On December 14 2011 04:02 RehnFreemark wrote: 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.
no it's not a crazy way to play. It's the same for Zerg. At some point you have to tech up to broodlords and infestors, because those are the only 2 units that are supplyefiicient enough that you can win a combat against standard protoss and terran compositions.
You know what, forget the phoenix argument. I only wanted to point out that a unit exists that beats the mutalisk head on, because you said it doesn't. It's really not an important argument. But while I'm at it, there is a difference between saying "you should make a unit" or "you should tech to a unit". If you can, you should make phoenix against mutalisks, if you can't you shouldn't tech to them.
And I really don't think that you need a superstrong hardcounterunit for everything. It is rather that if an easily available extremly costefficient counterunit exists for any unit, the unit itself will be completly useless to invest into in the first place, and therefore should not be in the game in the first place as it will not be playable. Also it's not like mutalisks are the only unit that can't be taken out of the equation of a matchup completly. Marines and Stalkers properly controlled counter nearly every zerg unit costwise in direct engagements (that's were broodlords and infestors come into play). Drops and warp prisms can't be properly hardcountered without mutalisks either. (but infestors and proper positioning and being prepared = scouting them early enough can deal with them in ways so that those playstyles are still playable). Marines and Marauders are the reason why protoss has to tech up to Templar/Colossus in TvP, as they "hardcounter" everything else. Templar do well against nearly any unit in the game. (exclusion ultralisks, carrier and to a lesser extend spread out broodlords)
In fact, the MUs in which some units can't be countered extremly well gameplaywise (call them overpowered if you want to, but in the end they are just as OP as some of the other races units) are the best ones and players will always fall back on those compositions, because it leads to stable gameplay instead of "yeah I got a colossus and now 50supply of hydralisks are completly worthless" or "yeah I got roaches, see you in hell zealots".
I agree with most you said but what you don't get is that in all the examples you made, there is always something that one way or another counters a style of play, making it necessary for a player to "switch" to something else. I make stalker and zealots and after a while I have to get colossi to withstand a MMM ball; the terran will have to get vikings to withstand my colossi; I will need to get to high templars to get a upper hand, and the terran will get to ghost. In the meantime I try to play as best as I can, if I can take down an expo etc I can make it hard for the enemy to keep up with me. Ofc in a very balanced game options tend to finish at some point, and the battle is determined by micro, positioning, decision-making on when and how to engage etc etc.
Nothing of this is true for muta play. As mentioned before, you go for mass mutalisks and you just cut all my options to one: defend, defend, defend, and even that only one thing is extremely hard. I have a hard time expanding; I have a hard time defending the bases I already own. I have a hard time teching up (you can relatively easily snipe my pylons, buildings etc not to mention mineral lines). Sure, I could kill your mutas in a straight up fight, but how the hell am I supposed to get into a straight up fight with mutas? To be able to survive, just plain survive! I have to get a lot of stalkers, get blink and atk/arm upgrade, get sentries (stalkers are not as good as you may think without guardian shield, too much damage from glaive), get high templars, get storm, all the while being totally unable to put any kind of pressure on you. And during all this, what do YOU have to do? Just spam larvaes into mutalisks, spread creep like it's a new religion, and take as many bases as you want. If you really feel like a pro you can make a big wave of zerglings to harass my wall off, or one of my expos while you attack with mutas somewhere else. That's it.
Why does it become so frustrating? Because there is simply no unit I can effectively resort to, to stop your harassing and force you out of muta play. As I said before, no other harassment unit in the game can be stockpiled to mass quantities and plain and simple win a match by itself. Hell, no "unit" can do that, no matter if it's for harassment or not. That's why we need a proper counter, not to make mutas useless, but to make sure there's a proper way to force you out of that gameplay and into something else (phoenix, I believe, would still be perfect: you make mutas, I make phoenix, you can transition into hydras and force me into colossi. It even works the other way around: you make hydras, I make colossi, you switch to mutas and force me to go into airplay while you already have your hydras tech done and ready. This is just talk, ofc)
And this is were we part: Mutalisks are not half as efficient as you say if Protoss is even in the economy when mutalisk harass starts. Even more so, hardly any zerg even tries to go for mutalisks if they are not 1-2bases ahead of Protoss. I agree: Mass Mutalisk is a pretty good game ending strategy if Zerg gets a rather big lead. In any matchup. ZvP, ZvZ, ZvT. So are mass blink stalkers against Zerg. Zerg loses one big engagement to mass stalkers (which is a composition that if it wins it hardly loses any units due to blink micro)? Game over, he can never ever beat this army again if Protoss stays aggressive and blink micros and warps in stalkers without screwing up.
The thing right now is, that at the point when mutalisks enter the match in ZvP usually, the game already is not winnable for Protoss anymore without zerg screwing up. Mutalisks are just one of the safer/better ways to do so. But getting into that situation has nothing to do with the mutalisk. It has to do with Protoss not being able to expand as fast as Zerg or Terran can against Zerg, so they have to play a semiallin before that, which usually only has 2 possible outcomes: Protoss wins, or Protoss is behind. Hardly ever you will see a ZvP in which after 12mins you can say: yeah, protoss has done exactly the right amount of damage and zerg has sacrificed exactly the right amount of stuff, so now the game is even with both players on a similiar amount of bases+workers. It's nearly always that zerg has the advantage (also needs a slight advantage imo early on) and then keeping it for too long or dying. And then it's a simple thing: the player with the advantage should win most games, especially if he can force the opponent to stay defensive. If you want to argue that the metagame and maybe even the matchup is broken, I kind of agree as the winrates are clearly favoring zerg. But this has nothing to do with the mutalisk. Statistics are rather pointing in the other way. November (the month in which mutalisk play was popular) is the first month in which Protoss winrates have increased against zerg for a long time. (which also doesn't necessarily have to do with the mutalisk)
On December 14 2011 04:45 RehnFreemark wrote: I agree with most you said but what you don't get is that in all the examples you made, there is always something that one way or another counters a style of play, making it necessary for a player to "switch" to something else. I make stalker and zealots and after a while I have to get colossi to withstand a MMM ball; the terran will have to get vikings to withstand my colossi; I will need to get to high templars to get a upper hand, and the terran will get to ghost. In the meantime I try to play as best as I can, if I can take down an expo etc I can make it hard for the enemy to keep up with me. Ofc in a very balanced game options tend to finish at some point, and the battle is determined by micro, positioning, decision-making on when and how to engage etc etc.
Nothing of this is true for muta play. As mentioned before, you go for mass mutalisks and you just cut all my options to one: defend, defend, defend, and even that only one thing is extremely hard. I have a hard time expanding; I have a hard time defending the bases I already own. I have a hard time teching up (you can relatively easily snipe my pylons, buildings etc not to mention mineral lines). Sure, I could kill your mutas in a straight up fight, but how the hell am I supposed to get into a straight up fight with mutas? To be able to survive, just plain survive! I have to get a lot of stalkers, get blink and atk/arm upgrade, get sentries (stalkers are not as good as you may think without guardian shield, too much damage from glaive), get high templars, get storm, all the while being totally unable to put any kind of pressure on you. And during all this, what do YOU have to do? Just spam larvaes into mutalisks, spread creep like it's a new religion, and take as many bases as you want. If you really feel like a pro you can make a big wave of zerglings to harass my wall off, or one of my expos while you attack with mutas somewhere else. That's it.
Why does it become so frustrating? Because there is simply no unit I can effectively resort to, to stop your harassing and force you out of muta play. As I said before, no other harassment unit in the game can be stockpiled to mass quantities and plain and simple win a match by itself. Hell, no "unit" can do that, no matter if it's for harassment or not. That's why we need a proper counter, not to make mutas useless, but to make sure there's a proper way to force you out of that gameplay and into something else (phoenix, I believe, would still be perfect: you make mutas, I make phoenix, you can transition into hydras and force me into colossi. It even works the other way around: you make hydras, I make colossi, you switch to mutas and force me to go into airplay while you already have your hydras tech done and ready. This is just talk, ofc)
Seriously? Jesus, why don't we just make the game toddler friendly..
On December 14 2011 05:12 Big J wrote: And this is were we part: Mutalisks are not half as efficient as you say if Protoss is even in the economy when mutalisk harass starts. Even more so, hardly any zerg even tries to go for mutalisks if they are not 1-2bases ahead of Protoss. I agree: Mass Mutalisk is a pretty good game ending strategy if Zerg gets a rather big lead. In any matchup. ZvP, ZvZ, ZvT. So are mass blink stalkers against Zerg. Zerg loses one big engagement to mass stalkers (which is a composition that if it wins it hardly loses any units due to blink micro)? Game over, he can never ever beat this army again if Protoss stays aggressive and blink micros and warps in stalkers without screwing up.
The thing right now is, that at the point when mutalisks enter the match in ZvP usually, the game already is not winnable for Protoss anymore without zerg screwing up. Mutalisks are just one of the safer/better ways to do so. But getting into that situation has nothing to do with the mutalisk. It has to do with Protoss not being able to expand as fast as Zerg or Terran can against Zerg, so they have to play a semiallin before that, which usually only has 2 possible outcomes: Protoss wins, or Protoss is behind. Hardly ever you will see a ZvP in which after 12mins you can say: yeah, protoss has done exactly the right amount of damage and zerg has sacrificed exactly the right amount of stuff, so now the game is even with both players on a similiar amount of bases+workers. It's nearly always that zerg has the advantage (also needs a slight advantage imo early on) and then keeping it for too long or dying. And then it's a simple thing: the player with the advantage should win most games, especially if he can force the opponent to stay defensive. If you want to argue that the metagame and maybe even the matchup is broken, I kind of agree as the winrates are clearly favoring zerg. But this has nothing to do with the mutalisk. Statistics are rather pointing in the other way. November (the month in which mutalisk play was popular) is the first month in which Protoss winrates have increased against zerg for a long time. (which also doesn't necessarily have to do with the mutalisk)
Actually, leenock vs naniwa was pretty much exactly the "never happens" game you're talking about. Naniwa expands, Leenock does some 1 base agression, both take losses, both end up getting their expos, game is looking seriously even. While they are both still on 2 bases leenock gets mutas and puts up a 3rd in the far courner of the map. naniwa also takes a 3rd, mutas pop.
over the next 10 minutes you see naniwa compeltely unable to take a 4th and leenock gets 6 bases. It went from an 'even' game to 'what the fuck is naniwa meant to do now' So he does exactly what morrow said earlier 'get a mothership, 200/200 and push out'. well, morrow said win, but maybe he said that cause he's not as good as leenock
go read the LR if you didn't see the match. naniwa almost pulled a win with the big blinks / mothership / HT push and maybe he could have won if he killed off the tech in the main before going base hunting. personally i think leenock would have been able to rebuild and the losses from broodlings combined witht he time lost killing buildings would have given leenock enough of an edge, since he still had mining bases, to win anyway.
The point remains that naniwa pulled off some insane defence to just not die when the mutas popped and from there leenock was free to do whatever he liked. if you looked at the 'game state' just before the spire finished and 5 minutes later you'd be shocked at the lead Leenock had.
On December 14 2011 05:12 Big J wrote: The thing right now is, that at the point when mutalisks enter the match in ZvP usually, the game already is not winnable for Protoss anymore without zerg screwing up. Mutalisks are just one of the safer/better ways to do so. But getting into that situation has nothing to do with the mutalisk. It has to do with Protoss not being able to expand as fast as Zerg or Terran can against Zerg, so they have to play a semiallin before that, which usually only has 2 possible outcomes: Protoss wins, or Protoss is behind. Hardly ever you will see a ZvP in which after 12mins you can say: yeah, protoss has done exactly the right amount of damage and zerg has sacrificed exactly the right amount of stuff, so now the game is even with both players on a similiar amount of bases+workers. It's nearly always that zerg has the advantage (also needs a slight advantage imo early on) and then keeping it for too long or dying. And then it's a simple thing: the player with the advantage should win most games, especially if he can force the opponent to stay defensive. If you want to argue that the metagame and maybe even the matchup is broken, I kind of agree as the winrates are clearly favoring zerg. But this has nothing to do with the mutalisk. Statistics are rather pointing in the other way. November (the month in which mutalisk play was popular) is the first month in which Protoss winrates have increased against zerg for a long time. (which also doesn't necessarily have to do with the mutalisk)
Yes, I mostly agree with the first part, because basically the best way to counter a muta play is hitting (usually with a 6-7 gate +1) right before or right around the time when mutalisks come out, a stage where zerg can only rely on zerglings a very small (and ineffective) flock of mutas and maybe a few spine crawlers. What I don't agree on tho is that even if zerg wasn't going for mutalisks he would already be in a strong advantage. If he was going for roaches for example I believe P could relatively safely defend and pressure with immortals while transitioning to colossi or even airplay (yuck). The difference is that whatever zerg would be doing, P could just play a standard game and even if he actually found himself behind, he could try to even the odds with drops, DTs, forcing a specific tech out of the enemy (e.g. airplay), well-timed pressure. With mutas in play you are just forced to stay in your bases, expanding with huge difficulties and inevitably losing a lot of production (sniped pylons/buildings, probes etc). Bottom line to safely defend against mutalisks you are basically forced to go on a single specific opening, which is something along the lines of a 6 gate +1 timing push, and you would have to do it no matter what the zerg is actually doing. I don't think this benefits either the protoss or zerg. I honestly don't believe the MU is broken (tho admittedly I was very surprised to see stats favoring zerg, I would have thought the opposite), I actually think it's much better than PvT, but Protoss do have a pretty strong metagame weakness to one specific unit and one way or another it should be addressed, not by making that unit useless but just making sure there is a reasonable way to save your game once those units start to come into play.
As for mass blink stalkers, it's one style don't like (neither playing nor watching) especially when it all resolves around bstalkers+obs play. Tho I do believe it's a bit more dangerous to go to for protoss than mutas is for zerg, and hydra/roach composition can be a good counter to it forcing the P to go colossi, but I don't really have much experience with that kind of play.
Mutas are OP. I'm a Silver league ladder hero masquerading as a Masters player so I can seem as if I know what I'm talking about. Mutas cause too much multi tasking and I don't want to put in the effort to learn timings or builds to counter mutas. I would rather right extensive posts on TL complaining about units when I don't have the knowledge nor the skill to make an insightful comment.
Mmmm... a lot of zerg now a days have been getting mutas mid game and it always forces the game to go on an additional 10+ minutes and force the toss to be very defensive and go for a macro late game strategy (which I don't mind) but I think that they are a bit hard to deal with. If they just gave Phoenix splash so they could actually do the job they were designed to do (anti air superiority fighter) then we wouldn't have an issue with them. Mutas would still be good and require the protoss to respond, but they can't single handedly give the zerg a nice advantage just for making a flock and forcing toss to stay in his base until he is maxed or the zerg makes some stupid mistake.
I wonder why they haven't played with phoenix's stats more, like giving it +1 range, and/or upping it's speed a little. Perhaps a speed upgrade at the fleet beacon, or an upgrade that makes them produce even faster from the stargate, or increases bonus dmg vs light (like blue flame hellion). Maybe an upgrade that stops the muta shots from bouncing once they hit a phoenix. Or even make the phoenix graviton beam work against air units, then you could guarantee muta kills when defending with phoenix/stalkers/cannons and it would be easier to stop the muta ball from getting out of control.
There are a lot of things that could be tested out with phoenix, I don't really see being an issue for pvt balance or any other situation other than phoenix vs mutas. It's kind of the same thing that bugs me about carriers, why take them out of the game in HOTS when Blizzard hasn't even attempted to fix them in WOL.
On December 14 2011 09:00 Whiplash wrote: Mmmm... a lot of zerg now a days have been getting mutas mid game and it always forces the game to go on an additional 10+ minutes and force the toss to be very defensive and go for a macro late game strategy (which I don't mind) but I think that they are a bit hard to deal with. If they just gave Phoenix splash so they could actually do the job they were designed to do (anti air superiority fighter) then we wouldn't have an issue with them. Mutas would still be good and require the protoss to respond, but they can't single handedly give the zerg a nice advantage just for making a flock and forcing toss to stay in his base until he is maxed or the zerg makes some stupid mistake.
Obviously, that wouldn't be enough. The only solution is to make colossus shout ground+air.
On December 14 2011 09:23 Reborn8u wrote: There are a lot of things that could be tested out with phoenix, I don't really see being an issue for pvt balance or any other situation other than phoenix vs mutas. It's kind of the same thing that bugs me about carriers, why take them out of the game in HOTS when Blizzard hasn't even attempted to fix them in WOL.
There are a lot of things that could be tested out with every unit/aspect in this game. But while there is a stuff like D. Kim & D. Browder i really doubt...
On December 14 2011 08:59 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: Mutas are OP. I'm a Silver league ladder hero masquerading as a Masters player so I can seem as if I know what I'm talking about. Mutas cause too much multi tasking and I don't want to put in the effort to learn timings or builds to counter mutas. I would rather right extensive posts on TL complaining about units when I don't have the knowledge nor the skill to make an insightful comment.
Wait wait I know that game too... Mutas are not OP, I'm a zerg player who always make 8 mutas and lose them against a single cannon because I forgot to inject larva and spread creep and it all gets so confusing and man I don't know, how can protoss complain of mutas when they just make a void ray and kick out of the game?
would it really break the game to give phoenix an additional +5 vs. biological? Only other thing it would affect is how strong the phoenix are vs. Zealots, Hydras and maybe early game roach when the numbers are not too high. In the case of hydras, if critical mass is reached it doesn't matter what the dps of the phoenix are. In the case of Roaches and Zealots, the limitation of phoenix in those type of fights has to do with energy, not dps.
There's also queens and ovies. But Ovies are already dead when caught by phoenix and the same can be said of queens that are away from spore support.
When the phoenix was first introduced, it was an air superiority fighter with an AOE attack that drained energy, clearly blizzard wanted to make it counter the muta directly; the way that thors counter muta.
They can also make it a +10 for units that are both light AND biological. This would limit the categorized units to Zealots, Hydras, marines, and mutas. The idea of making a tier 3 unit that hard counters the tier 2 unit hardcore is extremely stupid - it leads to this polarized style of strategies and counter strategies, ie ==> I build unit X and rule the game until you get Unit Y which makes unit X completely useless.
It should be that both Unit X and Unit Y can be acquired within similar time frames to each other and both can operate as part of a composition that as a whole is stronger than the sum of its parts. (perfect example: the marauder vs. the stalker.)
I also want to add this point: Zerg players were in an uproar about the removal of fungal as an anti-air ability, about how game breaking it was that nothing can catch phoenix (which cannot attack buildings...). Well, I dont' see why protoss cannot make a similar argument for muta?
Blink stalkers are not even that much more mobile than hydras on creep, and the functional solution would be the same --> build spores and attack whereaas toss builds cannons and attacks..
On December 14 2011 04:02 RehnFreemark wrote: 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.
no it's not a crazy way to play. It's the same for Zerg. At some point you have to tech up to broodlords and infestors, because those are the only 2 units that are supplyefiicient enough that you can win a combat against standard protoss and terran compositions.
You know what, forget the phoenix argument. I only wanted to point out that a unit exists that beats the mutalisk head on, because you said it doesn't. It's really not an important argument. But while I'm at it, there is a difference between saying "you should make a unit" or "you should tech to a unit". If you can, you should make phoenix against mutalisks, if you can't you shouldn't tech to them.
And I really don't think that you need a superstrong hardcounterunit for everything. It is rather that if an easily available extremly costefficient counterunit exists for any unit, the unit itself will be completly useless to invest into in the first place, and therefore should not be in the game in the first place as it will not be playable. Also it's not like mutalisks are the only unit that can't be taken out of the equation of a matchup completly. Marines and Stalkers properly controlled counter nearly every zerg unit costwise in direct engagements (that's were broodlords and infestors come into play). Drops and warp prisms can't be properly hardcountered without mutalisks either. (but infestors and proper positioning and being prepared = scouting them early enough can deal with them in ways so that those playstyles are still playable). Marines and Marauders are the reason why protoss has to tech up to Templar/Colossus in TvP, as they "hardcounter" everything else. Templar do well against nearly any unit in the game. (exclusion ultralisks, carrier and to a lesser extend spread out broodlords)
In fact, the MUs in which some units can't be countered extremly well gameplaywise (call them overpowered if you want to, but in the end they are just as OP as some of the other races units) are the best ones and players will always fall back on those compositions, because it leads to stable gameplay instead of "yeah I got a colossus and now 50supply of hydralisks are completly worthless" or "yeah I got roaches, see you in hell zealots".
I bolded the section which I'm responding to. I agree that we don't need a hardcounter unit for everything. However, mutalisks are a fast, mobile (flying), and multi-purpose (attacks both air and ground) unit. Because of this trait, a hardcounter should exist for it. If you take away one of their traits (e.g. fast) then we won't need a hardcounter for them.
game designers didnt like thor so warhound replaces it and they didnt like carriers/mothership so they got tempest no imbalance just slight but of change
I just want to point out these two games, between Puma & idra:
Puma is a unbelievably great Terran player. But even if so, he just lost two games because of stupid, massed muta and... and that is. Idra did almost nothing but muta massing and harassing. As soon as Puma moves out his base in ruins.
Now plz tell me: What could really Puma do to do at least something? If you can tell me that muta might not need to be nerfed.
And that's the first game in a series, where Puma won with ease just because idra didn't have time to mass muta and just because Puma is a head ahead idra.
Muta OP as hell and only Kim & Browder do not see that (or don't wonna see).
On December 14 2011 05:12 Big J wrote: And this is were we part: Mutalisks are not half as efficient as you say if Protoss is even in the economy when mutalisk harass starts. Even more so, hardly any zerg even tries to go for mutalisks if they are not 1-2bases ahead of Protoss. I agree: Mass Mutalisk is a pretty good game ending strategy if Zerg gets a rather big lead. In any matchup. ZvP, ZvZ, ZvT. So are mass blink stalkers against Zerg. Zerg loses one big engagement to mass stalkers (which is a composition that if it wins it hardly loses any units due to blink micro)? Game over, he can never ever beat this army again if Protoss stays aggressive and blink micros and warps in stalkers without screwing up.
The thing right now is, that at the point when mutalisks enter the match in ZvP usually, the game already is not winnable for Protoss anymore without zerg screwing up. Mutalisks are just one of the safer/better ways to do so. But getting into that situation has nothing to do with the mutalisk. It has to do with Protoss not being able to expand as fast as Zerg or Terran can against Zerg, so they have to play a semiallin before that, which usually only has 2 possible outcomes: Protoss wins, or Protoss is behind. Hardly ever you will see a ZvP in which after 12mins you can say: yeah, protoss has done exactly the right amount of damage and zerg has sacrificed exactly the right amount of stuff, so now the game is even with both players on a similiar amount of bases+workers. It's nearly always that zerg has the advantage (also needs a slight advantage imo early on) and then keeping it for too long or dying. And then it's a simple thing: the player with the advantage should win most games, especially if he can force the opponent to stay defensive. If you want to argue that the metagame and maybe even the matchup is broken, I kind of agree as the winrates are clearly favoring zerg. But this has nothing to do with the mutalisk. Statistics are rather pointing in the other way. November (the month in which mutalisk play was popular) is the first month in which Protoss winrates have increased against zerg for a long time. (which also doesn't necessarily have to do with the mutalisk)
Actually, leenock vs naniwa was pretty much exactly the "never happens" game you're talking about. Naniwa expands, Leenock does some 1 base agression, both take losses, both end up getting their expos, game is looking seriously even. While they are both still on 2 bases leenock gets mutas and puts up a 3rd in the far courner of the map. naniwa also takes a 3rd, mutas pop.
over the next 10 minutes you see naniwa compeltely unable to take a 4th and leenock gets 6 bases. It went from an 'even' game to 'what the fuck is naniwa meant to do now' So he does exactly what morrow said earlier 'get a mothership, 200/200 and push out'. well, morrow said win, but maybe he said that cause he's not as good as leenock
go read the LR if you didn't see the match. naniwa almost pulled a win with the big blinks / mothership / HT push and maybe he could have won if he killed off the tech in the main before going base hunting. personally i think leenock would have been able to rebuild and the losses from broodlings combined witht he time lost killing buildings would have given leenock enough of an edge, since he still had mining bases, to win anyway.
The point remains that naniwa pulled off some insane defence to just not die when the mutas popped and from there leenock was free to do whatever he liked. if you looked at the 'game state' just before the spire finished and 5 minutes later you'd be shocked at the lead Leenock had.
I didn't see the game, but from what the LR thread is saying I'm gonna comment on some things: -) the game was extremly close. -) the game was far from a "standard" PvZ. Banelings killing a nexus first... so yeah, we got to count it as an even base mutalisk play, but again... it was very wild and even if I had seen it, i think it would be pretty hard to comment whether mutalisks are just too good in this 1 in a million game or something else. -) Leenock is probably a class above Naniwa -) From what I have read Naniwa was lacking production and tech when Leenock went for the spire, due to the wild early game. Might be (again, I didn't see the game only read it), that Leenock just used his tech & infrastructural advantage to get an economical & base advantage (via use of mutalisks).
On December 14 2011 05:12 Big J wrote: The thing right now is, that at the point when mutalisks enter the match in ZvP usually, the game already is not winnable for Protoss anymore without zerg screwing up. Mutalisks are just one of the safer/better ways to do so. But getting into that situation has nothing to do with the mutalisk. It has to do with Protoss not being able to expand as fast as Zerg or Terran can against Zerg, so they have to play a semiallin before that, which usually only has 2 possible outcomes: Protoss wins, or Protoss is behind. Hardly ever you will see a ZvP in which after 12mins you can say: yeah, protoss has done exactly the right amount of damage and zerg has sacrificed exactly the right amount of stuff, so now the game is even with both players on a similiar amount of bases+workers. It's nearly always that zerg has the advantage (also needs a slight advantage imo early on) and then keeping it for too long or dying. And then it's a simple thing: the player with the advantage should win most games, especially if he can force the opponent to stay defensive. If you want to argue that the metagame and maybe even the matchup is broken, I kind of agree as the winrates are clearly favoring zerg. But this has nothing to do with the mutalisk. Statistics are rather pointing in the other way. November (the month in which mutalisk play was popular) is the first month in which Protoss winrates have increased against zerg for a long time. (which also doesn't necessarily have to do with the mutalisk)
Yes, I mostly agree with the first part, because basically the best way to counter a muta play is hitting (usually with a 6-7 gate +1) right before or right around the time when mutalisks come out, a stage where zerg can only rely on zerglings a very small (and ineffective) flock of mutas and maybe a few spine crawlers. What I don't agree on tho is that even if zerg wasn't going for mutalisks he would already be in a strong advantage. If he was going for roaches for example I believe P could relatively safely defend and pressure with immortals while transitioning to colossi or even airplay (yuck). The difference is that whatever zerg would be doing, P could just play a standard game and even if he actually found himself behind, he could try to even the odds with drops, DTs, forcing a specific tech out of the enemy (e.g. airplay), well-timed pressure. With mutas in play you are just forced to stay in your bases, expanding with huge difficulties and inevitably losing a lot of production (sniped pylons/buildings, probes etc). Bottom line to safely defend against mutalisks you are basically forced to go on a single specific opening, which is something along the lines of a 6 gate +1 timing push, and you would have to do it no matter what the zerg is actually doing. I don't think this benefits either the protoss or zerg. I honestly don't believe the MU is broken (tho admittedly I was very surprised to see stats favoring zerg, I would have thought the opposite), I actually think it's much better than PvT, but Protoss do have a pretty strong metagame weakness to one specific unit and one way or another it should be addressed, not by making that unit useless but just making sure there is a reasonable way to save your game once those units start to come into play.
As for mass blink stalkers, it's one style don't like (neither playing nor watching) especially when it all resolves around bstalkers+obs play. Tho I do believe it's a bit more dangerous to go to for protoss than mutas is for zerg, and hydra/roach composition can be a good counter to it forcing the P to go colossi, but I don't really have much experience with that kind of play.
and the first part is exactly the thing I'm talking about... In a lot of games Protoss do those pressure attacks no matter if zerg plays 3base safe, 3base greedy or 2base tech. And when they fail (and a fail is everything that loses Protoss his army without killing the zerg, because without the army, zerg is free to do whatever he wants, even if he lost a base and most of his army, he usually should be ahead after that possibilitywise due to larvamechanism), Protoss players fall back on ground superiority tech (robo; immortals and colossus, because it is their only option left to be supercostefficient against a zerg that can outproduce them), which is exactly what you don't want against air play. My major problem in this discussion is, that in my opinion a lot of Protoss players haven't found a good way to deal with 3 base zerg openings but already want to take the next step (how do I deal with what a zerg can do off 3base when he has an advantage) before they take this one.
I think mass blink stalker is not a good composition and neither is mass mutalisks in my opinion, if you're fighting an even battle. But both of them shine when you want to transform an advantage into a win. Roach/Hydra for example is costefficient or something around even against blink stalkers. However mass blink stalker is so supplyefficient while roach/hydra is not, that in even rather big supplies blink stalkers win and if blink stalkers ever get an advantage... It's not a funny thing to rally 4000+ worth of ressources over 2mins into a blink stalker composition that is attacking a crucial base and you can't even scratch it. Or for a terran example: when you try to overrun a contain but he has a slight army advantage and you need 3waves to clean it up, while he is expanding and then just sends the next, even bigger army over.
Additional comments: -) I know 2 base mutalisk rush exists, but in my opinion it is just as wacky as double starport from protoss or 2port banshee. The difference is that those T/P air opening cheeses usually win the game outright, while the mutalisk rush wins the game at some future point if it is successful right away. So yes, I consider it a cheese. -) I'm not saying that this matchup is fine as it is in the metagame right now (though I do believe that Protoss players right now are just getting so scary with warp prism harass while taking a fast third base, not blindly going for colossus, but for a lot of midtech instead), I just want people to realize that the discussion is not one that has to be led about the mutalisk, but about 3base vs 2base openings with protoss usually starting his third after zerg has fully saturated 3bases -) Also, I think a lot of people should be so fair to say: there are also games with mutalisks in which they just look like an aweful tech choice, be it whether Protoss went blindly mass phoenix cheese, 6-7gate against an early spire or simply because it seemed like he always had enough to repel mutalisk harassment right away (which from my observations usually comes from not losing an army early and/or taking a very fast third) -) there is a masterleague guide in the strategy forum every protoss should read about how to deal with mutalisks. It's very detailed and focuses a lot on the general set up a protoss should be against zerg, so he can deal with mutalisks but also with other tech choices. -) I strongly believe that neither 3base nor mutalisks will be a huge pain for protoss in HotS anymore. In my opinion usual 1stargate+oracle openings will be able to kill a base of a 3base opening by just phasing out spores + lifting queens, while the void rays kill the hatch. Mass phoenix will be a lot more stable opening as it looks like the tempest beats corruptors and mutalisks and the oracle can phase out hydra dens and nydus worms, which to delay any hydra allins. Also Nexus-->Gateway seems like a reasonable opening in the first place.
On December 14 2011 18:56 Big J wrote: and the first part is exactly the thing I'm talking about... In a lot of games Protoss do those pressure attacks no matter if zerg plays 3base safe, 3base greedy or 2base tech. And when they fail (and a fail is everything that loses Protoss his army without killing the zerg, because without the army, zerg is free to do whatever he wants, even if he lost a base and most of his army, he usually should be ahead after that possibilitywise due to larvamechanism), Protoss players fall back on ground superiority tech (robo; immortals and colossus, because it is their only option left to be supercostefficient against a zerg that can outproduce them), which is exactly what you don't want against air play. My major problem in this discussion is, that in my opinion a lot of Protoss players haven't found a good way to deal with 3 base zerg openings but already want to take the next step (how do I deal with what a zerg can do off 3base when he has an advantage) before they take this one.
Third base and economy/macro is not really the issue here. If it was, you would be seeing Protoss complaining on how they just can't keep up with any zerg army: but the problem isn't roaches, hydras, corruptors, ultras, not even gglords.. just mutas. It doesn't really matter whether you are on 2 or 3 bases to be honest, although it's not easy to deal with a fast third. Check out this Grubby vs Devil game, just happened to see it yesterday:
notice at 13:00 how devil despite having been on 2 bases forever still manages to easily defend against a 2 base push from grubby (not the best play by grubby but it's fine, this is not the issue). Let's keep in mind, at this moment, that there was no safe way for grubby to get an early third: he absolutely has to go and pressure the opponen, not to mention the map isn't really helping securing a fast third. At this point Devil switches to mutas, and mind you he does that pretty late, he has his first strong flock around the 15:30 mark, could have had it way sooner. Grubby has no blink, no twilight citadel, has invested pretty heavily into colossi... and yet he manages to win the game. Why is that? Well that's the reason why I posted this one game in particular: with all due respect I think Devil uses mutas like total crap in this game. I feel a lot of zergs don't realize how mutas can be gamebreaking for a protoss opponent because they probably use them the same way Devil does in this match. Let's take a look, not to make a shopping list but just a general view of what's up
at around the 16-16:30 mark Devil has somewhere around 17 mutalisk, and growing. Grubby has no blink, not even started on HT tech, a small amount of cannons, a good amount of stalkers. Devil uses his mutas to deny Grubby's third (basically the only real accomplishment he'll get with the flock), very good!.Then he heads to, I guess, scout around the map and while doing so kamikazes 2 mutas into a cannon for no real reason (lol?). A minute or so later the flock is now 24 heads strong, Devil tries to get into the protoss main but finds stalkers already there, so he moves again to the third. Now this is where it gets funny. The third base has gone down, and there's 2 colossi, a bunch of sentries and 4 cannons. Devil could easily wipe the third again, even positioning where 1 cannon at most would have range on him. What does he do instead? He rams his mutalisk pack straight into 4 cannons + sentries (guardian shield) to try and take down the colossi, which he only manages to do for one, and gets a bunch of mutas killed in the process. After this he timidly tries again to run into the main, runs at the sight of stalkers (there's nearly nothing defending his third apart from cannons, notice that at this point storm research has just barely started) and that's it, from this moment on mutalisks are just going to babysit roaches with the sad "okay " face. Total mutas built? Around 30 I'd say. Damage done with them? 1 nexus denied +1 colossus.
Now please understand I don't mean to diss devil or anyone else, but you have to realize this is not the kind of play we complain about. I have a strong feeling most zergs make these same mistakes, they try to timidly sneak a flock of mutas into a main, run away at the first sight of trouble and then kinda feel lost about what else to do. Look at that game: when mutas came into play Grubby had nothing else to count on than regular stalkers. Regular stalkers kinda have a hard time protecting 3 bases on their own. Devil never really tries to snipe buildings in the main, never really tries to move from the main to the 2nd, and apart from his first surprise attack completely fails to deny Grubby's third. When given the chance, he wastes his whole muta pack into a cannon wall just to take down a single colossus: the nexus would have gotten down way sooner, with less than half the damage sustained on the mutas. If you really feel like your opponent is defending too well, then at least you can trade your mutas against his stalkers: he'll have a harder time getting to storm templars if you keep destroying his stalkers. Losing a few mutas to stalkers while you snipe down an artosis pylon, a costructing twilight citadel etc is ok, surely way better than losing one third of your pack to cannons, trading it with a colossus that will probably not even get replaced anyway.
Again... I realize it's easy to sit in your chair and criticize a game, Devil played a good game and I'm not saying he's dumb or anything. I'm just saying that in this game he provides a good example of how to not use mutalisks. If you use them like that, then that's the reason why you don't understand other people's complains about them. Notice how Tbiscuit and Apollo kinda sound like Grubby's already lost when mutas come into play: it's because he's already gotten his ass handed over in other games with the same muta play strategy, notably I think by Sen, and he really had no answer other than gg out of the game (this is to say, Grubby's probably not the lead protoss strategist against muta play).
PS I 'm kinda dumb, can anyone explain how to spoiler tag quotes in my posts?
Can people stop suggesting that Phoenix's need to be better vs Mutalisks?
Comparing the units directly:
Phoenix costs 50 more minerals. Phoenix are faster. Phoenix attack faster. Phoenix have longer range. Phoenix hit harder. Phoenix scale better with upgrades Phoenix have more health Phoenix build faster Phoenix can fire while moving
There is literally no way Mutalisks can beat Phoenix in a straight-up, even fight. For that specific unit relationship, the Phoenix is more than OK.
On December 13 2011 09:56 Meff wrote: Mutas do not deal splash damage. Get your facts straight before discussing the balance of an unit, please.
Bounce isn't true "splash" but in the context of splash itself, that's the reason tanks suck in TvP.
The bounce doesn't seem like much, but when you have 20 mutalisks, a 3 damage bounce instantly takes out a second SCV. With 1 armor, 25 mutas does. Mutas attacking a planetary or mass-repaired turret will liquify the SCV's repairing it so quickly it's a joke.
It's multi-target damage on an absurdly fast-moving, fast accelerating unit that has pretty much no problems with their hard counters (phoenix/thor)
I don't really have problems with mutas, but watching them melt all repairing SCV's seems like the problem to me.
What I really want is not that the muta be nerfed, what I want is something that lets me leave my base and position around the map without having the muta flock swoop in and give me exactly one chance to make my attack work, because the mutas can wreck my addons, mineral lines, and still be back in time to defend.
And it's not like mutas are even that fragile. If banelings wipe out 80% of the marines, mutalisks can clean it up so well that it doesn't even make sense.
First off, I'm not saying that the bounce doesn't exist. I'm saying that pretending that it is splash damage and then saying that mutas improve "exponentially" with growing numbers due to the bounce is not accurate.
Second off: I'm obviously not saying that the bounce is useless - in fact, I was arguing against somebody who said that armor pretty much negates it. That said, it's strictly inferior to instant-hit (as opposed to projectile) shooting. At most, it ensures that 4/13 of the damage of mutalisks isn't wasted. And... hey, when you have 2500/2500 worth of units camped in your mineral line, things are pretty much expected to evaporate. Seems reasonable to me.
As for their hard counters (phoenixes and thors), mutas do in fact have a huge problem with phoenixes. They get trounced when they outnumber phoenixes 3:2, at equal (0/0) upgrades and they cannot force an engagement with phoenixes since they can't catch up with them (and in fact die if they try). Likewise, mutalisks *will* die horribly to thors if the numbers aren't stupidly stacked in the mutalisks' favour. Even worse with thor+marine, which is actually the proper counter. This is perfectly normal. People don't expect to make six marauders and win every engagement with roaches thereafter, nor do zergs assume to be immune from hellions because they have eight roaches, or even a few mutas, on the map. I have no clue why people think that it should be that way with mutalisks.
And... uh, listen, don't take it the wrong way, but I don't think that you're not examining your complaints very thoroughfully. Of course if your anti-air gets decimated then you're going to lose against air units! Do you expect P to be able to hold large number of banshees after losing 80% of their stalkers to marauders? T to beat void rays after losing 80% of their marines to psi storm? Z to defeat phoenixes after losing 80% of their hydralisks or whatever else they're using as anti-air?
Likewise, why should T have a chance to win even after they massed units that were geared towards a direct assault, attacked and managed not to win against harassment-style units in a heads-on fight? If the reason why they lost the army is that Z had an overwhelming one at home AND mutas to harass, then it means that they had economically lost a few minutes ago. If that's not the case, then they managed their attack horribly - losing the game as a result seems reasonable.
EPT
" face. Total mutas built? Around 30 I'd say. Damage done with them? 1 nexus denied +1 colossus. 
