|
On October 31 2011 04:23 Charon1979 wrote:Show nested quote +But why should zerg be able to break a turtling terran? Terran is supposed to be the best defensive race. If the terran players wants to completely turtle on 2 bases, the zerg player should just respond by taking many expansions. If you absolutely crush a massive Zerg/Toss push, you got 2 options. Extend your eco game (take a new expansion) or go in and kill him. Zerg can only expand and wait till Boodlords are available. But the longer a games goes on and the longer T has time to "recover", the higher the chances that T can pull off some kind of comeback. (eg.: lucky drops, massive all in resulting in a basetrade,...) So Blizzard says that Z should get a option to end the game without waiting for Broods, because expanding isnt always the smartest idea. I had enough matches myself where i had 14k more than my opponent, but couldnt finish him off due to his extreme turteling.
If zerg crushes a terran attack, that means they aren't turtling. And anyways, why should zerg have the same options as terran? Zergs strengths should be map control and expanding all over the place. Terrans strengths should be playing defensive. SC2 is just getting more and more away from these core race attributes. It feels like they are just trying to homogenize all the races.
|
On October 31 2011 04:36 DEN1ED wrote:
If zerg crushes a terran attack, that means they aren't turtling. And anyways, why should zerg have the same options as terran? Zergs strengths should be map control and expanding all over the place. Terrans strengths should be playing defensive. SC2 is just getting more and more away from these core race attributes. It feels like they are just trying to homogenize all the races.
Uhh.
SC2 has real strategic and mechanical problems that needed to be solved by units like the swarm host. Why should zerg have the same options as terran? In the same way, I could say why do hellions exist? Why should Terrans have the ability to do harassment and runbys and assert map control with fast units?
Because in a strategy game you are expected to employ strategies. The fact that Zerg cannot currently employ slow-push strategies is fucking stupid. The Swarm Host will be really good when covered by other units, and will have a nice solid place in roach/infestor unit comps imo. Instead of a soft contain with muta/ling (where you can never actually engage but force army movement or base races) you will be able to do a hard contain (where you have a position that makes your army cost effective and difficult to engage).
They aren't trying to homogenize the races, if that's what they wanted we wouldn't have the swarm lord we would have a baneling cannon. Besides, Terrans have the most amount of options of all the races -- They can turtle or be balls out aggressive, they can soft contain or hard contain, they can 1base or expand. No other race has so many options.
|
the gayest unit i have ever seen
very zergy^^
a thor would be more "zergy"
|
i agree with many posters that the locusts should have some sort of splash damage. this unit's utility will deteriorate as the marine wads get larger and larger.
however, with the addition of burrow move banes combined with fungal growths, this problem may be alleviated. the only issue there would be the timing and whether its possible to even have this kind of army before T or P just plows you down.
|
Great unit.
I love that they didn't make the lurker, because detection is already so crucial (and always available), that the lurker would just get blindcountered in standard builds.
The swarm host on the other side, is like an artillery unit, but still doesn't overlap with the broodlord, because you can kill the locusts unlike broodlord shots, but finally, zerg will have an option to pressure terrans and protoss, that threw away an army, and then don't have enough to defend against locusts without losses.
Also, swarm host sieges have a lot of potential, to put pressure on protoss armies, that rely on FF defense.
|
yeah sorry - I have to throw in my hat and agree with lurker > SH
Here's the thing. Blizzard seems to be too stubborn on creating brand new units, and trying too hard to be different from BW.
Point is, they shouldn't try so hard. All the signature units from BW exist in SC2 - it simply cannot be denied that the lurker is a fan favorite and really should just be brought in.
The SH can't guard any ramps. It takes too long(in it's current form) to really do anything versus an army that charges up.
We don't need to see what'll happen in a SH vs Shredder situation...an endless stalemate that doesn't improve the TvZ matchup at all. But a lurker vs a Shredder? We have a clear counter and winner, which is what it should be. Not a stalemate.
SH imo should just remain maybe in the single player campaign. For multiplayer it is strictly inferior to the lurker in every respect.
|
they should just remove the locusts, make it shoot spines, and call it a lurker...
|
On October 31 2011 05:01 Big J wrote:
Great unit.
I love that they didn't make the lurker, because detection is already so crucial (and always available), that the lurker would just get blindcountered in standard builds.
The swarm host on the other side, is like an artillery unit, but still doesn't overlap with the broodlord, because you can kill the locusts unlike broodlord shots, but finally, zerg will have an option to pressure terrans and protoss, that threw away an army, and then don't have enough to defend against locusts without losses.
Also, swarm host sieges have a lot of potential, to put pressure on protoss armies, that rely on FF defense.
What do you mean that it doesn't overlap with the Broodlord? It does the exact same thing as the Broodlord. The difference that you point out is that the Broodlord is actually a lot better because it will always do damage, unlike the Swarm Host.
|
On October 31 2011 04:43 darkscream wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2011 04:36 DEN1ED wrote:
If zerg crushes a terran attack, that means they aren't turtling. And anyways, why should zerg have the same options as terran? Zergs strengths should be map control and expanding all over the place. Terrans strengths should be playing defensive. SC2 is just getting more and more away from these core race attributes. It feels like they are just trying to homogenize all the races. Uhh. SC2 has real strategic and mechanical problems that needed to be solved by units like the swarm host. Why should zerg have the same options as terran? In the same way, I could say why do hellions exist? Why should Terrans have the ability to do harassment and runbys and assert map control with fast units? Because in a strategy game you are expected to employ strategies. The fact that Zerg cannot currently employ slow-push strategies is fucking stupid. The Swarm Host will be really good when covered by other units, and will have a nice solid place in roach/infestor unit comps imo. Instead of a soft contain with muta/ling (where you can never actually engage but force army movement or base races) you will be able to do a hard contain (where you have a position that makes your army cost effective and difficult to engage). They aren't trying to homogenize the races, if that's what they wanted we wouldn't have the swarm lord we would have a baneling cannon. Besides, Terrans have the most amount of options of all the races -- They can turtle or be balls out aggressive, they can soft contain or hard contain, they can 1base or expand. No other race has so many options.
I agree, terrans shouldn't be able to be so aggressive. But the answer to terran having so many options isn't adding more options to the other races, it's reducing terrans options. When every race turns into a fucking swiss army knife, the races become less unique. Every race shouldn't have access to every strategy. Then what's the point of different races?
|
On October 31 2011 05:24 DEN1ED wrote:
I agree, terrans shouldn't be able to be so aggressive. But the answer to terran having so many options isn't adding more options to the other races, it's reducing terrans options. When every race turns into a fucking swiss army knife, the races become less unique. Every race shouldn't have access to every strategy. Then what's the point of different races?
There is a difference between strategy and basic strategic ability. Protoss and terran both have the ability to outright kill their opponent if they gain a big advantage in the midgame. As an earlier post said, Terran can turtle or be balls out aggressive. Zerg can't turtle, and you are also saying that they shouldn't be able to be balls out aggressive either.
Zerg lacks ranged units and has a retardedly long tech time to get siege units. It shouldn't be okay that Terran can come back to win a game that they have lost when zerg cannot. If you had ever played zerg then you would probably know that one of the most frustrating things in this game is to lose a game after securing a huge advantage early on, only to have it all go down the drain because the terran player decides to all in you again just before your GS finishes.
On that note, I still really don't see the need to introduce a new unit that does the exact same thing as the broodlord. If Blizzard is really set on giving zerg earlier broodlords why not just make the Broodlord a lower tier unit that you can easily get out in the midgame?
|
"Slow, methodical grind" but that doesn't seem to be consistent with "swarm" to me.
Why not? Wave after wave of inefficient but constant waves of small annoying units that slowly but surely chip away at you.
|
On October 31 2011 05:21 Klystron wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2011 05:01 Big J wrote:
Great unit.
I love that they didn't make the lurker, because detection is already so crucial (and always available), that the lurker would just get blindcountered in standard builds.
The swarm host on the other side, is like an artillery unit, but still doesn't overlap with the broodlord, because you can kill the locusts unlike broodlord shots, but finally, zerg will have an option to pressure terrans and protoss, that threw away an army, and then don't have enough to defend against locusts without losses.
Also, swarm host sieges have a lot of potential, to put pressure on protoss armies, that rely on FF defense. What do you mean that it doesn't overlap with the Broodlord? It does the exact same thing as the Broodlord. The difference that you point out is that the Broodlord is actually a lot better because it will always do damage, unlike the Swarm Host.
You're comparing a unit that produces units with a unit that attacks and by attacking spawns units...
It's like saying, that a broodlord is basically nothing but a hatchery, but a hatchery has more options to produce units...
Also Broodlords have 9.5 range, which means they always need support, Swarm Hosts siege from further away and are faster (2.25, as fast as a normal zealot), so they can operate close to unsupported.
Broodlords are air, swarm hosts are ground and attack burrowed.
Broodlords cost a ton of gas, so they need to be played of huge economy, Swarm Hosts have nearly balanced costs right now (200/100), which means they can be played of few bases.
Swarm Hosts role could be to contain, Broodlords role is to break a base/army, not to contain.
Of course everyone will prefer broodlords over swarm host as an army unit, but that's already the case for every zerg unit, as nothing from the zerg arsenal beats the broodlord in terms of raw power.
|
Considering how terran has much better static and positional-based units and buidlings than the other 2 races, I don't see it making a big impact on ZvT.
|
my 2 cents on the swarm host:
I am not sure what blizzard was going with this unit. This poses no real threat to terran MMM, unlike the lurker which 2 or 3 could hold a ramp forever from MM. It doesn't appear to have any real defensive potential and I doubt it can control space with just 2 or 3 SH. I feel that for this unit to work it should be more like a BL where it spawns at a faster rate with low damage/low life units, because right now, I just think terran MM is just straight up better and can ignore the SH unless there is a ridiculous amount of them.
|
On October 31 2011 04:36 DEN1ED wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2011 04:23 Charon1979 wrote:But why should zerg be able to break a turtling terran? Terran is supposed to be the best defensive race. If the terran players wants to completely turtle on 2 bases, the zerg player should just respond by taking many expansions. If you absolutely crush a massive Zerg/Toss push, you got 2 options. Extend your eco game (take a new expansion) or go in and kill him. Zerg can only expand and wait till Boodlords are available. But the longer a games goes on and the longer T has time to "recover", the higher the chances that T can pull off some kind of comeback. (eg.: lucky drops, massive all in resulting in a basetrade,...) So Blizzard says that Z should get a option to end the game without waiting for Broods, because expanding isnt always the smartest idea. I had enough matches myself where i had 14k more than my opponent, but couldnt finish him off due to his extreme turteling. If zerg crushes a terran attack, that means they aren't turtling. And anyways, why should zerg have the same options as terran? Zergs strengths should be map control and expanding all over the place. Terrans strengths should be playing defensive. SC2 is just getting more and more away from these core race attributes. It feels like they are just trying to homogenize all the races.
The same could be said for terran. That's why Browder says it's a complete race. But I do agree with you, in that I would like for the races to be more distinct.
|
On October 31 2011 05:19 D_K_night wrote:
The SH can't guard any ramps. It takes too long(in it's current form) to really do anything versus an army that charges up.
...
We don't need to see what'll happen in a SH vs Shredder situation...an endless stalemate that doesn't improve the TvZ matchup at all. But a lurker vs a Shredder? We have a clear counter and winner, which is what it should be. Not a stalemate.
Yeah, I agree that the SH isn't looking so good for defense now.
But I don't think it would be an endless stalemate with shredders. I also don't think a clear counter is necessarily better.
A couple shredders might be able to hold off a few swarm hosts, only taking a 10-20 or so damage each wave maybe. In that case, with some kind of support, they might be pretty good defense against them for awhile. However, if the Zerg can position a few more swarm hosts, they could break any number of shredders for free pretty quickly. At that point, swarm hosts would be a greater threat and shredders could be less relevant to the match in regards of defense against siege. Also, hive tech would be out shortly, with even more opportunities to break a turtle--some less cost effective than others.
In this relationship, the zerg player would be working to get a threatening mass of swarm hosts into position, while the terran would be working to keep their numbers low and out of position.
If lurkers would be a clear answer to shredders, the relationship would be more static. The shredder might lose a lot of its utility earlier on, because the zerg could much sooner make and position the couple lurkers necessary to bust holes shredder defense. The unit might be relegated to simply defending against run-by's on bases with low defense. There might be less incentive to make them, knowing that they're effectiveness would decrease relatively quicker because of the threat of lurkers. I don't see that helping the match up at all, limiting the usefulness of a potentially interesting unit.
|
On October 31 2011 05:47 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2011 05:21 Klystron wrote:On October 31 2011 05:01 Big J wrote:
Great unit.
I love that they didn't make the lurker, because detection is already so crucial (and always available), that the lurker would just get blindcountered in standard builds.
The swarm host on the other side, is like an artillery unit, but still doesn't overlap with the broodlord, because you can kill the locusts unlike broodlord shots, but finally, zerg will have an option to pressure terrans and protoss, that threw away an army, and then don't have enough to defend against locusts without losses.
Also, swarm host sieges have a lot of potential, to put pressure on protoss armies, that rely on FF defense. What do you mean that it doesn't overlap with the Broodlord? It does the exact same thing as the Broodlord. The difference that you point out is that the Broodlord is actually a lot better because it will always do damage, unlike the Swarm Host. You're comparing a unit that produces units with a unit that attacks and by attacking spawns units... It's like saying, that a broodlord is basically nothing but a hatchery, but a hatchery has more options to produce units... Also Broodlords have 9.5 range, which means they always need support, Swarm Hosts siege from further away and are faster (2.25, as fast as a normal zealot), so they can operate close to unsupported. Broodlords are air, swarm hosts are ground and attack burrowed. Broodlords cost a ton of gas, so they need to be played of huge economy, Swarm Hosts have nearly balanced costs right now (200/100), which means they can be played of few bases. Swarm Hosts role could be to contain, Broodlords role is to break a base/army, not to contain. Of course everyone will prefer broodlords over swarm host as an army unit, but that's already the case for every zerg unit, as nothing from the zerg arsenal beats the broodlord in terms of raw power.
I was at blizzcon, I actually tested these things. I can tell you that they perform almost exactly like broodlords.
For both units the primary means of dealing damage is through spawned units.
You are trying to argue that because the specifics of the unit are different that they have completely different roles and uses, which is not the case. Both units are siege units that attack through spawned units. The difference is that Broodlords are much better at this role than Swarm Hosts because Broodlords will always do damage, Swarm Hosts won't do any damage if the locusts die before being able to attack.
Also, Dustin Browder said that the intended role of the Swarm host is to break an enemy base, not just contain them.
|
On October 31 2011 05:24 DEN1ED wrote:
I agree, terrans shouldn't be able to be so aggressive. But the answer to terran having so many options isn't adding more options to the other races, it's reducing terrans options. When every race turns into a fucking swiss army knife, the races become less unique. Every race shouldn't have access to every strategy. Then what's the point of different races?
The point of different races is having units that have different properties, costs and timings, as well as the obvious visual differences.
The point of different races should not be the inability to perform certain strategies ever, because that would make the game very stale and two players of the same race wouldn't really have any way to distinguish themselves from one another because there would only be one "correct" way to play each race.
Also, in order for terrans not to be aggressive you would basically have to rebalance the entire game starting from Barracks units, and that's obviously not happening.
I feel like you lack the ability to distinguish "Strategy" from "Tactics". Tactically speaking, the swarm host is very different from the siege tank. Strategically it fills a similar role.
On October 31 2011 06:09 Klystron wrote:
I was at blizzcon, I actually tested these things. I can tell you that they perform almost exactly like broodlords.
Swarm Hosts won't do any damage if the locusts die before being able to attack.
Well, I wasn't at blizzcon and I haven't used the unit, but at least I know that Locusts have way more HP and deal way more damage than broodlings as I did watch the live steam. Since broodlings aren't made irrelevant by things shooting them as they attack, why would Locusts be?
|
On October 31 2011 06:07 KimJongChill wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2011 04:36 DEN1ED wrote:On October 31 2011 04:23 Charon1979 wrote:But why should zerg be able to break a turtling terran? Terran is supposed to be the best defensive race. If the terran players wants to completely turtle on 2 bases, the zerg player should just respond by taking many expansions. If you absolutely crush a massive Zerg/Toss push, you got 2 options. Extend your eco game (take a new expansion) or go in and kill him. Zerg can only expand and wait till Boodlords are available. But the longer a games goes on and the longer T has time to "recover", the higher the chances that T can pull off some kind of comeback. (eg.: lucky drops, massive all in resulting in a basetrade,...) So Blizzard says that Z should get a option to end the game without waiting for Broods, because expanding isnt always the smartest idea. I had enough matches myself where i had 14k more than my opponent, but couldnt finish him off due to his extreme turteling. If zerg crushes a terran attack, that means they aren't turtling. And anyways, why should zerg have the same options as terran? Zergs strengths should be map control and expanding all over the place. Terrans strengths should be playing defensive. SC2 is just getting more and more away from these core race attributes. It feels like they are just trying to homogenize all the races. The same could be said for terran. That's why Browder says it's a complete race. But I do agree with you, in that I would like for the races to be more distinct.
Exactly, there shouldn't be a "complete" race. Each race should have it's strengths and weaknesses. So instead of creating some sort of weakness in terran, they are just trying to make the other two races complete as well. It's sad to see, but o well.
The point of different races should not be the inability to perform certain strategies ever, because that would make the game very stale and two players of the same race wouldn't really have any way to distinguish themselves from one another because there would only be one "correct" way to play each race.
In BW there was a "correct" way to play every match-up and that led to players being able to distinguish themselves. If both players are doing the same thing, it comes down to who does it better. ZvZ was always mutaling and it came down to who had better micro/decision making. TvT was always mech and it came down to who had better macro and positioning.
|
On October 31 2011 06:09 Klystron wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2011 05:47 Big J wrote:On October 31 2011 05:21 Klystron wrote:On October 31 2011 05:01 Big J wrote:
Great unit.
I love that they didn't make the lurker, because detection is already so crucial (and always available), that the lurker would just get blindcountered in standard builds.
The swarm host on the other side, is like an artillery unit, but still doesn't overlap with the broodlord, because you can kill the locusts unlike broodlord shots, but finally, zerg will have an option to pressure terrans and protoss, that threw away an army, and then don't have enough to defend against locusts without losses.
Also, swarm host sieges have a lot of potential, to put pressure on protoss armies, that rely on FF defense. What do you mean that it doesn't overlap with the Broodlord? It does the exact same thing as the Broodlord. The difference that you point out is that the Broodlord is actually a lot better because it will always do damage, unlike the Swarm Host. You're comparing a unit that produces units with a unit that attacks and by attacking spawns units... It's like saying, that a broodlord is basically nothing but a hatchery, but a hatchery has more options to produce units... Also Broodlords have 9.5 range, which means they always need support, Swarm Hosts siege from further away and are faster (2.25, as fast as a normal zealot), so they can operate close to unsupported. Broodlords are air, swarm hosts are ground and attack burrowed. Broodlords cost a ton of gas, so they need to be played of huge economy, Swarm Hosts have nearly balanced costs right now (200/100), which means they can be played of few bases. Swarm Hosts role could be to contain, Broodlords role is to break a base/army, not to contain. Of course everyone will prefer broodlords over swarm host as an army unit, but that's already the case for every zerg unit, as nothing from the zerg arsenal beats the broodlord in terms of raw power. I was at blizzcon, I actually tested these things. I can tell you that they perform almost exactly like broodlords. For both units the primary means of dealing damage is through spawned units. You are trying to argue that because the specifics of the unit are different that they have completely different roles and uses, which is not the case. Both units are siege units that attack through spawned units. The difference is that Broodlords are much better at this role than Swarm Hosts because Broodlords will always do damage, Swarm Hosts won't do any damage if the locusts die before being able to attack. Also, Dustin Browder said that the intended role of the Swarm host is to break an enemy base, not just contain them.
No. Broodlords don't attack through Broodlings. Over 50% of their dps is in direct damage.
Also Dusting Browder said that the intended role of the Swarm Host is somthing like "slow, methodical grind". That is not what broodlords do. They break an opponent. The very moment they are at his door he has to deal with them or die, unlike "eventually the terran has to come out and deal with them", what DB said about swarm hosts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
