EPTlooks like the lurker does everything. Like the PS3.
Maybe one of us can make a SC2 mod with a (different colored) roach model with lurker abilities or attributes?
TheoryCraft: Lurker - Page 2
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
MiyaviTeddy
Canada697 Posts
looks like the lurker does everything. Like the PS3. Maybe one of us can make a SC2 mod with a (different colored) roach model with lurker abilities or attributes? | ||
|
FliedLice
Germany7494 Posts
and are invisible while doing so | ||
|
lovewithlea
168 Posts
Armies of Exigo. a not that well known sc remake in which the ling counterpart could be upgraded to be able to fly | ||
|
loadme
171 Posts
On July 10 2010 09:34 Philip2110 wrote: Siege Tanks need to be sieged. Thors are more expensive 3x the supply Immortals have a much shorter range Collosus get raped by AA, 3x the supply A 9 range unit that does this much damage and is 2 supply. Not even mentioning the splash damage. You high...? best part is, he calls me a troll  giving feedback is called trolling? ^^ 9 range splash dmg over the whole 9 fields 45 dmg vs armored (literaly 3hits and killing 10marauders if placed lucky?^^) 51 dmg with upgrades? burrowed/stealthed only mid costs only 2 supply only tier 2 if and only if a unit would include all those aspects, it would be something like the toss yo'mama ship, what only can be build once. put this lurker 6 range behind your choke and wait how everything gets instantly stealth-oneshot  this should not mean, that i'm against the lurker, i would love it and i think it would need a very high range like 7-9, because zerg needs something vs sieged tanks with mass bio in front but please make it somehow balanced ^^ | ||
|
chekthehek
United States279 Posts
| ||
|
BuzzJuice
United States97 Posts
I'll wait for the game to evolve and see if interesting NEW dynamics come up. I don't care about balance. That is what strategy is for. What fosters strategy is units that are unique and how they behave in the game, and with/against other units, which should not overlap with another unit (or even a set of units). I think I agree that the Lurker's behaviour and role is taken up by banelings and burrowed roaches, and that ground siege is somewhat compensated by Broodlords etc making the Lurker LESS UNIQUE. Roaches can hold the line like Lurkers. Banelings can deal with those pure marine balls. And overall ground siege is taken up by powerful Broodlords. Yes, the lurker can do all three but it isn't that unique. Now if there was a unit like an infestor (not our infestor but a building infestor etc.) that would present a new dynamic... | ||
|
loadme
171 Posts
Why all the negativity? This is not meant to be a whining thread, The ideas I have are not OMFGWTF imbalanced. I don't see why you guys can't have a constructive discussion. well i really tried. but it turned out you called me a troll, because i didn't instantly posted how much i loved your picturesupported idea. if you really want to go into further conversations, you should stop beeing mean and again, i love zerg, i love lurkers but i also love balance, as it turns out - only long and hard fights are good fights ;-) | ||
|
JiYan
United States3668 Posts
So you zergs definitely need to choose, lurker or swarm, you really cant ask for both. + Show Spoiler + well you can, but you probably shouldnt | ||
|
InfiniteIce
United States794 Posts
On July 10 2010 08:55 CharlieMurphy wrote: What do you guys think about a semi anti-armored/light unit like this? I think that Zerg is really lacking as it is in, for example and especially, ZvT. Nothing counters armored units as it is. I think it's a great idea. Could you see it being used in ways that (burrowed) blings/roaches couldn't? Yes, many. Banelings can attack while burrowed, but are a one-use suicide unit. They can hold chokes, until you run out of burrowed banelings. You must also either time the explosions manually, or risk losing all of your burrowed banelings in one area to a single zergling (marine, zealot, etc) tripping all of the baneling mines. Lurkers auto-attack (obviously) and can hold a choke without you having to specifically tell it what to do. 1 unit near a lurker group means you kill 1 unit. 1 unit near an autocast burrowed baneling group means you lose all of them to kill 1 unit. Thought both are AoE damage, splash damage is NOT line damage. If you have a heavy marauder wall in front of a bunch of tanks, banelings do indeed do splash to the marauders, but the tanks are pretty much immune to damage. Line damage would allow a player to do damage to the tanks in the back as well, forcing Terran players to rethink the "1 hotkey marauder+tank attack move, siege all tanks in one strategically unsound blob, and win", mechanic that seems to be so very common. Would it be more balanced and more exciting for Esports than sc2 is currently? Balanced? Yes. For all the reasons you listed above, such as diversity, etc., as well as give players a reason to actually control tank positions and unsiege if caught in a bad position. Similarly so for lurkers being caught in an off position by tanks. Exciting? Yes. Hold lurkers anyone? ^^ What other ideas can you think about for the Lurker? Given the relatively small map sizes (not absolute sizes pixel by pixel, just unit size/speed/damage to buildings/pace etc) in SC2 as compared to SC1, it might make sense to have the lurker start out with a medium move speed, upgradable to a fast move speed, similar to how the Hydralisk was in SC1. (An upgrade removed in SC2, curiously.) I feel this upgrade should not be a Hive upgrade, and that the lurker should a tier 2 or 2.5 unit. The upgrade should take a while to finish researching, though, similar to times on Blink, or Charge. The research time would prevent imbalance of being able to rush lurkers across to every expansion before other races have time to fortify, 8 minutes into the game. This Tier 2.5 option gives Zerg an alternative form of gameplay, i.e., to not tech to hive every single game, and also adds an incentive for opponents to scout the Zerg player more often, similar to SC1, where you had to scout your Zerg opponent often to check the timings/existence of a Lair/Hive in order to counter correctly. I believe this scouting mechanic is necessary in BW, but even MORESO in SC2, given the sheer economic advantages MULEs impart. Without so many free MULEs/minerals (traded for intel on the enemy with Scanner sweeps), this might also add an additional element to TvZ gameplay, forcing the T player to consider expanding more often, as they do not have as many free MULEs when forced to scan, possibly leading to 2-base turtle Terran being less used in sought of a 3base strategy. Diversifying Terran strategy and Zerg army units at the same time? Sounds good to me. What other ideas can you think of for more (gas heavy?)units for zerg to address unit diversity problems and options? A Low-Mid Gas Tier-2 melee unit. Zerg has a T1 melee unit, the Zergling, and a T3 melee unit, the Ultralisk. With ultralisks being so expensive, and needing so many armor upgrades, it really sometimes feels like a roll of the dice with Ultras. Some games you will make one step in the wrong direction and have Ultras die before being able to do too much damage, and with their long build times, you are not able to mass up again before the counter-wave hits; compare this to others it seems like your opponent got completely crushed by Ultralisks. I think a low to mid gas consuming melee unit would diversify the Zerg problem of having to choose between either: a) a fuckton of no-gas instant zerglings that evaporate but swarm nicely; or b) a very small amount of very expensive, slow-building ultralisks that either rape or get raped Zerg needs a damage sink that isn't the Ultralisk. I think a T2 melee unit would fill this role nicely, as well add diversity to the Zerg. Think about it, every unit Zerg has is ranged, besides the Zergling/Baneling combo and the Ultralisk (excluding Broodlings, which spawn from a Ranged Flying unit anyway.) True, the other races are mostly ranged as well, but given that zerg EVOLVES, rather than makes ranged technology...wouldn't this be fitting to have more melee units in the Zerg? I mean, turn on the discovery channel. Nearly all predators (Zerg!) in existence have a melee attack. They've evolved that way. Thanks Eddie  Also, this: + Show Spoiler [is a terrible post.] + On July 10 2010 10:01 JiYan wrote: arent zergs trying to get more massable units? lurker would totally undermine that ideal. Part of the reason the lurker went missing, from my understanding, is that the lurker is anti-swarm. id rather see a unit called an ant that costs 1 gas and takes 1/3 a supply and just mass it like crazy with zerglings or something. at least then zerg could be called a "swarm" better. So you zergs definitely need to choose, lurker or swarm, you really cant ask for both. + Show Spoiler + well you can, but you probably shouldnt That's like saying, Terran: you definitely need to choose, Bio or Mech. You really can't ask for both. Edit: accidentally missed a quote tag and ended up quoting all my responses. Fixed | ||
|
loadme
171 Posts
On July 10 2010 10:01 JiYan wrote: arent zergs trying to get more massable units? lurker would totally undermine that ideal. Part of the reason the lurker went missing, from my understanding, is that the lurker is anti-swarm. id rather see a unit called an ant that costs 1 gas and takes 1/3 a supply and just mass it like crazy with zerglings or something. at least then zerg could be called a "swarm" better. So you zergs definitely need to choose, lurker or swarm, you really cant ask for both. + Show Spoiler + well you can, but you probably shouldnt the good intention in lurkers is, that they maybe could close the whole in zergs unit composition while zerg already only has 9 combat units, which is 1-2 less then the other races, it also lacks of good abilities vs high range (colossi/tanks) and vs armored ground units. i'm not saying zerg is UP, no zerg is really good balanced. but the whole playstyle lacks of one or two more ways to be competative | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On July 10 2010 10:01 JiYan wrote: arent zergs trying to get more massable units? lurker would totally undermine that ideal. Part of the reason the lurker went missing, from my understanding, is that the lurker is anti-swarm. id rather see a unit called an ant that costs 1 gas and takes 1/3 a supply and just mass it like crazy with zerglings or something. at least then zerg could be called a "swarm" better. So you zergs definitely need to choose, lurker or swarm, you really cant ask for both. + Show Spoiler + well you can, but you probably shouldnt Well it's tough. There's not really much in the way of a defensive unit that can swarm, though if Zerg had a swarming unit it'd probably help Zerg be offensive. Right now Zerg can be seen as in a bit of an awkward position. Zerg is incredibly reactionary at the moment, but you're expected to play reactionary without any defensive unit to help. I don't think zerg really want a general combat unit, what they need is a more tactical unit that can help break up their problems. Essentially where I find the biggest gap in Zerg, and this may not be fully accurate of course, is in the transition from tier 1 to tier 2 vs Terran. The time between when the Terran has access to factory units and you have access to dropship overlords and burrow move Roaches Zerg is really in an awkward spot. It's hard to rely on above ground roaches, lings, or banelings to deal with those threats. | ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
Interesting ideas InfiniteIce | ||
|
MavercK
Australia2181 Posts
lurker does not overlap with the baneling the baneling is a suicide unit. | ||
|
ELA
Denmark4608 Posts
| ||
|
InfiniteIce
United States794 Posts
On July 10 2010 10:14 CharlieMurphy wrote: Yea, Zerg doesn't really have efficient tactical units right now. That's a good way of putting it. Interesting ideas InfiniteIce Thanks I'd also like to add the following I thought of.. Protoss and Terran have wall-offs. The wall-offs deny scouting or all-in rushes, allowing the player to amass for a timing push to which (especially) Zerg has no defense, as they were unable to scout (you can't always sac an overlord crossmap on larger maps. Don't give me that.) to prepare for the units being made by the T/P, as well as unable to wall off to prevent things like 3 hellions with the preigniter upgrade suiciding for 3 shots to take down 30 drones. A few lurkers on a ramp would substitute nicely for the lack of ability to really wall off. This brings me to another point, that Terran and Protoss players have the option to "contain" their opponents. Terran obviously has siege tanks. Protoss has ramp forcefielding (not the traditional use of the term "contain", but is quite a literal one!) as well as things like proxy cannons. Zerg does not really have the option to contain their opponent. Lurkers would add this option On July 10 2010 10:21 ELA wrote: As someone pointed out in one of the milion previous discussions like this on the Lurker-topic, Zerg as a race dosn't really go well with a tactical unit that can wipe out entire armies while being cloaked.. They need some badass, spammable overpowering units with low supply-count. Who are you to say what doesn't go well with what? PS: Have you ever played Brood War? It goes quite well. Also, Zergling. | ||
|
MorroW
Sweden3522 Posts
i would just love if they brought back the lurker, but id like if it had even longer range this time but worse in other areas, so banelings would be better on field while lurker on ramp would be better than baneling on ramp. i hope u understand what i mean, i want them to be good at different things and if u straight up just add lurker like i t was in sc1 it will either replace baneling or wont get used at all im afraid right now all zergs units look different and have different stats, but at the end of the day all of them are just as good as defending, attacking, harassing while terran units are divided so beautifully | ||
|
MavercK
Australia2181 Posts
On July 10 2010 10:21 ELA wrote: As someone pointed out in one of the milion previous discussions like this on the Lurker-topic, Zerg as a race dosn't really go well with a tactical unit that can wipe out entire armies while being cloaked.. They need some badass, spammable overpowering units with low supply-count. like the zergling? | ||
|
InfiniteIce
United States794 Posts
On July 10 2010 10:23 MorroW wrote: the lurker would probably overlap with the baneling or ultra at a straight up killing a big army of marines for example. but i still feel they could implant the lurker and give it a role as mainly harassment/defense. keep in mind zerg has no unit at all to put on that lost temple cliff and gay around with, maybe lurker is the perfect role for this kind of harassment, i for one know it was used like this in sc1 when it was not owning out on the field i would just love if they brought back the lurker, but id like if it had even longer range this time but worse in other areas, so banelings would be better on field while lurker on ramp would be better than baneling on ramp. i hope u understand what i mean, i want them to be good at different things and if u straight up just add lurker like i t was in sc1 it will either replace baneling or wont get used at all im afraid I agree with this. Well put Morrow. Though, another solution would be to change the baneling, as opposed to the lurker. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of banelings. They seem so very ineffective past a certain point in the game... | ||
|
Subversive
Australia2229 Posts
On July 10 2010 10:26 InfiniteIce wrote: I agree with this. Well put Morrow. Though, another solution would be to change the baneling, as opposed to the lurker. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of banelings. They seem so very ineffective past a certain point in the game... Me too. Beautifully summed up points Morrow. I commend your thinking and your English . | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
The 'problem' with banelings is that they're insanely expensive in larvae for any use other than mowing down light infantry. yeah you can wreck a formation of tanks reasonably well with them, but you're shooting yourself in the foot in terms of larvae. | ||
| ||
