EPTBut really lurkers are awesome I look forward to seeing them in action more later
.Lurker Strength - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Megalisk
United States6095 Posts
But really lurkers are awesome I look forward to seeing them in action more later . | ||
|
Omegalisk
United States337 Posts
Also, I'm making another video for Scourge; should I put it in a new thread or here? | ||
|
nanokwark
Poland51 Posts
| ||
|
OHtRUe
United States283 Posts
| ||
|
Floophead_III
United States1832 Posts
| ||
|
Kurumi
Poland6130 Posts
On August 05 2010 05:08 Floophead_III wrote: Uh, bio is already not viable because of banelings. That's why lurkers were deemed "overlapping." The one thing lurkers did was force detection, but burrowed roaches and banelings can do the same thing (and infestors too with the new IT!) Roaches and Infestors can attack from the underground? Why I did post in those all TvZ balance threads... | ||
|
PanzerDragoon
United States822 Posts
| ||
|
lindn
Sweden833 Posts
On August 05 2010 04:24 gdroxor wrote: Just what Zerg needs to be absolutely unbeatable in a macro game - biological siege tanks. that can't abuse high ground advantage and takes hives to produce. i don't see where the balance issue lies here tbh. even though i still want hydras to be moved to T1 WHERE THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE giving us lurkers would give us another way to contain, today the only way i can contain is if my enemy lets me spread my creep and i'll threaten him with OMEGASPEED ling runs trough his mineral lines. also banelings are horrible, against toss they're worthless cause their shields are to strong for the baneling to melt trough, in TvZ only part where banelings do good is against mass marines, marauders are armoured and takes way to many banelings to kill (the reason why you always try to flank with the banelings since marines are usually at the back supporting the front marauders) banelings are awesome in ZvZ which is a pain in the ass, mass lings get slaughtered and so is hydras, roaches do fine but with enough banelings (they're the same price as roaches :O) and the way they do splash damage you can bring down an equal amount of roaches for the same pricerange of banelings. so where does the baneling REALLY fit in blizzard? they fit in in ZvZ. terrans can easily counter them with tanks and killing off creep tumours to erase any speed increase for the banelings (they're slow off creep even with the rolling upgrade) so with tiny amounts of micro (move back A move move back etcetc) you can take out the baneling force and then go ahead and massacre the remaining zerg force. banelings are there for 1. ZvZ's and 2. really bad terrans who just masses marines and think he's gonna win with it so, banelings are NOT a replacement for lurkers, they might be really good sometimes but most of the times they're just there to soften up the army. lurkers are our tanks, banelings are just our marines we throw at the enemy to their deaths to soften up before a fight. just my views anyways, i'd rather see hydras in T1 than lurkers anyways. | ||
|
Noocta
France12578 Posts
Too bad Zerg is often really passive in SC2. | ||
|
Vei
United States2845 Posts
| ||
|
lindn
Sweden833 Posts
On August 05 2010 07:18 Noocta wrote: Baneling make zerg more offensive, lurker was good to be defensive. Too bad Zerg is often really passive in SC2. banelings are not enough to be offensive. if we had lurkers for defense purely then we'd be able to move out further with our units and not fear getting attacked from drops or stuff like that. lurker could lock down several spots like chokes and such which means zerg could gain a lot of map control and defend it easily (i.e not just relying on overlords and creep tumours to keep an eye on the map, detectors and viking/phoenix/void rays is all you need right now to counter zerg map control since their army has pretty much no mobility at the moment just going out and killing creep tumours would cripple the zerg to no end. i've got a few games i've lost just cause i lost the creep tumours and got rolled over cause i had no extra speed to be able to flank and get the upperhand on the enemy army. | ||
|
Saechiis
Netherlands4989 Posts
On August 05 2010 04:25 Orpheos wrote: ... you should try doing it where the bio army can see the lurkers. and dont stupidly run into them. the spines have alot less splash area if the ball isnt sitting right on top of it(similar area to a siege tank might i add). and even without detection no idiot is going to run their ball and park it right on top of lurkers. That's what Hold Lurkers are for, the idea of cloak is that you don't know it's there  | ||
|
threehundred
Canada911 Posts
| ||
|
7mk
Germany10157 Posts
yeah wth O_o it was the same in bw, good thing its the same in sc2. On August 05 2010 05:03 Omegalisk wrote: Just for the record, I didn't put Siege Tanks in to compare them to Lurkers, I just put them in as a control. Sure, the test could have been a lot more scientific, but I mainly made it to give people an idea of what Lurkers would be like and how they would change Zerg. Also, I'm making another video for Scourge; should I put it in a new thread or here? sure, just make it a more real fight in the next video, that way we'll see better how it would change the matchup. and Scourge video yeah maybe just put that in here as well and ask a mod to change the thread title. | ||
|
Jadix
United States134 Posts
Instead, it seems Blizzard has opted to keep the unit cap very low so each unit has a very specific role to play. | ||
|
Apolo
Portugal1259 Posts
| ||
|
Medzo
United States627 Posts
| ||
ArvickHero
10387 Posts
| ||
|
Leeoku
1617 Posts
| ||
|
SC2Phoenix
Canada2814 Posts
On August 05 2010 04:29 Omegalisk wrote: Thats not a bug your suppose to be able to dodge themI was trying to simulate where Terran didn't have detection or where the Lurkers were out of sight. Turns out, they can, at least in the Galaxy Editor. They don't work as well as Siege Tanks though, because they have shorter range and there is a nasty bug where you can just run ahead of the Lurker's attack (where the Lurker attacks and it misses). | ||
| ||
