Ht has prism, faster than all and lets them dodge fungal.
You canât bring another unit into it now. No one is talking about transporting ghost or infestor with overlord.
1 Like
Thatâs becauee overlords are too slow to be used to transport unlike prism 
Not dropships though. Have to cherry pick everything donât you.
I am cherrypicking after you pointed to the only other caster in the game that has an auto-attack as proof blizz doesnât only make toss a-move friendly?
Also ghosts in dropships are used, Iâve even seen ghost drop opening used at the low gm level within the past month, meanwhile whenâs the last time you saw an infestor drop? WoL?
Yes it is. That is why Blizzard explicitly reworked Ravens and removed Infested Terran.
Zerg could counter that simply by making more Infestors and throwing more Infested Terran.
It is exactly the same.
Ravens deal with splitting by adding more Ravens and throwing more Seeker Missiles such that the opponent doesnât have the time and space to split.
Infestors dealt with splash and any other threat by throwing down more Infested Terran at different spreads or intervals.
In both cases, you could deal with any opponentâs counter by making more casters.
Yes you can, but you canât say that every unit scales into problematic levels. Casters in particular are explicitly designed to stop scaling up after a certain point, so that they remain support units rather than armies themselves!
Fungal doesnât stack. Parasitic Bomb doesnât stack, Blinding Cloud doesnât stack, AAM doesnât stack, EMP doesnât stack (hard limits on energy and shields and a single EMP usually exceeds shields anyway, the original EMP couldnât stack at all because it was a full drain), Feedback doesnât stack (full drain), Defensive Matrix didnât stack, Dark Swarm didnât stack, Guardian Shield doesnât stack, Stasis Trap doesnât stack, etc.
A casterâs spells must be non-stacking to be properly balanced because spells must also be exceedingly powerful compared to combat units and have to be in order to be worth their energy costs. Spells can only be properly balanced if they are non-stacking to limit the use of casters.
No it doesnât. Zerg consistently countered those threats in professional games by massing more Infestors and throwing more Infested Terran to overwhelm the splash units.
A counter is not effective when the best solution to it is to mass more of the supposedly countered unit.
[quote=âLeGrack-1768, post:39, topic:20283â]
Auto-turret still exists and IT doesnât, proof that middle ground can exist for problematic spell. In fact auto-turret was even more egregious design as it could control entire areas of the map for minutes at a time.
[/quot
Auto-Turrets have a similar potential to be problematic and should be removed and replaced by another spell.
Auto-Turrets do have limits that Infested Terran lack (no movement + large size that prohibits their placement) that give Ravens a soft-cap, but that isnât enough to justify the existence of the ability.
The existence of Infested Terran themselves is the problem because they can be massed to deal with any threat.
Infested Terran were problematic when they didnât have rockets and didnât get upgrades. Weakening Infested Terran increases the number of Infestors that Zerg has to make before the problem becomes âunmanageableâ, but it is still makes mass Infestors an unmanageable problem.
Again, there was no balance point for Infested Terran. If Infested Terran were useful at all, then Zerg could handle any threat by massing Infestors simply based on the way that energy and spells scale. There was no balance point whatsoever where Infested Terran would be useful as a support ability without encouraging Zerg to mass Infestors to drown armies with them.
1 Like
No it is not, please find me the explicit quote.
But that is not how any zerg counters them, and neither did we even see mass infestor in ZvZ during its most dominant patches, except maybe when fungal still did bonus to armored. Especially considering how dominant roaches are in the midgame and lurkers in late, I donât see mass infestor or IT spam being a problem whatsoever in that MU.
Iâm not sure where youâre going with this splitting example, but you can simply kill IT before it hatches. It is a 70 hp egg that transfers % dmg dealt to IT, no race should have problems with masses of these units with lurkers, tanks, mines, collosi, disruptor, and storm existing.
Then they should remove auto-turret for the same reason!
And none of those spells are countered by ground splash. I can âstackâ ITâs 30 times and all you have to do to counter is press storm 3 times, or the siege/burrow button, or a-move your collosi.
Spell stacking is not unique to IT and is dependent on how you define âstackingâ, but just because it stacks doesnât mean it should be removed, all that matters is availability of sufficient counters, which all races have.
Please show me those games where zerg overwhelmed with mass IT against their counters. I am guessing that these games zerg had a huge resource lead, which allows one to overcome counter relationships between units with sheer numbers. All races can do this, but itâs more iconic with the zerg theme.
Ok well I guess this was a waste of time.
But they can still be countered by more supply efficient anti-casters or simply ground splash.
Were you in a coma during hots?
Infested terrans need to be in the game in some form. They castrated infestor pretty hard. Why not make another way to build infested terrans?
More units never hurt anything. In fact, they really help stale gameplay, which is what 1v1 is.
1 Like
Yes I could agree, if they just let queen infest burning cc to spawn them that would be awesome, but what it feels like now is they removed a unit almost as iconic as the carrier instead of bothering to balance it.
And tbf to Terranic, I would even be fine with seeker missile returning provided they experiment more with cast range and missile drop off.
1 Like
That is exactly how Zerg were countering them.
Simple, any splash damage unit that the opponent tries to use to clean-up Infested Terran can be easily mitigated overwhelmed by those same Infested Terran.
Zergâs solution to Disruptors, HT, Mines, etc was to space out the eggs during the throw and keep replacing them.
For Siege Tanks or Colossus you just spread or throw larger waves.
This is exactly what Zergs were doing to counter splash with Infestors when Infested Terran were still a thing.
EXACTLY!
Guardian Shield is actually countered by ground splash, but Infested Terran are not.
Infestors are easily capable of overwhelming most splash damage units with Infested Terran.
You simply spread out the eggs a little (which you can easily do with 9 range throwing distance), throw them in waves against energy/cooldown based units; or throw them in a large but spread batch to overwhelm splash units with a consistent effect.
You can easily defeat almost any splash damage unit in the game just by massing Infestors with Infested Terran. The spell is completely indefensible.
No, you really canât.
You can try, but if the Infestor player doesnât royally screw up they can outrange all of your anti-casters with both Fungal and IT, and outlast or overwhelm your splash with more Infested Terran. The solution to both of those threats is literally MAKE MORE INFESTORS!
No, I remember those games; which is one of many reasons why I am against the return of Infested Terran.
Apparently you are an idiot who doesnât understand what I said:
Seeker Missiles, PDD, and Infested Terran were all inherently problematic abilities that had no place in StarCraft II. Spells should ALWAYS have hard diminishing returns to prevent players from massing the casters. They should never stack!
AAM initially kept some of the instant damage from Seeker Missiles. At one point this damage was as low as 15, and even that was enough to make mass Ravens problematic. The fact is that spells with stacking effects can and will easily make mass caster compositions problematic if those abilities are worth using at all.
They do have diminishing returns if counters are sufficient, for example a lower range seeker missile might be balanced now that zerg has pb.
And auto-turrets were nerfed and are no longer problematic. Yet again, middle ground.
No they do not.
Auto-Turrets were reworked, and they are stronger now after the rework than they were before. They still have the potential to be a problematic ability, which is why I am in favor of completely removing them and replacing them with something that doesnât stack.
Yes they do, for example the more ravens you mass the more effective enemy aoe is.
No, the more Ravens you mass the larger the army you can DELETE.
You donât care about enemy splash, Feedback, EMP, etc because you can easily split and overwhelm those threats with more of your own spells. Whatever survives wonât be enough to deal with a few Thors, Vikings, or Battlecruisers.
Infestors with Infested Terran produced the same problemâexcept they were much better against anti-casters.
And you are free to have that opinion, just as I am free to say it is a stupid and arbitrary one considering wc3 has this exact dynamic with summoned units (stacking spell) vs dispel (sufficient counter).
Yes I get it, the more ravens you mass the more potential damage, but they also become more vulnerable to splashâŚ
But if seeker missile has lower range and you split off a few to cast, they can more easily get picked off for free.
No they werenât lol, compare the ability to one-shot a group of casters with the ability to 2-shot them over 8 seconds with fungal or wait 3 sec for ITâs to hatch and then dps them.
Most spells cannot stack in WarCraft III. AOE is very restricted (typically only a few hero units with âmaximum damageâ limits imposed on top of that); and similar buffs cannot stack.
Summoned units do exist in the game; but they also cause problems (such as providing much safer/easier leveling) despite both the existence of dispels and the experience they provide to enemy heroes (whereas killing summoned units in StarCraft has no benefit whatsoever).
No, they really donât! The Raven flock will easily nuke whatever enemy units try to hit them. Enemy splash will rarely have the chance to kill any of the Ravens in the exchange.
Now youâve reintroduced the problem that existed in WOL:
- Raven flocks can still nuke armies out of existence with Seeker Missiles. This problem remains in every case where Ravens can get in range to target something.
- But Seeker Missiles as a spell is rarely worth using because Ravens usually canât get in range to use it. In order to justify the risk you have to land multiple Seeker Missiles in the dive.
You didnât fix anything! PLAYERS WOULD STILL EITHER MASS RAVENS FOR SEEKER MISSILES, OR THEY WOULD NOT USE THE SPELL AT ALL! The spell might as well get deleted because you canât justify using it as a support caster, and mass Ravens is cancer.
This was a problem in WOL, mass Ravens got worse in HOTS when Seeker Missiles became more usable; and mass Ravens continued to be a problem until both Seeker Missiles and PDD were removed in LOTV.
Yes they were.
You could always dump the Infested Terran to use energy and zone out or punish the enemy casters and other threats. Fungal was simply an alternative to that; one which could greatly amplify the effectiveness of the Infested Terran you threw.
Again, this depends on how you define stacking. It is a given you think summoning spells stack, but what about say multiple casts of chain lightning? That kinda seems like it stacks in the same way seekers do, true itâs not aoe, but it hits multiple targets with a larger range. What about banshee possession? The bigger your stack of banshees the bigger army you can possess. Spirit links? Of course easy counter is dispel, something that is aoe and very efficient. Almost like having sufficient counters justifies spell stacking 
Yes exactly, even though they violate this rule of yours the game is balanced to allow them to exist because your opponent can benefit from you using this strategy by using dispel/gaining exp, just like how ITâs could be countered by more supply efficient anti-casters and aoe!