Page 11 of 17 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 167

Thread: Archon And Lurker Changes

  1. #101

    Default Re: Archon And Lurker Changes

    I dont know why we are talking about the mothership in this thread but I just wanted to say lurkers are going to rock o.0 I think it just takes time to start to really see tier 3 units in play o.0 most games prbly arent even making it to that
    point yet


    Either way its good to see there willing to make some changes to them instead of removing them - this gose for the archon as well but in the case of the arch I think its storm is so good with smart casting you dont really need archons yet
    "No matter what side of the argument you are on, you always find people on your side that you wish were on the other."
    Be sure to check out the best #$*&#$ video game show ever Epileptic Gaming and the lastest episode on youtube NOW IN HD
    - Oh its a egg I wonder whats inside! =)

  2. #102

    Default Re: Archon And Lurker Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas View Post
    You mean in the most recent Mothership video where it clearly shot a Hydralisk 2-3 times, and didn't even kill it (the Colossus dealt the death blow, hence the burning death animation)?

    The Mothership used to have a decent attack. Now it's only slightly more effective than the Arbiter's pop-gun.
    Basing stats off of a video isn't reliable. At all. I say we wait for the beta (which could be days away) before passing judgement on a unit's attack.

    They could do a lot of things. As I pointed out, if the current suite of spells at Tier 2 do not allow the units to be successful against Marauders or Stalkers or whatever, the spells could be adjusted/replaced to make this happen.
    Okay, well, if the Zerg need a siege option. The infest ability on the Infester is something they could do in place of the siege-range Lurker.

    My point is that you don't need Tier 2 Lurkers to make the Zerg effective at Tier 2.
    Oh, of course not. But I think the Lurker is a good, key Zerg unit. It takes the burrowing concept and makes it dangerous. I also don't think it's all that much fun at tier 3, I think it's too late for it to be useful. I don't think siege range really does much to fix that problem. Sure it makes it stronger, but not at what it should be good at. And it makes it a less tactical unit. You're worrying about positioning as far as hitting multiple targets, but not about avoiding the enemies' control sphere or attack power.

    At the same time, I think Zerg tier 2 lacks a good core combat unit at tier 2. The Roach is there, but I don't think that's a good spot for the roach really. Lurker isn't really 'core' combat, but it's a good combat unit. And it's sturdy, powerful and decisive enough that it'd HELP at tier 2, or at least make it a stronger tier, rather than being almost nothing but support options.

    Moving them to Tier 2 is basically a cop-out, declaring intellectual bankruptcy by saying that the only way to move the Zerg forward is to make them more like they used to be.
    Eh, I just think the Lurker has a role it can fill, and it has some unique advantages and abilities that no other unit can really have or use. There's the Baneling, but I don't think it overlaps THAT much with the Baneling. Baneling is all about plentiful, cheap, burst power, Lurker is all about the long-term, anti-armored investment.

    8 Colossi can burn down damn near anything in seconds. Marines, Stalkers, Hydralisks, Roaches, Marauders, Zealots, Siege Tanks, just about anything except mass Ultralisks.

    Base defenses are nothing compared to that, even without the siege range upgrade. 8 Colossi can one-shot 2-3 sunkens in each volley. And Colossi are not restricted by most terrain, unlike the Immortals.
    All right, fair enough. But I'm not actually sure why we're arguing the merits of the Immortal + Temporal Rift combination versus the Colossus. My argument isn't that the Immortal is more viable than the Colossus (though that is what I was arguing... so... er... yeah...). It's that the Temporal Rift + Immortal combo is perfectly viable as a siege option and *MORE INTERESTING* than simply bull-rushing the static defenses with colossi.

    And since Hydralisks cost 75/25, that's almost 2 Hydralisks for the cost of a Stalker.
    I dunno. When the unit costs are that low is 25 minerals really negligible?


    The Mother of all Queens!

    Thanks to Dynamik- for the signature!

  3. #103
    0neder's Avatar Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    109

    Default Re: Archon And Lurker Changes

    Do lurkers still evolve from Hydralisks?

  4. #104

    Default Re: Archon And Lurker Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by 0neder View Post
    Do lurkers still evolve from Hydralisks?
    No, they evolve from Scourge.


  5. #105

    Default Re: Archon And Lurker Changes

    Basing stats off of a video isn't reliable. At all.
    It's more reliable than off of the Wiki. At least the video is evidence that there was one specific build in which this was the case.

    I say we wait for the beta (which could be days away) before passing judgement on a unit's attack.
    By this logic, I could say that for every unit you've talked about. Stalkers and Marauders could have been nerfed into uselessness. Hydralisks could do 12+8 damage, or only cost 50/25. If you're going to simply write off information that is as known as we have access to, then your claims of a Tier 2 deficiency are just as specious if not moreso.

    Okay, well, if the Zerg need a siege option. The infest ability on the Infester is something they could do in place of the siege-range Lurker.
    So, what do you do if you just want to attack units outside of the range of most other units? Because attacking buildings isn't the only thing that siege units can do.

    It takes the burrowing concept and makes it dangerous.
    So do Infestors. Even moreso, due to having potent spells and being able to move while burrowed.

    Sure it makes it stronger, but not at what it should be good at.
    Who's to say what it should be good at? What matters is what it is good at.

    The Roach is there, but I don't think that's a good spot for the roach really.
    That sounds to me like the Roach should be improved, rather than moving the Lurker. We had a thread on that a while back.

    It's that the Temporal Rift + Immortal combo is perfectly viable as a siege option and *MORE INTERESTING* than simply bull-rushing the static defenses with colossi.
    Why is it more interesting? Because it involves 2 units that are on completely different tech trees, thus requiring more resources and tech to build?

    I don't know. I find actually useful unit combos to be more interesting that less useful ones
    "When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up." - C. S. Lewis

    "You simply cannot design a mechanic today to mimic the behaviour of a 10-year old mechanic that you removed because nearly nobody would like them today." - Norfindel, on the Macro Mechanics

    "We want to focus the player on making interesting choices and not just a bunch of different klicks." - Dustin Browder

    StarCraft 2 Beta Blog

  6. #106

    Default Re: Archon And Lurker Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas View Post
    It's more reliable than off of the Wiki. At least the video is evidence that there was one specific build in which this was the case.
    The reliable fact is that the Mothership is intended as a powerful combat unit. Making assumptions based off of a video is a bad idea. I'm not saying the Wiki is accurate, but the Wiki is hard numbers. The video could be staged for the purposes of making it more exciting, it could have been temporary in a minor build... there's just no telling what the heck it means.

    By this logic, I could say that for every unit you've talked about. Stalkers and Marauders could have been nerfed into uselessness.
    There's no reason to think that, though. There's plenty of reason to think the Mothership does not have a negligible attack... and it doesn't really matter that much anyway. It's fairly inconsequential to my overall point.

    Hydralisks could do 12+8 damage, or only cost 50/25. If you're going to simply write off information that is as known as we have access to, then your claims of a Tier 2 deficiency are just as specious if not moreso.
    I never claimed there was a tier 2 deficiency, did I? I said the Lurker could be put there so that there are more options at tier 2. It would IMPROVE tier 2.It would give more options that aren't support units. Because really, there are a TON of support units in the Zerg tier 2. Not so many combat units. You've got the Mutalisk... and then the mis-placed Roach, and that's it.

    So, what do you do if you just want to attack units outside of the range of most other units? Because attacking buildings isn't the only thing that siege units can do.
    You're out of luck. Not every race should have access to every type of unit. And if it is necessary or important, 7 is enough for that, in most cases. There aren't a whole lot of units with 7 range. In fact I think at this point there are none.

    So do Infestors. Even moreso, due to having potent spells and being able to move while burrowed.
    I like the Infestors fine. Having a unit that can burrow and move is very cool. But so is having a unit that can burrow and attack. I like having both in the game.

    Who's to say what it should be good at? What matters is what it is good at.
    Me, because it's my opinion, and my observation of the game. None of us have played the game, none of us can truly be objective about any of this. It's all assumptions and observations.

    In my opinion, and from what I've observed in the game. The most interesting thing about the Lurker is it's ability to cloak and attack. The line-attack in SC1 let it full a role that the Zerg, as a race desperately needed, and that's one of it's defining features now (the line attack). But it can be reworked to fit a new role, but at the same time, being a tier 3 siege unit has nothing to do with what it's supposed to be.

    Tier 3 is just way too late for it's burrowing ability to be interesting or useful.

    That sounds to me like the Roach should be improved, rather than moving the Lurker. We had a thread on that a while back.
    I know we did... and honestly, I think the Roach, at it's core, just has tier 1 written all over it. It's good against stuff that most tier 1 units aren't, but the low HP, cost and damage. The numbers you can create of them... it's just... yeah, it just really strikes me as a tier 1 unit. Nothing they do to it will make a useful tier 2 unit.

    Why is it more interesting? Because it involves 2 units that are on completely different tech trees, thus requiring more resources and tech to build?
    Because it requires using units in unison. Nothing to do with resources or tech, just with some interesting co-operation between two different units. Like using Corsairs with Dragoons in SC1. Disruption Web those Sunken Colonies, take them out with Dragoons. Granted, it's much cheaper than the Temporal Rift-Immortal combo, but that doesn't mean the Temporal Rift-Immortal combo doesn't have it's advantages too. (Immortals are a much sturdier unit than the Dragoon for one, so in that regard it's less risky, but in turn Temporal Rift is less effective than Disruption Web, so you're going to take some hits.)

    I don't know. I find actually useful unit combos to be more interesting that less useful ones
    Well, okay, that's just total hyperbole on your part. Immortal- Temporal Rift is very useful. Particularly against static defenses. And then there's considering the fact that the Mothership and a group of Immortals has plenty of other uses as well. And those uses are in turn more interesting than attack-moving every ground unit in sight with a big army of siege-range colossi.


    The Mother of all Queens!

    Thanks to Dynamik- for the signature!

  7. #107

    Default Re: Archon And Lurker Changes

    The reliable fact is that the Mothership is intended as a powerful combat unit.
    Even in its introduction, the very zenith of its power, the Mothership was not a powerful combat unit. Without its abilities, it simply wouldn't be very viable in battle. Not for its cost.

    Making assumptions based off of a video is a bad idea.
    So, we shouldn't assume the Mothership has Temporal Rift and Vortex. Or that it can teleport. Or that it has had its model improved. Or that it even exists.

    And if it is necessary or important, 7 is enough for that, in most cases.
    Not for a unit that can't move while it's shooting. You need to be able to first strike while still being able to get a second shot off before they kill you with their first shot.

    In my opinion, and from what I've observed in the game. The most interesting thing about the Lurker is it's ability to cloak and attack.
    To me, the most important and effective part of the Lurker is its linear attack. Without its linear AoE, all the cloak and dagger games in the world don't matter, because it can't kill much with a single-target attack. The linear attack makes positioning important, and not being able to reposition one quickly means that you need to make positioning decisions fast.

    And the range increase makes the linear AoE attack that much more damaging. It allows you to use other units to bait enemy units closer, without exposing your Lurkers to potential fire.

    I know we did... and honestly, I think the Roach, at it's core, just has tier 1 written all over it. It's good against stuff that most tier 1 units aren't, but the low HP, cost and damage. The numbers you can create of them... it's just... yeah, it just really strikes me as a tier 1 unit. Nothing they do to it will make a useful tier 2 unit.
    Nonsense. You can do anything to a unit. It may no longer be called the same thing, just as the Marauder is no longer called a Firebat even though it evolved from one.

    Also, I would be very concerned about a unit that becomes utterly worthless at Tier 2. Which is pretty much what happened to the T1 Roach.

    Well, okay, that's just total hyperbole on your part
    No, actually; that's just a typo. I meant to say, "I find actually usable unit combos..." As interesting as using Motherships and Immortals may be, it simply isn't as economically viable as mass Colossi. Unless it's a late game strategy that evolved from a build based around StarGate tech and a Mothership, where you just add a couple of Robos down to bring Immortals to the mix, it simply isn't going to be economically viable.

    If Immortals were still at on Gateways, maybe. But not with them on Robos.
    "When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up." - C. S. Lewis

    "You simply cannot design a mechanic today to mimic the behaviour of a 10-year old mechanic that you removed because nearly nobody would like them today." - Norfindel, on the Macro Mechanics

    "We want to focus the player on making interesting choices and not just a bunch of different klicks." - Dustin Browder

    StarCraft 2 Beta Blog

  8. #108

    Default Re: Archon And Lurker Changes

    About the Lurker debate;
    I think one should remember that just because unit X had role Y in SC1, does not mean it will still have Y in SC2, even though it might share the name or the appearance.
    Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

  9. #109

    Default Re: Archon And Lurker Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost_828 View Post
    About the Lurker debate;
    I think one should remember that just because unit X had role Y in SC1, does not mean it will still have Y in SC2, even though it might share the name or the appearance.
    Amen to that
    Waiting...

    The damned will return...

  10. #110
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    140

    Default Re: Archon And Lurker Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost_828 View Post
    About the Lurker debate;
    I think one should remember that just because unit X had role Y in SC1, does not mean it will still have Y in SC2, even though it might share the name or the appearance.
    Yeah, I mean, it's not like the name and appearance is used in order to make the unit easily identifiable.
    Let us create flying tank Zerglings next.

Similar Threads

  1. Lurker Qs
    By moosh in forum StarCraft Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 02-05-2010, 09:56 AM
  2. I think the Lurker should be scrapped...
    By Crazy_Jonny in forum StarCraft Discussion
    Replies: 104
    Last Post: 12-15-2009, 02:40 PM
  3. Protoss Archon
    By Perfecttear in forum StarCraft Discussion
    Replies: 158
    Last Post: 09-29-2009, 01:25 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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