EPTMind explosion
(Lurker Mod) I have sinned!!!! - Page 10
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Phrost
United States4008 Posts
Mind explosion | ||
|
heishe
Germany2284 Posts
| ||
|
Ohdamn
Germany765 Posts
On August 11 2010 08:51 apriores wrote: Until Zergling4life will put this mod on EU server, I have made a version not so "professionally" balanced, but for fun. Map name: Blistering Sands - SC1 Units. It contains: Protoss: 1 more unit = Scout; Zerg: 2 more units = Lurker & Scourge; Terran: 1 more unit = Goliath And some units replaced: Hellion replaced with Vulture Raven replaced with Science Vessel EMP Round moved on Science Vessel Lurker Den requires Lair. For now, I checked and re-set all stats for Multiplayer only for Terran. Zerg and Protoss could have some stats from Campaign dependencies. If you find something wrong, PM me, please. I repeat: I made it for fun, to play with my friends. If you want something better/balanced, you should wait for Lurker mode or lets hope some teams will work for a SC1 Remake. you sir are my hero | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On August 11 2010 07:24 Archerofaiur wrote: ![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/thumb/a/af/Corrupter.png/180px-Corrupter.png) ![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/thumb/0/07/Brood_Lord.png/180px-Brood_Lord.png) wtf does that have to do with anything. On August 11 2010 07:56 Archerofaiur wrote: Wuts so funny? Blizzard has always been willing to change/add/rework lore for gameplay. Gameplay first. Those are TWO NEW UNITS. The only thing they retconned is the muta not morphing into anything. I guess the only similarity is one of them playing similar to guardians. This isn't a unit that "plays similar" to lurkers, its the lurker. We're not asking if the Zerg could theoretically use a "stationary defensive unit". We're asking if the lurker that was removed could be refit into the game. If the only way the Lurker could be put into the game was if it evolved from the roach. Gameplay does come first, but Acetic is not ignored in favor of it. it would require a name change, a redesign of the unit by the development team to change the "flavor", similar to the one given to the guardian->Brolord, and artistic modifications, especially for the high rez portrait. That's a noticeable amount of extra effort and work This would justify pretty well it being scrapped before the final release, and maybe reimplemented in the expansion. The question posed here is "could a variation of the lurker that was removed be refit into the game", not "could zerg theoretically use semi-stationary defense with completely variable stats and skills" | ||
|
Nuxar
Canada212 Posts
Suddenly, I reload my frustratingly annoying map and I can now put the morph on roaches....wow... Anyway, this shouldnt take long. WHEN IM FINISHED THIS MAP AND HAVE SUCCESFULLY PUBLISH IT (WHICH SHOULD TAKE ABOUT 2-3 HOURS MAX), I WILL ADD ALL 3 LURKER-TYPE MAPS TO US AND EU. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
Suddenly, I reload my frustratingly annoying map and I can now put the morph on roaches....wow... Yeah the data editor is unintuitive for anyone who hasn't taken a course on databases, not user friendly at all. I feel your pain  . | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On August 11 2010 10:09 Half wrote: wtf does that have to do with anything. Those are TWO NEW UNITS. The only thing they retconned is the muta not morphing into anything. I guess the only similarity is one of them playing similar to guardians. This isn't a unit that "plays similar" to lurkers, its the lurker. We're not asking if the Zerg could theoretically use a "stationary defensive unit". We're asking if the lurker that was removed could be refit into the game. If the only way the Lurker could be put into the game was if it evolved from the roach. Gameplay does come first, but Acetic is not ignored in favor of it. it would require a name change, a redesign of the unit by the development team to change the "flavor", similar to the one given to the guardian->Brolord, and artistic modifications, especially for the high rez portrait. That's a noticeable amount of extra effort and work The funny part is it wouldnt even really require a redesign. They didnt change the broodlord model when they changed it from mutalisk to corruptor evo. On August 11 2010 10:15 Zergling4life wrote: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMGGG WTF!!!!!!!! Suddenly, I reload my frustratingly annoying map and I can now put the morph on roaches....wow... Anyway, this shouldnt take long. WHEN IM FINISHED THIS MAP AND HAVE SUCCESFULLY PUBLISH IT (WHICH SHOULD TAKE ABOUT 2-3 HOURS MAX), I WILL ADD ALL 3 LURKER-TYPE MAPS TO US AND EU. Keep up the good work. Are the maps clearly labeled like "Lurker (roach evo)" ? | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On August 11 2010 10:53 Archerofaiur wrote: The funny part is it wouldnt even really require a redesign. They didnt change the broodlord model when they changed it from mutalisk to corruptor evo. Thats because broodlords weren't in SC1. | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
Makes no difference. And actually broodlords were originally brood gaurdians. | ||
|
Nuxar
Canada212 Posts
| ||
|
hyped
United States135 Posts
any idea what blizzard was trying to represent with the lurker's attack animation? bw or sc2 | ||
|
Jermstuddog
United States2231 Posts
Broodlords evolved from mutalisks for most of the beta. This was moved to the corruptor to give them something to do once Z establishes air dominance. What's your argument for how mutalisks forgot how to evolve in general? | ||
|
Medzo
United States627 Posts
On August 11 2010 13:36 Jermstuddog wrote: Broodlords evolved from mutalisks for most of the beta. This was moved to the corruptor to give them something to do once Z establishes air dominance. What's your argument for how mutalisks forgot how to evolve in general? Wrong. Broodlords morphed from corruptors for the whole beta. Edit: And I just morphed to a zergling from this post. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
Makes no difference. And actually broodlords were originally brood gaurdians. ...I know they were originally Brood Guardians. Brood Guardians had both a different model, a different high rez model, and a different attack from the Guardians of the original game. While the units fulfill a similar role, they required noticeable design beyond switching a data field. In fact, 2 models, while the attack needed no change because it already beared little resemblance to the original. ![[image loading]](http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080628184848/starcraft/images/b/b6/SwarmGuardian_SC2_Game3.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090523192254/starcraft/images/3/30/BroodLord_SC2_DevGame1.jpg) I am saying that the Lurker would have to undergo a similar process, and the resulting unit would only be similar to the Lurker, not the Lurker, which would mostly explain and justify its removal prior to the games release, and not really be productive to the purpose of this map :/. On August 11 2010 13:36 Jermstuddog wrote: Broodlords evolved from mutalisks for most of the beta. This was moved to the corruptor to give them something to do once Z establishes air dominance. What's your argument for how mutalisks forgot how to evolve in general? You're missing the point. I'm saying that the Lurker was such an iconic unit that drastically altering its theme while completely preserving its mechanics and graphics would be extremely jarring, and something blizzard would ideally avoid. In case of the Broodlord, the unit did not exist in SC1, the current BL only a passing resemblance to the old guardian, and has a relatively different, though similar function, one that certainly required quite a bit of design. Practically, if blizzard wanted the Lurker to come out of the Roach, they would make a new unit that appears different, and has a new differentiating mechanic, as well as being called something else. Just like what they did with the Brood Lord. It isn't an argument about lore. The fact that mutas forgot to evolve is no more of an issue then anything else. Its about iconography. Wrong. Broodlords morphed from corruptors for the whole beta. Edit: And I just morphed to a zergling from this post. Think he meant Alpha. | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On August 11 2010 13:55 Half wrote: You're missing the point. I'm saying that the Lurker was such an iconic unit that drastically altering its theme while completely preserving its mechanics and graphics would be extremely jarring, and something blizzard would ideally avoid. In case of the Broodlord, the unit did not exist in SC1, the current BL only a passing resemblance to the old guardian, and has a relatively different, though similar function, one that certainly required quite a bit of design. Practically, if blizzard wanted the Lurker to come out of the Roach, they would make a new unit that appears different, and has a new differentiating mechanic, as well as being called something else. Just like what they did with the Brood Lord. Basically all they would have to do is change the name. The Lurker already has a different model from SC1. So basicallly they call it the "Spiker" or something. | ||
|
Maxoxpower
12 Posts
Can you just explain me fast how to add the lurker , i cant find the "morph to lurker" for the hydralisk... or just addes some lurker for 8 players or 6 players map megaton, forbiden planet, the bio lab, dirt site, typhon, moonson i want to play big map with lurker | ||
|
sigma47
Germany11 Posts
- add hydra->lurker morph to the hydras ablitites - add a button for the morph on the command card (that way you can morph your hydras if you switch off the lurker den requirement) otherwise you have to do the same ability/command card thing with the hydra den (and maybe work a little on the animations - not to sure about that because i worked on a roach-lurker map) | ||
|
ComaCat
United Kingdom33 Posts
On August 12 2010 03:08 Archerofaiur wrote: Basically all they would have to do is change the name. The Lurker already has a different model from SC1. So basicallly they call it the "Spiker" or something. I'd vote for "Ravager", rolls nicely off the tongue, Roach to Ravager and has a great definition. Personally for me, I would be fine without the rename and it just morphing from roaches, the retcon isn't really a problem were not exactly dealing with lore here. I havent had a chance to test the map yet, but I think they could be useful in controlling the opponents push speed giving you more time to tech/prepare | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On August 13 2010 04:53 SnOw. wrote: I'd vote for "Ravager", rolls nicely off the tongue, Roach to Ravager and has a great definition. Personally for me, I would be fine without the rename and it just morphing from roaches, the retcon isn't really a problem were not exactly dealing with lore here. I havent had a chance to test the map yet, but I think they could be useful in controlling the opponents push speed giving you more time to tech/prepare Isnt "Ravager" already a rank for zerg? | ||
|
Ryuu314
United States12679 Posts
On August 13 2010 04:53 SnOw. wrote: I'd vote for "Ravager", rolls nicely off the tongue, Roach to Ravager and has a great definition. Personally for me, I would be fine without the rename and it just morphing from roaches, the retcon isn't really a problem were not exactly dealing with lore here. I havent had a chance to test the map yet, but I think they could be useful in controlling the opponents push speed giving you more time to tech/prepare Just call it rekrul. Oh no wait. That name's taken.  | ||
| ||
