Who misses the Lurker?

[arthas]

the if the Lurker were put back into the game, it could be designed to be a good counter for such much more than just terran infantry.

Well of cource vs zealots,lings,roaches,etc....melee to short ranged units

[Todie]

Honestly, the if the Lurker were put back into the game, it could be designed to be a good counter for such much more than just terran infantry.

this may well be so, but what then, happens to our precious baneling?

... because im afaraid we cant even quite conceive of a Lurker that isnt good vs light, cuz that was its essence in sc/bw ... and since thats what banlings are mostly for.....

[arthas]

this may well be so, but what then, happens to our precious baneling?

... because im afaraid we cant even quite conceive of a Lurker that isnt good vs light, cuz that was its essence in sc/bw ... and since thats what banlings are mostly for.....

Banelings are tier 1.5 while lurkers will probably be 2.5,lurkers are more like defensive/ranged support,which is different from the baneling in every way....

[moosh]

I read an interview and it doesn't sound like Blizzards wants to add remove any units unless they have to... I don't think they're coming back... =\

[Aldrius]

this may well be so, but what then, happens to our precious baneling?

... because im afaraid we cant even quite conceive of a Lurker that isnt good vs light, cuz that was its essence in sc/bw ... and since thats what banlings are mostly for.....

So if they made the Lurker be something OTHER than anti-light... the baneling's future would be in jeopardy...?

That's... completely backwards.

Honestly, I've mentioned how Banelings are different from Lurkers so many times at this point. Banelings are sappers, they do lots of burst damage, they're really cheap.

Lurkers are costlier, they're more vulnerable on the move, and if they had an armored bonus, they'd counter completely different things from the baneling!!

[Nicol Bolas]

I just had an idea: a Sunken Crawler upgrade that makes them Lurker-like. The linear AoE would be depicted as the tentacle striking out along the ground (or even just under it, Buggs Bunny style) to its target.

Yes, this would limit them to Creep. But that's not exactly uncommon these days, is it? And while it would cost a Drone, it also makes their ability to move more relevant for going offensive than being defensive.

Lurkers are costlier, they're more vulnerable on the move, and if they had an armored bonus, they'd counter completely different things from the baneling!!

Light units, cost for cost, have fewer Hp than armored units. That's generally why there are more attacks with bonus damage to armored. Light units also tend to be more numerous than armored units (though not always).

Because of these two facts, any AoE is implicitly anti-light. Unless Lurkers had attacks that were heavily anti-armored, something like 5 + 25 vs. Armored, they would have to be effectively anti-light. Even a mere 10 damage could keep enemy light units at bay, particularly if tough units like Roaches are standing guard over them.

Also, Banelings kill themselves. Lurkers may be expensive, but they don't disappear after one shot. That in and of itself makes them better than Banelings.

Lastly, because armored units are not usually in tight groups (and those that are are not nearly as tight as others), the linear AoE doesn't mean as much. So the signature Lurker-style of attack simply isn't a good fit for an anti-armored attack.

[Aldrius]

Because of these two facts, any AoE is implicitly anti-light. Unless Lurkers had attacks that were heavily anti-armored, something like 5 + 25 vs. Armored, they would have to be effectively anti-light. Even a mere 10 damage could keep enemy light units at bay, particularly if tough units like Roaches are standing guard over them.

Well the point wouldn't be that the Lurker would be USELESS against light units. The point would be that Banelings are BETTER, and more EFFICIENT against light units than the Lurker would be.

Also, Banelings kill themselves. Lurkers may be expensive, but they don't disappear after one shot. That in and of itself makes them better than Banelings.

In the long-term, yes. But in that case EVERYTHING is better than banelings. Banelings do 45 damage in a rather LARGE aoe to light units. Lurkers, if they did something like, say, 15 damage, would do it in a linear AoE, which will hit less targets if the marines are all clumped up. An upgraded marine is going to be able to survive that kind of an attack pretty easily, and if he has a medivac backing him up he'll heal a lot of the damage off before the next attack hits him.

Lurkers also need to burrow. Speedbanes can just waltz right up next to the terran infantry and explode. Making them a better offensive option.

The thing the Lurker would take away from is Baneling traps. But you can still do those. And in some cases they'll be more effective. (Once a baneling trap has gone off, your opponent can do nothing. If a Lurker trap goes off and your opponent survives, he can just scan/get an observer and mop up those Lurkers.)

Lastly, because armored units are not usually in tight groups (and those that are are not nearly as tight as others), the linear AoE doesn't mean as much. So the signature Lurker-style of attack simply isn't a good fit for an anti-armored attack.

It's not a great fit, but it makes it a lot easier for it to counter stalkers, shieldless immortals, marauders, even siege tanks if it gets close enough to them. But most importantly, Roaches. One of the reasons I like the Tier 2 anti-armored Lurker is that it actually gives Zerg a tier 1/2 counter to those silly things.

It's like the relationship between siege mode tanks and hellions. Sure, both are anti-light. But one is much, much better at it than the other, but at the same time, much more limited and vulnerable than the other. One is also much, much better against certain TYPES of light units. (Hellions are a lot better against melee units than Siege Mode Tanks are.)

That's how I'd like to see the relationship between the Baneling and Lurker work. Personally.

[ManjiSanji]

I'd really like to see a unit that just functions totally differently than the Lurker, but also supports the use of other units, hence why I wanted to see a new acid spore unit, like the Devourer, but for ground use.

It would encourage more late-game Zergling use, and its debuff could even increase Baneling damage at a greater scale.

Or, it could reduce armor, and change a unit's type to light, etc. Lots of possibilities.

[Nicol Bolas]

But in that case EVERYTHING is better than banelings.

Right. But because the Zerg (currently) have no other AoE (except Ultralisks way up at Tier 3) or other real anti-mass, Banelings have a place and a purpose.

Speedbanes can just waltz right up next to the terran infantry and explode.

Unfortunately, unless they are also on Creep, they will die well before getting to any MM&M ball. Speedbanes are unnecessarily slow.

Once a baneling trap has gone off, your opponent can do nothing. If a Lurker trap goes off and your opponent survives, he can just scan/get an observer and mop up those Lurkers.

True, but your Lurkers could also just leave before the scan comes in.

[KadajSouba]

The best way to know if the lurker was still a useful unit was to test it. I know Blizzard did that, but that cannot be compared to a test by thousands of people, thousands of times a day. Everyhtimg that people says about if it worked or not is just speculation.

Nobody really knows how it really worked with the actual build... Hell on any build!!!!!!

I say bring it back... if it sucks just cut it...