|
On September 08 2010 04:27 cocosoft wrote:
I'm a random player.
I don't really understand why Zerg needs lurker. The motivation blizzard had for removing lurkers was that baneling takes the role. While I do agree on that point I still feel that zerg needs to be overlooked a bit... of course.
How do Banelings even slightly take the role of Lurkers?
- Banelings aren't a ranged Unit
- Lurkers don't die in order to make DMG
- Banelings are basically worthless against Non-Light-Armored Units, Lurkers would've dealt extra-DMG to Armored, at least that's what I think the betabuild looked like
- In order to make Terran waste Scans or any other race to build detection, you'd need to research "burrow" for the Banelings.
- Burrowed Banelings rely solely on the opponent making a mistake and walking into them without scanning ahead or using other forms of detection - they can't move underground, they don't have a big radius and they aren't fast enough nor do they have enough Range/AoE-Radius to quickly leap-frog their way forward.
- Banelings get out at T1, Lurkers at least T2.
basically the only relevant similarity between the Lurker and Banelings is that they deal some kind of AoE-DMG, so I guess Templars, Tanks, Ultras and even Mutas are pretty similar to the Lurker as well... :S
|
This video only shows how good lurkers will be if the Terran doesn't have enough energy for a scan, doesn't have a raven out, and notices his units are being hit and doesn't do anything about it.
|
On September 08 2010 04:41 kickinhead wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2010 04:27 cocosoft wrote:
I'm a random player.
I don't really understand why Zerg needs lurker. The motivation blizzard had for removing lurkers was that baneling takes the role. While I do agree on that point I still feel that zerg needs to be overlooked a bit... of course. How do Banelings even slightly take the role of Lurkers? - Banelings aren't a ranged Unit - Lurkers don't die in order to make DMG - Banelings are basically worthless against Non-Light-Armored Units, Lurkers would've dealt extra-DMG to Armored, at least that's what I think the betabuild looked like - In order to make Terran waste Scans or any other race to build detection, you'd need to research "burrow" for the Banelings. - Burrowed Banelings rely solely on the opponent making a mistake and walking into them without scanning ahead or using other forms of detection - they can't move underground, they don't have a big radius and they aren't fast enough nor do they have enough Range/AoE-Radius to quickly leap-frog their way forward. - Banelings get out at T1, Lurkers at least T2. basically the only relevant similarity between the Lurker and Banelings is that they deal some kind of AoE-DMG, so I guess Templars, Tanks, Ultras and even Mutas are pretty similar to the Lurker as well... :S
I agree banelings are unlike it in any way.
I'd like to see them be relatively cheap to get the tech for, but a little bit more expensive to make, and be great against armored. 20+15 to armored.
|
First off when discussing whether to put lurker in the game or not one should think about what it can do to the game play and what purpose the unit would have.
NOT exactly what kind of dmg and numbers currently in the galaxy editor as they can all be rebalanced and changed. We also see no number of tech of prize and prize of unit. Lets compare one thor to one roach, hello nerf thor? See my point? Without cost this means nothing and cost is also subject to rebalance.
I think it would give Z some needed defense and more possibilities for interesting play. Sadly what we as Z have now is muta/ling harass and potentially nydus canaling. Thats pretty much it. In a few games vs crappy opponents you can get away with tunneling roaches, infestor harass and get baneling drops to be cost efficient. The rest is just brute force winning.
Also can we have a video of stim + scan? Not scanning the lurkers is like putting the tanks on a cliff, you put them in a situation where they excel and are deeply favored with the tanks you put them so that the splash even hits themselves.
|
I'd really like to see a Lurker-included tournament, btw.
It's the best idea that's come out of this thread.
I would totally play in it too, and I'd QQ like a bitch every time I lost to Lurkers just for dramatic effect.
|
Could someone please make a real battle scenario with lurkers in it? Preferably ZvT?
|
The lurker was always a nice hold out till Ultralisk, and now that Ultra does splash damage, and banelings demand detection even earlier than lurkers did, I kind of agree that with Blizzard that the unit is too redundant. I think what zerg needs is a 1 population unit that would be strong versus mech at tier 2.
|
We could go play a game on one of those lurker maps and post the replay, Brian.
I'm bored enough.
|
On September 08 2010 05:11 Ketara wrote:
We could go play a game on one of those lurker maps and post the replay, Brian.
I'm bored enough.
Someone take this man up on his offer. I cant wait to see replays with lurkers.
|
All I know is, if they add Lurkers back in the Heart of the Swarm multiplayer, I'm gonna be pissed. They've made so many excuses on why they shouldn't be in SC2, adding it back in later will feel like they're being uncreative with the Zerg.
|
|
|
On September 08 2010 05:10 Deletrious wrote:
The lurker was always a nice hold out till Ultralisk, and now that Ultra does splash damage, and banelings demand detection even earlier than lurkers did, I kind of agree that with Blizzard that the unit is too redundant. I think what zerg needs is a 1 population unit that would be strong versus mech at tier 2.
Versus Mech?
Have you visited us from like 4 weeks ago? ^^'
Magic-Box kinda changed the fact that Terran can go just mech, they need much more Marines now and can therefore have less Thors/Tanks/hellions, which could make the Lurker a viable option.
But there are really much more pressing issues at hand than Mech in TvZ atm, which is the fact that Terran can apply too much pressure early on and force the Z into playing something that Terran then can easily counter, all the while Terran get's a strong economy thanks to mules.
I agree with you though that Zerg needs a strong and massable Unit early on. I think this should be the Zergling, which is just too weak atm, but with the incoming Tanknerf VS light-armored and a very long overdue Zergling DMG-Buff (hopefully someday), Zerglings could actually be used to defend early pressure and with a better Adrenalin-Upgrade even later on in the game.
|
On September 08 2010 05:23 mousepad wrote:
All I know is, if they add Lurkers back in the Heart of the Swarm multiplayer, I'm gonna be pissed. They've made so many excuses on why they shouldn't be in SC2, adding it back in later will feel like they're being uncreative with the Zerg.
Better=Better
|
On September 08 2010 05:26 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2010 05:23 mousepad wrote:
All I know is, if they add Lurkers back in the Heart of the Swarm multiplayer, I'm gonna be pissed. They've made so many excuses on why they shouldn't be in SC2, adding it back in later will feel like they're being uncreative with the Zerg. Better=Better
I've not heard any of those excuses TBH...
But I'm sure they didn't make sense anyways - I mean; we're talking about Blizzard here... ^^'
|
On September 08 2010 04:34 Ketara wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2010 03:29 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On September 08 2010 03:18 Ketara wrote:
I always trust Blizzard when it comes to balancing stuff. If they think Lurkers shouldn't be in the game, then they shouldn't.
But at the same time, Lurkers are so cool. The entire concept of them is so cool. I would be ecstatic if Lurkers were added to multiplayer, and probably even more ecstatic if Terran/Protoss each got something to balance it out.
Really though, we know more units are going to be added to multiplayer with the expansions, and I'm sure those units will be awesome, and slate my new unit thirst, so I'm not too upset. why do you trust blizzard with balancing? they dont have the exactly best history with it. This is just such an ignorant statement. I don't want to derail the thread but I have to point this out. Every time I see this statement I just feel stupider. Even if you don't think WoW is very well balanced, which I admit can be arguable, Blizzard made Starcraft and Starcraft 2. I guess Blizzard doesn't have a good track record of balancing strategy games, because neither Starcraft game is very good, and other video game companies are making much better RTS games. Saying that Blizzard hasn't made Starcraft 2 perfect yet and there is still work to be done is an acceptable and true statement, but saying Blizzard is bad at making good games is just so overbearingly idiotic that I can't stand it.
wow balance isnt arguable. its plain shit in evry aspect. wc3 always had issues in the entire history and still has . sc1 vanilla was a joke balance wise and broodwar was more luck then anything. they didnt do any big changes and evrything else came down to the community fixing the balance with maps. and while it doesnt matter much balance in d2 was nonexistant as well.
i dont say blizz is doing worse then all other companys. i just say that a statement like " but i believe in blizzard they are great!" has no basis .
oh and btw you cant compare blizz 10 years ago to blizz in the "new age".
@ kickinhead a lurker( x+x range upgraded like the collosus, or even shorter range + buffed corrupters against collosus ...whatever) could change the game alot. T is suddenly forced to get ravens. you can defend much easier. you might contain Ps. people will have to actually watch out for positioning against Z. ofc it depends how it would be implemented but it would help Z and do good for the dynamics of the game.
|
Lurkers were mid-tech anti-infantry in BW, banelings are very early and powerful anti-infantry in SC2. Pair that with the hydralisk being pushed back to T2 and you've got a fairly redundant, very late tech unit. They attempted to make it a T3 anti-mech unit but with the ultralisk and broodlord as roommates it would be a little crowded.
They'll be added back in when and if they can find a place to settle down and not be useless or too useful. (TBH, I'd expected an anti-air unit in HotS, since that is definitely the weak point in zerg's arsenal. Maybe you should be rooting for the Scourge?)
|
Way too much fluff in the video. Just run the damn units into the lurkers and be done with it.
|
I think urashimakts post is pretty accurate.
Everybody saying Lurker would change the Zerg dynamic so much I think needs to remember that the current Lurker is an incredibly late game unit.
It requires Hive, an upgrade on Hydralisk Den, Burrow research, and then a unit morph just to get Lurkers out. And even on top of that the Lurker Den has a range upgrade that you need to really make the Lurkers a siege unit.
Things like Lurker drops on high ground would be interesting and cool, but at the exact same stage of the game you can have Brood Lords.
Using Lurkers to contain and defend would be sweet, but at that stage of the game if you want to contain you can have an ungodly creep spread and a 200/200 army with Ultralisks containing already. Ultralisks can actually come out faster than Lurkers.
Don't get me wrong, I like the Lurker, it's a cool unit, I'd love to play around with it. But I can see why it'd be redundant at Hive tech, and I can see why it'd be extremely powerful in lower tiers.
I can see why Blizzard kept it out, even if I'd like there to be a way to have it in and balanced.
|
banelings are underused i say as a zerg.
you can really do much with them, especially burrowed against a bio army. just burrow them at key positions. the t wont scan and no one uses ravens.
i would like to use that vs p as well, but that is very risky as you are at a huge disadvantage if he has an observer with his army. protoss players dont do that often though, do they?
|
Reaper = good against buildings, light units and workers. Usually used on suicidal missions.
Baneling = good against buildings, light units and workers. Usually used on suicidal missions.
Now why is it that reapers are allowed to be a "early game only" but banelings cant?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
