On July 13 2012 00:40 LeGeNDz wrote: Swarm hosts seem so useless against terrans after watching the hots beta cast with day9 the broodlings die immediately from terran firepower and yet dustin and david say swarm hosts will put on the "pressure" to a turtle terran lol? Really? When you have 20 marines and 10 marauders behind a depot wall and 15 broodlings come up the ramp the marines and marauder fire power will laugh at swarm host broodlings, its a useless unit. The other "use" for it is to Control space - how - it takes 30 seconds to spawn units that die off in 5 seconds how in comparison to the lurker is that controlling space?
swarm host is not useless. go play with them in the custom map and you can tell me if they're useless or not
I played the custom map 9 months ago when it was made - its a bit outdated now you know. Swarm hosts don't perform the same way they do in the latest build that was displayed at MLG.
This is the most recent build of hots - Go to 10 minutes 51 seconds, watch all of the damage it does to the terran expansion after it kills 1 battle hellion - you can also see at 11 minutes 13 seconds another powerful wave of locusts causing their massive damage to the terran expansion.
10 minutes 51 seconds , looks pretty useless - caster even says "its a good unit to absorb siege tank fire"
That vid makes me laugh everytime.
If this is Blizzards best shot at showing how "exciting" Hots will be, they might better not try at all.
Yeah. The whole thing sounded scripted, which is not a good thing.
As for the thread, although the lurker may be a unit which is better when compared to the swarm host in a vacuum, SC2 isn't a vacuum. The lurker, if I recall correctly, was removed because it overlapped roles with the baneling. If Blizzard just decided to throw the lurker in the game for HotS instead of the swarm host, they would:
A: Be in the same bind as they were before
B: Be adding a unit that didn't really enhance the gameplay that much
C: Ironically enough, be bashed for adding in an unoriginal unit just to appease the BW crowd
D: Be adding a unit that isn't as good as the swarm host, for the overall game
Although adding in the lurker instead of the swarm host is a great idea when you first think about it, the swarm host fulfills more roles and fills more missing niches in the zerg army than the lurker ever could.
How you came to this conclusion is beyond me.
The lurker serves in the surprise gank, detection forcing, splash damage, anti-infantry, turtling, map control, midgame siege, containment, and ramp defense roles.
The swarm host does... what, bait siege tank fire and slowly cause minimal damage when not detected?
Stop autocasting to surprise gank, forces detection like lurkers, has splash damage in the effect that it spawns more than one unit, forces terran to push slower, has map control in the same effect that you need to bring a real force to move through a portion of the map with them there, they contain int he same respect that you need certain units (detection, tanks) to move through them and ramp defense. I don't think marine hit squads are going to be running up ramps with two hosts without autocast for the locusts, but that'd just be a numbers game really.
It's completely ridiculous to assert that a few locusts constitute a surprise gank the way that high splash damage does.
Swarm hosts do not force detection, contain, or defend any area as you can simply gun down the locusts while moving past the swarm hosts (compare that to the difficulty of running past lurkers in chokes).
Spawning more than one unit is not splash damage; c'mon, are you even trying?
One lurker doesn't gank a group of marines, nor does one swarm host. You have to have multiples.
On July 13 2012 06:49 goiflin wrote: I'll give you splash damage if you can't see how multiple units can attack multiple units, and you can't move past locusts in a choke easily. You do know units block eachother in this game, right?
You clearly don't know what "splash damage" means. Spawning two units is not a form of splash damage, and only someone who has no idea what they're talking about would call a swarm locust or a broodlord "splash" units. You can easily move past locusts in a choke, by simply gunning them down with enough marines and running past the swarm hosts.
On July 13 2012 06:49 goiflin wrote: They fufill the same roles. You're just refusing to see how the swarm host fufills those roles because it doesn't fufill them identically to the lurker.
And fyi, I'm for the lurker being included instead of the swarm host, but saying the swarm host can't fill the roles of the lurker is kinda silly because it absolutely can.
They absolutely don't. Just because you think ridiculously stretched definitions count and because you ignore all of my relevant points doesn't change the fact that any reasonable person understand their roles are not the same.
On July 13 2012 06:49 goiflin wrote: Edit; why does zerg need more splash? Fungal and banelings are handling groups of units just fine at the moment.
Zerg doesn't need more splash. What it actually needs are the lurker's other roles, many of which partly require splash to serve those roles effectively. Banes are a poorly designed unit that don't belong in the game to start with, and Zerg would be a far more balanced and fun race with lurkers instead of banes.
How the heck am I supposed to answer questions 2, 3 and 4? The game isn't out yet! But in terms of question 1, I'd say the swarm host looks cooler, though the lurker attack animation does make it a close call.
On July 13 2012 00:40 LeGeNDz wrote: Swarm hosts seem so useless against terrans after watching the hots beta cast with day9 the broodlings die immediately from terran firepower and yet dustin and david say swarm hosts will put on the "pressure" to a turtle terran lol? Really? When you have 20 marines and 10 marauders behind a depot wall and 15 broodlings come up the ramp the marines and marauder fire power will laugh at swarm host broodlings, its a useless unit. The other "use" for it is to Control space - how - it takes 30 seconds to spawn units that die off in 5 seconds how in comparison to the lurker is that controlling space?
swarm host is not useless. go play with them in the custom map and you can tell me if they're useless or not
I played the custom map 9 months ago when it was made - its a bit outdated now you know. Swarm hosts don't perform the same way they do in the latest build that was displayed at MLG.
This is the most recent build of hots - Go to 10 minutes 51 seconds, watch all of the damage it does to the terran expansion after it kills 1 battle hellion - you can also see at 11 minutes 13 seconds another powerful wave of locusts causing their massive damage to the terran expansion.
If this is Blizzards best shot at showing how "exciting" Hots will be, they might better not try at all.
Yeah. The whole thing sounded scripted, which is not a good thing.
As for the thread, although the lurker may be a unit which is better when compared to the swarm host in a vacuum, SC2 isn't a vacuum. The lurker, if I recall correctly, was removed because it overlapped roles with the baneling. If Blizzard just decided to throw the lurker in the game for HotS instead of the swarm host, they would:
A: Be in the same bind as they were before
B: Be adding a unit that didn't really enhance the gameplay that much
C: Ironically enough, be bashed for adding in an unoriginal unit just to appease the BW crowd
D: Be adding a unit that isn't as good as the swarm host, for the overall game
Although adding in the lurker instead of the swarm host is a great idea when you first think about it, the swarm host fulfills more roles and fills more missing niches in the zerg army than the lurker ever could.
How you came to this conclusion is beyond me.
The lurker serves in the surprise gank, detection forcing, splash damage, anti-infantry, turtling, map control, midgame siege, containment, and ramp defense roles.
The swarm host does... what, bait siege tank fire and slowly cause minimal damage when not detected?
Stop autocasting to surprise gank, forces detection like lurkers, has splash damage in the effect that it spawns more than one unit, forces terran to push slower, has map control in the same effect that you need to bring a real force to move through a portion of the map with them there, they contain int he same respect that you need certain units (detection, tanks) to move through them and ramp defense. I don't think marine hit squads are going to be running up ramps with two hosts without autocast for the locusts, but that'd just be a numbers game really.
It's completely ridiculous to assert that a few locusts constitute a surprise gank the way that high splash damage does.
Swarm hosts do not force detection, contain, or defend any area as you can simply gun down the locusts while moving past the swarm hosts (compare that to the difficulty of running past lurkers in chokes).
Spawning more than one unit is not splash damage; c'mon, are you even trying?
One lurker doesn't gank a group of marines, nor does one swarm host. You have to have multiples.
On July 13 2012 06:49 goiflin wrote: I'll give you splash damage if you can't see how multiple units can attack multiple units, and you can't move past locusts in a choke easily. You do know units block eachother in this game, right?
You clearly don't know what "splash damage" means. Spawning two units is not a form of splash damage, and only someone who has no idea what they're talking about would call a swarm locust or a broodlord "splash" units. You can easily move past locusts in a choke, by simply gunning them down with enough marines and running past the swarm hosts.
On July 13 2012 06:49 goiflin wrote: They fufill the same roles. You're just refusing to see how the swarm host fufills those roles because it doesn't fufill them identically to the lurker.
And fyi, I'm for the lurker being included instead of the swarm host, but saying the swarm host can't fill the roles of the lurker is kinda silly because it absolutely can.
They absolutely don't. Just because you think ridiculously stretched definitions count and because you ignore all of my relevant points doesn't change the fact that any reasonable person understand their roles are not the same.
On July 13 2012 06:49 goiflin wrote: Edit; why does zerg need more splash? Fungal and banelings are handling groups of units just fine at the moment.
Zerg doesn't need more splash. What it actually needs are the lurker's other roles, many of which partly require splash to serve those roles effectively. Banes are a poorly designed unit that don't belong in the game to start with, and Zerg would be a far more balanced and fun race with lurkers instead of banes.
I don't think banes are a poorly designed unit at all...they just promote a different playstyle. The purpose of ling/bane is to very quickly move about the map and trade armies. They aren't intended to provide longterm support/control. They're cannon fodder.
There's no reason that banes and lurkers cannot exist in the game at the same time. They are both gas dumps to some extent, the bane more so. They both have different roles as well. The more lurkers I get, the less banes, etc.
In total lurkers, banes, infestors, ultras. Not that bad at all.
The real problem with zerg is the roach. That piece of shit should be removed.
On July 13 2012 00:48 iky43210 wrote: [quote] swarm host is not useless. go play with them in the custom map and you can tell me if they're useless or not
I played the custom map 9 months ago when it was made - its a bit outdated now you know. Swarm hosts don't perform the same way they do in the latest build that was displayed at MLG.
This is the most recent build of hots - Go to 10 minutes 51 seconds, watch all of the damage it does to the terran expansion after it kills 1 battle hellion - you can also see at 11 minutes 13 seconds another powerful wave of locusts causing their massive damage to the terran expansion.
If this is Blizzards best shot at showing how "exciting" Hots will be, they might better not try at all.
Yeah. The whole thing sounded scripted, which is not a good thing.
As for the thread, although the lurker may be a unit which is better when compared to the swarm host in a vacuum, SC2 isn't a vacuum. The lurker, if I recall correctly, was removed because it overlapped roles with the baneling. If Blizzard just decided to throw the lurker in the game for HotS instead of the swarm host, they would:
A: Be in the same bind as they were before
B: Be adding a unit that didn't really enhance the gameplay that much
C: Ironically enough, be bashed for adding in an unoriginal unit just to appease the BW crowd
D: Be adding a unit that isn't as good as the swarm host, for the overall game
Although adding in the lurker instead of the swarm host is a great idea when you first think about it, the swarm host fulfills more roles and fills more missing niches in the zerg army than the lurker ever could.
How you came to this conclusion is beyond me.
The lurker serves in the surprise gank, detection forcing, splash damage, anti-infantry, turtling, map control, midgame siege, containment, and ramp defense roles.
The swarm host does... what, bait siege tank fire and slowly cause minimal damage when not detected?
Stop autocasting to surprise gank, forces detection like lurkers, has splash damage in the effect that it spawns more than one unit, forces terran to push slower, has map control in the same effect that you need to bring a real force to move through a portion of the map with them there, they contain int he same respect that you need certain units (detection, tanks) to move through them and ramp defense. I don't think marine hit squads are going to be running up ramps with two hosts without autocast for the locusts, but that'd just be a numbers game really.
It's completely ridiculous to assert that a few locusts constitute a surprise gank the way that high splash damage does.
Swarm hosts do not force detection, contain, or defend any area as you can simply gun down the locusts while moving past the swarm hosts (compare that to the difficulty of running past lurkers in chokes).
Spawning more than one unit is not splash damage; c'mon, are you even trying?
One lurker doesn't gank a group of marines, nor does one swarm host. You have to have multiples.
On July 13 2012 06:49 goiflin wrote: I'll give you splash damage if you can't see how multiple units can attack multiple units, and you can't move past locusts in a choke easily. You do know units block eachother in this game, right?
You clearly don't know what "splash damage" means. Spawning two units is not a form of splash damage, and only someone who has no idea what they're talking about would call a swarm locust or a broodlord "splash" units. You can easily move past locusts in a choke, by simply gunning them down with enough marines and running past the swarm hosts.
On July 13 2012 06:49 goiflin wrote: They fufill the same roles. You're just refusing to see how the swarm host fufills those roles because it doesn't fufill them identically to the lurker.
And fyi, I'm for the lurker being included instead of the swarm host, but saying the swarm host can't fill the roles of the lurker is kinda silly because it absolutely can.
They absolutely don't. Just because you think ridiculously stretched definitions count and because you ignore all of my relevant points doesn't change the fact that any reasonable person understand their roles are not the same.
On July 13 2012 06:49 goiflin wrote: Edit; why does zerg need more splash? Fungal and banelings are handling groups of units just fine at the moment.
Zerg doesn't need more splash. What it actually needs are the lurker's other roles, many of which partly require splash to serve those roles effectively. Banes are a poorly designed unit that don't belong in the game to start with, and Zerg would be a far more balanced and fun race with lurkers instead of banes.
I don't think banes are a poorly designed unit at all...they just promote a different playstyle. The purpose of ling/bane is to very quickly move about the map and trade armies. They aren't intended to provide longterm support/control. They're cannon fodder.
They're a poorly designed unit because they promote early game all-ins (more than any other unit available to any race) and greatly amplify the overly volatile ZvZ early game (imagine what TvT would be like if there was a cheap Tier 1.5 unit that hard counters marines, or PvP if there was a cheap Tier 1.5 unit that hard counters stalkers).
On July 13 2012 09:09 Qwyn wrote: There's no reason that banes and lurkers cannot exist in the game at the same time. They are both gas dumps to some extent, the bane more so. They both have different roles as well. The more lurkers I get, the less banes, etc.
Well, when Blizz removed the lurker, one of the reasons they cited was that there was too much overlap between banes and lurkers in terms of both being burrowed splash units. We know that's full of crap because they missed the actual role differences entirely, but they do have a slight point.
On July 13 2012 09:09 Qwyn wrote:The real problem with zerg is the roach. That piece of shit should be removed.
I don't entirely disagree, but the roach is a piece of shit in the same way that the marauder and the immortal are pieces of shit. Roaches are there to counterbalance the fact that Terrans have marauders and Protoss have immortals. I'd support removing/changing all three of the above, but simply removing the roach alone wouldn't work. If you take a look at one of my posts above, I'd change roaches accordingly (alongside introducing lurkers, moving hydras to Tier 1, and removing banes):
• Cost increased from 75/25, 27 seconds to 100/50, 40 seconds. • Armor increased from 1 to 2. • Damage increased from 16 (+2) to 22 (+2) • Roach now regenerates 5 life per second burrowed or unburrowed. • Tunneling Claws upgrade removed. • Organic Carapace upgrade added to Roach Warren (requires Hive, 150/150, 110 seconds, increase regen to 10 life/second)
On July 13 2012 07:24 mrtomjones wrote: Not enough AOE? Isn't that the biggest complaint Terran has had since beta? Too much Zerg/Protoss AOE? Why is this crap still being posted on anyways -_-
spoken like a true sc2 player.
Stronger aoe means you will less likely be to keep your army in 1 group as a few tank shots, storms, or fungals would absolutely destroy the ball in seconds. Time to split up that army in 5+groups like you should be doing.
Spoken like a truly ignorant person. I played BW and watched some too. People whine about AOE in SC2. If you somehow missed it I am sure google would provide you with plenty of comments on it. There are many many more things to consider than to just increase the AOE. You realize that due to the pathing differences between the games that if a hit like the reaver went off it would be way more destructive simply due to the fact that units tend to want to clump more natuarlly in Sc2. There are many more facets to this than to just up the AOE. If you want to give Protoss some more AOE I wont complain but Terrans and probably Zergs sure will
On July 13 2012 07:24 mrtomjones wrote: Not enough AOE? Isn't that the biggest complaint Terran has had since beta? Too much Zerg/Protoss AOE? Why is this crap still being posted on anyways -_-
spoken like a true sc2 player.
Stronger aoe means you will less likely be to keep your army in 1 group as a few tank shots, storms, or fungals would absolutely destroy the ball in seconds. Time to split up that army in 5+groups like you should be doing.
Spoken like a truly ignorant person. I played BW and watched some too. People whine about AOE in SC2. If you somehow missed it I am sure google would provide you with plenty of comments on it. There are many many more things to consider than to just increase the AOE. You realize that due to the pathing differences between the games that if a hit like the reaver went off it would be way more destructive simply due to the fact that units tend to want to clump more natuarlly in Sc2. There are many more facets to this than to just up the AOE. If you want to give Protoss some more AOE I wont complain but Terrans and probably Zergs sure will
An increase in aoe has to come with a new pathing engine. This is what's been discussed in the dynamic movement thread.
I don't think banes are a poorly designed unit at all...they just promote a different playstyle. The purpose of ling/bane is to very quickly move about the map and trade armies. They aren't intended to provide longterm support/control. They're cannon fodder.
There's no reason that banes and lurkers cannot exist in the game at the same time. They are both gas dumps to some extent, the bane more so. They both have different roles as well. The more lurkers I get, the less banes, etc.
In total lurkers, banes, infestors, ultras. Not that bad at all.
The real problem with zerg is the roach. That piece of shit should be removed.
BW lurkers would infringe on banelings substantially, and wouldn't be a good idea. Current SC2 lurkers wouldn't infringe on banelings much, but they also suck a whole lot. The style of radial line attack that lurkers have combined with their armored type combined with their slow attack speed and low damage vs non-armored makes them bad against pretty much any unit in the game Most armored units have good range and/or deal good damage vs armored, so lurkers splash will be rather ineffective, and the lurker will die quickly if there's detection. Against light units they simply won't deal much damage considering it's 15 damage in a line every 3 seconds.
I would be fine with BW lurkers instead of banelings, but from trying out the current SC2 lurker, it feels really ineffective.
the problem with the roach is the fact that it's a tanky fighter unit which I really don't think zerg need more of considering the ultralisk (which also has problems that need to be fixed) and the zergling (units that obviously have substantially different tanking uses). The roach should be more like it's original concept where it could heal while unburrowed, like the reaper can now in HotS. Roach would be a better unit if it had 100 health, used 1 supply, and regenerated above ground. That way it would be more of a harass unit and early-game harass-defender. It would no longer be particularly effective in large amounts in the mid game (due to reduced health) nor become kinda useless in the late game (due to lower supply count, as well as regeneration allowing for more effective harass tactics).
I played the custom map 9 months ago when it was made - its a bit outdated now you know. Swarm hosts don't perform the same way they do in the latest build that was displayed at MLG.
This is the most recent build of hots - Go to 10 minutes 51 seconds, watch all of the damage it does to the terran expansion after it kills 1 battle hellion - you can also see at 11 minutes 13 seconds another powerful wave of locusts causing their massive damage to the terran expansion.
If this is Blizzards best shot at showing how "exciting" Hots will be, they might better not try at all.
Yeah. The whole thing sounded scripted, which is not a good thing.
As for the thread, although the lurker may be a unit which is better when compared to the swarm host in a vacuum, SC2 isn't a vacuum. The lurker, if I recall correctly, was removed because it overlapped roles with the baneling. If Blizzard just decided to throw the lurker in the game for HotS instead of the swarm host, they would:
A: Be in the same bind as they were before
B: Be adding a unit that didn't really enhance the gameplay that much
C: Ironically enough, be bashed for adding in an unoriginal unit just to appease the BW crowd
D: Be adding a unit that isn't as good as the swarm host, for the overall game
Although adding in the lurker instead of the swarm host is a great idea when you first think about it, the swarm host fulfills more roles and fills more missing niches in the zerg army than the lurker ever could.
How you came to this conclusion is beyond me.
The lurker serves in the surprise gank, detection forcing, splash damage, anti-infantry, turtling, map control, midgame siege, containment, and ramp defense roles.
The swarm host does... what, bait siege tank fire and slowly cause minimal damage when not detected?
Stop autocasting to surprise gank, forces detection like lurkers, has splash damage in the effect that it spawns more than one unit, forces terran to push slower, has map control in the same effect that you need to bring a real force to move through a portion of the map with them there, they contain int he same respect that you need certain units (detection, tanks) to move through them and ramp defense. I don't think marine hit squads are going to be running up ramps with two hosts without autocast for the locusts, but that'd just be a numbers game really.
It's completely ridiculous to assert that a few locusts constitute a surprise gank the way that high splash damage does.
Swarm hosts do not force detection, contain, or defend any area as you can simply gun down the locusts while moving past the swarm hosts (compare that to the difficulty of running past lurkers in chokes).
Spawning more than one unit is not splash damage; c'mon, are you even trying?
One lurker doesn't gank a group of marines, nor does one swarm host. You have to have multiples.
On July 13 2012 06:49 goiflin wrote: I'll give you splash damage if you can't see how multiple units can attack multiple units, and you can't move past locusts in a choke easily. You do know units block eachother in this game, right?
You clearly don't know what "splash damage" means. Spawning two units is not a form of splash damage, and only someone who has no idea what they're talking about would call a swarm locust or a broodlord "splash" units. You can easily move past locusts in a choke, by simply gunning them down with enough marines and running past the swarm hosts.
On July 13 2012 06:49 goiflin wrote: They fufill the same roles. You're just refusing to see how the swarm host fufills those roles because it doesn't fufill them identically to the lurker.
And fyi, I'm for the lurker being included instead of the swarm host, but saying the swarm host can't fill the roles of the lurker is kinda silly because it absolutely can.
They absolutely don't. Just because you think ridiculously stretched definitions count and because you ignore all of my relevant points doesn't change the fact that any reasonable person understand their roles are not the same.
On July 13 2012 06:49 goiflin wrote: Edit; why does zerg need more splash? Fungal and banelings are handling groups of units just fine at the moment.
Zerg doesn't need more splash. What it actually needs are the lurker's other roles, many of which partly require splash to serve those roles effectively. Banes are a poorly designed unit that don't belong in the game to start with, and Zerg would be a far more balanced and fun race with lurkers instead of banes.
I don't think banes are a poorly designed unit at all...they just promote a different playstyle. The purpose of ling/bane is to very quickly move about the map and trade armies. They aren't intended to provide longterm support/control. They're cannon fodder.
They're a poorly designed unit because they promote early game all-ins (more than any other unit available to any race) and greatly amplify the overly volatile ZvZ early game (imagine what TvT would be like if there was a cheap Tier 1.5 unit that hard counters marines, or PvP if there was a cheap Tier 1.5 unit that hard counters stalkers).
On July 13 2012 09:09 Qwyn wrote: There's no reason that banes and lurkers cannot exist in the game at the same time. They are both gas dumps to some extent, the bane more so. They both have different roles as well. The more lurkers I get, the less banes, etc.
Well, when Blizz removed the lurker, one of the reasons they cited was that there was too much overlap between banes and lurkers in terms of both being burrowed splash units. We know that's full of crap because they missed the actual role differences entirely, but they do have a slight point.
On July 13 2012 09:09 Qwyn wrote:The real problem with zerg is the roach. That piece of shit should be removed.
I don't entirely disagree, but the roach is a piece of shit in the same way that the marauder and the immortal are pieces of shit. Roaches are there to counterbalance the fact that Terrans have marauders and Protoss have immortals. I'd support removing/changing all three of the above, but simply removing the roach alone wouldn't work. If you take a look at one of my posts above, I'd change roaches accordingly (alongside introducing lurkers, moving hydras to Tier 1, and removing banes):
• Cost increased from 75/25, 27 seconds to 100/50, 40 seconds. • Armor increased from 1 to 2. • Damage increased from 16 (+2) to 22 (+2) • Roach now regenerates 5 life per second burrowed or unburrowed. • Tunneling Claws upgrade removed. • Organic Carapace upgrade added to Roach Warren (requires Hive, 150/150, 110 seconds, increase regen to 10 life/second)
They promote early game allins? Banelings don't promote early game allins more than any other unit in the game. That's a player decision.
ZvZ is volatile because of spawn larva. Not because of banelings.
And ZvZ becomes boring in the midgame b/c of roaches. lol. The roach should be removed. The hydra can fulfull the same role just fine. Just remove the light modifier, decrease damage a bit, keep DPS the same, and lower cost to 75/50. Keep supply the same. Looks good to me.
There are people that are saying that the roach can be moved to tier 2. I disagree - the unit is bad in concept. It's a pure 1A piece of shit. It should be removed. That sort of crap has no place in SC.
I don't think banes are a poorly designed unit at all...they just promote a different playstyle. The purpose of ling/bane is to very quickly move about the map and trade armies. They aren't intended to provide longterm support/control. They're cannon fodder.
There's no reason that banes and lurkers cannot exist in the game at the same time. They are both gas dumps to some extent, the bane more so. They both have different roles as well. The more lurkers I get, the less banes, etc.
In total lurkers, banes, infestors, ultras. Not that bad at all.
The real problem with zerg is the roach. That piece of shit should be removed.
BW lurkers would infringe on banelings substantially, and wouldn't be a good idea. Current SC2 lurkers wouldn't infringe on banelings much, but they also suck a whole lot. The style of radial line attack that lurkers have combined with their armored type combined with their slow attack speed and low damage vs non-armored makes them bad against pretty much any unit in the game Most armored units have good range and/or deal good damage vs armored, so lurkers splash will be rather ineffective, and the lurker will die quickly if there's detection. Against light units they simply won't deal much damage considering it's 15 damage in a line every 3 seconds.
I would be fine with BW lurkers instead of banelings, but from trying out the current SC2 lurker, it feels really ineffective.
the problem with the roach is the fact that it's a tanky fighter unit which I really don't think zerg need more of considering the ultralisk (which also has problems that need to be fixed) and the zergling (units that obviously have substantially different tanking uses). The roach should be more like it's original concept where it could heal while unburrowed, like the reaper can now in HotS. Roach would be a better unit if it had 100 health, used 1 supply, and regenerated above ground. That way it would be more of a harass unit and early-game harass-defender. It would no longer be particularly effective in large amounts in the mid game (due to reduced health) nor become kinda useless in the late game (due to lower supply count, as well as regeneration allowing for more effective harass tactics).
Roach should just be removed. And I don't see why lurkers and banelings cannot function together? If you really have to, why not just make centrifugal hooks require hive? I dunno, something like that. BTW, what is the difference between lurker attack in SCII and BW? I could not really see the difference. They just don't do enough damage. increase it to 20 (+20 armor) or something of the like and they would be good to go, along with armor/health. Also increase lurker range to 7 or maybe even 8. Tah dah.
Also it would be pretty sick if the lurker could have an actual "halt attack" function, lol.
If this is Blizzards best shot at showing how "exciting" Hots will be, they might better not try at all.
Yeah. The whole thing sounded scripted, which is not a good thing.
As for the thread, although the lurker may be a unit which is better when compared to the swarm host in a vacuum, SC2 isn't a vacuum. The lurker, if I recall correctly, was removed because it overlapped roles with the baneling. If Blizzard just decided to throw the lurker in the game for HotS instead of the swarm host, they would:
A: Be in the same bind as they were before
B: Be adding a unit that didn't really enhance the gameplay that much
C: Ironically enough, be bashed for adding in an unoriginal unit just to appease the BW crowd
D: Be adding a unit that isn't as good as the swarm host, for the overall game
Although adding in the lurker instead of the swarm host is a great idea when you first think about it, the swarm host fulfills more roles and fills more missing niches in the zerg army than the lurker ever could.
How you came to this conclusion is beyond me.
The lurker serves in the surprise gank, detection forcing, splash damage, anti-infantry, turtling, map control, midgame siege, containment, and ramp defense roles.
The swarm host does... what, bait siege tank fire and slowly cause minimal damage when not detected?
Stop autocasting to surprise gank, forces detection like lurkers, has splash damage in the effect that it spawns more than one unit, forces terran to push slower, has map control in the same effect that you need to bring a real force to move through a portion of the map with them there, they contain int he same respect that you need certain units (detection, tanks) to move through them and ramp defense. I don't think marine hit squads are going to be running up ramps with two hosts without autocast for the locusts, but that'd just be a numbers game really.
It's completely ridiculous to assert that a few locusts constitute a surprise gank the way that high splash damage does.
Swarm hosts do not force detection, contain, or defend any area as you can simply gun down the locusts while moving past the swarm hosts (compare that to the difficulty of running past lurkers in chokes).
Spawning more than one unit is not splash damage; c'mon, are you even trying?
One lurker doesn't gank a group of marines, nor does one swarm host. You have to have multiples.
On July 13 2012 06:49 goiflin wrote: I'll give you splash damage if you can't see how multiple units can attack multiple units, and you can't move past locusts in a choke easily. You do know units block eachother in this game, right?
You clearly don't know what "splash damage" means. Spawning two units is not a form of splash damage, and only someone who has no idea what they're talking about would call a swarm locust or a broodlord "splash" units. You can easily move past locusts in a choke, by simply gunning them down with enough marines and running past the swarm hosts.
On July 13 2012 06:49 goiflin wrote: They fufill the same roles. You're just refusing to see how the swarm host fufills those roles because it doesn't fufill them identically to the lurker.
And fyi, I'm for the lurker being included instead of the swarm host, but saying the swarm host can't fill the roles of the lurker is kinda silly because it absolutely can.
They absolutely don't. Just because you think ridiculously stretched definitions count and because you ignore all of my relevant points doesn't change the fact that any reasonable person understand their roles are not the same.
On July 13 2012 06:49 goiflin wrote: Edit; why does zerg need more splash? Fungal and banelings are handling groups of units just fine at the moment.
Zerg doesn't need more splash. What it actually needs are the lurker's other roles, many of which partly require splash to serve those roles effectively. Banes are a poorly designed unit that don't belong in the game to start with, and Zerg would be a far more balanced and fun race with lurkers instead of banes.
I don't think banes are a poorly designed unit at all...they just promote a different playstyle. The purpose of ling/bane is to very quickly move about the map and trade armies. They aren't intended to provide longterm support/control. They're cannon fodder.
They're a poorly designed unit because they promote early game all-ins (more than any other unit available to any race) and greatly amplify the overly volatile ZvZ early game (imagine what TvT would be like if there was a cheap Tier 1.5 unit that hard counters marines, or PvP if there was a cheap Tier 1.5 unit that hard counters stalkers).
On July 13 2012 09:09 Qwyn wrote: There's no reason that banes and lurkers cannot exist in the game at the same time. They are both gas dumps to some extent, the bane more so. They both have different roles as well. The more lurkers I get, the less banes, etc.
Well, when Blizz removed the lurker, one of the reasons they cited was that there was too much overlap between banes and lurkers in terms of both being burrowed splash units. We know that's full of crap because they missed the actual role differences entirely, but they do have a slight point.
On July 13 2012 09:09 Qwyn wrote:The real problem with zerg is the roach. That piece of shit should be removed.
I don't entirely disagree, but the roach is a piece of shit in the same way that the marauder and the immortal are pieces of shit. Roaches are there to counterbalance the fact that Terrans have marauders and Protoss have immortals. I'd support removing/changing all three of the above, but simply removing the roach alone wouldn't work. If you take a look at one of my posts above, I'd change roaches accordingly (alongside introducing lurkers, moving hydras to Tier 1, and removing banes):
• Cost increased from 75/25, 27 seconds to 100/50, 40 seconds. • Armor increased from 1 to 2. • Damage increased from 16 (+2) to 22 (+2) • Roach now regenerates 5 life per second burrowed or unburrowed. • Tunneling Claws upgrade removed. • Organic Carapace upgrade added to Roach Warren (requires Hive, 150/150, 110 seconds, increase regen to 10 life/second)
They promote early game allins? Banelings don't promote early game allins more than any other unit in the game. That's a player decision.
They do, because no other Tier 1 unit hard counters both static defenses and most other Tier 1 units.
On July 13 2012 10:30 Qwyn wrote: ZvZ is volatile because of spawn larva. Not because of banelings.
Spawn larvae is part of it. Banelings are another part.
On July 13 2012 10:30 Qwyn wrote: And ZvZ becomes boring in the midgame b/c of roaches. lol. The roach should be removed. The hydra can fulfull the same role just fine. Just remove the light modifier, decrease damage a bit, keep DPS the same, and lower cost to 75/50. Keep supply the same. Looks good to me.
Roaches are a prevalent part of the midgame because banes hardcounter lings and hydras without roaches. Remove banes and the incentive to build roaches decreases drastically.
I think the whole "1 swarm host can't do anything by itself" thing is moot.
It's supposed to be used as a support unit or in multiple groups.
Plus, it's not like one roach or one hydralisk or one baneling can do much by itself.
Same with Brood Lords actually. They can't really do that much by itself either (sure you can have one BL attack an undefended location but it will die as soon as another unit engages it).
Also it would be pretty sick if the lurker could have an actual "halt attack" function, lol.
The ghost has it; it's called "Hold Fire" and "Weapons Free".
Blizzard can give Hold Fire to the Lurker too. (Bolded in case Blizzard doesn't know...)
Nowadays I'm a bit confused at Blizzard. You know, there's actually an easy way to return the SC2 Carrier to something like the BW Carrier? (Someone should mention that to Dustin Browder and/or David Kim next time you meet either of them.)
To make Interceptors mimic the BW AI (BW Carriers)- + Show Spoiler +
Go to Unit Tab > Interceptors > Combat Tab > Set the "Default Acquire Level" to "Offensive" instead of None.
Then click on the Carrier's Interceptor Weapon in the "Weapons" section of the map editor - Set the "Minimum Scan Range" to 16.
Now Interceptors will stay out and continously attack and acquire new targets in range until you press stop (which works similar to BW). You can now attack-move with interceptors out most of the time.
Yep, that's it. The carriers will function closely to BW carriers in micro potential. Now, there are other stuff that can be done too (like Interceptors healing in cargo which is possible). Point is, it's not too hard to return Carriers to more BW style.
Anything is possible in the SC2 map editor (well, except maybe mimicing the exact pathing of BW mainly because it's mostly hardcoded into the game).
On July 13 2012 12:45 Goldfish wrote: I think the whole "1 swarm host can't do anything by itself" thing is moot.
It's supposed to be used as a support unit or in multiple groups.
Plus, it's not like one roach or one hydralisk or one baneling can do much by itself.
Same with Brood Lords actually. They can't really do that much by itself either (sure you can have one BL attack an undefended location but it will die as soon as another unit engages it).
why would we want to add more roaches hydras and banelings into the game. We need more units that can make a comeback. More UP units that need a deathball to do anything at all doesn't help the game.
People aren't saying that 1 lurker will take on an entire deathball by itself but that a swarm host won't do anything at all and a lurker will at least poke some damage at them. Much like a BL which deals its damage initially and overtime. A broodlord has one attack that deals damage no matter of how many colossi they have to kill broodlings. That is why it is a good unit because 1 broodlord actually helps the army unlike 1 swarm host which will be overshadowed by the lings.
On July 13 2012 07:24 mrtomjones wrote: Not enough AOE? Isn't that the biggest complaint Terran has had since beta? Too much Zerg/Protoss AOE? Why is this crap still being posted on anyways -_-
spoken like a true sc2 player.
Stronger aoe means you will less likely be to keep your army in 1 group as a few tank shots, storms, or fungals would absolutely destroy the ball in seconds. Time to split up that army in 5+groups like you should be doing.
Spoken like a truly ignorant person. I played BW and watched some too. People whine about AOE in SC2. If you somehow missed it I am sure google would provide you with plenty of comments on it. There are many many more things to consider than to just increase the AOE. You realize that due to the pathing differences between the games that if a hit like the reaver went off it would be way more destructive simply due to the fact that units tend to want to clump more natuarlly in Sc2. There are many more facets to this than to just up the AOE. If you want to give Protoss some more AOE I wont complain but Terrans and probably Zergs sure will
An increase in aoe has to come with a new pathing engine. This is what's been discussed in the dynamic movement thread.
It doesn't even need a new pathing engine. There are multiple threads in the SC2 section that talk about how you can change units so that they walk in formation and have a larger collizion box just in the editor. Do that, buff AoE noticably, and deathball play will be destroyed. That alone would make SC2 100x better for spectators and players alike.
On July 13 2012 07:24 mrtomjones wrote: Not enough AOE? Isn't that the biggest complaint Terran has had since beta? Too much Zerg/Protoss AOE? Why is this crap still being posted on anyways -_-
spoken like a true sc2 player.
Stronger aoe means you will less likely be to keep your army in 1 group as a few tank shots, storms, or fungals would absolutely destroy the ball in seconds. Time to split up that army in 5+groups like you should be doing.
Spoken like a truly ignorant person. I played BW and watched some too. People whine about AOE in SC2. If you somehow missed it I am sure google would provide you with plenty of comments on it. There are many many more things to consider than to just increase the AOE. You realize that due to the pathing differences between the games that if a hit like the reaver went off it would be way more destructive simply due to the fact that units tend to want to clump more natuarlly in Sc2. There are many more facets to this than to just up the AOE. If you want to give Protoss some more AOE I wont complain but Terrans and probably Zergs sure will
An increase in aoe has to come with a new pathing engine. This is what's been discussed in the dynamic movement thread.
It doesn't even need a new pathing engine. There are multiple threads in the SC2 section that talk about how you can change units so that they walk in formation and have a larger collizion box just in the editor. Do that, buff AoE noticably, and deathball play will be destroyed. That alone would make SC2 100x better for spectators and players alike.
Not quite, the SC2 engine really does need a pathing overhaul, its definitely not "good", plenty of modern games have much more natural pathing. And while Browder keeps harping back to BW saying we don't want bad pathing even though BW has nothing to do with it, nobody seemed to have a problem with WC3 pathing. Although I understand that this is a futile request.
The changes make a small amount of difference, but no where near enough of a difference to actually fix the problem.
I love bw as much as the next guy, but this whole "save the lurker" campaign seems ridiculous to me. In my eyes, sc2 has already retained too many units from the original. In a perfect world, I would want sc2 to be as distinct from bw as possible (which still being a dynamic and demanding rts, of course), not a bw revamp with better graphics. If I'm nostalgic for lurkers, I'll just play bw.
On July 13 2012 00:48 iky43210 wrote: [quote] swarm host is not useless. go play with them in the custom map and you can tell me if they're useless or not
I played the custom map 9 months ago when it was made - its a bit outdated now you know. Swarm hosts don't perform the same way they do in the latest build that was displayed at MLG.
This is the most recent build of hots - Go to 10 minutes 51 seconds, watch all of the damage it does to the terran expansion after it kills 1 battle hellion - you can also see at 11 minutes 13 seconds another powerful wave of locusts causing their massive damage to the terran expansion.
If this is Blizzards best shot at showing how "exciting" Hots will be, they might better not try at all.
Yeah. The whole thing sounded scripted, which is not a good thing.
As for the thread, although the lurker may be a unit which is better when compared to the swarm host in a vacuum, SC2 isn't a vacuum. The lurker, if I recall correctly, was removed because it overlapped roles with the baneling. If Blizzard just decided to throw the lurker in the game for HotS instead of the swarm host, they would:
A: Be in the same bind as they were before
B: Be adding a unit that didn't really enhance the gameplay that much
C: Ironically enough, be bashed for adding in an unoriginal unit just to appease the BW crowd
D: Be adding a unit that isn't as good as the swarm host, for the overall game
Although adding in the lurker instead of the swarm host is a great idea when you first think about it, the swarm host fulfills more roles and fills more missing niches in the zerg army than the lurker ever could.
How you came to this conclusion is beyond me.
The lurker serves in the surprise gank, detection forcing, splash damage, anti-infantry, turtling, map control, midgame siege, containment, and ramp defense roles.
The swarm host does... what, bait siege tank fire and slowly cause minimal damage when not detected?
Stop autocasting to surprise gank, forces detection like lurkers, has splash damage in the effect that it spawns more than one unit, forces terran to push slower, has map control in the same effect that you need to bring a real force to move through a portion of the map with them there, they contain int he same respect that you need certain units (detection, tanks) to move through them and ramp defense. I don't think marine hit squads are going to be running up ramps with two hosts without autocast for the locusts, but that'd just be a numbers game really.
It's completely ridiculous to assert that a few locusts constitute a surprise gank the way that high splash damage does.
Swarm hosts do not force detection, contain, or defend any area as you can simply gun down the locusts while moving past the swarm hosts (compare that to the difficulty of running past lurkers in chokes).
Spawning more than one unit is not splash damage; c'mon, are you even trying?
One lurker doesn't gank a group of marines, nor does one swarm host. You have to have multiples.
On July 13 2012 06:49 goiflin wrote: I'll give you splash damage if you can't see how multiple units can attack multiple units, and you can't move past locusts in a choke easily. You do know units block eachother in this game, right?
You clearly don't know what "splash damage" means. Spawning two units is not a form of splash damage, and only someone who has no idea what they're talking about would call a swarm locust or a broodlord "splash" units. You can easily move past locusts in a choke, by simply gunning them down with enough marines and running past the swarm hosts.
On July 13 2012 06:49 goiflin wrote: They fufill the same roles. You're just refusing to see how the swarm host fufills those roles because it doesn't fufill them identically to the lurker.
And fyi, I'm for the lurker being included instead of the swarm host, but saying the swarm host can't fill the roles of the lurker is kinda silly because it absolutely can.
They absolutely don't. Just because you think ridiculously stretched definitions count and because you ignore all of my relevant points doesn't change the fact that any reasonable person understand their roles are not the same.
On July 13 2012 06:49 goiflin wrote: Edit; why does zerg need more splash? Fungal and banelings are handling groups of units just fine at the moment.
Zerg doesn't need more splash. What it actually needs are the lurker's other roles, many of which partly require splash to serve those roles effectively. Banes are a poorly designed unit that don't belong in the game to start with, and Zerg would be a far more balanced and fun race with lurkers instead of banes.
I don't think banes are a poorly designed unit at all...they just promote a different playstyle. The purpose of ling/bane is to very quickly move about the map and trade armies. They aren't intended to provide longterm support/control. They're cannon fodder.
There's no reason that banes and lurkers cannot exist in the game at the same time. They are both gas dumps to some extent, the bane more so. They both have different roles as well. The more lurkers I get, the less banes, etc.
In total lurkers, banes, infestors, ultras. Not that bad at all.
The real problem with zerg is the roach. That piece of shit should be removed.
Any unit which gets "super effective with a critical mass" is badly designed. Banelings are FAST, CHEAP, deal AoE damage and are LOW TIER and thus they are very very critical. The problem of SC2 is that Zerg have been changed to have "unlimited larvae" available later in the game ... with pros who know how to use inject larva regularly on 5 hatcheries. This gives them a lot of bases on a large map and a huge economy.
The bad part about Banelings is that they are too efficient AND that they can be reproduced en masse in a short timeframe and that the opponents cant do the same with their hardware. In a "balanced" game the ability to endlessly produce should be opposed by tougher units of which you can only kill a few with one "throw away army", but the SC2 reality is totally different.
Having two units which perform the same job isnt that great and Lurkers would give Zerg a totally ridiculous base defense which is a BAD thing, because harrassing the economy of a Zerg is about the only thing Terran and Protoss can do to get even somewhat. Requiring detection to be able to kill such defenders which can also be transfused by the nearby Queens is totally ridiculous. If the Lurker is added to SC2 several other things have to be removed and changed ... lots of them. Many of those things have already been mentioned in the several "dynamic unit movement" threads, but the Lurker is a total change of playstyle for the Zerg.
The real problem with the Zerg is the Fungal Growth (locking down an opponents units with no countermeasure is bad game design plus it deals damage at the same time), Larva Inject (too much reproductive capability on a big map with huge economy) and Mind Control (well only on capital ships/units).
EPT
(
