"Muta"lisks that don't mutate

[Aldrius]

Corruptors also compliment Brood Lords much better than Mutalisks complimented Guardians.

This is very debatable.

Short of your terran opponent going battlecruisers to counter your brood lords, Mutalisks are a much better option. Against Protoss and Zerg maybe, though.

[newcomplex]

And Hydralisk don't Hydrate.

[ManjiSanji]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hydra
Hy·dra (hī'drə)
n.

1.Greek Mythology The many-headed monster that was slain by Hercules.
2.A constellation in the equatorial region of the southern sky near Cancer, Libra, and Centaurus. Also called Snake2.
3.A persistent or multifaceted problem that cannot be eradicated by a single effort.

I believe 3 is the intended prefix definition for the Hydralisk. Actually, if that was Blizzard's original intent, that's a lot more elegant than I'd originally thought...

[Triceron]

Hydralisk is not a Hydra, it's a Hydralisk. Mutalisk is a name. It doesn't really matter what kind of reference any unit makes because they're just names.

Marauders don't literally do any marauding. Reapers don't do any reaping. Lets not start changing names of legacy units just because.

[ManjiSanji]

If names have no reference, let's just start calling them, "Unit 1, 2, 3," and so-on.

Names *need* to convey meaning, or they're pointless.
Good lord this is a frustrating argument. I give up.

[Maxa]

What exactly is the alternative? To change the name? But it would clearly be stupid to have a unit which looks and plays exactly like a mutalisk, and which everyone recognizes as such from its long history in SC1, but which is called something else. Or do you think that some kind of mutation ability should be restored? Fine, but then you have to make an argument about gameplay (something which Browder has explicitly addressed), not the appropriateness of the name.

If names have no reference, let's just start calling them, "Unit 1, 2, 3," and so-on.

Names *need* to convey meaning, or they're pointless.
Good lord this is a frustrating argument. I give up.

This is isn't true. Yes, many units have names which relate to their particular function; but it's also obvious that names are also chosen for aesthetic reasons, i.e. because they sound cool. Does it bother you that the devourer doesn't eat things?

[dyermaker]

lol, look guys, here's the deal. Not every unit has a name that accurately represents its function, but the zerg units that are of the "lisk" family have names that are CLEARLY representative of the unit.

Mutalisk - mutates into different organisms
hydralisk - Defined by ManjiSanji a few posts down, but also notable I thought was that the spines it shot were through hydraulic pressure in the body, which I think I remember reading in the SC1 manual or something.
Ultralisk - do I really need to go any further?


I just don't really see why the broodlord and corrupter cannot morph from the mutalisk. It was just such a cool and original concept and so many years later, it's just replaced with something infinitely blander and uninspired. For crying out loud, the corrupter and broodlord fill the same roles as the devourer/guardian respectively.

It seems like they kept so many things in the game because of "nostalgia" and it just seems silly not to do the same for this. It's not just nostalgia at work here either, it kind of violates the lore, is a worse game play element and just doesn't make much sense to me.

Anyway, it was interesting to read everyone's opinions.

[Shadow Archon]

This is isn't true. Yes, many units have names which relate to their particular function; but it's also obvious that names are also chosen for aesthetic reasons, i.e. because they sound cool. Does it bother you that the devourer doesn't eat things?

The Devourer creates bacteria that eats away at armor and flesh alike. Thats why they take more damage while the spores are on them. The name sticks.

[Aldrius]

Ugh. Corruptors should most certainly NOT evolve from Mutalisks... =S

[Nicol Bolas]

If names have no reference, let's just start calling them, "Unit 1, 2, 3," and so-on.

Names *need* to convey meaning, or they're pointless.

OK, so what does "Hydralisk" mean that has anything to do with the gameplay utility of the unit? Where in the legends of Hydra does the concept of GtG/GtA generalist come into play? Yes, the Hydra was snakelike, and the Hydralisk is snakelike, but you're talking about gameplay. Specifically, that the gameplay use of a unit needs to be reflected in its name.

I just don't really see why the broodlord and corrupter cannot morph from the mutalisk.

For the reasons I outlined. Corruptors become more useful if they can later be made into BroodLords. And having Mutalisks become Corruptors is just bad for Zerg AtA, as well as being intellectually lazy.