[D]Are mutalisks overpowered in WOL?? - Page 78

Corsair/Valk = Solution

I know it's going to be said "This isnt bw" but bw had a brilliant balance.

Change the names or w/e just make similar units to them instead

On December 01 2011 20:58 KimJongChill wrote:
I'm surprised that this thread is as long as it is. Aren't templars an appropriate 'counter'? Mutalisks are strong if one is caught off guard, but then again, most things should be. I feel like with the appropriate scouting and preparation, mutalisks can be rendered pretty ineffective.

On December 01 2011 20:55 Exarian wrote:
Slow, relatively short-ranged unit cannot counter mutas, even if you give ithuge splash and good damage. Mutas can be countered by either combination of splash and fast (equal to mutas) movement speed or combination of HUGE splash and very long attack range (9+). Neither toss nor terran has such unit, thats why Mutas are OP, and thats why Mutas will be still OP in HotS.

On December 01 2011 21:13 Exarian wrote:


Exactly! Mutas in SC2 are as OP as they were in Vanilla SC1. There were no way to balance them until Valkyrie/Corsair were introduced in BW. Unless Toss/Terran get units with similar function (Tempest/Warhound DON'T have similar function), Mutas will be op.

On December 01 2011 21:13 Daray wrote:


People who say this have never played PvZ against good players. Sure, storm is good but it's not really a counter even if you know the mutas are coming.

yeah, because "vanillia SC1" was close to figuered out... lol
And that's why every terran build in BW against zergs include valkyries... lol

On December 01 2011 19:48 Exarian wrote:
Splash range buff (+50%?) on Thors and Archons could help against OP magic box.


On top of that instead of replacing carrier, carriers should get two buffs:

- Interceptors damage changed to 10x1 (from 5x2) WITH 1.5 RANGE SPLASH (against A and G)

- Interceptors shields regeneration buff to ~20/s


IMO it will be both more useful and more interesting unit then entire TEMPEST concept...

oh yea, and that won't be overpowered at all. (extreme sarcasm)

so basicly, the carrier would deal more damage than a sieged tanks anti-armoured attack to all unit types, in the same splashrange to air and ground, with faster attackspeed (yes, the interceptor volley is faster than the sieged tanks attack) with more hitpoints and its flying and can move while attacking, can send its interceptors out at range 12 (1 less than the sieged tank) and the interceptors dont return until they are 14 range away (1 more than the tank), and have better upgrade-scaling.

balanced.
you know what, I'll calculate how much the carrier should cost for it to be balanced with these changes:
lets use a template: a tank:
150/125 : 3 supply
lets say the carriers attack is twice as good as the tanks is:
real value: (300/250 : 5 supply) to be nice value: (200/200 : 5 supply)
lets say the carriers flying ability makes its movement 1.5 times better:
real value: (450/400 : 7 supply) to be nice value: (300/300 : 7 supply)
lets say the carriers hitpoints are 2.5 times that of a tank:
real value: (1300/1000 : 17 supply) to be nice value: (750/750 : 9 supply)

so if you also tripled (or, if I feel nice, just doubled) the cost of the carrier (leaving the production time the same) then I might agree to make the changes you suggested, notice almost all of the calculations above were rounded down.

oh, and Im going to ignore that thing about interceptor shields since protoss shields dont regenerate in combat.
or if you meant they regenerate constantly, then fuck no. that would mean they almost out-regen a hydralisk attacking it.

On December 01 2011 21:34 Big J wrote:

Archons and Ghosts can't be countered by biological units... Hey lol... Those matchups are still playable for zerg!
Furthermore this post is bullshit. 2port phoenix openings and mech openings counter the hell out of mutalisks. If you feel otherwise, give me ONE reasonable example... Thing is, you won't find one, as no reasonable zerg player even goes for mutalisks in those scenarios because they suck so hard.



yeah, because "vanillia SC1" was close to figuered out... lol
And that's why every terran build in BW against zergs include valkyries... lol



People who say this have no good storming.

On December 01 2011 21:13 Daray wrote:


People who say this have never played PvZ against good players. Sure, storm is good but it's not really a counter even if you know the mutas are coming.

On December 01 2011 22:44 SafeAsCheese wrote:


People who say this think that pulling their 10 templar with them to attack is a good idea.

Leave around 4-5 cannons at each mineral line with 2 templar to storm then morph into an archon and the mutas don't even get close. If they do, congrats, the bulk of the zergs attack force (muta) just lost around 1/2 it's hp.

When you have 40-50 blink stalkers with your main army, you need very very few archons and templar to support, just enough to storm and potential banelings or mass zerglings.

There is a REASON erg who go muta almost always go for a base trade, it's because the army composition is very very weak in a sight up battle against protoss.

Learn to leave static defense, even if it means 2-4k minerals in your base. Once you move out with the deathball, if your base is safe, you just won.

This is EXACTLY how SanZenith beat NesTea back when NesTea was never losing, using Kydarian Amulet storm warpin to defend against muta builds without effort.

On December 01 2011 23:22 Daray wrote:


40-50 blink stalkers is many blink stalker yes?

On December 01 2011 21:34 Big J wrote:

Archons and Ghosts can't be countered by biological units... Hey lol... Those matchups are still playable for zerg!
Furthermore this post is bullshit. 2port phoenix openings and mech openings counter the hell out of mutalisks. If you feel otherwise, give me ONE reasonable example... Thing is, you won't find one, as no reasonable zerg player even goes for mutalisks in those scenarios because they suck so hard.



yeah, because "vanillia SC1" was close to figuered out... lol
And that's why every terran build in BW against zergs include valkyries... lol



People who say this have no good storming.

On December 01 2011 22:34 Rachnar wrote:


terran mech openins counters mutas ?

are you just trolling or ..?

On December 01 2011 23:56 Go1den wrote:


So you're saying LiquidHero has bad storms? Watch LiquidHero vs CrazyMoving from the GSL. 28 minute game where the Zerg doesn't build anything but zerglings and mutalisks and rolls over Hero's 3-basing* high-templar* archon* blink-stalkers*.

*Indiciates from a Zerg's perspective the usual "counters" to mutas

Do you also think of imbalance when a Protoss loses against Roaches despite having Immortals/Colossi/Stalker?

I bet you don't.

On December 01 2011 19:45 Meff wrote:

It is not possible to reasonably patch the magic box out.

Think about what it depends on:

1) auto-spread of air units when they have no commands. If you removed this, you would have perma-stacked air. This would obviously not be good: you would then be able to fight mutas more effectively with splash, but any form of non-splash reply would have to be abandoned. Among other things, that is.
2) mutalisks going to the point to where they're ordered to go (read: units following your orders). Literally. The reason why the fly "in formation" is that if you give them an order to go sufficiently far, their trajectories are almost parallel. The only way to "correct" this would be to make units not obey the commands they're given. This would be beyond stupid.

On December 01 2011 21:57 Exarian wrote:




In SC2 once zerg get 30+ mutas there is no way to punish him. Existance of Corsair/Vakyrie, units able to counter such large swarms of mutas easyly, could make using such big swarms of mutas not possible. Because in this situation using 30+ mutas will be risky tactic, Zerg would not use it too much - and it will make using Corsair/Valkyrie every game not needed.