Blizzard interview: Why the lurker isn't in SC2

On June 18 2010 08:29 EleanorRIgby wrote:
take out baneling and put in lurker!

On June 18 2010 08:29 JinjoBust wrote:
I saw the justification awhile back, and I agree with it for sure. Dev team is smarter than the fanboys any day of the week tbh.

On June 18 2010 08:41 RogerChillingworth wrote:


Just wondering: do you play Zerg?

Most zerg players would prefer lurkers over banelings.

a) no gimmicky wins with lurkers (as opposed to baneling busts)
b) lurkers emphasize positioning and creative play more than banelings (not that you can't position banelings intelligently or be creative with them, but not nearly as much)
c) getting rid of the lurker scrapped the best Zerg addition to Brood War and arguably one of the best Zerg additions

Just because they overlap doesn't mean banelings are a more sophisticated unit. I honestly think it's a less than optimal move to have in the game rolling spider mines that, in a battle of 100+ food, are kind of silly to micro against. You see T and P players do some great spreads but, when it comes down to it, running up and burrowing some lurkers shapes a much more cat and mouse dynamic: the expanding and contracting of forces, the necessary target-firing of detectors, etc.

when it comes down to it, running up and burrowing some lurkers shapes a much more cat and mouse dynamic: the expanding and contracting of forces, the necessary target-firing of detectors, etc.

On June 18 2010 08:46 wankey wrote:
Lurker is probably a bit overpowered now that units always tend to bunch so closely together.

On June 18 2010 08:46 iNty.sCream wrote:
get rid of banelings, they suck ass. i just cant type "wow, that was skilly!" if a zerg owns me with a-moving 25 banelings into my army. 'nuff said.

On June 18 2010 08:51 MorroW wrote:
i dont think lurker would be easy to balance. marauders would make them useless but they would totally rape zealots and so

why would u even want to build the lurker when the baneling is 10 times better and easier to control

On June 18 2010 08:44 heishe wrote:
I hate units like the baneling, and I can't say for sure why. I hated the scourge, I hated the firebat in WC3 and I hate the baneling. I just don't like units which only purpose is to blow themselves up, lol. maybe I'm really anti terrorist.

On June 18 2010 08:51 MorroW wrote:
i dont think lurker would be easy to balance. marauders would make them useless but they would totally rape zealots and so

On June 18 2010 08:52 Teddyman wrote:

Maybe you should do something to stop it then? Also, most of the time it's better to move banelings instead of a-moving.

Banelings serve the same purpose as lurkers,

marauders would make them useless

On June 18 2010 09:15 iNty.sCream wrote:
balance an "esports" game in regards of the nooblevel is a big blunder imho, why no one screamed like "uh damn god lurkers are imbalanced" or "high templars kill off my hole eco in 2 seconds this suxx man, PHOQUE" back in broodwar? cant get it, really.

On June 18 2010 09:25 SmoKim wrote:
why not something new and interesting instead of more old units? there are plenty of them already

On June 18 2010 09:29 Half wrote:
If we do bring out the Lurker, make it a t2.5 unit. You can upgrade it directly from the Hydra den without any hive tech requirement.

On June 18 2010 09:33 eNtitY~ wrote:
I closed that the 2nd he said macro in SC2 is frantic...........

On June 18 2010 08:44 heishe wrote:
I hate units like the baneling, and I can't say for sure why. I hated the scourge, I hated the firebat in WC3 and I hate the baneling. I just don't like units which only purpose is to blow themselves up, lol. maybe I'm really anti terrorist.

On June 18 2010 09:26 Fanatic-Templar wrote:


You think nobody complained back in Brood War? Ever heard a Terran talk about Dark Templar?

On June 18 2010 09:47 iNty.sCream wrote:


dont mention terrans complaining about dts, this is just a sign of complete shitness, no terran that cant hit 3 keys in 10 seconds wouldnt be abled to build 2 turrets and do a scan, sorry but thats how i think about ^^

edit: notice that my english is pretty bad since iam german and drunk at this time.

On June 18 2010 09:39 Liquid`NonY wrote:

Well of course he's talking about high level play. Nothing is frantic for newbies

On June 18 2010 09:57 RogerChillingworth wrote:


Get on HuK's level and THEN we'll talk.

On June 18 2010 09 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              18 2010 09      end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              18 2010 09      end_of_the_skype_highlighting:57 RogerChillingworth wrote:


Get on HuK's level and THEN we'll talk.

On June 18 2010 09:57 InfiniteIce wrote:


I hope you're not directing that toward NonY. If so, I am laughing

On June 18 2010 10:27 kNyTTyM wrote:
I don't mind and have never really cared about having specific units stay in sc2. If there is one thing I miss about the lurker is it gave zerg a reason to set up its army properly. Bouncing around lurkers in proper formation was really rewarded but now it's just 1a everywhere for zerg.

With current developements of sc2 zerg matchups I feel that blizzard definitely made the right decision. With roach hp tanking ability and hydra mass dps high range, melee units against zerg were already discouraged. Adding lurkers in the mix against a stalker ball seems kind of meh. The only major exception to its role as antimelee is they fend off marines extremely effectively but banelings do a ridiculously good job of that already.

On June 18 2010 10:54 ViruX wrote:
Lurkers were very un-zerg like, what kind of zerg unit camps at the top of a ramp killing anything that tries to move up it. Zerg aren't supposed to be cost efficient they are supposed to swarm and take down things through weight of numbers.

On June 18 2010 08:52 Teddyman wrote:

Maybe you should do something to stop it then? Also, most of the time it's better to move banelings instead of a-moving.

On June 18 2010 11:00 RogerChillingworth wrote:


SPEAKETH VIRUX, HOLDER OF THE ZERG KNOWLEDGE STONE.

On June 18 2010 10:59 IPlaySC wrote:
The lurker was a great unit in SC1, but SC2 is a new game. We should expect new things rather than just reused units

On June 18 2010 08:51 MorroW wrote:
i dont think lurker would be easy to balance. marauders would make them useless but they would totally rape zealots and so

why would u even want to build the lurker when the baneling is 10 times better and easier to control

sc1 had tons of back and forth micro battles that took long time and were so exciting because of units like lurker. the baneling is just attack move and either u stand and fight or u stim and run away. theres no dancing in sc2 which imo is a core part of micromanagement

On June 19 2010 14:10 Terranist wrote:
i certainly dont miss that unit. between the weak mutas and lack of lurkers i like TvZ a lot in sc2.

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.

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.

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...

On June 18 2010 08:38 Hot_Bid wrote:

I disagree with this completely. Baneling is a great new unit.

On June 18 2010 08:38 Hot_Bid wrote:

I disagree with this completely. Baneling is a great new unit.

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.

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.

On June 18 2010 08:46 wankey wrote:
Lurker is probably a bit overpowered now that units always tend to bunch so closely together.

On June 19 2010 19:11 Brokengamer wrote:
They should have changed the spine crawlers to lurkers.. then everyone would be happy?

On June 19 2010 20:31 Orzabal wrote:
I miss Lurker drop on cliff A LOT.
This is something banelings cant do.

Lurkers were also invisible.

On June 18 2010 08:37 MavercK wrote:
wow it wont be featured at all? in any of the expansions? i figured it would come out in HotS but if it's cut completely that makes me extremely sad.

it was alot better than this current roach crap we have now.

sighhhhhhhhhhh

SO DISSAPOINTED

ps. i didn't actually watch the video. it loaded slow as hell. i just saw it was an interview about HotS and am assuming

On June 18 2010 08:29 EleanorRIgby wrote:
take out baneling and put in lurker!

On June 23 2010 03:18 nyshak wrote:
@ Archerofaiur

yes yes the sky is falling yada yada yada.

You might be right about a reapearance of the lurker in Heart of the Swarm though

On June 23 2010 03:32 Archerofaiur wrote:


lol right im wrong but everything im saying will probably come true....

On June 23 2010 02:31 OreoBoi wrote:
I think the lore debate is not valid.
Why would removing the lurker from the zerg army fit within the lore?
The lurker was my favourite unit in SC1, and to this day, I still would rather go 3 hatch lurker than 3 hatch muta.

I just hate how the cool stuff zerg used to have are ending up in the terran army.
- Line AoE = hellions
- Dark swarm = point defense drone
- Ensnare = Concussive shells

On June 23 2010 03:40 nyshak wrote:


More like you might be right some but don't have to blow it out of proportion

On June 23 2010 03:56 Archerofaiur wrote:



If Blizzard wouldnt take stuff out of the game only to sell it back to us later than I wouldnt.

On June 23 2010 02:31 OreoBoi wrote:
I just hate how the cool stuff zerg used to have are ending up in the terran army.
- Line AoE = hellions
- Dark swarm = point defense drone
- Ensnare = Concussive shells

On June 23 2010 05:10 TheYango wrote:

Well, to be fair, they have to add things to all races if they're going to add back the lurker to Zerg, and it's perfectly reasonable that they might not have solid new units for Protoss and Terran lined up yet, so they pushed back one unit to HotS.

I don't like that the unit was the Lurker, but it's perfectly reasonable to think that they plan to put it in later not because they're just trying to sell it back to us again, but because they need new Terran/Protoss units to go with it.

On June 23 2010 05:45 nyshak wrote:
If you don't like that just don't buy the game.

On June 18 2010 08:51 MorroW wrote:
i dont think lurker would be easy to balance. marauders would make them useless but they would totally rape zealots and so

why would u even want to build the lurker when the baneling is 10 times better and easier to control

sc1 had tons of back and forth micro battles that took long time and were so exciting because of units like lurker. the baneling is just attack move and either u stand and fight or u stim and run away. theres no dancing in sc2 which imo is a core part of micromanagement

On June 23 2010 06:39 HELLA wrote:
"Everyone loved it, it was fun, and technically we could make it work, but we don't want to"

On June 18 2010 08:30 farseer_dk wrote:
He really only said one thing useful which is banelings step on the same role... i understand they're both like anti-marine, but the lurker was a defensive unit. the baneling is clearly not.

On June 23 2010 06:44 Assault_1 wrote:
id rather they push the release back 8 months (if they have to) and include the lurker

On June 23 2010 02:44 Archerofaiur wrote:
I miss the lurker so much



They are litterally trying to pull of the same "magic" they did adding the Lurker in Broodwar. One year from now they will announce that the Lurker is being included in Heart of the Swarm because "we listened to the fans". Then they will go on to talk about how incredible and cool this *New* unit is, how much it adds to gameplay yada yada yada.

It is yet another example of selling us our beloved ten year old game back to us bit by freaking bit.

On June 23 2010 06:53 Lovin wrote:
wrong thread ^^
Honestly, I don't miss it, though. It's great to see new things on the table instead.

On June 23 2010 06:39 HELLA wrote:
"Everyone loved it, it was fun, and technically we could make it work, but we don't want to"

GameStar:
One thing we wondered about is that you moved the broodlord upgrade from the mutalisk to the corruptor. Why?

Dustin Browder:
We noticed that the corruptor needed a way to stay in the game after I swept the sky. So if I fly around with my corruptors and kill everybody, what's use are these corruptors any more?

On June 23 2010 10:46 a176 wrote:


Yea, I thought people already knew Blizzard had no idea what they're doing?

On July 06 2010 00:29 mr_jingles77 wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrndTcwWgYo

1:21-1:26 i see several lukers burrow and attack. Whats with that?

Most zerg players would prefer lurkers over banelings.

a) no gimmicky wins with lurkers (as opposed to baneling busts)
b) lurkers emphasize positioning and creative play more than banelings (not that you can't position banelings intelligently or be creative with them, but not nearly as much)
c) getting rid of the lurker scrapped the best Zerg addition to Brood War and arguably one of the best Zerg additions

Just because they overlap doesn't mean banelings are a more sophisticated unit. I honestly think it's a less than optimal move to have in the game rolling spider mines that, in a battle of 100+ food, are kind of silly to micro against. You see T and P players do some great spreads but, when it comes down to it, running up and burrowing some lurkers shapes a much more cat and mouse dynamic: the expanding and contracting of forces, the necessary target-firing of detectors, etc.

On July 06 2010 01:20 iNty.sCream wrote:
i dont think so, banelings arent as nearly as intereseting as lurkers.

On June 18 2010 08:29 EleanorRIgby wrote:
take out baneling and put in lurker!

if banelings were in sc1 and blizzard was going to have lurkers replace banelings in sc2,

not really upset by this; i'd much rather see brand new units than have the dev team constantly find ways to rebuild and rehash old units into a new game.

like many have said, the baneling - and my personal favourite, the hellion - give me hope that they'll come up with a good answer.

On July 06 2010 12:00 e4e5nf3 wrote:
It seems to me Blizz was more concerned with how well a unit would look in game previews, adertisments and gametrailers. Units like the baneling, colossus, mothership, and thor have this "oooh! wow" factor that is perfect for game trailers.

On June 18 2010 08:30 farseer_dk wrote:
He really only said one thing useful which is banelings step on the same role... i understand they're both like anti-marine, but the lurker was a defensive unit. the baneling is clearly not.

On July 06 2010 12:06 TheMick wrote:

banelings can be defensive, just burrow them they walk on top and kaboom....

On July 06 2010 12:02 kajeus wrote:

Yeah, I guess it's nice that it worked out so they're really cool units, too.

On July 06 2010 12:20 Ideas wrote:


motherships are NOT cool AT ALL man lol

banelings and colossi I feel gameplay-wise are downgrades from lurkers and reavers too. thor doesnt really overlap with anything too much from BW.

honestly a lot of the replacement SC2 units sorta just feel like change for the sake of change. I mean takes lurkers to banelings. yea banelings are cool but if you can only have one, I think most would agree that lurkers are the more dynamic, exciting and unique unit (aka more fun and interesting). banelings are pretty cool but if I could ONLY have one (which blizzard says is the case) then I'd rather have the lurker. of course maybe in the new game banelings just fit into the balance more or something but I dont really think that's completely the case...

On July 06 2010 12:23 kajeus wrote:

Motherships are pretty cool... They probably need to be re-thought a little bit, but they are a neat unit, for sure.

I completely disagree about your take on banelings and colossi. There is so much potential for these units... I really look forward to the future of SC2, when good players play the game and shut up all these obnoxious fortune-tellers. :D


Classic failing of the diehard BW-was-so-much-better camp is assuming that "most people" would agree with them... To quote Artosis, "Nobody even plays Brood War anymore."

On July 06 2010 12:44 Ideas wrote:


you know i could easily say "classic failing of the diehard SC2-is-great-cuz-its-new-and-everyone-was-playing-its-beta" but I wont because it just avoids all argument.

I mean the lurker does everything a baneling does, but MORE. It's one of the most unique and captivating units of all RTS games. it's being replaced by just a typical suicide unit found in many many games across all genres.

motherships were kinda cool before they made them how they are now lol. They're the worst-designed unit in the game. I guess it's just out of fashion to even question the almighty greatness of SC2 though. i mean, EVERYONE IS PLAYING IT

On July 06 2010 12:53 kajeus wrote:

I didn't say you can't question it, I'm just saying that the lurker>baneling people get boring... It's a new game, and I don't want that many recycled units.

The lurker burrowed and shot in a line. It was definitely interesting, but in what way is the baneling simply inferior? The lurker can't be a mine, and it can't take out a mass of units just by running into them. It has to burrow and then be positioned so that it hits things in a straight line. You'll never hear of a lurker drop that even borders on the effect of a baneling drop -- a "lurker drop" would be like dropping any other unit.

The baneling is not a gimmicky novelty unit with a brand-new way of working; it's true. It's a refinement of a tried-and-tested core idea that is just fun to use. It can be used in carpet bombing, a minefield, or just in straight-up attacks -- as well as a number of other ways, I'm sure. It will go far.

On July 06 2010 12:59 Ideas wrote:


never ever ever watched many BW games with zerg? i'm being trolled right? rofl

On July 06 2010 13:15 kajeus wrote:
Besides, if you think about it, the roach goes a long way to making the lurker sort of boring in SC2. The roach has move-burrow, which is really what forces detection in SC2 games. The lurker has such a similar core gimmick mechanic that I wonder whether it wouldn't wind up being underused.

On July 06 2010 13:24 Ideas wrote:


i just want to make sure though, you really didn't know about hold-position lurkers?!

On July 06 2010 13:25 kajeus wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
I guess this was a little unfair to you because it's inherently impossible for the lurker to be used as a mine. What you have here is standard lurker use, one defensive and the other sort of random harass. This is similar to using the baneling as a mine, but the difference is that the lurker must *attack*, its attack needs to be dodged or run away from. It's like a cloaked siege tank. Not really a mine...

But let's just suppose that a lurker can function similarly to a mine, because this is kind of a boring point to stress. You yourself admit that the lurker has to land, burrow, and fire in order to do damage. Compare this to a baneling drop, which is more like a carpet-bombing -- instantaneous, cheap, and explosive in more ways than one.

Lurkers CANNOT be used as bombs. And we have only a hint of all the ways they will be used. You have 10 years of hardcore play behind the lurker, but what does the baneling have? A couple months of a beta and a group of hostile Brood War players...

On July 06 2010 13:31 Ideas wrote:


so it's not a mine because it's not 100% like a mine visually but functions EXACTLY the same?

both a lurker drop and baneling drop depend on the other player not noticing the units as they come to the base. it's pretty much exactly the same (wait for lurkers to burrow and attack, wait for overlord to get either directly over the workers and then drop or wait for banelings to get there). Oh but it doesnt LOOK like a mine! nevermind!

On July 06 2010 13:31 Ideas wrote:


so it's not a mine because it's not 100% like a mine visually but functions EXACTLY the same?

both a lurker drop and baneling drop depend on the other player not noticing the units as they come to the base. it's pretty much exactly the same (wait for lurkers to burrow and attack, wait for overlord to get either directly over the workers and then drop or wait for banelings to get there). Oh but it doesnt LOOK like a mine! nevermind!

On July 06 2010 13:43 kajeus wrote:

People on the Internet are so angry all the time!

It's not like a mine because it has an attack that moves in a straight line. It is not the same as popping and exploding, which is instantaneous and destroys the attacking unit. The lurker attack fires in a straight line. A mine is an AOE explosion. These distinctions are crucial in any competitive game.

But I was even willing to concede that it's similar! I was willing to drop the point!

And come on now, man... Carpet-bombing and a DT drop are different, right? Then why is it so hard to admit that carpet-bombing and a lurker drop are different? One has a bomber air unit that has to be avoided; the other has a dropping air unit that puts down another unit that has to run somewhere and burrow and then attack in a straight line...

On July 06 2010 13:47 InfiniteIce wrote:



It's not the same, it doesnt function the same. I just read both of your sides in this little debate.
Here are the differences:
Line damage ≠ Splash damage.
Lurkers do not die (at least not without an attack from the enemy) after being unheld. Lurkers are not suicide units.
Banelings cannot be used to deny an expansion for any length of time, because they are one use only..
Banelings cannot be used to hold a key piece of terrain for any length of time...because they are suicide units.
Lurkers MUST burrow to attack. Banelings MUST unburrow to attack. Lurkers have range.
Lurkers do not do damage when they die.

It doesn't function "EXACTLY the same".

Additionally, lurkers do not necessarily "depend" on the other player not noticing the units approaching their base. They have nearly 4x the HP of a baneling, and multiple lurkers can survive a few pot shots and still burrow, losing maybe 1-2 out of a control group. Banelings have very little HP and the stealth mechanic is more of a factor here.

On July 06 2010 13:51 Ideas wrote:


the shape of an AoE harass drop is essentially not worth mentioning. but ok you got me. banelings explode in circles, lurkers attack in long and skinny forward facing rectangles. banelings die why lurkers dont.

you're too caught up in the very specifics. a storm drop, reaver drop, lurker drop, baneling drop, they are all basically the same thing. they accomplish the same goals.

the point is that a lurker can do it as well as everything else a baneling does but also more.

and constantly saying that I'm angry doenst help your point at all. I get it, you're this super cool calm suave guy whose just trying to tell this old angry guy that he's being too conservative with his RTS unit design. point taken. but not every change is a good change, and the change from lurker to baneling I think isnt a good one (unlike say most changes to protoss which I feel are really good).

On July 06 2010 13:55 Ideas wrote:


again I think you're too caught up in the very specifics of each unit's mechanics. yea a psi-storm and a hunter-seeker missile are "different" because they look different and have slightly different mechanics on how they work (psi storm is damage over time but instantly casted, HSM is instant damage but you see the missile coming) but they are BASICALLY the same thing in the form of a AoE spell that only deals damage.

also just to point out about the lurkers vs mineral lines: yea they have more HP and can take more shots before they die but once the player sees the lurkers they can run their workers away (just like vs any other drop). line damage IS splash damage btw.

On July 06 2010 13:59 kajeus wrote:

Aww, I'm sorry, man. I'm not trying to say you're old. :D

I am not sure that the lurker can do everything as well as a baneling. I think they do many things very differently. But most importantly, it's not supposed to replace the lurker. There are many new units in SC2, and many of them can be used for many things. Just because the lurker MIGHT be able to fill more generalized "roles" than the baneling (and that's a big, premature "might") doesn't mean that the game as a whole suffers, in my opinion... It just means that it's different.

On July 06 2010 14:05 Ideas wrote:


it's so clear that the baneling replaces the lurker :O
lower tier AoE damage for the zerg (just like how the colossi replaces the reaver and the infestor replaces the defiler). in fact in the video that this thread is ABOUT Sigaty even says that the main reason that the lurker was removed was because it overlapped too much with the baneling ("among other units" but yea the baneling) lol

On July 06 2010 14:00 InfiniteIce wrote:

"again"? That was the first time I posted in this thread. But on to the content..

I'm caught up in the fact that you said exactly the same.

I am not fooled by sprites, don't worry about that

Not sure of the relevance, but I will grant you that Psi storm and HSMissile are both spells that do AoE.
However...
HS Missiles are not instant damage. If you run the targeted unit away from the group, it will drag. Like a spider mine.
Psi storm is not instant damage. They are not the same in this respect, just like banelings and lurkers are not, lol.

If you fire a HSM, you are guaranteed to either kill or do the full damage of the HSM to at least one unit, no?
If you fire a Psi Storm, you are guaranteed nothing.

Damage over time ≠ Area of effect damage.
Psi storm is both, HSM is one.

Also, line damage is line damage. Splash damage is splash damage. That's why there are two different terms...similar concepts, different presentations.

Let's pretend the O's represent marines. The X is a lurker that does line damage and is at the maximum range from the marines.
+ Show Spoiler [diagram] +
Obviously, at maximum range, the lurker cannot hit any marine but the center one at its parallel.

Let's pretend the X is now a Siege tank in siege mode (splash damage). The tank will damage more than the center marine that it fires at.

Line damage ≠ splash damage.

On July 06 2010 14:12 Ideas wrote:


I said again because I spent all my posts talking about it.

you need to look at the higher concept of this whole thing. psi storm does a lot of damage to an area. HSM does a lot of damage to an area. with both spells the opposing player has the ability to minimize the effect that it has on them (either by dodging the storm or microing the targeted unit away from others). yes the specific mechanics of how they work are different, but they fill the exact same role by extremely similar means.

also you're really going to give me some bullshit about line damage and splash damage being "different terms" ? call it whatever the fuck you want, but they're the same thing in a different shape.

On July 06 2010 14:25 InfiniteIce wrote:


I believe I am already looking at the higher concept...I think you need to look at the higher concept personally.

Basic concept: "They do damage over some area"
Higher concept: What I posted. The specific mechanics of how they work and their uses.

What youre saying is similar to equating males and females.
Basic concept: They're both humans
Higher concept: I don't need to explain....

(PS: I'm only giving you shit about the terminology because it serves to illustrate the fact that they are different, mechanically. And because you said "EXACTLY the same". I disagree........)

On July 06 2010 13:13 Ideas wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FasNT0eFzw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hH2Wl168qE



I can't think of a VOD ATM with a sick lurker drop, but I see them all the time (not as much lately because the maps aren't as great for them ATM, but outsider/medusa/destination and many others were great for them). I know I saw this game on outsider where the guy dropped a lurker behind the protoss' mineral only and so the protoss pulled all the probes to his nat, where the zerg had earlier dropped 2 other lurkers (on top of the cluff) and then burrowed them and got a shitload of kills.

lurkers do everything a baneling does and more. they are used for map control. you are able to hold tight chokes with only a few lurkers. they are able to be used in offensive lurker contains. they are greatly complimented by dark swarm to hold expansions. they are used well with zerglings by forcing the terran's infantry to run (so as to not get killed by the lurkers) so that the lings get free hits (also you can surround the infantry ball with lings and then burrow the lurkers and the infantry cant run anywhere). they can be used as harass units. they can be used as mines. strategically, lurkers offer many more options than banelings and thus IMO are far better units for a realtime strategy game.