Let's Talk About the Lurker (PvZ) - Page 6

On September 20 2021 07:10 Snakestyle11 wrote:
They could just give ravagers are an attack against air, and nerf queens. It would on the other hand completely remove hydras from the game, so probably bad design wise in that regard.

It would however make the game more dynamic, as in the units zerg builds to be safe in the early game could also be used to pressure, so both sides of the matchup would be a little less greedy and make more ground forces in the early and mid game. It would lead to more trades on both sides of the map, instead of zerg defending on mass queen all game or all inning with queens.

It would also lead to robo openings becoming more meta in pvz, and having a mid game where protoss and zergs both split their army in two or more while protoss tries to secure a 4th base, leading to more ground trades and less passive stargate play / queen all ins.

I really think overall it would make for a much better game, to play and to watch, than the current snooze fest of zerg defends on mass queens for 10minutes or all-in with queens, because they have no viable GroundtoAir unit other than queens.

On September 20 2021 20:15 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:


Which is functionally only an attack against overlords, sieged units and people not watching their screens

On September 21 2021 05:58 egrimm wrote:


The decision in early SC2 development to move hydras to T2 was a bad one. It leads to a lot of problems.
1. You cannot nerf queen as it is the only Zerg unit with the anti air in the early game.
2. Lurker being an upgrade to hydras must be further away in the tech tree pushing it to T3 and needs to be ridiculously strong to compete against other T3 options (both Zerg and T/P)
3. Hydras on T2 kinda have to deal a lot of dmg which leads them to be expensive (2supply 100/50) and with combination of relatively low health a glass Cannon unit kind of hard to be balanced. It either rolls over opponents army with superior dps or gets evaporated by any AoE.
Imho the whole hydra/lurker tech branch should be moved a step down and the units be adjusted (toned down) to that: cheaper, weaker, more massable - proper Zerg style.
Cheaper T1.5 hydra might open the possibilities for Zerg to play differently than amass queens as the only anti air option and also queen might be finally nerfed to more fit a role of a supporting and macro unit not catch-all swiss scissors unit.
Faster and cheaper T2 lurker might become an alternative to baneling AoE in the midgame and provide actually fun interactions against not maxed-out armies.

On September 21 2021 15:15 Vision_ wrote:


You should be in charge of the next patch.

On September 21 2021 05:58 egrimm wrote:


The decision in early SC2 development to move hydras to T2 was a bad one. It leads to a lot of problems.
1. You cannot nerf queen as it is the only Zerg unit with the anti air in the early game.
2. Lurker being an upgrade to hydras must be further away in the tech tree pushing it to T3 and needs to be ridiculously strong to compete against other T3 options (both Zerg and T/P)
3. Hydras on T2 kinda have to deal a lot of dmg which leads them to be expensive (2supply 100/50) and with combination of relatively low health a glass Cannon unit kind of hard to be balanced. It either rolls over opponents army with superior dps or gets evaporated by any AoE.
Imho the whole hydra/lurker tech branch should be moved a step down and the units be adjusted (toned down) to that: cheaper, weaker, more massable - proper Zerg style.
Cheaper T1.5 hydra might open the possibilities for Zerg to play differently than amass queens as the only anti air option and also queen might be finally nerfed to more fit a role of a supporting and macro unit not catch-all swiss scissors unit.
Faster and cheaper T2 lurker might become an alternative to baneling AoE in the midgame and provide actually fun interactions against not maxed-out armies.

On September 21 2021 19:02 WombaT wrote:

It’s changing way too much at once, and ofc is super unlikely to be implemented, but as a starting point for development I think it makes a lot more sense. The Queen being so bloody good isn’t something a lot of people like. Plus your proposals would make the Zerg a little more swarmy again, which I also like.

It’s not the only decision they made that has huge knock-on effects that all kind of suck, and keep getting impounded by subsequent units slotting in.

For example Protoss warp gate working as it does basically gimping gateway tech. Protoss gets tons of AoE to compensate, a nightmare for Terrans to play against disruptors/storm/teleporting individual men in the lategame, or Zergs have to break down Skytoss every other game.

But hey, I’ve only been banging that drum for a decade :p SC2 to me is remarkably balanced and fun considering some of the core design choices being outright bad IMO.

On September 21 2021 15:46 egrimm wrote:

Thank you
Honestly I've already read enough good ideas in this and similar threads that I am confident that well selected community based balance team would do the job more than fine.
Unfortunately it is rather unlikely that it will ever happen but one can dream

On September 21 2021 23:55 Zambrah wrote:
Units warping in without shields is an excellent and pretty elegant way to nerf warpgate tech tbh, I like that, especially if it means Protoss can have the kind of early game units that Terran gets, aka ones that dont become super obsolete.

On September 21 2021 22:35 egrimm wrote:

You are totally right and warpgate example is really on point.
And again it could be solvable if implemented correctly however it would be even more impactful on the whole game as the changes I suggested for the Zerg tech tree which explains why blizzard was reluctant to ever touch the warpgate.
Imho warpgate should be moved into later part of the game and also nerfed a bit.
Example:
1. 150/150 160sec upgrade on twilight council (needs to compete for time and resources against crucial gateway units uprageds)
2. Every unit build time for regular gateway and warpgate is the same
3. Unified warp time for any pylon/warp prism. The value should be between current fast and slow warp time.
4. Warped unit is without shields to nerf instant reinforcements strength but keeping harassment potential.
5. Buff gateway units accordingly (especially build time)

With such approach you as a protoss player get to "choose" if you want to commit to warpgate tech faster or slower.
Do you get blink or warp gate first?
You could go for faster warpgate to harass your opponent or postpone and play defensively with upgraded units.
Maybe i go double TC and hit some sick all-in timing?
Or focus on robo tech turtle and get warpgate one i start pushing and harassing with warp prism?

And yes SC2 is great and fun game but it is in some areas really frustrating and "over amped" which is sad and makes people like me constantly envisioning how the game would look like if some stuff would be changed

On September 22 2021 07:38 Railgan wrote:

IDK I am top 100 in EU.

My thoughts are: The Lurker isn't the reason Protoss doesn't go Ground. The reason is because Skytoss is so strong.

It is the same like back in the day when Protoss complained they have to open Stargate every Game versus Zerg cause of Ling Drops.

Then Ling Drops got nerfed and Protoss kept Opening Stargate every game just more aggressive.

Everytime you nerf something in SC2 the other Races will just try to play greedier and greedier. If you nerf Lurkers Protoss will keep playing Sky but even greedier and more aggressive with more Disruptors / Archons / Storm.

On September 22 2021 05:44 BonitiilloO wrote:
Is there any top player giving his opinion on this matter?

Wiki Quote Transfusion

Multiple applications of Transfusion in rapid succession each heal for 75 health, but the 50 health over time effect does not stack, i.e., will be applied only once.

On September 21 2021 05:58 egrimm wrote:


The decision in early SC2 development to move hydras to T2 was a bad one. It leads to a lot of problems.
1. You cannot nerf queen as it is the only Zerg unit with the anti air in the early game.
2. Lurker being an upgrade to hydras must be further away in the tech tree pushing it to T3 and needs to be ridiculously strong to compete against other T3 options (both Zerg and T/P)
3. Hydras on T2 kinda have to deal a lot of dmg which leads them to be expensive (2supply 100/50) and with combination of relatively low health a glass Cannon unit kind of hard to be balanced. It either rolls over opponents army with superior dps or gets evaporated by any AoE.
Imho the whole hydra/lurker tech branch should be moved a step down and the units be adjusted (toned down) to that: cheaper, weaker, more massable - proper Zerg style.
Cheaper T1.5 hydra might open the possibilities for Zerg to play differently than amass queens as the only anti air option and also queen might be finally nerfed to more fit a role of a supporting and macro unit not catch-all swiss scissors unit.
Faster and cheaper T2 lurker might become an alternative to baneling AoE in the midgame and provide actually fun interactions against not maxed-out armies.