|
On December 06 2012 15:59 Zenbrez wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 11:29 Sc2Null wrote:On December 06 2012 10:43 skurj wrote:On December 06 2012 06:29 MyNameIsAlex wrote:On December 06 2012 06:18 Ghend wrote:
Proof that blizzard listens, but are frustratingly slow to act. Looking forward to see less infestors. Maybe it'll make pvz more interesting. All in all: Zerg design sucks. This is the main problem. And because Zerg had to have a way to win, Blizz buffed the infestor leading to the current situation. Agreed. But I think HOTS fixes this. Blinding cloud should be a good alternative to fungal growth in large engagements. I'm looking forward to it. You do know, the infestor was never buffed...but i'll let people think what they want.. The only change they made to the infestor was decreasing stun effect from 8(overpowered) to 4 while keeping the damage the same. Units don't have to be buffed to "suddenly become OP", the meta game can make huge changes without there being any patch changes. Remember mlg anaheim2011? The Slayers terran were all going blue flame hellion and just raping everyone. Then the tournament passed, every terran saw how good that was, and started raping everyone, even though they knew it was going to happen. You can't then argue that the hellion was never buffed and therefore is fine. The metagame changed, and it was in fact OP. Same applies to the infestor.
The metagame changed because of patches that both directly and indirectly buffed the infestor: multiple times. Infestors have nothing in common with this analogy, lol.
|
On December 05 2012 19:13 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 19:02 plogamer wrote:On December 05 2012 18:50 ETisME wrote:On December 05 2012 18:47 Moochlol wrote:On December 05 2012 18:35 birchman wrote:
Let's see if this has any positive effect. It would be really nice to not see as many infestors for a while. Zerg is still going to make Infestor im afraid, they only way to cost effectively hold waves of good bio tank pushes. Also Infester is still the safest way to get to t3 against Toss. If anything you will see more of them to make up for the nerf. If some new game play comes from this patch I would be surprised. that's how I feel as well, strangely Zerg didn't get any kind of buff in other units to compensate a big nerf of their core unit Then explain how zergs held bio tank pushes with ling/bling/muta? Just one example off the top of my head: by setting up flanks with super fast units and good creep spread. A Zerg that doesn't flank is like a Terran that doesn't use medivac drops. Aside from Stephano, you hardly see flanks nowadays because Zergs simply don't have to. Hopefully this changes. On December 05 2012 18:56 Serpico wrote:On December 05 2012 18:52 Finnz wrote:
if muta ling bane is played properly its actually more effective than infestors. The problem with muta ling bane is that its a lot harder and apm intensive. The transitions from muta ling bane into the late game is what pretty much kills terran straight up if the zerg has done enough damage to the terran. So all the moaning about infestors being underpowered and what not is pretty silly. This change will be much better for spectators as well as just for playing the game. People need to understand how much infestors were ruining the starcraft 2 viewership. I think the pros, the guys who can make all the high level plays would have stayed with ling muta bane if that were the case. Infestors and fungal is just straight up better and less risky. The worst part of lings and banes is when you have to run them into tanks and marines and hope they dont all die before they get there. Being melee you have to risk losing large portions of your army before they get to even do a single thing, that's why it isn't fun playing with it. It's really stressful. You absolutely have to catch the terran off guard or have immaculate splits. Flank. Flank. Flank. With creep, Zergs get an awesome early warning system. It's also very cheap and easy for Zergs to hold xel'nagas and/or a couple lings running around the map to spot areas without creep and without xel'naga. So much map control just never put to use because Zergs can just fungal and a-move. the problem is not all the maps allow you to 'flank' and there comes a point when muta ling baneling just no longer are cost efficient enough. going back to the older maps, shakuras for example, or the newer maps in hots, Akilon Wastes. there aren't much space or room to flank. Once terran set up PFs and turtle hard, there is nothing a zerg can throw at terran to break that defense (ignoring hots new units) I think zerg needs to get a new buff to some other units in order to let them NOT use infestors heavy composition. It's not only because infestors were strong, it's because muta ling banelings can't cut it eventually.
unless u get ahead big time, muta ling bling is NEVER cost efficient vs a decent player.
its only a way for the zerg to abuse holes in Ts play and to reset pushes (reducing tank-count heavily) in order to transition out of it, the ONLY composition for zerg that actually is costefficient, is BL infestor corruptor...
|
On December 06 2012 11:29 Sc2Null wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 10:43 skurj wrote:On December 06 2012 06:29 MyNameIsAlex wrote:On December 06 2012 06:18 Ghend wrote:
Proof that blizzard listens, but are frustratingly slow to act. Looking forward to see less infestors. Maybe it'll make pvz more interesting. All in all: Zerg design sucks. This is the main problem. And because Zerg had to have a way to win, Blizz buffed the infestor leading to the current situation. Agreed. But I think HOTS fixes this. Blinding cloud should be a good alternative to fungal growth in large engagements. I'm looking forward to it. You do know, the infestor was never buffed...but i'll let people think what they want.. The only change they made to the infestor was decreasing stun effect from 8(overpowered) to 4 while keeping the damage the same.
Yea I hate to tell you this but that decreasing stun effect actually turned out to be a buff.
It doubled the DPS...DOUBLED.
You used to be able to at least somewhat heal the damage you were getting from fungals but now if you land one fungal that second one will kill your marines...period...nothing you can do.
Change is fine, it still makes fungal growth one of the most boring spells ever but hey at least infestors might have to die now to cast it...yay.
|
On December 05 2012 21:30 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 21:21 Antylamon wrote:On December 05 2012 21:16 Andr3 wrote:
You guys remember how much changed when immortals "ONLY" got a +1 range upgrade?
I think this patch might help a lot, I'm glad Blizzard is making ~small~ adjustments. And we all remember the rampage when Queens got +2 range. +1 range on immortal made a night and day difference because of other Protoss units that would block and prevent immortals from being able to fire. (edit: basically went from doing practically 0 dps to full dps) +2 range on queens also made a huge difference because they could go against the short ranged hellions much more effectively. (edit: again, went from doing - 0 dps to full dps, since players used to be able to kite queens with hellions) -1 range on infestor will not be as huge a change because infestors are still very safe behind Broodlord range, broodlings. What makes infestors super safe isn't just their range, but also the fact that tanks have to unseige against broodlords. Tanks are the number 1 killer of infestors in TvZ. I'm hoping more ghosts will be employed due to the changes, since they're slightly less susceptible to broodlings (ie, they won't kill their own units) BUT, it's a a change in the right direction.
what if, the T had vikings to battle Broodlords, the infesters wont be able to fungal them without getting massacred by Tanks
|
On December 06 2012 19:16 NEEDZMOAR wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 19:13 ETisME wrote:On December 05 2012 19:02 plogamer wrote:On December 05 2012 18:50 ETisME wrote:On December 05 2012 18:47 Moochlol wrote:On December 05 2012 18:35 birchman wrote:
Let's see if this has any positive effect. It would be really nice to not see as many infestors for a while. Zerg is still going to make Infestor im afraid, they only way to cost effectively hold waves of good bio tank pushes. Also Infester is still the safest way to get to t3 against Toss. If anything you will see more of them to make up for the nerf. If some new game play comes from this patch I would be surprised. that's how I feel as well, strangely Zerg didn't get any kind of buff in other units to compensate a big nerf of their core unit Then explain how zergs held bio tank pushes with ling/bling/muta? Just one example off the top of my head: by setting up flanks with super fast units and good creep spread. A Zerg that doesn't flank is like a Terran that doesn't use medivac drops. Aside from Stephano, you hardly see flanks nowadays because Zergs simply don't have to. Hopefully this changes. On December 05 2012 18:56 Serpico wrote:On December 05 2012 18:52 Finnz wrote:
if muta ling bane is played properly its actually more effective than infestors. The problem with muta ling bane is that its a lot harder and apm intensive. The transitions from muta ling bane into the late game is what pretty much kills terran straight up if the zerg has done enough damage to the terran. So all the moaning about infestors being underpowered and what not is pretty silly. This change will be much better for spectators as well as just for playing the game. People need to understand how much infestors were ruining the starcraft 2 viewership. I think the pros, the guys who can make all the high level plays would have stayed with ling muta bane if that were the case. Infestors and fungal is just straight up better and less risky. The worst part of lings and banes is when you have to run them into tanks and marines and hope they dont all die before they get there. Being melee you have to risk losing large portions of your army before they get to even do a single thing, that's why it isn't fun playing with it. It's really stressful. You absolutely have to catch the terran off guard or have immaculate splits. Flank. Flank. Flank. With creep, Zergs get an awesome early warning system. It's also very cheap and easy for Zergs to hold xel'nagas and/or a couple lings running around the map to spot areas without creep and without xel'naga. So much map control just never put to use because Zergs can just fungal and a-move. the problem is not all the maps allow you to 'flank' and there comes a point when muta ling baneling just no longer are cost efficient enough. going back to the older maps, shakuras for example, or the newer maps in hots, Akilon Wastes. there aren't much space or room to flank. Once terran set up PFs and turtle hard, there is nothing a zerg can throw at terran to break that defense (ignoring hots new units) I think zerg needs to get a new buff to some other units in order to let them NOT use infestors heavy composition. It's not only because infestors were strong, it's because muta ling banelings can't cut it eventually. unless u get ahead big time, muta ling bling is NEVER cost efficient vs a decent player. its only a way for the zerg to abuse holes in Ts play and to reset pushes (reducing tank-count heavily) in order to transition out of it, the ONLY composition for zerg that actually is costefficient, is BL infestor corruptor...
Zerg, the race with the best macro options, being cost efficient, well that's scary, isn't it?
And what you say is not true. If you MICRO ling bling muta can be cost efficiënt. 1a it and you can't be cost efficiënt. Split by patrolling your army before engaging, and flank, makes it cost efficiënt. Terran needs code S micro to be able to stay even, just saying.
So many patchzergs on ladder, it's just awesome. Most zergs try muta ling bling now, and damn, they are so bad with it. They are so used to 1a with infestors..
|
This also means that it's much harder to fungal stalkers without being within the range of colossous!
I think these changes are decent...Not too much but might still have a great affect.
Not that I had a problem with infestors, but at least it might make people shut up just abit....( until they find the next thing to make a billion threads about )
|
On December 06 2012 19:27 NEEDZMOAR wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 21:30 plogamer wrote:On December 05 2012 21:21 Antylamon wrote:On December 05 2012 21:16 Andr3 wrote:
You guys remember how much changed when immortals "ONLY" got a +1 range upgrade?
I think this patch might help a lot, I'm glad Blizzard is making ~small~ adjustments. And we all remember the rampage when Queens got +2 range. +1 range on immortal made a night and day difference because of other Protoss units that would block and prevent immortals from being able to fire. (edit: basically went from doing practically 0 dps to full dps) +2 range on queens also made a huge difference because they could go against the short ranged hellions much more effectively. (edit: again, went from doing - 0 dps to full dps, since players used to be able to kite queens with hellions) -1 range on infestor will not be as huge a change because infestors are still very safe behind Broodlord range, broodlings. What makes infestors super safe isn't just their range, but also the fact that tanks have to unseige against broodlords. Tanks are the number 1 killer of infestors in TvZ. I'm hoping more ghosts will be employed due to the changes, since they're slightly less susceptible to broodlings (ie, they won't kill their own units) BUT, it's a a change in the right direction. what if, the T had vikings to battle Broodlords, the infesters wont be able to fungal them without getting massacred by Tanks
Seige tanks already outrange infestors. This change doesn't suddenly bring infestors into tank fire range. Will make it easier to hit infestors, but that's it. And between cracklings and broodlings, seige mode is a hazard to terrans anyway.
|
On December 06 2012 19:16 NEEDZMOAR wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 19:13 ETisME wrote:On December 05 2012 19:02 plogamer wrote:On December 05 2012 18:50 ETisME wrote:On December 05 2012 18:47 Moochlol wrote:On December 05 2012 18:35 birchman wrote:
Let's see if this has any positive effect. It would be really nice to not see as many infestors for a while. Zerg is still going to make Infestor im afraid, they only way to cost effectively hold waves of good bio tank pushes. Also Infester is still the safest way to get to t3 against Toss. If anything you will see more of them to make up for the nerf. If some new game play comes from this patch I would be surprised. that's how I feel as well, strangely Zerg didn't get any kind of buff in other units to compensate a big nerf of their core unit Then explain how zergs held bio tank pushes with ling/bling/muta? Just one example off the top of my head: by setting up flanks with super fast units and good creep spread. A Zerg that doesn't flank is like a Terran that doesn't use medivac drops. Aside from Stephano, you hardly see flanks nowadays because Zergs simply don't have to. Hopefully this changes. On December 05 2012 18:56 Serpico wrote:On December 05 2012 18:52 Finnz wrote:
if muta ling bane is played properly its actually more effective than infestors. The problem with muta ling bane is that its a lot harder and apm intensive. The transitions from muta ling bane into the late game is what pretty much kills terran straight up if the zerg has done enough damage to the terran. So all the moaning about infestors being underpowered and what not is pretty silly. This change will be much better for spectators as well as just for playing the game. People need to understand how much infestors were ruining the starcraft 2 viewership. I think the pros, the guys who can make all the high level plays would have stayed with ling muta bane if that were the case. Infestors and fungal is just straight up better and less risky. The worst part of lings and banes is when you have to run them into tanks and marines and hope they dont all die before they get there. Being melee you have to risk losing large portions of your army before they get to even do a single thing, that's why it isn't fun playing with it. It's really stressful. You absolutely have to catch the terran off guard or have immaculate splits. Flank. Flank. Flank. With creep, Zergs get an awesome early warning system. It's also very cheap and easy for Zergs to hold xel'nagas and/or a couple lings running around the map to spot areas without creep and without xel'naga. So much map control just never put to use because Zergs can just fungal and a-move. the problem is not all the maps allow you to 'flank' and there comes a point when muta ling baneling just no longer are cost efficient enough. going back to the older maps, shakuras for example, or the newer maps in hots, Akilon Wastes. there aren't much space or room to flank. Once terran set up PFs and turtle hard, there is nothing a zerg can throw at terran to break that defense (ignoring hots new units) I think zerg needs to get a new buff to some other units in order to let them NOT use infestors heavy composition. It's not only because infestors were strong, it's because muta ling banelings can't cut it eventually. unless u get ahead big time, muta ling bling is NEVER cost efficient vs a decent player. its only a way for the zerg to abuse holes in Ts play and to reset pushes (reducing tank-count heavily) in order to transition out of it, the ONLY composition for zerg that actually is costefficient, is BL infestor corruptor...
Yes, to win, a player has to outplay his opponents. Terran a-move is even less efficient against muta/ling/bling. But they have to set up tank lines, split units, drops to divert army to create position etc. etc. etc. basically, abuse holes in zerg play.
|
On December 06 2012 19:50 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 19:16 NEEDZMOAR wrote:On December 05 2012 19:13 ETisME wrote:On December 05 2012 19:02 plogamer wrote:On December 05 2012 18:50 ETisME wrote:On December 05 2012 18:47 Moochlol wrote:On December 05 2012 18:35 birchman wrote:
Let's see if this has any positive effect. It would be really nice to not see as many infestors for a while. Zerg is still going to make Infestor im afraid, they only way to cost effectively hold waves of good bio tank pushes. Also Infester is still the safest way to get to t3 against Toss. If anything you will see more of them to make up for the nerf. If some new game play comes from this patch I would be surprised. that's how I feel as well, strangely Zerg didn't get any kind of buff in other units to compensate a big nerf of their core unit Then explain how zergs held bio tank pushes with ling/bling/muta? Just one example off the top of my head: by setting up flanks with super fast units and good creep spread. A Zerg that doesn't flank is like a Terran that doesn't use medivac drops. Aside from Stephano, you hardly see flanks nowadays because Zergs simply don't have to. Hopefully this changes. On December 05 2012 18:56 Serpico wrote:On December 05 2012 18:52 Finnz wrote:
if muta ling bane is played properly its actually more effective than infestors. The problem with muta ling bane is that its a lot harder and apm intensive. The transitions from muta ling bane into the late game is what pretty much kills terran straight up if the zerg has done enough damage to the terran. So all the moaning about infestors being underpowered and what not is pretty silly. This change will be much better for spectators as well as just for playing the game. People need to understand how much infestors were ruining the starcraft 2 viewership. I think the pros, the guys who can make all the high level plays would have stayed with ling muta bane if that were the case. Infestors and fungal is just straight up better and less risky. The worst part of lings and banes is when you have to run them into tanks and marines and hope they dont all die before they get there. Being melee you have to risk losing large portions of your army before they get to even do a single thing, that's why it isn't fun playing with it. It's really stressful. You absolutely have to catch the terran off guard or have immaculate splits. Flank. Flank. Flank. With creep, Zergs get an awesome early warning system. It's also very cheap and easy for Zergs to hold xel'nagas and/or a couple lings running around the map to spot areas without creep and without xel'naga. So much map control just never put to use because Zergs can just fungal and a-move. the problem is not all the maps allow you to 'flank' and there comes a point when muta ling baneling just no longer are cost efficient enough. going back to the older maps, shakuras for example, or the newer maps in hots, Akilon Wastes. there aren't much space or room to flank. Once terran set up PFs and turtle hard, there is nothing a zerg can throw at terran to break that defense (ignoring hots new units) I think zerg needs to get a new buff to some other units in order to let them NOT use infestors heavy composition. It's not only because infestors were strong, it's because muta ling banelings can't cut it eventually. unless u get ahead big time, muta ling bling is NEVER cost efficient vs a decent player. its only a way for the zerg to abuse holes in Ts play and to reset pushes (reducing tank-count heavily) in order to transition out of it, the ONLY composition for zerg that actually is costefficient, is BL infestor corruptor... Zerg, the race with the best macro options, being cost efficient, well that's scary, isn't it? And what you say is not true. If you MICRO ling bling muta can be cost efficiënt. 1a it and you can't be cost efficiënt. Split by patrolling your army before engaging, and flank, makes it cost efficiënt. Terran needs code S micro to be able to stay even, just saying. So many patchzergs on ladder, it's just awesome. Most zergs try muta ling bling now, and damn, they are so bad with it. They are so used to 1a with infestors..
Hahahaha... Why would you go back to Muta/ling/bling, when all that is being done is change the battleoutcomes slightly?
That being said, it's quite funny how every Terran keeps on talking about how zerg should play Muta/ling/bling. Ever opened muta/ling/bling vs thors? Hihi, BO-loss...
Ever opened Muta/ling/bling vs 3base double upgrade bio? Hihi, gl hf fighting with 1-1 or 2-2 against 3-3 marines...
Muta/ling/bling died at the end of 2011, when Terrans found out that they don't have to allin of two bases everygame and hope to do damage and instead just start a third command center before 10mins.
And the fact that mech got really popular and is often a freewin for T (when realizing mutas are incoming) or a freewin for zerg (when T doesn't realize mutas are coming) doesn't really help - at least not in making games more interesting.
I was there. I stayed with mutas until even the korean zergs stopped using mutas all together, because no matter how good you are, upgrade your lings against marines (and vis-versa) or die trying.
|
On December 06 2012 21:38 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 19:50 Snowbear wrote:On December 06 2012 19:16 NEEDZMOAR wrote:On December 05 2012 19:13 ETisME wrote:On December 05 2012 19:02 plogamer wrote:On December 05 2012 18:50 ETisME wrote:On December 05 2012 18:47 Moochlol wrote:On December 05 2012 18:35 birchman wrote:
Let's see if this has any positive effect. It would be really nice to not see as many infestors for a while. Zerg is still going to make Infestor im afraid, they only way to cost effectively hold waves of good bio tank pushes. Also Infester is still the safest way to get to t3 against Toss. If anything you will see more of them to make up for the nerf. If some new game play comes from this patch I would be surprised. that's how I feel as well, strangely Zerg didn't get any kind of buff in other units to compensate a big nerf of their core unit Then explain how zergs held bio tank pushes with ling/bling/muta? Just one example off the top of my head: by setting up flanks with super fast units and good creep spread. A Zerg that doesn't flank is like a Terran that doesn't use medivac drops. Aside from Stephano, you hardly see flanks nowadays because Zergs simply don't have to. Hopefully this changes. On December 05 2012 18:56 Serpico wrote:On December 05 2012 18:52 Finnz wrote:
if muta ling bane is played properly its actually more effective than infestors. The problem with muta ling bane is that its a lot harder and apm intensive. The transitions from muta ling bane into the late game is what pretty much kills terran straight up if the zerg has done enough damage to the terran. So all the moaning about infestors being underpowered and what not is pretty silly. This change will be much better for spectators as well as just for playing the game. People need to understand how much infestors were ruining the starcraft 2 viewership. I think the pros, the guys who can make all the high level plays would have stayed with ling muta bane if that were the case. Infestors and fungal is just straight up better and less risky. The worst part of lings and banes is when you have to run them into tanks and marines and hope they dont all die before they get there. Being melee you have to risk losing large portions of your army before they get to even do a single thing, that's why it isn't fun playing with it. It's really stressful. You absolutely have to catch the terran off guard or have immaculate splits. Flank. Flank. Flank. With creep, Zergs get an awesome early warning system. It's also very cheap and easy for Zergs to hold xel'nagas and/or a couple lings running around the map to spot areas without creep and without xel'naga. So much map control just never put to use because Zergs can just fungal and a-move. the problem is not all the maps allow you to 'flank' and there comes a point when muta ling baneling just no longer are cost efficient enough. going back to the older maps, shakuras for example, or the newer maps in hots, Akilon Wastes. there aren't much space or room to flank. Once terran set up PFs and turtle hard, there is nothing a zerg can throw at terran to break that defense (ignoring hots new units) I think zerg needs to get a new buff to some other units in order to let them NOT use infestors heavy composition. It's not only because infestors were strong, it's because muta ling banelings can't cut it eventually. unless u get ahead big time, muta ling bling is NEVER cost efficient vs a decent player. its only a way for the zerg to abuse holes in Ts play and to reset pushes (reducing tank-count heavily) in order to transition out of it, the ONLY composition for zerg that actually is costefficient, is BL infestor corruptor... Zerg, the race with the best macro options, being cost efficient, well that's scary, isn't it? And what you say is not true. If you MICRO ling bling muta can be cost efficiënt. 1a it and you can't be cost efficiënt. Split by patrolling your army before engaging, and flank, makes it cost efficiënt. Terran needs code S micro to be able to stay even, just saying. So many patchzergs on ladder, it's just awesome. Most zergs try muta ling bling now, and damn, they are so bad with it. They are so used to 1a with infestors.. Hahahaha... Why would you go back to Muta/ling/bling, when all that is being done is change the battleoutcomes slightly? That being said, it's quite funny how every Terran keeps on talking about how zerg should play Muta/ling/bling. Ever opened muta/ling/bling vs thors? Hihi, BO-loss... Ever opened Muta/ling/bling vs 3base double upgrade bio? Hihi, gl hf fighting with 1-1 or 2-2 against 3-3 marines... I was there. I stayed with mutas until even the korean zergs stopped using mutas all together, because no matter how good you are, upgrade your lings against marines (and vis-versa) or die trying.
I don't say you have to! I say that a lot of zergs THINK that the infestor is now useless, so they switch to muta ling bling.
Muta ling bling is actually still viable, and you see top koreans like leenock and DRG using it again, with great success. The problem is that a ton of zergs became good thanks to the infestor, so going back to ling bling muta would mean those "infestorzergs" drop in skill, and not a little bit. Then those infestorzergs go on the forums, and tell people that muta ling bling is not viable.
|
On December 06 2012 21:52 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 21:38 Big J wrote:On December 06 2012 19:50 Snowbear wrote:On December 06 2012 19:16 NEEDZMOAR wrote:On December 05 2012 19:13 ETisME wrote:On December 05 2012 19:02 plogamer wrote:On December 05 2012 18:50 ETisME wrote:On December 05 2012 18:47 Moochlol wrote:On December 05 2012 18:35 birchman wrote:
Let's see if this has any positive effect. It would be really nice to not see as many infestors for a while. Zerg is still going to make Infestor im afraid, they only way to cost effectively hold waves of good bio tank pushes. Also Infester is still the safest way to get to t3 against Toss. If anything you will see more of them to make up for the nerf. If some new game play comes from this patch I would be surprised. that's how I feel as well, strangely Zerg didn't get any kind of buff in other units to compensate a big nerf of their core unit Then explain how zergs held bio tank pushes with ling/bling/muta? Just one example off the top of my head: by setting up flanks with super fast units and good creep spread. A Zerg that doesn't flank is like a Terran that doesn't use medivac drops. Aside from Stephano, you hardly see flanks nowadays because Zergs simply don't have to. Hopefully this changes. On December 05 2012 18:56 Serpico wrote:On December 05 2012 18:52 Finnz wrote:
if muta ling bane is played properly its actually more effective than infestors. The problem with muta ling bane is that its a lot harder and apm intensive. The transitions from muta ling bane into the late game is what pretty much kills terran straight up if the zerg has done enough damage to the terran. So all the moaning about infestors being underpowered and what not is pretty silly. This change will be much better for spectators as well as just for playing the game. People need to understand how much infestors were ruining the starcraft 2 viewership. I think the pros, the guys who can make all the high level plays would have stayed with ling muta bane if that were the case. Infestors and fungal is just straight up better and less risky. The worst part of lings and banes is when you have to run them into tanks and marines and hope they dont all die before they get there. Being melee you have to risk losing large portions of your army before they get to even do a single thing, that's why it isn't fun playing with it. It's really stressful. You absolutely have to catch the terran off guard or have immaculate splits. Flank. Flank. Flank. With creep, Zergs get an awesome early warning system. It's also very cheap and easy for Zergs to hold xel'nagas and/or a couple lings running around the map to spot areas without creep and without xel'naga. So much map control just never put to use because Zergs can just fungal and a-move. the problem is not all the maps allow you to 'flank' and there comes a point when muta ling baneling just no longer are cost efficient enough. going back to the older maps, shakuras for example, or the newer maps in hots, Akilon Wastes. there aren't much space or room to flank. Once terran set up PFs and turtle hard, there is nothing a zerg can throw at terran to break that defense (ignoring hots new units) I think zerg needs to get a new buff to some other units in order to let them NOT use infestors heavy composition. It's not only because infestors were strong, it's because muta ling banelings can't cut it eventually. unless u get ahead big time, muta ling bling is NEVER cost efficient vs a decent player. its only a way for the zerg to abuse holes in Ts play and to reset pushes (reducing tank-count heavily) in order to transition out of it, the ONLY composition for zerg that actually is costefficient, is BL infestor corruptor... Zerg, the race with the best macro options, being cost efficient, well that's scary, isn't it? And what you say is not true. If you MICRO ling bling muta can be cost efficiënt. 1a it and you can't be cost efficiënt. Split by patrolling your army before engaging, and flank, makes it cost efficiënt. Terran needs code S micro to be able to stay even, just saying. So many patchzergs on ladder, it's just awesome. Most zergs try muta ling bling now, and damn, they are so bad with it. They are so used to 1a with infestors.. Hahahaha... Why would you go back to Muta/ling/bling, when all that is being done is change the battleoutcomes slightly? That being said, it's quite funny how every Terran keeps on talking about how zerg should play Muta/ling/bling. Ever opened muta/ling/bling vs thors? Hihi, BO-loss... Ever opened Muta/ling/bling vs 3base double upgrade bio? Hihi, gl hf fighting with 1-1 or 2-2 against 3-3 marines... I was there. I stayed with mutas until even the korean zergs stopped using mutas all together, because no matter how good you are, upgrade your lings against marines (and vis-versa) or die trying. I don't say you have to! I say that a lot of zergs THINK that the infestor is now useless, so they switch to muta ling bling. Muta ling bling is actually still viable, and you see top koreans like leenock and DRG using it again, with great success. The problem is that a ton of zergs became good thanks to the infestor, so going back to ling bling muta would mean those " infestorzergs" drop in skill, and not a little bit. Then those infestorzergs go on the forums, and tell people that muta ling bling is not viable.
Oh well, it is viable. But not "no matter what" (so like infestor builds, biomech, mech, bio). Not against Mech, not on a lot of maps (usually the rather smaller ones, but has a lot to do with the base layout). Not in the classical way with mass muta (that is completly dependend on winning a battle or getting quite ahead).
In fact, most people just use it as a 2-2 timing attack. Upgrades first, then build like ~8 mutas, force turrets a low tankcount and then crush an oppenent's position with mass ling/bling - assuming it is a somewhat open position.
It's simply not the the "open two base muta, harass, crush attacks and preseve mutas, harass more, crush more attacks and drops, win with 30mutas" - microheavy style anymore, unless you play on whirlewind where you have ages of time to do damage (and morph banelings).
|
On December 06 2012 20:03 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 19:27 NEEDZMOAR wrote:On December 05 2012 21:30 plogamer wrote:On December 05 2012 21:21 Antylamon wrote:On December 05 2012 21:16 Andr3 wrote:
You guys remember how much changed when immortals "ONLY" got a +1 range upgrade?
I think this patch might help a lot, I'm glad Blizzard is making ~small~ adjustments. And we all remember the rampage when Queens got +2 range. +1 range on immortal made a night and day difference because of other Protoss units that would block and prevent immortals from being able to fire. (edit: basically went from doing practically 0 dps to full dps) +2 range on queens also made a huge difference because they could go against the short ranged hellions much more effectively. (edit: again, went from doing - 0 dps to full dps, since players used to be able to kite queens with hellions) -1 range on infestor will not be as huge a change because infestors are still very safe behind Broodlord range, broodlings. What makes infestors super safe isn't just their range, but also the fact that tanks have to unseige against broodlords. Tanks are the number 1 killer of infestors in TvZ. I'm hoping more ghosts will be employed due to the changes, since they're slightly less susceptible to broodlings (ie, they won't kill their own units) BUT, it's a a change in the right direction. what if, the T had vikings to battle Broodlords, the infesters wont be able to fungal them without getting massacred by Tanks Seige tanks already outrange infestors. This change doesn't suddenly bring infestors into tank fire range. Will make it easier to hit infestors, but that's it. And between cracklings and broodlings, seige mode is a hazard to terrans anyway. Making it easier to hit infestors is the entire point, though.
Infestors die in 2 tank shots. -1 range means your vikings have a little more freedom in engaging Zerg air, which should mean much more even engagements.
|
|
|
On December 06 2012 21:38 Big J wrote:
Hahahaha... Why would you go back to Muta/ling/bling, when all that is being done is change the battleoutcomes slightly?
That being said, it's quite funny how every Terran keeps on talking about how zerg should play Muta/ling/bling. Ever opened muta/ling/bling vs thors? Hihi, BO-loss...
You have really no idea what you're talking about. What does it even mean, “opening muta/ling/bling vs thors”? Dozens of build orders can lead to Zerglings/Banelings/Mutalisks, there is no such thing as a “build order loss” if Terran happens to mech (and even if your BO loss nonsense was true, what prevents you from scouting with an Overseer before morphing a Spire?) and gets two Thors to fend off your initial Mutalisks wave, because the common answer is simply to build a Roach Warren and to switch. Watch Vortix play, he does it all the time. Just because you make some Mutalisks at first doesn't mean you have to keep producing them until you have 30+.
On December 06 2012 21:38 Big J wrote:
Ever opened Muta/ling/bling vs 3base double upgrade bio? Hihi, gl hf fighting with 1-1 or 2-2 against 3-3 marines...
Yeah, and gl hf holding a massive speedbanes timing with no or delayed Tanks. Just because you don't know how to react to Terran greed when playing Mutalisks doesn't mean there is no answer. If you're still 1-1 when Terran gets 3-3... I don't know what to say without sounding rude.
On December 06 2012 21:38 Big J wrote:
I was there. I stayed with mutas until even the korean zergs stopped using mutas all together
Do you even watch current games?
|
On December 06 2012 23:00 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 21:38 Big J wrote:
Hahahaha... Why would you go back to Muta/ling/bling, when all that is being done is change the battleoutcomes slightly?
That being said, it's quite funny how every Terran keeps on talking about how zerg should play Muta/ling/bling. Ever opened muta/ling/bling vs thors? Hihi, BO-loss... You have really no idea what you're talking about. What does it even mean, “opening muta/ling/bling vs thors”? Dozens of build orders can lead to Zerglings/Banelings/Mutalisks, there is no such thing as a “build order loss” if Terran happens to mech (and even if your BO loss nonsense was true, what prevents you from scouting with an Overseer before morphing a Spire?) and gets two Thors to fend off your initial Mutalisks wave, because the common answer is simply to build a Roach Warren and to switch. Watch Vortix play, he does it all the time. Just because you make some Mutalisks at first doesn't mean you have to keep producing them until you have 30+. Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 21:38 Big J wrote:
Ever opened Muta/ling/bling vs 3base double upgrade bio? Hihi, gl hf fighting with 1-1 or 2-2 against 3-3 marines... Yeah, and gl hf holding a massive speedbanes timing with no or delayed Tanks. Just because you don't know how to react to Terran greed when playing Mutalisks doesn't mean there is no answer. If you're still 1-1 when Terran gets 3-3... I don't know what to say without sounding rude. Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 21:38 Big J wrote:
I was there. I stayed with mutas until even the korean zergs stopped using mutas all together Do you even watch current games?
I am assuming a classic muta style with a "two base" lair opening 9-10min mutas (of course you can build a third base with this, but you don't saturate it). Of course you can go 3base full saturation and 1-1 first and go mutalisks at 11-12min. Why you would still want them after fighting off banshees and hellions differently and after the Terran volatility window of taking a third base, I don't know...
Yeah, you can build an overseer after you reached lair and delay your spire for ~30seconds until you know it's mech. Doesn't change that you are on a two base 4gas BO, after which you can only go two base muta or two base infestor, both without upgrades.
And yes, apart from the GSL semifinals I watch current games. The last times I saw mutalisks it was Leenock on Whirlwind, an extremly good mutalisk map due to size and baselayout. Then the two Life vs MVP final games on Antiga and Daybreak, (both showing the exteme stupidity that is staying two base vs Terran, as it is harder to defend two bases while teching, then three bases while droning). On Antiga Life gged (after taking a lot of damage) the moment he saw Thors, on Daybreak he basically just bought a little bit of time to get back into infestors, as he realized he was facing mech... And then I think I have seen a few ling/bling/mutalisk allins.
So yeah, people use mutalisk openings - which is something different than muta/ling/bling builds btw - but when and how often? Mostly when the map favors mutalisks, and for a midgame allin. And then, most of the time they still transition into infestor/ling+hive asap.
|
On December 06 2012 23:20 Big J wrote:
I am assuming a classic muta style with a "two base" lair opening 9-10min mutas (of course you can build a third base with this, but you don't saturate it).
But why do you think Mutalisk plays only comes down to 2-bases Mutalisks? 3-bases Mutalisks does exist.
On December 06 2012 23:20 Big J wrote:
Of course you can go 3base full saturation and 1-1 first and go mutalisks at 11-12min. Why you would still want them after fighting off banshees and hellions differently and after the Terran volatility window of taking a third base, I don't know...
Well... to play Mutalisks, of course. I don't see any link between your Lair tech choice and the fact you deal with Hellions/Banshees without Mutalisks. It's not like their only role is to defend Hellion/Banshee harass.
On December 06 2012 23:20 Big J wrote:
Yeah, you can build an overseer after you reached lair and delay your spire for ~30seconds until you know it's mech. Doesn't change that you are on a two base 4gas BO, after which you can only go two base muta or two base infestor, both without upgrades.
2-bases Roaches exist too, and it's deadly against mech. But anyway, why on earth are you thinking that you can't go fast upgrades with 2-bases Lair? It's just flat out wrong. No one forces you to skip upgrades in order to get 2 additional Mutalisks in your initial wave. Well, at least I understand better your 1-1 against 3-3 story now, obviously if you wait 11 minuts before starting 1-1...
Still, building some Mutalisks against mech is not a problem at all since you usually force Thors which are awful against the following Roach agression.
On December 06 2012 23:20 Big J wrote:
And yes, apart from the GSL semifinals I watch current games. The last times I saw mutalisks it was Leenock on Whirlwind, an extremly good mutalisk map due to size and baselayout. Then the two Life vs MVP final games on Antiga and Daybreak, (both showing the exteme stupidity that is staying two base vs Terran, as it is harder to defend two bases while teching, then three bases while droning).
In the last big tournament, IPL5, there was Mutalisk play in ZvT: DRG vs Bomber, Polt vs Sniper, MMA vs Shine (if I remember correctly), ... You just can't say Mutalisk play is dead in ZvT.
On December 06 2012 23:20 Big J wrote:
On Antiga Life gged (after taking a lot of damage) the moment he saw Thors
Precisely, the primary reason he left was not Thors but the fact that thanks to his usual carelessness, he had allowed Mvp to wipe out his mineral line with Hellions.
On December 06 2012 23:20 Big J wrote:
And then I think I have seen a few ling/bling/mutalisk allins.
At which point does it cease to be an attack to become an all-in, though?
|
On December 06 2012 16:24 ionlyplayPROtoss wrote:
The patch is an utter joke. Played 3 games vs a friend and he didn't even realize the patch was in effect. High masters btw so not noob games T_T.
I'm glad you experienced every situation where the range change / IT health change might make a difference in your 3 games. Your conclusion from 3 games is an utter joke.
|
On December 06 2012 05:38 3xTr4_FragQuenz wrote:
This change is an absolut joke.
-1 Range, so the infestor has to walk 0,4 seconds more to fungal...
Health form 100 to 70? When there are 30 infested Terrans, they will spawn no matter what and still doing incredible damage for just ENERGY (more DPS then Marines but almost zero costs)
and the raven change. Well if you have the economy to make a raven switch possible without losing right away, then you are also able to afford then upgrade.
Thanks for that sham patch/change.
So far the results of blizzards hard work are not that great, lets see if they can do a real (and fair) change what really changes something....would be nice
The change makes it so that zerg has to actually look at their army constantly and have less chance of winning the game with 1 lucky fungal. If terran can look away for 2 seconds and lose their whole army to fungal I don't see why zergs can't pick out better engagements with infesters. This would also seperate the good zergs from the bad. The bad patchzergs will run their infesters into tak lines like an idiot while the good ones won't. And the infested terran is a stupid unit late game. You can spawn a whole army for free, with upgrades they are BETTER than marines with 3/3 which is absolutely rediculous coming from a free unit. No other energy unit in the game benefits from upgrades which is why people are saying auto turrets are shit since they do no damage to fully upgraded zerg units.
|
This looks interesting. This will change the game away from the way it is now which is good in my opinion. I might want to play again now xD
|
The infestor is still a viable unit after it's nerf, ghosts still aren't used in tvz after it's nerf.
I wouldn't mind this fact if Blizard could some times atleast admit they might have made a mistake or oversight, that would show to the fans they understand the game fully, this complete refusal to accept that they might have made mistakes just to me shows a lack of full understanding of the game.
Or alternatively a complete and utter lack of care.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
