On July 15 2012 02:28 iky43210 wrote: ah yes the sc2 is a bubble argument. Weren't people touting this 2 years ago?
Bubbles don't certainly last this long, especially for video games where new shiny things come out every other month. If there is a bubble, it would have bursted already
You don't get it. Blizzard have monopolized the RTS market. They are allowed to do anything until someone else makes a great one. Until then, you can enjoy your 'good' game. Oh learn your history, people WEREN'T saying this 2 years ago. They are only starting to say it at recent time.
On July 14 2012 17:41 Xiphos wrote: Honestly, I strongly doubt that Blizzard actually listens to their SC2 customers.
Even if they do, we would have to wait couple of years to see any drastic changes from their part.
Lol y`know what`s the funniest? The game isn't even completed yet. So this whole esport fiasco is really based on their elongation of their product expansions.
Do you really call SC2 an e-sports fiasco??
Blizzard does listen to customers, by the way, but they (of course) have to weight opinions.
Correction: Blizzard does listen to their WoW customers because that their source of income.
See when HotS or LotV comes out, the playing field have been reset. players start all the way at square one therefore every expansions is really a bubble that Blizzard can burst at anytime.
"Oh yeah you were the best player in (insert name here), too bad man."
I don't really get what you are trying to say, nor do I think that WoW factors into SC2 as an e-sports.
On July 15 2012 02:28 iky43210 wrote: ah yes the sc2 is a bubble argument. Weren't people touting this 2 years ago?
Bubbles don't certainly last this long, especially for video games where new shiny things come out every other month. If there is a bubble, it would have bursted already
You don't get it. Blizzard have monopolized the RTS market. They are allowed to do anything until someone else makes a great one. Until then, you can enjoy your 'good' game. Oh learn your history, people WEREN'T saying this 2 years ago. They are only starting to say it at recent time.
On July 15 2012 02:24 [F_]aths wrote:
On July 15 2012 02:22 Xiphos wrote:
On July 15 2012 02:11 [F_]aths wrote:
On July 14 2012 17:41 Xiphos wrote: Honestly, I strongly doubt that Blizzard actually listens to their SC2 customers.
Even if they do, we would have to wait couple of years to see any drastic changes from their part.
Lol y`know what`s the funniest? The game isn't even completed yet. So this whole esport fiasco is really based on their elongation of their product expansions.
Do you really call SC2 an e-sports fiasco??
Blizzard does listen to customers, by the way, but they (of course) have to weight opinions.
Correction: Blizzard does listen to their WoW customers because that their source of income.
See when HotS or LotV comes out, the playing field have been reset. players start all the way at square one therefore every expansions is really a bubble that Blizzard can burst at anytime.
"Oh yeah you were the best player in (insert name here), too bad man."
I don't really get what you are trying to say, nor do I think that WoW factors into SC2 as an e-sports.
On July 15 2012 04:55 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: if the swarm host were a BW unit, i would imagine most of the people in this thread would prefer the swarm host.
Your assumption is that people prefer BW units just for the sake of nostalgia? Then why isn't anyone clamoring for the return of the scout, devourer, or science vessel?
On July 15 2012 04:55 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: if the swarm host were a BW unit, i would imagine most of the people in this thread would prefer the swarm host.
Your assumption is that people prefer BW units just for the sake of nostalgia? Then why isn't anyone clamoring for the return of the scout, devourer, or science vessel?
Devourers were pretty awesome! Good counter to Wraith and fags that go for mass corsairs. The flying balls can just go fuck themselves tho.
science vessels were really cool. But I don't miss them all that much (zerg player). I don't care that much for bw units, I want good units. (broken record here)
On July 15 2012 04:55 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: if the swarm host were a BW unit, i would imagine most of the people in this thread would prefer the swarm host.
Your assumption is that people prefer BW units just for the sake of nostalgia? Then why isn't anyone clamoring for the return of the scout, devourer, or science vessel?
People miss good games they seen, and I guess the lurker brought some good plays, but they don't thin about it in the current sc2 game, they just care for nostalgic, and I guess they are more nostalgic towards the lurker then the other guys. Also you can see how silly people can be by saying they want things like - luker back, hydra back to tier 1 and baneling removed, I mean why not just play BW or if u want shiny graphics play the SC2 BW mod.
The swarm host seems very cool imo, and for anyone who wants to play with the lurker you can still play bw if you so crave to.
On July 15 2012 04:55 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: if the swarm host were a BW unit, i would imagine most of the people in this thread would prefer the swarm host.
Your assumption is that people prefer BW units just for the sake of nostalgia? Then why isn't anyone clamoring for the return of the scout, devourer, or science vessel?
While that is true but in this case people are comparing thoughts of a unit that is not even out with a unit that got totally figured out in the last 10 year including all tricks and ways to use it. It is not a fair comparison however you look at it.
On July 15 2012 04:55 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: if the swarm host were a BW unit, i would imagine most of the people in this thread would prefer the swarm host.
Your assumption is that people prefer BW units just for the sake of nostalgia? Then why isn't anyone clamoring for the return of the scout, devourer, or science vessel?
People miss good games they seen, and I guess the lurker brought some good plays, but they don't thin about it in the current sc2 game, they just care for nostalgic, and I guess they are more nostalgic towards the lurker then the other guys. Also you can see how silly people can be by saying they want things like - luker back, hydra back to tier 1 and baneling removed, I mean why not just play BW or if u want shiny graphics play the SC2 BW mod.
Fixing broken things in SC2 using inspiration from BW ≠ BW.
On July 15 2012 08:58 moskonia wrote: The swarm host seems very cool imo, and for anyone who wants to play with the lurker you can still play bw if you so crave to.
This is a ridiculous and completely illogical argument that is seen on TL far too much. People obviously want the lurker in SC2, and being able to use it in BW is totally irrelevant to the actual arguments at hand (whether or not it would make for a better SC2).
On July 15 2012 04:55 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: if the swarm host were a BW unit, i would imagine most of the people in this thread would prefer the swarm host.
Your assumption is that people prefer BW units just for the sake of nostalgia? Then why isn't anyone clamoring for the return of the scout, devourer, or science vessel?
While that is true but in this case people are comparing thoughts of a unit that is not even out with a unit that got totally figured out in the last 10 year including all tricks and ways to use it. It is not a fair comparison however you look at it.
Some things don't require as much figuring out. For example, it's not like we couldn't predict how the marauder or immortal would be used the moment we first heard of them. There are tricks to using the lurker because it's an inherently complex unit (burrowed attacker, line splash, tier 2, synergizes with dark swarm), but the swarm host is fairly simple.
On July 15 2012 04:55 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: if the swarm host were a BW unit, i would imagine most of the people in this thread would prefer the swarm host.
Your assumption is that people prefer BW units just for the sake of nostalgia? Then why isn't anyone clamoring for the return of the scout, devourer, or science vessel?
People miss good games they seen, and I guess the lurker brought some good plays, but they don't thin about it in the current sc2 game, they just care for nostalgic, and I guess they are more nostalgic towards the lurker then the other guys. Also you can see how silly people can be by saying they want things like - luker back, hydra back to tier 1 and baneling removed, I mean why not just play BW or if u want shiny graphics play the SC2 BW mod.
Fixing broken things in SC2 using inspiration from BW ≠ BW.
On July 15 2012 08:58 moskonia wrote: The swarm host seems very cool imo, and for anyone who wants to play with the lurker you can still play bw if you so crave to.
This is a ridiculous and completely illogical argument that is seen on TL far too much. People obviously want the lurker in SC2, and being able to use it in BW is totally irrelevant to the actual arguments at hand (whether or not it would make for a better SC2).
On July 15 2012 04:55 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: if the swarm host were a BW unit, i would imagine most of the people in this thread would prefer the swarm host.
Your assumption is that people prefer BW units just for the sake of nostalgia? Then why isn't anyone clamoring for the return of the scout, devourer, or science vessel?
While that is true but in this case people are comparing thoughts of a unit that is not even out with a unit that got totally figured out in the last 10 year including all tricks and ways to use it. It is not a fair comparison however you look at it.
Some things don't require as much figuring out. For example, it's not like we couldn't predict how the marauder or immortal would be used the moment we first heard of them. There are tricks to using the lurker because it's an inherently complex unit (burrowed attacker, line splash, tier 2, synergizes with dark swarm), but the swarm host is fairly simple.
It has half (3 out of 4 if you want to compare dark swarm with Blinding cloud ) of those reasons that you claim that make it a complex unit. Who knows what kind of strategy might evolve with swarm host? Guess what, before we are at least in beta we simply don't know.
Fixing broken things in SC2 using inspiration from BW ≠ BW.
There is no logical argument why you know bringing stuff to SC2 that were on BW would make SC2 a better game, since it was not tried yet. The only reason people suggest thing to be like they were in BW is nostalgia and nostalgia only. There is no reason for hydra to be tier 1, nor is to replace the baneling with the lurker, people who suggest such things have no real evidence it would create better games, there is no better to reason to suggest putting things from BW then to put random things inagame and see how they play out.
About the swarm host being simple, imo that is just bias talking, you can't say that before letting pro's playing it and inventig with it, people might use something like 10 swarm host in drops to make instant army of 20 locusts and make alot of damage while you attack at an expansion or something. I think locust harass could be really cool, cause just like the oracle you don't spend much time at risk but unlike the oracle you can bring some serious hurt on your enemy. I know 10 swarm hosts - 30 supply, but that is just like 15 muta's and can do about as much damage while actually being useful at combat. Only problem might be ambushes, but since now you have changeling catapult you will be able to scout for these hopefully.
I hate the bias some people have towards BW , that alot of times can make people not judge things correctly cause they think with their nostalgia instead of their logic.
Fixing broken things in SC2 using inspiration from BW ≠ BW.
There is no logical argument why you know bringing stuff to SC2 that were on BW would make SC2 a better game, since it was not tried yet. The only reason people suggest thing to be like they were in BW is nostalgia and nostalgia only. There is no reason for hydra to be tier 1, nor is to replace the baneling with the lurker, people who suggest such things have no real evidence it would create better games, there is no better to reason to suggest putting things from BW then to put random things inagame and see how they play out.
Try actually reading the arguments that have been made over and over in this thread.
On July 15 2012 09:58 moskonia wrote: About the swarm host being simple, imo that is just bias talking, you can't say that before letting pro's playing it and inventig with it, people might use something like 10 swarm host in drops to make instant army of 20 locusts and make alot of damage while you attack at an expansion or something. I think locust harass could be really cool, cause just like the oracle you don't spend much time at risk but unlike the oracle you can bring some serious hurt on your enemy. I know 10 swarm hosts - 30 supply, but that is just like 15 muta's and can do about as much damage while actually being useful at combat. Only problem might be ambushes, but since now you have changeling catapult you will be able to scout for these hopefully.
There is absolutely no way that any competent Zerg player would opt to drop swarm hosts over banelings or using muta harass. Why in the world would anyone decent drop a unit that needs to be burrowed, then unburrowed, and then pick it back up?
There's very limited ways to innovate using the swarm host. All you're doing is projecting your own incompetence onto others; some of us don't need to be pros to understand what is and isn't viable if it's not borderline.
On July 15 2012 09:58 moskonia wrote: I hate the bias some people have towards BW , that alot of times can make people not judge things correctly cause they think with their nostalgia instead of their logic.
I hate the bias some people have towards Blizzard, where they assume that Blizzard has done everything right with SC2 despite mountains of evidence showing they have no idea what they're doing.
On July 15 2012 04:55 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: if the swarm host were a BW unit, i would imagine most of the people in this thread would prefer the swarm host.
Your assumption is that people prefer BW units just for the sake of nostalgia? Then why isn't anyone clamoring for the return of the scout, devourer, or science vessel?
People miss good games they seen, and I guess the lurker brought some good plays, but they don't thin about it in the current sc2 game, they just care for nostalgic, and I guess they are more nostalgic towards the lurker then the other guys. Also you can see how silly people can be by saying they want things like - luker back, hydra back to tier 1 and baneling removed, I mean why not just play BW or if u want shiny graphics play the SC2 BW mod.
Fixing broken things in SC2 using inspiration from BW ≠ BW.
On July 15 2012 08:58 moskonia wrote: The swarm host seems very cool imo, and for anyone who wants to play with the lurker you can still play bw if you so crave to.
This is a ridiculous and completely illogical argument that is seen on TL far too much. People obviously want the lurker in SC2, and being able to use it in BW is totally irrelevant to the actual arguments at hand (whether or not it would make for a better SC2).
On July 15 2012 04:55 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: if the swarm host were a BW unit, i would imagine most of the people in this thread would prefer the swarm host.
Your assumption is that people prefer BW units just for the sake of nostalgia? Then why isn't anyone clamoring for the return of the scout, devourer, or science vessel?
While that is true but in this case people are comparing thoughts of a unit that is not even out with a unit that got totally figured out in the last 10 year including all tricks and ways to use it. It is not a fair comparison however you look at it.
Some things don't require as much figuring out. For example, it's not like we couldn't predict how the marauder or immortal would be used the moment we first heard of them. There are tricks to using the lurker because it's an inherently complex unit (burrowed attacker, line splash, tier 2, synergizes with dark swarm), but the swarm host is fairly simple.
Yeah, I know, I'm gonna continue taking part in a discussion that circlejerks, has nothing to do with realitly because the counterarguments to my argument are never going to get fullfilled anyways as they would basically mean that blizzard gives up on SC2 and instead goes for SC3 with SC2 graphics in HotS (moveing Hydras to T1; maybe removing banelings, roaches; reintroducing lurkers; mayby change the pathing completly and completly rebalance the game around it; maybe remove/buff/nerf some other things like larva inject, income and whatever), but whatever...
1) broken means unbalanced. I don't see this in SC2 right now. If you mean it's "not well designed" say so, but design is an opinion, not an absoulte. Looking at the b.net forums and all the balance thread (attempts) on TL I have to say, people that actually think about SC2 design being the biggest problem rather than just "really balancing it out" are extremly (like 1:100) in the minority and therefore blizzard rightfully can think that people like their game overall. A lot.
2) No, people don't obviously want the lurker in SC2. Lots of people like the lurker. However, compared to the people who don't give a shit about threads as this, those are WAY (and I mean like WAY WAY) in the minority. Not saying I don't give a shit. Lurkers are awesome. Are they needed? I'm not sure. Are SH needed? probably not! What role is zerg with mass vision from OLs, creep and very mobile troops lacking. Space control, or attacking possibilities? As any Zerg attack before 70drones + hive + 4 (or more) bases is an allin, due to the lack of offensivly safe powerunits is an allin, I think it's the second thing: attacking possibilities. Yeah lurkers control space even better than lingswarms and baneling landmines and mutalisks and all the speedy vision giving - opponent overrunning, if he is not careful - stuff. However, the way larva is being balanced. The way Zerg units operate (basically they are faster then the opponents whatever units), I don't see a role for the lurker in the current metagame, and due to it's lacking capabilities to attack on it's own (basicially due to too limited range and due to detection being part of any P/T/Z gameplan), I would much rather have a unit that actually is not as good as lurkers at space control (if I had to choose; if not I'd choose both, as I think Zerg desperatly needs T3 range units like the original lurker desing, so that T3 range is not just a bullshit short term move in ZvZ before Ultras and/or Broods and/or mass infestors are out), but rather can force the opponent to not just attack at special timings. After all, TvZ has been in shambles for 2years now. Probably not balancewise (Zergs had an edge at certain times as well), but designwise, as it has always been up to the Terran to control the pace of the game. Zerg desperatly needs strong offensive options in the midgame, which are not limited by larva (like lings, blings and roaches), but rather limited by ressources (like the swarm host). Somthing that doesn not need to cut each and every drone, but something that is very very larva efficient for a longer periode of time (which is the problem of infestor attacks. like a baneling attack, it's only one move and then the energy is out. Then proplayers dont have the time to just wait until energy is back up, even if in lowleagues those strategies might be extraordinarily good, due to the opponents not having the skill to take advantage of it). In this regard, I think a very longrange, air and ground attacking unit is really what zergs need, to switch up their gameplay from "drone to 70+ and then push", to "drone to 70+ slowly, while trying to keep the pressure on the opponent with units that have longterm potential, don't die easily and have the ability to win you the game against very greedy opponents)
3) the lurkers design is "burrow - then attack with line splash". There is nothing more about it in the very basics. Predicting micro tricks like "hold fire", "pushing siege lines the moment those unsiege" and similar stuff was not possible. I don't see why it should be possible to predict that such swarm host moves don't exist. Saying that those don't is basically just pillaring on experience (lurker) against nonexperience (swarm host). Yes, this way probability suggest that you will be right. But then we would not have needed SC2 at all. Probability suggests that BW was a great game and SC2 cannot reach it, if it is not just a graphical update. However, time has told us that there are quite a ton of people who prefer SC2 over BW. If you like BW, go and play it. It's not about saying you should not play SC2. It's about saying, BW is a great game and if you think it is better than SC2, you are wasting your time with SC2. I mean, if you are off the opinion that BW was the best game yet, how big is the probability that ANYTHING will ever satisfy your longings for a game that can beat BW? Very slim! It's like saying, spain is the best football team in the world, when you saw 1958-1970 brasil. Spain is great and would beat that brasil team anytime because football moved on. Does that mean football with 0 forwards is more interesting than football with 4 forwards? Probablity not, though it may be more effective (which means in SC2 terms, closer to AI like optimal strategies).
These polls are insanely biased as there is no 3rd option- "We actually can't say because we've seen the lurker in action for over a decade and only watched 1 battle report with the Swarm Host."
Who wants to replace banelings with lurkers? The closest argument to that which I can recall was whether or not banelings and lurkers cover the same role or not. That's not the same thing as wanting to replace banelings with lurkers. Banelings are cool.
On July 15 2012 04:55 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: if the swarm host were a BW unit, i would imagine most of the people in this thread would prefer the swarm host.
Your assumption is that people prefer BW units just for the sake of nostalgia? Then why isn't anyone clamoring for the return of the scout, devourer, or science vessel?
People miss good games they seen, and I guess the lurker brought some good plays, but they don't thin about it in the current sc2 game, they just care for nostalgic, and I guess they are more nostalgic towards the lurker then the other guys. Also you can see how silly people can be by saying they want things like - luker back, hydra back to tier 1 and baneling removed, I mean why not just play BW or if u want shiny graphics play the SC2 BW mod.
Fixing broken things in SC2 using inspiration from BW ≠ BW.
On July 15 2012 08:58 moskonia wrote: The swarm host seems very cool imo, and for anyone who wants to play with the lurker you can still play bw if you so crave to.
This is a ridiculous and completely illogical argument that is seen on TL far too much. People obviously want the lurker in SC2, and being able to use it in BW is totally irrelevant to the actual arguments at hand (whether or not it would make for a better SC2).
On July 15 2012 09:19 Assirra wrote:
On July 15 2012 07:43 sunprince wrote:
On July 15 2012 04:55 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: if the swarm host were a BW unit, i would imagine most of the people in this thread would prefer the swarm host.
Your assumption is that people prefer BW units just for the sake of nostalgia? Then why isn't anyone clamoring for the return of the scout, devourer, or science vessel?
While that is true but in this case people are comparing thoughts of a unit that is not even out with a unit that got totally figured out in the last 10 year including all tricks and ways to use it. It is not a fair comparison however you look at it.
Some things don't require as much figuring out. For example, it's not like we couldn't predict how the marauder or immortal would be used the moment we first heard of them. There are tricks to using the lurker because it's an inherently complex unit (burrowed attacker, line splash, tier 2, synergizes with dark swarm), but the swarm host is fairly simple.
Yeah, I know, I'm gonna continue taking part in a discussion that circlejerks, has nothing to do with realitly because the counterarguments to my argument are never going to get fullfilled anyways as they would basically mean that blizzard gives up on SC2 and instead goes for SC3 with SC2 graphics in HotS (moveing Hydras to T1; maybe removing banelings, roaches; reintroducing lurkers; mayby change the pathing completly and completly rebalance the game around it; maybe remove/buff/nerf some other things like larva inject, income and whatever), but whatever...
1) broken means unbalanced. I don't see this in SC2 right now. If you mean it's "not well designed" say so, but design is an opinion, not an absoulte. Looking at the b.net forums and all the balance thread (attempts) on TL I have to say, people that actually think about SC2 design being the biggest problem rather than just "really balancing it out" are extremly (like 1:100) in the minority and therefore blizzard rightfully can think that people like their game overall. A lot.
Broken doesn't not mean unbalanced. Broken can also mean poorly designed. For example, TvZ could have balanced win-rates with with an enormous Z late-game advantage by allowing T to have a huge advantage with all-ins, but that makes for a broken game. Or a 4 player map could have balanced win-rates in that P always wins in close spawns and always loses cross-map spawns, but the map is broken.
On July 15 2012 10:19 Big J wrote: 2) No, people don't obviously want the lurker in SC2. Lots of people like the lurker. However, compared to the people who don't give a shit about threads as this, those are WAY (and I mean like WAY WAY) in the minority. Not saying I don't give a shit. Lurkers are awesome. Are they needed? I'm not sure. Are SH needed? probably not! What role is zerg with mass vision from OLs, creep and very mobile troops lacking. Space control, or attacking possibilities? As any Zerg attack before 70drones + hive + 4 (or more) bases is an allin, due to the lack of offensivly safe powerunits is an allin, I think it's the second thing: attacking possibilities. Yeah lurkers control space even better than lingswarms and baneling landmines and mutalisks and all the speedy vision giving - opponent overrunning, if he is not careful - stuff. However, the way larva is being balanced. The way Zerg units operate (basically they are faster then the opponents whatever units), I don't see a role for the lurker in the current metagame, and due to it's lacking capabilities to attack on it's own (basicially due to too limited range and due to detection being part of any P/T/Z gameplan), I would much rather have a unit that actually is not as good as lurkers at space control (if I had to choose; if not I'd choose both, as I think Zerg desperatly needs T3 range units like the original lurker desing, so that T3 range is not just a bullshit short term move in ZvZ before Ultras and/or Broods and/or mass infestors are out), but rather can force the opponent to not just attack at special timings. After all, TvZ has been in shambles for 2years now. Probably not balancewise (Zergs had an edge at certain times as well), but designwise, as it has always been up to the Terran to control the pace of the game. Zerg desperatly needs strong offensive options in the midgame, which are not limited by larva (like lings, blings and roaches), but rather limited by ressources (like the swarm host). Somthing that doesn not need to cut each and every drone, but something that is very very larva efficient for a longer periode of time (which is the problem of infestor attacks. like a baneling attack, it's only one move and then the energy is out. Then proplayers dont have the time to just wait until energy is back up, even if in lowleagues those strategies might be extraordinarily good, due to the opponents not having the skill to take advantage of it). In this regard, I think a very longrange, air and ground attacking unit is really what zergs need, to switch up their gameplay from "drone to 70+ and then push", to "drone to 70+ slowly, while trying to keep the pressure on the opponent with units that have longterm potential, don't die easily and have the ability to win you the game against very greedy opponents)
What Zerg actually needs is a big nerf to spawn larvae, in return to units that are actually good. The lurker would be merely one example of a good unit.
On July 15 2012 10:19 Big J wrote: 3) the lurkers design is "burrow - then attack with line splash". There is nothing more about it in the very basics. Predicting micro tricks like "hold fire", "pushing siege lines the moment those unsiege" and similar stuff was not possible. I don't see why it should be possible to predict that such swarm host moves don't exist. Saying that those don't is basically just pillaring on experience (lurker) against nonexperience (swarm host). Yes, this way probability suggest that you will be right. But then we would not have needed SC2 at all. Probability suggests that BW was a great game and SC2 cannot reach it, if it is not just a graphical update. However, time has told us that there are quite a ton of people who prefer SC2 over BW. If you like BW, go and play it. It's not about saying you should not play SC2. It's about saying, BW is a great game and if you think it is better than SC2, you are wasting your time with SC2. I mean, if you are off the opinion that BW was the best game yet, how big is the probability that ANYTHING will ever satisfy your longings for a game that can beat BW? Very slim! It's like saying, spain is the best football team in the world, when you saw 1958-1970 brasil. Spain is great and would beat that brasil team anytime because football moved on. Does that mean football with 0 forwards is more interesting than football with 4 forwards? Probablity not, though it may be more effective (which means in SC2 terms, closer to AI like optimal strategies).
BW is an old game that is full of engine idiosyncracies that took considerable time to figure out, and the competitive scene (along with general understanding of RTS's) was in its infancy. SC2, on the other hand, is a modern game with no ways to break the engine (and ways that are discovered are patched into oblivion), and competitive gamers have far better understanding of tactics and strategy. If you don't understand why it's far easier to understand units now, then consider the fact that no major discoveries have been made regarding any SC2 unit thus far.
Drop the assumptions about BW. I'm certainly not of the opinion that BW was the best game; there are certainly areas that could be substantially improved. To insist that people like certain BW elements because they are BW fanboys is an ad hominem that ignores the arguments actually being advanced.
I`m actually quite curious how would Lurker fare against Marauders, Immortals, Blink Stalkers, Colosus, Ghosts snipe, and the Zerg total lack of ability to deny detection.
Oh and also Phoenix, Voidray, and Banshee, since Zerg do not have fast moving land AA before hive(and will not).
On July 15 2012 10:18 sunprince wrote: I hate the bias some people have towards Blizzard, where they assume that Blizzard has done everything right with SC2 despite mountains of evidence showing they have no idea what they're doing.
No idea?
As always people try to paint things they do not understand as just silly and move along instead of figuring.
On July 15 2012 04:55 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: if the swarm host were a BW unit, i would imagine most of the people in this thread would prefer the swarm host.
Your assumption is that people prefer BW units just for the sake of nostalgia? Then why isn't anyone clamoring for the return of the scout, devourer, or science vessel?
People miss good games they seen, and I guess the lurker brought some good plays, but they don't thin about it in the current sc2 game, they just care for nostalgic, and I guess they are more nostalgic towards the lurker then the other guys. Also you can see how silly people can be by saying they want things like - luker back, hydra back to tier 1 and baneling removed, I mean why not just play BW or if u want shiny graphics play the SC2 BW mod.
Fixing broken things in SC2 using inspiration from BW ≠ BW.
On July 15 2012 08:58 moskonia wrote: The swarm host seems very cool imo, and for anyone who wants to play with the lurker you can still play bw if you so crave to.
This is a ridiculous and completely illogical argument that is seen on TL far too much. People obviously want the lurker in SC2, and being able to use it in BW is totally irrelevant to the actual arguments at hand (whether or not it would make for a better SC2).
On July 15 2012 09:19 Assirra wrote:
On July 15 2012 07:43 sunprince wrote:
On July 15 2012 04:55 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: if the swarm host were a BW unit, i would imagine most of the people in this thread would prefer the swarm host.
Your assumption is that people prefer BW units just for the sake of nostalgia? Then why isn't anyone clamoring for the return of the scout, devourer, or science vessel?
While that is true but in this case people are comparing thoughts of a unit that is not even out with a unit that got totally figured out in the last 10 year including all tricks and ways to use it. It is not a fair comparison however you look at it.
Some things don't require as much figuring out. For example, it's not like we couldn't predict how the marauder or immortal would be used the moment we first heard of them. There are tricks to using the lurker because it's an inherently complex unit (burrowed attacker, line splash, tier 2, synergizes with dark swarm), but the swarm host is fairly simple.
Yeah, I know, I'm gonna continue taking part in a discussion that circlejerks, has nothing to do with realitly because the counterarguments to my argument are never going to get fullfilled anyways as they would basically mean that blizzard gives up on SC2 and instead goes for SC3 with SC2 graphics in HotS (moveing Hydras to T1; maybe removing banelings, roaches; reintroducing lurkers; mayby change the pathing completly and completly rebalance the game around it; maybe remove/buff/nerf some other things like larva inject, income and whatever), but whatever...
1) broken means unbalanced. I don't see this in SC2 right now. If you mean it's "not well designed" say so, but design is an opinion, not an absoulte. Looking at the b.net forums and all the balance thread (attempts) on TL I have to say, people that actually think about SC2 design being the biggest problem rather than just "really balancing it out" are extremly (like 1:100) in the minority and therefore blizzard rightfully can think that people like their game overall. A lot.
Broken doesn't not mean unbalanced. Broken can also mean poorly designed. For example, TvZ could have balanced win-rates with with an enormous Z late-game advantage by allowing T to have a huge advantage with all-ins, but that makes for a broken game. Or a 4 player map could have balanced win-rates in that P always wins in close spawns and always loses cross-map spawns, but the map is broken.
On July 15 2012 10:19 Big J wrote: 2) No, people don't obviously want the lurker in SC2. Lots of people like the lurker. However, compared to the people who don't give a shit about threads as this, those are WAY (and I mean like WAY WAY) in the minority. Not saying I don't give a shit. Lurkers are awesome. Are they needed? I'm not sure. Are SH needed? probably not! What role is zerg with mass vision from OLs, creep and very mobile troops lacking. Space control, or attacking possibilities? As any Zerg attack before 70drones + hive + 4 (or more) bases is an allin, due to the lack of offensivly safe powerunits is an allin, I think it's the second thing: attacking possibilities. Yeah lurkers control space even better than lingswarms and baneling landmines and mutalisks and all the speedy vision giving - opponent overrunning, if he is not careful - stuff. However, the way larva is being balanced. The way Zerg units operate (basically they are faster then the opponents whatever units), I don't see a role for the lurker in the current metagame, and due to it's lacking capabilities to attack on it's own (basicially due to too limited range and due to detection being part of any P/T/Z gameplan), I would much rather have a unit that actually is not as good as lurkers at space control (if I had to choose; if not I'd choose both, as I think Zerg desperatly needs T3 range units like the original lurker desing, so that T3 range is not just a bullshit short term move in ZvZ before Ultras and/or Broods and/or mass infestors are out), but rather can force the opponent to not just attack at special timings. After all, TvZ has been in shambles for 2years now. Probably not balancewise (Zergs had an edge at certain times as well), but designwise, as it has always been up to the Terran to control the pace of the game. Zerg desperatly needs strong offensive options in the midgame, which are not limited by larva (like lings, blings and roaches), but rather limited by ressources (like the swarm host). Somthing that doesn not need to cut each and every drone, but something that is very very larva efficient for a longer periode of time (which is the problem of infestor attacks. like a baneling attack, it's only one move and then the energy is out. Then proplayers dont have the time to just wait until energy is back up, even if in lowleagues those strategies might be extraordinarily good, due to the opponents not having the skill to take advantage of it). In this regard, I think a very longrange, air and ground attacking unit is really what zergs need, to switch up their gameplay from "drone to 70+ and then push", to "drone to 70+ slowly, while trying to keep the pressure on the opponent with units that have longterm potential, don't die easily and have the ability to win you the game against very greedy opponents)
What Zerg actually needs is a big nerf to spawn larvae, in return to units that are actually good. The lurker would be merely one example of a good unit.
On July 15 2012 10:19 Big J wrote: 3) the lurkers design is "burrow - then attack with line splash". There is nothing more about it in the very basics. Predicting micro tricks like "hold fire", "pushing siege lines the moment those unsiege" and similar stuff was not possible. I don't see why it should be possible to predict that such swarm host moves don't exist. Saying that those don't is basically just pillaring on experience (lurker) against nonexperience (swarm host). Yes, this way probability suggest that you will be right. But then we would not have needed SC2 at all. Probability suggests that BW was a great game and SC2 cannot reach it, if it is not just a graphical update. However, time has told us that there are quite a ton of people who prefer SC2 over BW. If you like BW, go and play it. It's not about saying you should not play SC2. It's about saying, BW is a great game and if you think it is better than SC2, you are wasting your time with SC2. I mean, if you are off the opinion that BW was the best game yet, how big is the probability that ANYTHING will ever satisfy your longings for a game that can beat BW? Very slim! It's like saying, spain is the best football team in the world, when you saw 1958-1970 brasil. Spain is great and would beat that brasil team anytime because football moved on. Does that mean football with 0 forwards is more interesting than football with 4 forwards? Probablity not, though it may be more effective (which means in SC2 terms, closer to AI like optimal strategies).
BW is an old game that is full of engine idiosyncracies that took considerable time to figure out, and the competitive scene (along with general understanding of RTS's) was in its infancy. SC2, on the other hand, is a modern game with no ways to break the engine (and ways that are discovered are patched into oblivion), and competitive gamers have far better understanding of tactics and strategy. If you don't understand why it's far easier to understand units now, then consider the fact that no major discoveries have been made regarding any SC2 unit thus far.
Drop the assumptions about BW. I'm certainly not of the opinion that BW was the best game; there are certainly areas that could be substantially improved. To insist that people like certain BW elements because they are BW fanboys is an ad hominem that ignores the arguments actually being advanced.
-) Broken means unbalanced. What you mean is "poorly designed", "not interesting" or somthing along those lines. If something is broken, it's overpowered. That's it.
-) Yes and no. I would love to see some spawn larva nerf (like to 3 or 2.5 per queen in return for better units). However that doesn't make the lurker a better concept for SC2. After all, it still only has rather limited range (so easy to kill with tanks and blink stalkers and even units that have to walk to them like marauders and immortals on 1a). The lurker is a good unit, but I don't see how it achieves anything that you can't achieve with just an overpowering force of ling/bling. Basically the only intersting interaction would be lurkers shooting through FFs. But then they would not deal a lot of splash (from maximum range), again making them somewhat weird. Well, there is another advantage of them. They don't require burrow to be upgraded and therefore you force opponents (so only Protoss) down a certain (detection) path. That effect however could be acquited by giving any unit (like the swarm host will have) burrow from the start.
-) SC2 has not been stale at all. If anything, it's people that talk about deathballs, 1a armies and easy strategies that don't even exist anymore in 80% of the games. Watch GSL and see how SC2 starts looking more and more like BW. Not because of unit design, but because of the simple fact that however you design units, the more active you are, the more you gain. Basically the only race that is really lacking this right now is zerg, because their opponents are allowed to wall against them and thereby counter any aggression. So the fundamental idea for a new unit for zerg is, to tear down walls.
On July 15 2012 04:55 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: if the swarm host were a BW unit, i would imagine most of the people in this thread would prefer the swarm host.
Your assumption is that people prefer BW units just for the sake of nostalgia? Then why isn't anyone clamoring for the return of the scout, devourer, or science vessel?
People miss good games they seen, and I guess the lurker brought some good plays, but they don't thin about it in the current sc2 game, they just care for nostalgic, and I guess they are more nostalgic towards the lurker then the other guys. Also you can see how silly people can be by saying they want things like - luker back, hydra back to tier 1 and baneling removed, I mean why not just play BW or if u want shiny graphics play the SC2 BW mod.
Fixing broken things in SC2 using inspiration from BW ≠ BW.
On July 15 2012 08:58 moskonia wrote: The swarm host seems very cool imo, and for anyone who wants to play with the lurker you can still play bw if you so crave to.
This is a ridiculous and completely illogical argument that is seen on TL far too much. People obviously want the lurker in SC2, and being able to use it in BW is totally irrelevant to the actual arguments at hand (whether or not it would make for a better SC2).
On July 15 2012 09:19 Assirra wrote:
On July 15 2012 07:43 sunprince wrote:
On July 15 2012 04:55 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: if the swarm host were a BW unit, i would imagine most of the people in this thread would prefer the swarm host.
Your assumption is that people prefer BW units just for the sake of nostalgia? Then why isn't anyone clamoring for the return of the scout, devourer, or science vessel?
While that is true but in this case people are comparing thoughts of a unit that is not even out with a unit that got totally figured out in the last 10 year including all tricks and ways to use it. It is not a fair comparison however you look at it.
Some things don't require as much figuring out. For example, it's not like we couldn't predict how the marauder or immortal would be used the moment we first heard of them. There are tricks to using the lurker because it's an inherently complex unit (burrowed attacker, line splash, tier 2, synergizes with dark swarm), but the swarm host is fairly simple.
Yeah, I know, I'm gonna continue taking part in a discussion that circlejerks, has nothing to do with realitly because the counterarguments to my argument are never going to get fullfilled anyways as they would basically mean that blizzard gives up on SC2 and instead goes for SC3 with SC2 graphics in HotS (moveing Hydras to T1; maybe removing banelings, roaches; reintroducing lurkers; mayby change the pathing completly and completly rebalance the game around it; maybe remove/buff/nerf some other things like larva inject, income and whatever), but whatever...
1) broken means unbalanced. I don't see this in SC2 right now. If you mean it's "not well designed" say so, but design is an opinion, not an absoulte. Looking at the b.net forums and all the balance thread (attempts) on TL I have to say, people that actually think about SC2 design being the biggest problem rather than just "really balancing it out" are extremly (like 1:100) in the minority and therefore blizzard rightfully can think that people like their game overall. A lot.
Broken doesn't not mean unbalanced. Broken can also mean poorly designed. For example, TvZ could have balanced win-rates with with an enormous Z late-game advantage by allowing T to have a huge advantage with all-ins, but that makes for a broken game. Or a 4 player map could have balanced win-rates in that P always wins in close spawns and always loses cross-map spawns, but the map is broken.
On July 15 2012 10:19 Big J wrote: 2) No, people don't obviously want the lurker in SC2. Lots of people like the lurker. However, compared to the people who don't give a shit about threads as this, those are WAY (and I mean like WAY WAY) in the minority. Not saying I don't give a shit. Lurkers are awesome. Are they needed? I'm not sure. Are SH needed? probably not! What role is zerg with mass vision from OLs, creep and very mobile troops lacking. Space control, or attacking possibilities? As any Zerg attack before 70drones + hive + 4 (or more) bases is an allin, due to the lack of offensivly safe powerunits is an allin, I think it's the second thing: attacking possibilities. Yeah lurkers control space even better than lingswarms and baneling landmines and mutalisks and all the speedy vision giving - opponent overrunning, if he is not careful - stuff. However, the way larva is being balanced. The way Zerg units operate (basically they are faster then the opponents whatever units), I don't see a role for the lurker in the current metagame, and due to it's lacking capabilities to attack on it's own (basicially due to too limited range and due to detection being part of any P/T/Z gameplan), I would much rather have a unit that actually is not as good as lurkers at space control (if I had to choose; if not I'd choose both, as I think Zerg desperatly needs T3 range units like the original lurker desing, so that T3 range is not just a bullshit short term move in ZvZ before Ultras and/or Broods and/or mass infestors are out), but rather can force the opponent to not just attack at special timings. After all, TvZ has been in shambles for 2years now. Probably not balancewise (Zergs had an edge at certain times as well), but designwise, as it has always been up to the Terran to control the pace of the game. Zerg desperatly needs strong offensive options in the midgame, which are not limited by larva (like lings, blings and roaches), but rather limited by ressources (like the swarm host). Somthing that doesn not need to cut each and every drone, but something that is very very larva efficient for a longer periode of time (which is the problem of infestor attacks. like a baneling attack, it's only one move and then the energy is out. Then proplayers dont have the time to just wait until energy is back up, even if in lowleagues those strategies might be extraordinarily good, due to the opponents not having the skill to take advantage of it). In this regard, I think a very longrange, air and ground attacking unit is really what zergs need, to switch up their gameplay from "drone to 70+ and then push", to "drone to 70+ slowly, while trying to keep the pressure on the opponent with units that have longterm potential, don't die easily and have the ability to win you the game against very greedy opponents)
What Zerg actually needs is a big nerf to spawn larvae, in return to units that are actually good. The lurker would be merely one example of a good unit.
On July 15 2012 10:19 Big J wrote: 3) the lurkers design is "burrow - then attack with line splash". There is nothing more about it in the very basics. Predicting micro tricks like "hold fire", "pushing siege lines the moment those unsiege" and similar stuff was not possible. I don't see why it should be possible to predict that such swarm host moves don't exist. Saying that those don't is basically just pillaring on experience (lurker) against nonexperience (swarm host). Yes, this way probability suggest that you will be right. But then we would not have needed SC2 at all. Probability suggests that BW was a great game and SC2 cannot reach it, if it is not just a graphical update. However, time has told us that there are quite a ton of people who prefer SC2 over BW. If you like BW, go and play it. It's not about saying you should not play SC2. It's about saying, BW is a great game and if you think it is better than SC2, you are wasting your time with SC2. I mean, if you are off the opinion that BW was the best game yet, how big is the probability that ANYTHING will ever satisfy your longings for a game that can beat BW? Very slim! It's like saying, spain is the best football team in the world, when you saw 1958-1970 brasil. Spain is great and would beat that brasil team anytime because football moved on. Does that mean football with 0 forwards is more interesting than football with 4 forwards? Probablity not, though it may be more effective (which means in SC2 terms, closer to AI like optimal strategies).
BW is an old game that is full of engine idiosyncracies that took considerable time to figure out, and the competitive scene (along with general understanding of RTS's) was in its infancy. SC2, on the other hand, is a modern game with no ways to break the engine (and ways that are discovered are patched into oblivion), and competitive gamers have far better understanding of tactics and strategy. If you don't understand why it's far easier to understand units now, then consider the fact that no major discoveries have been made regarding any SC2 unit thus far.
Drop the assumptions about BW. I'm certainly not of the opinion that BW was the best game; there are certainly areas that could be substantially improved. To insist that people like certain BW elements because they are BW fanboys is an ad hominem that ignores the arguments actually being advanced.
-) Broken means unbalanced. What you mean is "poorly designed", "not interesting" or somthing along those lines. If something is broken, it's overpowered. That's it.
-) Yes and no. I would love to see some spawn larva nerf (like to 3 or 2.5 per queen in return for better units). However that doesn't make the lurker a better concept for SC2. After all, it still only has rather limited range (so easy to kill with tanks and blink stalkers and even units that have to walk to them like marauders and immortals on 1a). The lurker is a good unit, but I don't see how it achieves anything that you can't achieve with just an overpowering force of ling/bling. Basically the only intersting interaction would be lurkers shooting through FFs. But then they would not deal a lot of splash (from maximum range), again making them somewhat weird. Well, there is another advantage of them. They don't require burrow to be upgraded and therefore you force opponents (so only Protoss) down a certain (detection) path. That effect however could be acquited by giving any unit (like the swarm host will have) burrow from the start.
-) SC2 has not been stale at all. If anything, it's people that talk about deathballs, 1a armies and easy strategies that don't even exist anymore in 80% of the games. Watch GSL and see how SC2 starts looking more and more like BW. Not because of unit design, but because of the simple fact that however you design units, the more active you are, the more you gain. Basically the only race that is really lacking this right now is zerg, because their opponents are allowed to wall against them and thereby counter any aggression. So the fundamental idea for a new unit for zerg is, to tear down walls.
I don't understand why the lurker doesn't fit well?
As you said, it's just an issue of adjusting stats. You can have it deal 20 (+25 armored) and it will handle bio just fine. It acts as space control. That's something I would like to see that doesn't exist.
Ling bling can't control chokes, that's where it is the weakest. Give the lurker 7/8 range and it easily functions well against other mid tier units...There would be a lot of interesting interplay between obs/scans and the like as well.
EPT
