Lurker vs Swarm Host - Page 45

On July 15 2012 22:58 Xiphos wrote:
WoW = Main source of income for Blizzard
SC2 = Lesser Source of income = lesser priorities = less time spend on game design/developing than WoW = ???

I can guarantee you that if if comes down to have 1 programmer available to perform task for either SC2 or WoW. He will be requested to work on WoW.

On July 15 2012 04:55 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote:
if the swarm host were a BW unit, i would imagine most of the people in this thread would prefer the swarm host.

On July 15 2012 23:59 Rabiator wrote:

So you are saying that Starcraft - an RTS which is played on a comparatively tiny (to WoW) - area and which has A METRIC CRAPTON less content than WoW should have the same number of developers as a huge MMO with tons of new NPCs to program and encounter mechanics to come up with? I think your conclusions are not that great.

After the basic mechanics of the RTS are designed (how attacks are calculated and how hit points and economy work) you dont really need that many programmers to add new stuff. Maybe a designer to create new units and one more to put the numbers into the game and one or two others who come up with ideas for new units. Add a few people to create the story for the campaign and the maps needed for it and you are done. The complicated netcode for BNet0.2 was a general development, which shares the cost over WoW, SC2 and Diablo3 since someone had dreat a big Facebook dream ... which luckily didnt come true. There isnt any reason for them to have anyone changing or adding anything to it and those people probably work on something completely different already.

WoW is MUCH bigger of an effort to manage simply because it is a bigger world where you have to fit everything in. Due to the age of WoW code and its complexity it isnt that easy to add in totally new stuff (farmville and Pokem ... errr pet battles) either. Thus WoW will need a lot more people to program it AND it also needs "GMs" for all the servers and around the clock. WoW might make them more money, but it also costs them a crapton more.

On July 16 2012 00:02 Xiphos wrote:


Oh boy, thanks for saving me all the trouble of essay composition.

On July 16 2012 03:00 Rabiator wrote:

In case you didnt get it ... I am disproving your point of any connection or even similarities between WoW and SC2 as an eSport. They are totally dissimilar both in type of game and size of effort so your assumptions are basically stupid.

On July 16 2012 03:07 Xiphos wrote:


Didn't even state any similarities between them. Kudos for wasting your time.

On July 16 2012 03:12 karpo wrote:


You assumptions were that WoW will somehow affect how they run SC2 development. You've been completely disproven and your just dodging now.

On July 15 2012 10:19 Big J wrote:


Yeah, I know, I'm gonna continue taking part in a discussion that circlejerks, has nothing to do with realitly because the counterarguments to my argument are never going to get fullfilled anyways as they would basically mean that blizzard gives up on SC2 and instead goes for SC3 with SC2 graphics in HotS (moveing Hydras to T1; maybe removing banelings, roaches; reintroducing lurkers; mayby change the pathing completly and completly rebalance the game around it; maybe remove/buff/nerf some other things like larva inject, income and whatever), but whatever...

1) broken means unbalanced. I don't see this in SC2 right now.
If you mean it's "not well designed" say so, but design is an opinion, not an absoulte. Looking at the b.net forums and all the balance thread (attempts) on TL I have to say, people that actually think about SC2 design being the biggest problem rather than just "really balancing it out" are extremly (like 1:100) in the minority and therefore blizzard rightfully can think that people like their game overall.
A lot.

On July 15 2012 10:19 Big J wrote:
2) No, people don't obviously want the lurker in SC2. Lots of people like the lurker. However, compared to the people who don't give a shit about threads as this, those are WAY (and I mean like WAY WAY) in the minority.
Not saying I don't give a shit. Lurkers are awesome. Are they needed? I'm not sure. Are SH needed? probably not! What role is zerg with mass vision from OLs, creep and very mobile troops lacking. Space control, or attacking possibilities?
As any Zerg attack before 70drones + hive + 4 (or more) bases is an allin, due to the lack of offensivly safe powerunits is an allin, I think it's the second thing: attacking possibilities. Yeah lurkers control space even better than lingswarms and baneling landmines and mutalisks and all the speedy vision giving - opponent overrunning, if he is not careful - stuff.
However, the way larva is being balanced. The way Zerg units operate (basically they are faster then the opponents whatever units), I don't see a role for the lurker in the current metagame, and due to it's lacking capabilities to attack on it's own (basicially due to too limited range and due to detection being part of any P/T/Z gameplan), I would much rather have a unit that actually is not as good as lurkers at space control (if I had to choose; if not I'd choose both, as I think Zerg desperatly needs T3 range units like the original lurker desing, so that T3 range is not just a bullshit short term move in ZvZ before Ultras and/or Broods and/or mass infestors are out), but rather can force the opponent to not just attack at special timings.
After all, TvZ has been in shambles for 2years now. Probably not balancewise (Zergs had an edge at certain times as well), but designwise, as it has always been up to the Terran to control the pace of the game. Zerg desperatly needs strong offensive options in the midgame, which are not limited by larva (like lings, blings and roaches), but rather limited by ressources (like the swarm host). Somthing that doesn not need to cut each and every drone, but something that is very very larva efficient for a longer periode of time (which is the problem of infestor attacks. like a baneling attack, it's only one move and then the energy is out. Then proplayers dont have the time to just wait until energy is back up, even if in lowleagues those strategies might be extraordinarily good, due to the opponents not having the skill to take advantage of it).
In this regard, I think a very longrange, air and ground attacking unit is really what zergs need, to switch up their gameplay from "drone to 70+ and then push", to "drone to 70+ slowly, while trying to keep the pressure on the opponent with units that have longterm potential, don't die easily and have the ability to win you the game against very greedy opponents)

On July 15 2012 10:19 Big J wrote:
3) the lurkers design is "burrow - then attack with line splash". There is nothing more about it in the very basics. Predicting micro tricks like "hold fire", "pushing siege lines the moment those unsiege" and similar stuff was not possible.
I don't see why it should be possible to predict that such swarm host moves don't exist.
Saying that those don't is basically just pillaring on experience (lurker) against nonexperience (swarm host). Yes, this way probability suggest that you will be right. But then we would not have needed SC2 at all. Probability suggests that BW was a great game and SC2 cannot reach it, if it is not just a graphical update. However, time has told us that there are quite a ton of people who prefer SC2 over BW. If you like BW, go and play it. It's not about saying you should not play SC2. It's about saying, BW is a great game and if you think it is better than SC2, you are wasting your time with SC2.
I mean, if you are off the opinion that BW was the best game yet, how big is the probability that ANYTHING will ever satisfy your longings for a game that can beat BW? Very slim! It's like saying, spain is the best football team in the world, when you saw 1958-1970 brasil. Spain is great and would beat that brasil team anytime because football moved on. Does that mean football with 0 forwards is more interesting than football with 4 forwards? Probablity not, though it may be more effective (which means in SC2 terms, closer to AI like optimal strategies).

On July 15 2012 10:29 sunprince wrote:


Broken doesn't not mean unbalanced. Broken can also mean poorly designed. For example, TvZ could have balanced win-rates with with an enormous Z late-game advantage by allowing T to have a huge advantage with all-ins, but that makes for a broken game. Or a 4 player map could have balanced win-rates in that P always wins in close spawns and always loses cross-map spawns, but the map is broken.



What Zerg actually needs is a big nerf to spawn larvae, in return to units that are actually good. The lurker would be merely one example of a good unit.



BW is an old game that is full of engine idiosyncracies that took considerable time to figure out, and the competitive scene (along with general understanding of RTS's) was in its infancy. SC2, on the other hand, is a modern game with no ways to break the engine (and ways that are discovered are patched into oblivion), and competitive gamers have far better understanding of tactics and strategy. If you don't understand why it's far easier to understand units now, then consider the fact that no major discoveries have been made regarding any SC2 unit thus far.

Drop the assumptions about BW. I'm certainly not of the opinion that BW was the best game; there are certainly areas that could be substantially improved. To insist that people like certain BW elements because they are BW fanboys is an ad hominem that ignores the arguments actually being advanced.

On July 16 2012 04:07 Adonminus wrote:
I come into this thread and see a huge argument about WoW against SC2. I guess the lurkers are truly gone.

Anyway, back to the thread. First of all, I really don't like the sc2 lurker model, the sc1 model was awesome but this isn't. Plus if you remember, they even planned to make the lurker hive tech and I believe most people would prefer ultralisks or broodlords by that time. SC2 isn't very balanced for lurkers, all units clump up and will die instantly to lurkers and make it look boring.