I still don't understand: Mutalisks against Terran
Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
Heyjoray
240 Posts
| ||
Beelzebub1
997 Posts
I don't see any imbalance in their air strength though, Vikings are terrible vs Mutalisks without Thor or Marine support, the Mutalisks can almost always at least catch Liberators in defense mode and catch a quick kill or two. If your still losing Mutalisks to mines then it's purely a micro issue bro. | ||
Heyjoray
240 Posts
On November 17 2015 12:31 Beelzebub1 wrote: Mutalisks are fine in the match up, you just can't engage with even numbers using Mutalisks, you pretty much can't do it with Corruptors either you need a numerical advantage. I don't see any imbalance in their air strength though, Vikings are terrible vs Mutalisks without Thor or Marine support, the Mutalisks can almost always at least catch Liberators in defense mode and catch a quick kill or two. If your still losing Mutalisks to mines then it's purely a micro issue bro. Why am i watching so many zergs playing Corrupter instead of mutalisks? Are the pro zergs really that bad? Frankly enough, iam alright with being just as bad | ||
EonuS
Slovenia186 Posts
corruptors are much harder to take out than mutas are, they also have longer range that is extremely useful when taking down liberators AND you can morph them into BLs later | ||
Heyjoray
240 Posts
On November 17 2015 12:57 EonuS wrote: because mutalisks get destroyed by liberator + marine/mine/thor, while corruptors do not and it's no more complicated than that. On top of that, quick spire builds don't work anymore on high level because you need fast 3rd hatchery for production and economy against terrran which wasn't as necessary in HoTS corruptors are much harder to take out than mutas are, they also have longer range that is extremely useful when taking down liberators AND you can morph them into BLs later Oh man, the question wasnt: "Why are corrupter better against liberator?". The question was: "Why should we prefer a slow dull unit over a fast paced unit? | ||
EonuS
Slovenia186 Posts
On November 17 2015 13:04 Heyjoray wrote: Oh man, the question wasnt: "Why are corrupter better against liberator?". The question was: "Why should we prefer a slow dull unit over a fast paced unit? if you're that pedantic about it: - terran just got a mobile unit that is DESIGNED to counter mutalisk while already having plenty of natural ways to deal with it from previous games - mutas are not cost efficient in small numbers and there are plenty of builds that can strike at a timing where you don't have the critical mass of mutas to be aggressive with them - current high-level meta revolves around terran being the aggressor and zerg being the defender because of how economy changed zerg gameplay and to clarify, my reply was directed to this question Why am i watching so many zergs playing Corrupter instead of mutalisks? Are the pro zergs really that bad? Frankly enough, iam alright with being just as bad | ||
xTJx
Brazil419 Posts
| ||
Dazed.
Canada3301 Posts
On November 17 2015 13:13 EonuS wrote: if you're that pedantic about it: - terran just got a mobile unit that is DESIGNED to counter mutalisk while already having plenty of natural ways to deal with it from previous games - mutas are not cost efficient in small numbers and there are plenty of builds that can strike at a timing where you don't have the critical mass of mutas to be aggressive with them - current high-level meta revolves around terran being the aggressor and zerg being the defender because of how economy changed zerg gameplay and to clarify, my reply was directed to this question -Your clearly the one being pedantic, he was getting to the heart of the actual question. -The rest of your post explains why mutalisks are logically not favoured, which was not the question being asked. So let me be the third person to attempt this: Why was the game designed in such a way, as to exclude units conducive to the game being fun--in this particular case mutalisks not being used--? Grasp? | ||
EonuS
Slovenia186 Posts
On November 17 2015 13:26 Dazed_Spy wrote: -Your clearly the one being pedantic, he was getting to the heart of the actual question. -The rest of your post explains why mutalisks are logically not favoured, which was not the question being asked. So let me be the third person to attempt this: Why was the game designed in such a way, as to exclude units conducive to the game being fun--in this particular case mutalisks not being used--? Grasp? to avoid any further misconceptions: and to clarify, my reply was directed to this question | ||
ChristianS
United States3126 Posts
If it's the former, then liberators weren't added specifically to make mutalisks bad in the matchup. They were added because they're cool units with a lot of interesting strategy and interactions. Frequently a consequence of adding a unit is that the units it does well against become more popular, and the units it does badly against, less. But Blizzard simply can't keep every fun unit viable just because people think they're fun. The strategy simply isn't so top-down as that. Starcraft is cool partly because the strategy is figured out organically by the players, and unless there's a balance issue, Blizzard tries to stay out of it. One consequence of that is that if the current meta isn't totally to your liking, you don't get to feel personally victimized by Blizzard. If you're just whining that your favorite unit isn't popular right now, I sympathize. I think ghosts and tanks are awesome, and for most of HotS, I got very little of either. It's unfortunate, but that's how things work sometimes. You don't get to choose what to play against, and just because a strategy is fun doesn't mean it's viable. | ||
Heyjoray
240 Posts
On November 17 2015 14:03 ChristianS wrote: To clarify, what are you advocating? Are you saying liberators should be removed? Or are you just whining that your favorite unit isn't very popular right now? If it's the former, then liberators weren't added specifically to make mutalisks bad in the matchup. They were added because they're cool units with a lot of interesting strategy and interactions. Frequently a consequence of adding a unit is that the units it does well against become more popular, and the units it does badly against, less. But Blizzard simply can't keep every fun unit viable just because people think they're fun. The strategy simply isn't so top-down as that. Starcraft is cool partly because the strategy is figured out organically by the players, and unless there's a balance issue, Blizzard tries to stay out of it. One consequence of that is that if the current meta isn't totally to your liking, you don't get to feel personally victimized by Blizzard. If you're just whining that your favorite unit isn't popular right now, I sympathize. I think ghosts and tanks are awesome, and for most of HotS, I got very little of either. It's unfortunate, but that's how things work sometimes. You don't get to choose what to play against, and just because a strategy is fun doesn't mean it's viable. So whats left? Roach ravager or ling bane corrupter for lotv? | ||
ETisME
12082 Posts
I just want to see what the game is like when it settle down | ||
Lunareste
United States3595 Posts
| ||
Heyjoray
240 Posts
On November 17 2015 15:23 Lunareste wrote: That's for the players to decide. If you're so gung-ho about Mutalisks being viable then you should figure out how to make them viable. You act like as if i'm asking for Swarm Host to be viable again | ||
Topdoller
United Kingdom3860 Posts
But i see the OPs point about a more boring unit like the corrupter being necessary now for Zerg to deal with air units. Muta has been a core unit of Zerg since the beginning and now its not. Time will tell on this as its way too early to pass judgment on any unit at present | ||
Timelog
Netherlands57 Posts
On November 17 2015 15:09 Heyjoray wrote: So whats left? Roach ravager or ling bane corrupter for lotv? - Ling/Hydra/Lurker/Ultra - Roach/Hydra/Lurker - Ling/Ravager - ect. There is enough you can do. Also, muta are still very much viable depending on your style and what the Terran does. People, including pros, are mostly experimenting a lot currently with builds. Don't forget the game is extremely new, and most pros barely touched LotV on any serious level during Beta due to WCS. Also, corruptors are pretty fun units now imo. With the caustic spray ability they are finally a unit that can do something more then only shoot air units. On November 17 2015 15:49 Heyjoray wrote: You act like as if i'm asking for Swarm Host to be viable again Vibe used to do a Lurker/SH build that made SH pretty string. I believe PiG also was experimenting with it. So in certain builds they are viable ^.^ | ||
BeStFAN
483 Posts
mutalisk | ||
Heyjoray
240 Posts
On November 17 2015 16:52 Timelog wrote: - Ling/Hydra/Lurker/Ultra - Roach/Hydra/Lurker - Ling/Ravager - ect. There is enough you can do. Also, muta are still very much viable depending on your style and what the Terran does. People, including pros, are mostly experimenting a lot currently with builds. Don't forget the game is extremely new, and most pros barely touched LotV on any serious level during Beta due to WCS. Also, corruptors are pretty fun units now imo. With the caustic spray ability they are finally a unit that can do something more then only shoot air units. Vibe used to do a Lurker/SH build that made SH pretty string. I believe PiG also was experimenting with it. So in certain builds they are viable ^.^ Oh yeah, lurker against Terran. Watched vibe and pig playing them, both of them ditched Lurker quickly. Pig spends like 20+ minutes being the terrans bitch, defending and watching him expand. I also havent seen a single lurker in about half a year in a pro game. I also played them myself. They suck so badly against terran. Its nothing but awkward. Especially after they got nerfed yet again. Waiting two and a half minutes on a bad tech isnt worth it. | ||
Shuffleblade
Sweden1903 Posts
The actual reason that the the liberator was "needed" was this, terran needed a new unit and Blizzard was totally stumped with what to give T. T as a race was alread well rounded but needed another unit that would add something, thats why, there's not really any other deep meaning behind it. T could use (did not need but could use) a hard-counter against massive numbers of mutas, the thought behind this is that it stops Z from going all out mass mutas because of liberators being a hardcounter. The problem this spawned is that the complete picture with marines, mines, thors and liberators makes it foolish to go for any amount of mutas basically, its just too many threats. The intent was only to stiffle the mass muta strategy but it ended upp effecting much more. | ||
MChrome
Netherlands201 Posts
I mean, there must be a reason why almost every single ZvT in HotS had a muta flock, but im sure it wasnt because mutas were extremely effective against terrans. There must be another reason | ||
| ||