Blizzard's thoughts on Swarm Hosts - Page 46

On May 18 2014 07:39 Faust852 wrote:
Why not just remove SH, it isn't vital in any match up.

On May 19 2014 11:28 Existor wrote:

They are nice in terms of unit design, and the average idea/concept is cool too. Just need more stats tuning

On May 19 2014 12:33 aka_star wrote:
Wait what, I don't get it. Since when were spore crawlers an affective counter to brood lords ?

On May 19 2014 12:33 aka_star wrote:
Wait what, I don't get it. Since when were spore crawlers an affective counter to brood lords ?

On May 19 2014 12:35 Waise wrote:

you abduct them into the spores

On May 18 2014 09:20 Faust852 wrote:
For TvZ vs Mech, I might give you some replay where I lose to a Zerg against Ultra Viper, you'll see how strong this style is. I think it's much stronger than SH play.

And about ZvP, I saw so much macro game without SH, I'm 100% you don't need them to win. There are also the ultra/gling style, in addition with viper. Roach hydra viper corru is a totally viable type of play too.

On May 19 2014 16:08 LingBlingBling wrote:



Not sure if you understand how zvp works. If you remove swarm host, zerg would have to rely on silly timing attacks, if protoss chooses to play safe and macro into late game sky toss, Zerg has almost nothing other then Queens and infestors, as everything else is 100% garbage vs that comp. Swarm host/viper/corrupter is needed to break that style. Removing swarm host would break a lot of crap in Pro Korean scene.

Only zerg that has some what success with other styles vs sky toss not using swarm host, would be SoO doing muta/corrupter vs zest late game with tech switches, but that was map reliant and only works on huge maps like alterzim stronghold. Protoss just have to many tools to keep them safe to be able to macro up into a powerful skytoss late game army. It would be incredibly difficult on smaller maps for zerg to go to late game vs protoss in that stage with out swarm hosts and static d.


Once again, Korean Protoss have 100% no issue dealing with swarm host, they figured it out. Sorry Europe and NA is behind, don't mean Blizzard needs to remove units that are not even a issue.

Are swarm host terrible design to begin with? Yes, are they even close to being OP or WOL brood lord infestor?? hell no.

On May 19 2014 15:59 sluggaslamoo wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hH2Wl168qE

Hi Blizzard

On May 19 2014 11:22 FabledIntegral wrote:


Regardless of whether he played worse or not, SK clearly chose to employ that strategy. To say it's a "nonfactor" is silly, SH still play a role without question.

Not to mention that they are boring as shit to watch.

I'm not sure if it's just me being biased or not given my hatred to play against them (as random, hate them in TvZ, ZvZ, and PvZ), whether or not I lose. The playstyle you have to adapt to in order to play against the SH is what's so lame. I realize my posts haven't had too much quality as opposed to more of a rant, but I'm wondering if there are more people out there that have the mindset "regardless of whether or not it's a problem, SH are an overall negative on the game." I'm all for Zerg having appropriate adjustments (even implementation of a new unit, although probably wait til LOTV) in order to compensate for the lack of this unit (or even just threat of this unit), but I just want to see it changed. .

On May 19 2014 15:59 sluggaslamoo wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hH2Wl168qE

Hi Blizzard

On May 20 2014 01:24 Hider wrote:


After having tweaked values in the editor, I discovered that you can actually recreate the Lurker effect by keeping the Swarm Host with tehse changes:

- Locust duration reduced to roughly 3-4 seconds
- Cooldown reduced to around 4-5 seconds
- Swarm host mobility increased
- Locust DPS increased by around 150% (2.5 times)
- The spawn time of Locust eggs set to 0.
- Burrow/unburrow duration reduced

This reduces the effective range of the Locust to around 10 which means Siege tanks can outrange them. On the other hand, they are are really good at holding postions. I would almost argue that they feel better than Lurkers, because they are even more microintensive since you can constnatly unburrow --> reposition --> move them --> reburrow.

On May 20 2014 05:02 purakushi wrote:
I always thought they should do this for broodlords, but I guess it could sort of be cool for SH (combined with some other drastic changes to it, of course. Hider's idea is great.)

- whenever a SH/locust kills an enemy unit, that unit becomes a locust

(spawn broodling...)

On May 20 2014 01:24 Hider wrote:


After having tweaked values in the editor, I discovered that you can actually recreate the Lurker effect by keeping the Swarm Host with tehse changes:

- Locust duration reduced to roughly 3-4 seconds
- Cooldown reduced to around 4-5 seconds
- Swarm host mobility increased
- Locust DPS increased by around 150% (2.5 times)
- The spawn time of Locust eggs set to 0.
- Burrow/unburrow duration reduced

This reduces the effective range of the Locust to around 10 which means Siege tanks can outrange them. On the other hand, they are are really good at holding postions. I would almost argue that they feel better than Lurkers, because they are even more microintensive since you can constnatly unburrow --> reposition --> move them --> reburrow.

On May 20 2014 01:24 Hider wrote:


After having tweaked values in the editor, I discovered that you can actually recreate the Lurker effect by keeping the Swarm Host with tehse changes:

- Locust duration reduced to roughly 3-4 seconds
- Cooldown reduced to around 4-5 seconds
- Swarm host mobility increased
- Locust DPS increased by around 150% (2.5 times)
- The spawn time of Locust eggs set to 0.
- Burrow/unburrow duration reduced

This reduces the effective range of the Locust to around 10 which means Siege tanks can outrange them. On the other hand, they are are really good at holding postions. I would almost argue that they feel better than Lurkers, because they are even more microintensive since you can constnatly unburrow --> reposition --> move them --> reburrow.