EPTLegacy of the Week: Lurker - Page 3
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
TelecoM
United States10682 Posts
| ||
|
TheoMikkelsen
Denmark196 Posts
They seem to get the job done as their damage potential is great, meaning that alternatively many other units would need to be used to get the same worker damage done. This way an expensive unit can actually make a purpose cheap through the drop. Still, they may be better used defensively as Zerg drops can not be played as reactively as Terran and Protoss drops. Does the lurker overlap with current Zerg units, or does it remain unique enough for its own clique? Definitely remains unique. They allow zerg to play a static positional card similar to Siege Tanks and to some extend Disruptors. This allows zerg to do different army maneuvres outside of the concaved split/attack micro we see otherwise from most of the their units. How can the hold fire ability be used most effectively? It would be best used similarily to a Baneling by waiting for a cluster of units to pass by. It could also work when "hiding" as you would likely do after you do some harass from a drop and wait to escape andd perhaps harass later, hoping your opponent missed it. Is the lurker better as a siege unit, or a harass unit? I believe it is "best" as a Siege Unit, but it is going to depend on the development of the meta-game and other units. It may not even be best as a Siege unit but rather as a defensive unit. It has potential to protect mineral lines and fronts allowing zerg to tech. This is especially true since reaching Tier 3 for zerg is harder than for the other races. Should the lurker retain its nine range, or should the seismic spines upgrade return, reverting the lurker back to six range? I think the range is in a good place, it helps protect against Tier 2 units like Immortals and Stalkers more effectively allowing them to buy time. This is likely true as well versus Terran and Lurkers should therefore very likely retain the native 9 range. It’s possible to micro against the lurker's attack by sidestepping the spines. Should this remain the way it is, or should a slower, but guaranteed to hit attack work better? I believe the micro potential is more interesting, but the opposite argument would be that it is necessary for lurkers to do gauranteed damage. Well in perspective, Lurkers are often able to do damage because of the unit clumping. In smaller intercations the micro would be more explicit. Is the lurker model too big? Probably not. I think it needs to be visible when detected. Is the lurker's speed an issue, or is it fine the way it is? For movement speed it overall seems to be fine. I would like to see perhaps a very tiny buff alongside a more significant buff to unburrow speed to allow Lurkers to dodge Disruptor shots. This would also justify the potential to micro against the Lurker attacks. Does the lengthy tech time justify the end product? Should the lurker den be reduced in time? I think at this point it is too early to say, but I do not think Lurkers - due to cost - would be a "rushy" thing to do as they also need support. This means that allin versions of Lurkers will likely be weaker and give opponent time to build a sizeable force to deal with this as well, and this may justify that Lurkers could get a slight tech reduction, but only a slight, in case they could be needed defensively. Currently I think not. | ||
|
shin_toss
Philippines2589 Posts
On October 08 2015 18:54 Ramiz1989 wrote: It doesn't outrange the Colossus anymore, which is exactly how it should be. collosus back to 9 range with upgrades? yay. THo im a random player | ||
|
TedCruz2016
Hong Kong271 Posts
It would be more like a suicide attack than an airdrop harassment. - Does the lurker overlap with current Zerg units, or does it remain unique enough for its own clique? Nope it doesn't. The unit's design is brilliant since the Brood War era. It's real good old school stuff. - How can the hold fire ability be used most effectively? Wait a min. Wouldn't this ability expose lurker's position if you wanna ambush your opponent? Nevertheless the unit is cloaked when attacking! - Is the lurker better as a siege unit, or a harass unit? Siege! - Should the lurker retain its nine range, or should the seismic spines upgrade return, reverting the lurker back to six range? Only if hive is the requirement to unlock the upgrade, making it a tier-3 tech. - It’s possible to micro against the lurker's attack by sidestepping the spines. Should this remain the way it is, or should a slower, but guaranteed to hit attack work better? Of course it should, so its power is limited when in small number as the opponent can dodge the spikes by micro. - Is the lurker model too big? Definitely not. Big model gives you a good reason to spread them around and deploy them at strategic positions. You can't clump them up into a death ball like you did with other units. Besides, the higher the supply cost, the bigger the model. That applies to all units in all three races. - Is the lurker's speed an issue, or is it fine the way it is? It's fine. - Does the lengthy tech time justify the end product? Should the lurker den be reduced in time? Lurker is worth the time and resources investment, no doubt. | ||
|
shin_toss
Philippines2589 Posts
| ||
|
Brutaxilos
United States2630 Posts
| ||
|
Mistakes
United States1102 Posts
- Yes. It's much more rewarding than any other zerg drop option Does the lurker overlap with current Zerg units, or does it remain unique enough for its own clique? - Very unique. Better at defending than spines, but more costly. Better at containing than any other Zerg unit. More reliable damage output than banelings. How can the hold fire ability be used most effectively? - When they don't know your lurkers are there? Standard. Lol. Is the lurker better as a siege unit, or a harass unit? - Harass. It's "siege" capabilities are limited, although it does make for good contains. Should the lurker retain its nine range, or should the seismic spines upgrade return, reverting the lurker back to six range? - I can't say whether this would be good or not. This is a wait and see. It’s possible to micro against the lurker's attack by sidestepping the spines. Should this remain the way it is, or should a slower, but guaranteed to hit attack work better? - No. I really dislike guaranteed hits with units like that. Units like the lurker should be powerful, but able to be micro'd against. Is the lurker model too big? - Maybe ever so slightly too big. Is the lurker's speed an issue, or is it fine the way it is? - Seems fine the way it is, but this is another wait and see. Does the lengthy tech time justify the end product? Should the lurker den be reduced in time? - Lurker Den should be reduced in build time. Maybe reduce lurker den build time significantly, but bring back the range upgrade for the lurkers. Faster lurkers, but range upgrade required to help with siege. | ||
|
kryogenic
Canada11 Posts
Lurker overlord drop is effective but I have always though that zerg's main strength is brute force and consistency as opposed to gimmicks and lurker drops do not seem to be a repeatable strategy to me. Does the lurker overlap with current Zerg units, or does it remain unique enough for its own clique? I can think of no zerg unit even remotely like the lurker How can the hold fire ability be used most effectively? Hold fire the lurkers and move your army close to the enemy base (but don't let them see the lurkers!) burrow and engage the enemy with your otherwise tiny army, pull back, fire the lurkers and see how long it takes them to notice :D Is the lurker better as a siege unit, or a harass unit? Siege definitely, lurker pushes are very strong at the moment Should the lurker retain its nine range, or should the seismic spines upgrade return, reverting the lurker back to six range? Hard to say. If the upgrade is returned it will probably need to be removed in a few months when people get more used to dealing with lurkers. It’s possible to micro against the lurker's attack by sidestepping the spines. Should this remain the way it is, or should a slower, but guaranteed to hit attack work better? I am in favor of additional micro opportunities, things like invulnerability and guaranteed hits should be kept to a minimum. Is the lurker model too big? I think it's a good size. Lurkers have a large impact in fights so they deserve a large model  Is the lurker's speed an issue, or is it fine the way it is? They're pretty fast right now, it's something that could be investigated if offensive lurker play is deemed to be too strong. Does the lengthy tech time justify the end product? Should the lurker den be reduced in time? To a diamond zerg (i.e. me) lurkers come out fast enough. My opponents rarely attack in time to catch me building lurkers unless I was very far behind. | ||
|
Daizer
69 Posts
In ZvT this unit is useless, it will never work because Siege Tanks and Liberators outrange them hard and bio is way to fast for them. The only way they could be helped is if they reduce the time to get into lurkers | ||
|
NinjaDuckBob
177 Posts
On October 08 2015 18:23 Jer99 wrote: Have you guys been playing vs. Lurkers much in LotV? I've only seen one Zerg player use them out of ~100 games. And as a Zerg player do you actually use them? Random player here. I've been using Hydra/Lurker as my main composition for all Zerg matchups. I have yet to find something I haven't been able to beat when including timing attacks and Ultralisks/Mutas in the lategame (and map presence). I've had little experience vs Skytoss as it is, but I can usually do pretty well against Protoss in general with a timing attack involving Lings in addition to plenty of Hydras and a few Lurkers to take care of Zealots and Adepts. | ||
|
jpg06051992
United States580 Posts
On October 12 2015 08:19 NinjaDuckBob wrote: Random player here. I've been using Hydra/Lurker as my main composition for all Zerg matchups. I have yet to find something I haven't been able to beat when including timing attacks and Ultralisks/Mutas in the lategame (and map presence). I've had little experience vs Skytoss as it is, but I can usually do pretty well against Protoss in general with a timing attack involving Lings in addition to plenty of Hydras and a few Lurkers to take care of Zealots and Adepts. What level are you playing at if I may ask? I'm a diamond and cannot seem to make Ling/Hydra/Lurker in any match except ZvP and currently I feel like Skytoss or heavy double pronged Adept/Zealot Warp Prism play wrecks it although the recent nerfs is just making most Protoss I know go Skytoss. I find that banelings are still totally necessary vs. bio which still mows down Hydras just as effectively as it always has lol | ||
|
Pursuit_
United States1330 Posts
The problem is that with speedvacs and the new warp prisms there isn't any need to attack into fortified positions. I rip Zergs who overcommit to lurkers apart by dropping everwhere the lurkers aren't. Terrain simply doesn't matter enough for such a positional unit to be good on the defensive. Lurkers are basically only good when on the offensive where the opponent is forced to attack into them or when used for gimmicky traps / drops (similar to banelings) at the moment. | ||
|
sc2chronic
United States777 Posts
they ruined my favorite unit of all time. now its just some stupid, ugly, dungeness crab. | ||
|
Daizer
69 Posts
Its the same problem as hydra when they moved it to tier 2 | ||
|
TorkkSC
29 Posts
While in theory the Lurker can be used for really effective drop harass, an Overlord with 2 Lurkers is a bit too much of an investment. It's a high risk, high reward scenario, but I believe that you can use lower risk drops such as Baneling or Speedling drops while doing enough economic damage to justify it, instead of risking a huge amount of resources into a Lurker drop that may or may not work. Does the lurker overlap with current Zerg units, or does it remain unique enough for its own clique? It slightly overlaps with the Brood Lord, in the sense that it's an anti-ground siege unit. But it does this job differently in a few ways. The first one is the fact that it's a ground unit, not an air unit. So it has different' vulnerabilities than the Brood Lord. It also uses a straight line AoE to do damage, rather than spit out Broodlings to do simultaneously single-target damage to multiple units. The Lurker is also a burrowed unit, so it requires that there is some form of detection in order to fight it. So it fits in it's own, separate siege roll than the Brood Lord, which is definitely fine. How can the hold fire ability be used most effectively? Generally you want to use Hold Fire when you can get your opponent to get overconfident and go right on top of your army. One really useful scenario would be in a ZvP where the Protoss believes they have enough army to aggressively blink all of their Stalkers on top of the Roach/Hydra army. If you then release fire, you have a pretty good chance at killing all of the Stalkers since they deal 30 damage to armored. And since Stalkers have 80/80 health, 6 Lurkers will 1 shot a line of Stalkers, so they'll go down pretty fast with the added support of the surrounding Roach/Hydra army. Another cool maneuver that can be done is using the Viper's Blinding Cloud to force your opponent to re-situate themselves. If you keep your Lurkers on Hold Fire, they may be tempted to go towards your army. Once they're in a good range, you can release and let the Lurkers do their work. Is the lurker better as a siege unit, or a harass unit? Definitely better as a siege unit. It's too costly to be used as an effective harass unit in most scenarios (though this could always change, as they are super annoying to deal with in a mineral line since they out-range static defense). But in general, they do a lot better job at killing enemy ground units rather than workers, and there are other units that do the worker harass with less risk and similar rewards. Should the lurker retain its nine range, or should the seismic spines upgrade return, reverting the lurker back to six range? The nine range promotes a few issues that can be seen. The nine range is likely introduced because the Colossus also has nine range. If the Lurker had six range vs a nine range Colossus, then it makes the Colossus a sort of hard counter to Lurkers, which isn't what Blizzard wants (I assume). The issues the nine range brings though (in reference of PvZ), is that a unit which in theory should be able to deal with Lurkers because of it's high mobility and bonus damage vs Armored, the Stalker, is out-ranged by 3. So in order to get in close enough range to try to fight Lurkers, the Stalkers will take about 2 free shots on the way, which is about half their health. If the Stalkers mass Blink on top of the Lurkers, even if they end up in a good position, they simply do not kill Lurkers fast enough, and will die in the meantime. The units to make, at the moment, to deal with Lurkers are:
It wouldn't be as much of a problem for the Disruptor or High Templar to deal with the Lurkers, except for the fact that they have so much health, that by the time you can kill them, Zerg would have built up a bank behind the siege. So what does this mean? If the Lurker started with 6 range, with a 9 range upgrade, it would give Protoss a window of opportunity to use the Stalker to fight the Lurker, since they both initiate damage at the same time, and wouldn't require Protoss to tech quickly to either Disruptors or Storm to deal with the Lurkers. While I'm not sure if this is the best, I do believe a more suitable nerf would be either in the health or damage area. It’s possible to micro against the lurker's attack by sidestepping the spines. Should this remain the way it is, or should a slower, but guaranteed to hit attack work better? I would argue that with the current iteration, it is not possible to micro against the Lurker. The shots happen really fast, and are not that apparent initially. In a big fight, Lurker Spines will not be dodge able, even with good Blink and pull back micro. They traverse the ground at a slightly faster rate than they did in Brood War (1.43 cool down in SC2 compared to 1.54 cool down in Brood War) and it seems that it doesn't quite apply damage as the Spine goes on, it feels like it's rather instant, but that could be a latency problem on my end. For the Lurker to be micro'd against, the Spines need to be more obvious (either by sound or visuals) and move at a slightly slower speed so that there is a reasonable reaction time to seeing a Lurker Spine, and avoiding a Lurker spine. The map would also have to be fairly open, so that there is actual room. Currently, map design has a lot of choke points, which really favors the Lurker because its spines get more concentrated damage and there's less maneuverability for the opponent. If they can make dodging the Lurker's spines more feasible, then I would definitely prefer that over slower, more guaranteed damage. But as of right now, it feels like it's fast, guaranteed damage over promoting counter micro from the opponent outside of "attack where the Lurkers aren't". Is the lurker model too big? I would say it's fine. It is actually a bit helpful to have bigger units in an army composition, as it helps spread your units out more by taking more space. Archons and Ultralisks are good examples of this. If you ever watch an Archon or Ultralisk heavy army move around, they are, in general, moving out in larger concaves due to their collision detection knocking other units out of the way. Aside from that, there isn't much other gameplay elements this affects outside possible trouble getting through an opponent's sim city, but that also promotes a form of defender's advantage with you definitely need vs a siege unit. Is the lurker's speed an issue, or is it fine the way it is? In my experience, the Lurker is a bit too fast. I haven't seen many Zergs be super careful about their Lurkers. In general, they'll march them towards the opponent's army and just burrow them as soon as they're close enough without much thought. The Siege Tank design (at least pre-medivac pick up buff) was beautiful in the fact that the Siege Tank was a slow moving unit with high range and good damage output. While the Lurker has a lower range, it attacks at almost twice the speed of a Siege Tank (Lurker: 1.43 cool down, Siege Tank: 2.8) and thus has almost double the DPS vs non-Armored units and similar damage vs Armored units (Lurker: 21 DPS, Siege Tank: 12.5 DPS normal, +9.6 vs Armored). So in order to make the Lurker positioning a more conscience choice, I believe that their speed off of creep should be reduced a little bit, so that a Zerg player has be more careful and methodical when positioning Lurkers offensively. Does the lengthy tech time justify the end product? Should the lurker den be reduced in time? I would argue, yes. The Lurker is possible the most powerful siege unit in the game at the moment vs ground units. Getting it too quickly would prevent their opponent from getting effective counter units (Liberators, Siege Tanks, Disruptors, High Templar, etc), so they need to appear at a time where it is reasonable for their opponent to have access to counter measures so that mid game Lurker sieges aren't too powerful. I would actually argue that requiring the upgrade would be a good idea, to slow down their aggressive potential and mostly have them as a defending unit until the later stages of the game. | ||
| ||
