"There is no place for Lurker" WTF is mothership then?

[RamiZ]

Oh, then we were trying to prove the same point then

Good.

[Triceron]

Well, in any case, I do think Zerg need more base defense type units. Terrans have insanely durable PF's with turret support, Protoss have Warp In units and possible Warp In Psi Storm (will have to see how much khaydarin will affect em, and if it will every be changed/returned in the future). Zerg don't really have a great base-defense unit outside of the queen, and even then the Queen is only good for the early game, not viable against mid-late game drops or harass.

Lurkers would help fill in that roll, even if players micro against them it's at least one unit that can control territory, like sunkens do.

[Todie]

Well, in any case, I do think Zerg need more base defense type units.

Try infestors.


As for Lurkers, the argument against them all along hasnt had anything to do with contesting their usefulness, its just so obvious that they'd deminish the usefulness of banelings.


above all, im trying to steer clear of this discussion because its a done deal; Lurkers were tried extensively during alpha and deemed not to fit; one reason might be the desire to move past sc/bw norms for zerg gameplay. i never wanted the lurker back, and i know many agreed with that (dropping names or nubmers on that is just pointless)

[DemolitionSquid]

I have always been of the opinion that "less returning units is better." I even once suggested scrapping the Zergling and making the (significantly nerfed) Roach the base Zerg unit. I am thusly, anti-Lurker.

[flak4321]

@Genopath & Todie: I'll admit mass Thors is less viable vs. Viods since the bonus vs armored was added. As for the vikings, you are ignoring the MS in my very specific example. While slow, void speed now is equal to MS (almost) since the upgrade removal and the fall behind problem doesn't really exist in this example. Further, you can't kite voids you can't target. You have to get the MS first, which forces you into the voids. Marines are not an effective counter in my specific example either. If there was no MS, the voids themselves are easily beatable, even with a numbers disadvantage. Even the occasional mixing in of carriers is not a problem minus the MS.

As far as scouting is concerned, I usually do scout the voids coming. As much as I scout now, I still can't manage to scout a MS. It also depends on how the Toss is pressuring you while he's pumping voids and an MS. A void rush can be countered by marines definitely, but a mass void after consistent harass leaves you undermanned so you have to get what you can get. Again, the MS presence is key because you must target it first. Unless you can EMP the suckers.

I'm only stating the counters that have worked in my experience, which does have dependence on my skills admittedly. I will not ever deny the existence of better ways. I will however admit that my skill set does not lend itself to to some counters. I'll also agree that while Terran has a lot of counters, they are very much a generalist race, meaning that Terran will never have a standout unit. I'm actually much better as a Toss or Zerg these days. All in all, I greatly appreciate the responses as they have undoubtedly shaped my game, but it would be most helpful if you considered the whole example rather than one unit type within it.

A more on topic comment: As the lurker-centric part of this conversation has progressed, we can clearly see why the Lurker was removed. Do we like it? No. Could the lurker be useful? Yes, definitely. Do we absolutely need it? No.

[Triceron]

Nothing's wrong with 'diminishing the usefulness of banelings' if the unit is effective at what it does, and ultimately functions differently than said unit. Both Lurker and Baneling would be used to counter masses of units (ie Marine balls), and there's nothing wrong with having more options to counter those matchups.

Banelings will still be used to bust through defenses or expansion lines. Banelings can still be dropped out of overlords like bombs. Banelings can still be used as inexpensive burrowed mines.

If anything, there is less overlap of the Baneling and Lurker than there is overlap of Reapers and Hellions, both which are fast, worker-killing anti-light units. Despite this they are still used at different stages in the game for different reasons.

[RamiZ]

If anything, there is less overlap of the Baneling and Lurker than there is overlap of Reapers and Hellions, both which are fast, worker-killing anti-light units. Despite this they are still used at different stages in the game for different reasons.

Despite the fact that one is used in almost every match-up and one isn't used at all... XD

[Wankey]

Despite the fact that one is used in almost every match-up and one isn't used at all... XD

Well they nerfed one to hell, that's why. It seems Blizzard doesn't want 2 different types of units to do the same. I find that game design philosophy really stupid.

[RamiZ]

Well they nerfed one to hell, that's why. It seems Blizzard doesn't want 2 different types of units to do the same. I find that game design philosophy really stupid.

It is not that, but Blizzard said that Reapers were too Strong in team games so they nerfed it, which is retarded, who the hell cares about Team games? Also, after the Roach buff and Supply before Barrack nerf, Reapers were at the great spot. Don't know why they needed to nerf them even more.

[Wankey]

Well that's my thought about blizzard balancing as well. They nerf something to fix something else, but buff other things but forget the original unit is still nerfed. You have a bunch of weird balances because units sometimes get underpowered without being touched because they're focusing on another unit.