For those who say the infestor negates micro:

General Discussion
Prev 1 4 5 6
11/17/2012 08:40 AMPosted by MalZen
No one has quoted my post yet. Waiting, come at me


=D if you really want to argue, i'll play somewhat.

11/15/2012 09:34 PMPosted by MalZen
Fungal Growth with 9 range does 30 dmg (40 Dmg vs Mech)


40 vs armored or mech? Either way it really only matters very slightly since the only time this matters is against bio units that are armored (raoch, marauder).

11/15/2012 09:34 PMPosted by MalZen
- on average the marines take 30 dmg from fungal growth when not (able to be) microe'd


-Marines will take 30 MAX damage, not on average. fungal and EMP deael a set damage, while Psi storm does not. This also only counts 1 fungal.

Now then:

1) Your argument is EXACTLY why people hate fungal. You state that Psi storms REQUIRES micro, while you state that Fungal NEGATES micro. This is the key difference. I don't like fungal because of this quality. When a terran gets psi stormed, they HAVE to move. They can't just tank through it all. The micro is not optional in this case, but you have to micro.

Conversely, fungal does the opposite. When you get any significant portion of your army fungal'd (an equivocal amount to force back an army with Psi storm) you either MUST engage, or MUST fall back (sacrificing the fungal'd units). In this case, the micro also not optional, but rather than being forced to actually do something, you have all of your options removed.

2) You don't even mention the viking issues. Vikings are used in both MUs, and both are attacked by fungal and Psi. The difference? PsiStorm knocks the vikings away, Fungal instantly puts them in the position to be wiped out. Vikings cannot leave, thus fungal can be chained, or even simply allow the vikings to be forced to fight in an unfavorable position and without support.

3) Your very premise is the exact reason why Fungal is disliked, as highlighted in point one. PsiStorm forces micro, which is different from fungal removing micro. One is based on skill, the other negates skill.

The distinction between the spells is only how/where the spells are cast and the opponents reaction.
If either spell are used most effectively nearly the same damage is done and neither can be avoided.

Psi Storm usually forces away the opponents army (including the units that were not hit)
Fungal Growth still gives the opponent the option to press forward with the units not currently under the Fungal Growth affect.

Fungal roots the units in its radius leaving the rest of the army to be microed; psionic storm forces a micro of your entire army.
You don't get a choice in micro in either situation.
Fungal takes your ability to move units where you want to.
Psi forces you to move units, guess where, where you don't want to.

The marines are not attacking when they are moving out of the AOE of Psi Storm
The marines are attacking when in the AOE of Fungal Growth

Both spells have the potential of chain casting (4s per fungal vs. 2s per HT per PsiStorm)

---
Psi Storm & Fungal Growth, regardless of how similar, are different spells. <- that's a period.
---
Avg dmg of Psi Storm against 30 marines...
9-12 marines take 40 dmg
10-13 marines take 30 dmg
5-9 marines take 20 dmg

--- --- ---

My example was marines, and in regards to numbers I was just trying to show the similarities between players ability to "micro" versus storm and the inability to do so versus fungal. Not much of a difference if you react immediately, and more severe if you dont. My arguments arnt invalidated.

You will still get 40 dmg off over 2 seconds with psi storm on some of the mechanical units with ideal cast. But yes, I haven't tested it but I assume against mech (dependent on movspd) fungal would do slightly more dmg than psi storm. But we are talking about damage in the one digits differentiation. (At about 2.25-2.75 movspd)

The thing is PsiStorm does similar damage, with the potential for much more, and basically prevents damage done against the caster (unless the opponent doesnt back off and suicides into storm); While Fungal does damage and prevents the opponent from backing off while the caster is still taking damage.
So let's use a bit "closer" argument: Are battlecruisers and mutalisks similar enough to compare? They're both fliers, both attack air and ground.

Ok, but those are attributes.
I'm talking role.
Infestors and Tanks both do aoe at a range, and are thus used for zoning the enemy.

If you want to compare Mutalisks to anything, compare it to the Banshee, as it is also used for harassment and map control.

I would love if 4 tanks could realistically kill entire armies if my opponents made small mistakes. That would be awesome. Sadly, that doesn't happen. Think about the last time you ran mutas into thors and the last time you ran mutas into infestors. Which one did more damage? I'm willing to bet the infestors did.

Due to the fact that Tank's damage is instant, longer range, and that it can stack, it would be severely unfair if 4 Tanks could do that.
When I am fighting a Zerg that goes Infestors and I'm using Mutalisks, I throw them in one or two at a time kind of like using Zerglings against Banelings, assuming their Queens aren't nearby.
The only way I've been successful using them against Thors is when they have two or less, no other anti-air, and I magic box, but even then I am losing just as much as he is.
People single out Fungal because the effects aren't instantaneous. It's more frustrating to watch yourself being beaten slowly because it seems like a less decisive defeat. Those who bring up EMP's travel time are grasping at straws given how quickly EMP gets to its target location.

This isn't to say Fungal isn't poorly balanced, it's just that it being 'anti-micro' is a poor argument.
Ok, but those are attributes.
I'm talking role.
Infestors and Tanks both do aoe at a range, and are thus used for zoning the enemy.

If you want to compare Mutalisks to anything, compare it to the Banshee, as it is also used for harassment and map control.


I had a feeling you were going to use this tack.

The role of siege tanks is not just for "zoning the enemy". It's a siege unit, used for long-range bombardment of buildings or units, and are helpless if something gets close to them.

The infestor's role is to lock down large groups of enemy units, either to kill them by chain fungals or to allow other units to close the distance and kill them.

That's not the same role at all. The ONLY comparison you have is that both deal aoe damage. The OP was asking why fungal was singled out over other aoe damage abilities. The reason is very simple: fungal removes the ability for units to be micro'd. No other ability in the game does that as easily as fungal, no matter how hard you try and argue it.
Due to the fact that Tank's damage is instant, longer range, and that it can stack, it would be severely unfair if 4 Tanks could do that.
When I am fighting a Zerg that goes Infestors and I'm using Mutalisks, I throw them in one or two at a time kind of like using Zerglings against Banelings, assuming their Queens aren't nearby.
The only way I've been successful using them against Thors is when they have two or less, no other anti-air, and I magic box, but even then I am losing just as much as he is.


So your statement is that, so long as you know exactly where the infestors are, they will eventually run out of energy? seems legit. The question of which does more damage here is clearly the infestor since you seems to enjoy throwing mutas at them.

You also answer my question in the exact way I stated. Infestors will keep you from using mutas. You can send 2 to their death at a time, and assuming there is no other AA, you will eventually break through. If there is any other anti-air, infestors are just as scary as thors, except Infestors also give you way more utility, produce faster and cost less.

The 4 tanks killing an entire army is an example. 4 infestors can ruin your day if you walk into them, 4 tanks will hurt, but your not gonna lose your entire army by walking into them. Also, infestors deal instant damage as well. They deal damage instantly with no travels distant, they just do DoT and root, as supposed to tanks which deal full damage each shot.
11/13/2012 11:55 PMPosted by TropicalBob
Against Fungal Growth, that option of retreat is removed. If you catch my Vikings clumped, I don't have the option of retreating and minimizing my losses. If you catch my Marines clumped, they will be chained to death. There is no way to mitigate the damage after it's been initiated.

Medivacs mitigate the damage. Pre-splitting mitigates the damage. Using long ranged units or anti-energy spells mitigates the damage.

If you don't pre-split Banelings and they all die to one Siege Tank shot, you can't mitigate the damage. It's the same thing, except it takes multiple Fungals to kill Terran and Protoss units, rather than one. Oh yeah, and it's range 13 versus 9.


This whole post is just lol. If you walk a few banelings into a tank shot you can pull the rest of your banelings back and then spread them to react. If you walk into a fungal growth you just die, that's about it.
So your statement is that, so long as you know exactly where the infestors are, they will eventually run out of energy? seems legit.

Baiting Forcefields is a good way to handle Sentries so why not?
I had map control, I had the better economy, if the Infestors wanted to leave their base they better not arrive at mine with full energy.

If there is any other anti-air, infestors are just as scary as thors, except Infestors also give you way more utility, produce faster and cost less.

I have never been as afraid of Infestors as I am of Thors.

They deal damage instantly with no travels distant, they just do DoT and root, as supposed to tanks which deal full damage each shot.

DoT isn't instant damage.

If you walk a few banelings into a tank shot you can pull the rest of your banelings back and then spread them to react. If you walk into a fungal growth you just

pull the rest of your banelings back and then spread them to react.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum