Welp. Guess it is time for another of those Design Blogs. Truth be told, I had the idea for this blog back in HotS beta, but lost interest in writing these sorts of blogs around that time. (I still have another blog fully written that I never bothered posting. It was just missing pictures.)
Purpose:
This time I thought I would look at the Swarm Host and also the Lurker. Not because the Lurker would actually work in SC2. They tried putting it in the game and apparently it did not work. I do not really know why, but I have an idea that the Tanky Trio would be a large reason why Lurkers would never work in SC2.
Ain't nothin' to a Boss.
Rather I want to look at the type of gameplay that follows from the specific design of the Swarm Host and compare it to the Lurker.
Regardless of whether they are 'meant' to be compared, the Swarm Host was explicitly designed for the specific goal of "board control." And 'board control' or controlling space is something the Lurker was very good at.
Attack Pattern Design
On the surface the Swarm Host and Lurker have some very obvious similarities. 1) They cannot attack unless burrowed 2) Therefore they must be moved into burrowing position to attack 3) They have a long attack range from that burrowed position.
But the differences between the type of attack (what I'll call their Attack Pattern) are where many of the differences in gameplay originate.
Swarm Host Given their immobility when attacking and defencelessness when moving, you generally want keep the actual unit far away from the enemy (where they will be vulnerable) and attack from far away.
The Swarm Host's Attack Pattern is a small arc in front of the Locust that moves forward with the Locust. The only place where the Swarm Host damages is immediately in front of the Locust
The SH spawns Locusts that have a range 3 attack. The Locust have 15 seconds to attack or die, but given the low hit points of the Locust, you don't really need them to be alive for very long. This means there is an ideal range between maximum range (where the Locusts will die before reaching the enemy and where the Locust will last just long enough to do it's damage before being killed by the enemy (or tanking damage for other units to get into range.) I guess we could call that the Maximum Effective Range. Closer than that and the SH is needlessly close to the enemy without any discernible benefit.
Swarm Host Attack Pattern
For the Swarm Host there is little advantage to go any closer than the Maximum Effective Range. As long as there is something there to kill or soak up damage, it should stay at the MER. If the front lines dies, then you can frog hop them forward, or maybe reposition to block some other route, but where ever the SH are positioned, the Locust (when in MER) does the same damage whether it is close to the SH or far away. And the closer the SH is to the enemy, the more vulnerable the SH is to being sniped.
Essentially then, the design of the SH creates Passive gameplay for the Zerg when using them. The Zerg wants to keep the SH at Maximum Effective Range and slowly creep the SH lines forward step by relentless step. Yes, you can micro the Locust themselves, but this is not a unit that promotes sudden, flashy plays. The Locust spawn time is constant, the Locust speed is constant, the SH is immobile when attacking. So you win by adding more of them, splitting Locust slightly better and win with SH by the incessant dripping of Chinese Water Torture. If there is any flashy play with the Zerg, it will be using SH in conjunction with something else. Not with the SH themselves.
If I could think of one word to describe the Swarm Host it would be Safe. It is unit designed to play Safely. To keep it Safe and make Safe game decisions.
Lurker Attack Pattern So how is the Lurker any different? After all it also is supposed to be a 'board control' unit and therefore, passive play should be the expected result.
In fact, the Lurker has an odd tension between wanting to be far and wanting to be near. It is true that similarly the Lurker would prefer to sit at Maximum Range in order to be safe from being sniped. So you will often see Lurker killing fields trapping a player in their base (ZvP is my bane.)
However, Maximum Range is not Maximum Effective Range for the Lurker. It does NOT attack the same far as near. The Attack Pattern of the Lurker is actually a line of spikes that damages (with splash) everything in a line from the Lurker to its maximum range.
Splash damage down the attack line
Therefore, the Lurker's maximum damage is actually when the lurker is in the centre (or at least directly in front) of the enemy.
Lurker's Projected Power
Gameplay Implications
1) Stealth Bombs This is why stop lurkers works so well. (This is a trick to prevent Lurkers from attacking until manually commanded- usually when the enemy is right on top. Think burrowed banelings.)
Savior's Stop Lurkers
Of course this is also where the Lurker most vulnerable. This tension between playing safe, but less damage versus sacrificing safety for damage creates dynamic gameplay. There is are reason for safe decisions and there are reasons for risky decisions.
2) Pushing the Enemy You may see Lurkers retreat from high ground to high ground (because of high ground advantage.) But there comes a point, where the Zerg launches forward. Retreat, retreat, then the trigger is pulled... HERE COMES THE ZERG! Zerglings in first to tank damage, but Lurkers close behind to get right in amongst the enemy, to bury and slaughter anyone foolish enough to stick around.
For the equivalent, think of the old endless retreats that SC2 Zerg did, sacrificing base after base until, trigger... SO MANY BANELINGS!
This dynamic allows for big plays. Risky plays. Plays that will make the audience scream. Plays that will make commentators scream.
This is the aggressive, quality that the Lurker has that Swarm Host will simply never have due to it's passive, Safe design. Banelings and Lurkers have a reason to close the gap, the Swarm Host rarely does. This is sort of quality makes the unit an exciting unit to use and an exciting unit to spectate.
Artosis screaming SO MANY BANELINGS will never get old. I doubt any commentator will scream SO MANY SWARM HOSTS with any degree of sincerity.
3) Counter-play not just Composition In addition, because Lurkers attack in a line, they can actually be dodged (similar to marine-baneling splits.) Therefore the attack pattern of the Lurkers creates Play and Counter-Play. Something extremely important for spectator sports rather than simply making the right composition.
NaDa marines vs 7 lurkers
More NaDa (plus Lurker pushing in.)
Yes you can control the Locust, split and focus. But because the lurker attack is actually melee, you can dodge it entirely. Because it is splash the difference between dodging and not can be catastrophic or epic. The lurker attack is just jam packed with Spectator goodness.
4) Deadly Harass Furthermore because of the splash damage in a line. 1-2 Lurkers in a worker line can wreak havoc in a very short time. In other words, the design of lurkers give it many different roles in the game and gives many options for a clever Zerg player to figure out the best way to get the raw killing power of the lurker into range of the enemy to let the slaughter begin.
(On a side note, lurkers would be come irrelevant late game due to Critical Mass ranged units, but Dark Swarm keeps them relevant to the end of the game. Melee will always need the ability to close the gap versus Ranged in the late game.)
On Banelings, Swarm Hosts, Lurkers I guess the question could be asked, well why does the Swarm Host need to have that aggressive quality, when the Baneling fills that role?
And I suppose it doesn't. But just how good is the Swarm Host at board control anyways?
Board Control
aka Controlling Space
Absolutely, the Swarm Host in Critical Mass can stop the enemy cold in the middle of the map. Furthermore, by moving back and forth from choke to choke a Zerg can control the middle of the map. But critical mass is the key. You need a lot of them to be effective.
This also goes back to design. Two lurkers sitting on top of a ramp could hold a base because 1) high ground advantage, 2) splash damage in a line, 3) difficulty getting up ramps, 4) no Tanky Trio (marines get massacred.) 5) Morphing lurker eggs were heavily armoured and could actually physically block the ramp so that the Zerg could bring in reinforcements. A very cool play.
Due to the design of the Swarm Host, I don't think we can ever have Swarm Hosts that are effective individually because they mass way too well. Infinitely Spawning units puts the enemy on a brutal Timer where something MUST be done than a so-called infinite attack such as Siege Tank or any other ranged attack.
The reasons for this are Spawned units 1) Are an infinite supply of hit points that attack 2) Block movement
The reason this is brutal should be obvious to anyone that has played the sorts of Hack'n Slash arcade games like Gauntlet Legends. It really doesn't matter how many enemies you kill, you HAVE to kill the spawn point. Every damage you take from the infinite unit is unanswered damage that will only weaken you further and further and never weaken the enemy.
start at 6:25 The real enemy are the gates
Furthermore, the spawned units physically block the path required to get to the thing that is spawning all those units. In the SH's defence, I think this is one of the reasons the SH works better than Lurkers in SC2. It is much harder to get to the SH when you are being physically blocked by units (the problem is compounded if Broodlords are involved.)
There is a reason the Locust spawn time is slow. It just scales too out of control otherwise. If the SH is good as an individual unit, the game would quickly turn into a only make Swarm Host game.
So SH by design is a passive safe unit, and cannot really be used in small numbers. That leaves slow pushes with massed numbers.
Strangely, the Lurker seems to fit in the exact middle of the Baneling and the Swarm Host as though it's qualities were split it into two separate units in SC2. Banelings want to close the gap the same as Lurkers. However due to their kamikaze nature, they cannot be reused and are therefore terrible at controlling space. On the opposite end of the spectrum of one shot and you're done is the infinite unit spawn that is Swarm Host. The SH is great at sitting back on slow pushes and holding off the enemy indefinitely, but have no reason to push forward.
Conclusion: I like Banelings. I always have. Especially because of the marine-baneling split dynamic. Probably since the middle of Beta I have not particularly liked the design of Swarm Hosts. Back then I felt the design promoted passive, Safe play. Since then, on the few streams and tourneys I have watched and listening to Idra and a couple others, I have seen very little reason to change that opinion.
The Swam Host can indeed shut down middle of the map movement. So in that sense a 'board control' unit has been achieved. And I do think Zergs were missing something that could take and hold territory that the rest of the Zerg arsenal could not achieve short of making zillions of Spine Crawlers or just sacrificing endless numbers of bases until they could remax and pull the trigger again. However, I think inherently the Swarm Host promotes passive, stale gameplay because it lacks that up and at 'em quality of Banelings and Lurkers.
There is little reason to risk moving forward and so the SH will continue to whittle away safely from the back. (Or if they don't, then they get cut down by the enemy.)
Thanks for the perspective, always enjoy your design writeups.
I heavily disgaree with the backlash to swarm host. I think they are a very interesting unit in HotS and it will be more interesting to see how their play evolves over time. I do agree that they do promote more 'passive' gameplay, but I think that's a positive thing for Zerg at the moment. In my opinion, a swarm host transition is always a risk due to the cost and immobility.
I think Zerg needs options that reward a 'board control' type play. I do agree that risky play can be awesome to watch, but I don't think zerg needs any more 'risky' alternatives, but rather just a fairly interesting unit for safer options. The swarmhost fills that role.
This blog is giving me a lot to think about so I'm eager to see the responses
Well I don't think passive play is necesarily bad. but a combination between passive and aggressive is better. For instance traditional Mech Play might be considered passive, but because of vultures there is a very active and aggressive arm of the style play. Lurkers also create passive play, but also can be used aggressively. But I don't see that versatility in the SH.
I don't know much about HotS but I do like that you touched on the concept of counter-play. When we consider both counter-play and "damage maximization" there's another behavior that is more or less true of any set of units (but is amplified in the Lurker): maximum damage depends on the formation of the enemy. Of course this is true in everything from basic arcs vs limbo lines or basic sources of circular splash damage, but the Lurker is unique in its niche of a line splash that also has a projectile travel time. Anyways the reason why the Lurker damage "sweet spot" seems to be right next to it is because a Lurker attack traveling through an entire enemy formation inflicts way more damage than a Lurker attack hitting the enemy's front lines.
Again I'm not well versed in SC2, but I feel like the Swarm Host can also provide counter-play in terms of enemy unit placement and formation. The Locusts seem like they can also provide a dynamic movement impediment. Still, your conclusion does seem fair from my perspective as a reader. I would hesitate to say that just because a unit behaves passively with regard to its own mechanics, that it also promotes passive gameplay. The BW Siege Tank also has no incentive to close ground like the Lurker did, but it's still core to a number of aggressive Terran builds (and defensive ones too.) A unit should be regarded in terms of the entire game in order to make judgments on gameplay.
I really miss the lurker, but if they're insistent on keeping the swarm host, it would be nice to see them experiment with Carrier-like mechanics (leash micro, locusts costing 25 minerals each, burrowed movement). Would still allow them to be a siege unit while going further away from requiring 'critical mass' effectiveness.
Edit: You should post this on reddit to facilitate further discussion.
I like this blog! Thank you for writing it. I never thought about how the tanky 3 might be the reason why lurkers were removed from WOL alpha. Very interesting! As for the swarm host, I actually like it. But I do agree that it promotes passive play. Micro could be used but it really isn't necessary for swarm host to be successful. That's why I feel the locust time upgrade should be removed and replaced with a speed upgrade that only affects off creep speed. That way, swarm host have a larger time window where they are vulnerable and promotes a more mobile swarmhost play where a player can launch locusts and run away. Maybe increase swarmhost movement speed by a little as well.
Well I don't think passive play is necesarily bad. but a combination between passive and aggressive is better. For instance traditional Mech Play might be considered passive, but because of vultures there is a very active and aggressive arm of the style play. Lurkers also create passive play, but also can be used aggressively. But I don't see that versatility in the SH.
Thanks for the feedback.
It is possible to have interesting, aggressive play with swarm hosts. There have been games where the zerg will spawn a set of locust to attack one base and then move them to attack another. The problem is that is far too easy to just sit back and slow siege your opponent to death.
@imallison Well I think that's like a lot of things it isn't quite so black/white. I probably should have tempered my words with 'tends to promote passive play' or 'naturally leads to.' I don't think aggressive play is impossible per se, but I do think the design lends itself to sit back and slow seige. And I think there are designs that lend themselves to more dynamic and versatile gameplay. But I do think there is a limit to the creative use of the unit. We might see a bit from the top players. But if it is designed so that it lends itself to dynamic play, it will filter down to lower echelons of players
@EchOne You are right that unit interactions matter and can turn a passive unit into something more. But in regards to the Siege Tank, there is more going on. For one Siege Tank trades mobility for tons of damage. Particularly BW tanks with their slower rate of fire. That simply is not possible with SH due to the whole infinite unit spawn. Furthermore Overkill and spider mines creates an interesting unit interaction with zealot bombs and the like. I don't really see that potential just in in the way the Swam Host attacks.
edit And yes the Tanky Trio units are Roaches, Marauders, and Immortals. Or as I called them the Triple Tanky units in my A-move by Design blog, but that's a rather obscure reference I'll admit.
Although blink stalkers wouldn't be much better vs Lurkers now that I think about it. Lurkers rely on units coming towards them to do damage. Blink-stalker close the gap so quickly that they would probably snipe Lurkers way too quickly to be of much use.
On August 15 2013 04:51 Falling wrote: This time I thought I would look at the Swarm Host and also the Lurker. Not because the Lurker would actually work in SC2. They tried putting it in the game and apparently it did not work. I do not really know why, but I have an idea that the Tanky Trio would be a large reason why Lurkers would never work in SC2.
Don't forget the colossus.
Though I don't think lurkers would be too out of place in zvt given how the matchup is currently played. Lurkers would make neglecting detection, tanks, and (to a lesser degree) marauders in order to stream modest groups of marine/mine across the map much riskier.
Yeah Collosus too. Dang there is a strong correlation between things that would kill Lurkers and units I don't like (stalkers excepted.) It almost goes without saying that Collosus is not a good unit. But yeah that crazy long range and mobility would murder Lurkers. (Maybe that's why they had that huge range upgrade they were going for before they nixed the Lurker. What was it range 10 -12?) But basically Lurkers would never work ZvP.
ZvT lurkers could possibly work, but I think it would just force more marauders and then they'd die.
Interesting read. The swarm host to me...is well kinda not zergy to me. Sure it has swarm and it gives you free units. But its boring and it doesn't feel fast paced or overwhelming powerful. You just have to place them in a good spot and let the locust do there thing. Of course you have to protect them. But from a viewer point of view watching someone die this way is pretty boring. As a Terran player facing this, I would just make my own siege tanks and just blow the locusts away and than of course drop there expansions. The unit kinda sucks as a whole if you ask me.
I don´t think the SH has been explored as of yet, so it´s hard to assess. And while I´m not a fan of free units, I think SH have shown great potential. They have been used to... - contain an enemy in his base - zone out an enemy´s deathball by making trading inefficient - to "connect" bases defensively - to harass enemy bases with one wave of locusts and then retreating
I like especially the last and I´m sure there´s plenty of more interesting uses for it, so one the one hand it´s sad that it´s used rarely in pro-games and on the other hand I wonder why, because it has been heralded as kind of a game-breaker numerous times. If it´s really that map dependent, then that would also be interesting to me, because it would promote more specialized strategies.
What I don´t like is the scaling. A few SH seem pointless, while large numbers can become an annoyingly powerful a-move deathball. There should be a way to incorporate them into an army in a meaningful way. Maybe it´s just because they haven´t been figured out, yet, but I guess it´s because of the space the locusts need and hence take away from other, more useful Zerg units.
On August 15 2013 14:40 Falling wrote: Yeah Collosus too. Dang there is a strong correlation between things that would kill Lurkers and units I don't like (stalkers excepted.) It almost goes without saying that Collosus is not a good unit. But yeah that crazy long range and mobility would murder Lurkers. (Maybe that's why they had that huge range upgrade they were going for before they nixed the Lurker. What was it range 10 -12?) But basically Lurkers would never work ZvP.
ZvT lurkers could possibly work, but I think it would just force more marauders and then they'd die.
marauders are already present in many counter builds so i dont see why it would be an issue.
if anything i feel the important difference with lurkers is the much increased dps vs sh, even roaches. i would gladly give up endless free locusts for a chance at a much more "exciting" "aggressive" unit.
lurker-ling, lurker-hydra would be amazing compositions to play with. im not talking about design or balance, i mean it would be just hella fun, running around the map just like we did in bw.
and terrans could actually get a chance to use siege tanks against lurkers. because holy shit siege tanks vs swarm hosts is the worst fucking most boring thing i have ever witnessed.
Falling I think a lot of us had this idea. There are only a few scenarios where swarm hosts are viable unlike lurkers. It's funny because we see so many players try to make the switch to swarm hosts and all the sudden they lose. I only know of a few players who know how and when to use swarm hosts in their strategy. It's painful to watch.
Well at first I didn't like swarm host much, but I changed my view.
Swarmhosts and vipers make very interesting ZvP games, so I like them now. ZvP dynamic is very strong now, most units can be utilized and it is without a doubt my favorite matchup to watch.
Reading this made me feel like I don't need to watch or even playmuch starcraft to get better, I just need to read really smart people's analyses of units.
I really liked the nada micro video. It looks almost like the zerg is bad, but still, nada plays it so perfectly ..
The lurker was So epic. If you were playing this game when you were like... 13 or so that thing just seemed so imba. i remember losing like 100s of marines to lurkers and just like.. losing.. that game was too hard.
The gauntlet analogy was good but what i liked most is that the clip reminded me of the days when games had such bad graphics that they took on a sort of otherworldly quality.. or maybe i was just young.probably that.
On August 15 2013 04:51 Falling wrote: Welp. Guess it is time for another of those Design Blogs. Truth be told, I had the idea for this blog back in HotS beta, but lost interest in writing these sorts of blogs around that time. (I still have another blog fully written that I never bothered posting. It was just missing pictures.)
Purpose:
This time I thought I would look at the Swarm Host and also the Lurker. Not because the Lurker would actually work in SC2. They tried putting it in the game and apparently it did not work. I do not really know why, but I have an idea that the Tanky Trio would be a large reason why Lurkers would never work in SC2.
Ain't nothin' to a Boss.
Rather I want to look at the type of gameplay that follows from the specific design of the Swarm Host and compare it to the Lurker.
Regardless of whether they are 'meant' to be compared, the Swarm Host was explicitly designed for the specific goal of "board control." And 'board control' or controlling space is something the Lurker was very good at.
Attack Pattern Design
On the surface the Swarm Host and Lurker have some very obvious similarities. 1) They cannot attack unless burrowed 2) Therefore they must be moved into burrowing position to attack 3) They have a long attack range from that burrowed position.
But the differences between the type of attack (what I'll call their Attack Pattern) are where many of the differences in gameplay originate.
Swarm Host Given their immobility when attacking and defencelessness when moving, you generally want keep the actual unit far away from the enemy (where they will be vulnerable) and attack from far away.
The Swarm Host's Attack Pattern is a small arc in front of the Locust that moves forward with the Locust. The only place where the Swarm Host damages is immediately in front of the Locust
The SH spawns Locusts that have a range 3 attack. The Locust have 15 seconds to attack or die, but given the low hit points of the Locust, you don't really need them to be alive for very long. This means there is an ideal range between maximum range (where the Locusts will die before reaching the enemy and where the Locust will last just long enough to do it's damage before being killed by the enemy (or tanking damage for other units to get into range.) I guess we could call that the Maximum Effective Range. Closer than that and the SH is needlessly close to the enemy without any discernible benefit.
Swarm Host Attack Pattern
For the Swarm Host there is little advantage to go any closer than the Maximum Effective Range. As long as there is something there to kill or soak up damage, it should stay at the MER. If the front lines dies, then you can frog hop them forward, or maybe reposition to block some other route, but where ever the SH are positioned, the Locust (when in MER) does the same damage whether it is close to the SH or far away. And the closer the SH is to the enemy, the more vulnerable the SH is to being sniped.
Essentially then, the design of the SH creates Passive gameplay for the Zerg when using them. The Zerg wants to keep the SH at Maximum Effective Range and slowly creep the SH lines forward step by relentless step. Yes, you can micro the Locust themselves, but this is not a unit that promotes sudden, flashy plays. The Locust spawn time is constant, the Locust speed is constant, the SH is immobile when attacking. So you win by adding more of them, splitting Locust slightly better and win with SH by the incessant dripping of Chinese Water Torture. If there is any flashy play with the Zerg, it will be using SH in conjunction with something else. Not with the SH themselves.
If I could think of one word to describe the Swarm Host it would be Safe. It is unit designed to play Safely. To keep it Safe and make Safe game decisions.
Lurker Attack Pattern So how is the Lurker any different? After all it also is supposed to be a 'board control' unit and therefore, passive play should be the expected result.
In fact, the Lurker has an odd tension between wanting to be far and wanting to be near. It is true that similarly the Lurker would prefer to sit at Maximum Range in order to be safe from being sniped. So you will often see Lurker killing fields trapping a player in their base (ZvP is my bane.)
However, Maximum Range is not Maximum Effective Range for the Lurker. It does NOT attack the same far as near. The Attack Pattern of the Lurker is actually a line of spikes that damages (with splash) everything in a line from the Lurker to its maximum range.
Splash damage down the attack line
Therefore, the Lurker's maximum damage is actually when the lurker is in the centre (or at least directly in front) of the enemy.
Lurker's Projected Power
Gameplay Implications
1) Stealth Bombs This is why stop lurkers works so well. (This is a trick to prevent Lurkers from attacking until manually commanded- usually when the enemy is right on top. Think burrowed banelings.)
Of course this is also where the Lurker most vulnerable. This tension between playing safe, but less damage versus sacrificing safety for damage creates dynamic gameplay. There is are reason for safe decisions and there are reasons for risky decisions.
2) Pushing the Enemy You may see Lurkers retreat from high ground to high ground (because of high ground advantage.) But there comes a point, where the Zerg launches forward. Retreat, retreat, then the trigger is pulled... HERE COMES THE ZERG! Zerglings in first to tank damage, but Lurkers close behind to get right in amongst the enemy, to bury and slaughter anyone foolish enough to stick around.
For the equivalent, think of the old endless retreats that SC2 Zerg did, sacrificing base after base until, trigger... SO MANY BANELINGS!
This dynamic allows for big plays. Risky plays. Plays that will make the audience scream. Plays that will make commentators scream.
This is the aggressive, quality that the Lurker has that Swarm Host will simply never have due to it's passive, Safe design. Banelings and Lurkers have a reason to close the gap, the Swarm Host rarely does. This is sort of quality makes the unit an exciting unit to use and an exciting unit to spectate.
Artosis screaming SO MANY BANELINGS will never get old. I doubt any commentator will scream SO MANY SWARM HOSTS with any degree of sincerity.
3) Counter-play not just Composition In addition, because Lurkers attack in a line, they can actually be dodged (similar to marine-baneling splits.) Therefore the attack pattern of the Lurkers creates Play and Counter-Play. Something extremely important for spectator sports rather than simply making the right composition.
Yes you can control the Locust, split and focus. But because the lurker attack is actually melee, you can dodge it entirely. Because it is splash the difference between dodging and not can be catastrophic or epic. The lurker attack is just jam packed with Spectator goodness.
4) Deadly Harass Furthermore because of the splash damage in a line. 1-2 Lurkers in a worker line can wreak havoc in a very short time. In other words, the design of lurkers give it many different roles in the game and gives many options for a clever Zerg player to figure out the best way to get the raw killing power of the lurker into range of the enemy to let the slaughter begin.
(On a side note, lurkers would be come irrelevant late game due to Critical Mass ranged units, but Dark Swarm keeps them relevant to the end of the game. Melee will always need the ability to close the gap versus Ranged in the late game.)
On Banelings, Swarm Hosts, Lurkers I guess the question could be asked, well why does the Swarm Host need to have that aggressive quality, when the Baneling fills that role?
And I suppose it doesn't. But just how good is the Swarm Host at board control anyways?
Board Control
aka Controlling Space
Absolutely, the Swarm Host in Critical Mass can stop the enemy cold in the middle of the map. Furthermore, by moving back and forth from choke to choke a Zerg can control the middle of the map. But critical mass is the key. You need a lot of them to be effective.
This also goes back to design. Two lurkers sitting on top of a ramp could hold a base because 1) high ground advantage, 2) splash damage in a line, 3) difficulty getting up ramps, 4) no Tanky Trio (marines get massacred.) 5) Morphing lurker eggs were heavily armoured and could actually physically block the ramp so that the Zerg could bring in reinforcements. A very cool play.
Due to the design of the Swarm Host, I don't think we can ever have Swarm Hosts that are effective individually because they mass way too well. Infinitely Spawning units puts the enemy on a brutal Timer where something MUST be done than a so-called infinite attack such as Siege Tank or any other ranged attack.
The reasons for this are Spawned units 1) Are an infinite supply of hit points that attack 2) Block movement
The reason this is brutal should be obvious to anyone that has played the sorts of Hack'n Slash arcade games like Gauntlet Legends. It really doesn't matter how many enemies you kill, you HAVE to kill the spawn point. Every damage you take from the infinite unit is unanswered damage that will only weaken you further and further and never weaken the enemy.
Furthermore, the spawned units physically block the path required to get to the thing that is spawning all those units. In the SH's defence, I think this is one of the reasons the SH works better than Lurkers in SC2. It is much harder to get to the SH when you are being physically blocked by units (the problem is compounded if Broodlords are involved.)
There is a reason the Locust spawn time is slow. It just scales too out of control otherwise. If the SH is good as an individual unit, the game would quickly turn into a only make Swarm Host game.
So SH by design is a passive safe unit, and cannot really be used in small numbers. That leaves slow pushes with massed numbers.
Strangely, the Lurker seems to fit in the exact middle of the Baneling and the Swarm Host as though it's qualities were split it into two separate units in SC2. Banelings want to close the gap the same as Lurkers. However due to their kamikaze nature, they cannot be reused and are therefore terrible at controlling space. On the opposite end of the spectrum of one shot and you're done is the infinite unit spawn that is Swarm Host. The SH is great at sitting back on slow pushes and holding off the enemy indefinitely, but have no reason to push forward.
Conclusion: I like Banelings. I always have. Especially because of the marine-baneling split dynamic. Probably since the middle of Beta I have not particularly liked the design of Swarm Hosts. Back then I felt the design promoted passive, Safe play. Since then, on the few streams and tourneys I have watched and listening to Idra and a couple others, I have seen very little reason to change that opinion.
The Swam Host can indeed shut down middle of the map movement. So in that sense a 'board control' unit has been achieved. And I do think Zergs were missing something that could take and hold territory that the rest of the Zerg arsenal could not achieve short of making zillions of Spine Crawlers or just sacrificing endless numbers of bases until they could remax and pull the trigger again. However, I think inherently the Swarm Host promotes passive, stale gameplay because it lacks that up and at 'em quality of Banelings and Lurkers.
There is little reason to risk moving forward and so the SH will continue to whittle away safely from the back. (Or if they don't, then they get cut down by the enemy.)
Interesting post, although I'm not sure what you mean exactly by maximum effective range for Swarm Host? In terms of damage dealt, the most effective range would be 0, aka as soon as the locust spawns on top of the swarm host it starts attacking, and thus giving it the potential to do the most total damage.
I think you mentioned a really good point, which is the microbility of lurkers. The fact that you can micro marines against lurkers with an outcome of epic fail to Boxer-like makes for very exciting and dynamic gameplay. Correct me if I'm wrong, but technically with PERFECT control you can kill a lurker with ONE marine (considering it has constant stim).
Contrasting this with the current Swarm Host really shows why, In my opinion, that the Swarm Host is a boring unit. The diverse micro outcome that is possible with the lurker simply isn't present with the SH, due to the fast range attack of the locusts. At best, players will just retreat/kite/move away from where the locusts are.
PS swarm hosts should be changed so that they spawn banelings which roll towards the waypoint with a range of 7/8. The banelings cannot be controlled. This way, it allows easy zoning of enemy units, but can be defeated should the enemy decide to micro his/her heart out (Eg. against a scrub, Innovation can just split his marines to victory against the swam host).
Well it's not maximum damage possible, but maximum effective range. Yes at 0 range, the Larva has the longest amount of time to damage... assuming there is nothing shooting at it. So if it were just attacking buildings, then I suppose 0 range would be best.
In practice, the SH is getting shot at and so needs to burrow considerably earlier. Then the Locusts are fired on next. It doesn't make much difference if the Locust die with 10 seconds on its timer or 1 second. Furthermore, the spawn time is so long, the SH wants to be really, really far back from the enemy else it'll get sniped.
So what I mean by maximum effective range is the range where the Locust is able to get into firing range and then die before the timer runs out. (Tanking damge.) Ideally the unit would lose it's last hitpoint just before the timer runs out, but SC is an inexact science. And in the best case scenario it is also able to get off an attack before dying.
The greater the critical mass facing the Swarm Host, the farther back this maximum effective range is. Against a handful of units it can be relatively close and the Locust actually get off a decent attack before it dies. But more often, the MER is going to be very far back.
So...I appreciate this blog, and I appreciate lurkers as among the greatest designed units, but I realize we're stuck with the Swarm Host. I actually believe SHs have a lot of potential with a high skill ceiling, etc., but the fundamental problems I see are that 1) locusts are just WAY too powerful in terms of both tanking and damage and 2) Swarm Host control is still quite clunky and doesn't lend itself to really remarkable micro.
I'm curious as to any changes we could make to the Swarm Host to make it a better unit (that is, without just rehauling it or SC2 in general).
In my opinion, the best way to fix the Swarm Host to provide more dynamic play is to simply cut the damage of locusts in half. This means that you NEED other units in conjunction with the swarm hosts in order to make them effective at actually killing things. I'm actually okay with free units, but they really should be like broodlings: annoying, but not strong enough to kill off a nexus...or an archon...or a freaking thor. Also, maybe making the burrow/unburrow smoother would allow the range to be nerfed, meaning that Swarm Hosts could actually move back and forth in a more strategic way. I think it makes sense to have a long "set-up" time for a unit that is supposed to stay put (like a tank or mine), but Swarm Hosts (used correctly) lend themselves to more movement, and are thus hindered by their incredibly slow burrow/unburrow time (altogether like 6ish seconds).
The most important aspect I think was your observation that a small numbers of lurkers can be very effective, while swarm hosts are useless in smaller numbers.
In BW making lurkers does not dictate what style of play you are forced to play the way that swarm hosts do (by eating into such a large portion of the allotted army supply they force you to play very safely and 98% of the time also passively).
Another design issue that comes into play and indirectly affects how units must be used and their viability in the game is the amount of supply that workers take up (and how quickly they take up that supply).
I'm collecting data on supply progression in SC2 vs BW pro games right now. The results I think will add lots of insights on how the differences in design have pushed the two games in different directions.
There is something to be said about a game where 200 vs 200 is the expected scenario to which balance is tailored, and a game where such battles much more seldom occur (and in the case they occur, are not meant nor intended to be fought between two equally balanced 200 supply armies).
Looking at it form the above aspect I don't think you could put in a unit like lurker into SC2 and make it viable (not without great difficulty at least). Blizzard experimented with tier2/tier3 lurkers. My suspicions are that these were the encountered problems:
Tier2 lurker: too much of a snowball effect since SC2 is a higher econ and faster paced game. If the opponent wasn't ready for lurkers, I imagine the result was either a stomp or a very very very difficult situation to get out of. On the other side of the extreme: if opponents blind countered, I think it would have made for some real decisive games where zerg was just instantly rolled.
Tier3 lurker: Comes way too late into play making it irrelevant by the time it gets out. As you remarked: without dark swarm I don't think it's particularly viable in a lategame rangewars situation.
Even if you have a bunch of lurkers and vipers, SC2 just doesn't leave much supply room for any kind of a backup army to actually accomplish something with in the game. And in SC2 your maxed army composition needs to be at least of equal strength to that of your opponents. I don't think a lurker style could ever be of equal strength to any other maxed late game army (without the unit being sc2-ifyed: i.e. given more range to counter something else's range).
Swarm host isn't really a unit that's of "equal" strength to other maxed late game armies. Neither are most other zerg ZvP compositions at the moment. That's why you see them behind 100 spines and spores. It's the unit that gives zerg the most edge in the 200 vs 200 equilibrium wars. It's how you are necessitated to play SC2 if you want any shot at keeping a consistent win rate in the late game. Point is: lurkers would not function as this kind of a unit.
Thanks for another great blog, I completely agree. Although swarm hosts might lead to aggression in the sense that locusts are constantly doing damage, most spectators probably don't enjoy watching free units fight armies, I don't. Units with much higher damage potential at shorter range like banelings and lurkers are more fun to use and watch imo.
Nice blog, I think you hit the nail on the head. I wish the Lurker was in SC2, but recognize that it might not be viable given the tools terran and toss have at their disposal. That said, we could always try it out ourselves!
If you guys don't know the Lurker is in the editor and can be added to custom maps. I'm the author of "Lurker Defense... in space!". I was thinking I might throw up a custom map where I remove the SH and add in the Lurker at Lair tech requiring a Lurker Den. I was thinking of also adding in a range and/or attack speed upgrade at hive tech. Also Lurkers do double damage to armored, so they might not be as terrible against marauders as we think, although i can't imagine how they'd ever be good against colossi. Would anyone play this or would I be wasting my time?
On August 16 2013 06:45 ElMeanYo wrote: Love swarm hosts, but you really have to commit to them for them to work. They don't work too well with other units.
It can be fun sometimes as Zerg just to mass swarm hosts, spread creep and cover the map with spores and spines.
THey give you this "zone" that is hard to attack into, but I still think that if you are not the one pushing with them, than you are not gonna win, because they can't defend against split attacks all over the map that terran players like to incorporate.
On August 16 2013 06:45 ElMeanYo wrote: Love swarm hosts, but you really have to commit to them for them to work. They don't work too well with other units.
It can be fun sometimes as Zerg just to mass swarm hosts, spread creep and cover the map with spores and spines.
THey give you this "zone" that is hard to attack into, but I still think that if you are not the one pushing with them, than you are not gonna win, because they can't defend against split attacks all over the map that terran players like to incorporate.
Which is kind of an odd characteristic for something that is supposed to be a 'board control' unit. It can do so, but basically requires a map where you can keep on repositioning between attack lanes in the middle of the map. Kinda like closing the gap as a soccer/football goalie, you are able to defend more territory. But you can't leave a couple SH behind and hope they are going to do anything but die. It's the entire group of SH that are moving and back and forth. And so SH really can't do much against split attack.
@LaLusH
There is something to be said about a game where 200 vs 200 is the expected scenario to which balance is tailored, and a game where such battles much more seldom occur (and in the case they occur, are not meant nor intended to be fought between two equally balanced 200 supply armies).
Looking at it form the above aspect I don't think you could put in a unit like lurker into SC2 and make it viable (not without great difficulty at least). Blizzard experimented with tier2/tier3 lurkers. My suspicions are that these were the encountered problems:
Tier2 lurker: too much of a snowball effect since SC2 is a higher econ and faster paced game. If the opponent wasn't ready for lurkers, I imagine the result was either a stomp or a very very very difficult situation to get out of. On the other side of the extreme: if opponents blind countered, I think it would have made for some real decisive games where zerg was just instantly rolled.
Yeah, I think there is really something to that. Maybe a half a year ago, I was wondering why DT's are allowed to be so much better (one shot workers without a sound) in BW, than in SC2 (although they are relatively powerful and can do damage.) But it's actually a huge cost in money and time to get out even 2 dark templar. If they don't do anything that's actually a big deal. But BW DT would snowball so fast because of the higher economy and speed in which you can pump out DT (balanced out by having a separate tech building, admittedly.)
But I definitely buy the idea that if the game is intended to rocket to a 200/200 max army, then certain compositions are most cost effective when you it is impossible for you to have a distinct numbers advantage. A game where one player is hovering between 120-150, the other player can gain a numbers advantage by exceeding 150. If the game necessarily hits 200/200 super fast, that situation doesn't occur except to bank minerals and gas and build more macro structures to max and remax again.
edit Just thinking here and correct meif I'm wrong. But in a game balanced around expected 200/200 maxed armies, that creates situations where both armies roaming around, completely maxed, but maybe not attacking or else overwhelming undefended bases. Does the army composition require mobility to be the majority unit? Maybe I'm thinking too much of the Protoss death ball that roams the map and eats what it can in it's path. But it seems to me the more the armies are tied at 200, the more it becomes imperative that the entire army is available to win the Big Battle. Having units stationary wouldn't help in the repositioning game and pulls supply out. (Of course there is also the multiple drop harass, but SH hardly work doing that compared to M&M.) And lurkers if not with their big army, would simply get over-run by the other big army.
This blog touches nicely on some of the reasons why swarm hosts are just not a fun unit. They don't behave at all like lurkers which is a far cooler I had liked to see for zerg (or something fulfullling that role).
Swarm hosts are boring because they are best sitting safely at a long range and slowly whittle away at the enemy. The entire design just makes them best at that and they are quite hard to fix, ie making them better in other roles, without breaking them in this long siege role. The entire concept of the unit spawner like the swarm host is just terrible boring and the biggest mistake blizz made in HotS (though they made many). It leads to massing them and static gameplay where you whittle away the enemy with little cool play. There is some potential fun in positioning well against the swarmhosts, blinking past locusts etc but that doesn't really happen either.
A unit being good at holding positions, ie being good by itself in some circumstances just does not mesh with the concept of unit spawning well. Typical units good at holding positions are strong attacking units, with some sort of AoE but a very high vulnerability too if gotten too close like the lurker and siege tank. Swarm hosts don't have this same vulnerability as the spawns do the fighting and thus they can't be units good on their own and at holding positions without breaking them in this form.
All they can do now is tweak the unit's stats to save it from being the boring ass unit that it is now (or give it the mothership treatment, just make it so weak it doesn't see much play if ever).
Some combination of these options I can see them slightly salvaging this unit: - Decrease longevity of the spawn or increase time between spawning so you can't continously whittle away with them. The locusts can be made stronger but there will be a severe weakness to the swarm hosts as they will have a serious dead time in between waves unlike now. This promotes using swarm hosts in addition with other units and at the same time makes just a few strong enough to actually do something. At the same time micro against and with them would be much cooler, no more spawning on autocast (when to cast becomes critical) and fighting in between waves or dodging a wave would become crucial. - Instead of locusts working on a timer let their HP decay over time. This effectively works as a timer too but has the added effect of locusts being far weaker when fighting at long range. It would be much weaker as siege unit but much stronger as a straight up fighting unit but with the interesting weakness that the swarm host would want to be much closer to the fight (making more interesting use of it's hidden burrowed state than now). - Make spawning nearly immediate and locusts faster. Locusts are mostly good against static targets now (buildings and siege tanks) because it's so slow. Any fast unit can just move away from them and/or respond to the spawning. Especially the faster spawning makes them better in a normal battle situations or hit and run playstyles while not buffing the sieging options (in fact that could be nerfed then). - Give other races better options to deal with the lategame combo of static defense, vipers and swarmhosts. Any strategy relying on massing static defense is terrible for spectator and player fun. It just equals lack of action and long drawn out games, unfortunately the swarm host synergizes very well with it and is thus balanced around it. If lategame mass static defense were just weak swarmhosts could be buffed in return seeing them more in an active role or combination with normal units instead of mass spines/spores. For example the mothership in alpha had the Planet cracker ability, a massive AoE ability that was basically only good against static targets, something like that could be put back with the restriction of only doing damage to buildings (500 or so). It would only be good at removing masses of static defense and would keep a part of the swarmhost + spines & spores strat in check allowing for a swarm host buff in return.
Simply put swarm hosts need a buff in direct fights because they are just too weak at that. Swarm host costs twice as much as a hydra, does almost exactly 2x the dps (locusts and hydra are almost equal) and swarm hosts has twice the HP. So it's basically just easier to bumrush into swarmhosts as it is into hydra's while they lack all mobility, the ability to target air etc. In other words they are only better than hydra's for better suplly effectiveness and their ability to do free damage, ie just attacking with swarm hosts alone whittling away the enemy. There is no use in mixing swarm hosts into a normal army because you are just better off mixing in hydra's instead then.. This is the core problem with the unit, it needs to somehow shed it's skin of a solitary unit and be good with other units by some of the above changes or better idea's other people have.
No doubt they can be used that way, but probably my favorite swarm host game ever was this one:
Classic Vs Effort, Whirlwind. This really sold me on PvZ in HoTS, and the potential of the swarm host. Combined with the nydus, The swarm host army becomes a lot more mobile and aggressive. It also counteracts the "max effective range" problem, because in this scenario, you're retreating after a wave or two (basically once the opponent is in position to defend), and popping out somewhere else, so you actually want the wave to be fighting as long as possible. Assuming it goes well, you can then start doing locust waves from more than one angle at once, rather than in one concentrated push, and start playing a really multipronged aggressive game.
It doesn't end up working out for Effort, but I see this as the seed of potential in the swarm host that could make it a more aggressive, multitasking oriented unit. However, it relies on the nydus as a crutch, and as we all know.. the nydus is not a very sturdy crutch. Still, tweaking the nydus is probably a lot more feasible than taking the swarm host back to the drawing board entirely.
I fucking hate the SH both because I play Protoss and because it makes the game stale as fuck to watch when a Zerg gets up to that mass of Spores n' Spines that makes harassment and advancement impossible, and then the 45 minute death animation ensues.
the Swarm Host was explicitly designed for the specific goal of "board control."
Was it?
I know that Dustin Browder called it "board control" in the original revelation, but he did not describe it that way, when describing the intention behind swarm host gameplay.
So, I think discussions on swarm hosts granting board control are just fundamentally flawed. They weren't intented to give you board control. They were intented as a way to use that board control zergs usually achieved in WoL. A "Come Out and Play"-unit, because that was the major playstyle that zergs were struggling with in WoL: Opponents that would only try to hit a single, organized timing and never do anything besides that, because zerg would not have artillery that could combat static defenses and artillery, until broodlords were out.
Hmm, what if the Swarm Host was a psyonic unit that has a number of external limbs, let's say 4 and call them Locusts, that it can control within a certain radius around itself while burrowed. Locusts can move in (connected) areas of other Swarmhosts so spread out SH's would create a big controlled area (in which you also can burrow banelings). If one of the limbs would die it'd grow a new one on its back (autospawn should be able to be deactivated in order to be able to hide them). The Locust can't go outside of the lower range of the Swarm Host(s) but they would be permanent units. If the Swarm Host unburrows the Locust would automatically retreat nearer to it (can't be controlled) and follow it if it moves (a bit like a Carrier). They wouldn't be able to attack but could be used as a meat shield as they follow their retreating spawn point . I think it would be best to have them gradually lose hitpoints in this mode to give the player the option to kill them of. “Enduring Locusts” could be replaced with an increased control radius upgrade. This way you'd get a unit that can control/defend circle shaped areas of the map (or a bigger area with multiple) and also can be used offensively but you'd have to burrow it closer to the front than the current version. They should be made effective against marines and force tanks and be able to take some Colossus fire but be weaker against immortals to create a dynamic with Hydra's maybe. It should have a high supply count because you essentially get multiple units from one larva and it shouldn't be too of a massable unit. To make them better in smaller numbers the limbs/ Locusts' health/ armor should be buffed compared to their current counterparts.
TL;DR: A greater range Lurker with movable, though most of the time visible spines (not really spines obviously) without splash. Or a unit with characteristics of both the Lurker and the current Swarmhosts.
Edit: Oh, and interesting article. Edit2: Added some things. It should be possible to make the SH a more interesting unit but it's not exactly easy.
@BigJ In that case Dustin has a far different idea of what positional play means as that is what I was interpreting 'board control' to me. Particularly, because there had been a lot of calls at the time for more positional play. When I see things like 'gain map control,' then I am thinking a unit designed for positional play.
I guess in that sense they were successful, but successful in all the way that I criticized it in essentially being a one dimensional, passive unit. Where best play is to sit back and slowly whittle away at the enemy.
It's an interesting article. It seems like for sc2 the lurker was split into the swarmhost and the baneling, neither of which really provides the interesting gameplay that the lurker did, in my opinion. The swarmhost I think is of a much higher skill than you are giving it credit for. It's a different type of skill, one which hasn't been really exploited by any televised match I have seen yet, which is similar to tank positioning. I agree with you right now, people just burrow and forget them. But I think that smart use of the swarmhost could be deadly, we just haven't seen it yet. I could be dead wrong though.
On August 20 2013 09:39 9-BiT wrote: It's an interesting article. It seems like for sc2 the lurker was split into the swarmhost and the baneling, neither of which really provides the interesting gameplay that the lurker did, in my opinion. The swarmhost I think is of a much higher skill than you are giving it credit for. It's a different type of skill, one which hasn't been really exploited by any televised match I have seen yet, which is similar to tank positioning. I agree with you right now, people just burrow and forget them. But I think that smart use of the swarmhost could be deadly, we just haven't seen it yet. I could be dead wrong though.
It is, perhaps, possible for the swarm host to be used smartly and cleverly, but for the most part, the current design of the unit is, as Falling puts it: better at "sitting back safely whittling away". In other words, there's no reason to do the clever positioning and repositioning if the swarm host can be used in an easier capacity.
On August 16 2013 06:45 ElMeanYo wrote: Love swarm hosts, but you really have to commit to them for them to work. They don't work too well with other units.
It can be fun sometimes as Zerg just to mass swarm hosts, spread creep and cover the map with spores and spines.
THey give you this "zone" that is hard to attack into, but I still think that if you are not the one pushing with them, than you are not gonna win, because they can't defend against split attacks all over the map that terran players like to incorporate.
Which is kind of an odd characteristic for something that is supposed to be a 'board control' unit. It can do so, but basically requires a map where you can keep on repositioning between attack lanes in the middle of the map. Kinda like closing the gap as a soccer/football goalie, you are able to defend more territory. But you can't leave a couple SH behind and hope they are going to do anything but die. It's the entire group of SH that are moving and back and forth. And so SH really can't do much against split attack.
There is something to be said about a game where 200 vs 200 is the expected scenario to which balance is tailored, and a game where such battles much more seldom occur (and in the case they occur, are not meant nor intended to be fought between two equally balanced 200 supply armies).
Looking at it form the above aspect I don't think you could put in a unit like lurker into SC2 and make it viable (not without great difficulty at least). Blizzard experimented with tier2/tier3 lurkers. My suspicions are that these were the encountered problems:
Tier2 lurker: too much of a snowball effect since SC2 is a higher econ and faster paced game. If the opponent wasn't ready for lurkers, I imagine the result was either a stomp or a very very very difficult situation to get out of. On the other side of the extreme: if opponents blind countered, I think it would have made for some real decisive games where zerg was just instantly rolled.
Yeah, I think there is really something to that. Maybe a half a year ago, I was wondering why DT's are allowed to be so much better (one shot workers without a sound) in BW, than in SC2 (although they are relatively powerful and can do damage.) But it's actually a huge cost in money and time to get out even 2 dark templar. If they don't do anything that's actually a big deal. But BW DT would snowball so fast because of the higher economy and speed in which you can pump out DT (balanced out by having a separate tech building, admittedly.)
But I definitely buy the idea that if the game is intended to rocket to a 200/200 max army, then certain compositions are most cost effective when you it is impossible for you to have a distinct numbers advantage. A game where one player is hovering between 120-150, the other player can gain a numbers advantage by exceeding 150. If the game necessarily hits 200/200 super fast, that situation doesn't occur except to bank minerals and gas and build more macro structures to max and remax again.
edit Just thinking here and correct meif I'm wrong. But in a game balanced around expected 200/200 maxed armies, that creates situations where both armies roaming around, completely maxed, but maybe not attacking or else overwhelming undefended bases. Does the army composition require mobility to be the majority unit? Maybe I'm thinking too much of the Protoss death ball that roams the map and eats what it can in it's path. But it seems to me the more the armies are tied at 200, the more it becomes imperative that the entire army is available to win the Big Battle. Having units stationary wouldn't help in the repositioning game and pulls supply out. (Of course there is also the multiple drop harass, but SH hardly work doing that compared to M&M.) And lurkers if not with their big army, would simply get over-run by the other big army.
I think so. What's important in a prolonged 200/200 situation is to make sure you take that one good engagement.
You don't split up or harass unless you are reasonably sure that a battle will not break out.
You do often get a scenario where people's first 3 bases start mining out, and where they have had a 4th for a while, but are trying to expand to a 5th (in order to keep 2-3 simultaneous bases mining). In that scenario players often take turns in running to one end of the map and back to continuously deny eachothers' 5th attempts.
That's the scenario in which you sometimes see some splitting (because they feel certain enough they can't be forced into a big fight, as well as certain enough that their opponent is not actually actively seeking out an engagement). When they have denied their 5ths enough times and when their 2nd and 3rds start drying up is the point where one player usually really feels he has to get something done.
Actually strike that. Come to think of it people don't really frequently split in these situations either. Only sometimes.
When a player is somewhat actively seeking out the engagement though, you do not split in any circumstances!
On August 20 2013 01:36 Falling wrote: @BigJ In that case Dustin has a far different idea of what positional play means as that is what I was interpreting 'board control' to me. Particularly, because there had been a lot of calls at the time for more positional play. When I see things like 'gain map control,' then I am thinking a unit designed for positional play.
I guess in that sense they were successful, but successful in all the way that I criticized it in essentially being a one dimensional, passive unit. Where best play is to sit back and slowly whittle away at the enemy.
hm, I'm not quite sold on swarm host play being too passive to be honest. I think at the highest level swarm host play can be extremely exciting and - though the swarm host itself does not contribute a lot of positional advantages - shows a lot of characteristics of positional play.
I think, (because of the way the pathing allows you to overrun siege positions) the swam host design isn't that bad and the SH is actually the only successful siege unit besides the tank in SC2. All other artillery range units - broodlord, tempest, colossus - are hardly useful to pin an opponent into a position and force him to break a contain. Don't get me wrong - I do think that the swarm host is one dimensional and probably hard to make very exciting. But then again, I don't think any of the other siege units is really exciting in itself either, maybe apart from the tank. And that one is hard as hell to balance. Maybe even impossible if you don't want to nerf other Terran units that combo too well with a strong tank.
I read a fun idea somewhere: locusts get an ability that gives them increased attack speed while on creep. This might make swarm hosts powerful defensive units, even in smaller numbers.
The reason lurkers didn't make it past alpha is because of the way the game stacks and forms units. They figured it was too good. Also, it played a sort of dual role because the baneling was already there. Then they tried it versus non light units and it's just kind of useless.
The swarmhost is kind of shitty but lurker wouldn't fit in sc2, even though it was my favorite unit in bw.
imho, i think swarm hosts should have a much higher rate of fire, reduced life expectancy of locusts, and reduced hp of locusts. So they have like 10-15hp and die really fast, but they spawn super fast like a constant wave.
True. But I hold that comparisons can show implications in gameplay. So for instance it would be possible to show how SupCom2 unit design creates inferior gameplay to SC2.
On August 23 2013 09:27 Falling wrote: Supcom 2 isn't SC2
end
True. But I hold that comparisons can show implications in gameplay. So for instance it would be possible to show how SupCom2 unit design creates inferior gameplay to SC2.
Did I miss something or why did you bring up Supcom 2? :o
Looking forward to Planetary Annihilation, by the way?
No (unless you go back to my first design blog.) I needed a parallel example that I had used in the past and Supcom 2 is the game I like to use for non-examples. I hadn't heard of planetary annihilation until now, but I'll see what it's like.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Tfh8WiO.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uEDHO1w.png)
![[image loading]](http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/8-14-2013/tXghGU.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ipgS4wR.png)
