EPTLots use it in ZvZ form time to time, and i think they will have a place in ZvP in the future.
[ D ] - Why aren't Zerg pros using Infestors? - Page 3
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
Crovea
Denmark100 Posts
Lots use it in ZvZ form time to time, and i think they will have a place in ZvP in the future. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19573 Posts
Also the cannon part is a little weak. | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
Neural parasite barely even does it's job. Cool I mindcontrol your thor for 15 seconds, assuming my infestor doesn't get killed. Then the thor just starts killing me again. It's all about fungal growth, but units like siege tanks/colossues/etc kinda negate that | ||
|
orotoss
United States298 Posts
In ZvZ they can be useful, but it is usually smarted to just invest in more roaches. If your opponent goes mutas it is usually better to use that gas on hydras or just pump more roaches and get queens. Against protoss they have very limited use. Fungal growth doesn't really do much to the high hp deathball and it isn't even that great against blink stalkers because they can just blink once it wears off. Neural parasite is just a joke. You can almost always do more damage with fungal growth and 90% of the time NP will cause your infestors to get sniped. They are one of the few armored units with no armor (also overlords and most of protoss air). I would much rather fungal growth a bunch of marines and a thor than parasite the thor and maybe do about 100 damage before losing my infestor. The fungal growth can easily do 200-300 damage and you can keep your infestor alive. Infested terrans are not that useful in 1v1s because the unit you are attempting to kill can usually outrun them, and if you have burrow, the enemy will definitely have detection at their bases. | ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
Pretty much ends up the map halfed as no one can push really. But zerg harass is way more effectiv in that situation. because of maphack creep vision. (but since infestors and neural parasite are so bad zergs will slowly lose after going the first broodlords are fended of) While infestors aren't doing that good against Marines (without banelings the terra will just shrug it off split marines before and with banelings its overkill, alsways nice to leave a marine line with marauders in it to force baneling a click so all of them die (or are blocked and die as well)) But against mech play infestors are really evil with neural parasite and denying siege and infested marines shot burrowed to make the tanks to splash damage etc. If the terran of course never has a high medivac count infestors are really good to get a few free kills before engagements against heavy marine play. | ||
|
TheButtonmen
Canada1401 Posts
On February 01 2011 07:15 TLOBrian wrote: Lets say burrow was a much faster upgrade, and infestors were cheaper, could you see infestors being able to harass effectively to being able to lock down expansions with it? Infestors wouldn't be able to harass for several reasons; A) Speed - Infestors would take too long to get there / move from expansion to expansion and couldn't come back to defend. B) Land unit - Without being able to ignore cliffs / wall-ins the infestors would have to take the same path as the defending units thus negating their ability to bounce back and forth. C) Very limited energy - You can't do a prolonged harass as you quickly deplete their energy and once depleted they can't assist on the defence. D) Vunerability - A single scan and they kill the harassing infestor. | ||
|
Warcloud
United States97 Posts
They are DEFINITELY more useful than 1.5 mutas ( in terms of gas cost ). Most zerg players just don't have the raw apm to properly micro infestors while still taking care of their own army positioning, not to mention larva injections and drone/reinforcement production. Zerg is so powerful (I'll refrain from saying "overpowered" because that is a separate discussion) that most zerg players don't even have to know how to micro their army or caster units properly.It's just far easier to shut down harass, make a huge muta ball, and rely on pure economy to carry them. Obviously, this approach is inferior but it is what we see from most zerg players, even upwards of 3k. A fair comparison, I think, is the ghost. If a terran could afford to win against HT without ghosts they would probably do it. But generally speaking, EMP is a necessity in TvP because zealot/HT compositions pretty much destroy anything the terran can muster until BCs, especially in terms of cost-efficiency. Therefore, a terran is generally compelled to get ghosts in order to counter HTs if he wants to win. A zerg player has the luxury of being able to forego infestor play because they have other avenues of victory that generally revolve around getting lucky with a huge muta ball (lucky in the sense that the ball is only really effective if the terran doesn't properly counter mutalisks, which is hit or miss for most Terran players) or just overrunning a more passive player with banelings and roaches (those being the more economical units in the zerg arsenal). There is simply no reason for zergs to have to learn to use infestors with the balance as it is. Personally, I think having two (maybe 1 per base?) infestors around mid-game leading up into larger muta numbers / tier 3 is indispensable. They shut down drops amazingly well, even if the marines are already unloaded/stimmed and obviously they are good in battle also, assuming you don't let them get picked off by 2 marines or siege tanks. They are also useful versus banshees, which although 1/1/2 is rare do present a real threat to zerg in the mid game in large numbers. Infested Terran is good against siege tank/marine play for obvious reasons. I will concede that Neural Parasite is fairly worthless in 95% of circumstances. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On February 01 2011 07:52 Warcloud wrote: + Show Spoiler + Several people have already hit this nail on the head, but I think it bears reiterating since people are still going off on uninformed tangents. They are DEFINITELY more useful than 1.5 mutas ( in terms of gas cost ). Most zerg players just don't have the raw apm to properly micro infestors while still taking care of their own army positioning, not to mention larva injections and drone/reinforcement production. Zerg is so powerful (I'll refrain from saying "overpowered" because that is a separate discussion) that most zerg players don't even have to know how to micro their army or caster units properly.It's just far easier to shut down harass, make a huge muta ball, and rely on pure economy to carry them. Obviously, this approach is inferior but it is what we see from most zerg players, even upwards of 3k. A fair comparison, I think, is the ghost. If a terran could afford to win against HT without ghosts they would probably do it. But generally speaking, EMP is a necessity in TvP because zealot/HT compositions pretty much destroy anything the terran can muster until BCs, especially in terms of cost-efficiency. Therefore, a terran is generally compelled to get ghosts in order to counter HTs if he wants to win. A zerg player has the luxury of being able to forego infestor play because they have other avenues of victory that generally revolve around getting lucky with a huge muta ball (lucky in the sense that the ball is only really effective if the terran doesn't properly counter mutalisks, which is hit or miss for most Terran players) or just overrunning a more passive player with banelings and roaches (those being the more economical units in the zerg arsenal). There is simply no reason for zergs to have to learn to use infestors with the balance as it is. Personally, I think having two (maybe 1 per base?) infestors around mid-game leading up into larger muta numbers / tier 3 is indispensable. They shut down drops amazingly well, even if the marines are already unloaded/stimmed and obviously they are good in battle also, assuming you don't let them get picked off by 2 marines or siege tanks. They are also useful versus banshees, which although 1/1/2 is rare do present a real threat to zerg in the mid game in large numbers. Infested Terran is good against siege tank/marine play for obvious reasons. I will concede that Neural Parasite is fairly worthless in 95% of circumstances. That's very much missing why Zerg's go mutalisks and kinda reeks of subtle unfounded balance complaints. Zergs go mutas for a few important reasons 1. Aggression, mutas force Terran to be defensive at least a little bit and helps to control the pace of the game. 2. Contain, mutas prevent constant expansion by Terran which is an important for Zerg. 3. Stop ground centric play. With mutas on the field Terran has to respect the need for units that shoot up which prevents compositions like hellion/marauder, or tank heavy play. 4. Prevents harass. While infestors can prevent some harass it's gas inefficient and there's a window where a Terran player can strain the energy of a Zerg's infestors leaving them vulnerable. Infestors are also less mobile and can't defend a 3rd as well as mutalisks can. So no, it has nothing to do with being easier or having luxuries. Mid/late game you should have infestors and most people do, but you generally don't see a whole lot because mid/late game ZvT usually involves high tank or thor counts. Since people can't open infestor it also makes them less likely to really use infestors. Remember it is a heavy investment to field more than 1-2 infestors especially when you factor in the energy upgrade. | ||
|
CarlyZerg
United States113 Posts
EDIT, and Warcloud your logic is convoluted. For one thing most people agree that Zerg's macro mechanics are harder than the other races, particularly in the late game, and more punishing for missing a macro cycle (missing an inject vs forgetting to call a MULE or chrono). And pretty much everyone agrees that Zerg needs to be up a base on Terran and Toss to have a chance. Soooo, the supposed "easy-mode" that you're railing against of having a giant economy and making inefficient trades counting on the fact you can replenish quicker, is in fact the primary hurdle of Zerg play. You see a lot of roaches and banelings because these units are some of the only cost-effective trades we can make with a mid-size T or P army. You see a lot of muta because a good Z player can score some damage (any damage, it doesn't even matter what) with insignificant losses. But muta are not real combat units. Which brings us to the infester. IF everything goes right and you hit at least 1 fungal perfectly on a clump of marines, then the infester pays for itself generally speaking. But its very easy for this perfect scenario not to happen, in which case you've squandered your precious economic advantage (basically the only thing Zerg has going for it) on a unit that cannot contribute to your defense until its energy rebuilds. | ||
|
MajorityofOne
Canada2506 Posts
The many problems infestors have in ZvT have been brought up already. Muta/Ling/Banes is the standard midgame composition right now, and it's hard to A) work infestors into your mix safely and B) Micro infestors appropriately, due to their limited range, bulky size, low hp, and slow movement speed. It's a pity because Fungal is such an amazing spell when used correctly. Infestors do have a solid place in late-game ZvT compositions though IF Terran never switches from MMM ZvZ if you're going for the standard Roach/Hydra mix then mixing in some infestors is great if your opponent uses lings or mutas at all. But if they also just mass roaches and hydras FG is pretty limited. | ||
|
ziggurat
Canada847 Posts
http://mrbitter.blip.tv/file/4663284/ LZgamer is the guest on the VOD and he talks about what kind of play causes him problems. There is a lot of discussion about the "standard" muta/ling/bling play and how ling/bling/infestor can be effective in certain situations. Bitter says that he has always played ling/bling/muta and LZ convinces him to try infestor play for a few games. The results are very interesting, and at the end of the VOD MrBitter says that he really liked the play style and that he will try it a lot more in the future. The downside of muta play, as discussed in the vod, is that mutas are very unforgiving if your micro isn't perfect. If you are Nestea that's no problem but if you're a normal human then it's pretty easy to misclick and accidentally fly your mutas over a group of marines. Infestor play doesn't have the same frailty. And it looks like it works pretty well. I'm not a great player but MrBitter is a solid masters player and LZ is a pro. A few good fungals + banelings = epic destruction. Anyway, watch the VOD for a much more detailed discussion of this and a lot of other ZvT issues. | ||
|
Markwerf
Netherlands3728 Posts
This makes them very squishy against tanks (2 shots kill them regardless of upgrades) and stalkers. Both units are seeing too much play too make infestors really good outside of ZvZ. The solution is also simple imo, infestors should be light instead of armored. This makes them better in most common scenario's (vs marine + tank and vs stalker heavy armies) while not changing them in ZvZ. If they'd survive just a few more stalker / tank shots it would be so much easier to use them and I really think they should be a pivotal support unit in each matchup. The fact that the infestation pit is required for hive tech alone should mean the unit needs to have a better role, making a useless building just to tech hive feels so stupid and ugly imo. It should be like the sentry, almost always good as 1 or 2 off and in some matchups even good when massed. | ||
|
Fugue
Australia253 Posts
I always thought Roach/Infestor was a gimmicky burrow-move harass style that wouldn't hold up, but I think I recall Ret saying something along the lines of "Infestors can be great to delay ground pushes when you're behind", and there seems to be some consensus that Infestors can really shut down air play, which would be the major weakness of using roach centric ground forces. Has anyone had much experience using Roach/Infestor? What are the weak points? | ||
|
machination
United States175 Posts
I'd even go so far to say that all races have underused, micro intensive strategies. | ||
|
Imigon
United States7 Posts
I like Infestors vs mech (especially thor-heavy), in which case upgraded roach +NP infestor seems solid. I've also seen a few pros going heavy melee/carapace upgrades mass ling/bane with infestor midgame (this is like the style LZgamer talks about and DIMAGA uses sometimes- I think specifically I saw him do this with success vs QXC on Xel'Naga caverns in a recent showmatch) which sets you up for highly upgraded ultras after hive and with adrenal gland lings this can be pretty strong, especially if you have greater spire up for BL/ultra techswitches which are a great finishing blow. Anyway it's a style I'd definately like to try out and improve at, but I just feel much more comfortable with mutas due to their great mobility and the map presence/awareness they grant you. | ||
|
Rakanishu2
United States475 Posts
Ghosts have more HP Better and more Spells (Cloak, EMP, snipe) Can attack Are tiny and hard to snipe by comparison Pros for infestors: Can burrow move (arguably better than cloak because it doesn't require energy) Infestors can definitely find uses in the current game, but only when the zerg has un-deniable momentum in the game, which begs the question, "if I have this much of an advantage, why not broodlords/ultras rather than blowing my gas on infestors?". Something with infestors needs to get cheaper, gas-wise. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
And obviously they are in ZvZ where they're practically broken (but to be fair, almost every unit is broken in ZvZ. Even Overseers are amazing). But yea, I've seen lots of infestor play against terran. Its pretty much a choice between infestor and muta, and most players favor mutas because you can harass and get into your opponent's face more. Infestors are much less aggressive option by far. | ||
|
Ridiculisk
Australia191 Posts
Let me explain; At the level of play the OP is talking about, every single point (ie:1) gas/minerals counts. Infestor's by and large, are just too gas heavy to fit into the current popular Zerg builds. (Hydra/Roach, Sling/Muta, etc) It's more economical for the pro players like July, or FD to just spend that gas on more muta's or hyrda's or something else. I think it's just a matter of these pro's have practiced these BO's so many times, and got them down so perfectly that there just isnt room for infestors... For non-God-like players like the rest of us (or atleast for me) I feel that they are too big a gas dump (most of the time) to be worth it. Any opponent with decent micro will just focus down the infestor. And like other people have said in this thread already, They don't have much hp and no armor... TL:DR; Very gas heavy. Too easy to kill. | ||
|
KhAmun
United States1005 Posts
An infestor opening will allow you to get them out very fast, hold off early bio pushes and build energy. You get your 3 and 4 geysers faster, blast out 4 infesters and have a healthy group of zerglings, and you're safe against bio pushes. When I play this style, once I get the initial infesters out, I feel very safe to drone, take a third and go straight to mutalisks. Keep in mind this is against bio openings, if they Have any tanks on the earlier side, you'll be hard pressed to fend it off before a reasonable amount of mutalisks comes out. | ||
|
xuanzue
Colombia1747 Posts
On February 01 2011 07:52 Warcloud wrote: They are DEFINITELY more useful than 1.5 mutas ( in terms of gas cost ). Most zerg players just don't have the raw apm to properly micro infestors while still taking care of their own army positioning, not to mention larva injections and drone/reinforcement production. you forget the creep spread. | ||
| ||
