|
On July 13 2012 14:51 0neder wrote:Show nested quote +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?
Are you expecting me to read all 29 pages of this thread before posting o.o
Good point about suiciding, but there's also one benefit for banelings instead of lurkers; you can spread them out more (not 1 baneling spread individually, but packs of 2 or more of them), forcing terran to scan more than once.
|
I liked the idea behind swarm host mechanics and the potential dynamics it may bring. Lurkers and swarm hosts don't even have the same role.
Just wait for the beta to come out before people make their judgement/impression. I have a good feeling alot of "disappointment" will be gone upon releases
|
On July 13 2012 16:04 iky43210 wrote:
I liked the idea behind swarm host mechanics and the potential dynamics it may bring. Lurkers and swarm hosts don't even have the same role.
Just wait for the beta to come out before people make their judgement/impression. I have a good feeling alot of "disappointment" will be gone upon releases
Yeah, like with the Colossus, Roach and Marauder.. right? RIGHT?
|
On July 13 2012 14:33 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 14:31 sluggaslamoo wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Two lurkers easily gank a group of marines. Two swarm hosts does nothing. 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")
Its possible that hold lurker won't be in hots if the lurker made a come back. However we can always constantly cry about it until Blizzard adds it in (1 year later haha).
Everyone who thinks the baneling/swarmhost serves the same role as the lurker, who hasn't watched or played BW for at least 2 years needs to watch EVERY SINGLE VOD in this post.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=226236
... before discussing the difference between Lurker and Baneling/SwarmHost seriously. Its actually the worst form of theorycrafting on the highest level, and people keep making stuff up because they have never even used a lurker in their life.
Most BW players have used banelings, hell I've played SC2 since beta, trying to get through to SC2 only players about what a lurker actually does feels like beating a dead horse.
|
On July 13 2012 16:11 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 16:04 iky43210 wrote:
I liked the idea behind swarm host mechanics and the potential dynamics it may bring. Lurkers and swarm hosts don't even have the same role.
Just wait for the beta to come out before people make their judgement/impression. I have a good feeling alot of "disappointment" will be gone upon releases Yeah, like with the Colossus, Roach and Marauder.. right? RIGHT?
what is your point? not only have I never made any claims regarding those units, swarm hosts are much more intriguing and are loaded with potentials that players can explore
Also there is nothing wrong with marauders.
|
You know guys, this debate can be settled. I propose an experiment, in one experiment, one can use the map editor to make a mod similar to hots, but have one be a lurker mod (which is already in the map editor) and the other with swarm host (im pretty sure someone can figure out how to remake it in the map editor).
Then, have 4 master's player with one of each race and one more Zerg and let the Zerg familiarize with the lurker and swarm host mechanic first. Then have them play a couple games and post a video of each match up playing with lurkers and each match up with swarm host so you have a better opinion.
Then after that, release both of these mods and record the win rates of each matchup TvZ, PvZ, and ZvZ and see how much they the win rates differ from swarm host and lurkers. On the other hand, have the original 4 master players play 100 games each of TvZ, PvZ, and ZvZ with lurkers and 100 games of each match up with swarm host and record precisely what the strategies are, their timings, the maps, length of game, win rates, and etc. to see precisely how much each impacts others and release all of that information for all of us to decide. It will take months but I think that's how we should end the debate.
If there are any other suggestions to this lurkers v. swarm host experiment, please reply to this post.
|
On July 13 2012 16:18 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 16:11 Velr wrote:On July 13 2012 16:04 iky43210 wrote:
I liked the idea behind swarm host mechanics and the potential dynamics it may bring. Lurkers and swarm hosts don't even have the same role.
Just wait for the beta to come out before people make their judgement/impression. I have a good feeling alot of "disappointment" will be gone upon releases Yeah, like with the Colossus, Roach and Marauder.. right? RIGHT? what is your point? not only have I never made any claims regarding those units, swarm hosts are much more intriguing and are loaded with potentials that players can explore Also there is nothing wrong with marauders.
There is a lot wrong with the idea of a stimmable dragoon, siege unit that doesn't need to siege, and a T1 high supply low dps Zerg unit designed to tank damage.
On July 13 2012 16:19 FrosTByTe11 wrote:
You know guys, this debate can be settled. I propose an experiment, in one experiment, one can use the map editor to make a mod similar to hots, but have one be a lurker mod (which is already in the map editor) and the other with swarm host (im pretty sure someone can figure out how to remake it in the map editor). Have 4 master's player with one of each race and one more Zerg and let the Zerg familiarize with the lurker and swarm host mechanic first. Then have them play a couple games and post a video of each match up playing with lurkers and each match up with swarm host so you have a better opinion. Then after that, release both of these mods and record the win rates of each matchup TvZ, PvZ, and ZvZ and see how much they differ with lurkers or swarm host. On the other hand, have the original players then play 100 games of TvZ, PvZ, and ZvZ with lurkers and 100 games with swarm host and record precisely what the strategies are, their timings, the maps, length of game, win rates, and etc. to see precisely how much each impacts others and release all of that information for all of us to decide. I think that's how we should end the debate.
I was actually thinking of showing some strategies in a much more facetious way. 
Like putting 2 swarm hosts above a ramp and watching marines just stim past the locusts and snipe the swarm hosts.
Or doing a runby by burrowing the swarm hosts at the nat, and watching the marines just stim past the locusts and easily defend the base.
|
the best thing about the lurker would be that it morphs from the hydra. :-)
|
On July 13 2012 16:11 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 16:04 iky43210 wrote:
I liked the idea behind swarm host mechanics and the potential dynamics it may bring. Lurkers and swarm hosts don't even have the same role.
Just wait for the beta to come out before people make their judgement/impression. I have a good feeling alot of "disappointment" will be gone upon releases Yeah, like with the Colossus, Roach and Marauder.. right? RIGHT?
I see what you did there.
|
On July 13 2012 16:19 FrosTByTe11 wrote:
You know guys, this debate can be settled. I propose an experiment, in one experiment, one can use the map editor to make a mod similar to hots, but have one be a lurker mod (which is already in the map editor) and the other with swarm host (im pretty sure someone can figure out how to remake it in the map editor).
Then, have 4 master's player with one of each race and one more Zerg and let the Zerg familiarize with the lurker and swarm host mechanic first. Then have them play a couple games and post a video of each match up playing with lurkers and each match up with swarm host so you have a better opinion.
Then after that, release both of these mods and record the win rates of each matchup TvZ, PvZ, and ZvZ and see how much they the win rates differ from swarm host and lurkers. On the other hand, have the original 4 master players play 100 games each of TvZ, PvZ, and ZvZ with lurkers and 100 games of each match up with swarm host and record precisely what the strategies are, their timings, the maps, length of game, win rates, and etc. to see precisely how much each impacts others and release all of that information for all of us to decide. It will take months but I think that's how we should end the debate.
If there are any other suggestions to this lurkers v. swarm host experiment, please reply to this post.
Like master players know shit about this game.
You need way more than 100 games for a matchup to find a stable metagame and what the "good" strategies are, and it's certainly not dependent on a couple of players, who may play ridiculously stylistically anyway. Take TvZ with the recent patch. That's a patch that changes like 2 unit stats, and TvZ is just now beginning to look like something again, with all foreigner and Korean scene on it.
|
OK. I will make a nasty point here.
We all know that there are a lot of SC1 players and fans don't like the transition into SC2 in Korean SPL and OSL. There are many reasons, subjective or objective. But the most fundamental and ultimate reason is that SC2 is not a game that the majority of SC1 fans approves and appreciates. SC2 is considered as just a "different game", rather than a real sequel that possess an improved experience for both players and spectators, for strategies and tactics, and for competition and esports.
Even in the Alpha phase of SC2 many SC1 fans with dense experiences of StarCraft pro scene have given constructive criticisms and suggestions about how to make a better sequel, Blizzard still insists on many of the fundamental design flaws that later are proved to be deal-breaker to the whole gameplay and esports experiences. Two most criticized problem is the deathball and lack of micro-able units and maybe the reluctant to bring back SC1 units.
These problems were pointed out in 2009 way before the game is finalized but Blizzard just ignored them. The funniest thing is that these problems have been continuously brought up even until today. But Dustin Browder's famous response is: "if you want BW, just go play BW. It's still a great game". This is arrogance to some extent. And this arrogance later bites in the !@#. Diablo 3 is the best example of this. Their ignorance of the fan base's opinion pays them back with one of the most criticized game (Diablo 3) in history.
|
On July 13 2012 16:31 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 16:19 FrosTByTe11 wrote:
You know guys, this debate can be settled. I propose an experiment, in one experiment, one can use the map editor to make a mod similar to hots, but have one be a lurker mod (which is already in the map editor) and the other with swarm host (im pretty sure someone can figure out how to remake it in the map editor).
Then, have 4 master's player with one of each race and one more Zerg and let the Zerg familiarize with the lurker and swarm host mechanic first. Then have them play a couple games and post a video of each match up playing with lurkers and each match up with swarm host so you have a better opinion.
Then after that, release both of these mods and record the win rates of each matchup TvZ, PvZ, and ZvZ and see how much they the win rates differ from swarm host and lurkers. On the other hand, have the original 4 master players play 100 games each of TvZ, PvZ, and ZvZ with lurkers and 100 games of each match up with swarm host and record precisely what the strategies are, their timings, the maps, length of game, win rates, and etc. to see precisely how much each impacts others and release all of that information for all of us to decide. It will take months but I think that's how we should end the debate.
If there are any other suggestions to this lurkers v. swarm host experiment, please reply to this post. Like master players know shit about this game. You need way more than 100 games for a matchup to find a stable metagame and what the "good" strategies are, and it's certainly not dependent on a couple of players, who may play ridiculously stylistically anyway. Take TvZ with the recent patch. That's a patch that changes like 2 unit stats, and TvZ is just now beginning to look like something again, with all foreigner and Korean scene on it.
Well, it may or may not be master's player, but players that really know how to play and the reason why the same players are used is because it keeps the data relatively the same without interference. I prefer quality over quantity as the 100 games that are being analyzed are meticulously analyzed to really see the effect of the lurkers and swarm host independently. But because I know there would be bias in the data of the 4 players, I proposed that the mod be released in Bnet and be played by thousands of players (players of all leagues) accumulating thousands of games and analyze the data from that. There are some really good statisticians in TL that can really take good analysis of the data and present it to conclude some sort of answer.
|
On July 13 2012 16:22 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 16:18 iky43210 wrote:On July 13 2012 16:11 Velr wrote:On July 13 2012 16:04 iky43210 wrote:
I liked the idea behind swarm host mechanics and the potential dynamics it may bring. Lurkers and swarm hosts don't even have the same role.
Just wait for the beta to come out before people make their judgement/impression. I have a good feeling alot of "disappointment" will be gone upon releases Yeah, like with the Colossus, Roach and Marauder.. right? RIGHT? what is your point? not only have I never made any claims regarding those units, swarm hosts are much more intriguing and are loaded with potentials that players can explore Also there is nothing wrong with marauders. There is a lot wrong with the idea of a stimmable dragoon, siege unit that doesn't need to siege, and a T1 high supply low dps Zerg unit designed to tank damage. Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 16:19 FrosTByTe11 wrote:
You know guys, this debate can be settled. I propose an experiment, in one experiment, one can use the map editor to make a mod similar to hots, but have one be a lurker mod (which is already in the map editor) and the other with swarm host (im pretty sure someone can figure out how to remake it in the map editor). Have 4 master's player with one of each race and one more Zerg and let the Zerg familiarize with the lurker and swarm host mechanic first. Then have them play a couple games and post a video of each match up playing with lurkers and each match up with swarm host so you have a better opinion. Then after that, release both of these mods and record the win rates of each matchup TvZ, PvZ, and ZvZ and see how much they differ with lurkers or swarm host. On the other hand, have the original players then play 100 games of TvZ, PvZ, and ZvZ with lurkers and 100 games with swarm host and record precisely what the strategies are, their timings, the maps, length of game, win rates, and etc. to see precisely how much each impacts others and release all of that information for all of us to decide. I think that's how we should end the debate. I was actually thinking of showing some strategies in a much more facetious way. Like putting 2 swarm hosts above a ramp and watching marines just stim past the locusts and snipe the swarm hosts. Or doing a runby by burrowing the swarm hosts at the nat, and watching the marines just stim past the locusts and easily defend the base.
There's no problem in doing that analysis, but I think it would be more beneficial to complete a whole entire game so that the effect of adding swarm host or lurkers can be weighed out entirely rather than looking at the effect of a few isolated situations that only involves micro. By playing an entire game we can see how the positions, timings, economy, macro, micro, and play style can be affected with the addition of either lurkers or swarm host.
LOL...this was the most serious answer to a joke. I totally misread the response.
|
i also do love lurkers.
yet i don't want blizz to release the same unit.
I just want them to be little more creative...
I understand its hard, but they have had past 15 years...
yes. personally as a south korean growing up going to PC cafe after school every day for 1000won/hr to play bw....
I hate wings of liberty.
I dont like its graphics (esp the new lurker, feels like such weak sauce), i dont like its 'noob friendliness', i dont like its ai, i dont like its linearity, i dont like its inability for major combacks, i dont like its A move units like col, i dont like its death ball, just a hater XD
am i getting temp ban for this? hahaha
|
25 seconds between locusts spawns seems like an eternity
|
On July 13 2012 16:22 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 16:18 iky43210 wrote:On July 13 2012 16:11 Velr wrote:On July 13 2012 16:04 iky43210 wrote:
I liked the idea behind swarm host mechanics and the potential dynamics it may bring. Lurkers and swarm hosts don't even have the same role.
Just wait for the beta to come out before people make their judgement/impression. I have a good feeling alot of "disappointment" will be gone upon releases Yeah, like with the Colossus, Roach and Marauder.. right? RIGHT? what is your point? not only have I never made any claims regarding those units, swarm hosts are much more intriguing and are loaded with potentials that players can explore Also there is nothing wrong with marauders. There is a lot wrong with the idea of a stimmable dragoon, siege unit that doesn't need to siege, and a T1 high supply low dps Zerg unit designed to tank damage. Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 16:19 FrosTByTe11 wrote:
You know guys, this debate can be settled. I propose an experiment, in one experiment, one can use the map editor to make a mod similar to hots, but have one be a lurker mod (which is already in the map editor) and the other with swarm host (im pretty sure someone can figure out how to remake it in the map editor). Have 4 master's player with one of each race and one more Zerg and let the Zerg familiarize with the lurker and swarm host mechanic first. Then have them play a couple games and post a video of each match up playing with lurkers and each match up with swarm host so you have a better opinion. Then after that, release both of these mods and record the win rates of each matchup TvZ, PvZ, and ZvZ and see how much they differ with lurkers or swarm host. On the other hand, have the original players then play 100 games of TvZ, PvZ, and ZvZ with lurkers and 100 games with swarm host and record precisely what the strategies are, their timings, the maps, length of game, win rates, and etc. to see precisely how much each impacts others and release all of that information for all of us to decide. I think that's how we should end the debate. I was actually thinking of showing some strategies in a much more facetious way. Like putting 2 swarm hosts above a ramp and watching marines just stim past the locusts and snipe the swarm hosts. Or doing a runby by burrowing the swarm hosts at the nat, and watching the marines just stim past the locusts and easily defend the base.
marauder is a stimmable dragoon now? It does almost no dmg to zealots and pitiful against zerglings.
These terrible comparison are worthless anyway when not integrating with game dynamics
and talking about marines stimming past locusts to nat is about as credible as running stalkers past bunkers or hellions past queens. Sure, it can work sometimes, but also incredibly risky and you can lose alot of units. As of current build, those locusts are no joke either. They evaporate terran or protoss forces if you don't deal with them properly
|
On July 13 2012 16:36 larse wrote:
OK. I will make a nasty point here.
We all know that there are a lot of SC1 players and fans don't like the transition into SC2 in Korean SPL and OSL. There are many reasons, subjective or objective. But the most fundamental and ultimate reason is that SC2 is not a game that the majority of SC1 fans approves and appreciates. SC2 is considered as just a "different game", rather than a real sequel that possess an improved experience for both players and spectators, for strategies and tactics, and for competition and esports.
Even in the Alpha phase of SC2 many SC1 fans with dense experiences of StarCraft pro scene have given constructive criticisms and suggestions about how to make a better sequel, Blizzard still insists on many of the fundamental design flaws that later are proved to be deal-breaker to the whole gameplay and esports experiences. Two most criticized problem is the deathball and lack of micro-able units and maybe the reluctant to bring back SC1 units.
These problems were pointed out in 2009 way before the game is finalized but Blizzard just ignored them. The funniest thing is that these problems have been continuously brought up even until today. But Dustin Browder's famous response is: "if you want BW, just go play BW. It's still a great game". This is arrogance to some extent. And this arrogance later bites in the !@#. Diablo 3 is the best example of this. Their ignorance of the fan base's opinion pays them back with one of the most criticized game (Diablo 3) in history.
Erm, don't spam the exact same post in different threads with out context, thanks =3
On topic: The lurker's ability would definitely encourage more micro and splitting than the swarmhost due to aoe damage in a line, and the lurker seems to be much more potent at harassment than the swarm host which just fulfills another main battlefield role.
|
On July 13 2012 16:51 Cirn9 wrote:
25 seconds between locusts spawns seems like an eternity
They last 25 seconds too, it just seems like the role of it is limited.
|
On July 13 2012 16:53 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 16:22 sluggaslamoo wrote:On July 13 2012 16:18 iky43210 wrote:On July 13 2012 16:11 Velr wrote:On July 13 2012 16:04 iky43210 wrote:
I liked the idea behind swarm host mechanics and the potential dynamics it may bring. Lurkers and swarm hosts don't even have the same role.
Just wait for the beta to come out before people make their judgement/impression. I have a good feeling alot of "disappointment" will be gone upon releases Yeah, like with the Colossus, Roach and Marauder.. right? RIGHT? what is your point? not only have I never made any claims regarding those units, swarm hosts are much more intriguing and are loaded with potentials that players can explore Also there is nothing wrong with marauders. There is a lot wrong with the idea of a stimmable dragoon, siege unit that doesn't need to siege, and a T1 high supply low dps Zerg unit designed to tank damage. On July 13 2012 16:19 FrosTByTe11 wrote:
You know guys, this debate can be settled. I propose an experiment, in one experiment, one can use the map editor to make a mod similar to hots, but have one be a lurker mod (which is already in the map editor) and the other with swarm host (im pretty sure someone can figure out how to remake it in the map editor). Have 4 master's player with one of each race and one more Zerg and let the Zerg familiarize with the lurker and swarm host mechanic first. Then have them play a couple games and post a video of each match up playing with lurkers and each match up with swarm host so you have a better opinion. Then after that, release both of these mods and record the win rates of each matchup TvZ, PvZ, and ZvZ and see how much they differ with lurkers or swarm host. On the other hand, have the original players then play 100 games of TvZ, PvZ, and ZvZ with lurkers and 100 games with swarm host and record precisely what the strategies are, their timings, the maps, length of game, win rates, and etc. to see precisely how much each impacts others and release all of that information for all of us to decide. I think that's how we should end the debate. I was actually thinking of showing some strategies in a much more facetious way. Like putting 2 swarm hosts above a ramp and watching marines just stim past the locusts and snipe the swarm hosts. Or doing a runby by burrowing the swarm hosts at the nat, and watching the marines just stim past the locusts and easily defend the base. marauder is a stimmable dragoon now? It does almost no dmg to zealots and pitiful against zerglings. These terrible comparison are worthless anyway when not integrating with game dynamics and talking about marines stimming past locusts to nat is about as credible as running stalkers past bunkers or hellions past queens. Sure, it can work sometimes, but also incredibly risky and you can lose alot of units. As of current build, those locusts are no joke either. They evaporate terran or protoss forces if you don't deal with them properly
Dragoons are terrible against Zealots and Zerglings. It is literally, a stimmable dragoon, but with more than half a brain.
Dude, you lose INFINITE BIO UNITS against TWO lurkers above a ramp. INFINITE. A 200/200 bio army cannot beat TWO lurkers above a ramp. Even with stim!
I cannot for the life of me see the same thing happening with even 5 Swarm hosts above a ramp.
Now go watch those vods. :D
|
Zerg needs siege midgame to punch through a base. Right now they cant attack bases without killing themselves (baneligs). With SH you can pressure opponent to force him out of his battlements to fight. Will allow for more dynamic gameplay unlike today where zerg must fight mid-map or simply expand.
Btw, i hit #1 in my silver division yesterday BAM! So heed my words!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
