On July 14 2012 09:14 Falling wrote: On a side note, why did the lurkers get so top heavy/ fat compared to the old artwork? They used to be very low to the ground
Yah I liked the wider more tarantula-like Lurker more.
As stated before the main problem with putting the Lurker in HOTS is it just doesnt fit any more. What would it be built for that another Zerg unit doesnt already cover? How do you get it out early enough in the game without rearranging the tech tree?
You're saying a unit that costs money for 1 attack is better splash than a unit that doesn't disappear after it murders marines.
On July 14 2012 09:14 Falling wrote: On a side note, why did the lurkers get so top heavy/ fat compared to the old artwork? They used to be very low to the ground
Yah I liked the wider more tarantula-like Lurker more.
As stated before the main problem with putting the Lurker in HOTS is it just doesnt fit any more. What would it be built for that another Zerg unit doesnt already cover? How do you get it out early enough in the game without rearranging the tech tree?
That's the thing. I would rather rearrange the tech tree than have to deal with the mess zerg has now.
Lurker could either evolve from hydra or roach. I would rather hydra, which means there is an upgrade at lair tech to make lurkers, sort of a tier 2.5. This way you can keep lurkers in the game.
Now the more attractive solution is just to remove roaches entirely lol.
Baneling and lurker can coexist IMO. They are both so heavy in gas cost that they end up being balanced. They both have different roles.
How realistic do you think the things your suggesting are?
I don't buy dustin's reasoning for putting the swarm host int he game. He said that zerg needs a way to kill their opponent after they get a big advantage, and they already have that just by teching to broodlord/infestor. Zerg doesn't need a mid-tier shitty broodlord. the lurker would be so much more interesting and could actually fill a role that Zerg lacks (space control).
The most important aspect of this is game is to be fun to play and to watch. How is the swarm host fun to watch? This game desperately needs more fun/exciting/... things. Swarm host isn't going to deliver.
Lurker delivered.
I'm not only talking about the lurker <-> swarm host here, the game just needs a lot more. They took our mutalisk micro. They took our scourge micro. They took our lurker micro. They took our plague/dark swarm action. And so on. And the added nearly nothing for the zerg to micro. I don't know about you guys but even when I watch the likes of stephano etc stream, there's practically no micro involved compared to fpvods of brood war. They most certainly control their units and position their army well, but micro is a lot more than that + casting a couple of easy mode fungals...
Baneling and lurker can coexist IMO. They are both so heavy in gas cost that they end up being balanced. They both have different roles.
that would be the same if i would say here is a tank and here are two mortars.
On July 14 2012 11:01 Tachion wrote: I don't buy dustin's reasoning for putting the swarm host int he game. He said that zerg needs a way to kill their opponent after they get a big advantage, and they already have that just by teching to broodlord/infestor. Zerg doesn't need a mid-tier shitty broodlord. the lurker would be so much more interesting and could actually fill a role that Zerg lacks (space control).
It´s not a broodlord. It can controll space. As is said a few times now.
On July 14 2012 11:02 wcr.4fun wrote: Slightly offtopic:
The most important aspect of this is game is to be fun to play and to watch. How is the swarm host fun to watch? This game desperately needs more fun/exciting/... things. Swarm host isn't going to deliver.
Yes lurker is more interesting bla i don´t get that. The battlereport where Z was attacking P third was really good to watch. Forth and back. A real fight not A-click everything is over.... I just don´t get you people. So tell me a situation in bw with lurkers i bet i could give you a equivalent in sc2.
On July 14 2012 10:12 Qwyn wrote: And besides the fact that they both deal splash damage, the lurker and baneling ARE NOT similar at all. The baneling is designed to trade armies. It does not control space. baneling mines cannot control space. And it is already countered by high amounts of firepower.
Sry, then you don´t understand the design of both units. They were both build to counter t1/2 massed units (aka marine sani-bw). They were/are be used for controll space. If you look at hold lurker / baneling mines it comes down to the very exact same result.
Lurkers and banelings might have a slight overlap, but they really don't do the same thing. Banelings are too fragile to create contains. Nor can a couple of them sit on top of a ramp and hold off masses of low tier units indefinitely. (Mind you this might not happen in SC2 anyways because of different unit pathing, changes to high ground advantage, etc.)
Two semi-decent examples of lurker contains. I'm sure there are better, but these are the most recent I've seen. Warning OSL semi-final spoilers + Show Spoiler +
Edit Shoot, blocked embedding. Ok starting at 22min more or less.
And starting at 15min 30seconds. (contain set up by 16:30)
You simply can't do the same thing with Banelings.
Now I'm crossing my fingers that Swarmlords will fulfill this role, but it simply not true that Banelings do everything that Lurkers did.
This was a timely self-link by Chargelot with dear old Day9's thoughts on Zerg design Specifically his thoughts on Lurkers. + Show Spoiler +
Sean: The problem with me trying to envision a unit that I would remove is the fact that everything is sort of influenced by that. For instance, I don't like the Thor very much, as a unit. I don't think I have a necessarily good argument, I build a lot of them and I was like "Yeah Thors rule!" but they've always felt a little funky to me. And that's all I have to go on, and if you remove it suddenly mutalisks are ridiculously better and there are a bunch of mech strategies you can no longer do. There's all sorts of Crises that begin happening for Terran. But. Um. I like the units in StarCraft II I guess. I mean honestly, I personally think that Zerg needs a redesign. Well, maybe they don't need it, but I'd like to see a redesign, because they don't feel like Zerg, at all. They don't feel Zergy.
For me, Zerg had two fundemental identities in Brood War
One was space control. I could plant Lurkers here, and nothing could cross not only things that could out-range it but also detection. I had Scourge that could lock down air space, in a limited sense. I had Mutalisks that were fast, that made you feel very very very defensive. I had Overlords that once I got the speed upgrade I could cover the whole map. I could see everything you could do, and I could lock down air and ground and I could be very aggressive with harassment. So I had heavy space control. What do they do in StarCraft II? Well they make these slow mud units that though they're pretty good -- there are plenty of people who will win with roaches and baneling drops -- but my army is a blob! My army isn't supposed to be a blob! How do you control space? By having like 40 roaches. If you want to control space, you send them there!
In Brood War, the second characteristic was masses of units. Masses and masses, endless streams, the Zerg Swarm! But in StarCraft II Zerg has no 1 food units, except for a drone, but that's not a real unit! I guess you have an Overseer that's a 0 food unit, but still I want Zerg to just feel way different than it does feel. That's purely from my historical perspective, not from a balance perspective. I want something that feels really really Zergy.
On July 14 2012 11:02 wcr.4fun wrote: Slightly offtopic:
The most important aspect of this is game is to be fun to play and to watch. How is the swarm host fun to watch? This game desperately needs more fun/exciting/... things. Swarm host isn't going to deliver.
yes, like things that can attack an opponent. Like something that can acutally always attack. Hm, maybe a longrange siege unit? Sounds like this one can really always attack. And maybe make it so, that the opponent has to come out and play search and destroy with it. Maybe give it some cloaking ability like burrow. Yeah, that sounds nice. And hm, how about making this unit kind of universal with antiair/antiground capabilities, so that you can't die to some blindcounter strategy. Yeah, sounds like a solid unit that forces action!
On July 14 2012 09:14 Falling wrote: On a side note, why did the lurkers get so top heavy/ fat compared to the old artwork? They used to be very low to the ground
Yah I liked the wider more tarantula-like Lurker more.
As stated before the main problem with putting the Lurker in HOTS is it just doesnt fit any more. What would it be built for that another Zerg unit doesnt already cover? How do you get it out early enough in the game without rearranging the tech tree?
That's the thing. I would rather rearrange the tech tree than have to deal with the mess zerg has now.
Lurker could either evolve from hydra or roach. I would rather hydra, which means there is an upgrade at lair tech to make lurkers, sort of a tier 2.5. This way you can keep lurkers in the game.
Now the more attractive solution is just to remove roaches entirely lol.
Baneling and lurker can coexist IMO. They are both so heavy in gas cost that they end up being balanced. They both have different roles.
Bannelings + Lurkers feels too much like a Terran combosition of the Spider Mines + Siege Tanks
But then again it IS a new game.
Nah, banelings require manual detonation, lol. Whole new level of skill. Also siege tanks outrange lurker creating a classic TvZ dynamic. Really I think that lurkers should have a double damage to armor 20 (+20) so that they can easily clean up short range units such as marauders as well as marines, while still leaving them open to the mercy of tanks / other splash. Rewards better positional play.
On July 14 2012 11:10 Falling wrote: Lurkers and banelings might have a slight overlap, but they really don't do the same thing. Banelings are too fragile to create contains. Nor can a couple of them sit on top of a ramp and hold off masses of low tier units indefinitely. (Mind you this might not happen in SC2 anyways because of different unit pathing, changes to high ground advantage, etc.)
Explain to me what you mean with fragile. If i sit at an enemy base(contain ) with the same amount of gas and mins as lurkers would cost. Would it be a contain or easily breakable. One should try to make a comparison now from bw to sc2 what is really hard. (Like the situation in itself. I am on 123 base in bw now i am on 2 base in sc2. how many drones i have. What is my tech. what is terran doing now in bw in sc2)
Also that would be a last resort if i would compare bw lurker -> sc2 wol zerg.. infestors.. but that is a more indepth story
Nah, banelings require manual detonation, lol.
Yust autocast burrow you don´t even need detonation manually. Then again like hold lurkers the best result comes from manual using
I didn't like the lurker at all. It was definitely my least favorite Zerg unit. I wouldn't be happy to see it return to SC2. Not only because it wouldn't fit well with the current zerg units, it just wouldn't be an interesting addition.
Swarm host seems far more interesting and unique than a unit which sits there burrowed doing splash damage in a line..
On July 14 2012 08:06 archonOOid wrote: the swarm host lets you micro both the swarm host itself and its minions = therefore more skill based unit than a lurker
this post gave me cancer.
it's like saying brood lords are more skill based than marines because you can micro broodling and the unit itself.
What is there to micro about a swarm host? And who is going to do it? People already talked about putting the swarm host miles away from harm, sieging a base. (Un)burrowing a swarm host is not micro. You put it's rally point and you're finished. Lurkers positioning on the other hand is a lot more important, if I put my lurkers in the wrong positioning they'll deal practically no damage. You want your lurkers to be spread out just enough so that they hit the biggest amount of units possible without overlapping too much. You also have to atleast know the range of the unit, doesn't matter where you position a swarm host.
And nobody is going to micro locusts because they're way too slow and their attack animation is way too slow based on the video I saw. Marines can be micro'd so wel because their attack animation is really short and they're insanely fast with stim.
Plus I imagine the range of a marine to be a lot bigger than the range of a locust.
I guess I'm biased, but you can't honestly say that it would require MORE skill than the lurker.
you say that burrowing and unburrowing does not count as micro...
then you go on to explain all the lurker micro you can do by burrowing it... o_o
I said positioning is a lot more important and you actually need to know stuff about the unit like it's range. Instead of just burrowing and setting the rally point. You also have to spread out your lurkers a lot better, who's going to care if your swarm hosts are clumped up? If your lurkers clump up, they'll do way too little damage, aren't in range of anything and get owned by one storm. Since swarm host has hundred times lurker's range and people were already talking about using it from incredibly far distances. Try again.
you said positioning for the Lurker was more important, but you still haven't proven it. i would argue that it is extremely important where you position your swarm hosts because they cannot defend themselves against an army, therefore you have to be very careful with how and when you burrow/unburrow them. using it from a greater range doesn't mean that it has less potential as a unit, that just means it fills a different role.
and how hard is it to know range? even a bronzie can know that a marine has only so much range and that this doesn't change. but take a look at the Swarm Host. it's range is not defined, therefore the "know range" argument suddenly becomes much more important, rather than less important.
for micro/positioning: burrowing and unburrowing them to get a stream of units, or clumping them for a massive wave. letting them sit and fire to draw an enemy in, then timing another set of them to fire when the enemy comes in, while ambushing with your supporting force of lings, blings, etc. i can think of thousands of ways that you could use the Swarm Host effectively, excitingly and a thousand ways you could mess it up without good control and good strategy, meaning that the skill ceiling for it would be pretty high.
see i can do what you're doing pretty easily:
The Lurker is stupid because it just burrows and then you're done. It just super attacks anything within it's range. No micro, no real positioning. And it's so boring... it just sits there with little spines that come out of the ground. Bad design.
^see that's not exactly untrue, but it's totally untrue. you could make anything sound lame and boring if you refuse to look at the full reality of it.
On July 14 2012 09:14 Falling wrote: On a side note, why did the lurkers get so top heavy/ fat compared to the old artwork? They used to be very low to the ground
Yah I liked the wider more tarantula-like Lurker more.
As stated before the main problem with putting the Lurker in HOTS is it just doesnt fit any more. What would it be built for that another Zerg unit doesnt already cover? How do you get it out early enough in the game without rearranging the tech tree?
You're saying a unit that costs money for 1 attack is better splash than a unit that doesn't disappear after it murders marines.
On July 14 2012 09:14 Falling wrote: On a side note, why did the lurkers get so top heavy/ fat compared to the old artwork? They used to be very low to the ground
Yah I liked the wider more tarantula-like Lurker more.
As stated before the main problem with putting the Lurker in HOTS is it just doesnt fit any more. What would it be built for that another Zerg unit doesnt already cover? How do you get it out early enough in the game without rearranging the tech tree?
That's the thing. I would rather rearrange the tech tree than have to deal with the mess zerg has now.
Lurker could either evolve from hydra or roach. I would rather hydra, which means there is an upgrade at lair tech to make lurkers, sort of a tier 2.5. This way you can keep lurkers in the game.
Now the more attractive solution is just to remove roaches entirely lol.
Baneling and lurker can coexist IMO. They are both so heavy in gas cost that they end up being balanced. They both have different roles.
How realistic do you think the things your suggesting are?
They are completely realistic, HotS will be a brand new game anyway.
On July 14 2012 10:12 Qwyn wrote: And besides the fact that they both deal splash damage, the lurker and baneling ARE NOT similar at all. The baneling is designed to trade armies. It does not control space. baneling mines cannot control space. And it is already countered by high amounts of firepower.
Sry, then you don´t understand the design of both units. They were both build to counter t1/2 massed units (aka marine sani-bw). They were/are be used for controll space. If you look at hold lurker / baneling mines it comes down to the very exact same result.
Lurkers and banelings might have a slight overlap, but they really don't do the same thing. Banelings are too fragile to create contains. Nor can a couple of them sit on top of a ramp and hold off masses of low tier units indefinitely. (Mind you this might not happen in SC2 anyways because of different unit pathing, changes to high ground advantage, etc.)
Two semi-decent examples of lurker contains. I'm sure there are better, but these are the most recent I've seen. Warning OSL semi-final spoilers + Show Spoiler +
You simply can't do the same thing with Banelings.
Now I'm crossing my fingers that Swarmlords will fulfill this role, but it simply not true that Banelings do everything that Lurkers did.
This was a timely self-link by Chargelot with dear old Day9's thoughts on Zerg design Specifically his thoughts on Lurkers. + Show Spoiler +
Sean: The problem with me trying to envision a unit that I would remove is the fact that everything is sort of influenced by that. For instance, I don't like the Thor very much, as a unit. I don't think I have a necessarily good argument, I build a lot of them and I was like "Yeah Thors rule!" but they've always felt a little funky to me. And that's all I have to go on, and if you remove it suddenly mutalisks are ridiculously better and there are a bunch of mech strategies you can no longer do. There's all sorts of Crises that begin happening for Terran. But. Um. I like the units in StarCraft II I guess. I mean honestly, I personally think that Zerg needs a redesign. Well, maybe they don't need it, but I'd like to see a redesign, because they don't feel like Zerg, at all. They don't feel Zergy.
For me, Zerg had two fundemental identities in Brood War
One was space control. I could plant Lurkers here, and nothing could cross not only things that could out-range it but also detection. I had Scourge that could lock down air space, in a limited sense. I had Mutalisks that were fast, that made you feel very very very defensive. I had Overlords that once I got the speed upgrade I could cover the whole map. I could see everything you could do, and I could lock down air and ground and I could be very aggressive with harassment. So I had heavy space control. What do they do in StarCraft II? Well they make these slow mud units that though they're pretty good -- there are plenty of people who will win with roaches and baneling drops -- but my army is a blob! My army isn't supposed to be a blob! How do you control space? By having like 40 roaches. If you want to control space, you send them there!
In Brood War, the second characteristic was masses of units. Masses and masses, endless streams, the Zerg Swarm! But in StarCraft II Zerg has no 1 food units, except for a drone, but that's not a real unit! I guess you have an Overseer that's a 0 food unit, but still I want Zerg to just feel way different than it does feel. That's purely from my historical perspective, not from a balance perspective. I want something that feels really really Zergy.
On July 14 2012 11:10 Falling wrote: Lurkers and banelings might have a slight overlap, but they really don't do the same thing. Banelings are too fragile to create contains. Nor can a couple of them sit on top of a ramp and hold off masses of low tier units indefinitely. (Mind you this might not happen in SC2 anyways because of different unit pathing, changes to high ground advantage, etc.)
Explain to me what you mean with fragile. If i sit at an enemy base(contain ) with the same amount of gas and mins as lurkers would cost. Would it be a contain or easily breakable. One should try to make a comparison now from bw to sc2 what is really hard. (Like the situation in itself. I am on 123 base in bw now i am on 2 base in sc2. how many drones i have. What is my tech. what is terran doing now in bw in sc2)
Yust autocast burrow you don´t even need detonation manually. Then again like hold lurkers the best result comes from manual using
Banelings are considerably more fragile. In order for them to damage, they must die. Once they are dead they cease to do damage. With lurkers, for anything low tier, you need to walk into the lurker field before you can even attack them and while they're doing that, you continue to do damage. If you have them spread out (defence in depth), it's even harder to bust out. If you fail to bust the lurker contain, the lurkers are still there ready to get reinforced by more units rather than all dead because that's how banelings attack.
Now this is old, but here's a more clear example of Chill explaining a lurker contain.
Stop lurkers are similar to baneling mines. But that is a rare case where stop lurkers actually works. Lurker contain doesn't rely upon surprise. You know it's there and the spread out lurker field of death is just ridiculously hard to bust out.
I quite like banelings, but they aren't fulfilling the same role except in the most superficial sense as far as I can see.
edit @sGs.Kal_ra Actually that's somewhat true. Burrowed banelings can function as a mine equivalent. They just aren't nearly used quite so extensively as mines as they are considerably more expensive and you actually lose the unit.
On July 14 2012 10:12 Qwyn wrote: And besides the fact that they both deal splash damage, the lurker and baneling ARE NOT similar at all. The baneling is designed to trade armies. It does not control space. baneling mines cannot control space. And it is already countered by high amounts of firepower.
Sry, then you don´t understand the design of both units. They were both build to counter t1/2 massed units (aka marine sani-bw). They were/are be used for controll space. If you look at hold lurker / baneling mines it comes down to the very exact same result.
Lurkers and banelings might have a slight overlap, but they really don't do the same thing. Banelings are too fragile to create contains. Nor can a couple of them sit on top of a ramp and hold off masses of low tier units indefinitely. (Mind you this might not happen in SC2 anyways because of different unit pathing, changes to high ground advantage, etc.)
Two semi-decent examples of lurker contains. I'm sure there are better, but these are the most recent I've seen. Warning OSL semi-final spoilers + Show Spoiler +
You simply can't do the same thing with Banelings.
Now I'm crossing my fingers that Swarmlords will fulfill this role, but it simply not true that Banelings do everything that Lurkers did.
This was a timely self-link by Chargelot with dear old Day9's thoughts on Zerg design Specifically his thoughts on Lurkers. + Show Spoiler +
Sean: The problem with me trying to envision a unit that I would remove is the fact that everything is sort of influenced by that. For instance, I don't like the Thor very much, as a unit. I don't think I have a necessarily good argument, I build a lot of them and I was like "Yeah Thors rule!" but they've always felt a little funky to me. And that's all I have to go on, and if you remove it suddenly mutalisks are ridiculously better and there are a bunch of mech strategies you can no longer do. There's all sorts of Crises that begin happening for Terran. But. Um. I like the units in StarCraft II I guess. I mean honestly, I personally think that Zerg needs a redesign. Well, maybe they don't need it, but I'd like to see a redesign, because they don't feel like Zerg, at all. They don't feel Zergy.
For me, Zerg had two fundemental identities in Brood War
One was space control. I could plant Lurkers here, and nothing could cross not only things that could out-range it but also detection. I had Scourge that could lock down air space, in a limited sense. I had Mutalisks that were fast, that made you feel very very very defensive. I had Overlords that once I got the speed upgrade I could cover the whole map. I could see everything you could do, and I could lock down air and ground and I could be very aggressive with harassment. So I had heavy space control. What do they do in StarCraft II? Well they make these slow mud units that though they're pretty good -- there are plenty of people who will win with roaches and baneling drops -- but my army is a blob! My army isn't supposed to be a blob! How do you control space? By having like 40 roaches. If you want to control space, you send them there!
In Brood War, the second characteristic was masses of units. Masses and masses, endless streams, the Zerg Swarm! But in StarCraft II Zerg has no 1 food units, except for a drone, but that's not a real unit! I guess you have an Overseer that's a 0 food unit, but still I want Zerg to just feel way different than it does feel. That's purely from my historical perspective, not from a balance perspective. I want something that feels really really Zergy.
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.
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.
Hold lurkers could easily be allowed if they were included. As for your second point, if you take a look at my other posts you can see that I'd remove banelings and move hydras to Tier 1.5 in conjunction with adding lurkers.
Do you know what t1.5 hydras would do in zvp? Jesus christ P would be fucked. FFE? Lol i'll just hydra rush you. And it'd be nothing like hydra bust of bw, it'd be way worse with how fast toss gateway units die to hydras.
Hydras would obviously be scaled down appropriately for t1.5, to stats similar to those of BW hydras (as was the case when they were t1.5 during alpha development).
On July 14 2012 10:12 Qwyn wrote: And besides the fact that they both deal splash damage, the lurker and baneling ARE NOT similar at all. The baneling is designed to trade armies. It does not control space. baneling mines cannot control space. And it is already countered by high amounts of firepower.
Sry, then you don´t understand the design of both units. They were both build to counter t1/2 massed units (aka marine sani-bw). They were/are be used for controll space. If you look at hold lurker / baneling mines it comes down to the very exact same result.
Lurkers and banelings might have a slight overlap, but they really don't do the same thing. Banelings are too fragile to create contains. Nor can a couple of them sit on top of a ramp and hold off masses of low tier units indefinitely. (Mind you this might not happen in SC2 anyways because of different unit pathing, changes to high ground advantage, etc.)
You are totally disregarding the main part of why the Lurker in its original form and power could NEVER be adopted in SC2 and that is the "new" tight movement of units in "unlimited quantity". Two Lurkers were enough in BW to kill Marines and deter them, but in SC2 that is too much if the unit stays on indefinetely. Thus the "smart guys" at Blizzard came up with the Baneling, which kills a lot but is expended in the process.
Sadly the same "smart guys" also messed up by making the Baneling an active attack unit as well AND giving it a speed upgrade. When will they learn that units which become super effective after a critical mass has been reached are NEVER a good designed unit? You always need to "test" these units on a large map with a huge economy and not on such tiny maps like they used in the Battle Reports ...
On July 14 2012 11:10 Falling wrote: Lurkers and banelings might have a slight overlap, but they really don't do the same thing. Banelings are too fragile to create contains. Nor can a couple of them sit on top of a ramp and hold off masses of low tier units indefinitely. (Mind you this might not happen in SC2 anyways because of different unit pathing, changes to high ground advantage, etc.)
Explain to me what you mean with fragile. If i sit at an enemy base(contain ) with the same amount of gas and mins as lurkers would cost. Would it be a contain or easily breakable. One should try to make a comparison now from bw to sc2 what is really hard. (Like the situation in itself. I am on 123 base in bw now i am on 2 base in sc2. how many drones i have. What is my tech. what is terran doing now in bw in sc2)
Nah, banelings require manual detonation, lol.
Yust autocast burrow you don´t even need detonation manually. Then again like hold lurkers the best result comes from manual using
Banelings are considerably more fragile. In order for them to damage, they must die. Once they are dead they cease to do damage. With lurkers, for anything low tier, you need to walk into the lurker field before you can even attack them and while they're doing that, you continue to do damage. If you have them spread out (defence in depth), it's even harder to bust out. If you fail to bust the lurker contain, the lurkers are still there ready to get reinforced by more units rather than all dead because that's how banelings attack.
Stop lurkers are similar to baneling mines. But that is a rare case where stop lurkers actually works. Lurker contain doesn't rely upon surprise. You know it's there and the spread out lurker field of death is just ridiculously hard to bust out.
I quite like banelings, but they aren't fulfilling the same role except in the most superficial sense as far as I can see.
edit @sGs.Kal_ra Actually that's somewhat true. Burrowed banelings can function as a mine equivalent. They just aren't nearly used quite so extensively as mines as they are considerably more expensive and you actually lose the unit.
Sure you have a point... There is no lurker in sc2.. Yet the effect would be the same if i would contain you, you move out and get killed either by lurkers or by banelings. One does not have unlimited killing spikes like lurkers have in bw. But then again sc2 isn´t bw. When i still look to the games or cirumstances where i could lay a contain are quite still the same. Quite rather same tech as we come to the infestor. Quite rather the same amount on money spend. Where sc2 has a bit disadvantage in my eyes cause of bigger gas usage because for a full comparison in a situation where you need more then 6 lurkers the sc2 equivalent would be /anything(best bane) + infestor/ One want space controll. You get that. You have that allready. But neither of them both will give you the lurker... The SH will give you some of that but not that you lay down 2 on a ramp and thats it and even not laying down 6 in a good way to lay down a field of death. The unit SH itself isn´t design for this purpose. You have blinglinginf for this fieldofdeath feeling. Imagin space controll for terran with abduct and blinding cloud they will cry. Neither you will have space controll vs toss because of early recall. That´s a deffensive one that could be used offensive vice versa but it´s still space controll in an way. And that´s the point. You all can throw your wishes and thoughts overboard that one brought from bw to sc2. Because then you need to look at the mysterious infamous deathball aka pathing aka sc2 core system aka let us just wait till sc3.
the swarm host seems like a meh unit.. zerg has basically the same unit, the infested marine.. Would love to see a mega-zergling/baneling or RoachHydra tho
EPT![[image loading]](http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20071101072521/starcraft/images/0/07/SC1_Lurker.gif)
) with the same amount of gas and mins as lurkers would cost. Would it be a contain or easily breakable. One should try to make a comparison now from bw to sc2 what is really hard.
