Page 4 of 17 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 167

Thread: Archon And Lurker Changes

  1. #31
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    373

    Default Re: Archon And Lurker Changes

    I think the AOE damage aura would make more SC sense (as opposed to WC sense) if it activated like a Stim Pack, i.e. costs 50 shields to turn on for 10 seconds.


    ...but thinking about it, Toss already have Psistorm. This would just be overkill.
    Last edited by milo; 02-09-2010 at 05:35 PM.

  2. #32

    Default Re: Archon And Lurker Changes

    that still doesn't affect the fact that by the time Lurkers make it into the game most players are overrun with detection anyway.
    What does detection matter to Lurkers?

    You're thinking like a SC1 player, where Lurker traps were the primary use for them. In SC2, Lurkers are simply a long-ranged linear AoE unit. The Zerg don't have much long ranged stuff, so the Lurker is a welcome sight.

    It's nice to take out someone's detection and prevent them from being able to see the Lurkers. But when they can attack well outside the enemy's attack range anyway, what does detection matter?
    "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

  3. #33
    0neder's Avatar Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    109

    Default Re: Archon And Lurker Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by Zahar View Post
    I vote for it as a channeled ability that consumes energy. This way they don't completely prohibit zerglings and such, but are really hard couters to them if you micro them a little.
    Enough abilities! SC has always been spacing, timing, and micro fundamentals. There were only a few key synergistic abilities and the rest was all fundamentals. I think it should stay that way.

    P.S. For the record, I did not mention the last 3D Blizzard RTS in this post.

  4. #34

    Default Re: Archon And Lurker Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by 0neder View Post
    Enough abilities! SC has always been spacing, timing, and micro fundamentals. There were only a few key synergistic abilities and the rest was all fundamentals. I think it should stay that way.

    P.S. For the record, I did not mention the last 3D Blizzard RTS in this post.
    Agreed. Not every unit needs a activated ability.




    P.S. Note that I also did not mention the last 3D Blizzard RTS in this post.

  5. #35
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    4,102

    Default Re: Archon And Lurker Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by 0neder View Post
    1 - Tier 3 already has Ultralisk and Brood Lord, too many good units too late.
    But Tier 2 gets even more units, Overseers, Mutalisk, Corruptors, Infestors and Roaches, so moving the Lurker down requires moving another unit up.

    2 - Siege range does not compensate for only being available when detection is almost guaranteed to be already in play.
    Siege range is fine, the problem with the Lurker is its measly hp.

    3 - I don't think all races should have a ground siege unit. Most of the exciting tension from BW came from Lurkers not having siege range.
    This is a new game,

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas View Post
    What does detection matter to Lurkers?
    Quite a lot now that all races have really effective AtG units.

    You're thinking like a SC1 player, where Lurker traps were the primary use for them. In SC2, Lurkers are simply a long-ranged linear AoE unit. The Zerg don't have much long ranged stuff, so the Lurker is a welcome sight.
    Oh the Lurker's big range is indeed a welcome sight, but it's only got 125 hp, which seems a bit flimsy for a tier 3 unit, especially one that despite its range can either attack or move, and takes several seconds to switch between modes.

  6. #36

    Default Re: Archon And Lurker Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur View Post
    Agreed. Not every unit needs a activated ability.

    P.S. Note that I also did not mention the last 3D Blizzard RTS in this post.
    I dunno, War3 was actually pretty tactical since most units had an ability.

    P.S. Note that I also did not mention the last 3D Blizzard RT- Oh snap!

  7. #37

    Default Re: Archon And Lurker Changes

    Quite a lot now that all races have really effective AtG units.
    Good thing the Zerg have the most cost effect AtA unit, then.

    it's only got 125 hp, which seems a bit flimsy for a tier 3 unit, especially one that despite its range can either attack or move, and takes several seconds to switch between modes.
    Even in SC1, unburrowing is very fast. Burrowing is what's slow. That's more of a problem when moving forward to attack means moving directly into the enemy's range. When you don't have to do that anymore, when you can move forward like Siege Tanks, burrowing time isn't as critical.

    And if its HP are too low, then I'm sure that's something they can tweak as needed.
    "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. #38

    Default Re: Archon And Lurker Changes

    Hmm, this is quite peculiar... and Whoopsies!

    I know SC2Armory's guide has its glitches and outdated information, but I believe Gearv0sh would not raise the health value without good reason. SC2Pod seems pretty reliable as well.


    -Psi
    Last edited by PsiWarp; 02-09-2010 at 06:36 PM.
    >>You Must Construct Additional Pylons<<

  9. #39

    Default Re: Archon And Lurker Changes

    200? - Siege tanks are 150

    Even the Wiki still reports 125

    Interesting
    "Wait.....no Gzhee-Gzhee.....?.....whu......Why no Ghzhee-Gzhee?!?!?!?!"


    RIP - Leslie Nielsen

  10. #40

    Default Re: Archon And Lurker Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by Gifted View Post
    Actually, instead of it being "more activity" it's more a case of "more public activity". This is consistently what's happened inside as I've been along for the ride through JD. It's just a matter that now it's being talked about.

    If you think back to a few old posts of Karune mentioning "things change so often internally it almost doesn't make sense to post about them all" it's about spot on. Things are always happening internally, it's just nice to see they found a solid medium to communicate that to the public.
    Yeah obviously, they're not sitting there twiddling thumbs. They're all contributing all of the time. There's a lot of work to be done.
    Quote Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid View Post
    I want my name in bright yellow, to represent "Forum Douchebag."

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
  •