Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 84

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

  1. #1

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

    It pisses me off how Browder keeps saying that. I've been playing the new Starcraft 1 + 2 conversion on 1.3 PTR and it's a blast to play. All these options that they introduced, putting hydralisks back to tier 1, making them 75/25 again, while making roaches more expensive. It makes so much more sense.

    Also the SC1 + 2 conversion handles Hydralisks really well. Makes them 5dmg to light, 7.5 dmg to normal and 10 dmg to armor, and makes them 75/25 and costs a lot more worth it. The game feels far more complete than the current broken solution.

    Of course there is a place for lurker, lurker can be defensive or offensive, Banelings cannot. They aren't ranged and therefore can be picked off with a scan.

    Why not just add the lurker in? What is the problem? They have useless units in other races, but nothing for Zerg? Just because the blizzard team can't find good uses for lurker doesn't mean other people can't.

    I still can't believe they nerfed Protoss 9 times in a row. That's just pure bad game design. Nerfing to the lowest power is way worse than buffing to the highest power.

    WTF is the mothership anyway? It's supposed to be a useless unit yet people found some use.

    SC2 is so full of shitty game design, and their way of balance by removing units, nerfing units into oblivion or completely removing skills is utter dumbness. Rob Pardo should've been the one in charge of game design but I guess he's too busy working on the next gen MMO, the real cash cow of Blizzard I guess.

    What happened to everything needs to feel overpowered?

  2. #2

    Default Re: "There is no place for Lurker" WTF is mothership then?

    Well, I will say that just once, that instead of the nerfing of one unit, I'd like to see buffing of all the other units - likely easier said than done,...


    In the case of the lurker however....while you do still have the baneling argument, there is also the very mobile spine crawler - a building with unit qualities (comparisons to the Lurker come to mind) that takes up zero supply - while you don't get any of the Lurker's bigger benefits, (cloak, splash) I'd say all three of them for Zerg may be too much.

    I'd agree with bringing back the Lurker if mobility was removed from the spine crawler.
    "Wait.....no Gzhee-Gzhee.....?.....whu......Why no Ghzhee-Gzhee?!?!?!?!"


    RIP - Leslie Nielsen

  3. #3
    TheEconomist's Avatar Lord of Economics
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    6,895

    Default Re: "There is no place for Lurker" WTF is mothership then?


  4. #4

    Default Re: "There is no place for Lurker" WTF is mothership then?

    Banelings can't be defensive? They so can. Have you never seen Baneling landmines?

  5. #5
    spychi's Avatar SC:L Addict
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    6,224

    Default Re: "There is no place for Lurker" WTF is mothership then?

    I can't really imagine how I could counter lurkers in sc2, we already have a somewhat siege massable unit GTG-roach

    Mass Effect Universe Fan, I support Mass Effect 2 and Battlefield: Bad Company 2 for Game of the year award! ME2 still is being the best rated game this year! Keep it up

  6. #6

    Default Re: "There is no place for Lurker" WTF is mothership then?

    Problem with banelings (though I love them) is that they are suicidal, they're not something you can save and thus earn some advantage economy and production wise.

    They are incurred costs that Zerg must have only to need more suicide units to achieve efficiency.

  7. #7

    Default Re: "There is no place for Lurker" WTF is mothership then?

    I'm not upset with the removal of the lurker. What DOES upset me is the lack of diversity in the Zerg army and the fact that so many units returned unchanged or with similar roles. The race desperately needs something new.

  8. #8

    Default Re: "There is no place for Lurker" WTF is mothership then?

    The problem with using banelings is they don't always get a hit off, and they're difficult to produce enough to effectively counter your opponent's production. They counter units that are easy to create and reinforce, while requiring extra build time and gas to create. This becomes an issue when you start getting marines in huge masses, or protoss deathballs. I mean these lil guys are pretty good for splash damage, but they're no lurkers. They can't hold territory, or help defend expansions from drops.

  9. #9

    Default Re: "There is no place for Lurker" WTF is mothership then?

    Quote Originally Posted by GnaReffotsirk View Post
    Problem with banelings (though I love them) is that they are suicidal, they're not something you can save and thus earn some advantage economy and production wise.

    They are incurred costs that Zerg must have only to need more suicide units to achieve efficiency.
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    The problem with using banelings is they don't always get a hit off, and they're difficult to produce enough to effectively counter your opponent's production. They counter units that are easy to create and reinforce, while requiring extra build time and gas to create. This becomes an issue when you start getting marines in huge masses, or protoss deathballs. I mean these lil guys are pretty good for splash damage, but they're no lurkers. They can't hold territory, or help defend expansions from drops.
    As a zerg player, this is what I think =\
    Find Humanity ... Assimilate ... Learn ... Evolve.

  10. #10
    dustinbrowder's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    443

    Default Re: "There is no place for Lurker" WTF is mothership then?

    I think Lurkers would have been much more interesting than roaches, but then again I'm sure I'm better than Dustin at game design and balance.

Similar Threads

  1. StarCraft II Trilogy makes "Worst **** moves ever pulled by gamers" list
    By TheEconomist in forum StarCraft Discussion
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 02-20-2011, 01:40 PM
  2. Is "StarCraft II" ready for release? (Read post before vote)
    By Gifted in forum StarCraft Discussion
    Replies: 113
    Last Post: 06-27-2010, 10:53 PM
  3. Blizzard:"No plans for "specific" chatrooms, crossrealm play"
    By ArcherofAiur in forum StarCraft Discussion
    Replies: 115
    Last Post: 06-06-2010, 11:37 PM
  4. Game: StarCraft "Racial music" by favorite artist.
    By Equiliari in forum Off-Topic Lounge
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 02-13-2010, 06:06 PM
  5. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-01-2009, 09:44 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •