|
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)?
EXACTLY! The obsession with tanking units or creating these arbitrary pigeon-holed roles while designing is just horrible. Why don't you just focus on the rest of the unit and then worry about HP please. Guess what zerg used for cannon fodder in BW? Overlords, drones, zerglings, hydras....you get my point.
What's worse is that this mentality infects the community so when you want to talk about game design, people start talking about 'intentions and roles' instead of exciting dynamics and cool units.
Browder is going against what he claimed their design philosophy was, which is to think of the most exciting imba units they can and put them in the game. With Kim on board, there is strong positive bias to nerf and homogenize everything (EG snipe nerf, immortal range, roach supply, etc) that has slowly diluted SC2 even compared to its original self, let alone what it could be with better spacing, high ground dynamics, and game design.
And it's all in the name of some arbitrary vision like 'bio should be good vs everything' or 'tanks are imbalanced so let's give them 12 hard counters.'
It's gotten so bad that the many of the proposed HotS units/abilities are taken from other races or are almost identical to others within the same race:
EG - abduct = neural parasite (almost identical)
EG - entomb = auto-blanket forcefield on minerals
EG - the reaper gets protoss shield regen? wtf? how about un-nerfing it? Giving it mines back? Keeping building damage?
EG - protoss cloaking takes energy ?!?!?!? this isn't terran? do they think perma-cloak is imba?
Sigaty needs to poach the old BW key players, or at least get someone better than Browder.
|
locust aren't used to tank dmg, though they are good in that regard as well. They currently have one of the highest infantry dps in game (if not the highest by far)
I'm just going to use the initial impression by the guy who played in HOTS demo
"Initial Thoughts: Wow. Just wow. Locusts are good. While playing Celebreth we found out that not only do they have minor range but they also can hit air. This is an insanely good unit at this stage in the game. Coupled with support of any kind the constant pressure that these Swarm Hosts can put on is impressive. This definitely opens up an aggressive playstyle for Zerg that did not exist before. I daresay it is actually a little too strong..."
|
Russian Federation4295 Posts
What Zerg can do against Viking-Marine-Tanks combo?
- Brood Lords not work, because Zerg can't counter vikings. Because...
- Mutalisk dies to Marines and/or Thors. Banelings not work here, because...
- Banelings die quickly to Siege tanks and Marine micro
Lurkers will be extremely effective in SC2, because death balls. And Swarm Host is cooler because it can atack air and it's swarmy. In Wol Zergs lost their "swarm" effect a bit after BW
|
On July 17 2012 12:12 Existor wrote:
What Zerg can do against Viking-Marine-Tanks combo?
- Brood Lords not work, because Zerg can't counter vikings. Because...
- Mutalisk dies to Marines and/or Thors. Banelings not work here, because...
- Banelings die quickly to Siege tanks and Marine micro
Lurkers will be extremely effective in SC2, because death balls. And Swarm Host is cooler because it can atack air and it's swarmy. In Wol Zergs lost their "swarm" effect a bit after BW
That's because instead of actually swarmy units (like the 1 supply roach), Browder got on the track of high-supply units that spam cannon fodder.
|
On July 17 2012 12:12 Existor wrote:
What Zerg can do against Viking-Marine-Tanks combo?
- Brood Lords not work, because Zerg can't counter vikings. Because...
- Mutalisk dies to Marines and/or Thors. Banelings not work here, because...
- Banelings die quickly to Siege tanks and Marine micro
Lurkers will be extremely effective in SC2, because death balls. And Swarm Host is cooler because it can atack air and it's swarmy. In Wol Zergs lost their "swarm" effect a bit after BW
Lol right now Zerg is the strongest, vs marine tank viking u go infestor BL. You didn't mention the infestor or the corrupter in your example so I call bias (again).
|
Russian Federation4295 Posts
Lol right now Zerg is the strongest, vs marine tank viking u go infestor BL. You didn't mention the infestor or the corrupter in your example so I call bias (again).
Corruptors aren't counter to vikings. It's about adding ghosts to vikings to EMP infestors? Or split vikings more against fungals
|
On July 17 2012 12:28 Existor wrote:Show nested quote +
Lol right now Zerg is the strongest, vs marine tank viking u go infestor BL. You didn't mention the infestor or the corrupter in your example so I call bias (again).
Corruptors aren't counter to vikings. It's about adding ghosts to vikings to EMP infestors? Or split vikings more against fungals
Are you really saying best Terran army is stronger then best Zerg army? did you watch any high level game in the last 6 months?
|
Swarm host is a lot cooler looking, but lurker more fun both for spectator and player(s).
|
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. Show nested quote +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. 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.
Or simply a joke in which obviously offended you to the point you overreacted and felt obligated to quote my comment. My first sentence was the joke, it was a statement without a breakdown which is why I added the second sentence to compliment the first as a joke. Also, Blizzard wasn't even responsible for balancing Brood War (arguably the most balance game of all time). Maps (not even made by Blizzard) are what balanced the game. So, let's not get into a discussion about the "Professional blizzard balance team" lol. Also, who are you to judge my credentials or ideas? Just saying...
|
On July 17 2012 13:23 Elem wrote:
Swarm host is a lot cooler looking, but lurker more fun both for spectator and player(s).
I disagree - sort of.
The lurker model for SCII is pretty bad, but keep in mind a lot more time/quality was invested into the SH model. I'm sure that if Blizzard decided to implement the lurker the model would be freaking kickass.
|
On July 17 2012 01:35 moskonia wrote:Show nested quote + I havent seen any good argument for the design of the Swarm Host and there are undoubtedly many flaws in its design. Sure it can be "made to work" or "interesting strategies" can be found, but what does the unit add to the Zerg arsenal that is new and original and fun? Nothing really Yeah... unlike the lurker which is new and original right? I don't get your argument that lurkers require a raven while the SH does not, if something it is the other way around, since you know where the lurkers are (they attack you) you can scan them, while you have no idea where the locusts are coming from exactly so you have to get a raven for them. The harass you make with the SH while "free" is not really free, since it did cost you to make those SH's, if you make 1 harassment butt hen the Terran comes and cleans your DH's you just had really expensive lings, so as long as the Terran reacts fast and right he can make the SH not cost efficient, but if teh Terran is afraid and lets the locusts waves come and come of course they will lose stuff, the whole point of the SH is to force Terran players into action instead of turtling. The SH gives Zerg the swarm feeling, I really don't understand how you cant see it, since sending waves after waves of units is the ultimate Zerg swarm style. About them being OP or very weak, well that is what there is balancing for, I am sure Blizz will find the right values to make the locusts able to do damage but not overpower the opponent.
The Lurker requires a detector for the simple reason that it is burst damage on a small area. The damage of a Swarm Host is done by the free unit and since it is only a "pew-pew-waddle-waddle" shooter which doesnt deal AoE on a clumped up chunk of your units it is far less dangerous. If the free unit is made to be as dangerous as a Hydralisk for example that would be far too much firepower and thus the whole concept is kinda junk ... as I explained.
I would like an explanation as to how the SH gives you a "swarm feeling"? You will probably only have a handful of them at any given time - lets be generous and say 10 - and I wouldnt say that 10 free units make up a swarm. ONE of them is already called a SWARM Host and thus he should spawn more than one unit at a time (3-4 would be a decent number), but then the whole duration and durability have to be adjusted accordingly. As long as that isnt the case I think the name is inappropriate for what it does.
Any unit you "create" which does not have a cost to replace it is free. Thus the spawned unit is a free unit, the Swarm Host is not. Its the same for Broodlords, but not for Carriers and their Interceptors which cost minerals to create.
As with any unit for SC2 there is the question of a critical mass and this critical mass will determine if a unit is OP or not. Remember the Reaper? One of them isnt that dangerous, but having 8+ in your base and killing your buildings in one or two rounds of grenades is quite powerful. They arent used anymore simply because they were "balanced to be ineffective" (late). Balancing the Swarm Host as a cloaked and "invulnerable" (due to the "I can burrow FAR away out of sight" part) unit will make them rather powerful if the critical mass to harrass a base is reached very easily and much too weak if you balance them the other way. There is no possibility for "the perfect balance" here simply because you have several levels of play to adjust the game for (making it just right for pros and OP for bronze league is bad). Thus the combat stats of the free unit is too much of a luck factor. If you reduce the lifetime and respawn time you get ever closer to haveing a ground based Broodlord and that is a terrible idea because Hydralisks could be shielded by a line of free and easily replaced units while attacking. A whole new world of terrible imbalance opens up with this "I create a unit for free which deals damage and doesnt cost me anything to replace" design. Its the same reason why Broodlords are a terrible concept.
Oh and why should the Lurker be a BAD unit just because it has already been in BW?
|
On July 17 2012 15:10 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2012 01:35 moskonia wrote: I havent seen any good argument for the design of the Swarm Host and there are undoubtedly many flaws in its design. Sure it can be "made to work" or "interesting strategies" can be found, but what does the unit add to the Zerg arsenal that is new and original and fun? Nothing really Yeah... unlike the lurker which is new and original right? I don't get your argument that lurkers require a raven while the SH does not, if something it is the other way around, since you know where the lurkers are (they attack you) you can scan them, while you have no idea where the locusts are coming from exactly so you have to get a raven for them. The harass you make with the SH while "free" is not really free, since it did cost you to make those SH's, if you make 1 harassment butt hen the Terran comes and cleans your DH's you just had really expensive lings, so as long as the Terran reacts fast and right he can make the SH not cost efficient, but if teh Terran is afraid and lets the locusts waves come and come of course they will lose stuff, the whole point of the SH is to force Terran players into action instead of turtling. The SH gives Zerg the swarm feeling, I really don't understand how you cant see it, since sending waves after waves of units is the ultimate Zerg swarm style. About them being OP or very weak, well that is what there is balancing for, I am sure Blizz will find the right values to make the locusts able to do damage but not overpower the opponent. The Lurker requires a detector for the simple reason that it is burst damage on a small area. The damage of a Swarm Host is done by the free unit and since it is only a "pew-pew-waddle-waddle" shooter which doesnt deal AoE on a clumped up chunk of your units it is far less dangerous. If the free unit is made to be as dangerous as a Hydralisk for example that would be far too much firepower and thus the whole concept is kinda junk ... as I explained. I would like an explanation as to how the SH gives you a "swarm feeling"? You will probably only have a handful of them at any given time - lets be generous and say 10 - and I wouldnt say that 10 free units make up a swarm. ONE of them is already called a SWARM Host and thus he should spawn more than one unit at a time (3-4 would be a decent number), but then the whole duration and durability have to be adjusted accordingly. As long as that isnt the case I think the name is inappropriate for what it does. Any unit you "create" which does not have a cost to replace it is free. Thus the spawned unit is a free unit, the Swarm Host is not. Its the same for Broodlords, but not for Carriers and their Interceptors which cost minerals to create. As with any unit for SC2 there is the question of a critical mass and this critical mass will determine if a unit is OP or not. Remember the Reaper? One of them isnt that dangerous, but having 8+ in your base and killing your buildings in one or two rounds of grenades is quite powerful. They arent used anymore simply because they were "balanced to be ineffective" (late). Balancing the Swarm Host as a cloaked and "invulnerable" (due to the "I can burrow FAR away out of sight" part) unit will make them rather powerful if the critical mass to harrass a base is reached very easily and much too weak if you balance them the other way. There is no possibility for "the perfect balance" here simply because you have several levels of play to adjust the game for (making it just right for pros and OP for bronze league is bad). Thus the combat stats of the free unit is too much of a luck factor. If you reduce the lifetime and respawn time you get ever closer to haveing a ground based Broodlord and that is a terrible idea because Hydralisks could be shielded by a line of free and easily replaced units while attacking. A whole new world of terrible imbalance opens up with this "I create a unit for free which deals damage and doesnt cost me anything to replace" design. Its the same reason why Broodlords are a terrible concept. Oh and why should the Lurker be a BAD unit just because it has already been in BW?
Locusts are even deadlier then Hydras
Hydra DPS: 12 / 0,83 = ~14,5
Locust DPS:
Here it´s frustrating that no one seems to know the exact numbers
starcraft.wikia : 14 dmg
Liquidpedia: 15 dmg
This thread: 16 dmg
The attackspeed seems to be equall : 0,86
14 dmg = ~16,3 // 15 dmg = ~17,4 // 16 dmg = 18.6
now multiply with 2 because a SH produce two locusts and there we are.
32,55 dps - 37,2 dps
If this numbers are correct then Locust are fucking deadly.
|
That may be because Hydras are absolute shit for their cost.
|
On July 17 2012 16:47 Nachtwind wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2012 15:10 Rabiator wrote:On July 17 2012 01:35 moskonia wrote: I havent seen any good argument for the design of the Swarm Host and there are undoubtedly many flaws in its design. Sure it can be "made to work" or "interesting strategies" can be found, but what does the unit add to the Zerg arsenal that is new and original and fun? Nothing really Yeah... unlike the lurker which is new and original right? I don't get your argument that lurkers require a raven while the SH does not, if something it is the other way around, since you know where the lurkers are (they attack you) you can scan them, while you have no idea where the locusts are coming from exactly so you have to get a raven for them. The harass you make with the SH while "free" is not really free, since it did cost you to make those SH's, if you make 1 harassment butt hen the Terran comes and cleans your DH's you just had really expensive lings, so as long as the Terran reacts fast and right he can make the SH not cost efficient, but if teh Terran is afraid and lets the locusts waves come and come of course they will lose stuff, the whole point of the SH is to force Terran players into action instead of turtling. The SH gives Zerg the swarm feeling, I really don't understand how you cant see it, since sending waves after waves of units is the ultimate Zerg swarm style. About them being OP or very weak, well that is what there is balancing for, I am sure Blizz will find the right values to make the locusts able to do damage but not overpower the opponent. The Lurker requires a detector for the simple reason that it is burst damage on a small area. The damage of a Swarm Host is done by the free unit and since it is only a "pew-pew-waddle-waddle" shooter which doesnt deal AoE on a clumped up chunk of your units it is far less dangerous. If the free unit is made to be as dangerous as a Hydralisk for example that would be far too much firepower and thus the whole concept is kinda junk ... as I explained. I would like an explanation as to how the SH gives you a "swarm feeling"? You will probably only have a handful of them at any given time - lets be generous and say 10 - and I wouldnt say that 10 free units make up a swarm. ONE of them is already called a SWARM Host and thus he should spawn more than one unit at a time (3-4 would be a decent number), but then the whole duration and durability have to be adjusted accordingly. As long as that isnt the case I think the name is inappropriate for what it does. Any unit you "create" which does not have a cost to replace it is free. Thus the spawned unit is a free unit, the Swarm Host is not. Its the same for Broodlords, but not for Carriers and their Interceptors which cost minerals to create. As with any unit for SC2 there is the question of a critical mass and this critical mass will determine if a unit is OP or not. Remember the Reaper? One of them isnt that dangerous, but having 8+ in your base and killing your buildings in one or two rounds of grenades is quite powerful. They arent used anymore simply because they were "balanced to be ineffective" (late). Balancing the Swarm Host as a cloaked and "invulnerable" (due to the "I can burrow FAR away out of sight" part) unit will make them rather powerful if the critical mass to harrass a base is reached very easily and much too weak if you balance them the other way. There is no possibility for "the perfect balance" here simply because you have several levels of play to adjust the game for (making it just right for pros and OP for bronze league is bad). Thus the combat stats of the free unit is too much of a luck factor. If you reduce the lifetime and respawn time you get ever closer to haveing a ground based Broodlord and that is a terrible idea because Hydralisks could be shielded by a line of free and easily replaced units while attacking. A whole new world of terrible imbalance opens up with this "I create a unit for free which deals damage and doesnt cost me anything to replace" design. Its the same reason why Broodlords are a terrible concept. Oh and why should the Lurker be a BAD unit just because it has already been in BW? Locusts are even deadlier then Hydras Hydra DPS: 12 / 0,83 = ~14,5 Locust DPS: Here it´s frustrating that no one seems to know the exact numbers starcraft.wikia : 14 dmg Liquidpedia: 15 dmg This thread: 16 dmg The attackspeed seems to be equall : 0,86 14 dmg = ~16,3 // 15 dmg = ~17,4 // 16 dmg = 18.6 now multiply with 2 because a SH produce two locusts and there we are. 32,55 dps - 37,2 dps If this numbers are correct then Locust are fucking deadly.
So far I had been under the impression that the Swarm Host spawns only one unit, but its actually TWO ... with 90 hit points each! I dont really know what the devs at Blizzard are smoking, but its really funky stuff. Thanks for pointing that little detail out.
So even though the Swarm Host costs 3 supply instead of 2 for the Hydra you get a lot more hit points for it and even if its only a very short range attack for the Locust it will be very very (too) powerful. I hope people will start to see the problem of the unit design here.
|
I can't believe that Blizz dropped the Lurker in the beta!!
|
On July 17 2012 19:30 Leetley wrote:
I can't believe that Blizz dropped the Lurker in the beta!!
In the alpha.
|
On July 17 2012 11:06 CrucialSC wrote:
I'm not sure if it has been mentioned, but couldn't we technically have both units at the same time? I could definitely see one or the other being used in different situations, or even together. However, I would think from the carrier example that Blizzard doesn't like to leave both units intact, so it will most likely come down to a choice that could have already been made anyway >.>
You could take the hydra and let it be morphed into either a lurker or the swarm host?
that would be pretty lulzy
On July 17 2012 12:10 0neder wrote:
EG - the reaper gets protoss shield regen? wtf? how about un-nerfing it? Giving it mines back? Keeping building damage?.
Giving the reaper a speed upgrade (practically vulture like speed) and the ability to lay spider mines would be pretty epic and make them usefull imo. But the hellion would be an obvious choice as well.
And ditch the health upgrade.
|
On July 17 2012 13:43 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2012 13:23 Elem wrote:
Swarm host is a lot cooler looking, but lurker more fun both for spectator and player(s). I disagree - sort of. The lurker model for SCII is pretty bad, but keep in mind a lot more time/quality was invested into the SH model. I'm sure that if Blizzard decided to implement the lurker the model would be freaking kickass. Well it's not the quality, but the general design idea. The back of the Swarm Host is just so cool to me. Imagine it shooting out spikes through the air from those at targets!
|
Lurkers are way cooler but I shudder to think what stop lurkers and infestors could do in combination with each other.
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...
Not even, lurkers are basically Zerg siege tanks. Unlike colossi which can just stroll around the map at a pretty quick pace shooting whenever they want, lurkers have to be set up and sacrifice all mobility to do damage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
