Zerg has the easiest tech switches in the game.
Swarm Host Design Flaw: Assessment and Solution - Page 6
Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
DemigodcelpH
1138 Posts
Zerg has the easiest tech switches in the game. | ||
wcr.4fun
Belgium686 Posts
On December 17 2012 02:34 ZjiublingZ wrote: Yes, not to mention if you have map control against the Protoss, 6 Swarm Hosts can attack in multiple locations, meaning he can't just take his 6 Colossus, plant them right where you are, and defend. He has to split his 6 Colossus up into how many possible locations you can assault from, just to defend from your 6 Swarm Hosts. Or he has to gain air dominance, use Hallucinations, or perhaps Observers, to spot where your Swarm Hosts move to. Everyone in this thread who is saying all you can do with Swarm Hosts is plant them down in one location and try and overpower your opponent are using the unit so wrong. That's only good in a "I've won this game, stop turtling and gtfo" situation. Are you being sarcastic? Because splitting up 6 swarm hosts (lmao) would be god awful. Completely agreed with op. I remember people trying to convince us swarm host would be effective zone controlling units, I remember laughing in their faces then and I'm doing it again now. To control a zone with swarm hosts you'd need too many of them which means the whole concept of defending a zone with a few positional units is ignored. Swarm host is one of the main reasons I'm not buying HOTS, complete boring failure of a unit. 'Lemme just burrow these units here and put the rally point besides my opponents base, fuck yeah look at those locust spawning, i'm so gosu and this is so exciting!' One broodlord is already too much ! Please no more! | ||
ScoobySnacks
United States19 Posts
On December 17 2012 10:05 DemigodcelpH wrote: I don't agree with the whole "If you make Swarmhosts you can't transition" part. Zerg has the easiest tech switches in the game. Would you mind elaborating a little bit more? I agree that Zerg has the easiest tech switches in the game, but this must be considered in the context of a specific situation. Let's take a Stephano Roach max in ZvP as an example. If you fail to do damage to a Protoss taking a third off of a FFE, then yes, you can begin a transition to higher-tech. You can take your 5th/6th gases, put down a second evo chamber and start melee/carapace upgrades, put down your infestation pit, take your fourth etc. However, all of your tech that you so desperately need will be extremely delayed, and at a high level of play, the Zerg will get run-over by a 3-4 Colossi timing before Broodlords can be out. Yes, the Zerg can begin a transition in this Roach max example, but it won't be enough to recover from the hole he put himself in after his all-in failed. I feel that a similar situation arises when investing heavily into Swarm Hosts. Let's say you invest into 12 Swarm Hosts in ZvP, and you fail to do significant damage with them. Well, that's an investment of 2400/1200, plus the Locust upgrade = 2600/1400 total resources invested. This is a huge investment, and if you can't justify it, then you will find yourself very, very far behind in a normal game. That 2600/1400 could have been put towards Mutalisks, Hive, upgrades, Ultralisks, Vipers etc. If your investment has not paid for itself in some way, you will be very far behind in the rest of your tech, relative to your opponent. Of course, anytime you make an investment that puts you all-in and you fail to do damage, you should absolutely be punished for it. This is part of the risk-reward to going all-in. My main point here, is that in order for your Swarm Hosts to be useful, you have to invest so many resources into them in the first place that you become all-in. | ||
Existor
Russian Federation4295 Posts
| ||
weikor
Austria580 Posts
Allowing them to spawn baneling type units for a small cost (like scarabs), a melee unit for Ground and Range unit for AA could enable more options of what to do with them. | ||
DemigodcelpH
1138 Posts
On December 17 2012 10:41 ScoobySnacks wrote: I feel that a similar situation arises when investing heavily into Swarm Hosts. Let's say you invest into 12 Swarm Hosts in ZvP, and you fail to do significant damage with them. Well, that's an investment of 2400/1200, plus the Locust upgrade = 2600/1400 total resources invested. This is a huge investment, and if you can't justify it, then you will find yourself very, very far behind in a normal game. That 2600/1400 could have been put towards Mutalisks, Hive, upgrades, Ultralisks, Vipers etc. If your investment has not paid for itself in some way, you will be very far behind in the rest of your tech The concept of investments needing to pay for themselves applies to every unit. It's not like Swarmhosts become unusable after a certain period of time, and perhaps if you don't take advantage of them before Protoss gets T3 then you deserve to lose. Other races have this concept too, but Zerg can arguably recover from it better due to it's innate ability to super-charge economically and also tech-switch easier. So I ask what is the real point here? | ||
Serpico
4285 Posts
On December 17 2012 10:53 DemigodcelpH wrote: The concept of investments needing to pay for themselves applies to every unit. It's not like Swarmhosts become unusable after a certain period of time, and perhaps if you don't take advantage of them before Protoss gets T3 then you deserve to lose. Other races have this concept too, but Zerg can arguably recover from it better due to it's innate ability to super-charge economically and also tech-switch easier. So I ask what is the real point here? The point that SH don't allow you to switch out of them that easily because you have to make them the huge bulk of your army? They don't jive with zerg at all. | ||
ScoobySnacks
United States19 Posts
On December 17 2012 10:53 DemigodcelpH wrote: The concept of investments needing to pay for themselves applies to every unit. It's not like Swarmhosts become unusable after a certain period of time, and perhaps if you don't take advantage of them before Protoss gets T3 then you deserve to lose. Other races have this concept too, but Zerg can arguably recover from it better due to it's innate ability to super-charge economically and also tech-switch easier. So I ask what is the real point here? Not to be rude here, but my "real point" begins where I say "My main point here," which can be found in the section of my post that you have decided to cut off. To avoid confusion, I will quote my post, beginning where you decided to end: On December 17 2012 10:41 ScoobySnacks wrote: Of course, anytime you make an investment that puts you all-in and you fail to do damage, you should absolutely be punished for it. This is part of the risk-reward to going all-in. My main point here, is that in order for your Swarm Hosts to be useful, you have to invest so many resources into them in the first place that you become all-in. I have expanded on this idea in a rather large amount of detail in my OP, if you wish to read up further on my opinions on the subject :D | ||
zergrushkekeke
Australia241 Posts
Another idea to give them some burst and add a little defenders advantage would be to let queens inject larva on a swarm host, that would double the next round of locusts. | ||
porygon361
81 Posts
Add a "Winged Locust" upgrade that costs 100/100 at the Infestation pit. Locusts will have a slight speed increase to 2 and will be granted the ability "Hover" after the upgrade. Hover allows Locusts to fly and become an air unit for 5 Seconds and has a cooldown of 10 seconds, during which they are unable to attack, can traverse over obstacles and cliffs and move at 2.5 speed (subject to change). Locusts can be called to land at any time when hovering. Swarmhosts will also have the ability "Spawn hovering Locusts". The Swarmhosts with this ability on will spawn Locusts in hover mode. Locusts will not land to attack buildings on the way, and will only attack once landed. However, everything comes at a price. The increased metabolism of the Locust would decrease its life span to 20 (while also decreasing the Locust spawn-time to 20) and its health to 60. Its range is decreased to 3, while the damage remains the same. The Locust is also slightly bigger in size to discourage mass, mass Swarmhost. These Locusts will be more micro intensive, and can be used to get into the opponent's base easier. Another good strategy is to land the Locusts onto a bunch of the opponent's units to take out some units, and all for free! Implications in certain matchups ZvT + Show Spoiler + A few Swarmhosts can be made in response to a Marine-tank composition. You can land a few Locusts onto the Marines and subject them to friendly-fire from the Siege tanks. You can also punish a Mech player's slow army to take out some workers in their mineral line with a couple of Swarmhosts and hover micro. ZvP + Show Spoiler + Swarmhosts can do some harass on the Protoss base and will force Stalkers to be spread about the bases, thus containing the Protoss. However, with the emergence of Skytoss, Zerg has to transition to some anti-air before the Swarmhosts get completely denied. With Hover, Locusts can fly and land onto Colossus, making their splash less effective. ZvZ + Show Spoiler + Less Locust vs Locust battles now. Locusts in the mineral line will be common. Mutalisk counters them (duh) and the aggressor might also be subject to the same kind of harass on the opponent. Locusts can be used for scouting in all matchups by flying around in the base with Hover. The Swarmhost can still be used as an all-inish unit, but is less effective due to the health and lifespan nerfs. With the lower life-span, the Locusts lose their ability to do sustained damage, while the Hover ability allows for more sneaky and tactical uses for the Swarmhost. Besides, this ability is insect-like and 'Zergy'. What more could you want? What do you guys think? | ||
Umpteen
United Kingdom1570 Posts
In the OP, Swarm Hosts are compared unfavourably with mutalisks on the grounds that a modest mid-game investment in Mutas can influence the game without being all-in or precluding further transitions. I completely agree up to that point, but I disagree with the deductions you go on to make about the way in which swarm hosts or locusts need to be made stronger/different. A modest muta investment pays for itself because it forces your opponent to deviate from his build at an important time. He doesn't want to make turrets or cannons, he doesn't want to babysit his bases, and he doesn't want to be having to spend minerals replacing workers. He may not even want to be making units yet. The critical part is the timing rather than the strength of the attack. Broadly speaking, well-honed builds follow exponential curves in terms of economy and army strength. Even though it's not cheap, successful muta harrassment disrupts the curve before it can properly get going, allowing your build-curve - despite being itself slowed by the investement in Mutas - to pull ahead. Just as with Swarm Hosts, however, it's still possible to go all-in with a critical mass of muta, and it's also possible to overspend on harrassment but not reach critical mass (and thus lose). So mutas and swarm hosts have a lot in common. The thing that's missing or unknown with Swarm Hosts right now is the timing when a small number can force a deviation significant enough to pay for the investment. If we can figure that out (or failing that, engineer some with changes), then Swarm Host strategy will look the same as Muta strategy: get a small number for a timing or go all-in with mass SH + support, possibly depending upon how well the harrassment goes. We don't necessarily need to disrupt the 'critical mass' aspect of SH play. Nor, I suspect, do we want to. As I recall the point of the Swarm Host was to give Zergs a way to win when they got ahead in the mid-game. You make more Swarm Hosts than I can cope with - I collapse. You commit too heavily to SH with inadequate support when you're not ahead, ie you misjudge the situation, and you get burned for it. | ||
porygon361
81 Posts
On December 17 2012 23:38 Umpteen wrote: The thing that's missing or unknown with Swarm Hosts right now is the timing when a small number can force a deviation significant enough to pay for the investment. If we can figure that out (or failing that, engineer some with changes), then Swarm Host strategy will look the same as Muta strategy: get a small number for a timing or go all-in with mass SH + support, possibly depending upon how well the harrassment goes. We don't necessarily need to disrupt the 'critical mass' aspect of SH play. I agree with this statement. However, I also believe Swarmhosts should be made into a more interesting unit. People are complaining that its like a ground Broodlord. | ||
Umpteen
United Kingdom1570 Posts
On December 17 2012 23:56 porygon361 wrote: I agree with this statement. However, I also believe Swarmhosts should be made into a more interesting unit. People are complaining that its like a ground Broodlord. Personally I don't buy that analogy. Swarm Hosts and Broodlords are more different than Marines and Marauders, or Stalkers and Immortals. The fact they both spawn units doesn't make them the same any more than Marines and Marauders are the same because they both shoot projectiles. Broodlords are immobile, long-range flying units that need something to shoot at to generate their fast-spawning, short-lived broodlings. Swarm Hosts are reasonably nippy burrowing units. They can push forward behind a wave of Locusts, or retreat under cover of one. They can lightly harass a very remote location at the edge of their range, or commit to an assault by coming in closer and letting their locusts spend more of their lives fighting. They need careful management to synchronise their spawns. The locusts themselves can be microed to stutter-step and form concaves. I think Swarm Hosts have far more potential for interesting play than Broodlords. Maybe they aren't quite where they need to be yet, or maybe we just need to spend some more time with them, but I think they'll feature in some epic all-over-the-map HotS play, further down the line. | ||
porygon361
81 Posts
On December 18 2012 00:11 Umpteen wrote: Personally I don't buy that analogy. Swarm Hosts and Broodlords are more different than Marines and Marauders, or Stalkers and Immortals. The fact they both spawn units doesn't make them the same any more than Marines and Marauders are the same because they both shoot projectiles. Broodlords are immobile, long-range flying units that need something to shoot at to generate their fast-spawning, short-lived broodlings. Swarm Hosts are reasonably nippy burrowing units. They can push forward behind a wave of Locusts, or retreat under cover of one. They can lightly harass a very remote location at the edge of their range, or commit to an assault by coming in closer and letting their locusts spend more of their lives fighting. They need careful management to synchronise their spawns. The locusts themselves can be microed to stutter-step and form concaves. I think Swarm Hosts have far more potential for interesting play than Broodlords. Maybe they aren't quite where they need to be yet, or maybe we just need to spend some more time with them, but I think they'll feature in some epic all-over-the-map HotS play, further down the line. Thats true. I personally don't believe its a ground Broodlord. Just saying many people do. Also, the Locusts spawned from the Swarmhost should be made more interesting in my opinion, instead of an a-move unit. Maybe improve the speed and we can stutter-step | ||
ScoobySnacks
United States19 Posts
On December 17 2012 23:38 Umpteen wrote: Good OP. However, I think there are a couple of factors that aren't being fully considered. In the OP, Swarm Hosts are compared unfavourably with mutalisks on the grounds that a modest mid-game investment in Mutas can influence the game without being all-in or precluding further transitions. I completely agree up to that point, but I disagree with the deductions you go on to make about the way in which swarm hosts or locusts need to be made stronger/different. A modest muta investment pays for itself because it forces your opponent to deviate from his build at an important time. He doesn't want to make turrets or cannons, he doesn't want to babysit his bases, and he doesn't want to be having to spend minerals replacing workers. He may not even want to be making units yet. The critical part is the timing rather than the strength of the attack. Broadly speaking, well-honed builds follow exponential curves in terms of economy and army strength. Even though it's not cheap, successful muta harrassment disrupts the curve before it can properly get going, allowing your build-curve - despite being itself slowed by the investement in Mutas - to pull ahead. Just as with Swarm Hosts, however, it's still possible to go all-in with a critical mass of muta, and it's also possible to overspend on harrassment but not reach critical mass (and thus lose). So mutas and swarm hosts have a lot in common. The thing that's missing or unknown with Swarm Hosts right now is the timing when a small number can force a deviation significant enough to pay for the investment. If we can figure that out (or failing that, engineer some with changes), then Swarm Host strategy will look the same as Muta strategy: get a small number for a timing or go all-in with mass SH + support, possibly depending upon how well the harrassment goes. We don't necessarily need to disrupt the 'critical mass' aspect of SH play. Nor, I suspect, do we want to. As I recall the point of the Swarm Host was to give Zergs a way to win when they got ahead in the mid-game. You make more Swarm Hosts than I can cope with - I collapse. You commit too heavily to SH with inadequate support when you're not ahead, ie you misjudge the situation, and you get burned for it. Umpteen, thank you for your detailed response. I will do my best to respond with my thoughts on the matter. I don't want to come across as though I know everything on the matter, because I most certainly don't, and you provided some good insight here. With the Mutalisk example, you are spot on when you talk about disrupting an exponentially growing econemy, and how by disrupting it at a key timing, you can severely delay the opponent's economic and army strength. It is very possible that Swarm Hosts can be used in a similar manner, to cause a disruption in an opponent's otherwise undisturbed game plan of establishing a fully-functioning 3-base econemy early, and translating that economic strength into an imposing standing army. I think one of the key differences between the Mutalisk and the Swarm Host in this kind of example, is the utility that the units offer after this economic disruption has occurred. In Wings ZvT, for example, a smaller number of Mutalisks (say 8-10) still offer the Zerg player many benefits, including the ability to snipe medivacs after battles, stop drops, pick off unsupported tanks, clear watch towers etc. The impression that I am currently under is that the Swarm Host really would limited utility in small numbers after such an economic disruption. Even if the unit turns out to be balanced, it seems like there is very little that the unit offers to the Zerg player beyond trying to bust down someone's front door. As broken as the Infestor was (is) in Wings, it offered different uses beyond its combat value. The unit could be used as part of drop defence, and could be used for infested terran harass while burrowed. These different uses for the unit allow players to demonstrate varying degrees of skill, which is extremely important in promoting dynamic gameplay. There was another point you brought up, relating to one of the points for the Swarm Host when it was first being introduced at Blizzcon. Dustin was talking about how the Swarm Host would be a legitimate way for Zerg to close out a lead when he had an advantage, as opposed to expanding and teching to Broodlords. If this is not what you were referring to specifically, my apologies. In this situation, the Swarm Host is probably a viable option to close out a game. The problem I have with pursuing this strategy, is the opportunity cost that comes along with it. Specifically, Vipers spawn 20 seconds after Swarm Hosts are available with their Enduring Locust upgrade. Vipers are proving to be an extremely strong unit when used correctly, and can function in a similar way to Swarm Hosts in that they allow you to engage positions that would otherwise impossible to engage without the help of Broodlords. My question here is, why would someone risk investing an enormous amount of resources into Swarm Hosts, when they can simply tech to Hive and Vipers, and finish the game off only slightly later than they could with Swarm Hosts? I feel like the risk involved in investing in Swarm Hosts is much greater than teching to Hive/Vipers, and I am not convinced that investing into the Swarm Hosts really gives the player a better chance of winning than with the alternative. Thanks again for bringing up some good points, especially about the potential impact of disrupting a player who is investing heavily into establishing an economic advantage earlier in the game. | ||
Butterednuts
United States859 Posts
[edit] Post Not Found (lol) (joke about post count) | ||
kaluro
Netherlands760 Posts
Swarm hosts are stationary siege units, support units if you will. You will need viper/hydra along with them for them to be moderately effective. If you have a roach/hydra/viper army and use swarm hosts as support unit, you can easily get away with just 5 of them or so. Your entire post is revolving around the fact that you use them as a single composition, rather than a multi-unit one, at which you would indeed need a lot of them. | ||
porygon361
81 Posts
On December 18 2012 01:09 Butterednuts wrote: Just read the OP and I would love for Swarm Hosts to be flying but I think that the Broodlord already fufills this role well enough. It's a seige-like flying, ground attacking unit. One reason I wouldn't want this to be flying is because of how much more vulnerable it would be since ground Swarm Hosts can burrow underground and can attack a few times without being seen. The OP meant that the Locusts were flying. | ||
Umpteen
United Kingdom1570 Posts
On December 18 2012 00:35 ScoobySnacks wrote: I think one of the key differences between the Mutalisk and the Swarm Host in this kind of example, is the utility that the units offer after this economic disruption has occurred. In Wings ZvT, for example, a smaller number of Mutalisks (say 8-10) still offer the Zerg player many benefits, including the ability to snipe medivacs after battles, stop drops, pick off unsupported tanks, clear watch towers etc. The impression that I am currently under is that the Swarm Host really would limited utility in small numbers after such an economic disruption. That's a good point, so let's think about how that little group of Swarm Hosts could continue to be used. These are just ideas, no particular statement of validity. 1. Scouting. Burrow a host and have its locusts pinging out across the map like sonar. 2. Low-apm harassment. Keeping well back, burrow your 5(?) hosts and send the locusts at an enemy base. You can even unburrow and move elsewhere immediately. Now you can attack in multiple places without needing to watch two armies. 3. Chipping away at static defence. Protoss and Zergs love to cannon/spine up expansions later in the game. With swarm hosts you can whittle down those defences for free, unless they bring their army. Army sat on a cannoned-up base = a waste of cannons. 4. Free flanking/tanking units. Less infestor energy spent on ITs. 5. It's the core of a Swarm Host deathball. I can imagine Swarm Hosts coming into their own in low-econ scenarios where bases are mining out or being denied and your opponent simply can't afford to keep trading. With 5 or 6 already on the board, you're in a good position to make that play. In this situation, the Swarm Host is probably a viable option to close out a game. The problem I have with pursuing this strategy, is the opportunity cost that comes along with it. Specifically, Vipers spawn 20 seconds after Swarm Hosts are available with their Enduring Locust upgrade. Vipers are proving to be an extremely strong unit when used correctly, and can function in a similar way to Swarm Hosts in that they allow you to engage positions that would otherwise impossible to engage without the help of Broodlords. My question here is, why would someone risk investing an enormous amount of resources into Swarm Hosts, when they can simply tech to Hive and Vipers, and finish the game off only slightly later than they could with Swarm Hosts? I feel like the risk involved in investing in Swarm Hosts is much greater than teching to Hive/Vipers, and I am not convinced that investing into the Swarm Hosts really gives the player a better chance of winning than with the alternative. I think that timing is more than a little misleading For a start, it's not 20 seconds longer to get vipers than it is to get upgraded Swarm Hosts. It's an extra 20 seconds to get hive, then 40 seconds to actually build vipers, then 20 seconds per 50 energy during which time they have to stay near a friendly structure to consume it. For another thing, SHs are not useless while their upgrade is researching. Vipers are while hive is building because they don't exist Finally, let's suppose we're actually in a situation where we can tech to Vipers. That means we have a substantial standing army (because Vipers are useless on their own). Here's the thing: during the 3-4 minutes it takes to get usable Vipers, we don't want to engage the enemy. We need our army for when the Vipers pop out; the last thing we want is to have nothing underneath them because we just traded armies. So teching to Vipers, like teching to Broods or Ultras, makes us passive. Suppose instead we make some Swarm Hosts. Suppose we already have a 5-6 SH task force we made earlier. Now we don't need to go passive when we are ahead. We can set up camp outside his base, swarm hosts well back out of danger, rallying locusts through our army to the front line, jumping on anything our opponent sends out. We can make more and more swarm hosts, and provided we look after them we can prevent our opponent ever having the breathing space to recover from his disadvantage. We win with constant pressure, rather than pulling back and walloping him with higher tech. | ||
Ewok
United States26 Posts
| ||
| ||