EPTAlso people here haven't even used the swarm host so how is this even relevant? Does anyone actually believe they will add the lurker at this phase of the HotS development cycle? It's more or less 100% sure they won't so why are we arguing this shit, AGAIN? Seems like it comes down to people wanting to argue what units are the best, something that's pointless as it's just opinions and a die hard BW fan will never convice a die hard SC2 fan or vice versa.
Lurker vs Swarm Host - Page 20
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
karpo
Sweden1998 Posts
Also people here haven't even used the swarm host so how is this even relevant? Does anyone actually believe they will add the lurker at this phase of the HotS development cycle? It's more or less 100% sure they won't so why are we arguing this shit, AGAIN? Seems like it comes down to people wanting to argue what units are the best, something that's pointless as it's just opinions and a die hard BW fan will never convice a die hard SC2 fan or vice versa. | ||
|
cyuaeks
13 Posts
On July 12 2012 17:34 iky43210 wrote: but you just joined TL today, what would you know about sc2 or broodwar fair enough . i am just frustrated the way the game is going and the units that are being released and just couldnt resist making an account so i could make a post about this topic. besides i dont htink there is any denying that viewer numbers are going down and that almost no one likes the decisions actiblizz makes especially if you look at polls like this one. the vastvast majority of people would much prefer units like the lurker over units like the swarm host. | ||
|
iky43210
United States2099 Posts
relevance | ||
|
extropy
United States37 Posts
I would have also accepted: Credibility | ||
|
[]Phase[]
Belgium927 Posts
| ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On July 12 2012 17:57 []Phase[] wrote: When it comes to looks, lurker really doesn't look that good. Peoples nostalgia talking in the poll probably. I do want to see the lurker rather than the swarm host tho. I dont really feel like zerg needs the swarm host. A zoning unit like the lurker is something zerg doesnt have yet. We already have a sieging unit. The swarm host will probably not bring the same amount of zoning a lurker could. You can also shoot down the attack from a swarm host, while getting attacked by a lurker would mean theres always damage atleast, and thus a bigger risk in moving out. One could argue that the Zerg "zoning unit" is the Spine Crawler ... but it only gets built in sufficient quantities only rarely. As a building which can move and attack with a pretty long range it seems quite good for that zoning job with the current way in which creep gets spread. The dilemma of the Spine Crawler is the "Day[9] mantra of 'Spine Crawlers which he didnt want to build'" which is a translation from Broodwar and hasnt been corrected for SC2. IMO the range increase for Queens would have been unnecessary as a defense against Hellions if Zerg would only build a sufficient number of Spine Crawlers instead of just one ... which gets the ridiculous comment of "to feel safe" from lots of casters. I would like to quote Bablyon 5 here: "If you are trying to make a point, why dont you make it so no one can miss it?" ... i.e. build 4 Spines instead of 1 and the Hellions will figure it out rather fast that they arent welcome in the Zerg base and then you dont need the Queen range update AND you dont waste any of your supply on the rather slow Queens. When it comes to looks both of the units are ugly simply because they are Zerg units. As usual it is a matter of personal taste ... There is no question that the Swarm Host isnt good for zoning, but rather specifically to be used as a siege weapon to either break enemy siege lines or walls without spending any resources on building those attacking units. In that it is similar to the Broodlord, but it had to be made worse as a lower tier unit and thus it got the 25 seconds of cooldown. The point where it really is yelling "OP" is yet again the fact that the "free unit" does not cost anything. That part about the Broodlord is already rather bad ... if you compare it to the Carrier (the original "big thing launches tiny things" unit). Either Blizzard finally adds a cost to the Broodlord AND the Swarm Host minions (maybe 5 minerals per "shot") OR they remove the cost to build Interceptors and thus make the Carrier less terrible. The Swarm Host - as a "so-so-unit" - is a terrible design. | ||
|
Evangelist
1246 Posts
On July 12 2012 08:45 0neder wrote: 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. No, you're telling me why the the swarm host is less powerful 1 for 1 than the lurker. What you're not telling me is why it is worse designed. Lurkers would need a range of 9 or more to be effective in SC2 given the way terrans scan ahead to deal with creep and protoss have observers at the front of their army. The only thing they'd be useful for in SC2 is putting surprise ambushes or defending ramps, both of which the baneling bomb does with far more drama and excitement. Zerg does not need yet another ability that kills only marines and makes base defense a joke. Spines are already vastly better than their SC1 static defense so there's no need for that. Simply put, the zerg as a race does not need a unit that kills lots of stuff really fucking quickly in small quantities. It already has that in the: - baneling - infestor - ultralisk What it does need is the ability to put up a sustained threat from outside seige range. In SC1 the lurker was introduced because zerglings were not 6 speed on creep monsters and there were no infestors to deal with large clumps of enemy units. There is already plenty of imbalanced splash damage in the game. We do not need any more in it. | ||
|
Qwyn
United States2779 Posts
| ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On July 12 2012 18:23 Qwyn wrote: For all those people saying that this is a dead horse, the point of this thread is to try and present sufficient argument for the lurker over the swarm host. This is the only way to make a difference. I'm sure Blizzard reads this. I fully agree that this is a "hot topic" and shows the concerns of the community (and that Blizzard should take note and loisten). On the other hand I would think that the Lurker will require other changes to be made (removing the clumped movement and buffing AoE damage that has been nerfed in beta) and I doubt their willingness to do that ... because they would have to admit to being wrong (about the clumped movement AI being a good thing). Thus I believe this thread will not do anything to change their mind. | ||
|
DwmC_Foefen
Belgium2186 Posts
Easy late game if you ask me. | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On July 12 2012 18:51 DwmC_Foefen wrote: Late game zerg will be: FUNGALS, broodlords, swarmhosts, one million lings, 100 million locusts and broodlings and spines. Easy late game if you ask me. Dont forget 2-3 Vipers to drag Siege Tanks, Thors, Motherships into a kill zone first and to provide "Dark Swarm" cover ... whoever came up with that unit should be fired, should not go over GO and shouldnt collect $4000. | ||
|
cyuaeks
13 Posts
On July 12 2012 18:49 Rabiator wrote: I fully agree that this is a "hot topic" and shows the concerns of the community (and that Blizzard should take note and loisten). On the other hand I would think that the Lurker will require other changes to be made (removing the clumped movement and buffing AoE damage that has been nerfed in beta) and I doubt their willingness to do that ... because they would have to admit to being wrong (about the clumped movement AI being a good thing). Thus I believe this thread will not do anything to change their mind. pretty sure D-bro said sc2 will always be blob vs blob in some interview with kenniget so yea id say actiblizz isnt gonna remove the clumping. there is always some hope that the community can pick up some of actiblizzs lazy slack though, like barrins frb mod which reduces resources per base. if it ever got support then other changes can be made in the future like collision radius so there is not so much clumping. the community is really the best thing about sc2 as if not for them wed still be playing on stepps of war and slag pits or maps like it. | ||
|
.Sic.
Korea (South)497 Posts
On July 12 2012 18:17 Evangelist wrote: No, you're telling me why the the swarm host is less powerful 1 for 1 than the lurker. What you're not telling me is why it is worse designed. Lurkers would need a range of 9 or more to be effective in SC2 given the way terrans scan ahead to deal with creep and protoss have observers at the front of their army. The only thing they'd be useful for in SC2 is putting surprise ambushes or defending ramps, both of which the baneling bomb does with far more drama and excitement. Zerg does not need yet another ability that kills only marines and makes base defense a joke. Spines are already vastly better than their SC1 static defense so there's no need for that. Simply put, the zerg as a race does not need a unit that kills lots of stuff really fucking quickly in small quantities. It already has that in the: - baneling - infestor - ultralisk What it does need is the ability to put up a sustained threat from outside seige range. In SC1 the lurker was introduced because zerglings were not 6 speed on creep monsters and there were no infestors to deal with large clumps of enemy units. You are looking at lurkers pretty one dimensionally. You don't use lurkers to do surprise ambushes or kill shit quickly. You use them to hold positions and buy time. Baneling landmines get cleaned up in one scan. If you have lurkers and infestors, imagine how tricky it would be for people to attack into positions? In SC1 the lurker was introduced because zerglings were not 6 speed on creep monsters and there were no infestors to deal with large clumps of enemy units. This shouldn't happen too often if you split your unit decently and try to feedback or EMP There is already plenty of imbalanced splash damage in the game. We do not need any more in it. You should stop trying to take out your frustrations for the game through TL :o | ||
|
voltaic
1071 Posts
i personally think the locust thing doesn't work as well as it seems | ||
|
DwmC_Foefen
Belgium2186 Posts
On July 12 2012 18:57 Rabiator wrote: Dont forget 2-3 Vipers to drag Siege Tanks, Thors, Motherships into a kill zone first and to provide "Dark Swarm" cover ... whoever came up with that unit should be fired, should not go over GO and shouldnt collect $4000. Yea that abduct thingie just seems weird and out of place. Cartoony-like. I can already imagine the soundseffects with that ability. | ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
We will see what the pros do with this unit. | ||
|
cydial
United States750 Posts
On July 12 2012 04:05 Vindicare605 wrote: They aren't meant for the same role. The Lurker cannot be added back in because Zerg already has enough splash damage. Not sure why people haven't figured this out yet. You can't just add in whatever unit from SC1 you want at this point and expect it to fit without being imbalanced. Remove the baneling, keep the roach, and bring back the lurker. The game is now in a better state because of 1 less a moving splash unit. Get rid of the colossus and buff storm. | ||
|
iky43210
United States2099 Posts
On July 12 2012 19:41 cydial wrote: Remove the baneling, keep the roach, and bring back the lurker. The game is now in a better state because of 1 less a moving splash unit. Get rid of the colossus and buff storm. no, banelings should stay. Marine vs baneling dynamic is one of the best thing in this game atm, even if its one sided. but yes colossus needs to go. Add a siege time, make it slower, make it immobile, anything would be better | ||
|
Aetherial
Australia917 Posts
On July 12 2012 19:41 cydial wrote: Get rid of the colossus and buff storm. I wish this would be the case! A unit like the Colossus that is very mobile while also delivering uber splash damage screams bad design imo... not enough of a trade off for the power. | ||
|
Eviscerador
Spain286 Posts
On July 12 2012 04:27 procrastibation wrote: The lurker shits all over the swarm host. lurker actually have an attack and is micro-able. swarm host is just another easy to use no control needed unit that will have no trouble fitting into the sc2 hall of fame with the colossus, marauder, and destructible rocks. but srsly swarm host is totally dumb. all it does is spawn a broodling once every few seconds, which takes 2+ seconds to walk over the the enemy units to start attacking. idk i mean unless you're opponent is retarded or doesn't know how to use sentries, they will just run away or block the broodlings with force fields. I would love to have means to force the protoss to waste sentry energy without sacrificing anything in return... Voila! I love the lurker, but the lurker fit well in SC:BW not in SC2. They tried, but there are much more exciting new units. Now we have another one, which increase the metagame deep and complexity. We should be interested and excited. Also, if you think the host cannot be microed, you are just wrong. | ||
| ||
