Lurker vs Swarm Host - Page 10

On July 12 2012 06:02 Sherlock-Canada wrote:
Not going to derail the thread, but:

Fellowship of the Ring was by far the worst LOTR movie. It took the richness of the original novel and struggled to bring that to screen while introducing everybody and progressing the plot. I think Two Towers succeeds much better (and especially Return of the King) because they make assumptions, and Fellowship does not. The reveal of Strider as Aragorn is downplayed. Bombadil never shows up. We are given full flashbacks (admittedly badass) of Elrond as a warrior but basically made to assume the skill of everybody else.

If The Hobbit manages to bring the same pacing to its source, it will a) waste some amazing writing, as The Hobbit is the better novel, IMO, and b) be significantly worse than LOTR. I have high expectations given the cast and crew, but come on; do we really want to be reintroduced to Bilbo and Gandalf, or can the movie just assume we know who they are? It's a delicate balance.

Moreover, the reintroduction of characters from LOTR strikes me as fan service in the highest order. I don't see how they can stretch this story into two films and still have the same punch that the novel did. It's not like there is a very good thematic divide! Even LOTR suffered from this kind of pacing. People complain that at the end of ROTK, there were too many endings. Perhaps what you are actually bothered by is the fact that the movie lacked a narrative arc, since it arcs and dips so many times. (True to Tolkein's original vision of a six novel epic.)

In conclusion, Peter Jackson should be in charge of balance.

On July 12 2012 07:57 Xapti wrote:
Note: The lurker in Starcraft 2 and the lurker mentioned in the OP is not the same lurker as in Brood War

I've tried using the lurker in Starcraft 2 and it doesn't feel very useful. most units do really well against them as long as you have good unit control. Attacking lurkers from max range (assuming range 5 or+ units) makes lurkers get owned since their splash becomes useless or very weak, and their attack speed is very slow. With increased range it would be more useful, but still really limited, because they'd still be very poor against colossus, siege tanks and immortals, and any air units that can attack ground.
having an armored unit that supposedly counters armored with radial line splash just doesn't work; most of the armored units can just outrange the lurker and/or move out of the way before it burrows and/or easily spread out, and/or deal tons of damage to the lurker, killing it quickly.

On July 12 2012 08:05 WhiteKnight wrote:
Hopefuly they have a better lurker moder in singleplayer hots I was kinda goin for a more spidery/spindally look to it then the crab look they have now. Skinnier, bonier, longer legs etc. But yeah in looks right now Swarm Host is an attractive looking unit.

On July 12 2012 07:54 0neder wrote:


1 - Except we've seen videos, battle reports, and had the unit explained in precise detail by the designer.
2 - Why do you ignore my specific critique of the unit and throw out a straw man from a hypothetical parallel universe? If the new unit was a better design, I wouldn't be complaining. I only complain about bad unit design, new or old.

I am a professional designer, I know how to look at things holistically. Please address my specific critiques if you can, because ignoring them isn't helping this thread.

On July 12 2012 08:04 ZenithM wrote:
Why is it fun to watch and play with exactly? Afaik, the lurker is more or less a burrowed siege tank.
From what Blizzard's releasing in their patches, it doesn't seem like they think siege tanks are a fun unit.
I agree that it would be certainly a useful unit (as the tank sometimes is), but fun? Well, this thread has a point though, it's maybe more fun than the swarm host :D

On July 12 2012 08:05 FailCow wrote:


In game design and strategy the role and purpose of a unit is more important than how it is carried out. You are so focused on the fact that it spawns units that you completely ignore its a unit that provides a mid-game siege unit that zerg desperately needs.

Your argument: Marines and Ghosts shoot. This describes both the Marine and the Ghost.

On July 12 2012 08:18 Flamingo777 wrote:
The lurker is so much more interesting than the swarm host! Coming from broodwar, all I was looking forward to doing was making lurkers, and I never got that chance T.T

On July 12 2012 08:18 0neder wrote:

So can we agree that the siege tank and the lurker are well-designed and fun units? Browder is completely wrong to think siege tanks are boring and that they need to be nerfed in every way. This thread is about helping him understand the principles that made the siege tank and lurker great, and how they were key in BW's success in terms of fun and spectating.


How can you say that the implementation is irrelevant to the game? Both the idea (design and role) and execution are vital. Both must be good to make a great unit. Lots of people made mp3 players, but they all had horrible interfaces before the iPod came out. Execution matters.

The key to understand here is that for the most part, Browder and his team decent overall ideas, but their execution is atrocious in so many ways (not all, there are many SC2 design successes).


EG: We want a long-range air siege unit for protoss - three different ideas:
Carrier - has multiple layers of depth - proxy attacks, moving shot, build able proxies, long range
Void Ray - Exponentially dangerous continuous damage
Tempest - long range

Two are clearly more interesting than the other.

Also, to debunk another poor unit analogy attempting to rebut my point:
Proxy attacks are the primary essence of the Swarm Host and the Brood Lord.
Standard ranged attack is the primary essence of the marine, but clearly not of the Ghost. The ghost is a caster with a token attack thrown in.

On July 12 2012 08:22 0neder wrote:

This is what people need to realize. They need to stop worrying about balance and start worrying about excitement.

I don't care if a unit addresses a weakness zerg has in the game. If it's boring, it's not going to excite me or make me want to watch or play SC2, and I WANT to get more excited about SC2 than I already am.

On July 12 2012 05:01 Chaosvuistje wrote:
Lurker was a great anti-infantry unit. But I think I would prefer the Swarm Host better because the locusts just do tremendous amounts of damage to a single target, plus you can burrow, let the locusts attack, unburrow and retreat.

They both don't require much micro, but Zerg doesn't need another anti-ground splash attack.

On July 12 2012 08:32 Big J wrote:


if it has no role nobody makes it, see the carrier. people cry for it being there and blame blizzard for making it scrappy, when all they did is, they ported it into SC2 in the best possible way and it didn't survive the port, because apparently they are useless 99% of the time. Good thing that they scrapped the lurker, when it was useless and dont let it die a similar death to the carrier.

On July 12 2012 08:29 FailCow wrote:



To be honest you have made the same point 6 times in a row. This is not a discussion but rather a broken record. Yes, yes we get it, swarm host spawns units, brood lord spawns units.

You have yet to address the ROLES of the units. The role of a brood lord is not "IT SPAWNS STUFF!!!" Its a late game siege unit.

The role of a Swarm Host is also not "IT SPAWNS STUFF TOO!!!" Its a mid game, long-(broodlord range is 9.5; swarm host is probably over range 22)-range siege unit.

On another note, I think that the swarm host is better for spectators than the lurker. The swarm host allows there to be some action rather than none. A lot of times games are like "Ok the toss is turtling so the zerg turtles too" This allows there to be at least some action and interesting timings too. The lurker justs adds to turtling and inaction similiar to how siege tank lines do.