|
The point of this thread is to discuss how to perfect Zerg in the upcomming expansions. Right now Zerg has holes in its arsenal that arnt filled by the role of any units. I think there are 2 units that would tie Zerg up into a nice, neat, sparkling package with a red bow on top. Also I would like to point out that i'm just suggesting the concept of these units, idc for their name, or what they look like, but rather the function of the unit and what it would bring.
1)Lurker-
Minerals: 50
Gas: 100
HP:125
Damage: 10(+20 vs. armored)
Range: 7(+2 with range upgrade)
Some people say that the Lurker would be imba in SC2 but thats the bw version of the lurker, the stats could easily be changed to fit into SC2. Blizzard used to have the Hydralisk Den evolve into a Deep Warren in the alpha version as a Tier 3 unit but they didnt think it fit very well into the game, probably due to clumping the high damage output would be insane, thats why I suggest only 10 base damage. If you get a good number of them you can still do good splash and with the very long range that Zerg needs right now, it will help with offensive pushes as well as defensively and for breaking contains. I like the idea of evolving the Hydra Den into the Deep Warren but it would be much better if the Lurker was Lair tech so maybe require the Infestor Pit to unlock the Deep Warren OR if we managed to get rid of the BW nostalgia we could have the Roach Warren evolve into the Deep Warren and have Roaches evolve into Lurkers. Id be fine either way but Lurkers or a unit that functions similiarly to it would be a great addition to the Zerg race.
2)Scourgeling- This unit is evolved from a Zergling similar to the Baneling.
Minerals: 25
Gas: 50
Damage: (x) for balancing purposes im not going to just throw a controversial number out there b/c thats not the point but rather the basic concept of the unit.
It would give Zerg the much needed swarm feeling back into the game. Zerg could really use another way to ensure air dominance, and it would also be great to spectate!  It would require Spire tech for these deadly flying corrosive bombs of destruction n_n However, unlike the Baneling they will only do damage to a single target. They would help alot with denying drop harass and gaining map control via air. Its a good option for lighter air units whereas corrupters help with the heavier air like BCs. They would also morph a whole lot faster than the time it takes to build corrupters as well.
Another point is that both of these units are gas heavy. Zerg has no gas heavy (more gas than minerals) units in this stage of the game which is simply unacceptable. Also dont take these numbers to heart  Id rather discuss the concept of these units and how it would impact the game for better or worse, or what other units would fit in better.
 I would like to point out that Ultras need to be tweaked a bit damage wise. Ultralisks are an Unstoppable Force that just wipes the floor with whatever it confronts. The only problem people have is getting to these Behemoths of Destruction but once you start pumping them out with a decent economy theres not much you opponents can really do. My suggestions of Lurkers and Scourgies would help Zergs hold off until later stages of the game and also would be used in combinations with all the other units and would promote more diversity, but with the Ultra in its current state theres not much point to have a lot of diversity once you get this unit. It needs to be a Meatshield like it is now but with less damage output.
Please Keep Posts Constructive ^^
|
1) Format this so it's readable. It isn't.
2) I think I've seen this thread like thirty or forty times
|
Another point is that both of these units are gas heavy. Zerg has no gas heavy units in this stage of the game which is simply unacceptable. Also dont take these numbers to heart Id rather discuss the concept of these units and how it would impact the game for better or worse.
Ummm....What?
|
I like the idea of adding more units to Zerg, since they need more diversity, but then I got to this paragraph...
On August 05 2010 04:56 R0YAL wrote:Another point is that both of these units are gas heavy. Zerg has no gas heavy units in this stage of the game which is simply unacceptable. Also dont take these numbers to heart Id rather discuss the concept of these units and how it would impact the game for better or worse.
Now, there are two possibilities -- you've never played Zerg or you're trolling. In either case, it really nullifies anything you write.
|
I like both ideas, though I think the range upgrade for the lurker is overkill. Maybe it's the old Brood War nostalgia that's left in me, but Blizzard took out these absolutely pivotal units (and the defiler) and didn't give us anything in return.
Also, please less Zerg threads. There have been like 5 new ones today alone.
|
On August 05 2010 05:27 Saracen wrote:
Also, please less Zerg threads. There have been like 5 new ones today alone.
I think the lack of quality is bringing in quantity is indeed hurting.
But yea I'd like to see the Lurker be back, who wouldn't D:
It seems to be a key to some of the locks Zerg players have, base defense, countering a ball mostly of Marauders, giving Zerg some offensive utilites, force other players to tech to detection.
|
On August 05 2010 05:27 Saracen wrote:
Maybe it's the old Brood War nostalgia that's left in me, but Blizzard took out these absolutely pivotal units (and the defiler) and didn't give us anything in return.
You're kidding, right? You got banelings which rape bio and infestors, insanely powerful lair tech casters.
Why would you need lurkers, when banelings perform the same anti-infantry role just as good or better? It's a ridiculous overlap and with the way units move and shoot in SC2, you'll never ever burrow them in time for them to shoot, because people will just move out of the way.
|
I'd love more zerg units, just not these (WTB something new)
|
On August 05 2010 05:38 Sadistx wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 05:27 Saracen wrote:
Maybe it's the old Brood War nostalgia that's left in me, but Blizzard took out these absolutely pivotal units (and the defiler) and didn't give us anything in return. You're kidding, right? You got banelings which rape bio and infestors, insanely powerful lair tech casters. Why would you need lurkers, when banelings perform the same anti-infantry role just as good or better? It's a ridiculous overlap and with the way units move and shoot in SC2, you'll never ever burrow them in time for them to shoot, because people will just move out of the way.
I don't know why I'm responding to you, because I really shouldn't be given your posting history on TvZ, and you're probably the only person left still arguing ZvT imbalanced. Lurkers aren't just about anti-infantry. They're about defending positions with few units so that you can do other stuff such as harass and drop and nydus without losing the game to a counter-attack. Right now, Zerg doesn't have any defensive capabilities, and combined with the current map pool, many Zerg options that Blizzard's given us just aren't viable. Also, having a cloaked defender such as the lurker allows for more flexibility in droning (except I don't expect you to know about that, so saying such a thing might just go over your head...). You're not going to be attacking a bioball with lurkerling like in Brood War. You're going to be defending. See these two threads for reference: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=140060, http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=133023
|
On August 05 2010 05:21 Graven wrote:I like the idea of adding more units to Zerg, since they need more diversity, but then I got to this paragraph... Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 04:56 R0YAL wrote:Another point is that both of these units are gas heavy. Zerg has no gas heavy units in this stage of the game which is simply unacceptable. Also dont take these numbers to heart Id rather discuss the concept of these units and how it would impact the game for better or worse. Now, there are two possibilities -- you've never played Zerg or you're trolling. In either case, it really nullifies anything you write.
There are ZERO units that cost more gas than minerals which means that there are no units that you can dump gas into when low on minerals. BW had many Z units that costed more gas than minerals.
The fact that you dont know this makes me want to accuse you of the same thing o.o
|
On August 05 2010 05:45 Saracen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 05:38 Sadistx wrote:On August 05 2010 05:27 Saracen wrote:
Maybe it's the old Brood War nostalgia that's left in me, but Blizzard took out these absolutely pivotal units (and the defiler) and didn't give us anything in return. You're kidding, right? You got banelings which rape bio and infestors, insanely powerful lair tech casters. Why would you need lurkers, when banelings perform the same anti-infantry role just as good or better? It's a ridiculous overlap and with the way units move and shoot in SC2, you'll never ever burrow them in time for them to shoot, because people will just move out of the way. I don't know why I'm responding to you, because I really shouldn't be given your posting history on TvZ, and you're probably the only person left still arguing ZvT imbalanced. Lurkers aren't just about anti-infantry. They're about defending positions with few units so that you can do other stuff such as harass and drop and nydus without losing the game to a counter-attack. Right now, Zerg doesn't have any defensive capabilities, and combined with the current map pool, many Zerg options that Blizzard's given us just aren't viable. Also, having a cloaked defender such as the lurker allows for more flexibility in droning (except I don't expect you to know about that, so saying such a thing might just go over your head...). You're not going to be attacking a bioball with lurkerling like in Brood War. You're going to be defending. See these two threads for reference: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=140060, http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=133023
Narrow minded people make me sad. Theres so many on TL these days its tiring, discouraging, and usually pointless explaining every time.
Saracen knows
Also, please less Zerg threads. There have been like 5 new ones today alone.
My bad. Had this in my head for a while now and finally put it down on paper ^^ I dont keep track of most of the rubbish in the SC2 threads anymore.
|
On August 05 2010 06:16 R0YAL wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 05:21 Graven wrote:I like the idea of adding more units to Zerg, since they need more diversity, but then I got to this paragraph... On August 05 2010 04:56 R0YAL wrote:Another point is that both of these units are gas heavy. Zerg has no gas heavy units in this stage of the game which is simply unacceptable. Also dont take these numbers to heart Id rather discuss the concept of these units and how it would impact the game for better or worse. Now, there are two possibilities -- you've never played Zerg or you're trolling. In either case, it really nullifies anything you write. There are ZERO units that cost more gas than minerals which means that there are no units that you can dump gas into when low on minerals. BW had many Z units that costed more gas than minerals. The fact that you dont know this makes me want to accuse you of the same thing o.o
1 Base baneling can just about use all the gas from 2 geysers, a little less than that perhaps as I'm not sure when you get mineral capped if you saturate. Typically 1 geyser pure ling/bling gives you about 50/50 baneling/zergling with no left over gas.
1 Base roach will likewise use all of your gas from 1 geyser and even more towards all the gas from 2.
After lair tech all zerg units are incredibly gas intensive and the two units that aren't are vulnerable when not supported by a gas heavy unit.
Zerg do not need another gas heavy unit. A unit using a good amount of gas is fine, but it's not a good justification for why they should require a large amount of gas.
Many zerg by mid game have a mineral float if pumping hydra, mutas, or infestors as lings are the only pure mineral unit and roaches the only mineral heavy unit. Lings are larva inefficient so until you toss down extra hatcheries (at which point you might as well take more gas in most cases) you won't have the larva to eat up all the minerals.
Nothing against your suggestions, but saying that Zerg has a problem using gas is a strange thing to say.
|
On August 05 2010 06:27 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 06:16 R0YAL wrote:On August 05 2010 05:21 Graven wrote:I like the idea of adding more units to Zerg, since they need more diversity, but then I got to this paragraph... On August 05 2010 04:56 R0YAL wrote:Another point is that both of these units are gas heavy. Zerg has no gas heavy units in this stage of the game which is simply unacceptable. Also dont take these numbers to heart Id rather discuss the concept of these units and how it would impact the game for better or worse. Now, there are two possibilities -- you've never played Zerg or you're trolling. In either case, it really nullifies anything you write. There are ZERO units that cost more gas than minerals which means that there are no units that you can dump gas into when low on minerals. BW had many Z units that costed more gas than minerals. The fact that you dont know this makes me want to accuse you of the same thing o.o 1 Base baneling can just about use all the gas from 2 geysers, a little less than that perhaps as I'm not sure when you get mineral capped if you saturate. Typically 1 geyser pure ling/bling gives you about 50/50 baneling/zergling with no left over gas. 1 Base roach will likewise use all of your gas from 1 geyser and even more towards all the gas from 2. After lair tech all zerg units are incredibly gas intensive and the two units that aren't are vulnerable when not supported by a gas heavy unit. Zerg do not need another gas heavy unit. A unit using a good amount of gas is fine, but it's not a good justification for why they should require a large amount of gas. Many zerg by mid game have a mineral float if pumping hydra, mutas, or infestors as lings are the only pure mineral unit and roaches the only mineral heavy unit. Lings are larva inefficient so until you toss down extra hatcheries (at which point you might as well take more gas in most cases) you won't have the larva to eat up all the minerals. Nothing against your suggestions, but saying that Zerg has a problem using gas is a strange thing to say.
If there were more gas heavy units in the game then you would in return have a higher ratio of minerals that you could invest elsewhere. It would open up new strategies that are impossible with the complete lack of gas heavy units for Zerg. You stated facts about the game in its current state instead of how the game could potentially be.
|
On August 05 2010 06:27 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 06:16 R0YAL wrote:On August 05 2010 05:21 Graven wrote:I like the idea of adding more units to Zerg, since they need more diversity, but then I got to this paragraph... On August 05 2010 04:56 R0YAL wrote:Another point is that both of these units are gas heavy. Zerg has no gas heavy units in this stage of the game which is simply unacceptable. Also dont take these numbers to heart Id rather discuss the concept of these units and how it would impact the game for better or worse. Now, there are two possibilities -- you've never played Zerg or you're trolling. In either case, it really nullifies anything you write. There are ZERO units that cost more gas than minerals which means that there are no units that you can dump gas into when low on minerals. BW had many Z units that costed more gas than minerals. The fact that you dont know this makes me want to accuse you of the same thing o.o 1 Base baneling can just about use all the gas from 2 geysers, a little less than that perhaps as I'm not sure when you get mineral capped if you saturate. Typically 1 geyser pure ling/bling gives you about 50/50 baneling/zergling with no left over gas. 1 Base roach will likewise use all of your gas from 1 geyser and even more towards all the gas from 2. After lair tech all zerg units are incredibly gas intensive and the two units that aren't are vulnerable when not supported by a gas heavy unit. Zerg do not need another gas heavy unit. A unit using a good amount of gas is fine, but it's not a good justification for why they should require a large amount of gas. Many zerg by mid game have a mineral float if pumping hydra, mutas, or infestors as lings are the only pure mineral unit and roaches the only mineral heavy unit. Lings are larva inefficient so until you toss down extra hatcheries (at which point you might as well take more gas in most cases) you won't have the larva to eat up all the minerals. Nothing against your suggestions, but saying that Zerg has a problem using gas is a strange thing to say.
1 hatchery of constant roach/overlord production requires two geysers and (~20 drones on minerals). Zerg lair units in SC2 are not nearly as gas intensive as in SC1, which was the point, I think. Still, there are tons of ways to spend your gas, so having too much gas should never really be an issue. In ZvP, you get corruptors, and in ZvT, you get banelings (all of this is situational, of course), as well as tech and upgrades. The most compelling part of the OP is that he is pointing out the fact that the role these units would fill are currently empty.
|
I think they should tweak the changling into a suicide bomber unit. It would effectively be like a disguised baneling. I think this would vary zerg play quite a bit, adding a nice micro element to the game.
I like OP's unit suggestions as well, but we'd be waiting for the expansion for these units and at that point, I'd almost rather see some more creativity out of the Blizzard devs than old units and mechanics. SC2 has shown that they are fantastic at it, and the possibilities endless.
|
Macro'ing perfectly on 2 saturated bases, no matter what combination you are going to use (roach/hydra/hydra , muta/ling/bling , ling/hydra/infestor) you are always short on gas. We don't need more units to keep us short on gas and stockpile thousands of minerals.
|
#1 Zerg Air Caster.
This is a very very obvious role which has been ommited. Would fit into the game very smoothly and coherently.
|
I disagree with these ideas.
In the expansion, I feel zerg needs
1) A 1 supply unit. Hydra or Roach could go into egg form and come out as two 1-food units?
2) Air Caster
|
Why does Zerg need an air caster? What role would that fill? A lurker would fill the defensive turtle/stall unit role. A scourge would fill the cheap anti-drop/anti-massive air unit role (including anti-colossus), and could effectively replace the corruptor while giving the Zerg more options. What would an air caster do? It's silly to say Zerg needs an air caster without elaborating on the spells.
|
On August 05 2010 07:15 Half wrote:
#1 Zerg Air Caster.
This is a very very obvious role which has been ommited. Would fit into the game very smoothly and coherently.
Zerg has Overseers which have Contaminate, one of the most underused skill in the game. They dont need another caster but maybe an additional spell that would encourage people to get a few more overseers for more than just detection.
|
On August 05 2010 07:22 Saracen wrote:
Why does Zerg need an air caster? What role would that fill? A lurker would fill the defensive turtle/stall unit role. A scourge would fill the cheap anti-drop/anti-massive air unit role (including anti-colossus), and could effectively replace the corruptor while giving the Zerg more options. What would an air caster do? It's silly to say Zerg needs an air caster without elaborating on the spells.
Virtually any role, including a defensive/stall role. The aesthetic and thematic elements of a race are probably equally considered by blizzard when designing new units.
On August 05 2010 07:24 R0YAL wrote:
Zerg has Overseers which have Contaminate, the most underused skill in the game. They dont need another caster but maybe an additional spell that would encourage people to get a few more overseers for more than just detection.
Contaminate is powerful, but it serves primarily as a utility skill with no combat usage.
|
On August 05 2010 07:29 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 07:22 Saracen wrote:
Why does Zerg need an air caster? What role would that fill? A lurker would fill the defensive turtle/stall unit role. A scourge would fill the cheap anti-drop/anti-massive air unit role (including anti-colossus), and could effectively replace the corruptor while giving the Zerg more options. What would an air caster do? It's silly to say Zerg needs an air caster without elaborating on the spells. Virtually any role, including a defensive/stall role. The aesthetic and thematic elements of a race are probably equally considered by blizzard when designing new units.
That's fine, but simply saying "Zerg needs an air caster" doesn't really mean anything. Cool, I've got this guy flying around that casts spells. So what? What would this air caster do? How would it help out the race? That's something OP does with the units he's suggesting, but simply saying "Zerg air caster" doesn't address.
|
The theory is fair enough, but it'd be just a joke to add those two units back into the game. Then we'd have basically a BW remake with 3D and a few new units, as far as Zerg is concerned.
|
On August 05 2010 07:40 a11 wrote:
The theory is fair enough, but it'd be just a joke to add those two units back into the game. Then we'd have basically a BW remake with 3D and a few new units, as far as Zerg is concerned.
Then give us two new units to replace them, at least I don't think corruptor and baneling cut it, because there are still many things the lurker/scourge could do that the corruptor and baneling can't.
|
On August 05 2010 07:40 a11 wrote:
The theory is fair enough, but it'd be just a joke to add those two units back into the game. Then we'd have basically a BW remake with 3D and a few new units, as far as Zerg is concerned.
This is true to an extent. Theres plenty of new units already and Zerg in general work totally different than they did in BW.
Rename them, reskin them, idc... Conceptually, Lurkers and Scourge just fill the roles Zerg needs so well...
|
I am not against adding new units, but I really don't want zerg to go back to playing the exact same way they did in BW.
Besides, neither of those units fixes the tvz problems. Zerg is generally at a huge disadvantage pre lair tech, meaning they still have very few options to deal with the crazy number of harass/timing push options terran has even with those units.
|
What I'm taking away from this thread is that if I put absolutely no effort into the OP but just vomit my thoughts out, I'm not gonna get warned or temp banned as long as the result is an intimidating block of text.
|
On August 05 2010 07:55 UniversalSnip wrote:
What I'm taking away from this thread is that if I put absolutely no effort into the OP but just vomit my thoughts out, I'm not gonna get warned or temp banned as long as the result is an intimidating block of text.
Why the hell would you warn or temp ban the OP?
|
On the Overseer, or an evolution of the Queen:
Hmm.. maybe a ground aoe spell that increases HP regen while on creep?
Just throwing ideas out there.. it'll make use of the Queen's Spawn Creep Tumor, and it isn't complete forced synergy with the Queen's spell because Hatcheries (Lair and Hive as well) generate creep around it too; it'd make Zerg units last a tiny bit longer while defending.
Or maybe a variation of the BW Queen's Spawn Broodlings ability.. that doesn't work on Massive units. You'd be able to chip away at their Tank count, or harass their worker line like that.
|
On August 05 2010 08:02 Saracen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 07:55 UniversalSnip wrote:
What I'm taking away from this thread is that if I put absolutely no effort into the OP but just vomit my thoughts out, I'm not gonna get warned or temp banned as long as the result is an intimidating block of text. Why the hell would you warn or temp ban the OP?
The balance claims without argumentation, the fact that the EXACT SAME THREAD (add back the bw zerg units!) has been made multiple times weekly since the beta started, the headache formatting, the simple wrongness (no gas heavy units).
|
lurker were not needed in 3tier because of mass detection
|
On August 05 2010 08:09 UniversalSnip wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 08:02 Saracen wrote:On August 05 2010 07:55 UniversalSnip wrote:
What I'm taking away from this thread is that if I put absolutely no effort into the OP but just vomit my thoughts out, I'm not gonna get warned or temp banned as long as the result is an intimidating block of text. Why the hell would you warn or temp ban the OP? The balance claims without argumentation, the fact that the EXACT SAME THREAD (add back the bw zerg units!) has been made multiple times weekly since the beta started, the headache formatting, the simple wrongness (no gas heavy units).
Yeah except what the OP says is true, and he makes some good points. Zerg is lacking something to fill the roles the lack of the lurker and scourge leave. I agree that maybe he could offer alternate units rather than just "put the lurker and scourge back in and rebalance accordingly." But it definitely doesn't deserve a warning, much less a ban.
|
Not all the races have to have a unit fulfilling every type of tactical role. They are ment to play and think very differently. I think the lurker would just be a undesirable clone of colosos and tank ranged/splash style.
|
I'd like to see a long range ground unit for the Zerg... Maybe an upgrade at Hive tech that allows Infestor's to morph into Reaver-like units(they already look the part), sort of like how after High Templars use their energy, they morph into Archons.
|
I still say that they need to just tweak a few of the existing units such as the Overseer. Give changlings the ability to "detonate" on command, and rename them to "Jihadlings". Done. Simple.
|
On August 05 2010 08:12 Saracen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 08:09 UniversalSnip wrote:On August 05 2010 08:02 Saracen wrote:On August 05 2010 07:55 UniversalSnip wrote:
What I'm taking away from this thread is that if I put absolutely no effort into the OP but just vomit my thoughts out, I'm not gonna get warned or temp banned as long as the result is an intimidating block of text. Why the hell would you warn or temp ban the OP? The balance claims without argumentation, the fact that the EXACT SAME THREAD (add back the bw zerg units!) has been made multiple times weekly since the beta started, the headache formatting, the simple wrongness (no gas heavy units). Yeah except what the OP says is true, and he makes some good points. Zerg is lacking something to fill the roles the lack of the lurker and scourge leave. I agree that maybe he could offer alternate units rather than just "put the lurker and scourge back in and rebalance accordingly." But it definitely doesn't deserve a warning, much less a ban.
Agree to disagree... I don't think the post adds anything new, or is well thought out, or well written, or well researched.
|
On August 05 2010 09:15 UniversalSnip wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 08:12 Saracen wrote:On August 05 2010 08:09 UniversalSnip wrote:On August 05 2010 08:02 Saracen wrote:On August 05 2010 07:55 UniversalSnip wrote:
What I'm taking away from this thread is that if I put absolutely no effort into the OP but just vomit my thoughts out, I'm not gonna get warned or temp banned as long as the result is an intimidating block of text. Why the hell would you warn or temp ban the OP? The balance claims without argumentation, the fact that the EXACT SAME THREAD (add back the bw zerg units!) has been made multiple times weekly since the beta started, the headache formatting, the simple wrongness (no gas heavy units). Yeah except what the OP says is true, and he makes some good points. Zerg is lacking something to fill the roles the lack of the lurker and scourge leave. I agree that maybe he could offer alternate units rather than just "put the lurker and scourge back in and rebalance accordingly." But it definitely doesn't deserve a warning, much less a ban. Agree to disagree... I don't think the post adds anything new, or is well thought out, or well written, or well researched.
ok... WHY?
no point in posting solely to criticize...
Why are these bad ideas? What do you suggest instead?
|
The lurker was a great unit. I cannot say if it is the unit that would solve zerg problems, but clearly the current installation of zerg is very lackluster.
Being a "reactionary" race is bullshit. And moreover, due to their incapability of putting pressure early on, there is very little room for the zerg play to evolve. Everyone is saying, "give it time, things will change". Well, they will, as in T and P will figure out new ways to break the zerg in the early game.
Not much can Zerg become, if their early and mid game are dictated solely by the play of their oponent.
Lurkers are a step in the right direction, but I feel its not enough.
|
On August 05 2010 07:22 Saracen wrote:
Why does Zerg need an air caster? What role would that fill? A lurker would fill the defensive turtle/stall unit role. A scourge would fill the cheap anti-drop/anti-massive air unit role (including anti-colossus), and could effectively replace the corruptor while giving the Zerg more options. What would an air caster do? It's silly to say Zerg needs an air caster without elaborating on the spells.
Sounds like the expression: "When all you have is a hammer all problems look like nails" is appropriate.
You're approaching these problems from a SC1 standpoint, instead of SC2.
|
Theory crafting can be fun, I'll play.
Derpling
Permanently burrowed, cannot leave the creep.
Consumes 1 unit, dragging it under the creep where it slowly dies.
If you kill the Derpling you can have your unit back but he will have PTSD for the rest of his life and never trust soft ground again.
|
how is it an expansion if the units are from its predecessor ? I'd kinda like to see new units that have similar roles.
|
On August 05 2010 06:16 R0YAL wrote:
There are ZERO units that cost more gas than minerals which means that there are no units that you can dump gas into when low on minerals. BW had many Z units that costed more gas than minerals.
The fact that you dont know this makes me want to accuse you of the same thing o.o
Bro, you got to learn your race.
Infestors cost 100/150 which means more gas than minerals.
 but yeah this is pretty much an I want updated brood war thread.
|
personally i find that ultralisks are fair because if they have the economy to continually pump them out i'd have lost anyways >_<
|
I would see for zerg the lurker and another caster.
Lurker reworked to be T2 (it was T3 I think before the beta). A caster (T3) with plague.
|
I don't know why I'm responding to you, because I really shouldn't be given your posting history on TvZ, and you're probably the only person left still arguing ZvT imbalanced. Lurkers aren't just about anti-infantry. They're about defending positions with few units so that you can do other stuff such as harass and drop and nydus without losing the game to a counter-attack. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=133023
I am not a Zerg player, I am just going to say that. What I will say though is banelings can be a lot more useful then you think. I don't know if this is a practical use for them, however what you could do with them is burrow them near your defenses (or in there chokes) and set them to auto unburrow. This way they work the same as mines, and still do lots of damage.
Again I doubt its a huge practical use but you never know.
Also, with the Nydus, instead of loading your whole force up put like 1/4 of your army inside and try to get in the enemies base, when your opponent realizes that hes about to get screwed over because of the nydus worms, he'll run almost his whole army to defend it, then you can run the other 3/4's of your army into his natural and kill it and retreat before he realizes what hit him.
There are two strategic ideas, however I do not know whether or not they are practical since I don't play Zerg.
|
On August 05 2010 06:16 R0YAL wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 05:21 Graven wrote:I like the idea of adding more units to Zerg, since they need more diversity, but then I got to this paragraph... On August 05 2010 04:56 R0YAL wrote:Another point is that both of these units are gas heavy. Zerg has no gas heavy units in this stage of the game which is simply unacceptable. Also dont take these numbers to heart Id rather discuss the concept of these units and how it would impact the game for better or worse. Now, there are two possibilities -- you've never played Zerg or you're trolling. In either case, it really nullifies anything you write. There are ZERO units that cost more gas than minerals which means that there are no units that you can dump gas into when low on minerals. BW had many Z units that costed more gas than minerals. The fact that you dont know this makes me want to accuse you of the same thing o.o
Infestors. Costs 100min 150gas. You Fail. I've never been low on mineral and high on gas before =S Unless early game where I grabbed 4 gas and completely got my tech destroyed =\ You should look at the ratio of min/gas cost of units and compare it to ratio of min/gas gather rate, and not just look and say, "oh most of Z's stuff costs more minerals, therefore, gas sink is needed".
|
Hey is a possible reason of instantaneous EMP be due to blink stalkers? I'd imagine if you ever see an emp coming, with stalkers, you'd just blink them away. Thus Blink stalker would become a dominant strat against T with it's obvious advantages? dunno, that was theory crafting.
|
I still never understood one thing that could've made the Zerg AA so much nicer.
Corruptors? They seem like, would logically be, look like, melee units.
They have a big beak that would make sense for ripping and chewing apart metal and crap. They have tentacles, the perfect thing to hold down the enemy whilst attacking them.
They're like the sentinels from Matrix, or like squids.
But instead, the tentacles just....dangle? A Zerg melee air unit, is creative, new and exciting. As well as very dynamic, considering how the air front has never had melee before, though Scourge were similar. This would be the perfect evolution to Scourge, something that is so much stronger that it becomes THE AA for heavy units, like Battleships. The Corruptors look beastly and Blizzard made the perfect model for this scenario...But gave them a cool ranged attack.
Blah. SCII is awesome anyways.
|
On August 08 2010 12:50 Kakisho wrote:
A Zerg melee air unit, is creative, new and exciting. As well as very dynamic, considering how the air front has never had melee before, though Scourge were similar. This would be the perfect evolution to Scourge, something that is so much stronger that it becomes THE AA for heavy units, like Battleships. The Corruptors look beastly and Blizzard made the perfect model for this scenario...But gave them a cool ranged attack.
I really like the idea of an air melee unit, but I can't see it working well.
|
I think we can all agree: If you can't spell I'm not listening to your idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
