EPTThe problem imo is that in big maps, pro Z's can bank +1200/+1200 and make the roach to muta switch AND pro P's can't punish that insane investment.
[D]Are mutalisks overpowered in WOL?? - Page 79
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Belha
Italy2850 Posts
The problem imo is that in big maps, pro Z's can bank +1200/+1200 and make the roach to muta switch AND pro P's can't punish that insane investment. | ||
|
Go1den
England116 Posts
| ||
|
Stiluz
Norway688 Posts
On December 02 2011 00:09 Go1den wrote: What does this even mean? The best Protoss player in the world right now can't hold off mutas with the "proper" counters. You can come up with a better playground comeback than that. Try harder. The best? AFAIK Hero fell out of Code A last round. Winning Dreamhack is not the same as winning GSL. Please think before you post. On the topic, mutas has never been a problem in ZvT at least, it's always been a muta/ling/bling vs marine/tank/thor dance leaving it up to things like micro and harrass on both ends, seems good to me. In PvZ the metagame for mutas hasn't been much explored since the 6 gate, and now it's coming back. Give some time. Muta is one of the very few viable compositions Zerg can use at all in the matchup after the Infestor nerf. Roach/hydra/corruptor is terribly inefficient, and roach/ling/infestors only work for a very short amount of time due to NP being made useless. If it turns out Protoss can't find any way to deal with mutas in WoL's lifespan, I wouldn't mind Blizzard trying to give Protoss some better ways to fight it, but any form of hard counter (regarding any unit in the game really) feels like bad design. I.e. "You've gone tons of mutas, now I have unit X (i.e. Tempest), so your mutas are completely useless from now on." Regarding the argument that Zerg can make tons of mutas and it seems unstoppable, it's basically the same argument that a Terran or Protoss deathball seems unstoppable or uncontested (which they usually aren't, no?) I'm gonna go out on a limb and say a lot of games where Protoss players have lost to mutas, they have often been behind from early game, and therefore the muta ball seems much stronger than it really is (hence why Zerg players usually go for base races, and not direct engagements). | ||
|
Antisocialmunky
United States5912 Posts
Its actually a problem with maps mostly but there is also an issue of lack of map presence by Terran in mid-game. You cancel out muta harass with pressure on Zerg's side of the map. But it is very difficult to do. Terran really needs 3 base to sustain that... which nicely is countered by mass muta :p | ||
|
Go1den
England116 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
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 This game has been discussed a thousand times in this thread. It was played on THE mutalisk map (on every other map when CM got his mutalisks trapped in the back he would have lost all of them, furthermore those HUGE distances and the triangular base setup favors mutalisks etc etc.) Both players made some mistakes and at least in my opinion crazymoving had an advantage after the stargate opening and the chargelot attack both didn't do any real damage, while CM had 3bases since 5mins and Hero started his third at 11mins. (which means 50% better mutalisk/stalker count as in an even economic scenario) And yes, why shouldn't it be viable to have a composition that is good no matter what as zerg? Terrans play Tank/Marine/Medivac or Tank/Hellion/Thor and Marine/Marauder/Medivac from the start of a game and only add vikings if there is need. A Protoss that doesn't face mutalisks plays stalker/colossus all game vs zerg and only adds sentries for early defense and void rays against broodlords (and often not even needs to do that, as long as broodlord count doesn't hit 15+) Why shouldn't Zerg be allowed to play Muta/roach/ling all game and only add something else (broodlords against maxed bunkered opponents) if there is really need to? PvZ would need MUCH more of this stable composition fight, then it would feel much more like one of the really good matchups TvT and TvZ. Because that is what makes matchups good. If a composition DOES NOT get useless just because the opponent has "counters" on the battlefield (marine/tank/medivac vs baneling/zergling/mutalisk; the units counter each other well, still it is a very even microbased battle; just like Archon/stalker/templar and roach/ling/mutalisk counter each other very well) I don't know why you expect to win a game based on "but I had the right composition". In that circumstance zerg would have to complain a lot more, because due to larvamechanism zerg always has "the right composition", but still loses a lot (~49% of the time - with PvZ being Zerg favored since half a year and mutalisks not changing the percentages at all, just showing another way to defeat Protoss after having 50% more income for half of the game - which is not possible against terran and therefore terran even having a slightly positive winrate against zerg). | ||
|
ExorArgus
Canada46 Posts
I'd like you to go outside find a stick relativity the same size as your arm and and try to kill a flock of the nearest birds (good luck hitting even once). You now know what it is like to try to use archons vs mutas. Regards; the Protoss race | ||
|
Assirra
Belgium4169 Posts
On December 02 2011 01:40 ExorArgus wrote: Dear anyone who suggests trying to kill mutas with archons. I'd like you to go outside find a stick relativity the same size as your arm and and try to kill a flock of the nearest birds (good luck hitting even once). You now know what it is like to try to use archons vs mutas. Regards; the Protoss race You know, those are completely different things. As fas as i know i don't always hit when i swing in real life while archons if they are close enough with the muta's to hit they WILL hit, its not like there is a miss chance. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On December 02 2011 01:47 Assirra wrote: You know, those are completely different things. As fas as i know i don't always hit when i swing in real life while archons if they are close enough with the muta's to hit they WILL hit, its not like there is a miss chance. Well, but he is right. Good protoss players have found out since quite some time that going for archons is pretty dumb against mutalisks compared to stormtemplars unless you want to attack him (because then the archons will be able to fight zerglings/banelings and mutalisks and therefore be efficient). It's like a zerg that builds speedlings against sentries... Speedlings are fucking good vs sentries, if they could just attack them... | ||
|
iamnotcreativeatall
6 Posts
First off, im a Protoss player and i am grandmaster on eu and na so this is not some crappy bronze-league-lol-just-make-phenix-and-you-can-defeat-mutalisks opinion. I will only talk about pvz here, because i dont think you should claim anything about balance if you arent at least somewhat good in the matchup. So lets start with my opinion about mutalisks play, I think they are overpowered or to strong or however you want to call it. They are not completly broken, i actually manage to win a lot of games vs mutalisks, but every time i do so i either got lucky or i simply played signifficantly better than my opponent. I say mutalisk play instead of simply mutalisks on porpuse, because a unit alone is never overpowered. No its the race or the whole playstyle that is. Now lets list the problem i and other protosses have with mutalisks. -They keep you in base. You simply cant leave your base without taking heavy losses and the zerg can simply fly back to help defend their base, so your push becomes useless. also you always hit into a wall of 8+ spinecrawler and you bases become vunerabel to ling counter attacks -you cant expand. you simply cant. On some maps you can get a third, on some maps (taldarim) not. a 4th is always impossible to get. -the damage you get. you will always receive damage, because you have to spread out your buildings and even with cannons there will always be something that they can get. -They are free to expand. because you cant leave your base zergs can always expand everywhere -They can deal with harass. Warpprism play is really hard when mutalisks are out, because you will lose the warpprism and all the units in it. -Now comes the worst part. They can basetrade EVERY! SINGLE! TIME!. It doesnt matter how much of an army you have, as a protoss you WILL lose basetrades. that comes down to the mobility the zerg have, they can simple expand everywhere while you cant. and you always have to stick your army together, while they can split. if you split they focus the weaker part of your army and it dies. Now lets see what protoss has for options and units. -blindly going 2 stargate on 2 base. i did this before aiganst players i know would go muta, and its a freewin for me. But its a complet allin and nothing i would really like to stick to, as i die if its anything but mutalisks -1 stargate harass into normal play. you wont get enough phenix to deal with the mutalisks, adding another stargate takes too long and you dont get enough pfenix out in time. -standart robo play: leads into basetrade scenario. you die. -archons: they are to slow and to short ranged to do anything. they can be used to defend but youll lose in basetrade -stalker: good to defend but you cant leave your base with them, because if you encouter lings with zergs mutalisks you die. stalker focus ground units over air units. -ht: they are good to scare the zerg and buy some seconds, but their storms wont kill the mutas unless the zerg is bad -phenix: unless you start with 2 stargates you dont get enough of them. they are the only unit who can deal with larger mutalisk numbers and you dont get them in large nummer. sucks. Well i guess thats about it. feel free to give me any advice, but after i read a lot of the statements here i doubt any of you can offer me good advice. if you want to tell me things like ololo-just-go-blink-around-his-spines or hurr-mutas-only-beat-stalker-on-90+-mutas or zergs-just-got-creative-by-making-mutas-now-its-your-turn-to-be-creative-and-come-up-with-a-decent-solution you dont need to answer me. its like telling a terran to go mass vikings vs mutas. If you still can help me i would appreciate it. | ||
|
ALPINA
3791 Posts
On December 02 2011 01:40 ExorArgus wrote: Dear anyone who suggests trying to kill mutas with archons. I'd like you to go outside find a stick relativity the same size as your arm and and try to kill a flock of the nearest birds (good luck hitting even once). You now know what it is like to try to use archons vs mutas. Regards; the Protoss race Many people like you don't realize the purpose of archons vs. mutas. They are not supposed to kill mutas, same at thors, they are here so mutas can't clump up. As you probably know clumped mutas deal more damage and take much less damage compared to when you are trying to magic box them. | ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
On December 02 2011 00:52 Antisocialmunky wrote: Well, it was the same way in BroodWar but new maps basically make it difficult to harass the main by making solid map edges for the main. Otherwise, people like Jaedong can (and have) won games with nothing but 2 base muta. Its actually a problem with maps mostly but there is also an issue of lack of map presence by Terran in mid-game. You cancel out muta harass with pressure on Zerg's side of the map. But it is very difficult to do. Terran really needs 3 base to sustain that... which nicely is countered by mass muta :p but going above 22 mutas was almost impossible in bw (even 22 was only something a selected few could do properly), their conters where better (marines had more range in bw), and they had a timeline, contered super hard by some higher tech. (which in sc2 can be contered by a muta move that actual needs no apm to do right.) And to reduce muta harass power in bw the only thing you really needed to do was add a little more space behind mineral lines. So in bw mutas were damn strong yes, but only worked for around 3 to 5 minutes before they were gone. In sc2 they always work, because zergs can play a mineral heavy style where they gather tons of gas, able to rebuild mutas in quiet a mass. And a good composition against the mineral heavy stuff a zerg has is a composition that can't attack mutas. So its not a map problem, more a problem with zerg unit costs. Gas units are effective against what kills the mineral units of the zerg and the other way round. | ||
|
Cillas
Germany78 Posts
Make Muta Ground attack only, this seems strange and many Zerg would complain but what may will happen TvZ - Terran almost never really answer with air to muta, maybe some vikings but this would make the matchup more dimensional, because muta are faster ZvZ - The only real situation that would change is muta against muta, this may decrease the muta to a period harass low count unit but is that so bad at all? PvZ - The Toss now can answer with phoenix to muta harass, it even would make it risky for the zerg to mass just to 40+ muta and then loose it all to 6 or 7 phoenix -> gives the matchup more dimension. Anything else (change to damage, hp, bounce), would be to much (esp. in the tvz matchup). This even would deny the need for the tempest. /discuss | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On December 02 2011 01:54 iamnotcreativeatall wrote: Alright guys after reading a lot of responces i felt like I had to add my opinion to the topic, mainly because i read a lot of complete bullshit that really angers me. First off, im a Protoss player and i am grandmaster on eu and na so this is not some crappy bronze-league-lol-just-make-phenix-and-you-can-defeat-mutalisks opinion. I will only talk about pvz here, because i dont think you should claim anything about balance if you arent at least somewhat good in the matchup. So lets start with my opinion about mutalisks play, I think they are overpowered or to strong or however you want to call it. They are not completly broken, i actually manage to win a lot of games vs mutalisks, but every time i do so i either got lucky or i simply played signifficantly better than my opponent. I say mutalisk play instead of simply mutalisks on porpuse, because a unit alone is never overpowered. No its the race or the whole playstyle that is. Now lets list the problem i and other protosses have with mutalisks. -They keep you in base. You simply cant leave your base without taking heavy losses and the zerg can simply fly back to help defend their base, so your push becomes useless. also you always hit into a wall of 8+ spinecrawler and you bases become vunerabel to ling counter attacks -you cant expand. you simply cant. On some maps you can get a third, on some maps (taldarim) not. a 4th is always impossible to get. -the damage you get. you will always receive damage, because you have to spread out your buildings and even with cannons there will always be something that they can get. -They are free to expand. because you cant leave your base zergs can always expand everywhere -They can deal with harass. Warpprism play is really hard when mutalisks are out, because you will lose the warpprism and all the units in it. -Now comes the worst part. They can basetrade EVERY! SINGLE! TIME!. It doesnt matter how much of an army you have, as a protoss you WILL lose basetrades. that comes down to the mobility the zerg have, they can simple expand everywhere while you cant. and you always have to stick your army together, while they can split. if you split they focus the weaker part of your army and it dies. Now lets see what protoss has for options and units. -blindly going 2 stargate on 2 base. i did this before aiganst players i know would go muta, and its a freewin for me. But its a complet allin and nothing i would really like to stick to, as i die if its anything but mutalisks -1 stargate harass into normal play. you wont get enough phenix to deal with the mutalisks, adding another stargate takes too long and you dont get enough pfenix out in time. -standart robo play: leads into basetrade scenario. you die. -archons: they are to slow and to short ranged to do anything. they can be used to defend but youll lose in basetrade -stalker: good to defend but you cant leave your base with them, because if you encouter lings with zergs mutalisks you die. stalker focus ground units over air units. -ht: they are good to scare the zerg and buy some seconds, but their storms wont kill the mutas unless the zerg is bad -phenix: unless you start with 2 stargates you dont get enough of them. they are the only unit who can deal with larger mutalisk numbers and you dont get them in large nummer. sucks. Well i guess thats about it. feel free to give me any advice, but after i read a lot of the statements here i doubt any of you can offer me good advice. if you want to tell me things like ololo-just-go-blink-around-his-spines or hurr-mutas-only-beat-stalker-on-90+-mutas or zergs-just-got-creative-by-making-mutas-now-its-your-turn-to-be-creative-and-come-up-with-a-decent-solution you dont need to answer me. its like telling a terran to go mass vikings vs mutas. If you still can help me i would appreciate it. So I think you are pretty much right nearly everything you write, but I would like to ask you some questions here: 1) The international winrates in PvZ were 57:43 before mutalisks got popular and even with mutalisk play starting in october the winrate hasn't changed for that month. (though I think we will have to wait for the november winrates to really see the impact of muta play). But this suggests, that Zerg was already favored in this matchup and in my opinion it is rather "just another way" to kill Protoss that has a deeper reason than "the mutalisk vs Protoss". do you agree on this? 2) Do you feel like Protoss really have figuered "the best way" to deal with mutalisks? Because we still see a lot of different approaches from a lot of players (from mediocre things like the "stormtemplar or archon" - debate to specific timing attacks and double stargate preventive or reactive play) it often feels to me like the Protoss players often just don't really have a clue how to react to them to start with, while I feel like every prolevel terran just knows how to play vs mutalisks and ususally can just point at certain events in a game where he says: "that's what I did wrong". 3) I know this is just my theory - and I'm not a protoss player, only master zerg, maybe platinum protoss ^^ - but for me it always seems like Protoss FFE vs 3base play relies on doing damage and then expanding again, no matter what a zerg does. In my opinion this is always the defining moment in the game if the mutaplay will (statistically speaking) work or not. I don't know... but for me this feels like nothing has really changed apart from zerg now not going infestor/broodlord after this, but muta/ling and in both scenarios only losing when he screws up (because he has a rather big ecnomic advantage from having up to 50% more income for quite some minutes at the time when zerg has well saturated 3bases and protoss not even starting his third yet). And now my question? Don't you think that you're still facing the same problem like before mutalisks --> taking the third too late? (no matter if it is doable or not, just from a theoretical point) To exaggerate on this: PvZ was Protoss favored as long as it was 2base vs 2base play (up to 57:43 for Protoss). TvZ is a game on even bases (most of the time - some styles like ling+upgrades get faster thirds and fourths but sacrifice all tech for it) until the zerg gets his 4th up and this matchup has never been zerg favored (in fact it is the only matchup that always had one race - terran - being slightly favored over the other race, independent of the metagame). 4) don't you think that mutaplay being viable/balanced is very mapdepend? (just like small maps favor terran, maps with huge airspaces around bases and long ground distances favor mutalisks) I don't know, but generally speaking, I think zerg is favored in this matchup with or without mutalisks (in the current metagame), it's rather just that mutalisks really let you "feel" this, because in a deathball vs broodlords (of bigger zerg economy) game it often comes down to protoss having the "coinflip" possibility of winning the game by only 1time not screwing up while zerg screws up. | ||
|
Cillas
Germany78 Posts
| ||
|
Govou
Canada1072 Posts
base defense - photon cannon and missile turrets, warp in units and leave a medivac full of marines. | ||
|
SafeAsCheese
United States4924 Posts
On December 01 2011 23:22 Daray wrote: I guess there's a reason this thread is still going strong :D The point of going muta is not to kill you but to take 5 bases, tech to everything while keeping the protoss on 2 bases... when you have to get blink, ht+storm and 4-5 cannon on each mineral line it's quite easy for the zerg to take the map. 40-50 blink stalkers is many blink stalker yes? If you are not good enough to take a third when mutas are out, you have no basis to even argue balance. Taking a 4th is entirely different due to maps, but holy shit if you are crying about being stuck on 2 base. | ||
|
Vamp
United Kingdom184 Posts
That is why zergs are using it now and unless the zerg player is quite a bit worse than the protoss player he will succeed in using this tactic. | ||
|
1st_Panzer_Div.
United States621 Posts
On December 02 2011 02:16 Cillas wrote: i got a solution, its scary and very experimental, as far as i know, it wouldnt change at all in tvz, maybe some in zvz but in pvz without breaking alot. Make Muta Ground attack only, this seems strange and many Zerg would complain but what may will happen TvZ - Terran almost never really answer with air to muta, maybe some vikings but this would make the matchup more dimensional, because muta are faster ZvZ - The only real situation that would change is muta against muta, this may decrease the muta to a period harass low count unit but is that so bad at all? PvZ - The Toss now can answer with phoenix to muta harass, it even would make it risky for the zerg to mass just to 40+ muta and then loose it all to 6 or 7 phoenix -> gives the matchup more dimension. Anything else (change to damage, hp, bounce), would be to much (esp. in the tvz matchup). This even would deny the need for the tempest. /discuss Drop play in TvZ would be insanely good if mutas couldn't shut it down. It'd be even worse than BFH were in their prime. The issue with air in SC2 I think has been correctly stated on these forums a few times, in BW there were 3 air to air splash units for every race. Those no longer exist; they need to. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6190 Posts
On December 01 2011 21:57 Exarian wrote: No, every terran build don't include valkyries, but once zerg kick 30+ number of mutas, he can be punished by small valkyrie fleet, if needed. Thats why we don't see so huge swarms of mutas in SC1, and because mutas number is usually low, valkyrie don't need to be constructed every game. 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. It basically mean Valkyrie/Corsair are balancing mutas just by giving Terran/Toss option to build them. ATM Zerg can go 30+ mutas without risk, because once he get huge number, Toss/Terran has no safe option of punishing him for this move. Thats exactly why mutas swarms are so popular in SC2... And thats why adding good mutas counter to T/P arsenal, even if this unit won't be very popular, will balance mutas. Unfortunately neither Tempest nor Warhound is not this kind of unit. It's not valkyrie that gave T something against muta it was the medic. Medics could heal the marines so they could stim which gave T enough time to tech to science vessels which had irradiate. You stack the muta's in BW so the irradiate's do massive splash damage. Also it's a lot more difficult in BW to control 30+ muta's since there is a lot more micro involved. It's already near impossible to micro 2 stacks perfectly let alone 3 stacks or more. | ||
| ||
