EPTIt would make the positioning of the SH way more important as you need to get closer to the enemy's base to have full hit point loccusts
Swarm Host Design Flaw: Assessment and Solution - Page 7
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
crbox
Canada1180 Posts
It would make the positioning of the SH way more important as you need to get closer to the enemy's base to have full hit point loccusts | ||
|
Insoleet
France1806 Posts
This way it would look like more like a siege unit, it could be way more annoying and more powerful as an harassment unit. Maybe replace the locust longevity upgrade with a locust move-above-cliff upgrade  | ||
|
The_Darkness
United States910 Posts
On December 17 2012 10:46 Existor wrote: Highly recommend to view these videos from GomTV. Leenock used swarm hosts very well ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hxA8P.jpg) Thanks for posting this. It's important to note that how the top tier pros use the unit will ultimately determine its fate and how "good" of a unit it is. The experiences and thoughts on balance of non-top tier players (including most GMs), while sometimes interesting to read, really are somewhat meaningless in determining how useful a particular unit is. In theory it seems like the SH has the potential to be an awesome unit, both to use and to watch in action because of its potential for positional play, harassment and as a complement to an ultimate army. To get the full value out of swarm hosts it seems you need to keep repositioning them, changing the rallies on the locusts, in some cases, microing the locusts, etc., which means that the best players will be able to get a tremendous amount more value from them than your average masters or GM level player (let alone someone in diamond or below). It took, what, about nine months (and Stephano) for Koreans to finally realize that the infestor (after the buff to FG) was the best unit in the game and about a year to realize that broodlord infestor is the ulimate late game army. It wasn't very long ago when many actually thought that P had the ultimate late game army, despite the fact Stephano was just about never losing to Protoss in the late game (and generally making them look silly and UP in the process). Given how long it took everyone to hit upon the ultimate late game zerg composition, I think everyone should show a bit of humility about the utility of the SH and acknowledge that you might be way-off base. If you think the unit isn't useful, let's see some VODs of high level pros using it and getting rolled. That would be a good starting point for criticizing the unit. Edit: Typo | ||
|
SCdinner
Canada516 Posts
| ||
|
Spergling
United States1 Post
1. Bring back the Lurker in place of the Swarm Host 2. Give the Infestor (Which has now been significantly nerfed) the ability to Spawn Locusts (while burrowed and immobile) This Way you re-introduce a beloved, highly efficient, micro-intensive SieGe unit AND you allow Dustin Browder and Co. to feel that they've done something New and zergy (i.e., have a unit that continuously spawns other zergy units). The Infestor, like the Swarm Host, would Only be able to Spawn Locusts while underground and IMMOBILE. For those WhO say, "The Infestor already can create RaNgeD attackers - the Infested Terrans." Well, remove the Infested Terrans! Now, tell me this isn't a brilliant idea... | ||
|
Zahir
United States947 Posts
On December 18 2012 05:42 Spergling wrote: Here's a solution: 1. Bring back the Lurker in place of the Swarm Host 2. Give the Infestor (Which has now been significantly nerfed) the ability to Spawn Locusts (while burrowed and immobile) This Way you re-introduce a beloved, highly efficient, micro-intensive SieGe unit AND you allow Dustin Browder and Co. to feel that they've done something New and zergy (i.e., have a unit that continuously spawns other zergy units). The Infestor, like the Swarm Host, would Only be able to Spawn Locusts while underground and IMMOBILE. For those WhO say, "The Infestor already can create RaNgeD attackers - the Infested Terrans." Well, remove the Infested Terrans! Now, tell me this isn't a brilliant idea... Lets replace collosi with reavers while we're at it...!!!! Unfortunately blizzard will not contemplate bringing back old units no matter their conceptual brilliance or track record of promoting exciting play... Out with the old, in with the new. Our best hope is to make the most of what we have and press blizzard to improve the existing hots units. | ||
|
justinpal
United States3810 Posts
On December 18 2012 05:42 Spergling wrote: Here's a solution: 1. Bring back the Lurker in place of the Swarm Host 2. Give the Infestor (Which has now been significantly nerfed) the ability to Spawn Locusts (while burrowed and immobile) This Way you re-introduce a beloved, highly efficient, micro-intensive SieGe unit AND you allow Dustin Browder and Co. to feel that they've done something New and zergy (i.e., have a unit that continuously spawns other zergy units). The Infestor, like the Swarm Host, would Only be able to Spawn Locusts while underground and IMMOBILE. For those WhO say, "The Infestor already can create RaNgeD attackers - the Infested Terrans." Well, remove the Infested Terrans! Now, tell me this isn't a brilliant idea... That isn't a brilliant idea. SC2 has no room for old BW units. They just won't work. | ||
|
lemonbone
Hong Kong154 Posts
Solutions: 1.) Make swarmhost a more harassing based unit, more expensive but more powerful that become more a supportive units in a smaller numbers. Redesign the spawning things similar to reaver/carrier that cost some minerals. 2.) Public beta let more people test it :D | ||
|
Fenris420
Sweden213 Posts
Swarm Host is very weak in low numbers, but begins to gain considerable strength in very large numbers, roughly 15+. How does this relationship even work? Do we understand how that happens? I do not dispute that games with low amounts of swarm hosts might be less succesful than ones with higher amounts, but I would like a more in depth explanation as to why. If I understand correctly, the idea is that an opponents army, consisting of X units of various types, will be able to deal Y damage to locust before they get to deal any damage in return, due to short range. Especially protoss, with force fields and shields will find ways to radically reduce the persistant damage that swarm hosts are able to put out. This is why small numbers are not so good. But surely, this is also a scenario that is true for all units? If you built the same amount of resources of roaches or stalkers or marauders, they would also run into a wall of force fields and then get torched by colossus before they did anything of value. The Zerg player knows that 5-6 swarm hosts won’t create a critical mass of locusts needed to break the Protoss players defensive position with Storm or Colossus on the way, and in response he/she proceeds to make 15 swarm hosts. No single unit type can contain an entire army. Even siege weapons like tanks or colossus quite easily fall without an army composition to back them up. 5-6 swarm hosts equal about 3 colossus. If 3 colossus were trying to contain you on two bases, you would have none of it. Even zerglings could deal with that if need be. And I am not even thinking about attacking into a defensive position with these colossus. If I could field 9 colossus at 10 minutes however, that would a different story. Do we want the Swarm host, on its own, to be able to contain an army? Any army? Or attack into that same army and do "decent" damage? The same argument is being made for the siege tank, that it should be the single most effective ground versus ground unit in the game. Because it is stationary. Truth is, the tank is exceptionally strong under the right circumstances. What makes it a great unit is how it comes down to the player to steer the game into a position where his tanks are exceptional, else they will just be bad. I like that. Yet, 7-8 tanks that roll in and siege on a third base will accomplish nothing. They will get swarmed and killed. The reason is that the tanks are not of higher value than the opponents army and they will give up any positional advantage by attacking. I think we need to consider not only what kind of units that do well against the swarm host, but also what kind of army composition the swarm host should be a part of. If we can determine that there is no unit that would ever benefit from being reinforced with swarm hosts, then there is a problem, but we are far from reaching that point. People are still talking about swarm hosts in a vacum and mostly in a a frontal attack fashion. The matchup is ZvP, and the Protoss player does a Forge Fast Expand while the Zerg player takes a fast third base before taking gas. Protoss does a build that allows him to secure a third base around the 9 minute mark, and in response, the Zerg player decides he wants to pressure his opponent with Swarm Hosts. Why are we even talking about breaking a defensive players position by attacking into it without an army advantage or eonomical advantage? Surely that is not the kind of situation that should ever be possible in a strategy game. If you and the opponent both have three bases uncontested then you will not have a bigger army, nor a stronger army. players can completely negate this kind of harassment with, for example, a couple of well-placed siege tanks The whole point is that nobody will have this kind of well placed siege tanks in a drawn out game with lots of things happening. Just like with spider mines, you can flawlessly disarm swarm hosts but it rarely happens unless it is the only thing that happens. If you cannot pull an opponents army apart by attacking his fringe expansions, that is because the map you play on is bad. It is protoss' inability to deal with highly mobile opponents that has given us the triangle expansions of modern maps. With oracles, stronger VRs and MSC I hope we can leave those days behind us. I do not agree that swarm hosts are vulnerable on their own. The have burrow and decent movement speed. Together with such massive range they can be damn near untouchable as long as the opponent is not left to his own devices long enough to go find them. Again, it comes down to maps, the bigger the map, the more powerful this unit becomes since it is harder to find it and easier for it to abuse its long range. Good maps do not have clusters of easily defendable expansions. I think the most important aspect of why the swarm host is considered bad is because it is an entirely different way to play zerg. Slow movment, excels at good positioning and clear window of vulnerability. Sounds like a meching terran. Yet, there are so many games that I have seen where the zerg live and die by his ability to buy time. Time for his tech to finish, for his larvae to pile up. The swarm host is ideal for this kind of play. I would also like to ask for clarification, why do you say "the inability to transition out of the unit"? In what way is this particular unit special? Any army worth as much as 15 swarm hosts will make you lose the game if you lose that army. The bottom line is that a unit such as the swarm host will not be measured by its ability to kill stuff in a straight up battle, nor should it. We have units like that in the marine, colossus or roach. Yet the units we love are not them but units like phoenix, banelings and ravens. Units with highly situational yet interesting mechanics. The swarm host has interesting mechanics to me and that trumps any actual stats at this stage of the game. A year from now we might see buffs or nerfs to it, but that is not a flaw of the unit at all. I am going to advocate a more conservative approach of small changes, because I do not feel that this unit is fundamentally boring or bad. | ||
|
targ
Malaysia445 Posts
If this change went through, even a small number of Swarm Hosts would be useful as the locusts would be able to draw siege tank/colossus fire while other units flank or shoot from behind. Too many Swarm Hosts, on the other hand, would be counter-productive as they would not do enough DPS. This would promote a more diverse Zerg compositions, and make hydra usage more viable. Locusts can tank while hydras do damage from behind and protect the Swarm Hosts from air or small raiding groups such as stimmed MM or blink stalkers. | ||
|
phodacbiet
United States1740 Posts
On December 18 2012 03:35 SCdinner wrote: Cant you supliment low number locuses with zergling waves? Zerg usually have a mineral surpluses and it would reward good micro. No because once you make swarm host you are broke mineral wise because they are 200/100 and the 3 supply makes it so you have to dump 100 to build overlords after 2 sh. | ||
|
porygon361
81 Posts
On December 18 2012 12:11 phodacbiet wrote: No because once you make swarm host you are broke mineral wise because they are 200/100 and the 3 supply makes it so you have to dump 100 to build overlords after 2 sh. So... Swarmhost can be reinforced by some moderate-cost gas unit. Options 1. Roaches 2. Hydralisks 3. Ultralisks (not moderate cost but I think its ok in the lategame) By using Swarmhosts to contain the opponent, you can actually afford to expand like crazy and claim all the gasses. Then you can tech and go to either Infestors or Viper/Roach/Hydra to supplement the Swarmhosts. | ||
|
Qwyn
United States2779 Posts
On December 18 2012 08:29 justinpal wrote: That isn't a brilliant idea. SC2 has no room for old BW units. They just won't work. That's just rediculous. How many of the units in SCII are BW units? Hmmm. And how many of the new units in HOTS are simply poor copies of BW units? Oh. These games are much more connected then you'd care to admit. It is silly to say that what is in one game cannot work in the other. Especially since SCII is toted as the better, more modern game...then why do the units introduced in HOTS seem so lackluster compared to those introduced in BW? "Innovation...." is no excuse for poor design, period. | ||
|
phodacbiet
United States1740 Posts
On December 18 2012 08:29 justinpal wrote: That isn't a brilliant idea. SC2 has no room for old BW units. They just won't work. New Hots/sc2 units are just the dumb/worse version of the old bw unit =) Like swarm host vs lurker. Viper vs defiler etc etc. | ||
|
nomyx
United States2205 Posts
On December 18 2012 03:21 The_Darkness wrote: Thanks for posting this. It's important to note that how the top tier pros use the unit will ultimately determine its fate and how "good" of a unit it is. The experiences and thoughts on balance of non-top tier players (including most GMs), while sometimes interesting to read, really are somewhat meaningless in determining how useful a particular unit is. In theory it seems like the SH has the potential to be an awesome unit, both to use and to watch in action because of its potential for positional play, harassment and as a complement to an ultimate army. To get the full value out of swarm hosts it seems you need to keep repositioning them, changing the rallies on the locusts, in some cases, microing the locusts, etc., which means that the best players will be able to get a tremendous amount more value from them than your average masters or GM level player (let alone someone in diamond or below). It took, what, about nine months (and Stephano) for Koreans to finally realize that the infestor (after the buff to FG) was the best unit in the game and about a year to realize that broodlord infestor is the ulimate late game army. It wasn't very long ago when many actually thought that P had the ultimate late game army, despite the fact Stephano was just about never losing to Protoss in the late game (and generally making them look silly and UP in the process). Given how long it took everyone to hit upon the ultimate late game zerg composition, I think everyone should show a bit of humility about the utility of the SH and acknowledge that you might be way-off base. If you think the unit isn't useful, let's see some VODs of high level pros using it and getting rolled. That would be a good starting point for criticizing the unit. Edit: Typo Honestly this is something that matters a lot. How long did it take until protoss started using Warp Prism regularly? Blue Flame Hellions weren't used that much but then Slayers came out of nowhere and dominated an MLG with a TvZ / TvT build order centered around fast blue flame. At the end of the day we can arm chair analysis all we want but the pros are going to decide the fate of the units. My biggest concerns is having a bunch of unwarranted nerfs to certain units after the release of HOTS. Similar to bunker build time / barracks build time / Rax not needing depot. Stuff that was only overpowered because of the small maps and players not being adaptable. | ||
|
Anarion55
United States72 Posts
In Brood War TvP, the Terran player always built tanks (barring a couple of weird early-game all-ins). The entire dynamic of the game focused on the tanks. The Terran would build up a powerful push and go in against the Protoss. If the Toss couldn't break the tank line, he would lose. If he crushed the tank line, he would win. In rare cases, the players would come close to breaking even, and the game would transition to taking the whole map, potentially with all sorts of interesting stuff happening. This was one of the most exciting matchups in Brood War, showcasing amazing tactical minds, incredible unit control, spectacular flanks, and incredible use of special abilities such as psi storm, EMP, and stasis. I am not saying that the swarm host presently offers the same tactical depth as the tank pushes of Brood War TvP. Frankly, I don't know enough about it to know the full extent of the tactical depth it offers. But I want to draw this comparison because I think that the idea of going for one unit, and even of being forced to go all-in, is not an inherently bad one. What is critical is that the game offers good tactical play that's fun to watch. If a Swarm Host that leads to all-in play and an exciting back and forth contain dynamic offers that kind of fun tactical play, that would be ideal. If it's not offering that kind of tactical play, then it should be adjusted in any of various ways to make it more exciting and dynamic. However, I disagree that the mere fact that the unit design encourages an all-in push is inherently a problem. | ||
|
EmailFDP
Brazil16 Posts
On December 18 2012 08:29 justinpal wrote: That isn't a brilliant idea. SC2 has no room for old BW units. They just won't work. Do you realize that marines/hydras/lings/zealots/tanks/observers/battle cruisers/carriers/mutas and so on come from sc1 no? Its a great idea imo but unfortunately DB will never bring back old bw units in the expansion of sc2 even if you try to trick him with infestor/locusts lol | ||
|
Orzabal
France287 Posts
| ||
| ||
