| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On July 13 2008 02:34 caution.slip wrote: um..did i miss something? Did the lurker change? last i checked lurker was AoE and wasn't a building And its much faster, much frailer, much more expensive and much higher tech. DT's and zealots are a lot more similar than these... | ||
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On July 10 2008 11:31 caelym wrote: I totally agree. It's impossible to release a perfectly balanced game from the start; that's what patches are for. Another thing is that I think Blizzard and the community are almost spending too much time on balance, and not leaving enough room for randomness and fun in this game of rock, paper, scissors. wut? | ||
|
Mikilatov
United States3897 Posts
Yeah I don't get it either. =P | ||
|
MadNeSs
Denmark1507 Posts
| ||
Nyovne
Netherlands19137 Posts
On July 13 2008 02:54 Klockan3 wrote: And its much faster, much frailer, much more expensive and much higher tech. DT's and zealots are a lot more similar than these... Errr, no? Lurker is smaller, slower, same durability, 25 mins 75 gas and 1 psi more expensive (not in the lurker morph but since the hydra is more expensive resource and psi wise), and its the same tech as it doesnt require an upgrade but just the Hydra Den--> Deep Burrow morph. So you get a slower lurker for 25 min 75 gas 1 psi more which does 10 dmg + 30 (Which is alot so not sure.. I think?) vs armored. If they change the supply cost to what it used to be and increase lurker speed back they're still fine tbh. All in all they got nerfed a bit but mostly indirectly through the hydra, and the speed and dmg are just changed, dunno if thats for the worse allthough the speedchange feels a bit stupid since they already need to be burrowed before they can do their thing they can at least get there in a timely fashion. | ||
|
dcttr66
United States555 Posts
| ||
|
Nyovne
Netherlands19137 Posts
On July 13 2008 05:24 dcttr66 wrote: no way should they make lurker slower than the crawling defensive tower, that's retarded. Who says its slower, its slower then it was in SCBW, not slower then a crawler :p. | ||
|
caution.slip
United States775 Posts
On July 13 2008 07:15 Nyovne wrote: Who says its slower, its slower then it was in SCBW, not slower then a crawler :p. On July 13 2008 02:54 Klockan3 wrote: And its much faster, much frailer, much more expensive and much higher tech. DT's and zealots are a lot more similar than these... All of klockan's comparisons are in relation to the crawler, not to the BW lurker (since I was also compariing the lurker to the crawler, klockan was adding on to mine) so its faster, frailer, more expensive, and higher tech compared to the crawler | ||
|
Nyovne
Netherlands19137 Posts
| ||
|
caution.slip
United States775 Posts
On July 13 2008 12:57 Nyovne wrote: Ah my bad, crawlers aren't aoe though and have a 5 sec root time and and are just 100 hp and creatures not buildings when uprooted so they die reallllyyyyy fast. Oh and obv indd cloaked while burrowed. really? they only have 100 hp? thats...so little! What changes when they uproot? their armor isn't "building" armor anymore? (does building armor exist? i know they have "fortified' in WC3) or does their HP go down? what do you mean by "indd"? | ||
|
lololol
5198 Posts
I was hoping people would actually talk about things that make real difference, like Nyovne mentioned the awfully long deploy time(which wasn't like that in the video where Blizz demoed them). Contains are even less viable in SC2 and with deployment too slow for combat, it makes them not really useful offensively, so at least there's that distinct difference in functionality. Also, Lurkers aren't fully invisible units, a terran can stop lurkers from advancing without having detection, but not DTs and that's a big difference. Actually, if lurkers moved underground and deployed so they are visible when firing, they would be more interesting(and useful), since they would be able to sneak or advance against an enemy without detection. He won't need detection to fight them, but they would be able to observe the enemy and deploy in very advantegious positions(like right next to a group of marines - no need for hold lurker). | ||
|
MrRammstein
Poland339 Posts
Zerg would have at least 1 unit to do this | ||
|
DeepGreen
United States175 Posts
Discussing balance in a game based on what we know about a DIFFERENT game (SC:BW) just doesn't make sense. | ||
|
0xDEADBEEF
Germany1235 Posts
But I just realized I'm doing exactly what the OP complains about.  | ||
|
Bash
Finland1533 Posts
| ||
|
Nyovne
Netherlands19137 Posts
On July 14 2008 01:12 Bash wrote: Keep in mind that detection is going to be rarer than in BW. Barely, just for zerg tbh. Terrans and Protoss are the same, I mean radar towers, scanner, nomad, cannons and observers. Zerg no shriekers or detecting spores, and just overseers and not overlords who detect. | ||
|
Blacklizard
United States1194 Posts
On July 13 2008 17:18 lololol wrote: How could some of you forget to mention they have different names, that's the same difference in functionality as individual unit cost/power/fragility or tech level(just imagine two identical units at different tech levels). I was hoping people would actually talk about things that make real difference, like Nyovne mentioned the awfully long deploy time(which wasn't like that in the video where Blizz demoed them). Contains are even less viable in SC2 and with deployment too slow for combat, it makes them not really useful offensively, so at least there's that distinct difference in functionality. Also, Lurkers aren't fully invisible units, a terran can stop lurkers from advancing without having detection, but not DTs and that's a big difference. Actually, if lurkers moved underground and deployed so they are visible when firing, they would be more interesting(and useful), since they would be able to sneak or advance against an enemy without detection. He won't need detection to fight them, but they would be able to observe the enemy and deploy in very advantegious positions(like right next to a group of marines - no need for hold lurker). I keep thinking about this alternate Lurker design... it could be something Blizzard should seriously consider since they want to change up unit interactions. So far this is what I think is pertinent, mostly concentrating on before the enemy gets mobile detection: 1. Can sneak around base easier, like a DT. 2. Not as good when you have low numbers of Lurks vs early Terran? For instance, lurker rush. OR are they? You can just burrow move to a better spot then start attacking and you can retreat much easier. 3. Tanks would be very good against them, sieged. Except if it was a lone tank, then you could burrow to melee range then attack. 4. Unsieged tanks better vs them... may or may not be a big deal vs SC2 tanks (higher damage on both ends of that fight?). 5. I expect they'd be worse vs Protoss general army... but in high numbers maybe not. 6. ZvZ... lurker function similar to BW? Good vs zerglings. 7. Better or worse vs Terran scans? I would almost say better b/c you can run, but if you are visible while attacking I guess it doesn't matter that much... they won't need to scan unless you are running and they think they can cut you off. 8. Ambushes/flanking would be very possible to set up. Important factors that will affect how useful they'd be like this: 1. How fast would they move burrowed? 2. How fast could they go into "attack mode", shoot then turn off attack mode? Could they snipe a couple of marines or would they die with a big delay where they were visible? 3. If they go into attack mode too slowly, would ranged enemies just be able to run out of the way each time you tried to engage? Would a flank/ambush make up for this? | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm |
|
OSC
Korean StarCraft League
OSC
IPSL
Dewalt vs Bonyth
OSC
OSC
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
Replay Cast
Patches Events
|
|
|
EPT
