|
On August 22 2012 18:27 Andr3 wrote:
Why is everyone being so damn nostalgic, think for a second...would lurker really fit into SC2?
I really loved how lurker worked in BW, but to me it seems it overlaps with banelings too much. You can already control space(not as well, give you that) with burowed banes.
With how everything is smooth, I doubt lurkers would feel as strong in SC2 as in BW.
But dunno, maybe add lurker in and keep swarm host lol. 4 lings, 2 lurkers, 2 swarm hosts, a roach and a hydra...time to play zerg like it's WC3.
You have to have an open mind too when you look at these two units.
Due to the clumped up units in the deathballs a Lurker would be MUCH too strong and would have to be nerfed a lot. This would make them feel less powerful and thus it wouldnt be right to add it into the game.
The Swarm Host creates free units which fight FAR AWAY FROM IT and thus you have the same terrible unit design which the Tempest has ... being able to attack from total safety and not a single drawback to make up for it. Thus this unit is - in its current state - just as unworthy to be in SC2 as the Lurker would be. I have given my opinion on how to make the Swarm Host fair and useable earlier in the thread, but the current form is terrible.
My question:
Why are there so many followers of the "new = better" religion? They certainly never argue with stats and facts about the topic and the only argument we get presented ...
|
On August 23 2012 19:08 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2012 18:27 Andr3 wrote:
Why is everyone being so damn nostalgic, think for a second...would lurker really fit into SC2?
I really loved how lurker worked in BW, but to me it seems it overlaps with banelings too much. You can already control space(not as well, give you that) with burowed banes.
With how everything is smooth, I doubt lurkers would feel as strong in SC2 as in BW.
But dunno, maybe add lurker in and keep swarm host lol. 4 lings, 2 lurkers, 2 swarm hosts, a roach and a hydra...time to play zerg like it's WC3. You have to have an open mind too when you look at these two units. Due to the clumped up units in the deathballs a Lurker would be MUCH too strong and would have to be nerfed a lot. This would make them feel less powerful and thus it wouldnt be right to add it into the game. The Swarm Host creates free units which fight FAR AWAY FROM IT and thus you have the same terrible unit design which the Tempest has ... being able to attack from total safety and not a single drawback to make up for it. Thus this unit is - in its current state - just as unworthy to be in SC2 as the Lurker would be. I have given my opinion on how to make the Swarm Host fair and useable earlier in the thread, but the current form is terrible. My question: Why are there so many followers of the "new = better" religion? They certainly never argue with stats and facts about the topic and the only argument we get presented ...
I am of the opposite mind that the lurker would actually force deathballs to stop clumping up, which is a GOOD thing. I don't think they would have to be nerfed a lot. More that they would require different reactions to stop. A good thing, a very good thing. With the extra health that marines have Lurkers would actually have to have increased damage in order to maintain the same relationship as in BW.
The biggest issue is lack of major Terran AOE (siege tanks need to be buffed) and corresponding counterparts for Protoss. Collosi require deathballs to be effective and siege tanks don't function as a space controlling unit with such low damage.
If all races had space controlling units - then the game wouldn't be OP in forcing players to change their interactions with said units. The player would just be BAD.
|
I'm voting for swarm host because im protoss
|
i think you forgot the biggest advantage of the Lurker: It does attack while being cloaked, and you can not deny that damage
whereas the damage from the swarm host can always be mitigated by enough firepower. So against a protoss deathball for example a swarm host cannot do any damage at all, since the locusts will get zapped by giant lazors before they get in firing range, whereas the Lurker will always do damage
This is the main thing i hate about burrowed infestors and burrowed Roaches - your opponent never NEEDS detection to not take damage at all. Thus i dislike the swarm host, since it does not fill the gap of doing cloaked damage
|
On August 23 2012 19:28 Cirqueenflex wrote:
i think you forgot the biggest advantage of the Lurker: It does attack while being cloaked, and you can not deny that damage
whereas the damage from the swarm host can always be mitigated by enough firepower. So against a protoss deathball for example a swarm host cannot do any damage at all, since the locusts will get zapped by giant lazors before they get in firing range, whereas the Lurker will always do damage
This is the main thing i hate about burrowed infestors and burrowed Roaches - your opponent never NEEDS detection to not take damage at all. Thus i dislike the swarm host, since it does not fill the gap of doing cloaked damage
I think with the current balance the swarm host would prove too strong if it did guaranteed / unstoppable damage a'la lurkers.
As much as the lurker was a great unit design, it doesn't fit in SC2 and that is why it isn't here.
|
On August 23 2012 19:30 malaan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2012 19:28 Cirqueenflex wrote:
i think you forgot the biggest advantage of the Lurker: It does attack while being cloaked, and you can not deny that damage
whereas the damage from the swarm host can always be mitigated by enough firepower. So against a protoss deathball for example a swarm host cannot do any damage at all, since the locusts will get zapped by giant lazors before they get in firing range, whereas the Lurker will always do damage
This is the main thing i hate about burrowed infestors and burrowed Roaches - your opponent never NEEDS detection to not take damage at all. Thus i dislike the swarm host, since it does not fill the gap of doing cloaked damage I think with the current balance the swarm host would prove too strong if it did guaranteed / unstoppable damage a'la lurkers. As much as the lurker was a great unit design, it doesn't fit in SC2 and that is why it isn't here.
That's flawed reasoning, the same as is being used with the carrier. "It isn't being used a lot, thus we removed it," is exactly what Blizzard said about the lurker. But that is because they tried to pidgeonhole it into a lategame siege role like the collosi instead of putting it where it belongs, as a T2 space controlling unit.
|
On August 23 2012 19:16 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2012 19:08 Rabiator wrote:On August 22 2012 18:27 Andr3 wrote:
Why is everyone being so damn nostalgic, think for a second...would lurker really fit into SC2?
I really loved how lurker worked in BW, but to me it seems it overlaps with banelings too much. You can already control space(not as well, give you that) with burowed banes.
With how everything is smooth, I doubt lurkers would feel as strong in SC2 as in BW.
But dunno, maybe add lurker in and keep swarm host lol. 4 lings, 2 lurkers, 2 swarm hosts, a roach and a hydra...time to play zerg like it's WC3. You have to have an open mind too when you look at these two units. Due to the clumped up units in the deathballs a Lurker would be MUCH too strong and would have to be nerfed a lot. This would make them feel less powerful and thus it wouldnt be right to add it into the game. The Swarm Host creates free units which fight FAR AWAY FROM IT and thus you have the same terrible unit design which the Tempest has ... being able to attack from total safety and not a single drawback to make up for it. Thus this unit is - in its current state - just as unworthy to be in SC2 as the Lurker would be. I have given my opinion on how to make the Swarm Host fair and useable earlier in the thread, but the current form is terrible. My question: Why are there so many followers of the "new = better" religion? They certainly never argue with stats and facts about the topic and the only argument we get presented ... I am of the opposite mind that the lurker would actually force deathballs to stop clumping up, which is a GOOD thing. I don't think they would have to be nerfed a lot. More that they would require different reactions to stop. A good thing, a very good thing. With the extra health that marines have Lurkers would actually have to have increased damage in order to maintain the same relationship as in BW. The biggest issue is lack of major Terran AOE (siege tanks need to be buffed) and corresponding counterparts for Protoss. Collosi require deathballs to be effective and siege tanks don't function as a space controlling unit with such low damage. If all races had space controlling units - then the game wouldn't be OP in forcing players to change their interactions with said units. The player would just be BAD.
Perhaps lurkers would force less deathballing, but take for example Fungal growth. How many times do you see high level ZvT games where you just facepalm till your palm hurts? 12 vikings just getting clumped like mad and getting fungaled to death is so sad to see. It's like half the games you see terran don't bother splitting vikings to counter the very game-changing fungals.
I'm not saying it would be same with lurker, but it's quite possible. Terrans started splitting marines versus banelings because if they didn't they'd just lose the game to mid game busts. I believe it would have to be same with lurkers, but this creates short-term balance concerns. Lurker would have to be strong as it is to make people split their armies. It's merely speculation at this time, and personal testing which makes it hard to say how would lurker fit.
The only way to trully test it would be to put it in the game and see what happens in ~3months+
|
we don't want another broolordlike swarmy unit.
If we have a antiarmored with nice micro unit like lurker game will be so much better, i think if we have more lurker and hydra we can nerf other unit like brood infest, and slightly buff hydra and make the game more balanced.
|
If they keep fungal growth the way it is now they are retarded.
|
I also will be happy with either, but definitely have to vote for the Lurker. Such a good unit and it was used so much in Brood War for a reason, adding so much excitement to matches.
Some change will have to be to either the Lurker or the Infestor if they're going to add the Lurker though, stopping all the units then just having Lurker's annihilate them would just be OP. As a Zerg though I wouldn't mind a change like Infestor fungal only slowing units instead of stopping them even though that's really significant, that would add more micro front both ends then imo.
|
I just like the Lurker more. I want an instant damage siege unit like the siege tank, it doesnt have to smart or swarmy.
|
After using the swarm host in the HOTS custom map. I can safely say that the unit is complete shit. It doesn't serve the purpose of space control in the slighest. It is more of a seige unit that has some utility against a turtling terran. Other then that, it isnt worth the investment. It is much better to just get infestors as swarm host follows the same tech path and get dolpinlists and viper end game. VERY disappointed in the unit. Had a lot of potential but blizzard made it awful.TT.
|
From the hots custom both playing with and against the swarm host I think its a strong unit but a unit I dislike. It ends up as basically a siege tank that hits air.
Bleh...most of hots just seems lame to me, aside from spider ines, battle hellions and hydra I'm just not enthused.
Also playing the custom Starbow maps which are a more bwish type of game makes me so sad sc2 wasn't designed that way.
|
Maybe next expansion we'll get things that put an end to death balls and maxed army vs maxed army on one screen.
It's by far the worst part of starcraft 2.
|
So there has been custom made HOTS map and with the beta out...
Did your opinion change? What is the role of the Swarm Host? I don't see it honestly. It doesn't force engagements (locust die quickly to tank fire or roaches or collosi) it doesn't defend cost effectively vs anything..
Where does it fit??
|
As a zerg player I think the swarm host looks cooler than the lurker, but this unit is going to change all the match-ups in a way I don't like, especially ZvZ, swarm hosts battles and contains are so stupid.....
|
Lurker is better at all things. Lurker FTW.
|
Why is everyone who doesnt want lurker in game just saying ''... it doesnt fit into sc2 therefore its not in''. Can you explain how he doesnt fit into the game? And why Swarm Host fits better?
I personally like lurker more and i played around 10-20 hours of BW at most. I come from DotA background but to me lurker seems way more interesting unit wich is capable of better space control and is overall more scary. Id love to see it in game - especially after Ive seen all the BW videos of what is lurker capable of - i can hardly see this coming with Swarm Host. Swarm host overall is just way more boring and it simply wont bring the same entertaiment as lurker did.
|
I do like the swarm host, because those locusts popping out of its back is a very cool animation, haha. I also like the model much more than the lurker's.
To the use and the viability in game: It is still in beta beta phase, so do not be too harsh with it.
To the lurker: I luvd it, srsly.
BW was such a great game, I know, maybe we'll see some units from there in SC2 LotV, but also I'd love to see more really new, unique and cool units.
|
can you control when swarm host releases those units or it has timer? It would made me mad if I lost just because SH did nothing in battle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
