[D] Swarm host is bad - Page 10

On September 12 2012 20:40 targ wrote:
I find the idea of the swarm host alright, however I feel that the locusts spawned should be high-HP and low-DPS, instead of the current damage-dealing incarnation.

A tanky locust, preferably larger in size, would work better in all three matchups.

In ZvZ, the current locust will just vaporize before the mid-game roach wave before it has a chance to do damage, but a tankier one could soak up damage and make swarm hosts worth it.

In ZvP, a tankier locust could replace the roach in the role of absorbing fire while zerglings flank to deal DPS. If it is used with roaches, well, it makes no sense that the ranged unit is the tank while the melee unit is the DPS. With more life the locust could also lead in against colossus fire. It should also be larger so that other units are splashed less.

In ZvT, this change is the most important. A tougher locust could actually bear the brunt of tank fire and so serve some purpose. The current one will evaporate before Terran firepower, and vs T Zerg doesn't need more DPS anyway as lings and banelings deal plenty.

On September 12 2012 12:24 MoonCricket wrote:


Compare the time, tech, bases and resources necessary to support Broodlords over Swarmhosts, you're producing Broodlords 200 seconds later after investing in a Spire, Greater Spire and a Hive and you're paying 100 more minerals, 150 more gas and 1 more supply on at least 1 more base for a slower unit that doesn't force detection. Swarmhosts aren't meant to be used on their own, they're meant to be used in conjunction with other units in the same way Broodlords are meant to be used with Corrupters, Infestors and Queens, when you can lay down a swarm of Lochusts to cover for Banelings or combine them with Mutalisks then you can start breaking the opponent's position. They're also incredible at distracting your opponent's siege and long range units in order to neutralize the Lochusts, which you can utilize by dropping your enemies main with Roaches and wreaking havoc on his mineral line. I can't tell you how many games have basically come down to Swarmhosts, Queens and Spine/Spore Crawlers camping outside the opponent's natural while I Roach drop his main well before a Hive could ever go online.

Don't know how tanky Locusts would work better with lower dps. The whole point of Swarm Host is to deal damage, at the cost of some units that tank for them. Isn't it better to sacrifice some units for others to be able to deal damage than sacrificing nothing for other units to be able to deal damage?

Don't really understand your point about ZvZ, but currently, ZvZ almost is impossible to be played without Swarm Hosts, because they deal just way too much damage, and Locusts are free, so you are trading Roaches/Lings/Infestors/Hydras for Locusts.

In ZvP again, it is better for Locusts to deal more damage while Roaches and Lings tank it, since they won't do much damage because of Colossi and Forcefields anyway.

In ZvT, Zerglings and Banelings do plenty of damage? Since when? Zerglings are mostly used to soak up the damage while Banelings destroys Marines, and nothing more. In theory, Banelings destroys everything when you have them in larger numbers, but when Terran spreads his army, you can't do much with Banelings, especially if Terran has Siege Tanks. And if Terran goes for Mech army, Lings and Banelings won't do anything. Only help there are Roaches, but then again, you don't even need Swarm Hosts for mech, Roaches are the best counter, while going for drops/Mutas/Brood Lords.

There are a lot of ways to change how the Locusts work, but I don't think that making them just tanky would be better than what we currently have.

We're saying that the point shouldn't be to deal damage. It should be to absorb damage.

And I must say that sacrificing nothing sounds a lot better than sacrificing something.

You admit yourself that in ZvZ, SHs "deal just way too much damage". This is in itself a reason to lower their damage.

In ZvP, it is better for Roaches and Lings to deal damage while Locusts tank it, since they wont' do much damage because of Colossi and Forcefields anyway.

Zerglings take down tanks and even Thors pretty damn fast, if you get them close enough. Mech has armor, but they also have surface area. And the idea is that the SHs would allow them to get close enough.


So in two matchups Locusts are better served as being tanks, and in the other matchup your argument makes no sense.

On September 13 2012 03:50 MoonCricket wrote:
I imagine Lochusts will get a survivability increase and damage decrease at some point, it's pretty clear they designed the Swarmhost to produce a "meat shield" unit to provide cover for the units behind them, just watch the original Alpha videos that showed Lochusts tanking for Hydralisks etc.

The damage definitely wont stand, I think they're going to steadily nerf the damage patch by patch until they find the Goldilox point.

On September 12 2012 21:57 Ramiz1989 wrote:
Don't know how tanky Locusts would work better with lower dps. The whole point of Swarm Host is to deal damage, at the cost of some units that tank for them. Isn't it better to sacrifice some units for others to be able to deal damage than sacrificing nothing for other units to be able to deal damage?

Don't really understand your point about ZvZ, but currently, ZvZ almost is impossible to be played without Swarm Hosts, because they deal just way too much damage, and Locusts are free, so you are trading Roaches/Lings/Infestors/Hydras for Locusts.

In ZvP again, it is better for Locusts to deal more damage while Roaches and Lings tank it, since they won't do much damage because of Colossi and Forcefields anyway.

In ZvT, Zerglings and Banelings do plenty of damage? Since when? Zerglings are mostly used to soak up the damage while Banelings destroys Marines, and nothing more. In theory, Banelings destroys everything when you have them in larger numbers, but when Terran spreads his army, you can't do much with Banelings, especially if Terran has Siege Tanks. And if Terran goes for Mech army, Lings and Banelings won't do anything. Only help there are Roaches, but then again, you don't even need Swarm Hosts for mech, Roaches are the best counter, while going for drops/Mutas/Brood Lords.

There are a lot of ways to change how the Locusts work, but I don't think that making them just tanky would be better than what we currently have.

On September 13 2012 04:31 Ramiz1989 wrote:

They maybe will do that, but that wasn't their intention, if it was, they would leave the Locusts as they were in the Alpha videos.(And they were also overpowered as hell there, they had 16 damage, 1.2 attack speed, were melee units, but had 110(!) hp). If they wanted to do that, they would leave them like that, they changed it because they didn't like the design, it seems.

And btw, I see you always write Lochusts. Are you doing that on purpose, or just don't know that the Locusts is the right way to call it? :D

On September 13 2012 10:57 targ wrote:


Think of it, the current Locust makes it so that your free units deal damage while the units that cost money tank (and die) for them, after which your free units will run out of time and die anyway.

What I am proposing is that the Locust become tough but lower damage, and preferably melee range, so that the free units tank (and die), while other units such as a roach wave behind them do damage then run back when the Locusts die.

I'm imagining the Locust something like a smaller, weaker, but free Ultralisk. Maybe 150 hp, 1 armor, but same damage and attack speed as a Zergling. Hydras and roaches could then blast away behind them, then run back to the swarm host line once the locusts perish.

In Broodwar, when it came to the late game and Ultra-crackling time, the ultras didn't do much damage compared to the cracklings but they still tanked anyway. In Starcraft the tank need not do alot of damage to make the other player focus it; there are too many units on the field to focus fire anyway. All it needs to do is be leading the charge, and preferably big.

On September 13 2012 16:03 MoonCricket wrote:
It was their intention, the Swarmhost and Locusts (thank you) were meant to provide sustained pressure thru' generating waves of attacks, otherwise they would've been designed the same way they designed the Broodlord. At the moment, people are leading the attacks with units and following it up with Locusts because their DPS is overpowered, but they should be leading the attack with Locusts and following it up with units because theoretically the Locusts who die to the opponent's defenses are a 0 EV or + EV loss where the units that die to the opponent's defenses are a 0 EV, + EV or -EV loss. Sacrificing the Locusts to defend other units is less of a risk than sacrificing units to defend Locusts because they're expendable, free units that are replenished every 25 seconds, where units require larva and resources. Sending in Lochusts vs. a fortified position with unknown troop compositions and numbers is much less of a risk than sending in units, once the first Siege Tank round goes off you've spared countless Zerglings, Roahces etc.

The Swarmhosts aren't any different between the Alpha videos and the Beta from a design perspective, yes the HP, DPS, Range and Air attack may change, but these aren't design changes, they're balance chalanges where Blizzard overpowers a unit and then nerfs a unit until it finds the Goldilox Zone for what it wants the unit to do. The Swarmhost isn't the equivalent of the Siege Tank or the Colossus, which are inherently DPS units defended by your army, they're an outlast unit that defends your army, otherwise why even design them so your army can hide behind them? Broodlings aside, the closest equivalent are Infested Terrans, and given their range and nature those are very clearly a combination of tank and DPS units.

Swarmhosts are "cannon fodder" producers so you can invest your lara economically into Roaches or to a lesser extent Hydralisks instead of Zerglings, or you can use your Zerglings to morph into Banelings, counter attack, respond to drops or drop themselves without having to lead the attack into Siege Tanks that one shot them. If they were intended to be traditional siege weapons, they would've designed their "ammunition" differently to begin with.

On September 13 2012 17:19 Flexis wrote:
I want lurkers from the hydra den, not swarm hosts at all (from the infestation pit).

On September 13 2012 17:41 targ wrote:
Ramiz I see your point, and I do agree that the roach is a decent tank. I did consider that earlier, however my feeling is still that a tanky locust opens up more avenues of play than a DPS one. The reason for this is that the Zerg mid-game ground army has 3 DPS units: ling, baneling and hydra, and only one tank which is the roach.

So if the locust is ranged DPS, this overlaps with the hydra's role in a way, making it less likely that the hydra will be used. As for synergy with roaches and lings, the tactic used will be simple - once the wave of locusts come out roaches and lings run in to soak damage while the locusts do their DPS.

However if they are tanky, this opens up a wider variety of tactics, hydras will have more synergy hiding behind them, roaches and lings can go for the flank better as the locusts absorb initial colossus or tank fire. Banelings can also follow behind the locust wave which soaks up the tank fire which usually withers the baneling charge.

My reasoning is that a tanky locust synergizes with all 3 DPS units, while a DPS one only synergizes with roaches, and to a lesser degree, lings.