Lurker Strength

On August 05 2010 04:24 gdroxor wrote:
Just what Zerg needs to be absolutely unbeatable in a macro game - biological siege tanks.

oh and lurkers can't abuse high ground cliffs like tanks can.

On August 05 2010 04:29 Omegalisk wrote:
I 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).

On August 05 2010 04:30 HardcoreBilly wrote:
Just a tip, if you plan to make a series of video, please get a mic, and if not a mic, then don't type at all, the viewers will usually get the gist. Or if you must note something, have it in the description or have a black screen of text (and not type in the actual video).

On August 05 2010 04:21 Apocalyptic wrote:
Wow - the tight grouping of the bio army makes Lurkers extremely powerful. I can see why they were not put into the game in this state.

On August 05 2010 04:29 Omegalisk wrote:
I 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).

On August 05 2010 04:29 Omegalisk wrote:
I 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).

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!)

On August 05 2010 04:24 gdroxor wrote:
Just what Zerg needs to be absolutely unbeatable in a macro game - biological siege tanks.

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.

On August 05 2010 05:00 Issor wrote:


That's not a bug

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?

On August 05 2010 04:29 Omegalisk wrote:
I 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).

On August 05 2010 05:34 PanzerDragoon wrote:
If lurkers could move while burrowed by default, I think they'd be a fine tier 3 unit without any other changes.

On August 05 2010 05:34 PanzerDragoon wrote:
If lurkers could move while burrowed by default, I think they'd be a fine tier 3 unit without any other changes.

On August 05 2010 09:15 KinosJourney2 wrote:
A question, where do you find all these units?
I can't find any units except the multiplayer units in my map editor.

On August 05 2010 11:08 ghettohobbit2 wrote:
Wow. I wish Zerg still had them, might give 'em some help at chokes...

And I fully expect to be flamed to all hell for suggesting this, but I think it might be nice if they could evolve from Roaches rather than from Hydralisks (i.e., upgrade Roach Warren into Deep Warren at Lair) That way, they could get a range upgrade from Hive and maybe a burrow move upgrade that would ONLY work on creep. Siege range with cloak would be ridiculous against static detectors, but if you had to spam creep tumors all the way out to his base, it might be a good deal more acceptable. And even then the things would still get slaughtered by Tanks, Banshees, Void Rays, Immortals, etc...

Regardless, I really can't see how these things would overlap with Banelings. By that logic, Banelings would overlap with Ultralisks because they both do Splash Melee damage.

On August 05 2010 12:06 GhoSt[shield] wrote:
If the Lurker was introduced Terran's would just continue to mech even heavily then now since the bio ball is more about mobility and finesse vs a retardedly powerful 1 punch mech army that turtled to 200/200.

Regardless, I really can't see how these things would overlap with Banelings. By that logic, Banelings would overlap with Ultralisks because they both do Splash Melee damage.

On August 05 2010 12:19 Half wrote:


You use Banelings to counter siege tanks and heavy protoss mech? Woah. What an intriguing strategy.

What exactly would I use lurkers for other then contain and against infantry?

On August 05 2010 12:41 Rinrun wrote:
I can see why they didn't include it in the MP, cause of that ball-unit-pathing-thing that units have would totally work in the Lurkers favour. That or they were just too lazy to tinker with the Lurker's attack and all that jazz.

On August 05 2010 12:41 Rinrun wrote:
I can see why they didn't include it in the MP, cause of that ball-unit-pathing-thing that units have would totally work in the Lurkers favour. That or they were just too lazy to tinker with the Lurker's attack and all that jazz.

On August 05 2010 12:58 Medzo wrote:


Did you look at the part where the tanks did near the same damage even though they walked right through their deadzone?

Why is this acceptable for terrans but not for zerg?

On August 05 2010 13:08 EssayReader wrote:
The Lurkers could have been a Tier 1 unit:

On the Beta forums, I had made a suggestion (which I re-suggested again, but got no "you can't do this because of X, Y and Z reason) to return the Lurker when I heard about it's departure to Never-ever-land.

The Lurker could easily replace the Roach because:

1. The Roach Warren faces the same way as the Hydralisk Den, and has the same amount of those horn things in the back (spines?). So the Roach Warren could have easily been re-named "Deep Warren" or "Lurker Warren" or something of the sort.

2. The Lurker should be a melee unit, with 1 food.

3. When you hit Lair, you can:
a. Research Burrow so the Lurker can attack while burrowed (increased range will be an upgrade).
b. Allow the "Z Warren" to upgrade to the Hydralisk Den (similar to how the Greater Spire does, since they do look similar) allowing Lurkers to morph into Hydralisks.

Versatility improvement. Any debates?

The Melee-unit 1 food overlaps much with the Zergling. In fact, you would probably have to get one or the other because there is only so much space around the enemy. The reason Roaches are a pretty good T1 unit design is they have a small range, so they can shoot over Zerglings but be almost melee

On August 05 2010 04:29 Omegalisk wrote:
there is a nasty bug where you can just run ahead of the Lurker's attack (where the Lurker attacks and it misses).

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!)

On August 06 2010 03:54 wizerd wrote:
this would add a lot more dynamic to tvz, but what about tvp, since protoss's only mobile cloak is the observer. this would ruin any non-robo first builds. or would it come out late enough? i don't play toss so i don't know timings.

On August 06 2010 05:13 DuneBug wrote:
Blizzard made a huge error in not including the lurker.

In BW when the lurker was introduced it filled like 3 roles in the zerg army that were previously unfilled.

1. had some sort of combat ability that required a detector to counter.
2. Gave zerg splash damage.
3. Gave zerg an artillery unit that could support units holding a fixed point.

2&3 might seem similar but think about it. The baneling, helion, firebat, archon, ultralisk do not necessarily help you hold a fixed point, because their range is too short. They get focus fired immediately, because they're in the front ranks. What you really need is something in the back ranks.

with dark swarm it became more of an offensive powerhouse but i don't see anything wrong with creative play.

In short, it was an example of awesome unit design. Couple that with its cool attack animation and how you could avoid the spines with awesome micro...

i think it'll show up in future versions. But who knows. I think if zerg had lurkers nobody would be arguing about lack of unit variety though.

On August 06 2010 05:27 Opinion wrote:
For all the Lurker fans out there.

Can't Team Liquid sponsor a "Bring back the Lurker" Tournament?

Seriously, here me out...

We can bring back the Lurker with the Galaxy editor, do some light play testing, then host a full blown tournament with as many TL pros and announcers as possible, all to showcase the Lurker live in game in competitive play.

IF the Lurker fits in, isn't broken, and causes a lot of attention towards the game Blizzard would certainly take notice. Perhaps even bring it back...

The only thing that would ruin this would be for the Lurker to completely imbalance the game single handedly, make Zerg unstoppable and prove them right for taking it out in the first place, but somehow i doubt this would happen.

So... let the "Bring Back the Lurker 2010 Tournament" begin!

On August 06 2010 05:38 Kpyolysis32 wrote:


I would totally help organize this if there was anything I could do.
I SUPPORT THIS MUCH.

On August 06 2010 05:41 Archerofaiur wrote:




lol a Bring back the lurker 2010 tournament would be awesome



Its also against Blizzard terms of use I believe

On August 06 2010 05:27 Opinion wrote:
For all the Lurker fans out there.

Can't Team Liquid sponsor a "Bring back the Lurker" Tournament?

Seriously, here me out...

We can bring back the Lurker with the Galaxy editor, do some light play testing, then host a full blown tournament with as many TL pros and announcers as possible, all to showcase the Lurker live in game in competitive play.

IF the Lurker fits in, isn't broken, and causes a lot of attention towards the game Blizzard would certainly take notice. Perhaps even bring it back...

The only thing that would ruin this would be for the Lurker to completely imbalance the game single handedly, make Zerg unstoppable and prove them right for taking it out in the first place, but somehow i doubt this would happen.

So... let the "Bring Back the Lurker 2010 Tournament" begin!

On August 06 2010 05:48 Opinion wrote:


How is this against the terms of use?

On August 06 2010 05:45 FabledIntegral wrote:
Why mod the game when we already have a full version released? I don't see the point, how many people are going to spend time playtesting a mod when they could be practicing the regular game for all the other tournies? Just not practical.

On August 06 2010 05:52 Archerofaiur wrote:



IIRC the terms you agree to when you ask Blizzard if you can make a tournament require that the game be unaltered.

I dont know for sure maybe someone who has contacted Blizzard to set up a tournament knows better.

On August 06 2010 05:52 Archerofaiur wrote:



IIRC the terms you agree to when you ask Blizzard if you can make a tournament require that the game be unaltered.

I dont know for sure maybe someone who has contacted Blizzard to set up a tournament knows better.

On August 06 2010 06:14 Konsume wrote:


you can EASILY create all ladder maps in custom mode. This way you're NOT altering the original game... and just making CUSTOM map and it's all legal!

Oh... and I support this thread

On August 06 2010 05:52 Archerofaiur wrote:



IIRC the terms you agree to when you ask Blizzard if you can make a tournament require that the game be unaltered.

I dont know for sure maybe someone who has contacted Blizzard to set up a tournament knows better.

On August 06 2010 06:28 TheYango wrote:

If you can't play a custom map, that would mean all DotA tournaments violate the ToU.

On August 06 2010 06:38 Reborn8u wrote:
I would like to see them in the game. Being hive tech means they wont affect timings or build orders in any drastic way. Also zerg needs some better defense IMO. I also feel that having units with overlapping roles is a good thing.
I play Toss btw, it just seems like zerg has 3 units most of the time, lings,roaches,hydra. Then they add one or two of these things >infestor, broodlords,or ultralisk.< BORING, they should be giving lurkers just on the basis of how lame thier races unit diversity is.
Iv'e watched plenty of zerg matches where the only units made are the ones I've listed. Let's not forget mutas or banelings, but when zerg goes mutas or banelings then their diversity that game is even more lame. Thats only 7 units. (queens and overlords are equivalent to supply depots and orbital command)
To compare, things I see comonly in terran 1.marine 2. marauder 3. hellion 4. ghost 5. tank 6. viking 7. medevac 8.thor 9. banshee 10. raven
Protoss 1.zealot 2.stalker 3.sentry 4.immortal 5.colossus 6.warp prism 7.void rays 8.phoenix 9.DT 10. HT 11. Archon (I won't count obs, motherships are rare)

Just think about it, if you watch 10 games of each race. How much diversity do you see game to game compared race to race. I guess since with zerg there are changlings, broodlings, infested terrans, overseers and corrupters they felt there was enough diversity.
But so many of these units are not a real stand alone type units to me.

Many times with zerg, if you see certain units come out, it means zerg will be only making 2 or 3 things for quite a while. A lurker would be a great damage dealing unit to mix in with almost any zerg army. So I feel it will not be another one of these units that once it arrives, the zergs unit diversity goes completely null. Overall, I guess it's not just zergs unit diversity game to game that sucks, it's also the total # of different things that will get made in any one game that sucks as well.

Just throwing my opinion out there, as a non zerg player, they really need lurkers.

On August 06 2010 09:16 koOma wrote:
Reaper + Lurker in expansion plzzzzz

On August 06 2010 05:41 Archerofaiur wrote:




lol a Bring back the lurker 2010 tournament would be awesome



Its also against Blizzard terms of use I believe

On August 06 2010 06:03 G3nXsiS wrote:
Im just opposed to any starcraft 1 units making it in there.

On September 07 2010 23:59 blindsniper wrote:
Actually, lurkers would be pretty balanced.

As seen here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNx4pRU32jA

On August 05 2010 04:30 HardcoreBilly wrote:
Just a tip, if you plan to make a series of video, please get a mic, and if not a mic, then don't type at all, the viewers will usually get the gist. Or if you must note something, have it in the description or have a black screen of text (and not type in the actual video).

Now to the actual video: You have Lurker all wrong. It is in no way like a Siege Tank. Any competent player, or in this case, a Terran, would scan and then kill the Lurkers.

Lurkers were great in SC:BW mainly because of the Dark Swarm, seeing as though that isn't in the game, it will drastically be less effective and be used differently in SC2. In SC2 I would imagine Lurkers being more defensive, and never come in packs (as one detector would annihilate all Lurkers). Instead, a player would probably have one lurker at each base, or used to prevent enemy mining (assuming you sneak one to the back.

On August 05 2010 04:30 HardcoreBilly wrote:
Just a tip, if you plan to make a series of video, please get a mic, and if not a mic, then don't type at all, the viewers will usually get the gist. Or if you must note something, have it in the description or have a black screen of text (and not type in the actual video).

Now to the actual video: You have Lurker all wrong. It is in no way like a Siege Tank. Any competent player, or in this case, a Terran, would scan and then kill the Lurkers.

Lurkers were great in SC:BW mainly because of the Dark Swarm, seeing as though that isn't in the game, it will drastically be less effective and be used differently in SC2. In SC2 I would imagine Lurkers being more defensive, and never come in packs (as one detector would annihilate all Lurkers). Instead, a player would probably have one lurker at each base, or used to prevent enemy mining (assuming you sneak one to the back.

On September 08 2010 00:57 007Kain wrote:
Can anyone tell me where I find the lurker in the editor? I tryed watching the list of all units but there are no lurkers or the units that are only in the campaign like the heroes usw. What do I have to do to find and spawn them?

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.

On September 08 2010 03:29 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:

why do you trust blizzard with balancing? they dont have the exactly best history with it.


wc3 was never even close to balanced overall and very limited in gameplay. wow is a joke and there wasnt any timeframe ever where the classes were ever even close in pve or pvp strength.d2 isnt worth mentioning. broodwar was a lucky strike with great mapmakers and community fixing the flaws(vanilla sc1 balance was nonexistant).

On September 08 2010 03:42 kickinhead wrote:
Thx for the Vid, but when I read: "Lurkers are like cloaked Tanks" or sth. I really had to laugh.

I've thought about Lurkers in SC2 and I think they'd be pretty bad in SC2 and that's why:

- Tanks and Storms will pwn them just like they did in SCBW.
- Basically every Unit in SC2 has a larger range than Units from SCBW, Lurker looks like he has about the same.
- There are no more Scourges to snipe Observers so you could stall with Lurkers
- Collossi will absolutely pwn them.
- in SCBW, it was mainly used against Terran Bio, but Terran Bio now has the Marauder, which has much health and large range ---> 1 Stim+Scan and even a mediocre split will suffice to totally pwn Lurkers. To Split you could just abuse the Magic-box-trick and you'd basically need no Micro at all to make the Lurkers just do minimal DMG.
- Lurkers were extremely good above ramps to protect expansions, but without any kind of High-ground-advantage, Cliff-hoppers and stuff like that, you won't be able to use them in that .fashion as effectively as in SCBW.
- Terran could use HSM similarly against Lurkers as Irradiate in SCBW, but with no threat of Scourges.
- Lurkers in SC2 don't have the extremely powerful Dark Swarm to hide under.
- Ghost could Snipe them very easily and they are good against other Zerg Units like Mutas, Broodlords, Ultras and Infestors as well, so they'd be pretty viable overall in that MU.
- Air-Units like Banshee's could kill Lurkers very easily in 1 Scan. If you wanted to use Wraith's for that, you'd need either a lot of Wraith's or more than 1 Scan. Besides, Banshee's are better overall than Wraith's were in SCBW...
- I also don't think the Hold-position-trick would work in SC2 if Blizzard does no implement something like that for the Lurkers on purpose, which I don't think, cuz Blizzard apparently still thinks they should cater to noobs more and make the game as noob-friendly as possible and watching the Map all few seconds to attack at the exact same time would just be too much for those poor Bronze-players to handle...

I really think Lurkers would be kinda similar to Archons in SC2: They were powerful in SCBW, but in SC2 - not so much... I hope Blizzard won't just add Lurkers as the next Zerg-Unit, because it would totally suck, without even thinking about what powerful Units T and P could get...

Just compare those Lurkers against, let's say Collossi. Collossi deal about the same amount of AoE, maybe a bit less, but the range is 9, they can fire without having to burrow, they can walk over cliffs etc. and even Collossi get pwnd by Marauders if they don't have a big Army protecting them.

On September 08 2010 03:29 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:



why do you trust blizzard with balancing? they dont have the exactly best history with it.

On September 08 2010 04:34 Ketara wrote:


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.

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.

On September 08 2010 04:41 kickinhead wrote:


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

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.

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.

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.

On September 08 2010 05:26 Archerofaiur wrote:



Better=Better

On September 08 2010 04:34 Ketara wrote:


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.

On September 08 2010 05:28 kickinhead wrote:


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 04:38 SCdinner wrote:


I agree with the whole of my heart. I want to know who makes these amazing RTS' people are compairing favoritably over blizzards. I've never heard anyone give an example of an rts as ballanced as the starcraft series.

On September 08 2010 06:21 XxEschatonxX wrote:
I wish lurker was in this game for multiplayer. It provided so many roles that Zerg is really deficient in at the moment.

1) Anti Armor. Only the ultralisk is anti-armor at the moment. That is tier 3, which is quite slow to get.
2) Anti Mass. Ultras and Banes have splash but they serve diffferent purposes. Ultras are a tanking unit that in theory can be effective against mass but its melee distance attack makes kiting it quite effective. Infestors are quite good but fungal needs 75 energy for 36 damage over several seconds. Infestors are ineffective vs massed armor, only massed terran bio without serious medivacs. Banes are only good vs zerglings or marines.
3) Choke breaking unit. Zerg has nothing ranged besides broodlords that can break a choke. Lurkers would help to solve this problem.
4) Defensive ranged unit with splash. Also a choke defender.

Basically it solves many of zerg's current weaknesses.

On September 08 2010 05:42 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:


sc1 vanilla was a joke balance wise and broodwar was more luck then anything.

On September 08 2010 09:07 TLOBrian wrote:
Terran players are sure angry about the lurker, huh? Or race balance in general, "Please don't change anything, it's fine the way it is!" We see through your charade terran foes....

I love the lurker. The lurker loves to kill shit. The lurker can be used in chokes. The lurker can be an anti armor splash unit. The lurker at tier 1.5 can single handedly solve almost all the issues zerg has in the early game.

Spawning pool>Roach Warren>Lurker den

OR

Spawning pool> Lair> Lurker den

Either things work great to fix zerg. So simply, so easy, so quick!

+ Show Spoiler +

On September 08 2010 06:18 Archerofaiur wrote:
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?

On September 08 2010 09:25 SovSov wrote:
WHY DO WE NEED LURKERS WHEN WE HAVE IMBA NON-GIMMICKY BANELINGS?

On September 08 2010 12:11 cHaNg-sTa wrote:
The more I think about it, the more I realized just how terrible these particular lurkers would be absolutely horrible in SC2. Put 7 lurkers together in BW and walk a giant group of marines over them, none of them would even come close to surviving. Yet we still have some marines in that group surviving.

Blizzard is so stupid, why are they insisting on how banelings and lurkers overlap? They simply aren't. Lurkers actually attack while burrowed, giving lurker drops or nydus worm even more power for lurkers to wreak havoc.

On September 08 2010 23:44 Dwomir wrote:
Okay I'll be lazy because I do not want to read 11 pages of posts from other people wich can make me look BM. But I just want to make a statement that if the lurker comes back in SC2 then it would be OP, why?! you may ask, the reason is that Zerg now has Infesters, so what will happen if you mix Infesters with Lurkers:

well a good microd zerg that get his hands on both Lurkers and Infestors will use Fungal Growth to immobilize the MM ball and then put down the Lurkers in range to slaughter the cute MM ball the terran charges in with (if he now has one).

So thats why i dont want the Lurkers back, not to be unfair to the Zerg but if they come back then more balance work would be needed from Blizzard im afraid.

At the same time i know you cant pick 2 techs thats gas heavy but only 1 then hey what about late game when you have 4 expos or more.

On September 08 2010 23:58 sleepingdog wrote:
although I think pretty much everyone agrees that zerg needs another unit (not because of imbalance but simply because of versatility), I think it would be a horrible idea to bring back the lurker - simply because I want to play starcraft 2 and NOT simply broodwar with better graphics; there would be no point at all in developing a new game if you end up playing it exactly the way broodwar was played

I really hope zerg gets a cool new unit with the expansion, but - again - I hope it will be a unit that isn't just lurker_v_2.0

A new unit (or better several units) with the expansion might be too late. We have to wait 16-18 months for HotS, which is simply too long. Sure not all gameplay possibilities are used yet, but i see Zerg pretty much "mined out" soon.

On September 08 2010 23:00 Sueco wrote:
The more I look at the SC2 lurker, the more I come to believe they are exactly the change that Z needs.

Tier 2.5 Lurkers with a (possible) T3 range upgrade would:

-Give zerg its only actual stealth attacker.

-Give zerg its only positional defense unit.

-Gives a solution against MMM spam that does not involve the fragile and micro-intensive baneling. Even banelings lose their effectiveness as The MMM ball grows in size and its firepower strays into the realm of the riddiculous. Lurkers would punish all those 8-rax a-movers, forcing them to develop something resembling the intelligence a Z player needs to display when facing a tank line.

-Banelings and Lurkers do not overlap. They complement. Late-game, you often see toss players facing MMM use both templars and colossi. The combined area damage is actually very usefull, not overlapping at all. I foresee a similar synergistic relation between banelings and lurkers. Banelings are great at destroying marines, and lurkers, which have a slight bonus to armored, would handle those pesky marauders.

Bottom line is, considering the current public disenchantment with Z, drastic changes are needed. Lurkers are a universally loved classic and could provide a much-needed gameplay shake-up.

On September 09 2010 00:04 TekKpriest wrote:


A new unit (or better several units) with the expansion might be too late. We have to wait 16-18 months for HotS, which is simply too long. Sure not all gameplay possibilities are used yet, but i see Zerg pretty much "mined out" soon.

and a lurker brought back wouldn't be SC:BW reloaded. Sure it has it similarities, but what of Terran and Toss?

The Lurker pretty much would adress some of the current weaknesses the Zerg has, which in my opinion should be adressed pretty soon.

On September 09 2010 00:32 urashimakt wrote:
There are solutions available to MMM spam, even some beyond the use of baneling. Infestor/ultra combo comes to mind quickly. Calling them stupid doesn't help your point.

On September 08 2010 23:44 Dwomir wrote:
Okay I'll be lazy because I do not want to read 11 pages of posts from other people wich can make me look BM. But I just want to make a statement that if the lurker comes back in SC2 then it would be OP, why?! you may ask, the reason is that Zerg now has Infesters, so what will happen if you mix Infesters with Lurkers:

well a good microd zerg that get his hands on both Lurkers and Infestors will use Fungal Growth to immobilize the MM ball and then put down the Lurkers in range to slaughter the cute MM ball the terran charges in with (if he now has one).

So thats why i dont want the Lurkers back, not to be unfair to the Zerg but if they come back then more balance work would be needed from Blizzard im afraid.

At the same time i know you cant pick 2 techs thats gas heavy but only 1 then hey what about late game when you have 4 expos or more.

"Give zerg its only actual stealth attacker."

Giving something to a race simply because they don't have one yet doesn't mean balance, it means making all 3 races the same. It might be a very good decision, but you'd need more than just "give them one because the other races have one."

"Give zerg its only positional defense unit."

I believe you mean in addition to the mighty broodlord, who not only deals damage over incredible distances but in enough numbers creates a wall of flesh that makes ground units crack their head against the wall trying to get past.

Storm and Thermal Lance damage go well together because they are not both instantaneous. The storms continue to weaken units until they reach the point where a single lance from the colossi ends their misery. Lurkers and banelings both cause instantaneous damage. If your banelings go in for the explode, they explode. They probably killed whatever they were next to, and whatever they weren't next to is still alive and fine. Lurker damage isn't complementary at this point, it's the same as any other AoE attack. Might as well just have built more banelings instead of lurkers or just all lurkers.

On September 11 2010 20:09 BuzzJuice wrote:
Trying to add in Lurkers means that something has to be removed ELSE THE SACRED 14 units per RACE WILL BE VIOLATED. MUHAAHHAHAAH

Lurkers are, as everyone said a much needed defense boost to the Zerg swarm, but I can't imagine Blizzard saying 'okay, we screwed up. We put in a badly designed unit in the game, and know we will replace it with something we already know is successful'.

Even then, I am sorta skeptical if the Lurker is your new unit in HoTS. Would like to see newer units besides something I already know about (no offense to people who love the nostalgia factor).

On September 11 2010 20:20 vica wrote:


Zerg and Protoss have less units than Terran. Larvae don't count, Nydus Worms don't count either.