Dustin Browder On the Infestor - Page 32

On November 10 2012 06:30 FabledIntegral wrote:
Infestor needs a dramatic nerf, but the shit people are proposing in this topic is ridiculous. Just read someone who proposed eliminating fungal damage, removing NP, and making IT cost 50 energy. Retarded suggestions like this is probably what makes Blizzard think the community is so volatile and emotionally invested.

On November 10 2012 06:21 ognennyy wrote:
I had an original intent for posting on this forum, but after reading (most of) this thread something else has come to my attention.

Originally I wanted to ask why pro level Terrans no longer use EMP to deal with Infestors?

Changes in the meta game seem to happen so quickly, and those changes are definitely visible in professional play styles, strategies, and mechanics. I realize when snipe was nerfed people by and large stopped using Ghosts. Now that Ghosts are out of the meta, I can't convey how often I watch Zerg players sit with their Infestors in a tight, exposed pack, away from any detection. With that meta shift, why not bring Ghosts back into play? Pow pow... quick 2 EMPs before an attack.

On November 10 2012 06:30 FabledIntegral wrote:
Infestor needs a dramatic nerf, but the shit people are proposing in this topic is ridiculous. Just read someone who proposed eliminating fungal damage, removing NP, and making IT cost 50 energy. Retarded suggestions like this is probably what makes Blizzard think the community is so volatile and emotionally invested.

On November 10 2012 06:32 Prog455 wrote:
Just wondering, but how come Fungal Growth doesn't do friendly damage? Both Storm and EMP affects friendly units aswell.

On November 10 2012 06:33 Channel Pressure wrote:


I bet blizz would appreciate constructive criticism of either the communitys idea's or the infestor rather than a slightly rough tone for your fellow nerds.

50 energy IT isn't a "retarded suggestion" (your words). Its reasonable, at the least to discuss.

On November 10 2012 06:41 FlilFlam wrote:
Personally it seems like sc2 lacks something that BW had.

In BW you had more time to react and there was always more you could do to defend and get out of sticky situations, this gave games more length and more of a scrappy "sport" type of feel. But something about SC2 makes it so volatile that single mistakes have a rather high penchant for loosing you the game at high levels (i believe that singular mistakes in BW did not hurt you as much in terms of timings/defense/engagements as singular mistakes in SC2 do, I could be stupid though)).

I think that the infestor problem might stem from the warp gate mechanic and the FF ability. I think that because the FF ability in large engagements is so strong, along with the strong and safe ability to instantly reinforce on site through warp gates, zergs cannot often compete with this in a natural zergy way. They cannot use their ability for widespread production and economy to stream in units to weaken and defeat an encroaching protoss army because their units simply are not cost effective against a death ball without something extra like fungal. This is why I think in order for us to have found a balance in zvp the infestor fungal growth spell had to be made as strong as it is.

If there were no warp gates, FF's and the infestor was changed, Protoss death balls would still be an issue for zergs, but they would be able to cut off reinforcements and have much greater cost efficiency in actual fights against the death ball because it would have no FF's.

I realize that SC2 has developed around these features to a high degree and that changing them means changing pretty much everything, and it's possible there is some way to balance the infestor and make things more stable, but for now this seems to be how it is.

TL:DR The current game state seems to be that because of FF and warpgates, Zergs simply need the infestor or some kind of AOE in order to gain some measure of cost efficiency against a protoss death ball that instantly reinforces and divides and conquers your units with a generous helping of force fields.

On November 10 2012 06:48 FabledIntegral wrote:


The suggestion was having all three of those occur simultaneously.

I don't agree that 50 energy IT is a good idea, but I can understand it being suggested. I cannot understand all three of those being a simultaneously suggested change.

On November 10 2012 06:21 ognennyy wrote:
I had an original intent for posting on this forum, but after reading (most of) this thread something else has come to my attention.

Originally I wanted to ask why pro level Terrans no longer use EMP to deal with Infestors?

Changes in the meta game seem to happen so quickly, and those changes are definitely visible in professional play styles, strategies, and mechanics. I realize when snipe was nerfed people by and large stopped using Ghosts. Now that Ghosts are out of the meta, I can't convey how often I watch Zerg players sit with their Infestors in a tight, exposed pack, away from any detection. With that meta shift, why not bring Ghosts back into play? Pow pow... quick 2 EMPs before an attack.

Having said that I realize there must be some reason, a very good reason, professionals aren't doing so. I just wanted to hear the community's opinions on what they think that reason may be.

I've seen some very intelligent, well thought and educated points and opinions on Infestors here!! (for whatever that's worth coming from a newb). In my humble opinion all of these points are completely correct in content. Perhaps a slight shift in viewing paradigm could be revealing?

It seems to me that all the complains about Infestors are, while correct and worthy of note, not actually themselves the problems; rather, they are symptoms of a larger, singular problem. That problem kinda piggy-backs on the points above I've read stating that they have too many uses. The true issue with infestors is that they are entirely reactive in nature.

The Zerg player utilizing Infestors has no offensive initiative whatsoever; they need only not make a mistake in order to win. To EMP, snipe, or feedback Infestors requires your attention, APM, and accurate micro. If you make a mistake in doing so, the Zerg player comes out on top. And why does he come out on top? Not because he took the offensive initiative and succeeded, but because his opponent - taking the offensive initiative because he must - made a mistake in doing so.

Same goes for fanning your units as you attack into the Zerg. Does the Zerg player need to worry about fanning his units? Nope, worst case scenario he must fall back and force you to re-fan. Eventually you make a mistake in doing so, your units clump, and get fungaled. But if the non-Zerg player does not take offensive initiative, eventually an end-game army marches across the map to destroy him. During such an attack the Zerg player must only keep his Infestors behind his main attack line, waiting for his opponent to make a mistake. Meanwhile his opponent's APM must be thrice the Zerg player's to ensure proper attack formation.

What needs to be changed about the Infestor is that they must require some offensive initiative. What is imbalanced about the Zerg race right now is that - assuming all other factors equal; each player is equally skilled in strategy, macro, micro, mechanics, etc. etc. - the Zerg player will always win due to never having to take initiative. As long as that holds true, the game will be forever broken.

On November 10 2012 06:52 Channel Pressure wrote:

With respect to this and I appreciate your thoughts here, it would be unreasonably difficult for protoss to fight zerg without forcefields. It is precisely the swarmy nature of zerg that requires forcefields. I think warpgate tech is non-sequitr (sp, too lazy to google!) here. I don't know if you've ever fooled around with playing toss on bnet but alot of early and even midgate engagements stand or fall on good forcefields. There is a dynamic between forcefields and zergs reaction to them that makes the matchup interesting. I think infestors are necessairy later when toss has stronger unit compositions that zerg would trade too ineffeciently against (as it seems protoss is intended to have a highly cost effective army overall). Things like +2stalkers in large groups, sentrys, zealots in large quantities with upgrades. Those call for sufficient zerg units later in the matchup. But in any case, forcefields and WG tech really have much to do with the general design of toss.

On November 10 2012 07:09 NEEDZMOAR wrote:



why is that? isnt it a good thing that well micro trade equally to get a more refined game?

On November 10 2012 07:07 FlilFlam wrote:


Though there might be an interesting dynamic between force fields and the way zerg reacts to them, is it really that interesting compared to games where players have short and long term options other than force field? Is it good to have games come down to FF placement so often? I think this is the sort of volatility that makes the game harder to balance and stabilize.

This echoes my sentiment toward the Infestor. In your own words Infestors are necessary later in the game. I think that a lack of options is not good for the versatility of the game, and the infestor being a requisite to defeat large protoss armies is to me not conducive to the type of play I enjoy; not interesting.

What if instead of warp gates protoss had unit production times reduced in order to allow them to defend themselves early and to macro against a zerg late game? Sure there might need to be some unit balance changes made in terms of hp armor or attack, and the sentry would need to be given something different because as it is FF's are it's main purpose. And yes the design of protoss would be radically changed, but i think it's a discussion we should be having.

In my opinion warp gates are a part of the infestor problem because they strengthen any agression and any deathball with a warp prism in it, and this contributes greatly to a zergs inability to be cost effective without infestors.

Maybe in legacy of the void they could do it without pissing everyone off... We can only hope...

On November 10 2012 07:04 ParamouR wrote:


People keep asking this question without listening to the answers. So here they are very succinctly.

Why Ghosts are not used in TvZ to counter Infestors:

1) Zerg Detection: Zerg has incredibly robust and cheap detection, both with spores, and with 0 supply overseers, which are also highly mobile. This makes cloaking impossible against any competent zerg.

2) Broodlords: Broodlords, when positioned properly, will prevent Ghosts from getting within range of any infestors. On top of this, Ghosts aren't a viable tech option against broodlords anymore, after the snipe nerfs.

3) EMP radius and effect: Assuming that it is possible to EMP, it has a very small radius (currently 1.5), and Infestors have a very large hitbox. This means that one EMP will only hit ~2 infestors. On top of this, you need multiple EMPs to drain all of the energy off of a full energy infestor. In general, so many ghosts and EMPs are needed to pull off 'blacket EMPing' of 20 infestors, that the resource and supply sink is so huge that it isn't viable.

4) It's a coinflip: Given the numbers, a terran is only likely to be effective with ghosts if the zerg makes mistakes whilst the terran does everything perfectly. In other words, the terran has to invest hugely for an uncertain return - a lot of people will be a lot more comfortable with more tanks.

5) Cost and Tech Switches: Ghosts are obviously expensive to tech to and build, with their sole purpose being to kill Infestors. On top of this, to be highly effective, you need a fair number of them. This is a giant cost and supply sink for a terran player, especially when ghosts are useless against any unit that isn't an infestor. If the zerg switches into a Ultra based composition when you have 15 ghosts in your army, you are going to die. This means that massing Ghosts is an even bigger risk on top of all of the other factors.

There are too many factors working against Ghosts in the matchup for them to be a viable tech option anymore.

On November 10 2012 07:17 Channel Pressure wrote:
I think I would share your perspective on a particular unit being necessairy leading to staleness. . SC suffers from that a bit but its a very small problem I think. But I agree with that point to a degree (though zerg does have alternatives in mid game versus toss, still, point taken). To the point of volatility, I dont think thats a flaw of starcraft. In fact I think thats the mark of longevity in a sport. Combat sports and Football can also have an extraordinarily high level of volatility. I think it keeps things fresh in the right way. There is a fine line between volatility and randomness, and I confess at times starcraft can feel random. I don't believe it is random, just that an infinitely small decision that effect the outcome of a game in a way that seems too harsh. But again, this is an attribute of high level competition I think.

But even in saying that I agree with your points with the exception of the warp gate thing. I've never really understood why some people hate WG or think its imbalanced. I guess i don't have anything to add to that point but that WG seems to be, working as intended.