|
On November 12 2011 06:38 Acritter wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2011 06:14 Big J wrote:On November 12 2011 05:47 Blasterion wrote:On November 12 2011 05:12 Big J wrote:On November 12 2011 04:37 Blasterion wrote:On November 12 2011 04:10 Big J wrote: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.
I'm for anything that makes the game less big army play, as long as it doesn't mean that we go back in the stone age of strategy game control and as long as macro and decision making are still as important parts as unit control.
Yet I think that this ship has sailed and huge changes would have to be made to accomplish this. (less income and production per base, unit stat changes etc etc)
And I don't think that "just stronger splash" would provide this. It would just mean that players stop using low tier units, and go into power unit mode. And that would turn out in even more of a big army battles, as we see in Mech vs Mech battles (TvT) and colossus war of the worlds scenarios in PvP.
on the other thing. I think blizzard is doing a great job with the new units and abilities in HotS to prevent such "I'm gonna go unit X until the end of times" - scenarios in the first place, but I think it is too far offtopic and theorycraft that I want to explain what I'm talking about here. (PM me if you're interested)
also, to a certain point I want mass mutalisks to be useful, because it just feels so zergy to have a big amount of unit type X, while "I'm gonna have a medium roach/hydra main army + 2ultralisks, with zergling and mutalisk harass forces and 3swarm hosts somewhere and the ability to morph my zerglings to banelings so they can join my main army and for back up I'm gonna use that 1infestor and viper for a perfect spell X" just doesn't seem like a swarm to me.
|
On November 12 2011 07:28 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2011 06:38 Acritter wrote:On November 12 2011 06:14 Big J wrote:On November 12 2011 05:47 Blasterion wrote:On November 12 2011 05:12 Big J wrote:On November 12 2011 04:37 Blasterion wrote:On November 12 2011 04:10 Big J wrote: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. I'm for anything that makes the game less big army play, as long as it doesn't mean that we go back in the stone age of strategy game control and as long as macro and decision making are still as important parts as unit control. Yet I think that this ship has sailed and huge changes would have to be made to accomplish this. (less income and production per base, unit stat changes etc etc) And I don't think that "just stronger splash" would provide this. It would just mean that players stop using low tier units, and go into power unit mode. And that would turn out in even more of a big army battles, as we see in Mech vs Mech battles (TvT) and colossus war of the worlds scenarios in PvP. on the other thing. I think blizzard is doing a great job with the new units and abilities in HotS to prevent such "I'm gonna go unit X until the end of times" - scenarios in the first place, but I think it is too far offtopic and theorycraft that I want to explain what I'm talking about here. (PM me if you're interested) also, to a certain point I want mass mutalisks to be useful, because it just feels so zergy to have a big amount of unit type X, while "I'm gonna have a medium roach/hydra main army + 2ultralisks, with zergling and mutalisk harass forces and 3swarm hosts somewhere and the ability to morph my zerglings to banelings so they can join my main army and for back up I'm gonna use that 1infestor and viper for a perfect spell X" just doesn't seem like a swarm to me.
I can't speak for PvP but I gotta tell you TvT Mech is an art, just because the way Siege Tank works, since you can't just a move your tanks it's something incredibly beautiful, that's the art of mech terran, Yeah I am a mech fan and bias against a-move bio play. (How I see it)
|
|
|
Not good at all, unfortunately. ZeeRax only ever built a single void ray, and he could've easily destroyed the expo he attacked if he didn't sit above multiple building spore crawlers quite literaly from start to finish. He was plinking away at overlords like a real pro.
You can see he clearly caught mondragon with his pants down and mondragon has absolutely zero to defend it but two queens. Fortunately ZeeRax derped pretty hard.
|
Canada13389 Posts
On November 12 2011 09:26 Feidspar wrote:Not good at all, unfortunately. ZeeRax only ever built a single void ray, and he could've easily destroyed the expo he attacked if he didn't sit above multiple building spore crawlers quite literaly from start to finish. He was plinking away at overlords like a real pro. You can see he clearly caught mondragon with his pants down and mondragon has absolutely zero to defend it but two queens. Fortunately ZeeRax derped pretty hard.
Just go watch GSL Code A and S for the last 2 months and youll see more than enough examples. Or watch tournaments at all 
|
On November 12 2011 09:30 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2011 09:26 Feidspar wrote:On November 12 2011 07:46 Dakkon B wrote:On November 12 2011 03:35 Feidspar wrote: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? I'd like to see it. Please do. http://sc2casts.com/cast3131-Mondragon-vs-ZeeRax-Best-of-3-TSL-3-Round-of-32good enough or do I need to find another one? Not good at all, unfortunately. ZeeRax only ever built a single void ray, and he could've easily destroyed the expo he attacked if he didn't sit above multiple building spore crawlers quite literaly from start to finish. He was plinking away at overlords like a real pro. You can see he clearly caught mondragon with his pants down and mondragon has absolutely zero to defend it but two queens. Fortunately ZeeRax derped pretty hard. Just go watch GSL Code A and S for the last 2 months and youll see more than enough examples. Or watch tournaments at all
What he said.
|
On November 12 2011 09:30 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2011 09:26 Feidspar wrote:On November 12 2011 07:46 Dakkon B wrote:On November 12 2011 03:35 Feidspar wrote: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? I'd like to see it. Please do. http://sc2casts.com/cast3131-Mondragon-vs-ZeeRax-Best-of-3-TSL-3-Round-of-32good enough or do I need to find another one? Not good at all, unfortunately. ZeeRax only ever built a single void ray, and he could've easily destroyed the expo he attacked if he didn't sit above multiple building spore crawlers quite literaly from start to finish. He was plinking away at overlords like a real pro. You can see he clearly caught mondragon with his pants down and mondragon has absolutely zero to defend it but two queens. Fortunately ZeeRax derped pretty hard. Just go watch GSL Code A and S for the last 2 months and youll see more than enough examples. Or watch tournaments at all
Quite possibly the worst counter statement to what he said possible... This guy actually analyzed the game and showed why it is a bad example, and you just say "go watch tournaments" name one GSL November game that a P player loses because of Muta being "overpowered" I'm sorry but you seem to just be unreasonably biased, like most of the people whining in this thread. At least try to argue with facts and ANALYSIS.
Just because X Protoss player lost against Muta or whatever you want to call OP, doesn't mean you can take statistics and throw out generalizations and have any valid point. If you actually analyze games in question, there is almost always a point that the Protoss player made a crucial mistake or a terrible counter to Muta. The introduction of the new popularity of Muta in ZvP is so unlearned that speculation or claims of imbalance are ridiculous assumptions without any pool of experience or metagame. Let the game develop, Protoss players that make good decisions are crushing Zergs consistently throughout many major tournaments. People simply need to adjust to the new unit composition Zergs have been using against Protoss.
|
The trouble with this reasoning (the OP) is that it completely ignores the fact that other units are also being added to the game.
For instance, based on Blizzcon I can make similar assertions:
Marines are overpowred in WoL because burrowed banelings and ultra-charge attack are being introduced.
Protoss sit on 2-3 base and mass a deathball is OP vs zerg because now zerg are being given T2 siege options.
|
What Protoss players really need is for someone in the community that has a lot of success against ZvP mutas to come out and make a comprehensive guide. As of right now it seems no one has figured out a standard procedure to dealing with mutas, I just watch player after player either break down completely against it or catch the zerg with a terrible mistake and use the low muta count moment to rush out units for an attack.
I don't like a situation where one side's ticket to victory is entirely dependent on capitalizing on the mistakes of their opponent because if both sides were to theoretically play perfect one side (Zerg) would win everytime.
|
On November 13 2011 02:43 willyallthewei wrote:
What Protoss players really need is for someone in the community that has a lot of success against ZvP mutas to come out and make a comprehensive guide. As of right now it seems no one has figured out a standard procedure to dealing with mutas, I just watch player after player either break down completely against it or catch the zerg with a terrible mistake and use the low muta count moment to rush out units for an attack.
I don't like a situation where one side's ticket to victory is entirely dependent on capitalizing on the mistakes of their opponent because if both sides were to theoretically play perfect one side (Zerg) would win everytime.
Says who? No one can make that assumption that if both sides play perfectly the Zerg will always win. That is just not true. I would see the opposite to be quite a stronger case to make. How do you make such an assumption? Protoss players never seem to be satisfied with letting the game develop itself instead they whine about balance.
EDIT: I agree with your first sentence and the second sentence until the comma though however 
|
On November 12 2011 17:20 qui wrote:
The trouble with this reasoning (the OP) is that it completely ignores the fact that other units are also being added to the game.
For instance, based on Blizzcon I can make similar assertions:
Marines are overpowred in WoL because burrowed banelings and ultra-charge attack are being introduced.
Protoss sit on 2-3 base and mass a deathball is OP vs zerg because now zerg are being given T2 siege options.
The difference being that Blizz didnt say, that they were adding those features/units for those reasons. On the other hand, they did say, that Tempest is being added because of too powerful mass mutas.
|
On November 12 2011 13:53 EctoMimed wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2011 09:30 ZeromuS wrote:On November 12 2011 09:26 Feidspar wrote:On November 12 2011 07:46 Dakkon B wrote:On November 12 2011 03:35 Feidspar wrote: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? I'd like to see it. Please do. http://sc2casts.com/cast3131-Mondragon-vs-ZeeRax-Best-of-3-TSL-3-Round-of-32good enough or do I need to find another one? Not good at all, unfortunately. ZeeRax only ever built a single void ray, and he could've easily destroyed the expo he attacked if he didn't sit above multiple building spore crawlers quite literaly from start to finish. He was plinking away at overlords like a real pro. You can see he clearly caught mondragon with his pants down and mondragon has absolutely zero to defend it but two queens. Fortunately ZeeRax derped pretty hard. Just go watch GSL Code A and S for the last 2 months and youll see more than enough examples. Or watch tournaments at all Quite possibly the worst counter statement to what he said possible... This guy actually analyzed the game and showed why it is a bad example, and you just say "go watch tournaments" name one GSL November game that a P player loses because of Muta being "overpowered" I'm sorry but you seem to just be unreasonably biased, like most of the people whining in this thread. At least try to argue with facts and ANALYSIS. Just because X Protoss player lost against Muta or whatever you want to call OP, doesn't mean you can take statistics and throw out generalizations and have any valid point. If you actually analyze games in question, there is almost always a point that the Protoss player made a crucial mistake or a terrible counter to Muta. The introduction of the new popularity of Muta in ZvP is so unlearned that speculation or claims of imbalance are ridiculous assumptions without any pool of experience or metagame. Let the game develop, Protoss players that make good decisions are crushing Zergs consistently throughout many major tournaments. People simply need to adjust to the new unit composition Zergs have been using against Protoss.
You didn't watch game one of Hero and CrazyMoving did you? To say the least.....Mutas were being abusive and there was nothing Hero could do about it. And he made ALL of the proper moves to counter and it didn't work.
|
On November 13 2011 03:40 EctoMimed wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2011 02:43 willyallthewei wrote:
What Protoss players really need is for someone in the community that has a lot of success against ZvP mutas to come out and make a comprehensive guide. As of right now it seems no one has figured out a standard procedure to dealing with mutas, I just watch player after player either break down completely against it or catch the zerg with a terrible mistake and use the low muta count moment to rush out units for an attack.
I don't like a situation where one side's ticket to victory is entirely dependent on capitalizing on the mistakes of their opponent because if both sides were to theoretically play perfect one side (Zerg) would win everytime.
Says who? No one can make that assumption that if both sides play perfectly the Zerg will always win. That is just not true. I would see the opposite to be quite a stronger case to make. How do you make such an assumption? Protoss players never seem to be satisfied with letting the game develop itself instead they whine about balance.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh pllllllllllllllllllllllllllllz!
Protoss players were quiet for over a year, while zergs were bitching about every single thing. And it turns out, zergs were never as underpowered, as protoss were the last quarter.
|
On November 13 2011 02:43 willyallthewei wrote:
What Protoss players really need is for someone in the community that has a lot of success against ZvP mutas to come out and make a comprehensive guide. As of right now it seems no one has figured out a standard procedure to dealing with mutas, I just watch player after player either break down completely against it or catch the zerg with a terrible mistake and use the low muta count moment to rush out units for an attack.
I don't like a situation where one side's ticket to victory is entirely dependent on capitalizing on the mistakes of their opponent because if both sides were to theoretically play perfect one side (Zerg) would win everytime.
Yeah, you mean like "If terrans would micro perfectly, marines would counter everything because a splash unit would never hit more than one marine, while the marine is a counter to every other unit in a cost vs cost fight." (except for perfectly controlled blink stalkers maybe, but I guess noone could tech up to blink stalkers if the opponent was to control marines perfectly)
On November 13 2011 03:54 IVN wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2011 17:20 qui wrote:
The trouble with this reasoning (the OP) is that it completely ignores the fact that other units are also being added to the game.
For instance, based on Blizzcon I can make similar assertions:
Marines are overpowred in WoL because burrowed banelings and ultra-charge attack are being introduced.
Protoss sit on 2-3 base and mass a deathball is OP vs zerg because now zerg are being given T2 siege options. The difference being that Blizz didnt say, that they were adding those features/units for those reasons. On the other hand, they did say, that Tempest is being added because of too powerful mass mutas.
yeah and then they said that the battlehellion was added to be able to tank more damage and showed a video in which a protoss player was attacking up a ramp with zealots against sieged tanks and a handful of battlehellions...
Come on, those are teaser videos and should show what those units do and what they say is just something to justify adding a unit.
They could also have said: "The carrier sucked so we wanted to replace it with another flaggship. We hope that someone finds a use for it..." Guess how reactions to that would have been.
On November 13 2011 03:58 IVN wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2011 03:40 EctoMimed wrote:On November 13 2011 02:43 willyallthewei wrote:
What Protoss players really need is for someone in the community that has a lot of success against ZvP mutas to come out and make a comprehensive guide. As of right now it seems no one has figured out a standard procedure to dealing with mutas, I just watch player after player either break down completely against it or catch the zerg with a terrible mistake and use the low muta count moment to rush out units for an attack.
I don't like a situation where one side's ticket to victory is entirely dependent on capitalizing on the mistakes of their opponent because if both sides were to theoretically play perfect one side (Zerg) would win everytime.
Says who? No one can make that assumption that if both sides play perfectly the Zerg will always win. That is just not true. I would see the opposite to be quite a stronger case to make. How do you make such an assumption? Protoss players never seem to be satisfied with letting the game develop itself instead they whine about balance. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh pllllllllllllllllllllllllllllz! Protoss players were quiet for over a year, while zergs were bitching about every single thing. And it turns out, zergs were never as underpowered, as protoss were the last quarter.
Edit: Watch the international winrates... Right now we have 57:43 in favor of zerg in PvZ (which is the best winrate for zerg until now). The best winrate for protoss in february or january was something like 56:44. So it was pretty similar.
|
On November 13 2011 03:58 shockaslim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2011 13:53 EctoMimed wrote:On November 12 2011 09:30 ZeromuS wrote:On November 12 2011 09:26 Feidspar wrote:On November 12 2011 07:46 Dakkon B wrote:On November 12 2011 03:35 Feidspar wrote: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? I'd like to see it. Please do. http://sc2casts.com/cast3131-Mondragon-vs-ZeeRax-Best-of-3-TSL-3-Round-of-32good enough or do I need to find another one? Not good at all, unfortunately. ZeeRax only ever built a single void ray, and he could've easily destroyed the expo he attacked if he didn't sit above multiple building spore crawlers quite literaly from start to finish. He was plinking away at overlords like a real pro. You can see he clearly caught mondragon with his pants down and mondragon has absolutely zero to defend it but two queens. Fortunately ZeeRax derped pretty hard. Just go watch GSL Code A and S for the last 2 months and youll see more than enough examples. Or watch tournaments at all Quite possibly the worst counter statement to what he said possible... This guy actually analyzed the game and showed why it is a bad example, and you just say "go watch tournaments" name one GSL November game that a P player loses because of Muta being "overpowered" I'm sorry but you seem to just be unreasonably biased, like most of the people whining in this thread. At least try to argue with facts and ANALYSIS. Just because X Protoss player lost against Muta or whatever you want to call OP, doesn't mean you can take statistics and throw out generalizations and have any valid point. If you actually analyze games in question, there is almost always a point that the Protoss player made a crucial mistake or a terrible counter to Muta. The introduction of the new popularity of Muta in ZvP is so unlearned that speculation or claims of imbalance are ridiculous assumptions without any pool of experience or metagame. Let the game develop, Protoss players that make good decisions are crushing Zergs consistently throughout many major tournaments. People simply need to adjust to the new unit composition Zergs have been using against Protoss. You didn't watch game one of Hero and CrazyMoving did you? To say the least.....Mutas were being abusive and there was nothing Hero could do about it. And he made ALL of the proper moves to counter and it didn't work.
Obviously he did not make all the proper moves if it did not work..
First off, CrazyMoving was not the favorite going into this, so a lot of people are biased assessing this game as they want their favorite to win. The stargate opener was Hero's decision in this game that was his first gamble. (you are talking about game 1 correct?)
Here are a few critical points that are not related to Mutalisk that CrazyMoving had going for him:
-His 3rd around 4 minutes, around 7 minutes before Hero's
-He defended with spore crawlers thus taking no damage as Hero made only 1 voidray for the majority of his air pressure
-He did not overreact and make Hydras to defend the air pressure
-He was building up a bunch roaches the whole early game which he held onto into the late game (edit actually this point is bullshit idk what happened to those roaches lmao where did he suicide them?)
Some overall points from both players:
-Hero's blink stalker control was questionable and did not defend adequately it was downright painful to watch him around 15-17 minutes using his stalkers to blink over defend but as soon as the muta flew back he walked his stalkers back to the right... He really should have left at least a few of his stalkers by the natural
-Hero went on tilt and made a push that was a terrible decision. And he stormed himself as he pushed out, losing vital templars
-Hero over extended at 20 minutes and then pushed all the way back home.
-CrazyMoving dodged so many storms and really out played Hero
-Hero could have built more cannons or more phoenix, or built archons much earlier.
I agree it was a frustrating game to watch as a Hero fan, but he really could have dealt with CrazyMoving much more effectively. Mutaling is fragile and Hero could have handled it better in many aspects.
|
On November 13 2011 03:58 shockaslim wrote:You didn't watch game one of Hero and CrazyMoving did you? To say the least.....Mutas were being abusive and there was nothing Hero could do about it. And he made ALL of the proper moves to counter and it didn't work.
Hero never built more than a single void ray, showed it right away, did pretty much nothing with his airforce, and only had one stargate.
I remain of the opinion that zerg has nothing to stop early void rays. Go double stargate into 3-4 void rays, and the rest can be phoenixes. Or just keep pumping void rays because, honestly, they're great against everything.
I want to see a replay of a zerg shutting down fast 2 stargate void ray play.
|
On November 13 2011 04:48 Feidspar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2011 03:58 shockaslim wrote:You didn't watch game one of Hero and CrazyMoving did you? To say the least.....Mutas were being abusive and there was nothing Hero could do about it. And he made ALL of the proper moves to counter and it didn't work.
Hero never built more than a single void ray, showed it right away, did pretty much nothing with his airforce, and only had one stargate. I remain of the opinion that zerg has nothing to stop early void rays. Go double stargate into 3-4 void rays, and the rest can be phoenixes. Or just keep pumping void rays because, honestly, they're great against everything. I want to see a replay of a zerg shutting down fast 2 stargate void ray play.
Zergs can definitely defend it, but it is really strong.
Honestly though 1 stargate with focused chrono boosts while building up gateway army is much better, and void rays not phoenix.
It seems that its a relatively uncommon strategy but when I see it, I notice it does way more for the protoss then the standard "I build 4-5 phoenix and one voidray which accomplishes nothing, then complain imbalance" build
|
On November 13 2011 04:48 Feidspar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2011 03:58 shockaslim wrote:You didn't watch game one of Hero and CrazyMoving did you? To say the least.....Mutas were being abusive and there was nothing Hero could do about it. And he made ALL of the proper moves to counter and it didn't work.
Hero never built more than a single void ray, showed it right away, did pretty much nothing with his airforce, and only had one stargate. I remain of the opinion that zerg has nothing to stop early void rays. Go double stargate into 3-4 void rays, and the rest can be phoenixes. Or just keep pumping void rays because, honestly, they're great against everything. I want to see a replay of a zerg shutting down fast 2 stargate void ray play.
Please stop... Spore crawlers halt Voidrays down enough so that they can't do critical economic damage. Once you have assessed that the protoss does nothing but build Voidrays for quite some time, a Hydra push will CRUSH it utterly.
Of course the strawman arguement will be that he will just go collosus then. Well here's the thing, if you can just drone up while he is sort of fidgetting in the air wondering what damage to do aside from the occasional overlord killing and wait until you are quite saturated before you start flooding the map with hydralisks ( as in, not rush for them and attack with 15 but instead stock up gas and minerals and make a huge wave of them instantly ) then it is very easy to stop a protoss overcommitted to voidrays. Hell I can even go Roach-Ling and deny thirds for a hella long time and do damage that way. As long as I keep my third up and his third down, I'm happy with the situation.
|
On November 13 2011 04:59 Chaosvuistje wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2011 04:48 Feidspar wrote:I want to see a replay of a zerg shutting down fast 2 stargate void ray play. Please stop... Spore crawlers halt Voidrays down enough so that they can't do critical economic damage. Once you have assessed that the protoss does nothing but build Voidrays for quite some time, a Hydra push will CRUSH it utterly.
Void rays don't need to fidget. 4 void rays melt spores like they're nothing.
Again, show me a replay.
|
On November 12 2011 09:30 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2011 09:26 Feidspar wrote:On November 12 2011 07:46 Dakkon B wrote:On November 12 2011 03:35 Feidspar wrote: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? I'd like to see it. Please do. http://sc2casts.com/cast3131-Mondragon-vs-ZeeRax-Best-of-3-TSL-3-Round-of-32good enough or do I need to find another one? Not good at all, unfortunately. ZeeRax only ever built a single void ray, and he could've easily destroyed the expo he attacked if he didn't sit above multiple building spore crawlers quite literaly from start to finish. He was plinking away at overlords like a real pro. You can see he clearly caught mondragon with his pants down and mondragon has absolutely zero to defend it but two queens. Fortunately ZeeRax derped pretty hard. Just go watch GSL Code A and S for the last 2 months and youll see more than enough examples. Or watch tournaments at all
It's funny cause Protoss GSL players have been playing terribly.
Example 1: Hero vs Crazymoving Game 1: Hero went phoenixes, have a good amount. Crazymoving made mutalisk, and had a few more than the number of phoenixes. Somehow Hero lost ALL his Phoenixes to mutalisk. The next few times I played ZvP and scouted 1 stargate phoenix I went spire. Whenever I would make 10+ mutalisk vs 5 Phoenixes, he kept making phoenixes and followed my mutas around and killed them all and I barely touched them. I AM DIAMOND on the Korean server. Mutalisk get countered by Phoenix with good control WHICH SHOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM at pro level. Literally all you have to do is fly forward if they are flying away, or fly backwards if they fly towards you.
Example 2: Pretty much every game, the 2 stargate play was countered by chargelot archon. What did the zerg do? Roaches and hydras, A PRETTY STRONG COUNTER to this. The protoss player KNEW he made hydras to counter stargate, and that roaches have been pretty strong. Why not do maximal damage while keeping your stargate units alive, get a faster third with your map control (it's actually pretty easy to set up a tight defense on most maps currently) and then work your way to collosus? You already have air dominance. If you see him getting a spire, keep making some stargate units and keep your air dominance! Maybe even get +1 flying.
TL;DR Stargate plays do a lot of damage in GSL matches and protoss players follow it up with more than questionable decisions. Literally every chargelot archon follow up has failed. MAYBE it's too predictable and too easy to counter. MAYBE you should stop doing it. It's like going max zerglings against collosi. JUST NOT VIABLE. How about they don't do it? How about they start macro'ing instead of going for a two base all-in?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
