|
Actually when I think of the lurker more, it could work out good, but I think the swarm host is still cooler, and they are very different from each other, they only thing they share is they do their thing while borrowed. I wouldn't mind having both of them at all, it could make Zerg a very different race, that can choose either a very mobile approach based on flanking and surrounds, or a style that is based on positioning and securing control points. I think the Lurker alone wont be able to secure locations, but with the help of the infestor it will be able to.
Unlike SC1 with high ground adv and bad ai and pathing, in SC2 the lurker wont be able to hold important points, at least not alone, since while it would deal damage to stimmed rauders / blinking stalkers it wont be enough to actually defend vs them. I think with the use of the infestor the lurker could be used to its purpose though.
The problem with holding positions with infestors now is that in order to kill the units ur preventing from coming u need mass chain fungles, but with the lurker u could hold it pretty easy with 2-3 lurkers and an infestor or 2, which is awesome.
In order to become different from the baneling I think it would be good to make it have the other side of the counters. imo the lurker should be light typed and have 0 armor, doing extra damage against armored. I think it would be good since light typed units get countered by the baneling already and they are smaller meaning stronger splash against them.
I do hope Blizz would implant the lurker with the SH in HotS, just cause their roles are so different. This thread is really silly then, cause the units are nothing alike.
|
On July 18 2012 20:15 moskonia wrote:
Unlike SC1 with high ground adv and bad ai and pathing, in SC2 the lurker wont be able to hold important points, at least not alone, since while it would deal damage to stimmed rauders / blinking stalkers it wont be enough to actually defend vs them. I think with the use of the infestor the lurker could be used to its purpose though.
The "improved movement AI" would be the reason why Lurkers would be MORE efficient in SC2 compared to BW. Having to use two of them to kill units reasonably fast wouldnt be that bad if you really could block a choke point (for some time at least). Siege Tanks got nerfed compared to BW and something similar would have to be done to Lurkers ... at least as long as Blizzard is happy with deathball fights.
Personally I would be happy if Blizzard would increase the damage done by Siege Tank and Lurker (and maybe the Archon for Protoss?) to actually add a risk to using a deathball. There are too many things which negate a defenders advantage and that is bad.
|
I don't get how tanks being strong would be a good thing, after all they have huge range. If they were strong it wouldn;t have broken the deathball, it would just make a terran imba.
|
On July 18 2012 22:14 moskonia wrote:
I don't get how tanks being strong would be a good thing, after all they have huge range. If they were strong it wouldn;t have broken the deathball, it would just make a terran imba.
First of it is my opinion that the Siege Tank - from its basic design - is one of the very best units in Starcraft. It has an awesome strength, BUT pays for it with equally big weaknesses. Thus it is a "fair" unit. The one thing which makes Siege Tanks SUCK is that they are easily overrun by Zerg masses who are then reproduced MUCH faster compared to the tanks and thus playing mech is kinda "you have one shot at winning and if you dont you lose the game".
If the Siege Tank gets more powerful the enemy will NOT stick around in a deathball but rather spread out and go everywhere where there are no tanks ... if the Terran plays stupid and keeps his tanks together (which you seemed to imply by calling terran imba after it). Sure this could be a consequence, but you still have to defend your bases and thus it would make MUCH more sense to spread out the tanks and as a result you would have more Broodwar-ish area control battles with slow poking here and there.
Siege Tanks will probably never be alone on the battlefield and due to friendly fire any increase in damage would kill the protective Marines even faster than now, so the increase wouldnt be as bad as it seems in the first place. Both other races have "decoy units" (Infested Terran, Hallucination) to trigger those shots and thus I dont see any problem with increased damage on tanks. There are too few people playing mech to require such strategies to be developed and in any case the damage of the Siege Tank isnt deterring that much atm.
Obviously this is only an option if you object to the deathball and would like to change its dominance as the main strategy in the game. Lurker and Siege Tank are the two units to break them up by increased AoE damage and if you accept the deathball as the standard strategy for SC2 the Lurker will not be a good unit for SC2 since it will probably be useless.
|
On July 18 2012 18:42 dashmode wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 16:44 eviltomahawk wrote:
A BW Lurker would be nice, but it obviously overlaps with the Baneling in unit role. However, the SC2 Lurker that got cut in the alpha frankly sucks. Its so high up in the tech tree at Hive tech, not to mention you still have to morph the Hydra Den into a Lurker Den, at least that was the case in the latest alpha build before the Lurker was removed. With such a high position in the tech tree, it can't take advantage of any timings to catch an opponent off-guard with lack of detection, not to mention Brood Lords and Ultralisks share that part of the tech tree and may be better alternatives to an investment into Lurker tech.
Lurkers should be on a lair tech, this way they would serve their purpose. Why would u need to go to hive to morph hydralisk den? I don't think it is really needed, you just morph it into lurker den as soon as you have a hydralisk den. Just like it is with a spawning pool, you have to get it first to get a baneling nest and guess what? Banelings are morphed from zerglings, all on the same tech tier. I would love to see lurkers in a current zvz, that would be end of this stupid 30min long roach vs roach battles. Zerg is too much of a 1a race, you get a lot of zergling, banelings, roaches and roll everything in one attack, then people are disappointed that game lasted 1 hour into 1 battle which took 15 secs at most. Lurkers would add more strategy, less 1a to this race. And one last thing, lurkers do not overlap with a banelings, banelings are useless vs armored.
But Lurker still overlaps with Ultralisk.
|
The swarm host is such a lurker copy. And a bad one at that.
Blizzard said they would never include the lurker in the game because it doesn't fit into starcraft 2.
Bullshit.
Why would you make a unit so close to it then?
Also, the swarm host has no synergy with the viper. The viper essentially has dark swarm (another ability from bw btw) which reduces range of all units inside the cloud to 1. Melee units are needed to take advantage of this ability. Lurkers had range but the attack was considered a multi-melee attack (they could fire inside the cloud). The swarm host's broodlings or whatever are ranged and thus will not take full advantage of the dark swarm ability.
That is just one example. I can list a dozen reasons why the lurker fits into sc2 more than the swarm host ever will.
|
swarm host isn't a lurker copy. They both have their own quite distinctive role and the only real similarities between them is that they both require borrow to do things and they kinda control spaces in their own ways
and blinding cloud is more like dark swarm + disruption web.
|
Apologies if these points have already been made:
-It feels like zerg is more mobile, or maybe the pace of the game is just faster, than in BW. In any event, the extreme mobility of zerg seems to make the potential of powerful ground control units too much, exacerbated by...
-Maps are much smaller and more constricted than in BW.
Besides, aren't spine crawlers being used in much the same way you'd expect lurkers to be used, albeit only in a defensive role? Do you think such a strategy should be even stronger? Frankly, it seems pretty strong.
I do love all of the posts like the one by hpTheGreat saying that the swarm host is simultaneously exactly like the lurker but also much worse. Examining posting metagame is a hobby of mine.
|
On July 19 2012 04:32 hpTheGreat wrote:
The swarm host is such a lurker copy. And a bad one at that.
Blizzard said they would never include the lurker in the game because it doesn't fit into starcraft 2.
Bullshit.
Why would you make a unit so close to it then?
Also, the swarm host has no synergy with the viper. The viper essentially has dark swarm (another ability from bw btw) which reduces range of all units inside the cloud to 1. Melee units are needed to take advantage of this ability. Lurkers had range but the attack was considered a multi-melee attack (they could fire inside the cloud). The swarm host's broodlings or whatever are ranged and thus will not take full advantage of the dark swarm ability.
That is just one example. I can list a dozen reasons why the lurker fits into sc2 more than the swarm host ever will.
That is because you have two vital errors here.
SH <-> Lurker
Blinding Cloud <-> Dark Swarm
You will not want to use SH+blind versus MM balls. Why i say MM? Because blinding cloud affect only bio units.
So yes you are right - blinding cloud and SH itself have no synergy. Then again you never ever want to let any bio units fight 1vs1 with Locusts in a cloud because they have the highest single dps in zerg arsenal before ultra.
SH will not be used for things you have in mind. For that you have other units.
The viper essentially has dark swarm (another ability from bw btw) which reduces range of all units inside the cloud to 1. Melee units are needed to take advantage of this ability.
For your understanding that this is 50% true. Because i could say that ranged units are needed. 
Ranged units outside of the blinding cloud make full damage to the units inside.
Ranged units inside of dark swarm make full damage to units at the outside.
They are mirrored.
|
On July 16 2012 21:53 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 21:17 Rabiator wrote:On July 16 2012 20:45 Big J wrote:On July 16 2012 19:05 Noocta wrote:On July 16 2012 14:12 Qwyn wrote:On July 16 2012 13:23 Noocta wrote:So this thread is a massive theorycrafting about which of these 2 units noone actually played with would be better ? Why does it still exist ?  There's litteraly NO WAY to know. You have a poll about which of the two units is the most fun to play with... But you can't even play with them ! What the hell is wrong with you people HOTS Custom. Go ahead and try the current version of the swarm host. You can also try the lurker in mods like Starbow. Ofc stats need to be updated, but you can play with it in SCII yourself. You can also play BW...yeah. SC2 isn't BW, the Lurker would probably not have the same impact at all. Specially since they would justfix the Hold Lurker thing. And being creative about the Swarm Host don't prevent all this thread to be theorycrafting. You can argue about a unit being bad all day, in the end it's playing like a hundred game with it that will make your final thought. edit : And they don't even do the same thing anyway. Swarm host are here to break siege position before Hive tech, what does Lurker have to do with that ! Give it up. When you point to the obvious (SC2 =/= BW, therefore units will work differently), they are just going to tell you that Dark Swarm should be in the game and hydralisks should be T1 and high ground advantages should be there and the pathing should be changed and AoE should be increased and so on and so on. I mean, how can you argue with that? If you make a lurkerfriendly enviroment, then the lurker will obviously be great and fun. It's just not going to happen in SC2, because they would have to scrap the whole game they have made until now. The ONLY argument which you can bring is that SC2 =/= BW and that is about as useless as anything. The people who you want to shut up actually use BW and its mechanics and so on as an example because it is a SIMILAR GAME. It is obvious that they are NOT THE SAME, but even you blithering idiots have agree that they are similar and thus certain conclusions can be drawn. In fact SC2 is as similar as it can be and you should accept the fact that there is some wisdom in looking at BW when judging about SC2 units. Your claims that we are calling for Dark Swarm to be adopted and t1 Hydralisks and such are totally ridiculous and in case you didnt notice ... they will have Dark Swarm in HotS, its just called different and cast by a different unit (which incidentally also has a "mana leech ability" just like its BW predecessor). This truly shows how creative Blizzards SC2 designers have become and your argument that the games arent the same is getting ever more pointless since the games are becoming more of the same with the next expansion. Sure the units have different names and shapes and work differently, but the general purpose is the same. The purpose of the Swarm Host does not fit the purpose of the Lurker, but since AoE damage is considered OP in a game which has tight unit formations and has the deathball as the most successful mid-late game strategy, this has to be expected when the target generation is a bunch of whining kids who dont want to work for a victory and instead a-move for it. Thats "newer and better (Blizzard style)" for you. I don't want to shut anybody up. I'm just saying how the discussion will go on, because it's already circlejerking since days and always leads to the arguments I put above: how SC2 should be changed to make the lurker work. examples from this thread: Discussion that hydras should be T1 to make lurkers more useful in SC2. + Show Spoiler +On July 14 2012 12:03 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2012 10:56 Infernal_dream wrote:On July 14 2012 10:37 sunprince wrote:On July 13 2012 14:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Watching that battle report, the swarm hosts don't create a fast paced kind of a battle, butt he battle did look much more drawn out and even though it was pretty slow paced, the constant waves of locusts make the battle feel longer and add a kind of tense atmosphere. On July 13 2012 08:22 sunprince wrote:On July 13 2012 06:49 goiflin wrote:On July 13 2012 06:33 sunprince wrote:On July 13 2012 06:22 goiflin wrote:On July 13 2012 06:01 sunprince wrote:On July 13 2012 03:00 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
[quote]
Yeah. The whole thing sounded scripted, which is not a good thing.
As for the thread, although the lurker may be a unit which is better when compared to the swarm host in a vacuum, SC2 isn't a vacuum. The lurker, if I recall correctly, was removed because it overlapped roles with the baneling. If Blizzard just decided to throw the lurker in the game for HotS instead of the swarm host, they would:
A: Be in the same bind as they were before
B: Be adding a unit that didn't really enhance the gameplay that much
C: Ironically enough, be bashed for adding in an unoriginal unit just to appease the BW crowd
D: Be adding a unit that isn't as good as the swarm host, for the overall game
Although adding in the lurker instead of the swarm host is a great idea when you first think about it, the swarm host fulfills more roles and fills more missing niches in the zerg army than the lurker ever could. How you came to this conclusion is beyond me. The lurker serves in the surprise gank, detection forcing, splash damage, anti-infantry, turtling, map control, midgame siege, containment, and ramp defense roles. The swarm host does... what, bait siege tank fire and slowly cause minimal damage when not detected? Stop autocasting to surprise gank, forces detection like lurkers, has splash damage in the effect that it spawns more than one unit, forces terran to push slower, has map control in the same effect that you need to bring a real force to move through a portion of the map with them there, they contain int he same respect that you need certain units (detection, tanks) to move through them and ramp defense. I don't think marine hit squads are going to be running up ramps with two hosts without autocast for the locusts, but that'd just be a numbers game really. It's completely ridiculous to assert that a few locusts constitute a surprise gank the way that high splash damage does. Swarm hosts do not force detection, contain, or defend any area as you can simply gun down the locusts while moving past the swarm hosts (compare that to the difficulty of running past lurkers in chokes). Spawning more than one unit is not splash damage; c'mon, are you even trying? One lurker doesn't gank a group of marines, nor does one swarm host. You have to have multiples. Two lurkers easily gank a group of marines. Two swarm hosts does nothing. On July 13 2012 06:49 goiflin wrote:
I'll give you splash damage if you can't see how multiple units can attack multiple units, and you can't move past locusts in a choke easily. You do know units block eachother in this game, right? You clearly don't know what "splash damage" means. Spawning two units is not a form of splash damage, and only someone who has no idea what they're talking about would call a swarm locust or a broodlord "splash" units. You can easily move past locusts in a choke, by simply gunning them down with enough marines and running past the swarm hosts. On July 13 2012 06:49 goiflin wrote:
They fufill the same roles. You're just refusing to see how the swarm host fufills those roles because it doesn't fufill them identically to the lurker.
And fyi, I'm for the lurker being included instead of the swarm host, but saying the swarm host can't fill the roles of the lurker is kinda silly because it absolutely can. They absolutely don't. Just because you think ridiculously stretched definitions count and because you ignore all of my relevant points doesn't change the fact that any reasonable person understand their roles are not the same. On July 13 2012 06:49 goiflin wrote:
Edit; why does zerg need more splash? Fungal and banelings are handling groups of units just fine at the moment. Zerg doesn't need more splash. What it actually needs are the lurker's other roles, many of which partly require splash to serve those roles effectively. Banes are a poorly designed unit that don't belong in the game to start with, and Zerg would be a far more balanced and fun race with lurkers instead of banes. Well you're not able to use hold lurkers anymore right? So lurkers aren't as effective as shown in the video. Also, burrowed banelings already serve the role of "ganking" marines. If swarm hosts were just like lurkers, they may overlap with burrowed banelings too much. 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). The last posts of this discussion are about dark swarm and high ground: + Show Spoiler +Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2012 12:29 sunprince wrote:On July 15 2012 10:44 Big J wrote:On July 15 2012 10:29 sunprince wrote:On July 15 2012 10:19 Big J wrote:On July 15 2012 09:27 sunprince wrote:On July 15 2012 08:58 moskonia 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? 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. Are you completely unfamiliar with lurker usage in BW? Lurkers aren't used just by having them sit there and fight at the enemy's maximum range. SC2 units don't change anything if you use lurkers that badly; dragoons, siege tanks, reavers, storm, and even goliaths all beat lurkers that just sit there. What lurkers are actually for is controlling chokes, sitting/advancing under dark swarm, and tearing apart enemy balls by running up to burrow next to them while they are surrounded/pinned down by lings and/or hydras. Are you completly unfamiliar with SC2? Dark Swarm is not in SC2, highground chokes and ramps that you wanted to hold with lurkers don't give 50% dodge anymore and hydras are straight up not useful most of the time in SC2. Your argument is lacking SC2. The concept of the lurker does not offer a lot of those roles you described, because they require BW. In SC2 a Lurker will most likely be used to add ranged splash damage in a combat, force detection and maybe some extra defensive strengthes in choke points. (didn't get any answer for this one, else I would include it)
Blatant lie.
|
On July 19 2012 05:09 Jerubaal wrote:
-It feels like zerg is more mobile, or maybe the pace of the game is just faster, than in BW. In any event, the extreme mobility of zerg seems to make the potential of powerful ground control units too much, exacerbated by...
-Maps are much smaller and more constricted than in BW.
It's been shown elsewhere on Tl that maps aren't actually smaller than in BW, they just seem that way because the view is zoomed further out and on average most units move faster. In any case, the mobility of Zerg doesn't enhanced the strength of ground control units; it's actually disynergistic because you'd rather that more of your units' value comes from brute force when some of your units can't keep up anyway (since lurkers are inherently slow due to a need for burrow/unburrow).
On July 19 2012 05:09 Jerubaal wrote:
Besides, aren't spine crawlers being used in much the same way you'd expect lurkers to be used, albeit only in a defensive role? Do you think such a strategy should be even stronger? Frankly, it seems pretty strong.
It seems stronger than it is because Zerg economy is too exponential. If spawn larvae weren't so OP, then the defensive prowess of spines (which is really inferior to Terran and Protoss defenses) wouldn't seem that strong, since Terran and Protoss wouldn't need to all-in Zerg to stop the exponential economy nearly as often.
|
On July 19 2012 05:09 Jerubaal wrote:
Besides, aren't spine crawlers being used in much the same way you'd expect lurkers to be used, albeit only in a defensive role? Do you think such a strategy should be even stronger? Frankly, it seems pretty strong.
I wish my spine crawlers had splash damage -.-
|
On July 19 2012 09:21 sunprince wrote:
It seems stronger than it is because Zerg economy is too exponential. If spawn larvae weren't so OP, then the defensive prowess of spines (which is really inferior to Terran and Protoss defenses) wouldn't seem that strong, since Terran and Protoss wouldn't need to all-in Zerg to stop the exponential economy nearly as often.
Just an ignorant question, but which Terran defenses are you talking about? The one which is extremely expensive and cant be fitted anywhere reasonably or the one which requires unit supply to make it shoot anything? I would deem the Spine Crawler as easier to use than both of them. Efficiency isnt limited to the amount of damage, but also to the amount of usefulness and as a moveable anti-ground defense which doesnt cost supply it is VERY efficient.
|
On July 19 2012 02:12 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 18:42 dashmode wrote:On July 18 2012 16:44 eviltomahawk wrote:
A BW Lurker would be nice, but it obviously overlaps with the Baneling in unit role. However, the SC2 Lurker that got cut in the alpha frankly sucks. Its so high up in the tech tree at Hive tech, not to mention you still have to morph the Hydra Den into a Lurker Den, at least that was the case in the latest alpha build before the Lurker was removed. With such a high position in the tech tree, it can't take advantage of any timings to catch an opponent off-guard with lack of detection, not to mention Brood Lords and Ultralisks share that part of the tech tree and may be better alternatives to an investment into Lurker tech.
Lurkers should be on a lair tech, this way they would serve their purpose. Why would u need to go to hive to morph hydralisk den? I don't think it is really needed, you just morph it into lurker den as soon as you have a hydralisk den. Just like it is with a spawning pool, you have to get it first to get a baneling nest and guess what? Banelings are morphed from zerglings, all on the same tech tier. I would love to see lurkers in a current zvz, that would be end of this stupid 30min long roach vs roach battles. Zerg is too much of a 1a race, you get a lot of zergling, banelings, roaches and roll everything in one attack, then people are disappointed that game lasted 1 hour into 1 battle which took 15 secs at most. Lurkers would add more strategy, less 1a to this race. And one last thing, lurkers do not overlap with a banelings, banelings are useless vs armored. But Lurker still overlaps with Ultralisk.
WHAT?
I don't think that's true at all. That's ridiculous (not being condescending here). Lurkers are so far away from ultralisk that the similarities end with splash...
To moskonia, lurkers should be able to hold chokes alone against tier 1-2. OBVIOUSLY, there are scaling issues.
But you give them the right stats and they hold off well against marine/rauder, zealot/stalker/sentry.
REMEMBER, scaling is OBVIOUS. They should only grow MORE powerful with fungal (which should be changed...).
As stronger enemy AOE units get on the field, spellcasters will be necessary for lurkers to be most effective, obviously. But to say that at standard lair timings in each MU and later into the game lurkers cannot be effective in pairs is sort of ridiculous, IMO.
|
On July 18 2012 22:14 moskonia wrote:
I don't get how tanks being strong would be a good thing, after all they have huge range. If they were strong it wouldn;t have broken the deathball, it would just make a terran imba.
Tanks being strong was kind of the reason BW was so exciting, everthing revolved around how imba they were.
|
On July 19 2012 15:19 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2012 02:12 Archerofaiur wrote:On July 18 2012 18:42 dashmode wrote:On July 18 2012 16:44 eviltomahawk wrote:
A BW Lurker would be nice, but it obviously overlaps with the Baneling in unit role. However, the SC2 Lurker that got cut in the alpha frankly sucks. Its so high up in the tech tree at Hive tech, not to mention you still have to morph the Hydra Den into a Lurker Den, at least that was the case in the latest alpha build before the Lurker was removed. With such a high position in the tech tree, it can't take advantage of any timings to catch an opponent off-guard with lack of detection, not to mention Brood Lords and Ultralisks share that part of the tech tree and may be better alternatives to an investment into Lurker tech.
Lurkers should be on a lair tech, this way they would serve their purpose. Why would u need to go to hive to morph hydralisk den? I don't think it is really needed, you just morph it into lurker den as soon as you have a hydralisk den. Just like it is with a spawning pool, you have to get it first to get a baneling nest and guess what? Banelings are morphed from zerglings, all on the same tech tier. I would love to see lurkers in a current zvz, that would be end of this stupid 30min long roach vs roach battles. Zerg is too much of a 1a race, you get a lot of zergling, banelings, roaches and roll everything in one attack, then people are disappointed that game lasted 1 hour into 1 battle which took 15 secs at most. Lurkers would add more strategy, less 1a to this race. And one last thing, lurkers do not overlap with a banelings, banelings are useless vs armored. But Lurker still overlaps with Ultralisk. WHAT? I don't think that's true at all. That's ridiculous (not being condescending here). Lurkers are so far away from ultralisk that the similarities end with splash... To moskonia, lurkers should be able to hold chokes alone against tier 1-2. OBVIOUSLY, there are scaling issues. But you give them the right stats and they hold off well against marine/rauder, zealot/stalker/sentry. REMEMBER, scaling is OBVIOUS. They should only grow MORE powerful with fungal (which should be changed...). As stronger enemy AOE units get on the field, spellcasters will be necessary for lurkers to be most effective, obviously. But to say that at standard lair timings in each MU and later into the game lurkers cannot be effective in pairs is sort of ridiculous, IMO.
They are both late game anti-armor aoe units. I dont see how their counters (and the units they counter) could be different.
|
On July 18 2012 22:14 moskonia wrote:
I don't get how tanks being strong would be a good thing, after all they have huge range. If they were strong it wouldn;t have broken the deathball, it would just make a terran imba.
Super powerful AOE discourages deathball play because of the potential for one player to get their entire army erased at minimal cost to the other player if they screw up.
Look at BW TvT. A big siege line is so powerful that anything on the ground that comes near it is evaporated, which keeps blobs of armies from marching around in a single group killing everything. It forces the game to revolve around finding the gaps in your opponent's defenses and vulture harassing, doing drops, and so on. You get constant skirmishes around the map away from the main armies and the no man's land in between. Big battles are an incredible risk and typically only occur when one player makes a large error by setting up their tanks incorrectly or losing too many units with an attempted harass of some sort.
|
On July 19 2012 19:46 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2012 15:19 Qwyn wrote:On July 19 2012 02:12 Archerofaiur wrote:On July 18 2012 18:42 dashmode wrote:On July 18 2012 16:44 eviltomahawk wrote:
A BW Lurker would be nice, but it obviously overlaps with the Baneling in unit role. However, the SC2 Lurker that got cut in the alpha frankly sucks. Its so high up in the tech tree at Hive tech, not to mention you still have to morph the Hydra Den into a Lurker Den, at least that was the case in the latest alpha build before the Lurker was removed. With such a high position in the tech tree, it can't take advantage of any timings to catch an opponent off-guard with lack of detection, not to mention Brood Lords and Ultralisks share that part of the tech tree and may be better alternatives to an investment into Lurker tech.
Lurkers should be on a lair tech, this way they would serve their purpose. Why would u need to go to hive to morph hydralisk den? I don't think it is really needed, you just morph it into lurker den as soon as you have a hydralisk den. Just like it is with a spawning pool, you have to get it first to get a baneling nest and guess what? Banelings are morphed from zerglings, all on the same tech tier. I would love to see lurkers in a current zvz, that would be end of this stupid 30min long roach vs roach battles. Zerg is too much of a 1a race, you get a lot of zergling, banelings, roaches and roll everything in one attack, then people are disappointed that game lasted 1 hour into 1 battle which took 15 secs at most. Lurkers would add more strategy, less 1a to this race. And one last thing, lurkers do not overlap with a banelings, banelings are useless vs armored. But Lurker still overlaps with Ultralisk. WHAT? I don't think that's true at all. That's ridiculous (not being condescending here). Lurkers are so far away from ultralisk that the similarities end with splash... To moskonia, lurkers should be able to hold chokes alone against tier 1-2. OBVIOUSLY, there are scaling issues. But you give them the right stats and they hold off well against marine/rauder, zealot/stalker/sentry. REMEMBER, scaling is OBVIOUS. They should only grow MORE powerful with fungal (which should be changed...). As stronger enemy AOE units get on the field, spellcasters will be necessary for lurkers to be most effective, obviously. But to say that at standard lair timings in each MU and later into the game lurkers cannot be effective in pairs is sort of ridiculous, IMO. They are both late game anti-armor aoe units. I dont see how their counters (and the units they counter) could be different.
Uhm...the way Blizzard designed the lurker in the beta is not at all how it should be implemented into the game. And since everything about the unit but concept can change, then I'd say no. Lurker is mid-game anti-tier 1-2 power unit. It has a longer range than the ultra, and cannot move when burrowed. Ultra is a tier 3 meatshield/melee unit. It dakes damage from armored - no reason why the lurker has to. It deals cone shape AOE and has 500 health. Lurker would probably have 100. Like I said, the only similarity I see is that they both deal AOE. Conceptually they are quite different.
|
On July 19 2012 14:09 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2012 09:21 sunprince wrote:
It seems stronger than it is because Zerg economy is too exponential. If spawn larvae weren't so OP, then the defensive prowess of spines (which is really inferior to Terran and Protoss defenses) wouldn't seem that strong, since Terran and Protoss wouldn't need to all-in Zerg to stop the exponential economy nearly as often. Just an ignorant question, but which Terran defenses are you talking about? The one which is extremely expensive and cant be fitted anywhere reasonably or the one which requires unit supply to make it shoot anything? I would deem the Spine Crawler as easier to use than both of them. Efficiency isnt limited to the amount of damage, but also to the amount of usefulness and as a moveable anti-ground defense which doesnt cost supply it is VERY efficient.
"Terran defenses" isn't limited to defensive structures, but includes what you would normally use to provide a basic (and disproportionately cost-effective) way to defend a choke and/or your base. Just as Zerg defenses typically include spines, queens, some rallied lings, and perhaps an infestor, Terran defenses typically include a building wall, tanks, a bunker, turrets, auto-repairing scvs, and perhaps a planetary fortress.
To put it another way, it's way easier to breach a Zerg base than it is to breach a Terran or Protoss base. It only works out to some sort of "balance" in SC2 because spawn larvae makes up for the lack of Zerg defense (and the exponential economy spawn larvae + good defenses would make Zerg hidieously OP). If spawn larvae were nerfed as it should be, then one of the ways that Zerg can be compensated for it would be better defensive ability such as through the addition of lurkers.
|
On July 20 2012 07:58 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2012 14:09 Rabiator wrote:On July 19 2012 09:21 sunprince wrote:
It seems stronger than it is because Zerg economy is too exponential. If spawn larvae weren't so OP, then the defensive prowess of spines (which is really inferior to Terran and Protoss defenses) wouldn't seem that strong, since Terran and Protoss wouldn't need to all-in Zerg to stop the exponential economy nearly as often. Just an ignorant question, but which Terran defenses are you talking about? The one which is extremely expensive and cant be fitted anywhere reasonably or the one which requires unit supply to make it shoot anything? I would deem the Spine Crawler as easier to use than both of them. Efficiency isnt limited to the amount of damage, but also to the amount of usefulness and as a moveable anti-ground defense which doesnt cost supply it is VERY efficient. "Terran defenses" isn't limited to defensive structures, but includes what you would normally use to provide a basic (and disproportionately cost-effective) way to defend a choke and/or your base. Just as Zerg defenses typically include spines, queens, some rallied lings, and perhaps an infestor, Terran defenses typically include a building wall, tanks, a bunker, turrets, auto-repairing scvs, and perhaps a planetary fortress. To put it another way, it's way easier to breach a Zerg base than it is to breach a Terran or Protoss base. It only works out to some sort of "balance" in SC2 because spawn larvae makes up for the lack of Zerg defense (and the exponential economy spawn larvae + good defenses would make Zerg hidieously OP). If spawn larvae were nerfed as it should be, then one of the ways that Zerg can be compensated for it would be better defensive ability such as through the addition of lurkers.
Sorry, but your original post was about the Spine Crawler and I replied to that. Thats a defensive structure and the two terran ones (against ground) are bunker and Planetary Fortress. It is easier to use (small, long range, mobile) and only costs minerals and no supply; it even frees up supply, so building one could delay an overlord timing in the same way an extractor trick is used ... except the Spines are allowed to finish. So dont say that they are inferior to terran defenses.
Spine Crawlers can be massed and that is something you cant really do with Lurkers since they cost supply. Saying they are similar (and thus one not needed) is about the same as saying that Protoss cannons are similar to Stalkers and thus Stalkers are unnecessary. Mobility and sneakiness and the AoE of Lurkers really make them different enough.
For Zerg it is terribly easy to breach the base of a Terran since they dont have forecfields and HAVE TO wall off with NECESSARY STRUCTURES (supply depots to be raised and lowered). You can very easily destroy several of them with just a few Banelings and get that terran "in the red". Being faster with Speedlings AND having no anti-ground defensive structure that DOESNT require supply really makes walling off necessary.
Protoss have cannons and Forcefields to wall off and still Zerg manage to break in with the help of a few Banelings and Roaches or just by running through when there isnt a Forcefield.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
