EPTBlizzard interview: Why the lurker isn't in SC2 - Page 5
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
qoiN
Sweden576 Posts
| ||
|
Sputty
Canada161 Posts
On June 19 2010 13:49 Ocedic wrote: Why not make Lurker +damage vs armored? Zerg currently lack that until the Ultralisk. Anyways, while I feel that ultimately I would prefer new units over old ones, Zerg have a definite hole in their tech tree going from Lair --> Hive. You're really not thinking it through, if lurker were a +damage to armour unit they would just help zerg shut down bio more. They wouldn't be able to break siege tank lines because they'd never be able to get in range. Banelings are better at dealing with light units than just about anything and if any zerg player thinks they're bad they're just not using them correctly at all. | ||
|
RogerChillingworth
Chad3132 Posts
On June 19 2010 15:40 qoiN wrote: I want to play a game that feels fresh. I don't want to play BW with updated graphics, so I prefer the baneling over the lurker. That's painfully flawed logic. But, whatever, it's not as if butting heads with each other is going to get the lurker in the game. I just wish Blizzard kept what was truly stunning game play wise instead of what they felt was too hearkening to the original to give up (zergling, hydralisk, mutalisk, ultralisk). We'll see, though. | ||
|
Mojawi)SoJu
Korea (South)259 Posts
| ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
| ||
|
AeonStrife
United States918 Posts
Anyways, its strange that Blizzard would keep the Carrier because they thought the fanbase had a strong bond with it. I guess Lurkers weren't as popular as a Carrier was? I know there would be gameplay issues, but we wouldn't know unless we tried. I am just going to point out that Zerg does not have a viable invisible/cloaked unit. Protoss has the dark templar which is contantly cloaked and does massive melee damage. Terran has the ghost which can cloak, and call down nukes, which can do terrible, terrible damage. And Zerg has the Roach and infestor which can burrow underground but has to pop up to do some light to moderate damage. If you ask me, I think Blizzard is holding back a new unit to fill in this gap. But only time can tell though... | ||
|
danl9rm
United States3111 Posts
| ||
|
dogabutila
United States1437 Posts
| ||
|
Madkipz
Norway1643 Posts
On June 19 2010 17:06 danl9rm wrote: i don't think anyone wanting lurkers instead of blings has thought about it for 10 seconds... yea In a ZvZ mirror match i would rather have a low tier suicide unit that i can send into my opponents mineral line or vs Terran i would rather have this gimmicky unit that is able to bust their front for spectacular 4 min all ins rather than have another lair unit that can attack while burrowed to improve and promote a heavy macro game. but yea i dont really care about what could be. Banelings exist thus i will use them | ||
|
dalon79
3 Posts
for me the most important issues for zerk Are that others races have aoe + RANGE unit: 1: - Tank/Thor/ Hellion for T - Collosis for P -And the last but not the least is the Range of theses units , not a single Zerg unit has similar Damage range. This is what make zerk vs terran match up very hard | ||
|
raga4ka
Bulgaria5679 Posts
On June 18 2010 08:38 Hot_Bid wrote: I disagree with this completely. Baneling is a great new unit. I have a better solution . Just put in the lurker and don't take anything out . Terran and protoss already have more units then zerg even more spellcasters . I'm still pissed at blizzard , because they didn't include the lurker or an other unit in to the beta and left the zergs with a low diversity . Thats the main reason i'm enjoying terran more then zerg even thought i was playing zerg in BW . | ||
|
Deleted User 47542
1484 Posts
On June 18 2010 08:38 Hot_Bid wrote: I disagree with this completely. Baneling is a great new unit. The only difference being that the baneling destroys ZvZ while a lurker will keep potentially allow for different strategies. | ||
|
raga4ka
Bulgaria5679 Posts
On June 19 2010 15:28 MangoTango wrote: lol? Way to put personal race choice above interest in having a balanced game. Also, Mutas are better in SC2 than they were in SC1, except for the existence of Thors. You are joking right ? mutas are way worse now with the lack of muta micro and can be put in to the 1 a category as every other unit except for the infestor . Runing around harrasing is practically the same as with any other unit . | ||
|
SeeDLiNg
United States690 Posts
| ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On June 19 2010 13:49 Ocedic wrote: Why not make Lurker +damage vs armored? Zerg currently lack that until the Ultralisk. Anyways, while I feel that ultimately I would prefer new units over old ones, Zerg have a definite hole in their tech tree going from Lair --> Hive. Bath that shoots fire = firebat http://classic.battle.net/war3/orc/units/trollbatrider.shtml | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8067 Posts
On June 18 2010 08:46 wankey wrote: Lurker is probably a bit overpowered now that units always tend to bunch so closely together. Lurker wouldn't make any sense because the AI is much "cleverer" than in BW (tend to group units together. I really dislike so many things in SC2  That's really saddening. | ||
|
Brokengamer
Philippines116 Posts
| ||
|
clickrush
Switzerland3257 Posts
On June 19 2010 19:11 Brokengamer wrote: They should have changed the spine crawlers to lurkers.. then everyone would be happy? haha what a nice idea. If spinecrawlers had an upgrade that gives an AoE attack  | ||
|
Orzabal
France287 Posts
This is something banelings cant do. Lurkers were also invisible. | ||
|
wiesel
Germany727 Posts
Who cares about a roach aka a hydralisk in disguise ? Damn im impressed what a creative new addition to the zerg arsenal | ||
| ||
