|
On December 13 2011 19:41 Jimbo77 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 19:31 secretary bird wrote:On December 13 2011 19:18 MagmaRam wrote:On December 13 2011 19:14 50bani wrote:
I love it how this thread gets bumped every time a Zerg beats a Protoss on GSL. I wonder if maybe all the other units except for Mutalisks are underpowered and this is why Mutas get so abused. If you look at the Zerg units, it's pretty obvious this isn't true though. Lings and banelings are incredibly good against many compositions, infestors are still good, roaches are not bad, the only really useless unit is the hydralisk. Nope Hydras are still used in ZvP and ZvZ and not just against air units. The OP of (almost) all zerg's units comes from the ridiculously high speed. Speedlings, banelings with speed, roaches with speed, muta as well... All this stuff leads to, just, a-move-watch and hope, that you have stronger units/positions, no place for reacting/regrouping/repositioning. I'm pretty sure most of zerg's units speed must be decreased. Muta is a first in this list.
I'm pretty sure that the OP of (almost) all protoss' units comes from the rediculously high health.
Zealots, Stalkers with Blink, Immortals, Voidrays, Collosus as well... All this stuff leads to attack move and retreat, let shields recharge for free and go again. No place for army trades for the Zerg at all.
I'm pretty sure all of Protoss' health needs to be decreased. Zealot is the first in this list.
I'm also sure that the OP of (almost) all terran units come from the rediculously high microabilty.
Marines, Hellions, Banshee's, Reapers, Marauders as well... All this stuff leads to attacking with high efficiency, reducing splash while maximizing DPS. No place to ever attack into a Terran because all their units can micro.
I'm pretty sure all of the attacks of Terran needs an attack delay. Marine is the first thing on the list.
Oh look at that! Everybody is the same! Now we can all complain about every match up turning into the exact same thing over and over again.
PROTOSS is having trouble with mutalisks, no other race is. Give them a bone for all I care but don't touch the only thing that makes Zerg unique to play. They just need a unit that can reliably hold a position and zone mutalisks out to deal with mass counterattacking and the mass muta games will jsut be a stylistic choice. Nothing in HotS will deal with that just now, because the Tempest is a slow, lategame unit that is meant to obliterate mutalisks in a head on fight. Newsflash, Protoss can already deal with Mutalisks head on with archons and high templar. The Tempest won't add anything, just another useless Protoss unit that won't be used in the way it is intended.
This thread needs to be closed before more frustrated people that just lost to mutalisk harassment walk in. The unit is frustrating to deal with, just like the blueflame hellion is. Both are balanced but make you rip your hair out, deal with it. If you somehow didn't get a third up before Mutalisks came out, you were already behind. You're just staying behind and eventually losing.
|
In my mind the core issue is not the strength of the units, it's the mobility. Muta/ling can seem like it's everywhere, and blink stalkers are really the only thing that has the muscle, production rate, and mobility to defend them. But stalkers are bad vs speedling which leaves you trapped at home in many situations.
In HOTS protoss will have arc cannons for killing light, recall, and tempest, all 3 will be great at defending mutas, I'm not sure if this is the direct result of Mutas but I would have preferred the developers to try and solve the issue in WOL (if they feel there is one) and not leave it for HOTS to be solved. What is really bothersome about this whole issue is that I can remember Tastosis bringing this issue up Pre-beta, about how with infinite unit selection muta flocks would be almost impossible to deal with, all this time later it hasn't really been directly addressed. I can remember games being played on scrap station, and muta ling seeming unstoppable way back when.
I realize a lot of zergs believe that "just attack before the mutas are out" is the answer. While this works sometimes, it's all in for the protoss, and what does toss do when the zerg dumped all his extra minerals on 7 spine crawlers and speedlings? Even if you hit the timing right and arrive at the edge of creep just before the mutas are out, you can't attack into that, and you can't expect to retreat because they have tons of speedlings and muta's coming out which will chase you down easily once they hit the right amount.
The same issue applies to taking a fast 3rd and teching, while this works sometimes, you have 0 ability to pressure zerg (with mutas, creep spread, and overlords they should see anything coming a mile away) and the zerg can stop making mutas after about 20 and custom build an army to kill yours, or break down your defense (broodlords, infestors, ultra's and lots of upgrades) The zerg's deathball can be scarier than the protoss's in these scenarios, Void rays are very good for dealing with most hive tech but really bad for dealing with muta ling.
It's not so much that these options from protoss never work, but I certainly feels like the zerg is in control of the game in almost every way. They have the mobility and harass advantage making it easy, to not just punish a mistake by protoss, but end the game. They have the econ advantage (usually before they even start making mutas) which only get's increased once the protoss gets stuck on defense. They also can safely tech to whatever composition they choose once the muta flock is at a decent size. Basically, as protoss it feels like you are at the mercy of the zerg's decision making. If it's spot on, your odds of winning aren't very good.
The other issue with the 3 base max out for protoss is again, you're all in. You can't count on being able to secure a 4th base (depending on map) I really don't like a scenario where I either all in and cross my fingers before muta's are out, or all in later and cross my fingers once I'm maxed.
It is a shame from a protoss perspective that things like maelstrom, corsairs, and shield batteries aren't available to use as tools in dealing with this, but as I stated HOTS is certainly going to give protoss better ways of dealing with mass muta, so I guess we'll just have to wait.
|
EDIT:oops. wrong thread....
|
On December 13 2011 05:49 SafeAsCheese wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 02:21 Fred Flintstone wrote:On December 13 2011 02:08 MorroW wrote:
why is this thread not closed? some ppl in here, dont embarrass yourself plz
take 3 base, sit, sit, sit 200food and mothereship. move out and win the game great reply, thanks for your response!! I dunno if this is supposed to be sarcasm, but it's what a lot of pro Z will tell you, even lower league Z. Especially IdrA You only need one good trade off a 200/200 3 base protoss army to win a game, a zerg having 7/4k banked won't help because you will be camping their rallies. Vortex with enough archons and templars to storm will always be a favorable trade for protoss.
Of course it was supposed to be sarcasm. you know, i really hope e-sports grow fast the next years, to the point where supposed 'pro-gamers' will act proffessionaly and wont seem like 15yolds balance whining from their bedroom.
|
On December 13 2011 22:48 Fred Flintstone wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 05:49 SafeAsCheese wrote:On December 13 2011 02:21 Fred Flintstone wrote:On December 13 2011 02:08 MorroW wrote:
why is this thread not closed? some ppl in here, dont embarrass yourself plz
take 3 base, sit, sit, sit 200food and mothereship. move out and win the game great reply, thanks for your response!! I dunno if this is supposed to be sarcasm, but it's what a lot of pro Z will tell you, even lower league Z. Especially IdrA You only need one good trade off a 200/200 3 base protoss army to win a game, a zerg having 7/4k banked won't help because you will be camping their rallies. Vortex with enough archons and templars to storm will always be a favorable trade for protoss. Of course it was supposed to be sarcasm. you know, i really hope e-sports grow fast the next years, to the point where supposed ' pro-gamers' will act proffessionaly and wont seem like 15yolds balance whining from their bedroom.
As long as the audience only talks about such stuff, nothing will ever change. all people want to hear from progamers is "why X is OP" so they can back up their own problems ("cant deal with X") with procommentaries.
That being said, Im going with TLO: everyone still plays this game completly wrong.
|
It's just the critical massing of mutas that's the problem. The most effective unit protoss has against them is the phoenix as it's faster, deals additional damage to them and can shoot on the move.
The zerg could completely drop mutas and just focus on more lings. Phoenix eat quite heavily into your production, you can get out phoenix with gateway units but you don't have the damage dealing muscle in the form of templar/archon/colossi to deal with any sort of mass that the zerg could throw at you.
Sure templar are very good but mutas can really but a block on your economy to the point that you just can't get them out. I've had that before, mutas sniping your templar archives and accepting some losses to stalkers because without templar a large cloud of mutas can a-move over a ball of stalkers
It's not that protoss doesn't have a good answer to it, it's that that answer is a tech path which you have to commit to and serves very little function other than dealing with the mutas.
I'd call it a design flaw rather than OP and an issue with stalker damage. I'd rather have stalkers lose their +4 vs armored for more utility against other units, even if a damage nerf came with it
|
On December 13 2011 12:00 Fruscainte wrote:It just seems that people, since the start of SC2, are infatuated with the concept of "hard counters" and want them to just insta-win against anything they have issues with.
You know what, I agree, so let's propose this: we'll keep defending from mutas by throwing away stalkers, and from tomorrow corruptors will stop being a hardcounter to colossi, and you'll have to deal with colossi using roaches while teching to ultras. Seems a fair trade?
|
On December 14 2011 01:12 RehnFreemark wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 12:00 Fruscainte wrote:It just seems that people, since the start of SC2, are infatuated with the concept of "hard counters" and want them to just insta-win against anything they have issues with. You know what, I agree, so let's propose this: we'll keep defending from mutas by throwing away stalkers, and from tomorrow corruptors will stop being a hardcounter to colossi, and you'll have to deal with colossi using roaches while teching to ultras. Seems a fair trade?
Well, the reason why roach/hydra/corruptor was abbandoned in the first place was that corruptors are really bad against bigger colossus deathballs. So in my opinion, it would hardly change anything for PvZ if Colossi weren't airtargets anymore (though it would completly break PvT), as corruptors are only used as a "desperation"-unit, when the colossi numbers went out of hand before broodlords are out and most of the time the zerg won't be able to deal with colossi at that point anymore and lose that game anyway.
And hardly any zerg ever "counters" colossus play with ultras, as ultras suck against most Protoss units, while Broodlords are good against most Protoss units (including the colossus)...
Also the whole comparison is just wrong. Stalkers and mutalisks can attack each other, colossus can't attack air, so even a raven has to be considered a counter to it from a unit point of view. (raven can kill the colossus while even costing less)
On the other hand, from a composition point of view like I mentioned before, corruptors are a bad choice to deal with colossus in the first place, while stalkers are a good choice compositionwise against mutalisks play (as long as you have something in your composition that can deal with zerglings).
Furthermore you have a hardcounter unit that wins the direct engagement costwise and supplywise with mutalisks (by far!) so shut up with the "there is no hardcounter" bullshit. Pheonix vs mutalisk is one of the strongest hardcounterscenarios this game offers in all matchups (not saying you should react with phoenixes to mutalisks, merely pointing out that the unit exists and there is a certain techpath that is a freewin if it happens to meet mutalisk play)
|
You are right about ultras, my mistake should have said tech up to brood lords.
As for stalkers being "a good compromise versus mutalisks" and especially "phoenix being a hardcounter to mutas" I'm sorry but I honestly think you have no idea what you're saying. The mere fact that you say "phoenix are a hardcounte to mutas, but I'm not say you should make phoenix against mutas" is kinda... funny?
|
On December 14 2011 02:22 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2011 01:12 RehnFreemark wrote:On December 13 2011 12:00 Fruscainte wrote:It just seems that people, since the start of SC2, are infatuated with the concept of "hard counters" and want them to just insta-win against anything they have issues with. You know what, I agree, so let's propose this: we'll keep defending from mutas by throwing away stalkers, and from tomorrow corruptors will stop being a hardcounter to colossi, and you'll have to deal with colossi using roaches while teching to ultras. Seems a fair trade? Well, the reason why roach/hydra/corruptor was abbandoned in the first place was that corruptors are really bad against bigger colossus deathballs. So in my opinion, it would hardly change anything for PvZ if Colossi weren't airtargets anymore (though it would completly break PvT), as corruptors are only used as a "desperation"-unit, when the colossi numbers went out of hand before broodlords are out and most of the time the zerg won't be able to deal with colossi at that point anymore and lose that game anyway. And hardly any zerg ever "counters" colossus play with ultras, as ultras suck against most Protoss units, while Broodlords are good against most Protoss units (including the colossus)... Also the whole comparison is just wrong. Stalkers and mutalisks can attack each other, colossus can't attack air, so even a raven has to be considered a counter to it from a unit point of view. (raven can kill the colossus while even costing less) On the other hand, from a composition point of view like I mentioned before, corruptors are a bad choice to deal with colossus in the first place, while stalkers are a good choice compositionwise against mutalisks play (as long as you have something in your composition that can deal with zerglings). Furthermore you have a hardcounter unit that wins the direct engagement costwise and supplywise with mutalisks (by far!) so shut up with the "there is no hardcounter" bullshit. Pheonix vs mutalisk is one of the strongest hardcounterscenarios this game offers in all matchups (not saying you should react with phoenixes to mutalisks, merely pointing out that the unit exists and there is a certain techpath that is a freewin if it happens to meet mutalisk play)
Opening Stargate far from disallows Mutalisk play. It just delays it until you stop making Phoenixes and the Zerg matches your Phoenix count in one inject.
|
On December 14 2011 02:27 RehnFreemark wrote:
You are right about ultras, my mistake should have said tech up to brood lords.
As for stalkers being "a good compromise versus mutalisks" and especially "phoenix being a hardcounter to mutas" I'm sorry but I honestly think you have no idea what you're saying. The mere fact that you say "phoenix are a hardcounte to mutas, but I'm not say you should make phoenix against mutas" is kinda... funny?
youtube: 100phoenix vs 100mutalisks watch it, if you don't believe me. It's a 1a battle that the phoenixes win with like 50 remaining, not even using any micro.
I didn't say you should not play phoenix vs mutalisks, I said you shouldn't react to mutalisks with phoenixes, as even off double or triple stargate it will take you ~5 ingame minutes to get up to a decent amount of phoenixes that can combat mutalisks.
However if you already have 2starports when the spire is done, you can easily use phoenix to fend off mutalisk attacks and hunt them down 2mins later.
You know, there is a difference between "reacting to" and "using against".
I did not say anything about stalkers being a comprimise against mutalisks. I said they are a good unit to have in your composition against mutalisk play.
As a unit, stalkers counter mutalisks pretty hard, in any cost or supply numbers. It's the mutalisk play that is strong against pure stalker defense. That's why people keep on pointing out that you want stormtemplar as well against mutaliskplay, as they are good against zerglings and mutalisks for very low costs.
But you know what, I really don't give a shit about your opinion anymore, because the mere fact that you talk about stalkers and phoenixes as if they would lose to mutalisks and keep on talking about how units do/should interact rather than how compositions do/should interact or even more GAMEPLAY with certain composition works shows me that you're either acting dumb on purpose or you are simply on a level of gameplay at which you can't deal with anything that is not a 1a "let's look who built the better army in the last 15min no-interaction-game"-battle.
|
On December 13 2011 09:41 Honeybadger wrote:
The flaw with mutas is their splash damage. Splash damage means exponential growth, with no drawback, as in brood war, where you had to split them up by the dozen.
There's no drawback to getting lots of mutas, essentially. Sure, in a straight fight they're not GREAT, but they're still insanely threatening and can shred most anything when the numbers grow.
Their counters are very ineffective, and are ALL so slow that you can't reliably leave your base for a "poke" attack or positioning, lest you leave units at home and get rolled, or the mutas zip into your base and instantly force a base race.
As terran, if my opponent is hoarding mutalisks, I can't leave my base for a major push because the mutas will swoop in and wreck my production. So my main attack essentially becomes an all-in.
mutalisk don't have splash, that have a bounce
|
On December 14 2011 02:29 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2011 02:22 Big J wrote:On December 14 2011 01:12 RehnFreemark wrote:On December 13 2011 12:00 Fruscainte wrote:It just seems that people, since the start of SC2, are infatuated with the concept of "hard counters" and want them to just insta-win against anything they have issues with. You know what, I agree, so let's propose this: we'll keep defending from mutas by throwing away stalkers, and from tomorrow corruptors will stop being a hardcounter to colossi, and you'll have to deal with colossi using roaches while teching to ultras. Seems a fair trade? Well, the reason why roach/hydra/corruptor was abbandoned in the first place was that corruptors are really bad against bigger colossus deathballs. So in my opinion, it would hardly change anything for PvZ if Colossi weren't airtargets anymore (though it would completly break PvT), as corruptors are only used as a "desperation"-unit, when the colossi numbers went out of hand before broodlords are out and most of the time the zerg won't be able to deal with colossi at that point anymore and lose that game anyway. And hardly any zerg ever "counters" colossus play with ultras, as ultras suck against most Protoss units, while Broodlords are good against most Protoss units (including the colossus)... Also the whole comparison is just wrong. Stalkers and mutalisks can attack each other, colossus can't attack air, so even a raven has to be considered a counter to it from a unit point of view. (raven can kill the colossus while even costing less) On the other hand, from a composition point of view like I mentioned before, corruptors are a bad choice to deal with colossus in the first place, while stalkers are a good choice compositionwise against mutalisks play (as long as you have something in your composition that can deal with zerglings). Furthermore you have a hardcounter unit that wins the direct engagement costwise and supplywise with mutalisks (by far!) so shut up with the "there is no hardcounter" bullshit. Pheonix vs mutalisk is one of the strongest hardcounterscenarios this game offers in all matchups (not saying you should react with phoenixes to mutalisks, merely pointing out that the unit exists and there is a certain techpath that is a freewin if it happens to meet mutalisk play) Opening Stargate far from disallows Mutalisk play. It just delays it until you stop making Phoenixes and the Zerg matches your Phoenix count in one inject.
When I think of phoenix against zerg. All I can think of for the zerg can go a ling composition with upgrades and take bases. Phoenix can't really touch this and it'll take a while for a tech transition for protoss are largely on gateway tech. Zerg can then just go hive and use the spire they already have to pump out some corruptors to deal with the phoenix and then morph to broods and go for a ling/infestor/brood late composition.
Stargate plays with toss feel so awkward and jerky to transition out of whereas going mutas into infestor/ling/brood feels so much more of a smooth and better transition into late
|
On December 14 2011 02:29 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2011 02:22 Big J wrote:On December 14 2011 01:12 RehnFreemark wrote:On December 13 2011 12:00 Fruscainte wrote:It just seems that people, since the start of SC2, are infatuated with the concept of "hard counters" and want them to just insta-win against anything they have issues with. You know what, I agree, so let's propose this: we'll keep defending from mutas by throwing away stalkers, and from tomorrow corruptors will stop being a hardcounter to colossi, and you'll have to deal with colossi using roaches while teching to ultras. Seems a fair trade? Well, the reason why roach/hydra/corruptor was abbandoned in the first place was that corruptors are really bad against bigger colossus deathballs. So in my opinion, it would hardly change anything for PvZ if Colossi weren't airtargets anymore (though it would completly break PvT), as corruptors are only used as a "desperation"-unit, when the colossi numbers went out of hand before broodlords are out and most of the time the zerg won't be able to deal with colossi at that point anymore and lose that game anyway. And hardly any zerg ever "counters" colossus play with ultras, as ultras suck against most Protoss units, while Broodlords are good against most Protoss units (including the colossus)... Also the whole comparison is just wrong. Stalkers and mutalisks can attack each other, colossus can't attack air, so even a raven has to be considered a counter to it from a unit point of view. (raven can kill the colossus while even costing less) On the other hand, from a composition point of view like I mentioned before, corruptors are a bad choice to deal with colossus in the first place, while stalkers are a good choice compositionwise against mutalisks play (as long as you have something in your composition that can deal with zerglings). Furthermore you have a hardcounter unit that wins the direct engagement costwise and supplywise with mutalisks (by far!) so shut up with the "there is no hardcounter" bullshit. Pheonix vs mutalisk is one of the strongest hardcounterscenarios this game offers in all matchups (not saying you should react with phoenixes to mutalisks, merely pointing out that the unit exists and there is a certain techpath that is a freewin if it happens to meet mutalisk play) Opening Stargate far from disallows Mutalisk play. It just delays it until you stop making Phoenixes and the Zerg matches your Phoenix count in one inject.
I agree for 1stargate play. I disagree with double stargate. Double stargate on 2base gives you the opportunity to counter 3base mutalisk play with phoenixes.
And again, I'm not saying you should do it, I just wanted to point out that there is already a unit there that is a hardcounter to mutalisks. I just said it to point out that unlike what he said, a hardcounter unitwise DOES exist and that it has all the abilities (minus splash) that people want it to have (wins the 1a battle, wins the micro battle, is faster than the mutalisk, is on the same techlevel)
|
On December 14 2011 02:43 Big J wrote:
youtube: 100phoenix vs 100mutalisks watch it, if you don't believe me. It's a 1a battle that the phoenixes win with like 50 remaining, not even using any micro.
I didn't say you should not play phoenix vs mutalisks, I said you shouldn't react to mutalisks with phoenixes, as even off double or triple stargate it will take you ~5 ingame minutes to get up to a decent amount of phoenixes that can combat mutalisks.
However if you already have 2starports when the spire is done, you can easily use phoenix to fend off mutalisk attacks and hunt them down 2mins later.
You know, there is a difference between "reacting to" and "using against".
I did not say anything about stalkers being a comprimise against mutalisks. I said they are a good unit to have in your composition against mutalisk play.
As a unit, stalkers counter mutalisks pretty hard, in any cost or supply numbers. It's the mutalisk play that is strong against pure stalker defense. That's why people keep on pointing out that you want stormtemplar as well against mutaliskplay, as they are good against zerglings and mutalisks for very low costs.
But you know what, I really don't give a shit about your opinion anymore, because the mere fact that you talk about stalkers and phoenixes as if they would lose to mutalisks and keep on talking about how units do/should interact rather than how compositions do/should interact or even more GAMEPLAY with certain composition works shows me that you're either acting dumb on purpose or you are simply on a level of gameplay at which you can't deal with anything that is not a 1a "let's look who built the better army in the last 15min no-interaction-game"-battle.
Lol dude, please read what you are saying. You talk about "compositions" instead of "units" and what you say is that muta play is perfectly fine because Zerg can make mutas (1 UNIT TYPE) and Protoss can simply respond by making Stalkers, sentries, storm templars (I won't even comment when you say that storm templars are good "... for very low cost"). Oh and let's not forget phoenixes, the hard counter which is perfectly fine as long as you make them when there is no mutas in game, you just can't make them when the zerg is actually making mutas.Nice counter.
Also it's pretty pointless to tell me what units would kill or die in a straight up fight versus mutas. The problem with mutas is harassment, not the straight up fight, and the only thing you can use to disrupt that is blinkstalker. Barely.
|
On December 14 2011 03:12 RehnFreemark wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2011 02:43 Big J wrote:
youtube: 100phoenix vs 100mutalisks watch it, if you don't believe me. It's a 1a battle that the phoenixes win with like 50 remaining, not even using any micro.
I didn't say you should not play phoenix vs mutalisks, I said you shouldn't react to mutalisks with phoenixes, as even off double or triple stargate it will take you ~5 ingame minutes to get up to a decent amount of phoenixes that can combat mutalisks.
However if you already have 2starports when the spire is done, you can easily use phoenix to fend off mutalisk attacks and hunt them down 2mins later.
You know, there is a difference between "reacting to" and "using against".
I did not say anything about stalkers being a comprimise against mutalisks. I said they are a good unit to have in your composition against mutalisk play.
As a unit, stalkers counter mutalisks pretty hard, in any cost or supply numbers. It's the mutalisk play that is strong against pure stalker defense. That's why people keep on pointing out that you want stormtemplar as well against mutaliskplay, as they are good against zerglings and mutalisks for very low costs.
But you know what, I really don't give a shit about your opinion anymore, because the mere fact that you talk about stalkers and phoenixes as if they would lose to mutalisks and keep on talking about how units do/should interact rather than how compositions do/should interact or even more GAMEPLAY with certain composition works shows me that you're either acting dumb on purpose or you are simply on a level of gameplay at which you can't deal with anything that is not a 1a "let's look who built the better army in the last 15min no-interaction-game"-battle. Lol dude, please read what you are saying. You talk about "compositions" instead of "units" and what you say is that muta play is perfectly fine because Zerg can make mutas (1 UNIT TYPE) and Protoss can simply respond by making Stalkers, sentries, storm templars (I won't even comment when you say that storm templars are good "... for very low cost"). Oh and let's not forget phoenixes, the hard counter which is perfectly fine as long as you make them when there is no mutas in game, you just can't make them when the zerg is actually making mutas.Nice counter.
no, simply wrong. I pointed out that protoss compositions need something to fight zerglings, so a thinking person will note that I'm at least talking about muta/ling. Also I never said something about sentries.
You're just putting words in my mouth and removing others so that your comments don't sound half as dumb as they do.
Tell me when you are ready to talk gameplay.
and you CAN make phoenix against mutalisks. But at some point you have to include actual gameplay in your thought process. If you start making phoenixes 2mins after mutalisks have started killing your mineral line it's too late (which is the case if you're not going double stargate before mutalisks are out). The damage has been done. It's like losing all your probes to a 6pool but holding with a zealot... yeah, you held the 6pool, but you lost the game.
that's why I called the phoenix a "unitwise counter" to mutalisks, not a "compositionwise" counter (like templar/stalker vs muta/ling in an engagement) or a "gameplaywise counter" like 6gate vs 2base mutalisks.
|
Ah ok, if you think you can hold off muta play using zealot+stalker without sentries, while expanding and teching to storm templars, I think I have nothing more to say honestly.
|
On December 14 2011 03:29 RehnFreemark wrote:
Ah ok, if you think you can hold off muta play using zealot+stalker without sentries, while expanding and teching to storm templars, I think I have nothing more to say honestly.
WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?
Do you want to talk about how you think mutalisks are too good in actual battles, which is the first thing you stated ("throw away stalkers vs mutalisks")?
Do you want to talk about how it is too hard to tech to storm and take a third against 2base mutalisks? (or the same question about 3base mutalisks)
Do you want to talk about how you have trouble being prepared for everything a zerg can do against you?
I'm sorry, but at some time you actually have to talk about something concrete.
Up to that point, all you did was throw out a commentary, I told you that you were wrong (stalkers beat mutalisks, a hardcounter does exist for mutalisks) and then afterwards you changed your argument from "no hardcounter exists" to "the hardcounter isn't playable" or from "stalker/Templar is bad vs mutalisks to", "you won't survive if you only go for stalker/templar".
It's really getting boring, if you don't even stick to your own argumentation.
|
You may not have noticed but for 89 pages now the point of the whole thread has been only one, that Protoss (and to a certain extent, Terran) have no proper counter to mass muta play, because the units deemed to fill that role (phoenix and thor) are ineffective.
You said that phoenix are a hard counter to mutas and I said you don't know what you're talking about, you went on saying that yes phoenix are a hardcounter to mutas but no, you should not make phoenix when you see mutas, which is exactly like saying they are not a counter. A counter IS something you use as a reaction towards an enemy strategy/tech path, what kind of counter is it if it can hardly ever be used against the unit it's supposed to kill?
Everything else are just different details about what the situation has become, but it all stems from the inability to stop a mass muta play with a proper counterunit, yes storm templars can deal a lot of damage, yes blink stalkers+sentries+archons can help you defend your base but it's just a crazy way of playing, having to tech up to ht+storm (with great difficulties) not even to win the game, but just to survive.
|
Its not just simply the fact that if zerg beats protoss it legits the argument, its the simple fact that its a lame way to play the game, its just not fun having to base race or forced into ones base while the other can do as they want, its not like phoenixs, mass phoenixs have the same effect... you can go infestor fungal growth and every single phoenix will die, mutas should have a similar risk/reward;; leenocks mutas got dragged through multiple storms and didn't die and like i posted previously, mutas arent even the big problem its the amount of bases, the tech, the safeness the zerg feels while doing it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
