I was very excited to hear that Lurkers were coming back in LotV when they were announced a few months ago. But ever since the Beta began, people have been avoiding the unit like a plague. We've had several tournaments in the last week with almost no Lurker showings.
ZvT is basically Ling/Bling/Muta into crackling/Ultra Ultra EX plus α.
ZvP seems like a ravager spam fest into mutalisk
and ZvZ seem like ling-bling into Ravaroach wars.
Lurkers are rapidly becoming the carriers of Wings of Liberty.
I'm just wondering what it would take for people to take the Lurkers seriously again. If you guys know any streamer who actually touches the lurker, please let me know.
For starters, I'm wondering if Lurkers came out with the +9 attack for free at the lair would be too much. It would be on lair tech, which is basically the midgame, where armies are capable of dealing with siege weapons. Heck, if we can deal with siegetanks with range 11 for the last 5 years, and dealing with swarmhosts with range 20+ for the last 2 years, I'm sure a 9 range lurker in the midgame wouldn't be so bad.
give it a week, obviously some of the strategies people are using right now will get nerfed and we'll see where lurkers stand after that. so far as I could tell, the worst part about going lurker seems to be defending drops
A lot of people before beta have said that lurker just won't work in sc2 and we are seeing it now. I hope with some tweak, it can at the very least be useful in one match up
its like 5 days of beta can we wait for stuff like this, i remember ppl saying swarmhost are aweful/useless in HOTS beta and were are we now. people are really only trying out the most op stuff like cyclones or ravagers. just give it time, I think the viper could be OP but no one uses them so we'll never know also a viper lurker combo with blinding cloud , same with stasis ward maybe not OP but could be very very good with force fields disruptors combos. just let ppl try everything out give it a month even two before we say things like this.
A big reason seems to be the lack of a need for hydras. No hydra den, minimal hydras on field, why go to lurkers?
In ZvT BW, sure, hydras were rare, but there was no other option really. With SC2, the baneling syncs well with the melee upgrades and provides adequate splash until ultra.
Why would anyone use any specialized units other than Ravagers and Ultralisks with the current balance? Lurkers are fine, there are just other options that are OP at the moment.
On April 06 2015 14:42 ETisME wrote: A lot of people before beta have said that lurker just won't work in sc2 and we are seeing it now. I hope with some tweak, it can at the very least be useful in one match up
They are incorrect. I have been using lurkers to great effect in zvp. I don't do it versus mech because I am prety sure it's bad, but versus bio they aren't that bad either. People don't use them because they prefer the easier way to win atm with ravager rushes.
They can definitely be good. I see them weak against Protoss because Disruptors can kill them so easily with little change of moving agaisnt them. Also Ravagers kill them so easily as well.
I would try making them immune or more resistant to Disruptor and Ravager aoe abilities while burrowed.
On April 06 2015 17:48 Kranyum wrote: They can definitely be good. I see them weak against Protoss because Disruptors can kill them so easily with little change of moving agaisnt them. Also Ravagers kill them so easily as well.
I would try making them immune or more resistant to Disruptor and Ravager aoe abilities while burrowed.
Disruptors aren't as good against them if the zerg spreads the lurkers out. If zerg just has them all grouped up and burrowed then yeah disruptor destroyes them. It's like BW templar, if you have lurkers bunched up templar demolish them bad, but spread out not so much.
On April 06 2015 15:16 FabledIntegral wrote: A big reason seems to be the lack of a need for hydras. No hydra den, minimal hydras on field, why go to lurkers?
In ZvT BW, sure, hydras were rare, but there was no other option really. With SC2, the baneling syncs well with the melee upgrades and provides adequate splash until ultra.
I don't how long time it takes to get Lurkers on actual beta, but in the custom LOTV map, it takes wayyy too long time imo. First you need tier 2, then you need Hydra den (40 secs), then morph into Lurker Den (100 secs), then morph Hydras into Lurkers.
I don't see the need for such a long proces here. I much rather prefer that Lurkers could come much faster and function as an alternative to Banelings vs bio or Roaches/Ravager. That would allow for a lot more strategic options rather than Lurkers only being something you can transition into.
If that makes it too strong, you could make its core stats slightly weaker and tweak the upgrade further.
I don't have the beta, but I've been watching streams all week and I do have some thoughts. I think the big issue right now is the speed of teching due to the LOTV economy. It takes almost as much time to get a lurker as it does to just go to hive and get ultra tech. Hydras themselves seem to rarely be part of people's starts (ravegers everywhere), so it just easier to skip the 2 minute + wait and get the hive tech you wanted anyway.
The range upgrade requiring hive just adds to the amount of time you have to wait before you get to actually use the unit. Honestly I don't see why the lurker den has to take so long, or why the range upgrade couldn't be lair tech (Blizzard could even try just making the 9 range standard, why not).
They do seem pretty damn good once people actually get them out, though. I'm not sure if lurker/ling or lurker/roach will be better - lings make harassment easier and don't need gas, but roaches are meatier and use the same attack upgrades (plus everyone is going to get ravagers anyway).
(This is the opinion of someone who hasn't played LotV and watched a few streams)
Lurkers are difficult to transition to in resource cost and time and it seems there are more cost efficient ways of dealing with Bio, Protoss Gateway armies or Roach balls with the Ravager. LotV is at a phase where I feel there is an oversaturation of unique units, some of which overlap in roles which renders certain units cost ineffective or rarely used. Lurkers are a unit I really want to relive in SC2 because they were excellent in BW but I just don't see the appeal or benefit in using them so far.
If there's no need to go up to lurker tech, then I doubt a lot of Zergs are going to play that style. A few other things from what I've seen in ZvP (observing and hearing feedback, not playing) :
1. Transitioning from roach/hydra to lurkers is hypothetically feasible because of the tech path... certainly easier to do than if you opened ling/bling/muta. (More about this in #3.)
2. However, if roach/hydra is being countered, half the time it's because Protoss has a robo and can start producing units that happen to counter both of them (immortal/ observer/ disruptor/ colossi). These counter lurkers too, so why would you transition into something that doesn't force the opponent to create a new unit composition?
3. Ravagers seem to have better utility than lurkers. They're more mobile, they keep up with roach attacks and retreats, their ability can crush forcefields, and they're just easier and quicker (no lurker den) to make than lurkers. So if you open roach/hydra and want to add in a third unit, why bother making that unit a lurker when you can make it a ravager?
4. Lurkers are arguably redundant with swarm hosts too. They're both Zerg siege units, but it appears that locusts just do it harder/ better/ faster/ stronger than the lurker spikes.
(I don't know how much of this translates into ZvT and ZvZ also, but I'd imagine there's at least some overlap.)
I think that if Zerg had lurkers back in WoL, they would have utilized them a ton. But with swarm hosts in HotS and ravagers in LotV, it doesn't seem obvious to me what the niche is that makes lurkers ideal. Obviously, it's still the early early stages of the closed beta, and I do love the BW lurker, but we'll see if it ends up having any unique utility.
WOW, loved this ZvZ. It seems you need to do a lot of tech switches, from different tiers and thats awesome!
Yeh ZvZ could easily go from the worst to one of the most skillful matchups. Ravagers, Roach burrow and Lurker all create new interactions and dynamics. '
Lurkers are arguably redundant with swarm hosts too. They're both Zerg siege units, but it appears that locusts just do it harder/ better/ faster/ stronger than the lurker spikes.
I agree with most of your points but I think its better to look at the Swarm Host purely as a harass unit now and the Lurker as a postitional unit. The SH will probably be scrapped becasue I don't think it can be properly balanced.
I asked Vibe to play some lurker games last night. It seems the fastest you can get them out is around 8 minutes real time. Before that you are literally stuck on hydra ling vs terran, which is awful.
I'm beginning to think that the only way to save lurkers is to remove the lurker den morph requirement from the hydra den and also give them the 9 range to start with.
I just think it needs time and for other units to be brought inline a bit, I think the way they'd start to be used is like a Terran bio player and his widowmines, they're sort of there to hold a position and force them to engage into you since you just retreat back and forth slowly moving them forward.
The lurker itself is fine, the problem is how long it takes to get them out.... I think the time to build lurker den should be reduced. First you have to make the hydra den, then another 100 seconds for lurker den, then you have to morph the hydras still.
On April 06 2015 22:41 neoghaleon55 wrote: I asked Vibe to play some lurker games last night. It seems the fastest you can get them out is around 8 minutes real time. Before that you are literally stuck on hydra ling vs terran, which is awful.
I'm beginning to think that the only way to save lurkers is to remove the lurker den morph requirement from the hydra den and also give them the 9 range to start with.
I have been testing similar changes. To be more specific;
- Starts with 9 range - Starting movement speed = 2.25-2.5, but speed-upgrade added to 3.25-3.4 (creep-modifier reduced/removed) --> They start out as being good defensively but need upgrade to be used well offensively. - Lurker morph build time reduced from 100 to 50 seconds.
So you get Lurkers alot faster here, but you can't rush them and go directly kill your opponent. Instead, you can get them, secure expos and then use them offensively later in the midgame.
Also not really sure what the 6-9 range upgrade accomplishes. What is the larger point here. Since Lurkers are so hard to tech to, wouldn't it make more sense that they immedaitely are very cost-efficient in engagments. The 6-range on the other hand seems to just further extend the period before it becomes viable for no real reason.
On April 06 2015 22:18 Wildmoon wrote: SH is not a siege unit anymore.
I disagree. It doesn't have to burrow, sure. It is certainly more mobile now. However, it can still assume the role of a siege unit if the player wants it to. Since the role of the SH can still be to send off locusts to consistently chip away at buildings and armies, I think that still makes it a siege unit. Hell, with the ability for locusts to fly now, it can even siege areas that were previously unreachable (e.g., directly into the main).
On April 06 2015 22:18 Wildmoon wrote: SH is not a siege unit anymore.
I disagree. It doesn't have to burrow, sure. It is certainly more mobile now. However, it can still assume the role of a siege unit if the player wants it to. Since the role of the SH can still be to send off locusts to consistently chip away at buildings and armies, I think that still makes it a siege unit. Hell, with the ability for locusts to fly now, it can even siege areas that were previously unreachable (e.g., directly into the main).
I am not in the beta but isn't the locust cd pretty long now? If it's too long now then it would be hard to use it to hold position.
On April 06 2015 22:41 neoghaleon55 wrote: I asked Vibe to play some lurker games last night. It seems the fastest you can get them out is around 8 minutes real time. Before that you are literally stuck on hydra ling vs terran, which is awful.
I'm beginning to think that the only way to save lurkers is to remove the lurker den morph requirement from the hydra den and also give them the 9 range to start with.
I have been testing similar changes. To be more specific;
- Starts with 9 range - Starting movement speed = 2.25-2.5, but speed-upgrade added to 3.25-3.4 (creep-modifier reduced/removed) --> They start out as being good defensively but need upgrade to be used well offensively. - Lurker morph build time reduced from 100 to 50 seconds.
So you get Lurkers alot faster here, but you can't rush them and go directly kill your opponent. Instead, you can get them, secure expos and then use them offensively later in the midgame.
Also not really sure what the 6-9 range upgrade accomplishes. What is the larger point here. Since Lurkers are so hard to tech to, wouldn't it make more sense that they immedaitely are very cost-efficient in engagments. The 6-range on the other hand seems to just further extend the period before it becomes viable for no real reason.
Yeah, I think there's no point in having the upgrade when it doesn't serve to make the unit stronger but to make the unit viable. Just in cooperate the upgrade into the unit right away. Something like blueflame or speed for lings serve a purpose.
On April 06 2015 14:42 ETisME wrote: A lot of people before beta have said that lurker just won't work in sc2 and we are seeing it now. I hope with some tweak, it can at the very least be useful in one match up
They are incorrect. I have been using lurkers to great effect in zvp. I don't do it versus mech because I am prety sure it's bad, but versus bio they aren't that bad either. People don't use them because they prefer the easier way to win atm with ravager rushes.
Still think they are correct, Lurkers are retarded easy to outmicro. But you are right with people going for the easy way atm. But Imo Protoss is just not used to this sort of micro which is why Lurkers work rather well against them running almost head on into them. And the fact that Disruptors do pretty bad against them.
On April 06 2015 22:18 Wildmoon wrote: SH is not a siege unit anymore.
What role should it fill now? In all honesty I don't see it making it out of the LOTV beta. I can't really see how the SH and Lurker can exist together without changing or removing one of them completely. (plz sh plz)
25 Minerals per Locust, Locust amount starts at 1 and each locust has to be built the time to build one locust is 15 seconds (Bearing in mind the change the old game that would be 21 seconds only 4 seconds off the old locust time but that's per locust. Maximum amount of Locusts stored is 5. Can only be released every 40 seconds
I also think 200 gas is quite steep, so it should be 100, 150 keeping the 4 supply as in Lotv not the 3 in Hots.
The locust itself should be a middle ground between HoTs and Lotv leaning more to Hots side.
It has the effect of making it powerful yet not massable and more on the harrass/buffer rather than core unit side of things. 2 of them is 8 supply and waiting 75 ingame seconds with 2 swarmhosts is equivalent of the same power as 5 Hots SH or 15 supply meaning time makes them supply efficient but vulnerable.
Poll: Good Idea?
No (10)
48%
Fuck this Unit (Remove it) (9)
43%
Yes (2)
10%
21 total votes
Your vote: Good Idea?
(Vote): Yes (Vote): No (Vote): Fuck this Unit (Remove it)
I haven't used the lurker at all in ZvZ (been going for Mutas or dieing to Ravagers), but against P a heavy upgrade ling/hydra style into a few lurkers to get 5+ bases has been working wonders. The next thing I've noticed is that the 9 range upgrade, with a few infestors or viper gets absured. They slaughter any units that get hit by FG, or are under the Cloud.
ZvT I have only found a decent spot if the T goes for early tank drops, which mutas are so much better at punishing. Not too sure if the lurkers will be good for base defend, but I could see a few lurkers in the mineral lines for drop defense being strong.
We are also only ~1 week into beta so who knows where they (along with other units) will end up.
Subjective, sure. I understand not everyone agrees with me on that. I just know after playing BW for a few days, the sounds stuck and were happily ingrained in my head. After playing SC2 for weeks/months/years, things are not nearly as memorable.
Unnecessary? It's also unnecessary for SC2 to have the graphics that it has. SC2 definitely has good merits to it, but I am just suggesting [relatively easy] improvements to the feel of the game. There is a huge difference in the quality of the audio feedback.
I know many others agree. Anyway, wrong thread to discuss, and it has been discussed at length. I just wanted to add to the other user's thoughts.
A lot of the sounds for the LotV units are placeholders. While the Lurker probably just uses sounds and assets from WoL and HotS, mayble Blizzard will improve it when they give the other units a pass of polishing.
On April 07 2015 02:32 eviltomahawk wrote: A lot of the sounds for the LotV units are placeholders. While the Lurker probably just uses sounds and assets from WoL and HotS, mayble Blizzard will improve it when they give the other units a pass of polishing.
Not sure still if I'm crazy or not, but I believe they have changed the queen and zergling noises slightly, I like them more so I hope they stay. Hopefully someone can confirm/deny this.
On April 06 2015 14:42 ETisME wrote: A lot of people before beta have said that lurker just won't work in sc2 and we are seeing it now. I hope with some tweak, it can at the very least be useful in one match up
They are incorrect. I have been using lurkers to great effect in zvp. I don't do it versus mech because I am prety sure it's bad, but versus bio they aren't that bad either. People don't use them because they prefer the easier way to win atm with ravager rushes.
Still think they are correct, Lurkers are retarded easy to outmicro. But you are right with people going for the easy way atm. But Imo Protoss is just not used to this sort of micro which is why Lurkers work rather well against them running almost head on into them. And the fact that Disruptors do pretty bad against them.
In theory banelings are super easy to outmicro as well, just move them marines back right? Yet we see banelings constantly get great hits.
It's not that lurkers need to be good alone, it's the synergy. Lurker / ling(as one example) could be a solid transiiton compared to ling/bling thats risky. But right now Lurkers need that upgrade to be good(it seems) which makes other tech choices just much better.
On April 06 2015 22:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:2. However, if roach/hydra is being countered, half the time it's because Protoss has a robo and can start producing units that happen to counter both of them (immortal/ observer/ disruptor/ colossi). These counter lurkers too, so why would you transition into something that doesn't force the opponent to create a new unit composition?
Just an FYI from playing quite a bit of the custom alpha map... Robo units don't seem to counter lurker at all. Quite the opposite in fact! Not only do lurkers out range the colossus, but the tendency for colossus to stand on top of other allied units causes every lurker shot to be even more cost effective as it hits the colossus in addition to the units underneath it. Immortals no longer have hardened shield, so they take the full damage from the lurkers, including their significant bonus damage to armored. While it is true that observers are important to fighting against lurkers, as Blade55555 pointed out disruptors don't completely wipe out lurker positions that are spread out appropriately.
On April 06 2015 22:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:2. However, if roach/hydra is being countered, half the time it's because Protoss has a robo and can start producing units that happen to counter both of them (immortal/ observer/ disruptor/ colossi). These counter lurkers too, so why would you transition into something that doesn't force the opponent to create a new unit composition?
Just an FYI from playing quite a bit of the custom alpha map... Robo units don't seem to counter lurker at all. Quite the opposite in fact! Not only do lurkers out range the colossus, but the tendency for colossus to stand on top of other allied units causes every lurker shot to be even more cost effective as it hits the colossus in addition to the units underneath it. Immortals no longer have hardened shield, so they take the full damage from the lurkers, including their significant bonus damage to armored. While it is true that observers are important to fighting against lurkers, as Blade55555 pointed out disruptors don't completely wipe out lurker positions that are spread out appropriately.
Lurkers have flat 30 damage, while Immortals are doing 50 damage to the armored units. Immortals can use their new active hardened shield and just wipe them out even though it lasts for 3 seconds. I can't see any situation where Lurkers would beat Immortals except if you have something like Blinding Cloud/Fungal Growth and Lurkers are upgraded with +3 range.
Lurkers aren't bad per se, but their use so far seems a lot more limited than a use of other high tech units like Swarm Hosts, Mutalisks etc. I've been watching a lot of streams and I've seen more new Swarm Hosts than Lurkers, literally. That can definitely change in the future through the buffs/nerfs of some hard counter units, but Lurkers don't seem to do much against Immortals/Cyclones/Siege Tanks(especially with Medivacs)/Marauders/Ravagers. Every single of these units just wreck Lurkers so far. Them being really hard to get doesn't help their case at all.
On April 06 2015 22:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:2. However, if roach/hydra is being countered, half the time it's because Protoss has a robo and can start producing units that happen to counter both of them (immortal/ observer/ disruptor/ colossi). These counter lurkers too, so why would you transition into something that doesn't force the opponent to create a new unit composition?
Just an FYI from playing quite a bit of the custom alpha map... Robo units don't seem to counter lurker at all. Quite the opposite in fact! Not only do lurkers out range the colossus, but the tendency for colossus to stand on top of other allied units causes every lurker shot to be even more cost effective as it hits the colossus in addition to the units underneath it. Immortals no longer have hardened shield, so they take the full damage from the lurkers, including their significant bonus damage to armored. While it is true that observers are important to fighting against lurkers, as Blade55555 pointed out disruptors don't completely wipe out lurker positions that are spread out appropriately.
Lurkers have flat 30 damage, while Immortals are doing 50 damage to the armored units. Immortals can use their new active hardened shield and just wipe them out even though it lasts for 3 seconds. I can't see any situation where Lurkers would beat Immortals except if you have something like Blinding Cloud/Fungal Growth and Lurkers are upgraded with +3 range.
Lurkers aren't bad per se, but their use so far seems a lot more limited than a use of other high tech units like Swarm Hosts, Mutalisks etc. I've been watching a lot of streams and I've seen more new Swarm Hosts than Lurkers, literally. That can definitely change in the future through the buffs/nerfs of some hard counter units, but Lurkers don't seem to do much against Immortals/Cyclones/Siege Tanks(especially with Medivacs)/Marauders/Ravagers. Every single of these units just wreck Lurkers so far. Them being really hard to get doesn't help their case at all.
Lurkers already counter mass light units such as marines/zealots/zerglings. Why do Lurkers need to counter every single unit? Besides, Lurkers is just one piece in the army composition, and it already does its role very well.
I would like to see the Lurker modified to allow more counter micro. In Broodwar, you could micro one or two marines against Lurkers but that was it. In large army fights, there was no away to avoid taking damage from lurkers. It would be better for gameplay if the movement speed of the spines were slowed and there was a clear indicator in the direction the spines would be going.
Also, the seismic spines upgrade seems to be very unzerglike. Zerg units in general are suppose to be fast but short ranged. Seismic spines should be replaced with a speed upgrade for the lurker.
On the few occasions I have seen them they looked decently strong. I think the ravager is so good right now it's kind of eclipsing it.
I agree that they should just consolidate that upgrade with the tech structure if for no other reason than to encourage people to use them and see how they shake out. If that proves to be too strong (and I don't think it will) they can always revert the change once more time has been spent testing them.
Like some of the more interesting new stuff, it's not immediately obvious what the best way to use them is and, for that reason, it's probably too early to say that they're under-powered. Why build a complicated positional unit when the ravager is so reliable and straightforward?
On April 06 2015 22:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:2. However, if roach/hydra is being countered, half the time it's because Protoss has a robo and can start producing units that happen to counter both of them (immortal/ observer/ disruptor/ colossi). These counter lurkers too, so why would you transition into something that doesn't force the opponent to create a new unit composition?
Just an FYI from playing quite a bit of the custom alpha map... Robo units don't seem to counter lurker at all. Quite the opposite in fact! Not only do lurkers out range the colossus, but the tendency for colossus to stand on top of other allied units causes every lurker shot to be even more cost effective as it hits the colossus in addition to the units underneath it. Immortals no longer have hardened shield, so they take the full damage from the lurkers, including their significant bonus damage to armored. While it is true that observers are important to fighting against lurkers, as Blade55555 pointed out disruptors don't completely wipe out lurker positions that are spread out appropriately.
Lurkers have flat 30 damage, while Immortals are doing 50 damage to the armored units. Immortals can use their new active hardened shield and just wipe them out even though it lasts for 3 seconds. I can't see any situation where Lurkers would beat Immortals except if you have something like Blinding Cloud/Fungal Growth and Lurkers are upgraded with +3 range.
Lurkers aren't bad per se, but their use so far seems a lot more limited than a use of other high tech units like Swarm Hosts, Mutalisks etc. I've been watching a lot of streams and I've seen more new Swarm Hosts than Lurkers, literally. That can definitely change in the future through the buffs/nerfs of some hard counter units, but Lurkers don't seem to do much against Immortals/Cyclones/Siege Tanks(especially with Medivacs)/Marauders/Ravagers. Every single of these units just wreck Lurkers so far. Them being really hard to get doesn't help their case at all.
Lurkers already counter mass light units such as marines/zealots/zerglings. Why do Lurkers need to counter every single unit? Besides, Lurkers is just one piece in the army composition, and it already does its role very well.
I agree with you that they shouldn't be countering every unit in the game, my point is that these units I've listed are standard in LOTV in every match, and Lurkers are not standard just because they are hard to get while at the same time doesn't do much outside of countering those light units and as such they are not so desirable units right now.
About role, no they are not doing their role very well. Lurker role isn't anti-light unit, but siege unit that is zone control unit at the same time, and they are pretty much failing at both. You are just better of with Ravagers or even new Swarm Hosts as siege units and they aren't doing that great at zone controlling when half of the units in every matchup can just roll over them. The biggest problem here is classic "hard-counter" design that SC2 has and you need to buff them quite a bit for them to overcome that.
On April 06 2015 22:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:2. However, if roach/hydra is being countered, half the time it's because Protoss has a robo and can start producing units that happen to counter both of them (immortal/ observer/ disruptor/ colossi). These counter lurkers too, so why would you transition into something that doesn't force the opponent to create a new unit composition?
Just an FYI from playing quite a bit of the custom alpha map... Robo units don't seem to counter lurker at all. Quite the opposite in fact! Not only do lurkers out range the colossus, but the tendency for colossus to stand on top of other allied units causes every lurker shot to be even more cost effective as it hits the colossus in addition to the units underneath it. Immortals no longer have hardened shield, so they take the full damage from the lurkers, including their significant bonus damage to armored. While it is true that observers are important to fighting against lurkers, as Blade55555 pointed out disruptors don't completely wipe out lurker positions that are spread out appropriately.
Lurkers have flat 30 damage, while Immortals are doing 50 damage to the armored units. Immortals can use their new active hardened shield and just wipe them out even though it lasts for 3 seconds. I can't see any situation where Lurkers would beat Immortals except if you have something like Blinding Cloud/Fungal Growth and Lurkers are upgraded with +3 range.
Lurkers aren't bad per se, but their use so far seems a lot more limited than a use of other high tech units like Swarm Hosts, Mutalisks etc. I've been watching a lot of streams and I've seen more new Swarm Hosts than Lurkers, literally. That can definitely change in the future through the buffs/nerfs of some hard counter units, but Lurkers don't seem to do much against Immortals/Cyclones/Siege Tanks(especially with Medivacs)/Marauders/Ravagers. Every single of these units just wreck Lurkers so far. Them being really hard to get doesn't help their case at all.
Lurkers already counter mass light units such as marines/zealots/zerglings. Why do Lurkers need to counter every single unit? Besides, Lurkers is just one piece in the army composition, and it already does its role very well.
I agree with you that they shouldn't be countering every unit in the game, my point is that these units I've listed are standard in LOTV in every match, and Lurkers are not standard just because they are hard to get while at the same time doesn't do much outside of countering those light units and as such they are not so desirable units right now.
About role, no they are not doing their role very well. Lurker role isn't anti-light unit, but siege unit that is zone control unit at the same time, and they are pretty much failing at both. You are just better of with Ravagers or even new Swarm Hosts as siege units and they aren't doing that great at zone controlling when half of the units in every matchup can just roll over them. The biggest problem here is classic "hard-counter" design that SC2 has and you need to buff them quite a bit for them to overcome that.
You can do this with proper support. You should never be in a situation where it's immortals versus Lurkers. It should be Lurkers/hydra/roach/ravager (or hydra/ling/lurker, w/e composition you use) and protoss would have a few immortals at most.
Same with zvt, you aren't going to be doing lurker unsupported versus Marauders unsupported. You will have ling/bane (at least roach/hydra) to support.
Zerg is always given one unit that takes time to really find its place in the meta. Terran always gets a unit that is considered relatively OP at release/in the beta, and Protoss is generally left with their dick in their hands and a new castable ability.
It has been years since a relevant pro touched a lurker, and as much as I am sure it is like riding a bike its use/where it fits into the meta.build is not readily apparent. Look at infestors in WoL, Swarm Hosts in HotS, the logic of going from well I'm going to get a roach warren in an established build and I can make a good unit from Roaches, I am just going Ravager is far and away more sound than say opening hydra ling and rushing lurkers.
It'll find a place, just a matter of time. The question is how to spend the gas to get from A to B without dying.
I get the feeling that lurkers will suffer from many of the same issues siege tanks do. There are just way too many counters to them in SC2. At least they got an hp boost, though.
On April 06 2015 22:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:2. However, if roach/hydra is being countered, half the time it's because Protoss has a robo and can start producing units that happen to counter both of them (immortal/ observer/ disruptor/ colossi). These counter lurkers too, so why would you transition into something that doesn't force the opponent to create a new unit composition?
Just an FYI from playing quite a bit of the custom alpha map... Robo units don't seem to counter lurker at all. Quite the opposite in fact! Not only do lurkers out range the colossus, but the tendency for colossus to stand on top of other allied units causes every lurker shot to be even more cost effective as it hits the colossus in addition to the units underneath it. Immortals no longer have hardened shield, so they take the full damage from the lurkers, including their significant bonus damage to armored. While it is true that observers are important to fighting against lurkers, as Blade55555 pointed out disruptors don't completely wipe out lurker positions that are spread out appropriately.
Lurkers have flat 30 damage, while Immortals are doing 50 damage to the armored units. Immortals can use their new active hardened shield and just wipe them out even though it lasts for 3 seconds. I can't see any situation where Lurkers would beat Immortals except if you have something like Blinding Cloud/Fungal Growth and Lurkers are upgraded with +3 range.
Lurkers aren't bad per se, but their use so far seems a lot more limited than a use of other high tech units like Swarm Hosts, Mutalisks etc. I've been watching a lot of streams and I've seen more new Swarm Hosts than Lurkers, literally. That can definitely change in the future through the buffs/nerfs of some hard counter units, but Lurkers don't seem to do much against Immortals/Cyclones/Siege Tanks(especially with Medivacs)/Marauders/Ravagers. Every single of these units just wreck Lurkers so far. Them being really hard to get doesn't help their case at all.
Lurkers already counter mass light units such as marines/zealots/zerglings. Why do Lurkers need to counter every single unit? Besides, Lurkers is just one piece in the army composition, and it already does its role very well.
I agree with you that they shouldn't be countering every unit in the game, my point is that these units I've listed are standard in LOTV in every match, and Lurkers are not standard just because they are hard to get while at the same time doesn't do much outside of countering those light units and as such they are not so desirable units right now.
About role, no they are not doing their role very well. Lurker role isn't anti-light unit, but siege unit that is zone control unit at the same time, and they are pretty much failing at both. You are just better of with Ravagers or even new Swarm Hosts as siege units and they aren't doing that great at zone controlling when half of the units in every matchup can just roll over them. The biggest problem here is classic "hard-counter" design that SC2 has and you need to buff them quite a bit for them to overcome that.
You can do this with proper support. You should never be in a situation where it's immortals versus Lurkers. It should be Lurkers/hydra/roach/ravager (or hydra/ling/lurker, w/e composition you use) and protoss would have a few immortals at most.
Same with zvt, you aren't going to be doing lurker unsupported versus Marauders unsupported. You will have ling/bane (at least roach/hydra) to support.
Sure, I just don't see what exactly they are achieving that other units aren't while costing much less. You could replace Banelings with them in ZvT against Bio, but I see Lurkers as better defensive tool(even if that compared with Banelings on creep) while Banelings are better used offensively, since it is really hard to close the gap with Lurkers when Marines and Marauders are constantly stimmed kiting them while killing your other units with their insane dps.
Also even if Lurkers are having support, Ravagers, Cyclones and Disruptors can definitely snipe them.
Lurkers are rapidly becoming the carriers of Wings of Liberty.
Lol nope. Lurkers in ZvT are awesome when they go bio. Still useful to defend against hellion runbys or hellbat drops. Lurkers are actually incredible combined with ravager/roach for ZvP. They try to get close to the lurkers, you can bomb them with ravagers. ZvZ they're kind of useless because ZvZ is just Ravager vs Ravager anyway...
Zerg is always given one unit that takes time to really find its place in the meta. Terran always gets a unit that is considered relatively OP at release/in the beta, and Protoss is generally left with their dick in their hands and a new castable ability.
Actually it was the reverse at WOL release. Terran was hopelessly OP but part of the balance issues were hidden because proper Marine control wasn't fully explored. Zergs on the other hand had a much more "modern" style by early WOL release than terran did (you can watch some of the old GSL vods and it become apparent). It also took roughly a year before terrans realized they should go reactor hellion vs zerg. Until that point in time, all terran openings vs zerg were kind coinflippy.
I truly believe that solutions do not come from game patches. I mean, haven't we learned over the past 5 years that patching the game doesn't actually solve much, if not anything? Let the game age. Let the meta develop and shift. Let people experiment. Only in extreme situations (for example, if patches weren't such a common thing...) will people be forced to adapt and be innovative, and that's where we will see great plays.
On April 07 2015 08:44 sorrowptoss wrote: I truly believe that solutions do not come from game patches. I mean, haven't we learned over the past 5 years that patching the game doesn't actually solve much, if not anything? Let the game age. Let the meta develop and shift. Let people experiment. Only in extreme situations (for example, if patches weren't such a common thing...) will people be forced to adapt and be innovative, and that's where we will see great plays.
Are people like you robots who are programmed to write misinformed comments without observing what has happened in the past? Sc2 hasn't been pattched 8 months and the meta is stale. Diversity is incredibly lackluster. There is not a single chance Blizzard has done with Sc2 that can be attributed to them being too quick. Yes they made mistakes, but those mistakes were bade on awfull assesment (such as Widow Mine changes), and not to them being too quick with changes. your welcome to give me one single counterxample here or you can continue being a robot.
There is no natural law that implies that underpowered units that sucks will eventually be part of the meta. And I am kinda glad that we have had no patching in Sc2 for a long time as your type of arguments were always flawed from a theoretical perspective. And now that we have empircal evidence to back it up, I expected that people like you would dissapear (and most of you have indeed so your a dying specie).
The famous auto-repeat example that your specie bring up is the BIsu's PvZ invention. However, you know what has happened since then in the matchup? It went into Forge/Corsair --> Templar tech 80%+ of the games for the next 8 years. And BW also has awfull diversity in many other ways. Do you also believe that bio play in TvP BW will eventually be discovered to fully viable (for anything else than a timing attack?) What is your deadline here. 2030?
Look, when there are balance issues, its indeed very likely that there pro players can solve it balancewise by figuring out new builds, but that doesn't imply that no change should be made.
Instead, you must look at a case-by-case basis. Is the "no patch"-solution something that restricts openings/diversity or is it something that makes it more fun? In many cases it is actually the latter, and it's why I believe much more frequent pathing would be very benefical.
TLDR; No do not learn from BW in terms of pathing, but learn from BW in terms of what it did in the late game, because that was awesome.
On April 07 2015 08:44 sorrowptoss wrote: I truly believe that solutions do not come from game patches. I mean, haven't we learned over the past 5 years that patching the game doesn't actually solve much, if not anything? Let the game age. Let the meta develop and shift. Let people experiment. Only in extreme situations (for example, if patches weren't such a common thing...) will people be forced to adapt and be innovative, and that's where we will see great plays.
Are people like you robots who are programmed to write misinformed comments without observing what has happened in the past? Sc2 hasn't been pattched 8 months and the meta is stale. Diversity is incredibly lackluster.
There is no natural law that implies that underpowered units that sucks will eventually be part of the meta. And I am kinda glad that we have had no patching in Sc2 for a long time as your type of arguments were always flawed from a theoretical perspective. And now that we have empircal evidence to back it up, I expected that people like you would dissapear (and most of you have indeed so your a dying specie).
The famous auto-repeat example that your specie bring up is the BIsu's PvZ invention. However, you know what has happened since then in the matchup? It went into Forge/Corsair --> Templar tech 80%+ of the games for the next 8 years. And BW also has awfull diversity in many other ways. Do you also believe that bio play in TvP BW will eventually be discovered to fully viable (for anything else than a timing attack?) What is your deadline here. 2030?
Look, when there are balance issues, its indeed very likely that there pro players can solve it balancewise by figuring out new builds, but that doesn't imply that no change should be made.
Instead, you must look at a case-by-case basis. Is the "no patch"-solution something that restricts openings/diversity or is it something that makes it more fun? In many cases it is actually the latter, and it's why I believe much more frequent pathing would be very benefical.
TLDR; No do not learn from BW in terms of pathing, but learn from BW in terms of what it did in the late game, because that was awesome.
I completely agree with your view on balance/patching. Time doesn't always favor the progression of balance and gameplay. Waiting can also lead to situations like: broodlord infestor/swarmhost era. There are countless other examples. I personally didn't think Blord infestor era was that bad but statistically i have no right to believe my own bias lol. It's proven that it really hampered the versatility and % win rate for all players in tournaments. i'd definitely consider that bad. The unfortunate problem is that a lot of times when players use an "OP" strat or less than considered fair build. It's because people simply refuse to play in less optimal ways. Which is not the fault of players but rather the game.
Furthermore it's important to note that player bias does heavily affect the theorizing of viable builds. Based on the consecutive thinking that a certain style or multiple styles are considered the 'best' you will run in to various problems. Inflating the probability of successful builds that aren't being examined and explored enough. It's frustrating but honestly i feel like we as a community have to be more careful of what we say.
An example would be that so many people say remove the SH out of the game etc. Ok for each time you say that come up with an argument that brings in a replacement and solution else just shut up. Time and time again you see balance threads/ptr test threads riddled with these idiotic of none substance comments. If anything these comments should get a temp ban.
I remember browsing TL back in 2010-2012 and you'd see people be temp banned for all kinds of dumb shit people used to say. Is it just me or has teamliquid become more lax when it comes to these kind of posts?
Hydralisks aren't hatch tech anymore so the lurker den morph time needs to reflect that. Once they're faster to get I think they can be evaluated more fairly, I see nothing wrong with just moving the range upgrade down to lair with research time.
OK relax, I was wrong and I agree with what you guys said, I just meant that it was too early to make patches on lurkers and I got way to general with my post, didn't mean to fluster anyone or put down discussion :s
the lurker design in sc2 is very uninspiring to me, i think that might have something to do with it. BW Lurkers were threatening and annoying as fuck, lotv lurkers are anything but
On April 07 2015 10:13 sorrowptoss wrote: OK relax, I was wrong and I agree with what you guys said, I just meant that it was too early to make patches on lurkers and I got way to general with my post, didn't mean to fluster anyone or put down discussion :s
It's alright you had good intentions ! No worries, you had the right objective.
I'd just LOVE to see SH being removed and lurker be brought back. And just add another ability for viper to function like the Defiler (god, i'd get a nerdgasm just thinking about it).
On April 06 2015 14:53 starslayer wrote: its like 5 days of beta can we wait for stuff like this, i remember ppl saying swarmhost are aweful/useless in HOTS beta and were are we now. people are really only trying out the most op stuff like cyclones or ravagers. just give it time, I think the viper could be OP but no one uses them so we'll never know also a viper lurker combo with blinding cloud , same with stasis ward maybe not OP but could be very very good with force fields disruptors combos. just let ppl try everything out give it a month even two before we say things like this.
Agree with that is very soon to seee the real potential of the units, just adding that HOTS beta about swarm host, people in HOTS still saying taht they are awful XD, the zergs only use them bcoz doesnt have other thing to fight effectivly against deathball protoss and mech terran late game, its like zergs dont like them but they have to use them.
As this is beta, and most people (myself included) are not in the beta, the lurker's role not being well understood is not a massive issue, but it does merit some discussion.
I think a lot of people were correct that a traditional lurker, i.e., BW lurker, doesn't really work in SC2 (it was fairly dependant on dark swarm). Thus blizzard has gone with the 9? range lurker. Which doesn't make the unit interesting.
My theory-craft analysis and take on the lurker's current status.
The lurker has the potential to do some serious damage stats wise with its decent range, ambush potential(burrowed) and linear splash. Unfortunately, these effects don't add up to produce a unit with a badass factor or strategical appeal. The unit seems straight up good stat-wise, but can be severely migitated in SC2 with simple micro, effectively countering the lurker.
My proposed solution: I thought burrow-charge was cool back in the day. I propose that an adaptation of burrow charge is given to the lurker. Instead of a long range burrowed move, Seismic Tunneling: - it would be a short distance (maybe about half a blink? what is that… 3-4 range?) - would take 2 sec or so - the lurker would seismically tunnel, visually you see 3 or so bursts of movement, 1 range each? - would leave visible dust-cloud formation above ground for opponent to see (subtle or obvious, depending if you want lurkers to be able to perform some sort of stealth function) -upon finished tunnelling, lurker can attack very quickly -cool-down of 15sec?
This in my mind lets the lurker be MUCH more interesting. -dodge opposing skill shots, aoe (disruptors), also lets you "split" burrowed lurkers to prevent some types of AOE -increase positional advantage (essentially the lurker's role) -decrease opponent's ability to negate lurker's presence via simple micro -increase lurker's ability to siege properly --> lets you set up lurkers at exactly the right positions to effectively harass mineral lines or concave advancing armies -possible to "stealth" advance lurkers into positions, but requires planning and time
Anyway, you wouldn't want this to be broken, so the siege range of the lurker would likely have to be nerfed or reduce the lurker's damage.
Other factors to change. -Hold-fire option like the ghost. -burrow sound, death sound, attack sound (please need to be more epic)
On April 07 2015 05:14 Barrin wrote: The reluctance to use siege units as potentialy somewhat-unsupported-but-still-cost-effective defensive units actually has a lot to do with unit radius, range, speed, sight, survivability, splash variables, and the mapping proportions mapmakers are thus restricted to. My explanation of this will be my biggest OP (and/or mapping project) yet, if I ever get around to it.
The key to making siege units more common/viable is to give them truly significant defensive capabilities that outweigh their lack of mobility. There are fundamental issues with design (unit radii/range/speed/sight/survivability vs. map proportions) that inhibits"terrible, terrible damage" from becoming more methodical, subtle, seemingly-unbeatable well-thought-out strategies.
[spoiler]BTW I think radii, range, and sight are too small compared to the fast movement speed and killing times, which really ramps up the importance of twitch-reactions over planned & well-executed strategies.[/ quote]
I'm confused, are you trying to spoiler that message or quote it?
I think a big part of lurkers' weakness is that they usually have no terrain to exploit. Current SC2 maps have very few real chokes, mostly because they disadvantage Z in HotS. In LotV, now that Z can more effectively defend a choke with lurkers and ravagers, I think maps should start incorporating more of them, not only to benefit lurkers, but so the idea of actually defending at a particular strategic location (aka "positional play") becomes more commonplace. Quite a few mapmakers tried this in the past, most notably Superouman, but it just didn't work in those versions of the game - but in LotV it might.
I personally didn't think Blord infestor era was that bad but statistically i have no right to believe my own bias lol. It's proven that it really hampered the versatility and % win rate for all players in tournaments. i'd definitely consider that bad.
This is also why I was pretty aggressive in my post, because people like him have influenced Blizzard towards patching less frequently, and its really bad for the game. Broodlord/Infestor was something that was very likely to be imbalanced post Snipe nerf (I remember predicting that - and at the very least Blizzard should have reacted quickly here becasue terran didn't have a theoretical counter).
In Summer 2012, it should have been apparent that the composition was too strong and both toss and terran suffered. But because MVP at a foreign tournament beat 2 foreign zergs (whom are so irrelevant that I forgot their names) with Ravens, Blizzard waited another 6 months before nerfing the Infestor.
That was so bad... And then we see the same issue with terran being too weak post Widow Mine nerf for 6 months, and SH forcing players into retirement. I would much rather have a community that encouraged Blizzard to patch stuff and - yes - once in a while you do make a mistake in a patch, but you know what the good thing is? You can revert the change!
Furthermore it's important to note that player bias does heavily affect the theorizing of viable builds. Based on the consecutive thinking that a certain style or multiple styles are considered the 'best' you will run in to various problems. Inflating the probability of successful builds that aren't being examined and explored enough. It's frustrating but honestly i feel like we as a community have to be more careful of what we say.
The reason I would like to see Lurkers coming out faster is to create an alternative to Banelings in TvZ. The current research time is definitely too long for that to be the case, and while Lurkers could be a strong tech-too option, I see more advantages with it coming out faster. So my suggestions to the Lurker aren't so much related to whether its currently weak or strong (because that does indeed requre more testing), but rather that I wanna reward a bit more diversity in builds.
I think a big part of lurkers' weakness is that they usually have no terrain to exploit. Current SC2 maps have very few real chokes, mostly because they disadvantage Z in HotS. In LotV, now that Z can more effectively defend a choke with lurkers and ravagers, I think maps should start incorporating more of them, not only to benefit lurkers, but so the idea of actually defending at a particular strategic location (aka "positional play") becomes more commonplace. Quite a few mapmakers tried this in the past, most notably Superouman, but it just didn't work in those versions of the game - but in LotV it might.
True and the lack of Dark Swarm which synergized heavily with Lurkers. However, note that they actually buffed the Lurker by ALOT. 75 more HP and +3 range upgrade. The Lurker is probably viable in certain situations, but it could be so much better if it came out earlier imo. At least that's what a beta is for, right? You have a theory that you think could improve the gameplay and you put it out on the beta for people to test and give feedback.
There are 2 reasons why we don't see many lurkers yet...
1- The high tech cost of getting and upgrading them: - Hydralisk Den morph. 50/100, 80s? - Hive to get range upgrade. 250/150 100s - 200/200 110s upgrade to get 9 range -150/150 each Lurker.
Back in BW, the total cost of getting fully functional Lurkers was 200/200 120s. Now it's something around 500/450 300s (5 damn minutes!), which is something really expensive. We need to remove the Hive requirement for the range upgrade, research and morph times decreased for the Lurker Den and maybe a reduction in cost of the range upgrade to make lurkers work again. All hydralisk tech is damn expensive. too much for how they perform.
2- Ravager massively OP at hatch tech, only needing Roach Warren (150 minerals) and costs 100/100 each, timing friendly, ability that breaks walls, synergy with roaches that can move when burrowed, has 20DPS + the stats of some very upgraded Hydralisk.
We need to remove the Hive requirement for the range upgrade, research and morph times decreased for the Lurker Den and maybe a reduction in cost of the range upgrade to make lurkers work again.
Blizzards logic is probably that if 9-range Lurker could come out in the midgame, then they would be able to stomp over protoss with timing attacks (since protoss needs robo units to deal with them).
Giving the current state of protoss, that's probably true, but I think this is more of an issue with toss tbh.T erran on the other hand has better counters in terms "free" Siege Tanks and can run around with Medivacs to buy time. In the next patch where Blizzard hopefully buffs protoss midgame by alot, I want Lurkers to be more accessible in the midgame.
We like one week into the beta, obsessing over a single unit is incredibly pointless -.- what counts now is unit design, and wether a unit fits a race's toolkit or not. The specifics can and will change obviously.
As i wrote in our beta article, i think we should settle on an economic model before changing units, and more importantly Blizzard should be open to trying out a few different economies to see what works.
and more importantly Blizzard should be open to trying out a few different economies to see what works.
As I wrote previously, unit-design/balance and the economy are related. You can't simply test an economic model for a month without unit-changes and evaluate whether it works or not.
If you for a BW-economy, protoss would be all about timing attacks on 2 base (maybe 3). Its tough to say whether thats good or bad. But then you would have mech being insanely OP as it will have both really high mobility through the Cyclone and Siege Tank Drops combined with solid cost efficiency.
In a BW model, mech must per definition have a much more immobile "core army" in the midgame. On the other hand, in the LOTV-economy, its extremely important that mech easily can move around in the midgame to secure extra bases.
The point here isn't that we shouldn't go to a BW model. But rather that you go all-in and make changes accordingly. Testing a new economy without proper unit changes behind it is useless.
and more importantly Blizzard should be open to trying out a few different economies to see what works.
As I wrote previously, unit-design/balance and the economy are related. You can't simply test an economic model for a moth without unit-changes and evaluate whether it works or not.
If you for a BW-economy, protoss would be all about timing attacks on 2 base (maybe 3). Its tough to say whether thats good or bad. But then you would have mech being insanely OP as it will have both really high mobility through the Cyclone and Siege Tank Drops combined with solid cost efficiency.
In a BW model, mech must per definition have a much more immobile "core army" in the midgame. On the other hand, in the LOTV-economy, its extremely important that mech easily can move around in the midgame to secure extra bases.
The point here isn't that we shouldn't go to a BW model. But rather that you go all-in and make changes accordingly. Testing a new economy without proper unit changes behind it is useless.
Other than your horribly wrong point about BW protoss being about 2-3 base timings, i agree. We are currently testing HotS timings and units in a completely different economical environment and the results is a complete clusterfuck.
I'm not saying we need to absolutely copy every single thing from the BW economy, but simply that we need to settle on an economical model before changing units, as that is a better time investment than just trying to change two dials at the same time (unit balance and economical balance) and hope something works. You can't change units according to a particular economy, test it for however long and then decide it doesn't work and backtrack, that's just a massive waste of time and it takes way too long to have enough data. When you have a system as complex as sc2 you try to change the most important parameters first - in this case economy - and then you move to secondary paramenters like unit design, and finally you tweak the unit's stats.
Assuming Blizzard hasn't already decided that this is the economic model to go, no matter what, i think the overall plan should be a) Find economic models in which players are more rewarded for expanding past a 3rd base b) Measure and compare the income differences for all these models outside of real games (which is easily done) c) Based on income figures (and any situational balance consideration i guess) settle on one economic model, or even on a couple and then test both of them. Balance around the new economy (or economies). This will result in a more productive testing overall.
I personally think that since we start from a very balanced starting point (hots), what is likely to produce the best game is most likely to be as close as possible to hots, with just enough changes to move away from the three base style. This kind of economic model is more easily tested since it's closer to balance than any more extreme change. On the other hand, anything that's incredibly game changing - such as the current lotv economy- has the major issue of throwing things so far off the hots starting point that it's incredibly hard to draw any conclusions. Maybe the games will really be more action packed, and maybe once balanced LotV will simply go back to the HotS style of 3 bases and strong army, but that army might be less tech based. That is currently impossible to predict.
I feel like the current Lotv economy model essentially forces Blizzard to rebuild the game from the ground up, and even then we don't know wether the game actually will go in their direction. After all, WoL itself was meant to be more about 1-2base games, smaller maps and shorter games, and that stated goal just didn't happen.
Other than your horribly wrong point about BW protoss being about 2-3 base timings, i agree.
That's not what I said (meant). I said (meant) that Sc2-protoss with BW econ will be about 2-3 base timings. Why? Because they can now stay at fewer bases than in Sc2 with higher income rate (60 workers mining on 2 base > Sc2 2 base). The reward of acquiring a 3rd base is relatively less. BW economy difference is more related to 4-to-to-2 base assymetry than 3-to-2 base assymetry. This allows them to have an easier time attacking.
I'm not saying we need to absolutely copy every single thing from the BW economy, but simply that we need to settle on an economical model before changing units, as that is a better time investment than just trying to change two dials at the same time (unit balance and economical balance) and hope something works.
Yeh I can agree with that. But I think Blizzard has already settled on the new economy. Whether that turns out to be good or bad is something we can only speculate on as it depends on future balance changes.
I feel like the current Lotv economy model essentially forces Blizzard to rebuild the game from the ground up, and even then we don't know wether the game actually will go in their direction.
This was why part of the reason why I 4 months ago recommended to stick with the Sc2-economy (over the LOTV and BW econ). Not because its better than the BW economy, but because the Sc2 economy would require fewer changes to be improved upon (and I don't have faith in Blizzard when it comes to making lots of changes).
Now in hindsight, I was still a bit off when it came to the LOTV economy. The snowball effect, punishment of protoss and lack of late game was expected, but I didn't properly take into account what would happen if all units were good offensively and defensively.
Given the fact that LOTV midgame can be a lot more actionpacked than both Sc2 econ and BW econ, I honestly think there is more potential in the LOTV economy. The protoss issue is something that's fixable, at least I can solid theoretical solutions here. The lack of BW'ish late game with mobile army trying to break immobile army is something that can be created into LOTV as well (but would require some changes and I am not sure the game dynamic is on Blizzards priority list).
The snowball effect on the other hand is much harder, and I only see band-aid fixes. As you point out, you need to rebuild larger parts of the game, but I hope that Blizzard will do that and test out changes such as cheaper/faster bases with infastructure adjustments as well.
As someone who just follows Starcraft atm., I guess I kinda like that they are changing the econ, because its a chance to test how my theories work out in practice. So its definitely very exciting even though I am not sure the tradeoff is positive.
True and the lack of Dark Swarm which synergized heavily with Lurkers. However, note that they actually buffed the Lurker by ALOT. 75 more HP and +3 range upgrade
Whenever something like this happens, I feel it's symptomatic of a deeper problem. If a unit needs to be buffed so heavily in terms of stat points just to be potentially useful, it's probably not a very good unit. Sort of like how the ultra now completely shits all over bio with the heavily nerfed marauders and uber-chitinous plating, and still being clumsy, unwieldy and irritating to use in the extreme.
The lurker may or may not fit Sc2, but if it needs to have 9 range, tonnes of HP AND be accessible early on just to be attractive enough to build, I think it may just be a case of trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Then again, it may be that mass ravagers and ultra/ling do so well in their respective matchups that there is just no need for the lurker.
We need to remove the Hive requirement for the range upgrade, research and morph times decreased for the Lurker Den and maybe a reduction in cost of the range upgrade to make lurkers work again.
Blizzards logic is probably that if 9-range Lurker could come out in the midgame, then they would be able to stomp over protoss with timing attacks (since protoss needs robo units to deal with them).
Giving the current state of protoss, that's probably true, but I think this is more of an issue with toss tbh.T erran on the other hand has better counters in terms "free" Siege Tanks and can run around with Medivacs to buy time. In the next patch where Blizzard hopefully buffs protoss midgame by alot, I want Lurkers to be more accessible in the midgame.
Blizzard made Protoss very poorly designed having a poor early game and growing progressively while moving through the midgame and lategame. New econ makes this even more noticeable. So more accessible Lurkers shouldn't be a problem if we adjust Protoss correctly.
I think it's time to pull off better design for many things. Protoss early-midgame, adjusting new Zerg options (Ravager stats are awful, Lurkers too lategame) and giving Terran more flexibility (new bio unit, reworked usable reapers, adjusted ghosts, more mobile mech).
Whenever something like this happens, I feel it's symptomatic of a deeper problem. If a unit needs to be buffed so heavily in terms of stat points just to be potentially useful, it's probably not a very good unit.
I don't really agree here. I think we should just take a look at the Lurker and forget a moment about how it worked in BW. Is it fun or not? If the former is true, then there is a place for it in the game. So I don't agree that because it had different stats than in BW, then it doesn't fit into Starcraft. From my perspective it fits in if creates an interesting dynamic and interactions.
Sort of like how the ultra now completely shits all over bio with the heavily nerfed marauders and uber-chitinous plating, and still being clumsy, unwieldy and irritating to use in the extreme.
I don't know why Blizzard didnt try out a faster off-creep Ultra with lower model size instead. An amove super strong clumsy unit that hardcounters bio sounds dumb on paper at least.
Games are more action packed because people are making OP units that are easily available and attacking with them more or less randomly to try and figure things out, not because of some inherent benefit of the Lotv economy. We don't know if the end product will be like this. More importantly, protoss or not i think it just feels awful to have half a base suddenly go out, and play most of the game as a race against your own workers.
Making an expansion should be a strategical decision, not something that the game forces on you. In the current model (which i still hope will be looked at) that is not the case at all, and playing like this just feels worse than hots.
Lurkers are fine, other units (ravager and ultra) are just way better. Also it's "hard-to-get-to-unit" just like vipers, it will take a while before people figure out timings for them, it's only been few days no need to make threads about it.
I don't really agree here. I think we should just take a look at the Lurker and forget a moment about how it worked in BW. Is it fun or not? If the former is true, then there is a place for it in the game. So I don't agree that because it had different stats than in BW, then it doesn't fit into Starcraft. From my perspective it fits in if creates an interesting dynamic and interactions.
I'm not entirely sure why you brought up BW here; my point has nothing to do with the lurker in its previous incarnation. All I said was that the unit does not seem to dovetail into SC2 very smoothly, and has some core issues that won't be solved by just making it do more damage. It was a comment on general RTS design, not BW specifically.
Games are more action packed because people are making OP units that are easily available and attacking with them more or less randomly to try and figure things out, not because of some inherent benefit of the Lotv economy
If the below two conditions are met you get more action:
(1) The army size/bases-ratio is reduced (2) Units can both function to secure bases and be used offensively.
When on the other hand you reduce the first ratio but make defensive units better than offensive units, you reward a style of gameplay where acuquring and defending bases is further rewarded --> Stale midgame.
However, in LOTV it is heavily rewarded to acquire a new base which expose your self to enemy harass or timing attacks, while at the same time harassing the enemy player. If you didn't have any economic changes here, the efficiency of harass from both players would be less as its easier to defend 3 bases than 4 bases.
So the combination of the unit changes and the new LOTV economy has a clear effect on the action in the midgame.
Ive seen Zergs defend vs Protoss really well with a couple of Lurkers and a spore. Shuts down Zealots pretty hard.
I think the reason you're not seeing them more is because frankly the other new units are all OP. As the beta gets closer to release version you'll see things smooth out. There is no way that Ravager/Disruptor/Cyclone will stay the way they are now...
On April 06 2015 21:58 Charoisaur wrote: why play lurkers when you can just win with ravagers or ultras?
It seems like lurkers actually counter crackling/ultra at least the few games i saw them in. Ravenger counter lurker if they know where tehy are so not sure. But i really love that big damage output on them i would try play lurkers alot.
If they really would be unplayable they can make them crazy good with borrow movement.
lurkers can't take map control with their invisibility as they used to cuz it's so high tech. Terran will have 3 CCs + Starport + Ebay up, Protoss will have easily have a Robo/Stargate, so both races can easily deal with them. makes them a bit weak in that regard, was fun to get early lurkers in StarCraft 1 to harass/abuse lack of detection.
Well, in BW you also needed a robotics + Observatory for obs whereas you can get obs from Robotics alone. Add that to the fact that you're getting a pretty quick Robo almost every game and Lurkers have less time to be harassing on the map (maybe no time at all).
If you reduce the time they take to get to you can counter this. Also, defensive lurkers with a spore are really good.
On April 07 2015 22:32 Teoita wrote: Games are more action packed because people are making OP units that are easily available and attacking with them more or less randomly to try and figure things out, not because of some inherent benefit of the Lotv economy. We don't know if the end product will be like this. More importantly, protoss or not i think it just feels awful to have half a base suddenly go out, and play most of the game as a race against your own workers.
Making an expansion should be a strategical decision, not something that the game forces on you. In the current model (which i still hope will be looked at) that is not the case at all, and playing like this just feels worse than hots.
I think making should be strategical decision too but I don't really think you can already claim that games being action packed are not the product of the new economy. It may very well be for the better or worse.
I myself am pretty fine with turtling because after all it's one of strategic decision as long as it's not the best way to play in most cases. I am not really a fan of the idea that turtling is always bad and you should expand out as fast as you could.
On April 08 2015 00:48 PinoKotsBeer wrote: 5 days of beta and calling things imbalanced... lol! Give it some time, imagine the game being adjusted with every whine :D
Not sure if you are in the beta or not, but Ravagers are unreal strong. ZvZ is 1 base baneling allin or Ling/Roach/Ravager already, and I'm sure people were using the hell out of Ravagers for a while in the beginning. I'm not an incredibly high level player by any means, and I haven't lost to a protoss if I open with a 5 ravager rush, there are too much for the flimsy protoss units to deal with. Terran I suck against and get mauled XD
This thread has a bit of whining, but a lot of this is pretty constructive and it is needed. We have to speak out with what we do and do not like EARLY or Blizzard may ignore everything.
It will change, and should, but we need to be a catalyst for change to the game we love.
On April 08 2015 03:27 Wildmoon wrote: Lurkers OP from Demuslim stream!
they sure shined in that game, but every game i have seen from people(mostly stephano) who seemed to know what to do with them they seemed pretty strong, this might just be stephano having sick talent and people not knowing yet how to respond.
On April 08 2015 00:48 PinoKotsBeer wrote: 5 days of beta and calling things imbalanced... lol! Give it some time, imagine the game being adjusted with every whine :D
Not sure if you are in the beta or not, but Ravagers are unreal strong. ZvZ is 1 base baneling allin or Ling/Roach/Ravager already, and I'm sure people were using the hell out of Ravagers for a while in the beginning. I'm not an incredibly high level player by any means, and I haven't lost to a protoss if I open with a 5 ravager rush, there are too much for the flimsy protoss units to deal with. Terran I suck against and get mauled XD
This thread has a bit of whining, but a lot of this is pretty constructive and it is needed. We have to speak out with what we do and do not like EARLY or Blizzard may ignore everything.
It will change, and should, but we need to be a catalyst for change to the game we love.
I can assure you that the Ravager will be changed lol. Noone not even Blizzard expects it to come out i this form.
1-2 at the top of a ramp really shred marines with just a shot or two. They force a lot of scans and can do a lot of damage if you place them somewhere unexpected.
I think is just the new meta is about expand in many locations and defend everywhere, and is almost the same zergs do in HOTS, thats why they making well these first days of beta, but protoss have problems to adapt to the new dinamic, bcoz they are used to be at 2 bases all the game, and even protoss gona say they gona adapt, not gona happen with 5 days of beta, many vicious and autmatic way to think for many years not gona change in 5 days, maybe in 1 month and a half we will see the real potential of protoss, obviusly zergs playing more ravagers than lurkers, bcoz they r more easy to get, and it gona become a basic unit of the composition zerg, like sentry is in HOTS for protoss, so is better practice with ravagers and see how far can be useful, maybe to see more lurkers they should be morphed from roaches and not from hydras.
He's usually rushing for hive, containing Terran with Lurkers/Vipers and Hydraling support. He puts up 3 Lurkers on ramps to contain bases and sets up loong concaves. It works great vs Bio, so far not many Terrans have figured out how to beat it.
In ZvZ, it seems to beat Roach/Ravager, using a defensive style and harrassing with lots of burrowed roaches.
He seems to be doing a "life-ish ZvP" style of rushing to Hive and then going balls to the wall aggression in ZvT, while playing more defensively in ZvZ to get the upper hand through runbys(he seems to be able to win vs Roach/Ravager with much less supply thanks to Lurkers).
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wqJKooj.jpg)
. The sound is really shitty compared to BW.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LhI6P.gif)
