|
On August 31 2021 15:58 Russano wrote:
Disruptor lurker dynamics work fine and are interesting, the problem there is with vipers being so ridiculous. The nerf I would do is to make the viper a ground unit. Abduct is still abusive ownage but now at least they aren't supremely mobile and the HT + disruptor vs lurker + viper dynamic should be pretty neat to watch.
A ground unit viper would have a physical explanation for being able to pull massive stuff without being massive itself. The ground viper is really good at digging their heels in when pulling.
|
The funniest comparison on Lurkers is 6 range in sc1 and 10 range in sc2. The developers actually wanted Cannons to be able to outrange Lurkers in sc1, which is interesting with how we see them used now in sc2.
I think the Lurker breaks up the death ball more than it adds to it, so they kinda need to be strong, just like the siege tank is.
Burrow upg is ridiculous though. I always thought Lurker attack should do 30 dmg to all units instead of 20+10, but with slower travel speed on the spines, so that you can do the micro, which the developers kept talking about upon release of the Lurker in sc2. You rly can't outmicro the spines as it is now, or it's def. not worth it to do so.
|
On August 31 2021 15:17 Sunburn74 wrote:
I personally feel that PVZ is fine. However the matchup is currently dominated by two units: the lurker and the carrier. Both sides from the start of the game are thinking "how do I stop or manage if the other guys makes lurkers/carriers?". It's similar to how dominant proxy robo was in PVP before the shield battery buff . My entire PVZ playstyle is trying to force the zerg to NOT make lurkers or to make them at a point in the game where they aren't that useful. I agree with the OP that lurkers should be nerfed.
What I would recommend is adding an upgrade to disruptors or to templars that increases the damage of their spells or abilities to burrowed units. Disruptors should one shot lurkers and templars should be able to kill lurkers with one or two storms if the lurker is not microed. Because it affects only burrowed units, it'll be a highly specific change targeting lurkers.
Disagree, either Adaptive Talons or Sub Spines need removed, there doesn't need to be an upgrade to counter everything, sometimes you can just nerf something.
|
isn't this discussion moot? Blizzard as far as I know is done patching this game?
|
Yes, this discussion is moot. There will be no patches.
But for what's worth I agree lurkers are overpowered,
at least around diamond level.
On masters and upwards I assume people just get good enough with disruptors
and scouting that they can counter lurkers.
But this is extremely finicky micro, that requires a level of mechanics
that lower level players (diamond and below) generally don't have.
Miss one set of novas at max range and the game is over basically.
And it really makes PvZ at the diamond level quite crap to play.
As a protoss player if you don't two base all-in but go up to three bases before attacking
then your zerg opponent almost certainly will have defensive lurkers and your ground army is useless
unless you micro it perfectly. (Given the kind of fairly solid macro you can expect from a diamond 2+ zerg)
That is the main thing that drives protoss players that lack the mechanics to kill 8+ lurkers with disruptors
(basically hitting every nova every time against them) to go straight into air or 2 base all-in.
Because that is all they can do. At least to their minds.
If anyone has any guides on countering lurkers without disruptors, skytoss or all-ining
then please do share it. There are a lot of frustrated protoss players out there
that would love to know how.
And forcing players down a specific route be it sky toss or all-ins
really just makes the game less fun to play.
Even if it isn't an issue on higher levels, because there players have the mechanics and micro to deal with it
even when going for a normal macro build.
My suggestion for how to rebalance lurkers (if that were to ever be done, which it probably won't)
would be to actually give them even more damage, but reduce the rate of fire,
hence retaining the dps (and the "holy shit they shred my entire army!" scariness of them)
but making it easier to get out of range. (Like you would vs tanks for instance)
Thus emphasizing the lurkers role as a siege unit, and emphasizing catching them on the map,
or not attack into them. Again: like siege tanks.
And I guess removing the adaptive talons (lurker burrowspeed) upgrade would go towards the same thing.
|
8748 Posts
|
To pretend Lurkers are the sole reason for skytoss is pretty disingenuous, especially when we consider the standard opener in PvZ right now is multiple void rays as the first tech choice- this isn't a response to lurkers, its a deliberate choice.
It's also not unreasonable for lurker based armies to just be better than protoss ground armies. Someone has to have an eventual advantage in that stage. Considering Zerg air units are pretty terrible in most fights, it SHOULD be zerg that has a better ground army- and air units are a completely reasonable direction for Protoss to be able to respond. Air units should be support for dealing with Lurkers, not a standalone army.
My (totally hypothetical) suggested would be to shift Voids to do more damage vs armored, and less vs light units while making Carriers significantly worse vs ground (maybe just make vs ground and vs air a different attack type). Additionally, make Lurker's morph from Roaches, not Hydras. This way making decent counters to Lurkers (Immortals, Disruptors, Void Rays) is a more natural progression for Protoss to make, while still allowing a range of options for Zerg to balance out a composition to fight back.
Obviously there would need to be a number of small tweaks to units around this, but I think these changes would actually allow for ZvP late game to become a game of balancing armies, not just massing 1-2 unit types because they counter everything.
|
Northern Ireland24260 Posts
I’m totally down with the lurker being potent, it just feels off as to what its role and feel should be.
Having your zone controlling siege unit running forward at a decent pace and insta-burrowing on top of enemy forces, even discounting wider balance considerations just doesn’t really feel remotely right.
Tankivacs got rightly discarded for negating the interesting positional dance that siege tanks elicit and that was an interaction that required multiple units and pickup/dropping.
|
This reminds me of way back when mech players claimed that the viper was the only thing that prevented aggressive mech and if it was nerfed then we would see aggressive mech far more often. When blinding cloud was nerfed we did see some aggressive mech, but you know what the smart players did? They turtled even harder because why wouldn't you. I really see some similarities in this thread from others. Nerfing the lurker isn't going to make toss players go ground more often, it's just going to make the air tosses turtle even harder.
Frankly I think Blizzard made a mistake when deciding that they wanted Zerg to dominate the ground and Toss to dominate the air. Gameplay really should be more focused on ground based styles because it's the style that allows the players with the best multi-tasking to thrive and out macro and out position their opponents. Air support should still be a viable part of the game, but that's all it should be, support. Strategies where you just sit there and build static and max out on an extremely powerful army shouldn't be that strong. So I agree that lurkers should be nerfed, but skytoss should be gutted along with them.
|
Remove the quick lurker burrow upgrade, would be great for TvZ as well.
Nerf skytoss (voidray maybe?) and take it from there.
|
On September 01 2021 09:41 Hunta15 wrote:
This reminds me of way back when mech players claimed that the viper was the only thing that prevented aggressive mech and if it was nerfed then we would see aggressive mech far more often. When blinding cloud was nerfed we did see some aggressive mech, but you know what the smart players did? They turtled even harder because why wouldn't you. I really see some similarities in this thread from others. Nerfing the lurker isn't going to make toss players go ground more often, it's just going to make the air tosses turtle even harder.
Frankly I think Blizzard made a mistake when deciding that they wanted Zerg to dominate the ground and Toss to dominate the air. Gameplay really should be more focused on ground based styles because it's the style that allows the players with the best multi-tasking to thrive and out macro and out position their opponents. Air support should still be a viable part of the game, but that's all it should be, support. Strategies where you just sit there and build static and max out on an extremely powerful army shouldn't be that strong. So I agree that lurkers should be nerfed, but skytoss should be gutted along with them.
Well this would obv be combined with skytoss nerfs/zerg buffs vs skytoss so in your analogy turtle mech would have been nerfed to prevent this from happening 
|
On September 01 2021 09:41 Hunta15 wrote:
So I agree that lurkers should be nerfed, but skytoss should be gutted along with them.
That's what OP said
|
On September 01 2021 22:30 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2021 09:41 Hunta15 wrote:
So I agree that lurkers should be nerfed, but skytoss should be gutted along with them.
That's what OP said
No, OP mentions nothing about gutting skytoss. It mentions buffing Zerg against it, which is different (especially given that, IMO, much of the problem with skytoss is how easy it is to get into and how overtuned the voidray and carrier are).
The OP's suggested counterbuff to help vs skytoss was pitiful, and the original post also came with a suggestion to remove abduct of all things, which is the only effective source of chip damage Zerg has vs skyball.
|
So, the major buffs the last patches were: Shield battery overcharge, Void ray 50 minerals cheaper. And the patch before was thor buff and lurker range change (from 9 range to 8, with a new upgrade to 10 range). And main suggestions coming out of this thread seems to be remove adaptive tallons and revert the void ray buff?
Seems to make sense to me.
That said I do think that if there was a good guide how to deal with mass lurkers in the PvZ mid game without airtoss or disruptor micro that could quite possibly be enough.
|
Damned, what insane mind does the viper comes from...
|
Lurker aside, I wonder if part of the zerg domination these past years actually derives more from the queen. Instead of serving its macro/support purpose, the defensive strength of this unit in the early game has made it so that both the vP and vT matchup don't really start until the 5-6 minute mark. Up until then, you mostly drone up to 60-70 while queens alone defend all aggression save dedicated allins. A queen taking more of a backseat role rather than as the main combat unit would make the early game more dynamic and perhaps not let Z amass quite that amount of lurkers so early.
|
On September 02 2021 01:52 Calliope wrote:
Lurker aside, I wonder if part of the zerg domination these past years actually derives more from the queen. Instead of serving its macro/support purpose, the defensive strength of this unit in the early game has made it so that both the vP and vT matchup don't really start until the 5-6 minute mark. Up until then, you mostly drone up to 60-70 while queens alone defend all aggression save dedicated allins. A queen taking more of a backseat role rather than as the main combat unit would make the early game more dynamic and perhaps not let Z amass quite that amount of lurkers so early.
How do you suggest nerfing queens without zerg falling super far behind to BC opening or carrier opening? Or hell, even void rays would be a huge pain.
BC and Carriers often hit about same time as lair finish, sometimes before. Please dont say spores...
I would be fine with a nerf to queen combat stats if you could make it so that ravagers attack air. This way zergs defensive comp would be roach ravager, and their defensive comp could also pressure without being all-in, making for more dynamic games where zerg isnt just defending all games or all-inning with queens.
Btw, zerg domination is only because of the players themselves, not the race per say. Zerg is least populated race in GM/masters, is often most under represented in tournaments. Its basically just Rogue and Dark in korea, and just Serral and Reynor in EU.
Rogue and Dark have been top players for over 5 years.
|
Poll: From you, is the inexistence of collisionbox for air units a problem?yes (10) 83% no (2) 17% 12 total votes Your vote: From you, is the inexistence of collisionbox for air units a problem? (Vote): yes
(Vote): no
|
Mexico2170 Posts
I think it's a problem as that makes air units better comparared to ground units, however I don't think you can fix that without starcraft 3.
It's very strong since you can clump your units in 1 point, which enable them to hit at once. Ground units when they fight only the front ones attack. You either need to get closer, or wait for the units to move around themselves to be able to atack, which limits their effective DPS, this is not true for air units.
However if they had collision box, air units would be pretty useless, specially capital ships. Imagine carriers or BC trying to attack. They are so slow and so big that only a couple would be able to atack, as the rest would be out of range. Just the size of a BC/Carrier is the equivalent of about 4-5 range, so it would be a big nerf. And then they are so slow they would take forever to move around other units and they would be useless.
That being said....Since massing them wouldn't be as effective due to the collission box and how slow they are, people would be incentiviced to only make a couple, say like 4. This would make them more of support units. Though in that case I think they would require a buff or some extra utility, specially the carrier. Alongside a possible supply increase to stop them from massing them.
Appart from that, it would be both a nerf and a buff to units like mutas. On one hand they wouldn't be able to clump them together and 1 shot things. On the other they would be much more resistant to splash damage. This would need a lot of rebalancing.
|
On September 02 2021 05:23 Vision_ wrote:Poll: From you, is the inexistence of collisionbox for air units a problem?yes (10) 83% no (2) 17% 12 total votes Your vote: From you, is the inexistence of collisionbox for air units a problem? (Vote): yes
(Vote): no
It wouldnt be a problem if the air units were designed properly like in broodwar.
A quick air units that can attack ground and air should do very little damage versus ground, basically always lose vs ground to air units. (Void rays and mutas are too good vs hydras and stalkers)
A slow air unit that attacks ground and air should still lose to ground to air units, but not as badly. (Carriers and BCs perform too good vs hydras and stalkers)
A slow air unit that can only attack ground should always beat ground no matter what. (Current thor vs broodlords isnt good design at all)
I feel like starcraft2 fails hard to follow these standard rules ( Even in magic the gathering, flying tag has a big stats cost).
Carriers, BCs, void rays and mutalisks to a smaller extent should not perform this good against a unit like hydralisk or stalkers.
Not only ground units have the weakness of terrain, but they are also vulnerable to super ground splash such as disruptors, colossus, lurkers and siege tanks; to which air units dont care.
I feel like in 2021 the unit stats and abilities are breaking a lot of fundamental rules of RTS. Battlecruisers being a mobile early game worker harass unit is also another broken rule in my opinion. But i feel like the ground to air issues are the biggest ones
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
