|
On July 11 2010 05:35 CharlieMurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2010 02:15 Rabiator wrote:On July 11 2010 01:59 CharlieMurphy wrote:
Rabiator, all you need are a few vikings what the hell man? and with cover from tanks/thors don't tell me that it's easy to stop those vikings. "A few Vikings" depends upon the number of Corruptors you build ... and if you build LOTS the Terran has to build lots too and then it isnt a MECH TERRAN anymore. Vikings however are easily led into traps with just a few Hydralisks (you do research burrow for that) and all of a sudden the Terran requires lots of new Vikings to get rid of your air force. Dont tell me that this cant be done or that it is too expensive, because the Terran units arent free and if he "has to" build an air force he needs to build lots of Starports to be able to get the replacements fast enough or he loses. Vikings dont work well against ground forces and if you want to see how it is done just watch THIS from the Altitude invitational. Let me just quote Day[9]: "The Corruptor count was just too high." and "[IdrA] expected this air battle to be the most important part". Vikings are cheap and build fast with reactor addon, and they have 10 range which outranges the broodlords and corruptors. If Z is making more corruptors (which are not very cost effective versus vikings) then his ground army will be lacking all that much more. I didn't say run around with vikings all over the place. Just keep the broodlords nullified. 4-5 vikings is plenty enough to handle a few broodlords with your tank thor hellion army. And if you end up making a ton more, then now you have a harassment strike force as well as some extra compliment to your tanks on the floor.
Exactly. See, this comes from a fellow Zerg player who knows what I'm talking about. Broodlords are supposed to be the freakin' same tier as Battlecruisers but they fall like flies to several Vikings. You say: Oh, protect your BLs with corrupters noob, but if the Terran is at least a competent individual he'll focus Broodlords down and who cares if he loses Vikings? He loses Vikings, but takes down broodlords.
Zerg STILL has to contend with the mech army, which the Broodlords are SUPPOSED to take care of. What's to hold back a mech army? Burrowed Hydralisks? One raven and your army is potentially effed.
The reason why Lurkers were so damn good in BW was because of territorial and semi-siege ability. Simply put, once mass tanks and thors rolls in what are you going to do to hold it back?
Flying units are always a good choice due to their limitless maneuverability.
...No. Both Corrupters and BLs are slower than BW Battlecruisers. Mass thors counters mutas. The only way I can win with Broodlords is if my Hydra/Roach army completely outnumbers his. Even then, half my Broodlords have fallen due to a couple of Vikings and immobility.
3. Zerg players are constantly whining about Terran mech, but look at the Zerg air units (and I DONT mean the Mutalisk), which are armored and have very high hp while the Thor deals almost no damage to them due to its specialization against light air units.
Emphasis on the 9-range Viking taking Tier3 Broodlords
Brood Lords are MOBILE ATTACKING units while Lurkers are IMMOBILE DEFENDING units.
That's the POINT. They are used for holding back masses as well as providing territorial control. They also provide potential uses for harass, something the Zerg SERIOUSLY lacks. By using, say, Overlord Lurker drops you could decimate mineral lines.
My apologies for big wall of text. But my main point is not to start an argument with you. It is simply why I can't understand Blizzard's reasoning of taking the Lurker away: If it works, who gives a flying zergling it's the same unit from BW?
|
Lurkers, defilers and scourges were my prefered BW units. I love them because of their defensive usage.
In sc2, I feel that everything zergs has is offensive. There is nothing to defend a position in the middle of the map.
I hope they come back in the future expansions 
|
wow, zerg doesn't need another gas heavy unit (there are tons of) rather a good late game mineral heavy. you want the lurker for static defense / map control gaining / pushing unit with +dmg vs armored ? build spine crawlers.
The main thing they would be effective at is versus masses of marauders, vikings, stalkers, and roaches, and to provide a more efficient non disposable unit to hold ground with
the hydralisk holds this spot as well as the (gas heavy) ultralisk.
They would still be greatly hard countered by; Immortals, Collossus, Tanks, Thors, Ultras, and of course air units. Hell, even zealots with charge would be pretty good vs any amount of lurkers under 10 or so.
the hydralisk holds this spot except of immortal/air.
i liked the lurker alot but there is really just no room anymore for it in sc2. it's overlapping to much with the rest of the arsenal.
|
Hydralisk doesn't really hold any spot. It's this fragile unit that does good damage but can't do anything off creep. Basically it's a unit that relies on someone else taking damage and is extremely immobile without creep thus isn't really effective when it comes to attacking or containing.
I don't really see the lurker as an anti-armoured t2 unit overlapping with any role. The only anti-armoured unit zerg has is the ultra and that is t3. Roaches/Hydra are both really clones of each other but slightly twisted. Roach used for offence, Hydra used for defence. Either way none of these units allow for map control or any form on containment that lurkers could potentially provide. Banelings are anti-light and also don't provide the same roles so I really don't see any overlap at all.
|
why another anti armored zerg unit ? why another T2 anti armored unit ???? no need at all. use your freaking hydras, roaches banelings zerglings mutas et cetera.
you wanna contain ? use the units you have. lurker would not do a better job than spine crawlers hydras or roaches banelings zerglings ... only difference is it could attack while cloaked. great.
|
The hydralisk is a glass cannon. It deals good damage but can't take much itself. It needs fodder in front to have time to deal that damage.
The Lurker would certainly help us Zs. Maybe 9 range is a bit much but 7-8 would be great. I don't see how the Lurker overlaps the baneling, when the baneling is just a suicide AoE unit. A solid anti-armoured unit would be greatly appreciated on T2. Cutting into balls or even defending expansions from them would become much less daunting. We finally wouldn't have to rely on T3 Broodlords to do everything.
As people here said, we currently don't have a unit that has the role of standing his ground such as a tank or an immortal/colossi.
Lurkers, defilers and scourges were my prefered BW units. I love them because of their defensive usage.
In sc2, I feel that everything zergs has is offensive. Their is nothing to defend a position in the middle of the map.
I hope they come back in the future expansions
Exactly. Those 3 units were absolutely the core of Z. They had both great defensive and offensive capabilities which were essential. Scourge sniping observers and vessels, lurkers holding back ground units and defilers to provide long-livety to the masses of fragile units.
|
once again: why anti armoured ? for what. why would a "solid anti armored unit be greatly appreciated on T2".
the lurker is a cloaked unit with a decent range and bonus dmg vs armored units. (OP)
that's basically a spine crawler.
contain with your units. contain with your spine crawlers. kill stuff with your available units.
there's no situation in this game where i'm desperately looking for an anti armoured unit that's cloaked.
|
On July 11 2010 20:11 Ciddass wrote:
once again: why anti armoured ? for what. why would a "solid anti armored unit be greatly appreciated on T2".
the lurker is a cloaked unit with a decent range and bonus dmg vs armored units. (OP)
that's basically a spine crawler.
contain with your units. contain with your spine crawlers. kill stuff with your available units.
there's no situation in this game where i'm desperately looking for an anti armoured unit that's cloaked.
If you want to make a point please make it. Senseless blabbering isn't really what this thread is far. You can't contain with Spine crawlers past early mid game and any other form of contain you need a larger force to do this. The whole point of the lurker is the fact that you can hold ground with a smaller force which zerg is lacking currently.
There is no anti-armoured unit at t2 currently. Roaches semi fill that void late game but not really in the mid game since roaches aren't a pure anti-armoured unit. Rather they have good hp so do alright in mass. Hydra are fragile and get ripped by armoured units if they don't have any fodder(Aka roaches). Banelings are mainly for anti-light and don't really do well against armoured unless in mass and combined with ovie drop or the likes. Zerglings get demolished by any splash.
At the end of the day there isn't one unit that allows for smaller zerg force to hold ground like defiler and lurker did.
|
On July 11 2010 20:20 Numy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2010 20:11 Ciddass wrote:
once again: why anti armoured ? for what. why would a "solid anti armored unit be greatly appreciated on T2".
the lurker is a cloaked unit with a decent range and bonus dmg vs armored units. (OP)
that's basically a spine crawler.
contain with your units. contain with your spine crawlers. kill stuff with your available units.
there's no situation in this game where i'm desperately looking for an anti armoured unit that's cloaked.
If you want to make a point please make it. Senseless blabbering isn't really what this thread is far. You can't contain with Spine crawlers past early mid game and any other form of contain you need a larger force to do this. The whole point of the lurker is the fact that you can hold ground with a smaller force which zerg is lacking currently. There is no anti-armoured unit at t2 currently. Roaches semi fill that void late game but not really in the mid game since roaches aren't a pure anti-armoured unit. Rather they have good hp so do alright in mass. Hydra are fragile and get ripped by armoured units if they don't have any fodder(Aka roaches). Banelings are mainly for anti-light and don't really do well against armoured unless in mass and combined with ovie drop or the likes. Zerglings get demolished by any splash. At the end of the day there isn't one unit that allows for smaller zerg force to hold ground like defiler and lurker did.
so what.
8 spine crawlers + 3 hydras hold alot. there you have your small ground force holding ground.
what's the point of a small ground force as zerg ? just to add the lurker ?
the lurker has NO point at the moment.
as someone mentioned before. roach / hydra are awfully similar to each other. and now you wanna add the lurker in T2 as anti armored. that makes no sense.
you say theres no anti armored T2 unit for zerg. there is no need for it at all. you have everything you need at T2 to handle anything thrown at you. if it's getting tough you have ultras and broodlords in T3.
i just don't get the point why zerg needs a anti armored unit. with no gimmick besides "attacks while burrowed" which is quite similar to the baneling. "banelings are vs light !!!!!!!!!!!11111" .. yeah right ... so add the lurker ??????
it fills no gap. so don't put it into the game.
|
It's an interesting and well-thought out idea (props to OP), but personally I think that the lurker, either BW version or this version, doesn't have a place in the current Zerg for SC2.
Banelings function well as splash and anti-clustered units (they're surprisingly effective on huddled groups of stalkers or marauders without the slow), and I really like Roaches' offensive use of burrow.
I definitely agree that Zerg's ground army lacks a reliable anti-armored or long-range unit, but perhaps that is a weakness that ought to be left in, just as Terran Mech armies are immobile or Protoss players who forgo an early robo bay are vulnerable to cloaked units.
As for being gas-heavy, Hydras, Infestors, and Ultras cost a lot of gas (Roaches aren't light either), as well as Zerg air. I don't find myself with gross excesses of minerals or zerglings when I play Zerg.
|
If they are going to put the lurker in heart of the swarm , they better make a new unit model for it this one is pretty ugly .
|
On July 11 2010 21:35 Ciddass wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2010 20:20 Numy wrote:On July 11 2010 20:11 Ciddass wrote:
once again: why anti armoured ? for what. why would a "solid anti armored unit be greatly appreciated on T2".
the lurker is a cloaked unit with a decent range and bonus dmg vs armored units. (OP)
that's basically a spine crawler.
contain with your units. contain with your spine crawlers. kill stuff with your available units.
there's no situation in this game where i'm desperately looking for an anti armoured unit that's cloaked.
If you want to make a point please make it. Senseless blabbering isn't really what this thread is far. You can't contain with Spine crawlers past early mid game and any other form of contain you need a larger force to do this. The whole point of the lurker is the fact that you can hold ground with a smaller force which zerg is lacking currently. There is no anti-armoured unit at t2 currently. Roaches semi fill that void late game but not really in the mid game since roaches aren't a pure anti-armoured unit. Rather they have good hp so do alright in mass. Hydra are fragile and get ripped by armoured units if they don't have any fodder(Aka roaches). Banelings are mainly for anti-light and don't really do well against armoured unless in mass and combined with ovie drop or the likes. Zerglings get demolished by any splash. At the end of the day there isn't one unit that allows for smaller zerg force to hold ground like defiler and lurker did. so what. 8 spine crawlers + 3 hydras hold alot. there you have your small ground force holding ground. what's the point of a small ground force as zerg ? just to add the lurker ? the lurker has NO point at the moment. as someone mentioned before. roach / hydra are awfully similar to each other. and now you wanna add the lurker in T2 as anti armored. that makes no sense. you say theres no anti armored T2 unit for zerg. there is no need for it at all. you have everything you need at T2 to handle anything thrown at you. if it's getting tough you have ultras and broodlords in T3. i just don't get the point why zerg needs a anti armored unit. with no gimmick besides "attacks while burrowed" which is quite similar to the baneling. "banelings are vs light !!!!!!!!!!!11111" .. yeah right ... so add the lurker ?????? it fills no gap. so don't put it into the game.
Ok, while we're at it let's build some bunkers and cannons to supplement our armies amirite? Wtf?! Have you even played BW to know that the Lurker's role is maintaining territory while holding off pushes? What are 8 spine crawlers going to do with your army? Sit there?
I never suggested anything about Anti armor; that's for another time to decide if the Lurker is even coming back. Your analogy of the Lurker as a unit that can attack while burrowed is overly simplified.. that's like saying DTs are invisible zealots.
The problem I see with banelings is the cost-effectivenes ratio. Okay, you blew up a ton of stuff with your banelings, now what? Do you take control or instead, secede it simply because banelings are suicidal units? Yes, they are awesome units but when you think about it, scourge did the same thing with air. Yet, in PvZ Protoss can maintain air dominance with mass corsairs simply because once your scourge blow up, you don't have air unless you went Mutas. Same concept with Banelings. There is nothing to complement containment nor map control for Zerg besides having a mass swarm of units just sit in front of your opponent.
|
Ok, while we're at it let's build some bunkers and cannons to supplement our armies amirite? Wtf?! Have you even played BW to know that the Lurker's role is maintaining territory while holding off pushes? What are 8 spine crawlers going to do with your army? Sit there?
?
??? am i wrong or is the lurker "sitting there" as well ? quasi with your army ? maintaining territory. like a spine crawler. pushing forward to contain, like a spine crawler.
whatever.
it's a pity that the lurker is gone but we have to say that it was the right decision.
|
I thought spine crawlers needed creep to move?
I guess I was wrong...
|
On July 11 2010 22:23 Ciddass wrote:
Ok, while we're at it let's build some bunkers and cannons to supplement our armies amirite? Wtf?! Have you even played BW to know that the Lurker's role is maintaining territory while holding off pushes? What are 8 spine crawlers going to do with your army? Sit there?
?
??? am i wrong or is the lurker "sitting there" as well ? quasi with your army ? maintaining territory. like a spine crawler. pushing forward to contain, like a spine crawler.
whatever.
it's a pity that the lurker is gone but we have to say that it was the right decision.
Lurkers don't take 12 seconds to burrow -_-;
Hope the marauder gets removed in HotS. Clearly what is a bunker that can be healed and stimmed doing with your army?
|
On July 11 2010 22:28 MoneyHypeMike wrote:
I thought spine crawlers needed creep to move?
I guess I was wrong...
yeah you are wrong, they need creep to burrow.
there was a game on lost temple i guess where idra pushed and contained with a hand full of spine crawlers pooping creep with overlords etc.
|
-No additional cost in food (since roach and hydra are 2) exactly, but roaches should be 1 or 1.5 supply not two lurker upgrade should come at a +1 or even +2 supply cost purely to match siege tank or at least give a semblance of tension put into just how many roaches you intend to morph at any given time (particualry late game focus here). Because your version of the lurker will simply be better than the roach it is spawned from, if it did not come at increased supply why would you ever have roaches late game?
-Make it cost mostly gas because as it is right now, there is not a single zerg unit that costs more gas than minerals. So something like 25/125. awesome, i love it but i think this is particulary costly, it should be 25/75 with around corruptor into broodlord morph timer.
-It's HP would be between 150-170 and would come with 1 or 2 armor. It would be a armored bio unit ofc. hmm, i would measure its usefullness with tankshots, 150 with 2 armor gives tension, now suddenly getting +1 veichle will allow for one less shot and its sturdy against marines with a few carapace upgrades. Love it.
-The damage should be something like 15 + 20-30 to armored and be 7 range with a tier 3 upgrade giving them 9 range. +2 per upgrade or +1/+1 on attacks. Yes it should be anti armored but do you want it to come in line damage like the original design or single target spread aoe like storm? with the current trends of having units stack perhaps a re design on that part would be warranted?
-Possibly an additional tier 3 upgrade to burrow move underground with lurkers for 150/150. Here is the jist of it, roaches already have a move while burrowed upgrade. Simply let it be included that lurker benefits from this (as well as the added regen) and let it be at lair tech.
Overall i like the idea, and as an advocate of additional zerg units this is something i would love to see in play before commenting on anything related to balance. It is hard to reason with the thought that blizzard may have stripped zerg of its most versatile and fun units just to look at its performance and then as heart of the swarm arrives these things might make apperances along with reaper / vulture spidermine etc.
Just admit this:
Zerg is bland, it lacks in tricks and tactics and their plays can be seen from a mile away. Rather than having multiple choices like bio or mech or even Bio mech. it has two ways to approach the midgame: Hydra roach, Muta baneling. the drops and nydus worms can be seen from a mile away and there is very little a zerg can "get away with" that is not purely relying on their opponent to not do this or to not do that.
The lurker in a sense, helps Zerg with that aspect more than a row of spinecrawlers. It forces ravens or gives tension to the relationship between mules and scan. SUDDENLY zerg has a unit that can punish terran or protoss for attempting to deviate too far away from robo facility or starport play.
What? zerg punishing players from deviating from standard play? Suddenly zerg has a unit that if you do not go this and that you will die. THAT IS UNHEARD OF! AN OUTRAGE!
Banelings cant do this, no amount of nydus worms or drop play can force opponent to deviate away from the plan.
Its so easy to account for and is always the player being dropped or nydus wormed fault for not paying attention. so yes, i hope a unit like this will come with heart of the swarm. Its very simply the fact that every Zerg player follows a set of rules and patterns are easily established, they should get units that lets them bend these rules and change their pattern. The lurker is one such unit.
|
Need swarm and defense... just make the broodlings producable out of any zerg building. 50min = 4 broodlings, queuable from any building except spore/spine crawlers.
Yeay \o/
|
put lurker in as the normal hydra upgrade but only allow the lurker to attack when unburrowed. give it the auto-unburrow attack toggle that the baneling has if you are terribad at managing them. a offcreep movement speed of roach or ling would be fine. a range of 8 seems fair seeing as the hellion is 6 and it can run around happily with no gas cost. this way zerg can at least siege cliffs and expos but are still outranged by tanks and arent too detection heavy.
funnily enough blizzard made tank splash damage not overkill but hellion and collossus do not "link" up with each other to max damage.
tbh i still think if they made the roach smaller physically, spawn in twos and take 1.5 food it would be way more fun to play as the swarm.
|
Everyone seems to think lurkers are purely for defence, which is a complete fabrication. Almost every BW ZvT I've played in which I've made lurkers I've used them aggressively to either contain my opponent, slow push in, or flank their army with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
