On July 13 2012 14:02 3clipse wrote: 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.
its not just save the lurker its about the lurker v the swarmhost. think most people arent asking for a return of the lurker just for the sake of returning the lurker but just using it as an example of good unit design that sc2 units dont have. doesnt need to be the lurker can be any unit as long as it is fun and it is a good esport unit. the swarmhost is boring and poorly designed
It's not a save the lurker campaign. It's a 'you can't do better than the swarm host? Well how about reverting back to the Lurker which you dismissed before it got in the beta?' campaign. Mr. Entomb is getting less trustworthy by the week.
On July 13 2012 14:02 3clipse wrote: 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.
its not just save the lurker its about the lurker v the swarmhost. think most people arent asking for a return of the lurker just for the sake of returning the lurker but just using it as an example of good unit design that sc2 units dont have. doesnt need to be the lurker can be any unit as long as it is fun and it is a good esport unit. the swarmhost is boring and poorly designed
Watching that battle report, the swarm hosts don't create a fast paced kind of a battle, butt he battle did look much more drawn out and even though it was pretty slow paced, the constant waves of locusts make the battle feel longer and add a kind of tense atmosphere.
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.
Well you're not able to use hold lurkers anymore right? So lurkers aren't as effective as shown in the video.
Also, burrowed banelings already serve the role of "ganking" marines. If swarm hosts were just like lurkers, they may overlap with burrowed banelings too much.
On July 13 2012 14:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Watching that battle report, the swarm hosts don't create a fast paced kind of a battle, butt he battle did look much more drawn out and even though it was pretty slow paced, the constant waves of locusts make the battle feel longer and add a kind of tense atmosphere.
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.
Well you're not able to use hold lurkers anymore right? So lurkers aren't as effective as shown in the video.
Also, burrowed banelings already serve the role of "ganking" marines. If swarm hosts were just like lurkers, they may overlap with burrowed banelings too much.
On July 13 2012 14:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Watching that battle report, the swarm hosts don't create a fast paced kind of a battle, butt he battle did look much more drawn out and even though it was pretty slow paced, the constant waves of locusts make the battle feel longer and add a kind of tense atmosphere.
On July 13 2012 08:22 sunprince wrote:
On July 13 2012 06:49 goiflin wrote:
On July 13 2012 06:33 sunprince wrote:
On July 13 2012 06:22 goiflin wrote:
On July 13 2012 06:01 sunprince wrote:
On July 13 2012 03:00 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On July 13 2012 02:27 Velr wrote:
On July 13 2012 01:13 LeGeNDz wrote: [quote]
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.
Well you're not able to use hold lurkers anymore right? So lurkers aren't as effective as shown in the video.
Also, burrowed banelings already serve the role of "ganking" marines. If swarm hosts were just like lurkers, they may overlap with burrowed banelings too much.
Not even close.
Well, why not? Lurkers have a much larger range sure, but they are also more expensive than banelings. Also, hold position lurker isn't allowed anymore, right? (correct if i'm wrong pl0x) So surprising MM in BW isn't as effective as shown in that video. (Btw I'm only comparing it to lurkers for filling the role of "ganking marines")
On July 13 2012 14:02 3clipse wrote: 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.
its not just save the lurker its about the lurker v the swarmhost. think most people arent asking for a return of the lurker just for the sake of returning the lurker but just using it as an example of good unit design that sc2 units dont have. doesnt need to be the lurker can be any unit as long as it is fun and it is a good esport unit. the swarmhost is boring and poorly designed
How did you determine that without ever using it?
you can make some determination based on the description and stats and overview of its mechanics. and more there are some videos and battle reports with these new units so you can see them in action. the design looks uninspired and lazy and like other sc2 units it doesnt promote exciting skillbased interactions and engagements. to take something from day9s rant on sc2 game design, actiblizz is giving us another baseball when we really want a frisbee.
so yea cant know anything for 100% sure until its actually been released and tweaked and in the hands of top top pros but i think this whole waiting game argument is getting old. people predicted and criticised the direction of actiblizz and dbro in pre-release sc2 but always was dismissed to say wait for the game to actually be released. then it was released and the same criticism was there but then the argument was that it hadnt been out for years like bw. then it was out for years and then the argument is to wait for the expansion packs. so now we wait for the expansion packs and they look from what we can see of hots to be the same boring stuff that weve come to expect from actiblizz. may not be here yet but it looks pretty bad and its disappointing.
The whole idea of "free units" in a RTS like SC is bad anyway, zerg already have the bl. To give them another unit with similar mechanics (not just in free units, they'll probably be positioned and used the same as bl's are now) is just ... lazy. imo.
On July 13 2012 02:57 acrimoneyius wrote: I respect their desire to innovate, but swarm host is almost a carbon copy of lurker with shittier, more confusing mechanics. It's almost as if they flat out refuse to reintroduce BW units.
U said it the best brother! God i woud give half of my kidney to see the lurker back in HotS.
On July 13 2012 14:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Well you're not able to use hold lurkers anymore right? So lurkers aren't as effective as shown in the video.
Also, burrowed banelings already serve the role of "ganking" marines. If swarm hosts were just like lurkers, they may overlap with burrowed banelings too much.
Your points have already been debunked if you'd read the thread.
Obviously if lurkers come back in the game a hold lurker feature can be added.
Secondly, lurkers are efficient non suicide units. Kinda like storm and archons,eh?
On July 13 2012 14:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Well you're not able to use hold lurkers anymore right? So lurkers aren't as effective as shown in the video.
Also, burrowed banelings already serve the role of "ganking" marines. If swarm hosts were just like lurkers, they may overlap with burrowed banelings too much.
Secondly, lurkers are efficient non suicide units. Kinda like storm and archons,eh?
That's not the point. Banelings already serve as splash damage for low hp units, we don't need to have another unit overlapping that role whether or not it's more efficient.
If its not a bring the Lurker back campaign, but a make the Swarm Host more interesting campaign, I'm really wondering why noone seems to be really trying to make the Swarm Host better, just arguing that the Lurker is better.
Seriously, someone stop arguing and sit down with the Swarm Host and THINK about how to tweak it to make it better.
Its a unit that burrows and spawns additional units, there are ways to make this thing require more skill and more interesting.
I like the way swarm host looks much more than lurker!
edit; lurkers attack would be super crazy to balance I would imagine, since the pathing is what it is @ the moment. I think the swarm host design is cool, I do not however think it should do as much dmg as it does, More spawns, less downtime between spawns seems much more fun to watch and use( I would imagine lol). Most likely compensate with the dmg and health of the spawns.
Also a tip for the MR.Carrier. What do you guys think if you increase the acceleration of the Carrier for more micro potential? To compensate for this buff, nerf the Health, DMG, COST, by ALOT!
On July 13 2012 14:56 Zambrah wrote: If its not a bring the Lurker back campaign, but a make the Swarm Host more interesting campaign, I'm really wondering why noone seems to be really trying to make the Swarm Host better, just arguing that the Lurker is better.
Seriously, someone stop arguing and sit down with the Swarm Host and THINK about how to tweak it to make it better.
Its a unit that burrows and spawns additional units, there are ways to make this thing require more skill and more interesting.
No, because the entire gripe is that it dilutes zerg by being another spawn unit. So the argument against is exactly the essence of the unit. So, the essence needs to go. It's replacement should be a direct attack AoE unit.
And this is a bring the lurker back campaign, because Mr. Entomb is still proposing bad unit design ideas. Clearly the odds are that he will not come up with something better. He was about 50/50 with WoL new units, and that's a horrible failure rate. Thus we give up hope on that end and call for the lurker back.
On July 13 2012 14:56 Zambrah wrote: If its not a bring the Lurker back campaign, but a make the Swarm Host more interesting campaign, I'm really wondering why noone seems to be really trying to make the Swarm Host better, just arguing that the Lurker is better.
Seriously, someone stop arguing and sit down with the Swarm Host and THINK about how to tweak it to make it better.
Its a unit that burrows and spawns additional units, there are ways to make this thing require more skill and more interesting.
This is more a campaign to show Blizzard how terrible the Swarm Host really is from a game design point of view. They need to do MUCH better with ALL of the new units (Viper, Tempest, Widow Mine) and this is just one example for it. The "We must fight for the Carrier" is another one, because the Tempest is seriously uninspired as a unit concept.
Sadly - for the Carrier - there have been LOTS of suggestions on how to make it work, but does Blizzard even try out anything? The Carrier has been useless for months, but when has been the last time it was changed? So effectively Blizzard DOES NOT LISTEN because of their "we will do it our way"-arrogance and any suggestions are moot and the only thing we can do is voice our protest and try to prove the point by explaining why the things they do are terrible.
On July 13 2012 14:56 Zambrah wrote: If its not a bring the Lurker back campaign, but a make the Swarm Host more interesting campaign, I'm really wondering why noone seems to be really trying to make the Swarm Host better, just arguing that the Lurker is better.
Seriously, someone stop arguing and sit down with the Swarm Host and THINK about how to tweak it to make it better.
Its a unit that burrows and spawns additional units, there are ways to make this thing require more skill and more interesting.
No, because the entire gripe is that it dilutes zerg by being another spawn unit. So the argument against is exactly the essence of the unit. So, the essence needs to go. It's replacement should be a direct attack AoE unit.
I agree with the first part in that the Swarm Host is a terrible design, but the conclusion of needing an AoE burrowed attack unit as a replacement is something I have to disagree with ... not unless something else (Banelings) are taken out. Zerg would have too much AoE power if they had both and they are already too strong with Fungal Growth and Banelings.
On July 13 2012 14:56 Zambrah wrote: If its not a bring the Lurker back campaign, but a make the Swarm Host more interesting campaign, I'm really wondering why noone seems to be really trying to make the Swarm Host better, just arguing that the Lurker is better.
Seriously, someone stop arguing and sit down with the Swarm Host and THINK about how to tweak it to make it better.
Its a unit that burrows and spawns additional units, there are ways to make this thing require more skill and more interesting.
No, because the entire gripe is that it dilutes zerg by being another spawn unit. So the argument against is exactly the essence of the unit. So, the essence needs to go. It's replacement should be a direct attack AoE unit.
And this is a bring the lurker back campaign, because Mr. Entomb is still proposing bad unit design ideas. Clearly the odds are that he will not come up with something better. He was about 50/50 with WoL new units, and that's a horrible failure rate. Thus we give up hope on that end and call for the lurker back.
So you're asking for the Swarm Host to be a new Lurker?
Honest to god, Blizzard is not going to wholly scrap their unit's design, theres no chance of it, and there are ways for the Swarm Host to fulfill that role as an AoE unit, it wouldn't be a direct attack unit no matter what, but considering Zerg has things like Banelings, and the general wealth of potential ways for the Swarm Hosts units to... spawn as, they could spawn as little mines that slowly crawl to enemy units while burrowed, they'd have a small lifespan so they wouldn't be able to just go 30 range from the Swarm Host and that'd make the Swarm Host a step closer to the Lurker.
Really, saying that the concept of the unit like the Swarm Host needs to be scrapped is, firstly, unrealistic, and secondly, wrong, with creative most conceptual designs can be made to be great, you just need to be creative with it.
The best hope for change at this point is not the Swarm Host as a unit, its more than likely going to happen, Blizzard would probably never ditch a freshly designed unit before release, so the best way to go about this is to help Blizzard along, lets MAKE the unit good, if something gets enough vocal support Blizzard will eventually glance upon it, and if they like what they see then we've helped to make the game better.
If everybody is going to just gripe about wanting the Lurker back they might as well can it up 'til shortly after Blizzard announces Legacy of the Void, because the chances of it coming back in HotS are very slim.
If I had to imagine a design for the Swarm Host for in 10 minutes while I'm high, I would make it a caster, give it three abilities, One would be to cast a creep tumor. The second to spew acid on the ground in a circle, where the acid just slows movement speed and does either no dmg or little dmg. The 3rd would give it the old Viper detection ability. This in combination with viper yank, + Dark Swarm + Bane + Spines would give Zerg a really sick defense matrix. If its more static we are looking for then, maybe give the Queen a 4th ability that costs a balanced amount of energy and is a slightly nerfed version of the Lurker attack, however this ability would be injected into a hatchery and would do 360 lurker attack!
On July 13 2012 14:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Well you're not able to use hold lurkers anymore right? So lurkers aren't as effective as shown in the video.
Also, burrowed banelings already serve the role of "ganking" marines. If swarm hosts were just like lurkers, they may overlap with burrowed banelings too much.
Your points have already been debunked if you'd read the thread.
Obviously if lurkers come back in the game a hold lurker feature can be added.
Secondly, lurkers are efficient non suicide units. Kinda like storm and archons,eh?
With zerg getting what basically amounts to a free econ advantage most games, should they really have units that are that cost efficient in the mid-game? Zerg doesn't need late game units really, brood lords and ultras are both great units (people figured out how to use ultralisks finally, and they're showing up a ton in GSL). The one thing that was really glaring for them was a mid-game pressure unit.
I posted a while back with the primary purpose of the swarm host that most people have missed. They are very different than the lurker, the only similarity between the two is that they are stationary and burrowed while attacking.
EPT
