Zerg Hydralisk stab or spit?

which is why i said the true replacement is the stalker. its more flexible. and can do everything the goon could, and then some.

 

Sorry Burkid, I don't think you get what I mean... I don't mean that the Dragoon doesn't have an adequate replacement.....

Lemme transpose it to Zerg Maybe I'll be clearer because I understand them better.

Say Blizzard gets rid of the Hydralisk and introduces the Suckalisk. This Suckalisk is the evolved version of the Hydralisk, it's bigger, badder, and further up the evolutionary ladder.

Now let's say this Suckalisk doesn't fire at air targets, it has a lot of armor, but it has a definitive weakness, just like its predecessor. It also moves slower than the Hydralisk and has become a beast of burden for the race.

Now, if Zerg was "replacing" the Hydralisk with this unit, it would be better, not slower, more clumsy, and more likely to die. Even though there is now a different unit, say the "Yetilisk" that shoots both and and ground, moves faster, does less damage but fires faster and has a tunnel ability, it's still not the "replacement" for the Hydralisk. Even though gameplay-wise it is, it's still not it's replacement.

Hope I cleared that up lol. BTW I get what you're saying Burkid and agree with you. They could have TOTALLY eliminated this problem by saying the walkers were the replacements for the Dragoons and the Immortals were new.

 

The direct replacement for the dragoon, gameplay wise and in functionality is the stalker.

The immortal, however, is a completely new unit that is replacing the dragoon only according to the 'lore' of starcraft, its own personal history.

So the immortal isnt the new dragoon, the stalker is.

 

The immortal is the base-invader-tank, that halves cannon's dmg while they carve their way inside protoss defenses.

And just so you all know, evolution doesn't work like that. I'm a biologist, so I would know that ;-) Even though Starcraft uses "evolution" kind of like this, it can be also interpreted otherwise.

Evolution mean change, into other new things, not necessarily better, as "better" in evolutionary terms is very relative. That's why zerg larva can evolve into other forms: it not necessarily is better, but it changed from it's later form to a new one with diferent capabilities. Oh, and sry for the lecture! ;-)

BTW, as a response to the topic question: I think they swallow!

 

you dirty little hamster

 

I may be wrong but Hydralisks don't "spit" at all do they? I remember reading in the manual or something else from Blizzard that they launch these spines from their carapace with corrosive acid or whatever they generate.

In the game though, it does look like they are spitting.

 

yeah i know to, spines, really annoying since it both sounds and looks like their spitting!

 

Actually, pancake, I think we discussed that earlier in this thread. They fire armor-piercing spines, but nowhere is it said that the Hydralisk is poisonous.

 

Okay, sorry I didn't read much of the previous posts so I didn't know.

Well, to be an ass for detail, corrosive acid isn't nesscairly poisonous, its just a dissolvent. Hence, why could be used for "piercing armor."

I only say this though because in the game they shoot that green stuff along with the spines.

 

Right. I haven't seen anywhere that this "green" stuff is corrosive, poisonous, or in another other way dangerous. I have heard that Zerg blood is supposedly acidic, but nothing enough to eat through metal, etc...

 

spit for range, stab for melee

 

Well we've had this discussion in this thread a lot already.

We've pretty much come to the agreement that the "stabbing" of units that are very close is just an animation, kind of like the new Zealot animations... It would be NO different from the spines being shot.

 

I think similiar to Dawn of War every unit in SC2 should have meelee and range animations, unless of course they are purely melee. Unlike Dawn of War JUST animation changes, not actual damage changes.

 

It would be better for them if they could have extra dmg to melee attackers. It would kind of enhance their role as ranged unit, while making it tougher to the usual counter to them. And it would be a lot cooler! ;-)

 

As (I think) mentioned a few times, it should just vary depending on what they're attacking.

A Zealot in front of them. Slashing for the same damage as spines.
A Marine at a distance. Firing spines.
A Banshee above them. Firing spines.
A Viking (air form) retreating. Firing spines.

 

The Hydralisks originally stabbed but then new breeds of HYDRALISKS evolved with the spitting stuff.
The hydra in the trailer was an old generation hydra

 

You gotta be kidding me, slugonice.

Your post makes no sense at all. Only in SC1 beta did the Hydralisks have a melee variation. And the cinematic was simply to add effect.

Check your sources.

 

i thought it was confirmed long ago that hydras would have a melee attack...oh well.

i think that hydras should have a melee attack. after all, those claws they hav eshouldn't just be for show. the melee attack would do slightly more damage then the ranged attack (maybe 2 or 3 more), therefore making them somewhat useful but still inferior to the spit attack unless they're fighting melee enemies

 

When was it established that they would have a melee attack that was for more damage than their ranged attack?

That really doesn't make sense in terms of balance if a ranged unit has a more powerful melee attack. That would make them have pretty much no weakness.

 

2 damage really isn't that much, is it? they do slightly increased damage, but they lose their ranged attack, their ability to fire in volleys and such.