|
On July 20 2012 15:30 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2012 07:58 sunprince wrote: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.
No, your reading comprehension is simply failing you. The TL;DR of my post is: "Spines aren't actually strong defense, they just seem that way because it's so imperative to attack Zerg." The fact that Terran/Protoss defenses (and what part of the word "defenses" is limited only to structures??!) are superior to Zerg defenses is a minor sidenote.
On July 20 2012 15:30 Rabiator wrote:
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.
I have no idea who you're arguing with here. I've never made the argument that lurkers are similar to spines; you must have me confused with someone else. I've spent this thread advocating in favor of the addition of lurkers.
On July 20 2012 15:30 Rabiator wrote:
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.
Your argument here is ridiculously irrelevant; what it boils down to is if you test any sort of attack against a typical Terran, Protoss, or Zerg base, that same attack will be far more effective against the Zerg base. Accordingly, Zerg defenses are objectively weaker.
|
Guys we need Defiler vs Viper topic :o i think this 2 units are quit similar
|
On July 20 2012 06:44 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2012 19:46 Archerofaiur wrote: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.
Your right your dont have to give the lurker anti-armor but then how is that supposed to give it anymore of a unique roleBesides their is still the high tier problem with no good way of getting it below 2.5 tier.
|
On July 22 2012 03:34 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2012 06:44 Qwyn wrote:On July 19 2012 19:46 Archerofaiur wrote: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. Your right your dont have to give the lurker anti-armor but then how is that supposed to give it anymore of a unique roleBesides their is still the high tier problem with no good way of getting it below 2.5 tier.
Move hydras to t1.5, then lurks would be t2 (available to research as soon as Lair completes if you already have a Den).
|
On July 22 2012 07:43 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 03:34 Archerofaiur wrote:On July 20 2012 06:44 Qwyn wrote:On July 19 2012 19:46 Archerofaiur wrote: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. Your right your dont have to give the lurker anti-armor but then how is that supposed to give it anymore of a unique roleBesides their is still the high tier problem with no good way of getting it below 2.5 tier. Move hydras to t1.5, then lurks would be t2 (available to research as soon as Lair completes if you already have a Den).
so to fit 1 bw thing in you need to add another one, its obvious where this is going.
|
lurkers can be tier 2.5. This is perfectly in time for their purpose imo. In bw you would get lurkers most oftenly at a time that corresponded to tier 2.5 and sc2 is a different game anyway. Who knows how it turns out.
(in zvt you'd get spire before hydralisk den and then you'd still have to upgrade lurker aspect. In zvp you'd also start out with mutalisks (less common) or the common 3 hatch spire into 5 hatch hydra where you'd only start your hydralisk den at tier 2 as well. You could get earlier lurkers in zvp and play more of a defensive style but both are perfectly viable.)
Perhaps we'll be seeing earlier lairs this way.
|
On July 22 2012 03:34 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2012 06:44 Qwyn wrote:On July 19 2012 19:46 Archerofaiur wrote: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. Your right your dont have to give the lurker anti-armor but then how is that supposed to give it anymore of a unique roleBesides their is still the high tier problem with no good way of getting it below 2.5 tier.
The simplest solution is to just make it 2.75'ish by allowing you to get the lurker aspect upgrade at the hydra den as soon as you hit lair. You want to give the lurker anti-armor do a degree (40dmg, I say). Like I've said before, 25 (+15 to armored) looks good.
|
On July 22 2012 07:46 Assirra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 07:43 sunprince wrote:On July 22 2012 03:34 Archerofaiur wrote:On July 20 2012 06:44 Qwyn wrote:On July 19 2012 19:46 Archerofaiur wrote: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. Your right your dont have to give the lurker anti-armor but then how is that supposed to give it anymore of a unique roleBesides their is still the high tier problem with no good way of getting it below 2.5 tier. Move hydras to t1.5, then lurks would be t2 (available to research as soon as Lair completes if you already have a Den). so to fit 1 bw thing in you need to add another one, its obvious where this is going.
More like, "fix two problems at once". Hydras being t2 are a big cause of their relatively limited use in SC2.
|
hydra being t1 or t2 has nothing to do with their limited use in sc2
|
On July 22 2012 08:53 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 07:46 Assirra wrote:On July 22 2012 07:43 sunprince wrote:On July 22 2012 03:34 Archerofaiur wrote:On July 20 2012 06:44 Qwyn wrote:On July 19 2012 19:46 Archerofaiur wrote: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. Your right your dont have to give the lurker anti-armor but then how is that supposed to give it anymore of a unique roleBesides their is still the high tier problem with no good way of getting it below 2.5 tier. Move hydras to t1.5, then lurks would be t2 (available to research as soon as Lair completes if you already have a Den). so to fit 1 bw thing in you need to add another one, its obvious where this is going. More like, "fix two problems at once". Hydras being t2 are a big cause of their relatively limited use in SC2.
Yea because putting hydras at t1 wouldn't give other troubles. This looking way to small, you adjust something and suddenly either everything else needs to change or you create a bunch of other problems.
|
On July 22 2012 09:03 Assirra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 08:53 sunprince wrote:On July 22 2012 07:46 Assirra wrote:On July 22 2012 07:43 sunprince wrote:On July 22 2012 03:34 Archerofaiur wrote:On July 20 2012 06:44 Qwyn wrote:On July 19 2012 19:46 Archerofaiur wrote:On July 19 2012 15:19 Qwyn wrote:On July 19 2012 02:12 Archerofaiur wrote:On July 18 2012 18:42 dashmode wrote:
[quote]
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. Your right your dont have to give the lurker anti-armor but then how is that supposed to give it anymore of a unique roleBesides their is still the high tier problem with no good way of getting it below 2.5 tier. Move hydras to t1.5, then lurks would be t2 (available to research as soon as Lair completes if you already have a Den). so to fit 1 bw thing in you need to add another one, its obvious where this is going. More like, "fix two problems at once". Hydras being t2 are a big cause of their relatively limited use in SC2. Yea because putting hydras at t1 wouldn't give other troubles. This looking way to small, you adjust something and suddenly either everything else needs to change or you create a bunch of other problems.
1 - You can't just assert that hydras at t1 create problems. How would they actually 'break' the game or 'create a bunch of other problems'? Please, try to identify a potential issue, because people have been throwing out the same broad assertion with no specific examples several times each page of this thread for the entire thread. =)
2 - You can't assume that roaches or hydras couldn't be tweaked completely in terms of unit stats/supply/etc. They can.
Go play Starbow. You'll see how relatively easy these tweaks could be.
|
On July 22 2012 09:08 0neder wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 09:03 Assirra wrote:On July 22 2012 08:53 sunprince wrote:On July 22 2012 07:46 Assirra wrote:On July 22 2012 07:43 sunprince wrote:On July 22 2012 03:34 Archerofaiur wrote:On July 20 2012 06:44 Qwyn wrote:On July 19 2012 19:46 Archerofaiur wrote:On July 19 2012 15:19 Qwyn wrote:On July 19 2012 02:12 Archerofaiur wrote:
[quote]
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. Your right your dont have to give the lurker anti-armor but then how is that supposed to give it anymore of a unique roleBesides their is still the high tier problem with no good way of getting it below 2.5 tier. Move hydras to t1.5, then lurks would be t2 (available to research as soon as Lair completes if you already have a Den). so to fit 1 bw thing in you need to add another one, its obvious where this is going. More like, "fix two problems at once". Hydras being t2 are a big cause of their relatively limited use in SC2. Yea because putting hydras at t1 wouldn't give other troubles. This looking way to small, you adjust something and suddenly either everything else needs to change or you create a bunch of other problems. 1 - You can't just assert that hydras at t1 create problems. How would they actually 'break' the game or 'create a bunch of other problems'? Please, try to identify a potential issue, because people have been throwing out the same broad assertion with no specific examples several times each page of this thread for the entire thread. =) 2 - You can't assume that roaches or hydras couldn't be tweaked completely in terms of unit stats/supply/etc. They can. Go play Starbow. You'll see how relatively easy these tweaks could be.
See here is the problem.
If we put hydras on t1 and indeed tweak them we got suddenly 4 t1 zerg units which give a great increase of new busts but it also takes away some of the mid game.
By doing this alone don't you realize how much you change the whole zerg race and every single matchup including zerg?
If you think roach baneling busts are bad, how about hydra roach busts, units that don't blow themselves up for once.
|
Guys, they won't put the Lurker in the game. And HotS isn't even out yet. Let's wait and see before we complain.
|
On July 22 2012 09:26 Assirra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 09:08 0neder wrote:On July 22 2012 09:03 Assirra wrote:On July 22 2012 08:53 sunprince wrote:On July 22 2012 07:46 Assirra wrote:On July 22 2012 07:43 sunprince wrote:On July 22 2012 03:34 Archerofaiur wrote:On July 20 2012 06:44 Qwyn wrote:On July 19 2012 19:46 Archerofaiur wrote:On July 19 2012 15:19 Qwyn wrote:
[quote]
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. Your right your dont have to give the lurker anti-armor but then how is that supposed to give it anymore of a unique roleBesides their is still the high tier problem with no good way of getting it below 2.5 tier. Move hydras to t1.5, then lurks would be t2 (available to research as soon as Lair completes if you already have a Den). so to fit 1 bw thing in you need to add another one, its obvious where this is going. More like, "fix two problems at once". Hydras being t2 are a big cause of their relatively limited use in SC2. Yea because putting hydras at t1 wouldn't give other troubles. This looking way to small, you adjust something and suddenly either everything else needs to change or you create a bunch of other problems. 1 - You can't just assert that hydras at t1 create problems. How would they actually 'break' the game or 'create a bunch of other problems'? Please, try to identify a potential issue, because people have been throwing out the same broad assertion with no specific examples several times each page of this thread for the entire thread. =) 2 - You can't assume that roaches or hydras couldn't be tweaked completely in terms of unit stats/supply/etc. They can. Go play Starbow. You'll see how relatively easy these tweaks could be. See here is the problem. If we put hydras on t1 and indeed tweak them we got suddenly 4 t1 zerg units which give a great increase of new busts but it also takes away some of the mid game. By doing this alone don't you realize how much you change the whole zerg race and every single matchup including zerg? If you think roach baneling busts are bad, how about hydra roach busts, units that don't blow themselves up for once.
Easy fix, switch roaches or banelings to tier 2. Or just nerf spawn larvae a bit as well.
|
On July 22 2012 09:36 IronHead wrote:
Guys, they won't put the Lurker in the game. And HotS isn't even out yet. Let's wait and see before we complain.
We've been waiting and seeing for over a year. Time to let Browder know we haven't forgotten about the complaints we've had for several years.
EDIT: Archer, maybe update the OP to include Starbow, another Mod with lurkers that will help us fully understand how to best implement them?
|
On July 22 2012 09:37 0neder wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 09:26 Assirra wrote:On July 22 2012 09:08 0neder wrote:On July 22 2012 09:03 Assirra wrote:On July 22 2012 08:53 sunprince wrote:On July 22 2012 07:46 Assirra wrote:On July 22 2012 07:43 sunprince wrote:On July 22 2012 03:34 Archerofaiur wrote:On July 20 2012 06:44 Qwyn wrote:On July 19 2012 19:46 Archerofaiur wrote:
[quote]
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. Your right your dont have to give the lurker anti-armor but then how is that supposed to give it anymore of a unique roleBesides their is still the high tier problem with no good way of getting it below 2.5 tier. Move hydras to t1.5, then lurks would be t2 (available to research as soon as Lair completes if you already have a Den). so to fit 1 bw thing in you need to add another one, its obvious where this is going. More like, "fix two problems at once". Hydras being t2 are a big cause of their relatively limited use in SC2. Yea because putting hydras at t1 wouldn't give other troubles. This looking way to small, you adjust something and suddenly either everything else needs to change or you create a bunch of other problems. 1 - You can't just assert that hydras at t1 create problems. How would they actually 'break' the game or 'create a bunch of other problems'? Please, try to identify a potential issue, because people have been throwing out the same broad assertion with no specific examples several times each page of this thread for the entire thread. =) 2 - You can't assume that roaches or hydras couldn't be tweaked completely in terms of unit stats/supply/etc. They can. Go play Starbow. You'll see how relatively easy these tweaks could be. See here is the problem. If we put hydras on t1 and indeed tweak them we got suddenly 4 t1 zerg units which give a great increase of new busts but it also takes away some of the mid game. By doing this alone don't you realize how much you change the whole zerg race and every single matchup including zerg? If you think roach baneling busts are bad, how about hydra roach busts, units that don't blow themselves up for once. Easy fix, switch roaches or banelings to tier 2. Or just nerf spawn larvae a bit as well.
So to fix a problem you self created by implementing a unit that is not supposed to be there you create something that have to be fixed by another fix.
Like i said before you are now switching the whole game around and for what? cause you want that 1 unit in the game.
At this rate just make sc3 or better sc2 bw cause we all know that is what it is gonne become.
|
On July 22 2012 08:28 wcr.4fun wrote:
lurkers can be tier 2.5. This is perfectly in time for their purpose imo. In bw you would get lurkers most oftenly at a time that corresponded to tier 2.5 and sc2 is a different game anyway. Who knows how it turns out.
(in zvt you'd get spire before hydralisk den and then you'd still have to upgrade lurker aspect. In zvp you'd also start out with mutalisks (less common) or the common 3 hatch spire into 5 hatch hydra where you'd only start your hydralisk den at tier 2 as well. You could get earlier lurkers in zvp and play more of a defensive style but both are perfectly viable.)
Perhaps we'll be seeing earlier lairs this way.
I hadn't heard this argument before. How do people feel about this? Do they agree with his assessment of BW?
On July 22 2012 09:54 Assirra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 09:37 0neder wrote:On July 22 2012 09:26 Assirra wrote:On July 22 2012 09:08 0neder wrote:On July 22 2012 09:03 Assirra wrote:On July 22 2012 08:53 sunprince wrote:On July 22 2012 07:46 Assirra wrote:On July 22 2012 07:43 sunprince wrote:On July 22 2012 03:34 Archerofaiur wrote:On July 20 2012 06:44 Qwyn wrote:
[quote]
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. Your right your dont have to give the lurker anti-armor but then how is that supposed to give it anymore of a unique roleBesides their is still the high tier problem with no good way of getting it below 2.5 tier. Move hydras to t1.5, then lurks would be t2 (available to research as soon as Lair completes if you already have a Den). so to fit 1 bw thing in you need to add another one, its obvious where this is going. More like, "fix two problems at once". Hydras being t2 are a big cause of their relatively limited use in SC2. Yea because putting hydras at t1 wouldn't give other troubles. This looking way to small, you adjust something and suddenly either everything else needs to change or you create a bunch of other problems. 1 - You can't just assert that hydras at t1 create problems. How would they actually 'break' the game or 'create a bunch of other problems'? Please, try to identify a potential issue, because people have been throwing out the same broad assertion with no specific examples several times each page of this thread for the entire thread. =) 2 - You can't assume that roaches or hydras couldn't be tweaked completely in terms of unit stats/supply/etc. They can. Go play Starbow. You'll see how relatively easy these tweaks could be. See here is the problem. If we put hydras on t1 and indeed tweak them we got suddenly 4 t1 zerg units which give a great increase of new busts but it also takes away some of the mid game. By doing this alone don't you realize how much you change the whole zerg race and every single matchup including zerg? If you think roach baneling busts are bad, how about hydra roach busts, units that don't blow themselves up for once. Easy fix, switch roaches or banelings to tier 2. Or just nerf spawn larvae a bit as well. So to fix a problem you self created by implementing a unit that is not supposed to be there you create something that have to be fixed by another fix. Like i said before you are now switching the whole game around and for what? cause you want that 1 unit in the game. At this rate just make sc3 or better sc2 bw cause we all know that is what it is gonne become.
Agreed. If you have to start switching around other units than its time to step back and ask yourself "Am I fitting this unit into SC2 or am I trying to fit SC2 around this unit?"
On July 22 2012 09:39 0neder wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 09:36 IronHead wrote:
Guys, they won't put the Lurker in the game. And HotS isn't even out yet. Let's wait and see before we complain. We've been waiting and seeing for over a year. Time to let Browder know we haven't forgotten about the complaints we've had for several years. EDIT: Archer, maybe update the OP to include Starbow, another Mod with lurkers that will help us fully understand how to best implement them?
I already have a link to the SC2BW mod at the top of the OP but if someone wants to post a youtube of the Starbow Lurker in action ill be glad to include it.
|
On July 22 2012 09:54 Assirra wrote:
So to fix a problem you self created by implementing a unit that is not supposed to be there you create something that have to be fixed by another fix.
Like i said before you are now switching the whole game around and for what? cause you want that 1 unit in the game.
Please define 'supposed to be there,' because I don't know what that means.
SC2 is supposed to be better than Brood War. It's good, but not yet better. In the absence of good ideas by Blizzard, we seek to explore what could be in the hopes of influencing the final game (LotV after all the patches) that will be played for years (hopefully).
It's not just about the Lurker, the foundation needs tweaking. Hidden Path improved the foundation of CS:GO in a few months, I'm sure Blizzard could to the same with SC2.
|
On July 24 2012 08:30 0neder wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 09:54 Assirra wrote:
So to fix a problem you self created by implementing a unit that is not supposed to be there you create something that have to be fixed by another fix.
Like i said before you are now switching the whole game around and for what? cause you want that 1 unit in the game.
Please define 'supposed to be there,' because I don't know what that means. SC2 is supposed to be better than Brood War. It's good, but not yet better. In the absence of good ideas by Blizzard, we seek to explore what could be in the hopes of influencing the final game (LotV after all the patches) that will be played for years (hopefully). It's not just about the Lurker, the foundation needs tweaking. Hidden Path improved the foundation of CS:GO in a few months, I'm sure Blizzard could to the same with SC2.
"not supposed to be there" i mean, not intended by blizzard themselves so they didn't design HoTS around the lurker being there.
They designed it from the ground up for the swarm host. If they suddenly decided to actually use the lurker they need to rebalance everything around that.
That is why this will never happen and this thread on its own is kinda poinltess.
People don't seem to think further then just "switch lurker for swarm host" when in fact you change the whole game.
|
On July 22 2012 09:02 iky43210 wrote:
hydra being t1 or t2 has nothing to do with their limited use in sc2
It is, because their stats had to be redesigned to fit t2. Hydras scaled down to t1, with costs to match, are far more viable primarily due to being cheap, low supply, and quickly spawned.
On July 22 2012 09:03 Assirra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 08:53 sunprince wrote:On July 22 2012 07:46 Assirra wrote:On July 22 2012 07:43 sunprince wrote:On July 22 2012 03:34 Archerofaiur wrote:On July 20 2012 06:44 Qwyn wrote:On July 19 2012 19:46 Archerofaiur wrote:On July 19 2012 15:19 Qwyn wrote:On July 19 2012 02:12 Archerofaiur wrote:On July 18 2012 18:42 dashmode wrote:
[quote]
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. Your right your dont have to give the lurker anti-armor but then how is that supposed to give it anymore of a unique roleBesides their is still the high tier problem with no good way of getting it below 2.5 tier. Move hydras to t1.5, then lurks would be t2 (available to research as soon as Lair completes if you already have a Den). so to fit 1 bw thing in you need to add another one, its obvious where this is going. More like, "fix two problems at once". Hydras being t2 are a big cause of their relatively limited use in SC2. Yea because putting hydras at t1 wouldn't give other troubles. This looking way to small, you adjust something and suddenly either everything else needs to change or you create a bunch of other problems.
Adding or changing any unit has ripple effects.
As for the hydra/lurker change in particular, only roaches and banes would be affected at the same time, as I've pointed out in another post in this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
