and the pathing of a drunken monkey that sees bananas in every direction but the one you clicked them, and mutalisks are limited to 12 in the first place. It is just a completly differently designed game in which actual "unit X beats unit Y" battles are less important than in SC2, because most of the time you're fighting against the AI to just make the units do what you want them to do. (I'm exaggerating... But I guess you can see the point I'm trying to make) Also with units clumping so hard in SC2 and unit battles usually being fought at high supplies (so there is always a ball of units), things like irradiate get out of hand really quickly when implemented. That's why the HSM was designed as weak as it was and has only been buffed slightly. Blizzard really has to be extremly careful with it! (and other forms of splash... see all the templar nerfs, infestors first being designed as rather weak damage dealers, then redesigned, then nerfed..., ghost nerfs, tank nerfs - it's always been the splash that was the most problematic in SC2, due to bigger armies and more blobbing than in BW)
From what I see, this is more of an argument for STRONGER splash rather than weaker... force players to split up their units so the splash isn't as devastating. More small battles across the map, rather than Deathball Wars(TM). Sure, you'd see some lower-tier players complaining about their entire army evaporating, but if we make sure each race has access to great splash (or similar effects, see Dark Swarm and whatever the Disruption Web knockoff the Viper has is), then they'll just make battles at their level be splash damage wars, which is okay in and of itself. I'd really like to see situations where it's the best idea to NOT have your army all in the same general location. I'd like to see it be a really good idea to split off 20 supply and raid a base with it. Right now, though, you need all your units in one place, because there's no real penalty for having everything grouped up in one area (there are penalties for clumping, just not for having your army in one general area).
Anyway, slightly off-topic. About Mutas? I think they might actually be impossible to balance without the other races having access to really powerful splash, because otherwise it's possible to completely lock your opponent down with them, deal economic advantage, and get more bases up. End result is that you have way more Mutas than they have units, and even if they're not cost-effective, you can still wreck them because you're more mobile and just plain outnumber them.
On November 12 2011 01:34 -Archangel- wrote: I am waiting for Terrans to finally start using Ravens against muta play. Mid/late game terrans seem to accumulate a lot of gas. Having at least 1 raven per base to drop PDD or fire off HSM is a great thing to do. Many zergs will not be able to get the right muta away from the flock before HSM hits. They would be able to run away with all mutas but in that case terran "won". Those mutas would not be attacking towers, workers or buildings.
Though I do see your point, I don't see why a highlevel terran would want to build a 200gas unit, when they can deal with anything that the raven provides with orbitals (scans-->detection, mules=marines-->mutaliskdefense). Just kidding with the marine-mule-imbaness . Ravens might be good, but I think right now the builds aren't tight enough for that level of play, and people just prefer to have 2more tanks and a little less marines (more scans, less mules) instead of a raven, which can be sniped rather "easily" on the current level of play, while marinecounts are still not that critical in your main army, as long as you have "a good amount".
On November 12 2011 01:15 eYeball wrote:
On November 12 2011 01:08 Feidspar wrote: I'm no expert, but wouldn't aggressive stargate play be a good counter to fast mutas? Stargates hit before mutas come up. Something along the lines of FFE -> 2 stargates -> chronoing out several void rays and then reinforcing with phoenixes. I believe this hits before mutas or hydras come up, and phoenixes can handle either one of those in small numbers very well, while also pinning queens for voids.
yay/nay?
While you are correct low numbers of phoenix vs mutalisks favors towards phoenix, large numbers greatly favors mutalisks, unless of course you have the perfect phoenix micro or very high apm. Then phoenix will most likely win regardless of how many mutalisks, but that is not something that feels really possible due to the other things you have to do besides micro your phoenixes.
Yeah, it was Huskies great betamicro that let him win the 100 phoenix vs 100mutalisks battle of his unittest series. 100 Phoenix vs 100 Mutalisks-Test from the beta. Unitstats unchanged since then. Are some of you people even thinking before you post such stuff? "Thors suck vs mutalisks", "phoenix lose vs mutalisks", "stalkers lose vs mutalisks", "storms suck vs mutalisks"... Just waiting to hear a zerg player complain that his mutalisks suck vs mutalisks... Honestly. Get your "facts" straight before you post them.
There is a lot of problems with going 2base phoenix vs 3base zerg, inefficentness vs mutalisks isn't one of them.
On November 12 2011 03:43 Deimos0 wrote: Void Ray play seems like interesting option, but what when Z decides to counter it by Corruptors? Mutalisk harass as it is looks risky - especially in terms of timing push, when P can punish Z for trying to get mutas. I do think though, that mutas are too effective when P misses this timng
then you retreat your void rays to your army and expand or push him. Protoss players that go into heavy phoenix play have the problem that their vs ground army isn't good, guess which problem zerg players that go heavy into corruptors have. The difference is that void rays are still great vs ground, just be sure to focus the corruptors with your stalkers when you engage, void rays do the rest.
Meh Raven's are alright, they are really expensive, not very fast, and Mutas outrun HSM, It would be cool if HSM can catch up to mutas and pros have to split their death cloud to avoid utter destruction.
Despite what I said about thors and turrets, Mutas aren't OP, but there should be better ways to deal with them
But which sense would building mutalisks - hell even going spire before broodlords - make, if it was easy to shut down huge mutaflocks? Small mutaliskflocks are shut down by a few turrets, canons and low tier units before the mutalisks pay off anyways. The spire is worthless as a reactionary antiair because there are no scourges in SC2 (and even if there were scourges, they would simply suck vs 9range vikings and phoenix, not to mention blink stalkers). You can't even morph the mutalisks into guardians anymore, once they become useless. And in the big numbers, there is your "easy way to deal with them", so you're not going to build more mutalisks anyway.
The only ways to make that work would be, to either make mutalisks some kind of zerg reaper unit (so it might do damage very early, unless the opponent scouts it and the investment isn't to big for you) - which is just bullshit design... we really don't need more units that have no mid-lategame use - or to ridicoulosly nerf early game units that can shoot mutalisks and turrets and canons and rebalance the whole game around that...
As you said, Mutalisks aren't OP. They are really hard to deal with, but that's true for every form of aggression in SC2, and though I would like to have a little less allin options for every matchup in the game, I think the only way to have a good variation of short-longlasting entertaining games is that SC2 is designed with the defender having the advantage, but with the aggressor having the options.
Well in a sense, the same way brood war players dealt with Irradiate tha costed 75 mana and is guarenteed to kill at least 1 mutalisk if not half/all of them, Mutas are still very popular in BW TvZ despite the way irradiate is instant and cheap
yeah, because in Broodwar mutalisks work like in the second way I described. Turrets, marines and canons are worse, dragoons don't have blink and the pathing of a drunken monkey that sees bananas in every direction but the one you clicked them, and mutalisks are limited to 12 in the first place. It is just a completly differently designed game in which actual "unit X beats unit Y" battles are less important than in SC2, because most of the time you're fighting against the AI to just make the units do what you want them to do. (I'm exaggerating... But I guess you can see the point I'm trying to make) Also with units clumping so hard in SC2 and unit battles usually being fought at high supplies (so there is always a ball of units), things like irradiate get out of hand really quickly when implemented. That's why the HSM was designed as weak as it was and has only been buffed slightly. Blizzard really has to be extremly careful with it! (and other forms of splash... see all the templar nerfs, infestors first being designed as rather weak damage dealers, then redesigned, then nerfed..., ghost nerfs, tank nerfs - it's always been the splash that was the most problematic in SC2, due to bigger armies and more blobbing than in BW)
From what I see, this is more of an argument for STRONGER splash rather than weaker... force players to split up their units so the splash isn't as devastating. More small battles across the map, rather than Deathball Wars(TM). Sure, you'd see some lower-tier players complaining about their entire army evaporating, but if we make sure each race has access to great splash (or similar effects, see Dark Swarm and whatever the Disruption Web knockoff the Viper has is), then they'll just make battles at their level be splash damage wars, which is okay in and of itself. I'd really like to see situations where it's the best idea to NOT have your army all in the same general location. I'd like to see it be a really good idea to split off 20 supply and raid a base with it. Right now, though, you need all your units in one place, because there's no real penalty for having everything grouped up in one area (there are penalties for clumping, just not for having your army in one general area).
Anyway, slightly off-topic. About Mutas? I think they might actually be impossible to balance without the other races having access to really powerful splash, because otherwise it's possible to completely lock your opponent down with them, deal economic advantage, and get more bases up. End result is that you have way more Mutas than they have units, and even if they're not cost-effective, you can still wreck them because you're more mobile and just plain outnumber them.
Well Splash is a fine line to walk, but yes Good/Accurate splash is a step in the right direction to discourage Muta Clouds, not muta harrass not, Muta Death Mist Cloud Swarm is the main issue, Again not OP, but should have better ways to deter it.
EPT
. Ravens might be good, but I think right now the builds aren't tight enough for that level of play, and people just prefer to have 2more tanks and a little less marines (more scans, less mules) instead of a raven, which can be sniped rather "easily" on the current level of play, while marinecounts are still not that critical in your main army, as long as you have "a good amount".
