Lurker vs Swarm Host - Page 50

On July 17 2012 08:22 moskonia wrote:
Lurker would make battles end faster while SH would make them longer... If what you want is a fast massecre like the colossus does, that is what you would get with the lurker as well, unlike the SH which act completely different.

I really don't get all those who hate on the colo while love the lurker, they are so similar...

On July 17 2012 08:20 Archerofaiur wrote:



Ya but its easy to forget that TL, while perhaps the most informed starcraft community, is not necessarily representative of all starcraft communities. At least judging by the reddit of this thread :p
http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/wno9o/lurker_vs_swarm_host/



[Note: Dont turn this into a thread about TL vs Reddit. This thread is about LOTR only.]

On July 17 2012 10:36 Falling wrote:
One thing I've been thinking which is rather odd with Blizzard's design process is this almost MMO combat idea of unit roles. A lot of the talk around Roaches, Marauders, and Immortals were that the units were designed to 'tank' damage and then you have units that are designed for DPS (aka hydra). And once again with the Swarm Host, you have a unit designed strictly to 'tank' damage so that other can do damage.

"now we see just how effective those locust truly are" When they actually kill nothing. Their function presumabely is to tank damage while the hydras attack. But don't Zerg already have that? aka the Zergling? But actually the 'tank' role seems a rather unnecessary thing to include in the design in my opinion. Designed it makes for a rather boring unit. It's key distintive is that it survives a lot of shots.

Which units 'tank' damage I suspect is more interesting when it's discovered incidently. Zealots for instance were not designed to tank damage, but they were used to do so because they could survive 3 tank shots rather than 2 like the dragoon. Plus they could be made faster and were cheaper so they were better at reinforcing. However, they were still a dang good fighting unit that could be used in drops, kill tanks, etc, etc.

Zerglings were sometimes used to 'tank' damage because they were ridicously cheap and would force tank fire overkill and you could get your lurkers into range. But zerglings weren't designed to be tank damage in fact they're quite weak. But they were cheap and expendable (cannon fodder would be better) and lurkers were far valuable and slow so they needed time to close the gap. But on their own, cracklings could tear through bases and kill a lot of stuff just the same.

I suppose Archons and Ultralisks might be your equivalent for true tanky units, but they're rather expensive and rather late game to get them enmass. Plus archons were great for mutalisk defence with their splash damage. There just doesn't seem to be these one-trick ponies where the unit design is 'absorb damage,' particularly mid-game units.

I dunno, the goal to create mid-game, so-called 'tanking' units seems a rather odd one and I'm not convinced it's produced the best gameplay as a result. Swarm Host seems to follow this same idea of 'designed for tanking/ cannon fodder.

Does an RTS need units to be specifically designed for tanking? Is this a rather MMO division of tanking, dps, (and support)?

Collussus: A fast moving splash dealing unit that can walk over cliffs and wrecks havock every where it goes. It's so big it can be hit by anti air as well as anti ground

Lurkers: A unit which is required to burrow before attack and can't walk over cliffs. Not mobile at all, requires positional play.
Deals AOE damage in a line.

Typical usage of the lurker (depends versus which race): Most of the time used as a stepping stone to defend zones on the map with minimal forces. Used to either contain a player or as a turtle unit. Eventually versus most strategies you're going to want zergling/ultra/defiler as endgame. They're still good in the end game but get progressively weaker as storms, reavers, science vessels,... get larger numbers. They're also a key element of your army in zvt (not mech) during the midgame and can be during zvp in the midgame.

On July 17 2012 11:05 moskonia wrote:


As I said in my previous comment, each unit has its special thing, the colo can cliff walk while the lurker attacks while borrowed. About the kind of AOE does it matter? both do it in a line, only in different directions, that does not make it different. About mobillity, the colo has 2.25 speed, that is like hydra off creep (and a lot more units), that is not "fast moving", and about the positioning, so maybe my example was wrong, the lurker is more like the tank? I think it is a combination of both.

If you try not to be so biased you will see they are more then "remotely similar", after all they both have 9 range and attack in an AOE line versus ground only, yes they have major differences but these only refer to their counters, not to their role in your army.


This talks about BW, I don't see how BW is at all related, since we are talking about how the lurkers will fit in SC2 not how they did back in BW.

When I think about it the lurker is basically a Zerg siege tank with cloak and shorter range, able to ambush a bad opponent just like baneling mines do now, it wont be able to stand alone and hold a position any better then a siege tank can now.

On July 17 2012 11:22 BlazeFury01 wrote:
Blizzard should remove the swarm host and roach and add the lurker. Blizzard should also hire me as a balance tester.

On July 17 2012 11:43 moskonia wrote:
@Qwyn will it evolve from the hydra? anyway it would be near to useless, tanks / immortals would burst them as soon as they come to borrow, 7 range is really low doesn't matter damage, it makes them not a siege unit and so makes their role a support with AOE or an ambush unit, but anyways in SC2 they wont be able to hold positions since blink stalkers / immortals, tanks, etc can rape the shit out of them.

I don't think you should say the SH wont do any damage, that is wrong to say since right now unless they suicide into a siege line with like 10 tanks they are almost sure to make some damage, and since the locusts are free given enough time they will do enough damage to make them efficient.


Aren't you an arrogant little guy ha, I am sure you know so much better then a professional balance team, not only you diss at them but you just state your opinions as facts without giving any arguments and without even giving thought about your ideas, simply disrespectful.

On July 17 2012 12:00 moskonia wrote:
Lurker is similar to tank, only smaller range - immortal rape the shit out of them. If you have ling support then the lurkers don't control space, the army does, cause how many lings you need so they wont die in a sec? a lot. Also stalkers with blink will be able to snipe them pretty fast, maybe they will take heavy losses but still... 7-8 range is not enough to stop immortal from sniping them, so at least vs toss they wont be worth anything as space control.

On July 17 2012 10:36 Falling wrote:
One thing I've been thinking which is rather odd with Blizzard's design process is this almost MMO combat idea of unit roles. A lot of the talk around Roaches, Marauders, and Immortals were that the units were designed to 'tank' damage and then you have units that are designed for DPS (aka hydra). And once again with the Swarm Host, you have a unit designed strictly to 'tank' damage so that other can do damage.

"now we see just how effective those locust truly are" When they actually kill nothing. Their function presumabely is to tank damage while the hydras attack. But don't Zerg already have that? aka the Zergling? But actually the 'tank' role seems a rather unnecessary thing to include in the design in my opinion. Designed it makes for a rather boring unit. It's key distintive is that it survives a lot of shots.

Which units 'tank' damage I suspect is more interesting when it's discovered incidently. Zealots for instance were not designed to tank damage, but they were used to do so because they could survive 3 tank shots rather than 2 like the dragoon. Plus they could be made faster and were cheaper so they were better at reinforcing. However, they were still a dang good fighting unit that could be used in drops, kill tanks, etc, etc.

Zerglings were sometimes used to 'tank' damage because they were ridicously cheap and would force tank fire overkill and you could get your lurkers into range. But zerglings weren't designed to be tank damage in fact they're quite weak. But they were cheap and expendable (cannon fodder would be better) and lurkers were far valuable and slow so they needed time to close the gap. But on their own, cracklings could tear through bases and kill a lot of stuff just the same.

I suppose Archons and Ultralisks might be your equivalent for true tanky units, but they're rather expensive and rather late game to get them enmass. Plus archons were great for mutalisk defence with their splash damage. There just doesn't seem to be these one-trick ponies where the unit design is 'absorb damage,' particularly mid-game units.

I dunno, the goal to create mid-game, so-called 'tanking' units seems a rather odd one and I'm not convinced it's produced the best gameplay as a result. Swarm Host seems to follow this same idea of 'designed for tanking/ cannon fodder.

Does an RTS need units to be specifically designed for tanking? Is this a rather MMO division of tanking, dps, (and support)?