|
On July 12 2012 04:33 wcr.4fun wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2012 04:12 Antylamon wrote:
The Lurker would NOT break up deathball play. Toss would just use obs to detect and Colossi to outrange.
Plus, Lurker would be Hive tech, ruining its BW purpose of delaying the game until Hive tech. Ultralisks and Brood Lords overshadow it completely, and the Lurker would barely see any use except for containing, harassing, etc.
Nobody seems to understand what it means for Lurkers to be Hive tech -.- why would the lurker be hive tech? You think blizzard would be that retarded? Hey sup zerg we got a cool unit for you which is good in the beginning of the game. Wanna know the downside? You can only get it after 15 minutes!! Because FUCK YOU zerg.
Because morphs are always one tier higher than their counterpart, and Lurkers morph from Hydras.
|
On July 12 2012 05:00 SeaSwift wrote:
I think you could make a similar post about the BW Carrier vs the Tempest, and get very similar results.
Or the BW Reaver vs the Colossus.
Or the new mines vs Vultures.
I don't think that's true at all... the lurker is much more iconic and integral to zerg in bw than your examples are to their respective races.
|
On July 12 2012 08:32 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +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. Taking out banelings (and moving hydralisks back to Tier 1) would be a perfectly acceptable trade for lurkers. It'd have the secondary benefit of removing the baneling-centric ZvZ early game, while also disincentivizing deathballs and providing Zerg with board control/anti-allin capacity.
Removing the baneling will destroy Zerg. Every game will be mass ling because they can kill you before roaches. Also, baneling is the only answer to a lot of all-ins especially from terran. (scv marine all ins; helion maurader all ins) And also, burrowed banelings are one of the most entertaining tactics in the entire game.
In addition, in ZvP I would just go early hydra push every game and destroy the toss and no build could stop me.
So basically that idea breaks the game.
|
lurker is more FUN to play against and with. FUN should come before anything. with that said, there are many other units that are not fun to play and more fun units that can be replaced with.
|
I wasn't warm on banelings at first. I have always more or less detested the concept of suicide units. I liked the idea of using an infested terran but acquiring those and using them is way too complicated. Anyways, now I cannot imagine SC2 without banelings.
I'm not sure the lurker has a place with banelings and fungals already. Killing stuff with lurkers was like all I wanted to do in SC1...it's insane fun...but the swarm host deserves a chance. Hopefully these can both be explored in beta.
|
I just prefer the lurker because it would provide some ranged AOE to zerg in addition to fungal, and isn't yet another unit that produces more units.
In my own dream world they would bring back the lurker to provide more ranged AOE to zerg, and then change fungal so that it is only a slow, not a snare. That way they could make fungal so it doesn't prevent micro, but the lurker would be there to make sure their AOE is not too weak.
Also, lurkers can do much more damage in small groups. If you catch a bioball off guard (burrow a few at an expansion) then you can destroy them quickly. On the other hand, the swarm hosts will just get run over. Zerg still seems like they won't have a unit for map control, which seems like it will lead to more deathballs rather than fights around the map. Burrowed banelings are the closest, but that requires the enemy to go directly over them... and if they scan, the baneling won't put up a fight at all with their range.
|
Stopped Swarmhosts would be fun.
|
On July 12 2012 08:33 Killmo wrote:
There is something that a lot of people do not seem to understand. Blizzard is not bringing in the Swarm Host instead of the Lurker. The Lurker and Swarm Host have a few similarities. They look similar, they can both only attack while burrowed, and they are both siege units. That does not mean, however, that their primary task is at all the same. I will give you the most simple examples of their functions.
If I have five Lurkers at the bottom of your ramp. Then it will be pretty much impossible for you to push out with anything that does not out-range the Lurkers themselves. That is their purpose. They are there to make it as hard as possible for you to get even an inch of space.
The Swarm Host works in a much different way. I can have them a third of the way across the map and still be bombarding you with them. This means that until you make any moves that you are taking damage constantly. The Swarm Host will force you to make your move.
I am sure you guys can see the difference very clearly there. Lurkers keep you in your base. Swarm Hosts force you to come out of it. Even with the Swarm Host in the game, Blizzard could still easily bring back the Lurker because they effectively have the exact opposite functions. I believe the main reason that the Swarm Host is not loved is because people do not understand that it is not a Lurker replacement.
This is so spot on. The lurkers role was to kill stuff that moved out of it's position. Zerg has plenty of those units. Basically everything that is not a Broodlord is such a unit. What Zerg does not have, is a unit that is active, no matter what.
Every other zerg unit is only as active, as the opponents units. The swarm host is such a unit. The lurker is not. The lurker is a unit that gets into a position and then waits for the opponent. Like a swarm of zerglings. Like infestors. Like speedroaches/hydras. Like banelings. Like Ultralisks.
|
ROFL comparing a unit that was iconic in a game that most of us have played against a new unit which most of us have never used is never going to get honest opinions. There is no way we can compare these two because one has had over a decade of play and refinement whilst the other as had a few days where a select few have fiddled with it.
|
On July 12 2012 08:36 FailCow wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2012 08:32 sunprince wrote: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. Taking out banelings (and moving hydralisks back to Tier 1) would be a perfectly acceptable trade for lurkers. It'd have the secondary benefit of removing the baneling-centric ZvZ early game, while also disincentivizing deathballs and providing Zerg with board control/anti-allin capacity. Removing the baneling will destroy Zerg. Every game will be mass ling because they can kill you before roaches. Also, baneling is the only answer to a lot of all-ins especially from terran. (scv marine all ins; helion maurader all ins) And also, burrowed banelings are one of the most entertaining tactics in the entire game. In addition, in ZvP I would just go early hydra push every game and destroy the toss and no build could stop me. So basically that idea breaks the game.
If hydras had decent stats, this would actually be a fine solution.
I can already hold off any and all ling aggression on most maps with 0 banes and minimal lings.
Hydras would be plenty capable of holding off aggression if they didn't cost too damn much money.
Basically, you're closed minded, but it doesn't matter anyway.
I feel bad for this thread because lurker nostalgia has made it a waste of time.
|
On July 12 2012 08:35 Drowsy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2012 05:00 SeaSwift wrote:
I think you could make a similar post about the BW Carrier vs the Tempest, and get very similar results.
Or the BW Reaver vs the Colossus.
Or the new mines vs Vultures. I don't think that's true at all... the lurker is much more iconic and integral to zerg in bw than your examples are to their respective races.
I dont like jumping into other conversations... but "iconic" and "intergral" mean what exactly? Majority of the people on TL prefer nearly all the BW counterparts of units due their dynamic design and the superior micro : effect ratio they have, making BW just a more fun game, almost objectively, overall.
Anyways, I would actually be interested in switching to zerg if they got the lurker back. Hold-lurkers would be so fun to use against irregular pressure/allin from terran, or actually being able to hold key areas in a ZvP without resorting to a base race. Swarm host doesn't seem designed to be able to defend an area but rather better suited to pressure one. Not sure of the mechanics entirely but it's the impression I'm getting
|
On July 12 2012 08:39 Chicane wrote:
I just prefer the lurker because it would provide some ranged AOE to zerg in addition to fungal, and isn't yet another unit that produces more units.
In my own dream world they would bring back the lurker to provide more ranged AOE to zerg, and then change fungal so that it is only a slow, not a snare. That way they could make fungal so it doesn't prevent micro, but the lurker would be there to make sure their AOE is not too weak.
Also, lurkers can do much more damage in small groups. If you catch a bioball off guard (burrow a few at an expansion) then you can destroy them quickly. On the other hand, the swarm hosts will just get run over. Zerg still seems like they won't have a unit for map control, which seems like it will lead to more deathballs rather than fights around the map. Burrowed banelings are the closest, but that requires the enemy to go directly over them... and if they scan, the baneling won't put up a fight at all with their range.
Actually the purpose of the swarm host is that it does give map control. It forces the enemy to constantly defend or move out of position. And the swarm host isn't going to be right outside of the expansion. Its range is ridiculously long.
|
On July 12 2012 08:17 Evangelist wrote:
And I'm a physicist. Our qualifications mean absolutely squat when one person is clearly arguing from nostalgia and I'm making the point that half these complaints were likely being made on some vBB back when Brood War was first announced.
I've seen loads of talk about how the design of the swarm host is poor. Would you mind explaining why exactly it is poor.
No, because my qualifications as a designer mean that I can talk about design with authority. We're not discussing the physics of SC2. I am not arguing from nostalgia, I've made specific points that people ignore. A lurker replacement is fine, but it has to be as good as or better than the lurker, if it's worse, it's not good enough.
I wholly support DB coming up with a 3rd, new completely different unit that is better than both of these, but if he can't then what should he do?
I will tell you why the swarm host is inferior to the lurker:
It attacks indirectly at long time intervals, making the action inconsistent.
It cannot singlehandedly kill lots of stuff.
It doesn't do AoE, which is more exciting and a higher skill cap.
It is useful for long-term pressure, but does not provide immediate, fast-paced action.
It is more of a distraction than a dangerous threat.
It is less useful in small quantities
As a result of these shortcomings, it is:
Less exciting to watch and play with
Starcraft's success is based on about imba splash damage. Zerg already has four proxy distraction units (infested terran/broodling/changeling). Let's make things more interesting with more dynamic splash interactions.
|
On July 12 2012 08:36 FailCow wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2012 08:32 sunprince wrote: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. Taking out banelings (and moving hydralisks back to Tier 1) would be a perfectly acceptable trade for lurkers. It'd have the secondary benefit of removing the baneling-centric ZvZ early game, while also disincentivizing deathballs and providing Zerg with board control/anti-allin capacity. Removing the baneling will destroy Zerg. Every game will be mass ling because they can kill you before roaches. Also, baneling is the only answer to a lot of all-ins especially from terran. (scv marine all ins; helion maurader all ins) And also, burrowed banelings are one of the most entertaining tactics in the entire game.
None of your points are based in reality. Maybe you're just a bad silver league player?
Mass ling does not kill you before roaches. It's very easy to defend with a small number of lings + queen + spine until you have roach tech; there's plenty of ZvZ openings that don't involve banes. Sure, lings would play a more prominent role in early game ZvZ, but it wouldn't break the game.
SCV marine all-ins are not defended by banes; they hit far too early when executed properly for banes to be a factor. They can already be defended with lings/queen/spine/drones, and if there's any imbalance there, it's due to marines being too strong in the early game rather than banes being necessary. The counter to hellion/marauder is mass ling + spines, not banes.
Burrowed banelings aren't all that entertaining compared to (stopped) lurkers. Watch some BW games sometime.
On July 12 2012 08:36 FailCow wrote:
In addition, in ZvP I would just go early hydra push every game and destroy the toss and no build could stop me.
Obviously, hydras would be nerfed down as part of moving them to Tier 1.
|
On July 12 2012 08:41 Probulous wrote:
ROFL comparing a unit that was iconic in a game that most of us have played against a new unit which most of us have never used is never going to get honest opinions. There is no way we can compare these two because one has had over a decade of play and refinement whilst the other as had a few days where a select few have fiddled with it.
Actually there are tangible things to compare, it's not that hard. Good fundamental design elements will lead to good units no matter where they fit in in the game. You can take a great unit design and move it up and down the tech tree and tweak resource requirements as needed.
|
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 WarI'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 very slow . At about half the speed as in Brood War, it's just terrible DPS vs non-armored (5 per unit hit), and double vs armored (reasonable, but it's not likely one would hit multiple armored units without the range upgrade). 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. As a zerg player, I'd definitely say that swarm host could be more useful than the lurker because locusts can attack air, and they offer good [mid-game] sieging/breaking potential that zergs currently lack. Lurker doesn't really deliver much on what its intended to do (just like the ultralisk, although the ultralisk at least breaks forcefields and has high defense) The lurker's main advantage/use is that it can burrow, but I don't see too much use of that. Many people here really don't seem to be looking at the full picture while fully informed, and are probably just biased towards BW nostalgia of a great unit, and/or the rather tediousness/crapiness of the baneling. I can only assume that the majority of people here may not even be zerg players and don't necessarily have the zerg's well-being in mind. Would I have lurkers instead of banelings? yeah sure. Would I want lurkers that deal primarily anti-armored damage? no— It just doesn't seem to work. Just fix the ultralisk or something. Show nested quote +On July 12 2012 07:56 ZenithM wrote:
Lurker's SC2 model looks honestly like crap. Good point. It seems like the OP maybe used a poor example picture for the lurker, since that's possibly (?) not the model currently in the game, or at least looks very different in the in-game camera angle than this side shot. Gives lurker more of an advantage in the "which looks better?" poll, when really the lurker in SC2 looks absolutely DREADFUL in-game
Why not increase the stats on the lurker to make it keep up with the opposition? If the siege tank is currently in the game and works fine, there is no reason why the lurker cannot be buffed to function effectively.
Also, I don't see lurkers and banelings being the same at all. Banelings don't control space. They have a one time attack and are gone. They are designed to trade armies. Lurkers are designed to control space.
Here's good stats for the lurker: 20 v. light (+20 to armored). Effective vs. both light and armor, negating the "marauder" advantage. Also increase attack speed like you said and make it have a range of 7.
I'm a zerg player. So obviously, I have the zerg's well being in mind. I think that Zerg is currently lacking units capable of positional control. I think direct damage is a better model than proxy units. Also...ffs lurker does not overlap with baneling lol.
|
The original SC2 lurker is completely irrelevant, all those variables can changed to make an SC2 version relevant and awesome.
|
On July 12 2012 08:48 0neder wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2012 08:41 Probulous wrote:
ROFL comparing a unit that was iconic in a game that most of us have played against a new unit which most of us have never used is never going to get honest opinions. There is no way we can compare these two because one has had over a decade of play and refinement whilst the other as had a few days where a select few have fiddled with it. Actually there are tangible things to compare, it's not that hard. Good fundamental design elements will lead to good units no matter where they fit in in the game. You can take a great unit design and move it up and down the tech tree and tweak resource requirements as needed.
Also, we are talking about the current design of the swarm host as it has been presented.
If you would like to test out the swarm host and see how it functions WITHIN the game, go try the HOTS mod!
So no more of this "never used it, can't say ANYTHING about it" crap.
|
On July 12 2012 06:21 CruelZeratul wrote:
Lurkers burst damage would be horrible in the lategame. Blink under BL's? Instant death to all Stalkers and a lost game, With Swarm Hosts you can at lest a) kill the spawned units to prevent damage (Colossi) and b) wait until the units popp, kill them and have some time until the next round is up. This composition will be very powerful onw way or the other (especially if you got no Tempests), especially with Infestors, but I feel it would be even with Lurkers.
LOL! You act like protoss wont have a fuck load new units and an entire new metagame. You know that tempest exist right? and oracle? etc
|
@Jermstuddog To be honest your not going to be able to survive 2 base ling-all-in by going roaches. Thsune only thing you could do is block ramp and lose your expo. then you are behind a base you basically lose.
Thanks for insulting me with out explaining anything.
@sunprince helions > lings; mauraders > spines.
Theres a reason Terran's use that composition.
And I'd say banelings are about as exciting as lurker traps. And as Dustin Bowler said, "If you like BroodWar go play BroodWar."
And if you nerf hydras you would have to nerf their price as well or nobody would get them. So you would essentially making roaches and hydras the same unit; except that roaches are faster, have more armor, can heal and move while burrowed, are armored...
EDIT: Just read your post one more time... to be honest I don't think you should be pulling out "Oh your a noob league" card considered you are Gold 1v1. And if you must know I am currently 900 Master. (With current bonus pool)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
