|
Hi TeamLiquid,
I started a thread over at Battle.net covering in-depth some of the design flaws of the Swarm Host. I believe it is the most comprehensive post on the subject right now, and that some members here at TL may find it interesting.
If a Mod could add "[D]" to the title, it would be appreciated!
Swarm Host Design Flaw: Assessment & Solution
I. Recent Activity
The Solutions section has been updated to reflect my thoughts on the subject, as well as those of Engineer and Existor. Some people have asked why I have not chosen to take the stance of bringing the Lurker back, and I have offered an explanation there as well.
Like the rest of my post, the Solutions section is a major work in progress. If anyone feels that I have left out some good suggestions for altering the unit, please let me know.
II. Table of Contents:
+ Show Spoiler +1. Introduction 2. The issue 3. An example 4. Why is this a problem? 5. Opportunity cost of delaying Hive tech 6. Examples of Tier 2 units that provide utility and allow for transitions 7. Recent changes to the unit 8. The solution 9. Conclusion 10. Summary of key points 11. Vods/Replays of Swarm Host use 12. Q & A with CultisChan
____________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction
+ Show Spoiler +I would like to begin a discussion on the design of the Swarm Host. I believe that there is a major issue with the design of this unit and how it is actually utilized in competitive play, and would like to see what everyone’s opinion is on the subject.
This is not a balance whine/balance discussion/QQ thread, and I do not feel the Swarm Host is overpowered or underpowered. Rather, this is a discussion about how the unit is actually used and the type of gameplay and situations that arise from investing into the unit.
I believe that I have been able to discuss why the unit does not always function the way it was intended to and does not always promote dynamic, interesting gameplay.
In addition, I believe that I have provided a concrete solution that would fundamentally fix some of the issues that players are encountering in using the Swarm Host, and would help the unit to better fulfill its intended role.
I have added a Summary at the end explaining my main points as briefly as possible, but I encourage you to read the entire post if you have the time. There are a lot of finer points that cannont be articulated effectively in such few words.
2. The Issue
+ Show Spoiler +After testing the unit at the GM level in the beta, and watching/hearing other players use the Swarm Host, it appears that the Swarm Host is very weak in low numbers, but begins to gain considerable strength in very large numbers, roughly 15+. Really, to use this unit effectively at a higher level of play, you need to invest heavily into the unit, as making a small investment in Swarm Hosts will not benefit your army enough to justify the investment.
The problem that this relationship (weak in low numbers, considerably more effective in large numbers) creates is that by investing into the unit, you essentially become all-in, and the outcome of the game is decided by whether or not you can set up a deadly contain and break your opponent’s defensive position.
3. An Example
+ Show Spoiler +Let’s use an example here. The matchup is ZvP, and the Protoss player does a Forge Fast Expand while the Zerg player takes a fast third base before taking gas. Protoss does a build that allows him to secure a third base around the 9 minute mark, and in response, the Zerg player decides he wants to pressure his opponent with Swarm Hosts. The Zerg player knows that 5-6 swarm hosts won’t create a critical mass of locusts needed to break the Protoss players defensive position with Storm or Colossus on the way, and in response he/she proceeds to make 15 swarm hosts. This represents an investment of 300/300 for the infestation pit and the locust upgrade, and a 3000/1500 investment for the Swarm Hosts themselves.
This investment is so huge, that if Protoss can break the contain that Zerg has established and start picking off the Swarm Hosts, the Zerg player won’t have any possible way of holding some sort of counter-push, as he invested all of his resources into making the Swarm Host push a success. Zerg is all-in and has to win the game right here or the game will end.
On the other hand, this army can be devastatingly strong, and gives the Zerg player the opportunity to win the game outright if the Protoss player cannot deal with the Swarm Hosts in time.
4. Why is this a problem?
+ Show Spoiler +This all-or-nothing scenario is a problem, because if your investment into a critical mass of swarm hosts is not successful, the Zerg player cannot transition. So what kind of composition are we seeing that makes the Zerg all-in in games? In a typical ZvP, the composition will be almost entirely Swarm Host/Corruptor/Overseer, with the Corruptors serving the purpose of sniping Obs/Colossi/air units. How can the Zerg transition from this? He really can't just start sacrificing Corruptors, as they are providing the support to keep the Swarm Hosts alive. He really can't just start sacrificing Swarm Hosts, because then his army would be weaker, and if the Protoss is spending all his resources into breaking your position (as he must, with the exception of Zealot/Warp Prism base harass etc.), then he can now break through and win the game. Even if you wanted to transition into a Broodlord/Corruptor/Infestor composition, you don't really have the infestor/infestor energy necessary to make the transition without maintaining the vast majority of your Swarm Hosts. At this point, having a few extra Broodlords vs Swarm Hosts wouldn't change the dynamic of the battles in the ZvP example, and wouldn't change Zerg being all-in with his one army in one location on the map. Of course, if you make an investment that puts you all-in and it is not effective, you should be very far behind. But the Swarm Host was never designed as a unit that puts you completely all-in when you invest in it. It was designed as a way to apply some real mid-game pressure to a turtling opponent, in a very “Zergy” way. MVP TheSkunk has provided his input on this topic, and I feel that he does such a good job of summarizing why this specific problem that I will be quoting him in this section. Thank you for your contributions MVP TheSkunk's thoughts on facing this critical mass of Swarm Hosts, from the Protoss perspective of a PvZ match: "It seems like you have to reach the tipping point where there are enough Locusts spawning that they can survive long enough (and clog the pathing of enemy units) for their sick DPS to take effect. With too few, the locusts are too easily killed or ignored, but once the right number is reached it is impossible to engage them without taking massive losses. You really have to be absolutely confident that you'll be able to kill actual Swarm Hosts when you engage an army, because if you just kill locusts (and no Hosts) then the Zerg has lost nothing and you've lost real units -- and they do damage so quickly, you can't really afford to be indecisive. You have to choose. This also contributes to the "all or nothing" feeling." MVPTheSkunk provides his thoughts on the difficulties that Zerg players face utilizing this unit: "This thread reminds me of a game of Idra's I saw on his stream. It was a ZvZ, and he was ahead. He decided to get a lot of Swarm Hosts to contain his enemy. Unfortunately, he misjudged and had barely to few Swarm Hosts to contain the enemy, and as a result lost all of his Swarm Hosts and was quite far behind. This is just an example of how the way it works sucks for the Zerg player and not just their opponents -- just like it is hard to engage a critical mass of Swarm Hosts, if you fail to reach the critical mass then you lose all of your Swarm Hosts and are massively behind."
5. Opportunity Cost of delaying Hive Tech
+ Show Spoiler +I would like to explore a little bit what the opportunity cost of investing into the Swarm Host entails, and why some players would rather tech straight to Hive rather than invest heavily into a Tier 2 Zerg army. In Wings of Liberty, both in ZvT and ZvP, the unit composition that has dominated the Zerg lategame in the last few months has been infestor/broodlord. This has proven to be an extremely strong unit composition, and successfully teching to this army often meant that the Zerg players chances of winning were extremely good. This composition has proven itself in Wings to be one of, if not the most reliable way for Zerg to win a game, and by investing into things that are not infestors/broodlords, one is delaying/avoiding this winning composition. Heart of the Swarm is a new game, and Blizzard has taken steps to making the Infestor/Broodlord composition considerably weaker by nerfing two spells of the Infestor: fungal growth and infested terrans. However, Zerg has received other buffs to its late-game Hive-tech, including the addition of the Viper and the improved Ultralisk. These two units are proving to be extremely powerful in the lategame, and acts to fill the void that the infestor/broodlord nerfs (infestor nerfs really, but the composition relies on the strength of the infestor) have left. The following game illustrates the power that Blinding Cloud and Ultralisks can have against a Lategame Terran army: To understand why this is significant, let's look at some of the stats of Swarm Hosts and Vipers, specifically the amount of time it takes to gain access to them. Currently, Swarm Hosts are available at the Infestation Pit, and require a 120 second 200/200 upgrade to achieve their maximum usefulness. In contrast, it takes 140 seconds for a player to morph hive, and spawn any number of Vipers. The issue here is that Vipers are proving to be extremely powerful, even game-changing units for the Zerg Swarm, and fulfill the siege-breaking role of Swarm Hosts much more effectively for less cost. In addition, it only takes 20 extra seconds to have Vipers compared to fully functional Swarm Hosts. Why would someone invest into Swarm Hosts, when they can have a unit that performs the same role, only much more effectively and for a lesser cost, and the only downside is waiting an extra 20 seconds for the unit to be available in its fully functional form? This creates a problem, where Vipers/Hive-tech is simply more effective than the Swarm Host, and barely takes any extra time to gain access to it. There should not be a situation where two units of the same race perform the same function but one is just better. No one would build the weaker unit, but that is the case here.
6. Examples of Tier 2 units that provide utility and allow for transitions
+ Show Spoiler +I would like to provide an example of a Zerg unit that allows for a significant investment to be made, reaping the benefits of the unit, but still allows for effective transitions into the later stages of the game. The unit I will use for this example is the Mutalisk in Wings of Liberty ZvZ. We are going to assume that, in this mirror race game, one Zerg player go 2-base lair into Mutalisks, and another will go 2-base Lair into Infestors. There are several advantages to going Mutalisks in ZvZ. The Mutalisk player gains map control, can clear the map of overlords, has an opportunity to try and deny his opponents third with his Mutalisks and a burst production of zerglings, and prevents his/her opponent from moving out without anti-air. In the words of Dustin Browder on this unit, “Party, right?” [1]
But what I find so interesting about this scenario, and so different from our Swarm Host ZvP example, is that there are diminishing returns to investing into the Mutalisks. Typically players build around 8 Mutas, and assuming the opponent is not also going Mutas, will begin to transition into other tech. Having more than the initial 8 Mutas does not offer too much of an advantage to the player, and he/she can accomplish everything he needs to with those units. He won’t necessarily die to a counter-push after this investment, and can begin to invest in other tech, including double upgrades, infestors, Roaches, Hydras, and even Swarm Hosts.
These transitions create interesting, dynamic gameplay, and allow for a more exciting playing/viewing experience. Furthermore, they encourage players to invest into the unit in the first place, because there are different ways to transition out of the unit after the investment is made.
7. Recent changes to the unit
+ Show Spoiler +In HOTS Beta Patch 8, Blizzard buffed the health of the Swarm Host from 120 to 160. David Kim explains “The reason we went with a health buff is to allow easier repositioning of Swarm Hosts between Locust spawns. We think this type of positional play is one of the most fun ways to use Swarm Hosts, and wanted to promote more of it.” [2]
I do not feel that this type of buff will significantly alter how Swarm Hosts can be used in a competitive game, and I would like to explain why I feel this way.
This buff will indeed allow players to move around and reposition their swarm hosts effectively in between locust volleys. However, the issue still remains that you must be able to justify the huge investment into the unit, and because you really can’t transition out of the unit, you still need to end the game with them. This buff does allow for more micro-potential of the unit, and we may see some very interesting ways that players siege their opponents with this change. Unfortunately, this does nothing to address the do-or-die nature of the Swarm Host.
8. The solution
+ Show Spoiler +I would like to discuss possible solutions to the design flaws of the Swarm Host. Several members of the community have offered their feedback on what could be done to improve the unit, and I will include their input here as well. i. My thoughts I think the main thing that need to be addressed right now is the low health/high DPS nature of the Swarm Hosts’ locusts. This relationship adds to the snowballing effect that occurs with the unit. The low health of the Locusts ensures that a smaller number of Locusts will be unlikely to reach their destination to inflict damage. On the other hand, when the locusts do reach the critical mass required to inflict damage, the results are often devastating. I propose changing the Locusts to being units with higher survivability and lower DPS. This could include increasing the hit points of the locusts, while also decreasing the amount of damage inflicted per shot. By making this type of change, the locusts will be more likely to reach their destination to chip away at the opponent, but the effects will not be as devastating as they are now. The locusts could truly act as support for your army, instead of the other way around. ii. Engineer's thoughts has had a lot to say about the unit, and I would like to try and summarize some of his suggestions. -Give Locusts an attack more similar to Broodlings, where the initial attack does more damage immediately, and the subsequent ones do less. This would be a way of frontloading some of the damage, while still allowing Locusts to eat away at the enemy if left untouched -Increased survivability of locusts through increased speed, health, and collision radius of locusts. Decrease in DPS of the locusts to compensate. -Roaches morph into Swarm Hosts, because it would be awesome. -More burrow utility. This can be done by allowing locusts to burrow move, and allowing burrowed roaches to morph into Swarm Hosts iii. Existor's thoughts Existor has brought up some interesting points about how the Swarm Host might function better if Locusts were air units, instead of ground units. There were some older sketches shown at the last Blizzcon of an older “air version” of the Swarm Host, so this is something that Blizzard has considered in the past. Existor has done an excellent job of summarizing his arguments, and I will quote him rather than butchering his explanation: -Widow Mines will still counter them, as they still hit air -Stalkers will be able to shoot them -Phoenixes will have good damage against them as light units -Thors will counter them as they have anti-light damage -Zerg Swarm-Festors will not work anymore, because you will need anti-air against Locusts. Hydralisks/Corruptors/Fungals to stop those small flying kamikazes -Siege Tanks and Colossies will not work against Locusts anymore -> more usage for swarm hosts -New locusts will be able to fly meaning that cliff becomes less a problem for Zergs -Because Locusts can hit only ground, every air unit will counter it, if it has air-to-air attack -Allows ground zerg units not stuck between locusts -Forces enemy to make more air. Many current [units] already counters new kamikaze-Locusts. Phoenixes, Thors anti-light will be very usefull, because locusts are small and they always will have some splash, corruptors will be more useful as air-to-air counter against locusts, fungals will stop locusts from reaching your units A more detailed explanation of this possible solution can be found at Existor's original thread: http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/6160896658#1iv. The Lurker Finally, I have had many people respond to my post, both at Battle.net, and at TeamLiquid.net, suggesting that the Lurker would be a better choice for a Zerg Tier 2 space control/aoe damage dealer/siege unit, and that we should just replace the Swarm Host with the Lurker. I feel that there are some extremely valid reasons for feeling this way, and many people have brought up some very good supporting arguments. I will do my best to explain my reasoning for why I have not taken this stance: It is my goal in making this post to help Blizzard understand what the current flaws of the unit are, so that Blizzard can make the changes to the unit that it feels are best. I do not feel that Dustin Browder is interested in bringing back the Lurker in this specific case, and intends to see the Swarm Host as one of Zerg’s new units with the expansion. This can be seen in many interviews, where he expresses his opinion that the Swarm Host is incredibly “Zerg-y,” and that the concept of spawning locusts works. If I were to have as my recommendation, “Ditch the Swarm Host, give us back our Lurkers!” I don’t think Dustin would take my thread very seriously, and he may just dismiss it entirely. By trying to work with Blizzard’s unit, rather than against it, I feel I am in a better position to influence Blizzard in making some positive changes to the unit. If anyone else believes that the Lurker would be a better addition to the Zerg in HOTS, I urge you to say so, and explain why. This is not a position that I can afford to take, given my goals for this thread. That being said, if someone could offer a detailed argument for why (re)introducing the Lurker would be more appropriate than keeping the Swarm Host, I would be happy to it here.
9. Conclusion
+ Show Spoiler +I would like this to be a discussion about how everyone has been able to use the Swarm Host, its effectiveness in small vs. large numbers, the all-in nature of the unit, and possible ways to improve the way the unit performs in competitive matches. I encourage everyone to discuss how we can make the Swarm Host a powerful tier 2 option, without necessarily making the unit stronger or overpowered in large quantities.
I believe that there is still time to address these problems of the Swarm Host in the HOTS Beta, but because the unit suffers from a design problem, simple numbers buffs/nerfs will not fix the unit.
10. Summary of key points
+ Show Spoiler +I. The Swarm Host is largely ineffective in small numbers (4-8), but becomes exponentially more effective as you reach a critical mass of the unit (12-15+). This is a case of increasing returns.
II. Investing into a critical mass of Swarm Hosts represents a huge investment. It is extremely difficult to transition out of this composition, as the investment essentially puts you "all in." Battles can become very lopsided very quickly, much like in lategame ZvP with Archon toilet vs Broodlord Infestor. One side often wins very convincingly here, and comebacks are not possible.
III. There are very attractive Hive Tech options for Zerg in HOTS, particularly Vipers and buffed Ultralisks, and to convince people to invest in Tier 2 tech options, there need to be very powerful reasons to do so. Vipers are available 20 seconds after Swarm Hosts with their locust upgrade, and unless the Swarm Hosts offer the Zerg player some key advantages, he/she will tech to Hive every game instead if playing to maximize winning chances.
IV. This combination of weak in small numbers and effective in large, the inability to transition out of the unit, and the extreme desirability of Hive-tech options relative to Swarm Hosts create for boring gameplay, where the player can go all-in with Swarm Hosts, or tech to Hive as fast as possible. Many people complain that strategy of teching fast to hive every game has made ZvT/P dull and boring in Wings of Liberty, and i we are to make Zerg games more interesting, Tier 2 tech should have reasons that justify investments into them.
V. I strongly believe that the correct solution to these problems is to increase the survivability of the Swarm Host's locusts, and to decrease their dps. By making this design change, the locusts would be much more likely to reach their intended destination to inflict damage, especially in less than huge numbers, but would not be able to break entire positions by themselves in critical mass, like they currently can. Instead of the Swarm Host being the main the main damage dealer, they would exist to dramatically increase the effectiveness of the rest of your army by tanking large amounts of damage. This would allow the Swarm Host to more effectively fulfill the siege role that Dustin Browder intended for the unit, and still in a "Zerg-y" way.
11. Vods/Replays of Swarm Host use
+ Show Spoiler +*This section is a work in progress, and will be added to / edited in the coming days* I would like to kick off this replay analysis section a game played by Blade55555, a GM Zerg in the Beta and a high-masters Zerg in Wings. The game can be found at the following link, andit is shown from the Zerg player's point of view: http://www.twitch.tv/blade55555/b/347106538The game is a ZvP on Daybreak, and it begins at roughly 1:50:00. I would like to focus on a few key engagements that occur in this game, as I feel they do an excellent job of illustrating the points I have made. Zerg spawns in the bottom left hand side, and Protoss on the top right. The game opens with a standard FFE vs 3 Hatch before gas, and the Protoss elects for the famous immortal sentry push, ultimately hitting the third base by around 10:00 into the game. Zerg has to sacrifice his third, but is able to somewhat stabalize on two bases and the game continues. Blade chooses to go for a Swarm Host-based midgame, with the first Swarm Hosts being built around 10:40. By around 11:30, Zerg has driven back the attack for now, and reclaims his third base. Blade continues to invest in his Swarm Host army to hold off the growing Protoss force, and by 12:30 has 10 Swarm Hosts in his army. The first engagement I would like to cover occurs at 12:40. Blade tries to use his army of 10 Swarmhosts and lings to defend his third base, but some well-placed forcefields trap the locusts, and allow the Protoss army to walk up to the third, snipe it, and walk away unscathed. There are things Zerg could have done to prevent this, but the point I want to make here is this: Zerg had 10 siege units sieged, worth 200/100 each, and Protoss could walk up next to them, deny their ability to attack, snipe a base, and walk away unscathed. For a siege unit, this comes accross as a little unintuitive. By 14 minutes, Zerg has reclaimed his third again, has 16 Swarm Hosts to try and defend with, and Protoss still has not taken a third base. It is difficult to tell who is ahead here, but it certainly looks like Protoss is in a good spot. At 17 minutes, another major engagement occurs. Protoss has not taken a third, and is going for a brutal attack with 4 colossi/sentries/immortals/stalkers, while Zerg is defending with 18 Swarm Hosts and 49 Zerglings. In the engagement, the locusts are not able to dent the Protoss army, and Zerg is forced to retreat to his third. He loses some spine crawlers, but does not suffer any major army loss. Zerg is backed into a corner, and Protoss looks primed to engage the third of Zerg for a killing blow. If Zerg has an engagement like the last one at his third, he won't have anywhere to retreat, and his army will get obliterated while the Protoss player won't suffer any losses. However, Zerg has Corruptors about to spawn, and this may be enough to defend with. The final battle occurs at 18:30, and Zerg has 13 corruptors to defend. These corruptors, combined with some fatal Colossi miscontrols, lets Zerg snipe the colossi, and proceed to win the battle without suffering any losses. So, what is the point of all this, and what have we demonstrated? Battles involving Swarm Hosts can be incredibly, incredibly one-sided in ZvP. In some situations, the locusts are denied the ability to inflict damage, and there is nothing left to defend the Swarm Hosts from their imenent doom. If Zerg loses a large army of Swarm Hosts with no compensation, the game is essentially over. At the same time, battles with Swarm Hosts can be incredibly one-sided in favor of Zerg in ZvP. In this game, Zerg took out an entire army without suffering losses, winning the game. This is a huge problem, because it creates an environment similar to that of lategame ZvP in Wings, where the fate of an entire game can be reduced to whether or not Protoss lands one key Vortex. The Starcraft community has raised concerns over this coin-flippy type of gameplay, and has collectively agreed that it needs to be removed from the game as much as possible in HOTS. Unfortunately, late-game ZvP has been given a new life, and that life is in Swarm Host ZvX Mid-games.
12. Q & A with CultisChan
+ Show Spoiler +I believe it is important that my arguments presented here are able to stand up to tough criticisms by members of this community, CultisChan has asked some difficult questions, and has forced me to continue to articulate my arguments better, and to provide more relevent examples of games and situations that support my main points. I would like to present to you a conversation I had with CurtisChan from page 4 of this thread: Your fix makes the SwarmHost to be some sort of abysmal support caster unit, which at its core violates Dustin Browder's imago of SwarmHost's ideals. That beautiful bald man smiled and nodded as the world hung on to his every word, here: And the audience went silent as they saw the locusts do absolutely nothing. I understand the tanking goal you have in mind, and I'd like to see a version that actually worked. Because as is, there's no way this change will allow Swarmhost play in timing attacks, as investing in something that offers no offensive value, or ability to properly tank/absorb AoE is going to be like using Ultralisks in WoL. Transition to loss. Also note that Zerg has always suffered most heavily from AoE damage. Adding 20 or 40 hp to locusts won't change the cataclysmic effect massed siege tanks or collosi will have on clumped up range 3 units. Both of which will be out in time to counter your newly crippled SH. Swarmhosts need to remain a threatening presence that punishes turtlers. Your changes would further harm their usage, as the only thing they HAVE going for them is their critical-mass-spirit-bomb technique. Which can effectively be one shot with a sick nuke, or less awe inspiring fungal chain. You make many good points about their cost being a complete waste if you don't have enough. But doesn't the same risk/reward apply to the Terran if they waste their siege tanks willy nilly? What exactly were his original intentions for the unit? If patch eight has taught us anything, it's that Dustin Browder is as capricious as a Greek God and this is all really a game to him. But I digress, the original intent of the swarm host was having locusts that could attack ground and air. A wonderful notion indeed, scooby! Hi Cultischan, thanks for stopping by! I appreciate the feedback that you have provided here, and hope this isnt the only post you make here. I'm going to do my best to address each of the points you have made individually, as they are certainly valid concerns. This will be a long post, as I want to address all of the points you have brought up thoroughly :D It looks like you bring up the question of whether the Swarm Host should be a support unit or the damage dealer itself, the weakness of locusts to AOE damage, the need to have a threatening presense when going Swarm Hosts, the risk/reward inherent in investing into the units (compared to, say, a siege tank), and the original intentions for the unit. Let me know if Im missed anything there! 1. The nature of the unit being a support unit, or the frontline unit itself. You mention that, by making the locusts high health/lower dps, the unit would be relegated to a support function in the army, and I would absolutely agree! As it stands right now, the Swarm Host is your main army, and everything else functions to keep them alive. I think that this creates a serious issue, and prevents the Swarm Host from synergizing with the rest of your army in more moderate numbers, and forces you to go allin with the unit when you make it.. Let me use a couple of examples to illustrate my point. The Viper is a Tier 3 support spellcaster, with two main engagement spells: abduct, and blinding cloud. What makes these spells interesting, and fundamentally different from, say, the spells of the Infestor, is that the spells do absolutely zero damage by themselves. The Viper exists to allow the rest of your army to engage armies and fortified positions that would otherwise be impossible, and acts to strengthen the rest of your army. Because the Viper does not do any damage on its own, there are very strong diminishing returns to investing heavily into it, and many players are finding that between 4 and six Vipers is all they need to accomplish what they need to. Vipers spawn 20 seconds after you would have access to Swarm Hosts with the locust upgrade, and despite not having any actual attack, open up tons of timing attack potential, and gives your army legitimate offensive capability. So its not that Support units like these dont allow for offensive/timing attack potential in general, because there are support units that pop at similar timings that offer this. Here is a recent example to illustrate the offensive capabilities that the Viper, a pure support unit, offers to the Swarm: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTAoRXtvgagFor our next example, let's look at Wings of Liberty PvT, and our focus will beon a stalker/colossi based composition, to combat the standard terran biological army. For the sake of using an example, we will examine the first game of the following link: http://sc2casts.com/cast10594-LiquidHero-vs-Beastyqt-Best-of-3-NASL-4-Season-PlayLiquidHero decides to go for a stalker/Colossi based composition in this game. The question here is, which unit is the support unit, and which is the actual damage dealer? In my opinion, the stalkers have very low dps, and their role in this composition is to keep the Colossi long enough that they can deal their damage. This relationship is very evident throughout the game, and I feel it is relevent to our Swarm Host example. With the current iteration of the Swarm Host, the unit IS your main damage dealer (not unlike the colossi), and the rest of your army exists with the purpose of keeping your Swarm Hosts alive. Why is this significant? Well, unlike the colossus, Swarm Hosts really can't be used in small numbers, because their locusts are so vulnerable that it takes reaching a critical mass of locusts to reach the enemy to do damage. So you invest in this huge Swarm Host army, and if you can't justify the investment by doing an incredible (almost game-winning) amount of damage, you will be behind. You can't really transition out of Swarm Hosts, because that is your army in this composition, and you haven't invested enough into the strength of the rest of your army. Contrast this to the game with the Viper, where the Viper exists to make the rest of your army more powerful. I strongly feel that the Swarm Host can fulfill a useful support unit function, rather than functioning as the core of your army, as it does now. This design change will allow for a more moderate investment into swarm hosts to be useful, both in the midgame and in the lategame, and allow the player a better opportunity to transition to later tech if so desired. 2. The weakness of locusts to AOE damage I agree with you that the nature of AOE damage really limits the effectiveness of what the Swarm Hosts can do right now. However, where we disagree is the benefit that can be achieved through increasing locust health. If we nerf the locust damage somewhat (as Blizzard has already done twice in the Beta), the unit becomes less all-or-nothing, and would crate less situations where the locust reach this critical mass and suddenly nothing can stop them. By being less all-or-nothing, I think we would have the opportunity to really push the locust health up there, possibly much more than 20-40 health. Because I love examples to illustrate points, lets look at some of the design changes that Blizzard has implemented so far for the Raven. On the one hand, Blizzard kinda said "well, the Raven needs a cool new spell, but we're out of ideas. Wait, the patch is coming out tomorrow? AAAHHH! Quick, someone take the stats of that spell we never see from the BattleCruiser and throw it on the Raven! They won't notice!" On the other hand, this type of change is interesting for a number of reasons. In Wings of Liberty, the raven suffered from two major issues from a design standpoint. The first, is that the Raven was really, really hard to tech to in a normal game and it was very difficult to justify an investment in them, because that investment probably wouldn't be realized in a normal game. On the other hand, if the player actaully managed to tech to them, especially against Zerg, teh results were often absolutely insanely one-sided: This unit created an all-or-nothing type of gameplay, not unsimilar to many situations involving Broodlord/Infestor vs Archon Toilet, especially before Zerg really honed in on how to control this late--game composition. I think that these type of one-sided battles, which make comebacks impossible, aren't necessarily optimal from a gameplay perspective, and that steps can be taken to make them less extreme. Fortunately, this is something that Blizzard has done with the Raven. The Raven right now does not require an upgrade for high seeker misssle, and the spell itself is a little bit less extreme, doing 300 single-shot damage vs 100 stackable splash damage. Whether or not you think Ravens are viable right now in HOTS TvZ, or if the Seeker Missle spell is in a good spot, Blizzard has taken an all-or-nothing unit/spell and has made it more accessible, while also making the spell itself less volatile. I believe , that when people use the Swarm Host right now, it behaves very similar to the Raven in Wings of Liberty. Very often, the Zerg player can't quite establish the sieged position he needs with a critical number of Swarm Hosts that he/she needs, and the opponent can break their position, winning the game, before the investment has paid for itself. Equally often, the results are similar to the linked IMMvP vs Nestea game, where the investment pays for itself a thousand times over and the game ends right then and there. I believe that a step away from this type of volatility associated with teh Swarm Host would allow the unit to be more easily balanced, and would encourage players to invest in it more in high-level games. I also believe buffing locust health and nerfing locust DPS would be a huge step in this direction. 3. The need to have a threatening presense when going Swarm Hosts You brought up some really great points here. You say that, when you build Swarm Hosts, there needs to be a threatening impact on the flow of the game, and that by making the unit, you should be able to accomplish something with them. You also seem to be of the opinion, that by making the unit into more of a support role by nerfing locust DPS and increasing Locust health, that you won't be able to have this forceful impact on the game. First, lets look at an example of a unit that can have an immediate, powerful impact on the flow of a game that can be built at Tier 2 for Zerg. I would like to discuss the Mutalisk. We are going to use an example from the GSL Semi-finals here: http://www.gomtv.net/2012gsls5/vod/71073The game I am referencing is the first one, and should be free to watch. I think this game erally goes a long way in showing how much a Tier 2 investment can change the flow of the game. When the Mutalisks pop around 12:30 in game, the entire flow of the game switches. Suddenly, instead of defending, Sniper is in Terran's base, forcing the Terran on the defensive. Sniper uses this 7 mutalisk investment to take complete map control, force terran to have defense everywhere, and makes it more difficult for him to move out. These seven Mutalisks won't win the game for Sniper, but they are clearly paying for themselves and fit the role of a powerful support unit really effectively. They also have the sort of immediate threatening impact that you allude to in your post. So, how is this relevant to Swarm Hosts? I think that the current iteration of the Swarm Host does not allow for this sort of immediate impact due to a fatal design flaw, and that my proposed changes would address this perfectly. Swarm Hosts are fundamentally weak in small groups, due to the vulnerability of locusts to splash damage, and only gain power when they reach very large, critical masses. The video example you referenced from Blizzcon last year is a perfect example of this! The Zerg player has 8 Swarm Hosts, a very sizeable investment, and can't seem to dent a somewhat fortified terran position. Now, what if the Zerg player had 16 Swarm hosts? The results would be completely different, as the high dps locusts would begin to reach their target, and become exponentially more effective. Because the Swarm Hosts are so effective when reaching critical mass, they need to be balanced around this fact. Blizzard realized this when they released the Beta, and subsequently nerfed Swarm Host locusts 3 times in a row. The Swarm Hosts were fulfilling their role well in moderate numbers, but a case of exponentially increasing returns made it so that, instead of stopping at 5 or 10 Swarm Hosts, people were building 20+ and nothing could stop them. I will try and provide video examples of this later, but I do not have any offhand right now. But what if we could make the Swarm Hosts effective in smaller numbers, but weaker in very large numbers? This way, the unit would have that threatening presense you talk about when it first hits the map, and, like the Mutalisk example of Sniper, can have an immediate, tangible impact on the game when they spawn. I believe that my changes address this concern, but will require some actual testing before I can confirm this. 4. Risk/reward enherent in controlling units (using the Siege Tank as an example). You make a very good point, that if someone miscontrols any unit, they should be punished for it. If someone has their siege tanks or colossi out of position, then they can and will be picked off by a competent user. You raise the question, how is this any different than when a player gets his Swarm Hosts picked off? Well, I feel the major diference here, is that when a Zerg player loses his Swarm Hosts to a frontal attack on them while sieging an enemy position, the issue isn't that he miscontrolled the Swarm Hosts, but that he didn't reach a critical mass of Swarm Hosts = locusts to properly utilize the unit in the first place. Siege tanks don't need to be massed to be effective. If you have 2-3 siege tanks added in a ZvT or a TvT, they are often enough to make a huge difference in the flow of the game. The Colossi behaves in a similar fashion, and in PvT/Z, each incremental Colossi that is added onto the Protoss army in the midgame gives the collective strength of the Protoss army a huge boost in value. Now, production mechanics for Zerg are very different than Terran and Protoss, and the unit must be balanced around them. It would not be realistic to give the Zerg a colossus, because of their ability to produce many of them at once, when the Colossus is balanced around a much slower potential rate of production. That being said, I do not feel that the Swarm Host is in a good place right now with respect to the number of units needed to have an impact on the game. Going back to the Blizzcon Swarm Host example again, the Zerg had 8 Swarm Hosts sieging a position. THat is an inevstment of 1900/1100, assuming current unit/upgrade/building costs. This represents a huge, huge investment into the unit, and yet it is only able to tickle the opponent. What if, instead of sitting in his base, the Terran army just stimmed out, scanned, and started picking off the units? This is possible because there is not a critical mass of the unit out. WHat if there were 15 Swarm Hosts, instead of the 8 or so shown in the vidow? Well, the situation would be completely different, and the Terran assault would likely be unsuccessful. I am trying to find a way to address the design issue where you need this critical mass, or all-or-nothing quantity of the unit to be effective on the battlefield, and I feel that my changes go a long ways in correcting this. 5. The original (Dustin Browder) Intentions for the Swarm Host Ah! Last but not least, we get to talk about what the role of the unit was supposed to be in the first place! Rather than making myself look foolish, I will be writing down here what the Rock himself said at last year's Blizzcon where they unveiled the idea for the unit: "I wanna talk about a new zerg artillery unit called the Swarm Host. Now this guy is a great way to gain map control, and what he does, is he burrows and spitts out for free, a bunch of little timed-life units called locusts, which swarm accross the map. Itt's a very Zerg way to get an artilery unit, and a very Zerg way to get a bit of static map control.... We wanted something they could use to also fundamentally apply some pressure. We wanted some way to force them to deal with the Zerg who had some kind of fundamental advantage." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOrHnvRIu1ASorry if I didn't quote him perfectly there, but I think it was pretty close. So, Dustin seems to think the unit is to: -gain map control -apply pressure to a turtling opponent, in avery zergy way I strongly believe that the current itteration of the Swarm Host does not accomplish either of these goals until you reach a very, very large number of Swarm Hosts (12-15+). Anything less than that, and the locust waves aren't large enough to break down a fortified defensive position, and they aren't really strong enough to defend themselves or an area out on the map (map control). Interestingly, Dustin mentions that the locusts were 90 health in the video, so they have indeed brought down the health of locusts since its first iteration. I still believe that my proposed solution is likely to be most effective in addressing these issues. However, my main goal for the unit is to be successful in the expansion, and to create interesting, dynamic gameoplay while giving the Zerg player a Tier 2 option that is worth investing, and provides unique advantages that they could not otherwise have access to. I would like to thank you for bringing these criticisms to light. It is very important that my arguments can stand up to harsh criticism if they are to be taken seriously by Blizzard and some of the Blue Posters, which was the main motivating factor behind making this thread in the first place. If you would like to continue our discussion of the unit I would be more than happy to do so! *Now, for a question for you about the Swarm Host You seem to share my dissatisfaction of the unit in its current state, but disagree with my proposed solutions. So, how would YOU fix the Swarm Host if you were Dustin Browder, the Rock himself?
*References*
[spoiler][1] http://m.uk.gamespot.com/starcraft-ii-heart-of-the-swarm/previews/starcraft-ii-heart-of-the-swarm-qanda-with-dustin-browder-6325853/ [2] http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/7320452623
Thank you to those who have taken the time to read the main post, or the summarized version at the end :D
|
That's a monstruous read, I'll tackle it later after work.
|
I suggest you paste the thread here in spoiler tags as the Bnet light-on-dark theme is a pain to read for long posts.
I am in the BETA and I read (most of) your post and I must say, I don't know if I should agree or not. I don't think the game has settled enough to find out if the Swarm Host is broken the way you described it. I mean, for me it's the least broken new unit in HoTS.
The post is long and detailed but you missed something: How do we know if the SH itself needs to be changed as opposed to changing other units to give or take utility to the SH?
|
Poland3743 Posts
It sounds a bit like BW late game switch to Carriers in PvT is all-in as well: if the terran player will build enough Goliaths in time and overcome Protoss fleet, protoss player won't have a way to stop incoming mech army. On the other hand if the Carriers will arrive in time and numbers + they are handled properly, terran player won't stand a chance.
I don't consider late game tech choice as an all-in even if it is based around single unit.
|
Very well thought out. Thanks for the link!
|
Thanks for the suggestions Don.681, I just updated the OP.
As for your question, I feel there are some design issues with the unit that can't be addressed by adjusting the stats of other units. Right now, if you want to use the unit effectively, you have to invest so many resources into the unit, that you effectively become allin. You can change other units to make Swarm Host strats more or less effective, but it doesn't change the fact that Swarm Hosts are extremely weak before they reach a critical mass, and it is incredibly difficult to transition out of a Swarm Host-based composition.
The OP isn't a balance post, but rather a design post. There are plenty of examples of players winning and losing games when using Swarm Hosts, and they can certainly be effective in the right situations. The issue I would like to discuss is whether or not they allow for interesting gameplay. Right now, I would argue that they do not, and that to use the unit, you have to go all-in with it, not unlike a Stephano Roach max in ZvP.
|
I believe that Swarmhosts need the following changes to be a unit good in small numbers but bad in big numbers.
Swarmhost - Revert the Swarmhost HP buff - +Speed Locust - Expires in 20 sec, but moves quicker and also respawns in 20 sec - Has a larger hitbox than a normal Locust - Has a HP increase from 75(?) to 90
The Swarmhost should be given additional speed to encourage reposition micro. Most of the changes are on the Locust. Basically, this new Locust is a bigger, fatter version of the other one. This is to solve what I call the Zergling syndrome. For example, a Zergling loses to a Marine, but 2 Zerglings beat a Marine. The point here is that Zerglings are effective only in huge numbers (in a major battle), and that is the same problem with the current Locust. However, with the proposed Locust change, Locust grow less effective as the numbers grow bigger. This is because the Locust now has a larger hitbox, meaning less Locusts will be attacking the opponent's units at a time (especially in chokes) and decreasing the total damage output of mass Locust. The Locusts' extremely limited time also means that most of the Locusts would time out before they even get a shot into the enemy. Now mass Swarmhosts will not be immediately game ending. But there's more.
Now that the Swarmhost is not as good in the army, let's cover it's harrassment/contain aspect. The faster-spawning Locusts will put additional pressure on the opponent, and makes sure the opponent goes out to deal with it, lest take uneccesary damage and losses from the Locusts (which is what the Swarmhost is meant to do). "But less time for the Locust means less distance covered! That would be totally unsafe for the Swarmhost as it has to go dangerously close to the opponent's base." This problem is solved with the increased speed of the Locust. More micro and decision-making has to be made when using these short-lived Locusts, and Locust stutter-step will come into play. Increased Locust health will ensure that they survive long enough to deal enough damage or kill a unit before they time out.
These changes sould correct the Swarmhost in a nice way and make it into a harrassment/containment unit it was meant to be. If you have anything to add about these ideas, I would like you to kindly lay them out on the table.
Edit: This is just my opinion on the Swarmhost. I don't think the Swarmhost should be a unit that is only good in mass, considering its cost and supply. It should be used to force the opponent to get out of their base to deal with the Zerg, not end the game when massed.
|
This whole post seem to revolve around the unit being part of the core army which makes me sad to even read... The amount of opportunity that the SH creates and thus openings in gameplay is probably one of the better things that's happened on hots so far. By putting pressure on one end just by harassing you pull the opponent apart which is huge especially since zerg can focus on catching the opponent at a perfect time while the opponent need to be wary on at least two ends simultaneously.
I do however feel that any unit that creates free units is bad design. I feel broodlings and infested terran are stupid design in general and locusts are not really better... Being able to trade nothing vs static defense or units over time is just strange and then add the fact that you mess with the supply system by adding temp army that becomes overwhelming means you have something that besides design will be hard to balance without bandaid which in turn will fuck even more with various design principles...
|
I've given this a tremendous amount of thought, and posted this two weeks ago regarding the Swarmhost: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/7200032560.
+ Show Spoiler +My problem with the Swarm Host is that the doesn't unit functions well with other Zerg units (at least in PvZ) and doesn't offer anything different in PvZ really.
The Swarmhost lacks synergy with the fast moving Roach and Speedling, so it becomes a different form of play in the same way that Colossus play differs from Templar play in PvT. That is fine, but they cost a lot, you need a lot to make them work and the Swarmhost doesn't work that well with Ultralisk or Broodlords, limiting transitions. Compare this to the Infestor, which you can invest a lot into during the mid-game and use them defensively or offensively and then they synergize well with Broodlords or Ultralisks in the late game. Swarm Hosts do not synergize well with Ultralisks or Broodlords in the late game, so if you want to transition into the late game from the mid game, Infestors are still the best choice by far.
And when you are building large amounts of Swarmhosts, you have to end the game with that composition due to their cost and the fact they don't synergize with Broods or Ultralisks (you won't be able to protect your Broods like Infestors can, and Ultralisks will just get blocked by the Locusts and Fungal won't be there to hold units down for Ultralisks) so they will be best used for all-ins. Thus in many ways, they function like Hydras do in PvZ, good for some all-in timings, but not viable for late game play.
And so Zerg can build a bunch of them and hit a timing with Corrupters and Hydras or Infestors or whatever, but the Protoss player doesn't really need to do much different than standard play, teching up to Colossus and building a few for the lategame deathball (note that unlike the Swarm Host the Colossus works well in the mid-game and then transitions well as part of the late game deathball). It is these Colossus that allow you to defeat Swarm Hosts. So you simply need to scout your opponent, realize they are heading for Swarmhosts, and cut your tech and produce a lot of units. So you hold them the same way you'd hold any other all-in. The Swarmhost then just provides another all-in opportunity for Zerg in PvZ, rather than a new unique and interesting style of play.
I haven't had many issues with Swarmhosts as a Protoss player. I lose to them when I don't scout for them or prepare for them properly as I should. I have been playing versus Masters and GM Zergs lately.
It is indeed an all-in unit, and one that doesn't synergize well with Hive Tech units as I explained in that post. At this point I am fairly certain there is not a way to fix this. It is a bad unit design. Either the unit ends up being Broods unnecessary because it is so powerful, or it ends simply not being used because Broods are a better choice. There really isn't any middle ground here due to the nature of the unit in relation to other Zerg units and the fact that you need a lot of them to be effective. Once you've committed to them, you have to stick with them. I will say that Vipers would probably work well with them though.
It is a shame too, because the Swarmhost was one of the units I think seemed fun, but in the end it needs to be removed or radically altered.
|
Hi Kyuki,
Thanks for your response. I think there are two problems with using Swarm Hosts for harassment purposes, as you suggested in your post, and I will do my best to explain why feel this way.
First, I do not feel like a small number of Swarm Hosts is capable of inflicting any significant amount of damage. The locusts really need to hit a critical mass in order to become effective, and players can completely negate this kind of harassment with, for example, a couple of well-placed siege tanks. Compare a group of Swarm Hosts used for harassment, to a marine-drop. While the locusts risk not being able to accomplish anything, the amount of damage that the marines can inflict is devestating. One form of harassment will force an immediate response and require the enemy to seperate his army, while the other will now.
Second, by using your Swarm Hosts as a seperate harassment force, they become extremely vulnerable and risk being picked off quite easily. Swarm Hosts really function as the main army/damage dealer, and the rest of your units function as a means of supporting your Swarm Host investment. This can be compared to Colossi-based compositions, where your sentries/stalkers function to keep your Colossi alive, so that they capitalize on their attack.
Swarm Hosts really don't lend themselves to being used seperately from your supporting units, and require players to use your units in a deathball manner. This doesn't lend itself to exciting gameplay, and just highlights many of the issues that were present in WOL gameplay.
|
Hi Bronzeknee,
I still believe that the Swarm Host can be fixed if David Kim and Dustin Browder are willing to swallow their pride and make some drastic design changes to the unit.
That being said, I completely agree with what you are saying, and have had the exact same experience with the unit, but from the Zerg side of the ZvP matchup.
|
As I said, it can work if radically altered, but I doubt they will do that.
In my opinion HOTS has been a disaster. They've tried to force unnecessary units into the game, and before they are even balanced, they start changing a bunch of stuff to get them to work. So with that in mind, I doubt they will change to the Swarm Host enough to make it work well.
|
I'm diamond in HotS.
And I dont see any problem with the swarm host. Very fun to play.
Its a QQ thread
User was warned for this post
|
On December 16 2012 01:55 Gyro_SC2 wrote: I'm diamond in HotS.
And I dont see any problem with the swarm host. Very fun to play.
Its a QQ thread
In what way is this a QQ thread? Just because you find it fun to play with doesn't mean everyone else does.
|
I'm Master in WoL and HotS and from my point of view this unit is a complete waste always. I couldn't find any reason why you should prefer making a swarm host instead of another unit. It's so expensive and supply heavy that you are always better off making other units. The only reason I've used them in the beta was when I laddered myself back into the master league and ofc I was able to use them in masses vs some bad players. But while doing so I was 100% sure that I'd be better of if I would have just made other units. The swarm host itself is so slow that you can hardly use it to attack. Maybe you can use it to contain your opponent but this containment will only work until your opponent has detection and then you lose tons of minerals without doing much damage. In ZvP they are just a waste once colossi or VoidRays are out.
They are such a huge investment with pretty small use imho.
|
On December 16 2012 01:55 Gyro_SC2 wrote: I'm diamond in HotS.
And I dont see any problem with the swarm host. Very fun to play.
Its a QQ thread
Hi Gyro_SC2,
This thread is not intended as a QQ thread. "QQ" implies that this thread is a balance whine thread, when in reality I have not made any claims to the unit being over or under-powered. Rather, that it promotes uninteresting gameplay.
|
Nah, it's a "typical blizzard design fail" whine, which we've had a lot more of for some time now. Man did we all think Hellions were worthless until SlayerS figured out how to use them. Basically you're saying mass swarm host is all-in, while pure swarm host in low numbers doesn't cut it. Go figure. If you've explored trying to play with an army with swarm host support and tried to figure out exactly what tactical benefits you can gain from adding swarm hosts to regular armies, I'd like to read more about that. Until then, this is a QQ thread.
|
On December 16 2012 01:55 Gyro_SC2 wrote: I'm diamond in HotS.
And I dont see any problem with the swarm host. Very fun to play.
Its a QQ thread You obviously didn't read anything at all from this topic with that kind of response, which is ok, the post is very big, but if you didn't read it, then don't post at all.
I will post my idea from other SH thread.
I would like to increase the size of the Swarm Hosts, like to the size of the current Thor or something like that, make them massive, increase the cost to 300/200/4(or even 6 supply), and make them spawn 4 Locusts at once, and have an upgrade that will allow them to spawn 2 more Locusts. Remove the current enduring Locusts upgrade, and let them last 20 seconds with 25 seconds spawn cooldown. Of course, increase the Health of the Swarm Hosts to the 200 for example and you can maybe even nerf the Locusts.
That way, we will avoid critical mass of the Swarm Hosts, where players only mass them, and we can see like 3-4 Swarm Hosts being viable in many army compositions. And you won't see masses of them, since you will invest A LOT into them, and when enemy has good AoE units like 3+ Colossi or 6+ Siege Tanks, no matter how many Locusts you got, they will become close to useless.
So, what do you think? There are other suggestions too, for example your suggestion about Locusts having burrow movement and popping up when they are close to the enemies. Other could be to make them melee units, a bit faster, and let them leap to their targets, possibly even over the Force Fields(they are called Locusts, so why not?).
I agree that Swarm Hosts are all-in kind of unit. You have to invest a good chunk of money into them so they can do any damage at all, and even then, enemy can counter them easily, but you can't transition from them quite easily.
|
I agree with everything you said, except I would straight up remove swarm host and replace it with something different. I don't think it's possible to balance it, make it usable in different matchups and stages of the game and still make it interesting unit to watch.
|
On December 16 2012 03:08 Tuczniak wrote: I agree with everything you said, except I would straight up remove swarm host and replace it with something different. I don't think it's possible to balance it, make it usable in different matchups and stages of the game and still make it interesting unit to watch.
I am not sure if Blizz is willing to make such a drastic change as scrapping the unit altogether. Dustin Browder would be admitting that his idea didn't really work, and I think he is smart enough to know the impact this may have on himself.
Then there's the issue of the game being scheduled to release in less than 3 months. I'm not sure how feasible it would be at this point to just scrap the unit and put something else in its place. Just getting the artwork and the conceptual idea for a new unit might take longer than 3 months.
Finally, there are a lot of Zerg players voicing their concerns that they don't have many new options relative to Terran and Protoss in HOTS, and removing one of Zerg's two new units may not be a wise decision from a business standpoint. I think that the unit can still be redesigned to better fulfill its intended role, just that it would require Blizzard to recognize that there are some issues with the unit and to take a focused effort at addressing them. This is just my way of trying to bring some more attention to the topic, as I have done over at the Blizz forums.
|
On December 16 2012 03:25 ScoobySnacks wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 03:08 Tuczniak wrote: I agree with everything you said, except I would straight up remove swarm host and replace it with something different. I don't think it's possible to balance it, make it usable in different matchups and stages of the game and still make it interesting unit to watch. I am not sure if Blizz is willing to make such a drastic change as scrapping the unit altogether. Dustin Browder would be admitting that his idea didn't really work, and I think he is smart enough to know the impact this may have on himself. Then there's the issue of the game being scheduled to release in less than 3 months. I'm not sure how feasible it would be at this point to just scrap the unit and put something else in its place. Just getting the artwork and the conceptual idea for a new unit might take longer than 3 months. Finally, there are a lot of Zerg players voicing their concerns that they don't have many new options relative to Terran and Protoss in HOTS, and removing one of Zerg's two new units may not be a wise decision from a business standpoint. I think that the unit can still be redesigned to better fulfill its intended role, just that it would require Blizzard to recognize that there are some issues with the unit and to take a focused effort at addressing them. This is just my way of trying to bring some more attention to the topic, as I have done over at the Blizz forums. Yes, I know. It feels little sad that even though we are still in beta, we can see design flaw and know that we will have to live with it for next few years.
As you said SH needs to be useful in low numbers. That means just few locusts need to do something. But substantial to make it worth burrowing and unburrowing. The way I see it, they should be either very fast (+maybe leap or move underground). Otherwise they won't get to the target and low numbers are useless. Or they could have basically zero attack and so much health that it enables other zerg units use them as tanks to engage more freely. Though when I think about it, it may not be very good idea. But maybe someone could somehow make it better.
Haha, or make locusts have ensnare and weak attack (+ fast speed) or something like that. Just throwing ideas out there.
|
Russian Federation4295 Posts
What about making locusts as flying suicide units with anti-ground attack? Also without anti-building attack
|
My main idea for improving the Swarm Host was to give the Locust substantially improved survivability, while decreasing their DPS. I'm just currently revamping the solutions section, as there were a lot of cool ideas suggested in the Battle.net forum that I wanted to include as well.
The problem with locusts right now, is that they die so quickly, but if they do manage to reach their destination, they do a crazy amount of DPS. Think of it this way; let's say a Protoss player takes a third base off of a FFE, and has an army capable of holding of X amount of locusts per wave. Any amount of locusts equal to or less than X will not accomplish anything, and the Swarm Hosts will prove to be a wasted investment. However, any amount of locusts over X will begin to inflict damage with their extremely-high DPS attack.
Maybe the Protoss army can hold of 11 Swarm Hosts comfortably in this example. So, 11 or less Swarm Hosts won't do anything. What about 12 Swarm Hosts? Well, you now have two locusts doing damage. Is that enough? Well, what if we have 16 Swarm Hosts sieging the base? There is this linear increase in DPS output, after this Locust threshold is reached. Either the Swarm Hosts are shut down, or Zerg can breach this threshold and start doing insane amounts of DPS.
This volatility issue is highlighted in ZvP, where Protoss best means of fighting the Locust with a ground army, Colossi and High Templar, have their weaknesses. Colossi can get shut-down by Corruptors (like in the Blade55555 ZvP example I examined in the OP), and Templar risk running out of energy. If Protoss loses access to this AOE damage and faces Locust numbers that have breached the threshold point (whatever it may be in a specific circumstance), then things get very bad very fast for our Protoss player. On the other hand, if Zerg can't justify his enourmous investment into Swarm Hosts, he is in a very bad position and risks being run over.
Improving Locust survivability while decreasing their damage output, as you have suggested in your post, could possibly solve these issues without needing to scrap the unit concept. These are my thoughts on what a possible solution might be for right now.
|
On December 16 2012 03:50 Existor wrote: What about making locusts as flying suicide units with anti-ground attack? Also without anti-building attack
This is not something that I had thought about before at all, and I am very interested in this type of idea. I just saw someone else post a thread about this in the general forums. But yea, it definitely sounds like an idea worth trying out.
|
On December 16 2012 03:50 Existor wrote: What about making locusts as flying suicide units with anti-ground attack? Also without anti-building attack
Problem is that Swarm Host should be Zerg Tier 2 Siege unit, and like that, it shouldn't really be able to attack air, that is even worse, that unit that can attack both Air and Ground, and is Siege unit is just begging to be massed.
|
I think the solution is really simple.
- reduce locust range or even make locust melee -> swarmhosts become worse when massed, because locusts get in each-other's way and can't surround efficiently, since they are quite slow
- significantly increase locust health (maybe double it) -> makes locusts more durable and less susceptible to splash
- maybe also slightly increase locust size -> helps both to mitigate AOE unleashed on locusts and to make swarmhosts worse when massed due to locusts getting in each other's way
Result: swarmhost becomes a nice and useful pressure unit in smaller quantities, but is worse when massed / all-ined with
|
I'll agree that it promotes some boring to watch gameplay as in if he does not have enough SHs he will be dead and if he does he wil win. But in th scenario that you brought up, the problem is taking a third as protoss. A zerg has several options to deal with the third: make 200/200 supply in roaches which creates the same problem as making 15+ SHs. Either the zerg kills or he dies. The other solution is getting a 4th or maybe even a 5th, but many zergs, for what ever reasons choose not to.
In summary, I believe the problem is not the SH, but something else. Unfortunately I don't know exactly what it may be. Either a vulnerability from protoss to defend a 3rd due to maps or unit design or the strenght of a zerg 3 base all-in.
|
On December 15 2012 23:58 ScoobySnacks wrote:
2. The Issue After testing the unit at the GM level in the beta, and watching/hearing other players use the Swarm Host, it appears that the Swarm Host is very weak in low numbers, but begins to gain considerable strength in very large numbers, roughly 15+. Really, to use this unit effectively at a higher level of play, you need to invest heavily into the unit, as making a small investment in Swarm Hosts will not benefit your army enough to justify the investment.
The problem that this relationship (weak in low numbers, considerably more effective in large numbers) creates is that by investing into the unit, you essentially become all-in, and the outcome of the game is decided by whether or not you can set up a deadly contain and break your opponent’s defensive position.
Kinda sounds like the Siege tank to me.
|
On December 16 2012 05:16 Zorgaz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 23:58 ScoobySnacks wrote:
2. The Issue After testing the unit at the GM level in the beta, and watching/hearing other players use the Swarm Host, it appears that the Swarm Host is very weak in low numbers, but begins to gain considerable strength in very large numbers, roughly 15+. Really, to use this unit effectively at a higher level of play, you need to invest heavily into the unit, as making a small investment in Swarm Hosts will not benefit your army enough to justify the investment.
The problem that this relationship (weak in low numbers, considerably more effective in large numbers) creates is that by investing into the unit, you essentially become all-in, and the outcome of the game is decided by whether or not you can set up a deadly contain and break your opponent’s defensive position.
Kinda sounds like the Siege tank to me.
yeah but unfortunately it lacks the ability for good positional play, like how 2 tanks on a high ground can thwart an entire rush.
|
On December 16 2012 05:16 Zorgaz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 23:58 ScoobySnacks wrote:
2. The Issue After testing the unit at the GM level in the beta, and watching/hearing other players use the Swarm Host, it appears that the Swarm Host is very weak in low numbers, but begins to gain considerable strength in very large numbers, roughly 15+. Really, to use this unit effectively at a higher level of play, you need to invest heavily into the unit, as making a small investment in Swarm Hosts will not benefit your army enough to justify the investment.
The problem that this relationship (weak in low numbers, considerably more effective in large numbers) creates is that by investing into the unit, you essentially become all-in, and the outcome of the game is decided by whether or not you can set up a deadly contain and break your opponent’s defensive position.
Kinda sounds like the Siege tank to me. How exactly? Even 2 Siege Tanks can make the difference, they can snipe Banelings, Infestors, Zerglings, can force the engagement, can shoot up the cliffs or down from them, have splash attack. And when I see Terran playing biomech, they often make like 4-6 Tanks and rest are the Marines and Medivacs. Same amount of Swarm Hosts(4-6) are wasted resources, they won't do anything, if you want Swarm Hosts to do anything, you have to mass them, which is bad.
|
As I see it, SH's of right now are not meant to do guaranteed damage, but more for binding the enemy army in place at a location, like in chess (I have this piece here, so you CANNOT move from this position). It's something that we don't see too much in sc2, this positional warfare. One example of it is TvT siegetank lines, where you have to be careful about how many tanks you remove to answer threats around the map, otherwise the other guy could potentially just unsiege and break the position. Because of this you can attack multiple places with greater possibility of gain, since the other guy could fuck up and remove too many forces from the binding. That, to me, is pretty exiting.
|
However the entire problem that the TS wants to address is that it doesnt work that way. Especially in TvT that does happen, because a few siege tanks can be devastating, freeing units from defense to attack in other places.
However a few swarmhosts wont do anything, you just overrun them. (The same is true for siege tanks in TvP btw).
|
United Kingdom12010 Posts
On December 16 2012 05:18 KimJongChill wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 05:16 Zorgaz wrote:On December 15 2012 23:58 ScoobySnacks wrote:
2. The Issue After testing the unit at the GM level in the beta, and watching/hearing other players use the Swarm Host, it appears that the Swarm Host is very weak in low numbers, but begins to gain considerable strength in very large numbers, roughly 15+. Really, to use this unit effectively at a higher level of play, you need to invest heavily into the unit, as making a small investment in Swarm Hosts will not benefit your army enough to justify the investment.
The problem that this relationship (weak in low numbers, considerably more effective in large numbers) creates is that by investing into the unit, you essentially become all-in, and the outcome of the game is decided by whether or not you can set up a deadly contain and break your opponent’s defensive position.
Kinda sounds like the Siege tank to me. yeah but unfortunately it lacks the ability for good positional play, like how 2 tanks on a high ground can thwart an entire rush.
I'm not sure what game you're playing where 2 siege tanks can stop an entire army, but it certainly isn't SC2 :p
|
I'm curious if this would be an interesting solution, not to all of the SH problems, but an idea to throw out and see if it makes any sense:
Upgrade: (Call it something) 200 minerals / 200 gas / 170 seconds / requires hive tech + ultralisk cavern/ research from infestor pit Each swarm host produces an additional locus per SWARM HOST (from 2 to 3)
(I was also thinking rather than a permanent upgrade, it can be a "form transformation" research instead, in which one can switch from a regular swarm host that produces 2 locus, to a SH form that produces 3 locus, but with a vastly reduced movement speed due to "bigger egg sacks maybe")
Note that this upgrade will require at least hive tech and an ultralisk cavern, so it is a late late late game tech upgrade. So this is one potential solution for late game madness. Note that the time it takes is the same as stim upgrade.
(Strengths)
This may alleviate late game issues in which one needs to invest so heavily into SH to make it effective (instead of 15, you can make 10).
(Weakness)
This might potientially make the zerg army lategame super super strong, in which other balances might be needed to address.
----------------------------------------
I would be curious of blizzard's intention of the SH. Maybe it was never meant to be useful in very small numbers.
|
From the very first SH video we saw I knew this unit was gonna be a problem, its a unit that's either ridiculously op or very useless and I still have no clue how it can be balanced without drastically changing how it works.
The only suggestion which I think could maybe help with minimal changes would be if the SH built up a larger total locust count but it took longer to replenish in whole and you could fire off locusts at any time, basically working like the carrier does with interceptors. This way if you build up locusts by waiting a bit you can get a larger overall burst of units at a time, something along those lines.
|
I think the main problem why swarmhosts suck as area control units is because there is no upfront damage. Consider that if you walk your group of marines near tanks and unexpectedly eat a volley of tank shots, you get instantaneous damage and go "oh shit!!" then you back your marines away to avoid further casualties. Same for collosi, they do fast front load damage, which inspires fear to venture into that area. Lurkers did this very well in BW.
Swarmhosts, in contrast, are very slow, don't do very much damage upfront. Their damage is instead, sustaining damage that you can move away from, or completely circumvent the damage. In extreme cases, swarmhosts' damages can be mitigated all together with ground AOE like....tanks and collosi. It's just very poor design as an area control.
The unit serves the purpose of delay tactics, at best.
I purpose giving locusts upfront damage. Such as let them latch onto a nearby enemy unit, leaping at a range of 3 or so, like those face huggers from Aliens. The unit takes an immediate 30-50 damage and forces a response from the enemy player.
Frontload damage is the only way to have area control.
|
Nice idea. But i don't know... I don't understand why blizzard is interpretating around their game so much... the word zergy is used for units that don't serve any purpose in a sc bw Zerg army. I mean yeah 1 unit that can produce stuff is okay and cool but 3 is just sad and kind of imba . Atleast for now. I don't want to be a broodwar purist or something but lurker would make so much more sense at all... Same goes for hellions to drop spider mines btw. But this will never happen as it would lead to just one new unit for terran I am more posivtive for HOTS than this might sound but some of the new ideas sound too much like bad recycling or just building a flying deathball instead of a walking one
It would still be an improofement as to the current state probably. I think locusts just look dumb
|
On December 16 2012 05:52 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 05:18 KimJongChill wrote:On December 16 2012 05:16 Zorgaz wrote:On December 15 2012 23:58 ScoobySnacks wrote:
2. The Issue After testing the unit at the GM level in the beta, and watching/hearing other players use the Swarm Host, it appears that the Swarm Host is very weak in low numbers, but begins to gain considerable strength in very large numbers, roughly 15+. Really, to use this unit effectively at a higher level of play, you need to invest heavily into the unit, as making a small investment in Swarm Hosts will not benefit your army enough to justify the investment.
The problem that this relationship (weak in low numbers, considerably more effective in large numbers) creates is that by investing into the unit, you essentially become all-in, and the outcome of the game is decided by whether or not you can set up a deadly contain and break your opponent’s defensive position.
Kinda sounds like the Siege tank to me. yeah but unfortunately it lacks the ability for good positional play, like how 2 tanks on a high ground can thwart an entire rush. I'm not sure what game you're playing where 2 siege tanks can stop an entire army, but it certainly isn't SC2 :p
Oh yeah... I really hope there comes some day the magical day... and woooosh siege tanks deal some demage maybe not the next year ... but one day... hell its about time o0
Edit: Again double post I am sorry ><
|
Isn't swarmhosts supposed to make your opponent react to them and move out to get rid of them. Since you are not losing anything by pressuring your opponent with locusts you can just set up a flank for when your opponent moves out. 5-6 swarmhosts should be enough to make your opponent move out, then just swarm him.
|
On December 16 2012 06:05 rembrant wrote: From the very first SH video we saw I knew this unit was gonna be a problem, its a unit that's either ridiculously op or very useless and I still have no clue how it can be balanced without drastically changing how it works.
The only suggestion which I think could maybe help with minimal changes would be if the SH built up a larger total locust count but it took longer to replenish in whole and you could fire off locusts at any time, basically working like the carrier does with interceptors. This way if you build up locusts by waiting a bit you can get a larger overall burst of units at a time, something along those lines.
I want to echo this as a possible improvement, because I was thinking the same thing from the beginning of the thread. Let me try to flesh this out a little.
Right now part of the "critical mass" problem is the fact that, when you assault an enemy position, the defenses are able to take out a certain number of locusts before they do any damage. Let's imagine that you are assaulting an intrenched terran who has the dps to take out a maximum of 20 locusts before any damage is taken. This means that you need to have at least 11 swarm hosts to accomplish anything at all, and once you have 11, each additional swarm host adds hugely to the amt of damage that can be done.
Now let's imagine that swarm hosts function as follows: they still produce locusts at the same rate as presently. For the sake of the example, let's just say they presently produce 2 every 20 seconds. The new swarm host will produce 1 every 10 seconds. There will be a maximum number of locusts per swarm host. Let's just say: 8. These locusts get stored up and can be released all at once. In addition, you can place a burrowed swarm host on "auto-release" so that every time a new locust is produced, it will be released. This allows you to continue chipping steadily away at a position once you have broken its defenses entirely.
This change would make a huge difference, but would have to be balanced carefully. In the initial scenario, you now only need 3 swarm hosts to build 24 locusts at once, breach the 20-locust threshold, and begin to do damage. But it will take 80 seconds to achieve this. Additionally, the locusts still time out in such a way that the maximum potential damage for a mass release is capped by the damage output of the locusts over their life expectancy.
Now the obvious danger of this change is: what if you went ahead and built 10+ swarmhosts anyway. That could potentially be devastating. But this would be a risk because you would have to wait to build up all the locusts and you would only get one shot to do this massive damage every 80 seconds. In the meantime you would be vulnerable to attacks that the present SH is not vulnerable to since its continuous small waves of locusts provide a kind of screen against attacking units.
Here are some other changes that might need to accompany this for balancing purposes. It might be found that, since total damage output is (locust #)x(dps)x(endurance time), the endurance time of locusts makes the potential damage of a big wave just too high. On the other hand, if you decrease endurance time, then you cannot siege from as great a distance. Perhaps this would call for much faster locusts that can arrive at a distant siege location quickly but that last for much less time. The speed increase would only affect the sorts of attack positions the locusts could reach while the shorter endurance would nerf total damage output.
Another consideration is that it might be too powerful to allow unburrowed SH to kite away after releasing a big wave and still be producing new locusts while getting to safety. This could be balanced by requiring SH to be burrowed in order to build up the inventory of locusts.
Finally, I think larger "volleys" of locusts would make re-position micro a lot more interesting with SH, and they would become a much more interesting and sneaky sort of siege unit, the likes of which we have never seen. Imagine 3 swarm hosts releasing 24 locusts to level a couple of missile turrets and immediately withdrawing while a flock of mutas swoops in for worker harass.
|
It is hard to make a unit with such a good survivability good in low numbers, because it is hard to make something like this bad in big numbers. Also it would actively work against the swarmy Zerg picture. Either they reduce the survivability in exchange for making them better in low numbers (would become a problem if someone is good at keeping them alive) or they make it impossible to get alot of this unit (Roach Supply Syndrome).
For me the Swarmhost is just an harassment and slow down unit and it does its job there. And they work like tanks, the more shots you get off the better, just that they shoot really slow, but have insane range. Sadly they made the Locust a Miniroach, which makes it hard for other Zerg units to move together with the Locust and also because of their high damage the tanking ability had to be reduced.
I like them anyway, burrow ... shoot ... run away ... burrow ... shoot ... run away. Sounds like using a Lurker against tanks. Just that its more important to use your army along this. Never used them in high numbers though, so they never went do or die with them. But I would really like to see the Locust become more of a tank. Would dislike if the Swarmhost would be turned into a unit that can be used alone, like the Roach after all the changes it got, to become either to use for players.
|
United Arab Emirates439 Posts
I. The Swarm Host is largely ineffective in small numbers (4-8), but becomes exponentially more effective as you reach a critical mass of the unit (12-15+). This is a case of increasing returns.
II. Investing into a critical mass of Swarm Hosts represents a huge investment. It is extremely difficult to transition out of this composition, as the investment essentially puts you "all in." Battles can become very lopsided very quickly, much like in lategame ZvP with Archon toilet vs Broodlord Infestor. One side often wins very convincingly here, and comebacks are not possible.
I really don't agree with (most of) this and I think it's really an issue of how most people use them right now that has people believing this. I do agree going for huge amounts of Swarm Hosts is more or less an "all in" in most situations. Going for this mass Swarm Host strategy is a good way of "economically leaning on" your opponent. Forcing them to either counter the composition quickly enough or die slowly to waves of Locusts. But if they do get up enough Splash (or an Air army perhaps) then they can crush the Swarm Host army and often win the game (I suppose base trading is an option too). I 100% agree with you on this part.
Where I disagree is that Swarm Hosts are worse in small numbers. I think they just operate very differently than the Mass Swarm Host strategy, you aren't "leaning on" your opponent in the same way. Instead of basically forcing your opponent to counter your army in time or die, you are forcing your opponent to get a good position soon or die/take damage. Bouncing around with Swarm Hosts pressuring different locations over and over is very strong against a player who has no map control or vision. Especially against a Mech Terran who will primarily rely on Siege Tanks to deal with Locusts. If you gain map control and then bounce around between 2/3 locations with only ~8 Swarm Hosts constantly it is very hard for a Terran to deal with if they don't have vision of the Swarm Hosts to see where they are moving. The only way to deal with it without vision of your Swarm Hosts is to get a high enough Siege Tank count to split between 2 (or 3 on some maps) places. This is a way to force your opponent into a certain army composition with less investment on your part than on his, not to mention before he has the resources to do this you often will do at least a bit of damage. During this time it can also open up opportunities for counter-attacks where his Splash units aren't.
|
On December 16 2012 06:59 ZjiublingZ wrote:Show nested quote +I. The Swarm Host is largely ineffective in small numbers (4-8), but becomes exponentially more effective as you reach a critical mass of the unit (12-15+). This is a case of increasing returns.
II. Investing into a critical mass of Swarm Hosts represents a huge investment. It is extremely difficult to transition out of this composition, as the investment essentially puts you "all in." Battles can become very lopsided very quickly, much like in lategame ZvP with Archon toilet vs Broodlord Infestor. One side often wins very convincingly here, and comebacks are not possible. I really don't agree with (most of) this and I think it's really an issue of how most people use them right now that has people believing this. I do agree going for huge amounts of Swarm Hosts is more or less an "all in" in most situations. Going for this mass Swarm Host strategy is a good way of "economically leaning on" your opponent. Forcing them to either counter the composition quickly enough or die slowly to waves of Locusts. But if they do get up enough Splash (or an Air army perhaps) then they can crush the Swarm Host army and often win the game (I suppose base trading is an option too). I 100% agree with you on this part. Where I disagree is that Swarm Hosts are worse in small numbers. I think they just operate very differently than the Mass Swarm Host strategy, you aren't "leaning on" your opponent in the same way. Instead of basically forcing your opponent to counter your army in time or die, you are forcing your opponent to get a good position soon or die/take damage. Bouncing around with Swarm Hosts pressuring different locations over and over is very strong against a player who has no map control or vision. Especially against a Mech Terran who will primarily rely on Siege Tanks to deal with Locusts. If you gain map control and then bounce around between 2/3 locations with only ~8 Swarm Hosts constantly it is very hard for a Terran to deal with if they don't have vision of the Swarm Hosts to see where they are moving. The only way to deal with it without vision of your Swarm Hosts is to get a high enough Siege Tank count to split between 2 (or 3 on some maps) places. This is a way to force your opponent into a certain army composition with less investment on your part than on his, not to mention before he has the resources to do this you often will do at least a bit of damage. During this time it can also open up opportunities for counter-attacks where his Splash units aren't.
Against a mech terran it's better to just blinding cloud and be aggresive with a hydra roach army.
A few units can deny a swarm host from ever dealing damage. Literally any army composition pretty much shits on swarm hosts unless you're seriously massing them. It's not like a siege tank where the damage is guaranteed and WILL whittle you down.
In zvp in particular a lot of times you're sitting there sending locusts up to an enemy army and they can just sit there forever with colossus forever outranging them. And if they opened stargate? Welp. You may as well have just went hydras in the first place.
|
The SH is just another poorly made unit that further indicts the developers. They aren't their predecessors, that's for sure. They might as well put in the lurker and tweak how much aoe it does, but they decided to make a semi lurker knockoff that wasn't nearly as well made. Look what happened.
The biggest issue for me is how much you have to commit to SH, it's so irritating when you think about adding a couple to your army and then realize you can't do it. A lot of times they ARE YOUR ARMY. It would be like going mass lurker in order to make lurkers work. They also suffer from the long respawn time of locusts which compromises the SH in small numbers, they just don't threaten enough and are too often unable to attack at all because of the respawn time. Then you realize you can't have it be a 3 second CD or anything because then the locusts would obviously be OP and pile up. Then you'd have to nerf the duration of locusts but they'd become worthless because they wouldn't have enough time do actually do damage since they're slow.
|
On December 16 2012 07:05 Glurkenspurk wrote: It's not like a siege tank where the damage is guaranteed and WILL whittle you down.
This is the issue I have with them, same issue I have with Broodlords. Lurkers were a better unit because their attacks were stealth and they hit a defined target (or at least a defined area). You could use them for defense for this reason, same as tanks. Locusts take time to spawn and time to get into position. The delay makes it so that you have to mass SH's to get any real effect out of them. Locusts and broodlings getting in the way of other units is also annoying. I'd much rather see broodlings kamikaze their targets and not run around on the ground, but that's another topic entirely.
But what I really want SH's to be is allowing static defense and map contain. I don't need them to be an offensive unit per se, just one I can use to gain map control across the board. But the rate at which locusts spawn, and their speed makes it so that this isn't a real option. In small numbers you run the risk of there being no attack output and it's too easy to break. At larger numbers they become an offensive weapon which imho they shouldn't really be.
If it was me I would speed up the locusts spawn, and increase burrow time of SH's to compensate. You could also make locusts burrow up to their rally point as well if you so choose. But if you want them to work in low numbers you need to have a more consistent attack, like a tank would. And if you don't want to turn them into an offensive powerhouse you need to make it so that they are not as mobile, IE increased burrow time so that massing them for offense is not as feasible.
|
So on a similar topic of this thread, for all the people saying swarm hosts are good. Can anyone show me ANY recent games where swarm hosts were used to deny space in any meaningful way? I have yet to see space control being useful AT ALL in a game where most players pretty much only move out slightly in front of their new bases up until they are actually going to hit a timing attack. Small skirmishes do not happen enough for units like this to fit into the game in a way that makes sense, and as a siege unit they are clearly too weak to supplement a real army.
|
What if the locust had, say for easy math, 100 energy. Spawning a pair of locusts costs 20 energy with the energy generation of 15 or so per locust spawn. This way, every time you spawn you go -5 energy. If z stays for an extended assault with locusts, eventually he will run out, and be forced to move back(or be killed). This would limit the amount of mass SH, burrow attack and win, or attack and lose. Z will have to retreat after a short assault. There would have to be other changes made to the SH, to change their effectiveness in low numbers, but that should limit the "massing" SH power. A proper defence can hold until SH energy is gone, then the counter attack can easily pick off no energy swarm hosts.
|
Russian Federation4295 Posts
On December 16 2012 07:54 HumpingHydra wrote: What if the locust had, say for easy math, 100 energy. Spawning a pair of locusts costs 20 energy with the energy generation of 15 or so per locust spawn. This way, every time you spawn you go -5 energy. If z stays for an extended assault with locusts, eventually he will run out, and be forced to move back(or be killed). This would limit the amount of mass SH, burrow attack and win, or attack and lose. Z will have to retreat after a short assault. There would have to be other changes made to the SH, to change their effectiveness in low numbers, but that should limit the "massing" SH power. A proper defence can hold until SH energy is gone, then the counter attack can easily pick off no energy swarm hosts. Ghosts with emp will be useful now against swarm host. Love that idea as zerg
|
United Arab Emirates439 Posts
On December 16 2012 07:05 Glurkenspurk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 06:59 ZjiublingZ wrote:I. The Swarm Host is largely ineffective in small numbers (4-8), but becomes exponentially more effective as you reach a critical mass of the unit (12-15+). This is a case of increasing returns.
II. Investing into a critical mass of Swarm Hosts represents a huge investment. It is extremely difficult to transition out of this composition, as the investment essentially puts you "all in." Battles can become very lopsided very quickly, much like in lategame ZvP with Archon toilet vs Broodlord Infestor. One side often wins very convincingly here, and comebacks are not possible. I really don't agree with (most of) this and I think it's really an issue of how most people use them right now that has people believing this. I do agree going for huge amounts of Swarm Hosts is more or less an "all in" in most situations. Going for this mass Swarm Host strategy is a good way of "economically leaning on" your opponent. Forcing them to either counter the composition quickly enough or die slowly to waves of Locusts. But if they do get up enough Splash (or an Air army perhaps) then they can crush the Swarm Host army and often win the game (I suppose base trading is an option too). I 100% agree with you on this part. Where I disagree is that Swarm Hosts are worse in small numbers. I think they just operate very differently than the Mass Swarm Host strategy, you aren't "leaning on" your opponent in the same way. Instead of basically forcing your opponent to counter your army in time or die, you are forcing your opponent to get a good position soon or die/take damage. Bouncing around with Swarm Hosts pressuring different locations over and over is very strong against a player who has no map control or vision. Especially against a Mech Terran who will primarily rely on Siege Tanks to deal with Locusts. If you gain map control and then bounce around between 2/3 locations with only ~8 Swarm Hosts constantly it is very hard for a Terran to deal with if they don't have vision of the Swarm Hosts to see where they are moving. The only way to deal with it without vision of your Swarm Hosts is to get a high enough Siege Tank count to split between 2 (or 3 on some maps) places. This is a way to force your opponent into a certain army composition with less investment on your part than on his, not to mention before he has the resources to do this you often will do at least a bit of damage. During this time it can also open up opportunities for counter-attacks where his Splash units aren't. Against a mech terran it's better to just blinding cloud and be aggresive with a hydra roach army. A few units can deny a swarm host from ever dealing damage. Literally any army composition pretty much shits on swarm hosts unless you're seriously massing them. It's not like a siege tank where the damage is guaranteed and WILL whittle you down. In zvp in particular a lot of times you're sitting there sending locusts up to an enemy army and they can just sit there forever with colossus forever outranging them. And if they opened stargate? Welp. You may as well have just went hydras in the first place.
DId you even read my post...? First off, I wasn't talking about whether or not Swarm Hosts as a whole are the best composition vs anything, I was disagreeing with the idea that Swarm Hosts in small numbers accomplish very little and you have to get big numbers of them to have any effect. Swarm Hosts can work in some situations. I'm not talking about if Roach/Hydra Viper is better as a general strategy (which everyone already knows at this point it is...)
Second,
In zvp in particular a lot of times you're sitting there sending locusts up to an enemy army
Once again, I have to ask, did you even read my post? If you're just sitting there, that's your fault. I specifically talked about how that's why people have this bad impression of them, because they just sit there with them. Use them to spread the Protoss out.
|
I honestly think they should remove it and put the lurker back in.
This unit has become the new Hydra, very situational and rarely used unless all-ining.
|
On December 16 2012 09:01 ZjiublingZ wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 07:05 Glurkenspurk wrote:On December 16 2012 06:59 ZjiublingZ wrote:I. The Swarm Host is largely ineffective in small numbers (4-8), but becomes exponentially more effective as you reach a critical mass of the unit (12-15+). This is a case of increasing returns.
II. Investing into a critical mass of Swarm Hosts represents a huge investment. It is extremely difficult to transition out of this composition, as the investment essentially puts you "all in." Battles can become very lopsided very quickly, much like in lategame ZvP with Archon toilet vs Broodlord Infestor. One side often wins very convincingly here, and comebacks are not possible. I really don't agree with (most of) this and I think it's really an issue of how most people use them right now that has people believing this. I do agree going for huge amounts of Swarm Hosts is more or less an "all in" in most situations. Going for this mass Swarm Host strategy is a good way of "economically leaning on" your opponent. Forcing them to either counter the composition quickly enough or die slowly to waves of Locusts. But if they do get up enough Splash (or an Air army perhaps) then they can crush the Swarm Host army and often win the game (I suppose base trading is an option too). I 100% agree with you on this part. Where I disagree is that Swarm Hosts are worse in small numbers. I think they just operate very differently than the Mass Swarm Host strategy, you aren't "leaning on" your opponent in the same way. Instead of basically forcing your opponent to counter your army in time or die, you are forcing your opponent to get a good position soon or die/take damage. Bouncing around with Swarm Hosts pressuring different locations over and over is very strong against a player who has no map control or vision. Especially against a Mech Terran who will primarily rely on Siege Tanks to deal with Locusts. If you gain map control and then bounce around between 2/3 locations with only ~8 Swarm Hosts constantly it is very hard for a Terran to deal with if they don't have vision of the Swarm Hosts to see where they are moving. The only way to deal with it without vision of your Swarm Hosts is to get a high enough Siege Tank count to split between 2 (or 3 on some maps) places. This is a way to force your opponent into a certain army composition with less investment on your part than on his, not to mention before he has the resources to do this you often will do at least a bit of damage. During this time it can also open up opportunities for counter-attacks where his Splash units aren't. Against a mech terran it's better to just blinding cloud and be aggresive with a hydra roach army. A few units can deny a swarm host from ever dealing damage. Literally any army composition pretty much shits on swarm hosts unless you're seriously massing them. It's not like a siege tank where the damage is guaranteed and WILL whittle you down. In zvp in particular a lot of times you're sitting there sending locusts up to an enemy army and they can just sit there forever with colossus forever outranging them. And if they opened stargate? Welp. You may as well have just went hydras in the first place. DId you even read my post...? First off, I wasn't talking about whether or not Swarm Hosts as a whole are the best composition vs anything, I was disagreeing with the idea that Swarm Hosts in small numbers accomplish very little and you have to get big numbers of them to have any effect. Swarm Hosts can work in some situations. I'm not talking about if Roach/Hydra Viper is better as a general strategy (which everyone already knows at this point it is...) Second, Show nested quote +In zvp in particular a lot of times you're sitting there sending locusts up to an enemy army Once again, I have to ask, did you even read my post? If you're just sitting there, that's your fault. I specifically talked about how that's why people have this bad impression of them, because they just sit there with them. Use them to spread the Protoss out.
Once you unborrow they just kill you...
|
On December 16 2012 06:43 mercurial_mind wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 06:05 rembrant wrote: From the very first SH video we saw I knew this unit was gonna be a problem, its a unit that's either ridiculously op or very useless and I still have no clue how it can be balanced without drastically changing how it works.
The only suggestion which I think could maybe help with minimal changes would be if the SH built up a larger total locust count but it took longer to replenish in whole and you could fire off locusts at any time, basically working like the carrier does with interceptors. This way if you build up locusts by waiting a bit you can get a larger overall burst of units at a time, something along those lines. I want to echo this as a possible improvement, because I was thinking the same thing from the beginning of the thread. Let me try to flesh this out a little. Right now part of the "critical mass" problem is the fact that, when you assault an enemy position, the defenses are able to take out a certain number of locusts before they do any damage. Let's imagine that you are assaulting an intrenched terran who has the dps to take out a maximum of 20 locusts before any damage is taken. This means that you need to have at least 11 swarm hosts to accomplish anything at all, and once you have 11, each additional swarm host adds hugely to the amt of damage that can be done. Now let's imagine that swarm hosts function as follows: they still produce locusts at the same rate as presently. For the sake of the example, let's just say they presently produce 2 every 20 seconds. The new swarm host will produce 1 every 10 seconds. There will be a maximum number of locusts per swarm host. Let's just say: 8. These locusts get stored up and can be released all at once. In addition, you can place a burrowed swarm host on "auto-release" so that every time a new locust is produced, it will be released. This allows you to continue chipping steadily away at a position once you have broken its defenses entirely. This change would make a huge difference, but would have to be balanced carefully. In the initial scenario, you now only need 3 swarm hosts to build 24 locusts at once, breach the 20-locust threshold, and begin to do damage. But it will take 80 seconds to achieve this. Additionally, the locusts still time out in such a way that the maximum potential damage for a mass release is capped by the damage output of the locusts over their life expectancy. Now the obvious danger of this change is: what if you went ahead and built 10+ swarmhosts anyway. That could potentially be devastating. But this would be a risk because you would have to wait to build up all the locusts and you would only get one shot to do this massive damage every 80 seconds. In the meantime you would be vulnerable to attacks that the present SH is not vulnerable to since its continuous small waves of locusts provide a kind of screen against attacking units. Here are some other changes that might need to accompany this for balancing purposes. It might be found that, since total damage output is (locust #)x(dps)x(endurance time), the endurance time of locusts makes the potential damage of a big wave just too high. On the other hand, if you decrease endurance time, then you cannot siege from as great a distance. Perhaps this would call for much faster locusts that can arrive at a distant siege location quickly but that last for much less time. The speed increase would only affect the sorts of attack positions the locusts could reach while the shorter endurance would nerf total damage output. Another consideration is that it might be too powerful to allow unburrowed SH to kite away after releasing a big wave and still be producing new locusts while getting to safety. This could be balanced by requiring SH to be burrowed in order to build up the inventory of locusts. Finally, I think larger "volleys" of locusts would make re-position micro a lot more interesting with SH, and they would become a much more interesting and sneaky sort of siege unit, the likes of which we have never seen. Imagine 3 swarm hosts releasing 24 locusts to level a couple of missile turrets and immediately withdrawing while a flock of mutas swoops in for worker harass.
As a whole, I really like this idea It would also be great if the Locusts had a kind of "leap" that the Raptor has in the HotS campaign that launches it into range of the enemy army. Plus, the notion of tiny units charging at you in waves would be "Zergy". It would be guaranteed damage and would increase the viability of a few Swarmhost.
|
I am unconvinced by the OP's argument. Some of the reasoning seems flawed like in order for them to be effective it takes a lot of investment. Well this is true for a lot of things in this game like carriers or broodlords. It sounds like he wants lurkers while swarm hosts fulfill a different function. It is not wrong for a unit to be designed to be primarily used in the main army. This unit as it stands allows Zerg to build a different type of army. An army that you can not turtle against that is not hive tech.
Oh we could tweak things here and there to make it more robust for different uses but the unit seems fine in concept. We could make the locusts move faster or slower, give it more or less range, give it more or less hp, or more or less timed life. Make swarm hosts move faster or slower, burrow faster or slower, respawn units faster or slower, make them spawn more or less units, or give them more or less hp.
You can mix and match any of these things and get the unit to become worse at some things or better at others.
|
On December 16 2012 10:28 porygon361 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 06:43 mercurial_mind wrote:On December 16 2012 06:05 rembrant wrote: From the very first SH video we saw I knew this unit was gonna be a problem, its a unit that's either ridiculously op or very useless and I still have no clue how it can be balanced without drastically changing how it works.
The only suggestion which I think could maybe help with minimal changes would be if the SH built up a larger total locust count but it took longer to replenish in whole and you could fire off locusts at any time, basically working like the carrier does with interceptors. This way if you build up locusts by waiting a bit you can get a larger overall burst of units at a time, something along those lines. I want to echo this as a possible improvement, because I was thinking the same thing from the beginning of the thread. Let me try to flesh this out a little. Right now part of the "critical mass" problem is the fact that, when you assault an enemy position, the defenses are able to take out a certain number of locusts before they do any damage. Let's imagine that you are assaulting an intrenched terran who has the dps to take out a maximum of 20 locusts before any damage is taken. This means that you need to have at least 11 swarm hosts to accomplish anything at all, and once you have 11, each additional swarm host adds hugely to the amt of damage that can be done. Now let's imagine that swarm hosts function as follows: they still produce locusts at the same rate as presently. For the sake of the example, let's just say they presently produce 2 every 20 seconds. The new swarm host will produce 1 every 10 seconds. There will be a maximum number of locusts per swarm host. Let's just say: 8. These locusts get stored up and can be released all at once. In addition, you can place a burrowed swarm host on "auto-release" so that every time a new locust is produced, it will be released. This allows you to continue chipping steadily away at a position once you have broken its defenses entirely. This change would make a huge difference, but would have to be balanced carefully. In the initial scenario, you now only need 3 swarm hosts to build 24 locusts at once, breach the 20-locust threshold, and begin to do damage. But it will take 80 seconds to achieve this. Additionally, the locusts still time out in such a way that the maximum potential damage for a mass release is capped by the damage output of the locusts over their life expectancy. Now the obvious danger of this change is: what if you went ahead and built 10+ swarmhosts anyway. That could potentially be devastating. But this would be a risk because you would have to wait to build up all the locusts and you would only get one shot to do this massive damage every 80 seconds. In the meantime you would be vulnerable to attacks that the present SH is not vulnerable to since its continuous small waves of locusts provide a kind of screen against attacking units. Here are some other changes that might need to accompany this for balancing purposes. It might be found that, since total damage output is (locust #)x(dps)x(endurance time), the endurance time of locusts makes the potential damage of a big wave just too high. On the other hand, if you decrease endurance time, then you cannot siege from as great a distance. Perhaps this would call for much faster locusts that can arrive at a distant siege location quickly but that last for much less time. The speed increase would only affect the sorts of attack positions the locusts could reach while the shorter endurance would nerf total damage output. Another consideration is that it might be too powerful to allow unburrowed SH to kite away after releasing a big wave and still be producing new locusts while getting to safety. This could be balanced by requiring SH to be burrowed in order to build up the inventory of locusts. Finally, I think larger "volleys" of locusts would make re-position micro a lot more interesting with SH, and they would become a much more interesting and sneaky sort of siege unit, the likes of which we have never seen. Imagine 3 swarm hosts releasing 24 locusts to level a couple of missile turrets and immediately withdrawing while a flock of mutas swoops in for worker harass. As a whole, I really like this idea It would also be great if the Locusts had a kind of "leap" that the Raptor has in the HotS campaign that launches it into range of the enemy army. Plus, the notion of tiny units charging at you in waves would be "Zergy". It would be guaranteed damage and would increase the viability of a few Swarmhost.
I think the next issue for swarm hosts is that the locusts take up space. Less surface area for melee units which equals less efficiency for them, so in order for swarm hosts to be useful as a support to all units the locust needs to be altered.
Burrow movement locusts who are revealed with detection or upon attacking would help zerglings and ultralisks gain the surface area without actually making the swarm host benefit only ranged units. With the burrow movement, you can scout the opponent and possibly do some worker harassment if they lack detection. Obviously lowering hp, length of time or speed of the locusts would be needed to help balance it. Or maybe even an upgrade to burrow the locusts.
Just my thought onto actually making it a support unit for all zerg units rather then just ranged ones.
|
Russian Federation4295 Posts
I think the next issue for swarm hosts is that the locusts take up space. Less surface area for melee units which equals less efficiency for them, so in order for swarm hosts to be useful as a support to all units the locust needs to be altered.
Burrowed locusts can be op. But air aren't much.
|
United Arab Emirates439 Posts
+ Show Spoiler +On December 16 2012 06:43 mercurial_mind wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 06:05 rembrant wrote: From the very first SH video we saw I knew this unit was gonna be a problem, its a unit that's either ridiculously op or very useless and I still have no clue how it can be balanced without drastically changing how it works.
The only suggestion which I think could maybe help with minimal changes would be if the SH built up a larger total locust count but it took longer to replenish in whole and you could fire off locusts at any time, basically working like the carrier does with interceptors. This way if you build up locusts by waiting a bit you can get a larger overall burst of units at a time, something along those lines. I want to echo this as a possible improvement, because I was thinking the same thing from the beginning of the thread. Let me try to flesh this out a little. Right now part of the "critical mass" problem is the fact that, when you assault an enemy position, the defenses are able to take out a certain number of locusts before they do any damage. Let's imagine that you are assaulting an intrenched terran who has the dps to take out a maximum of 20 locusts before any damage is taken. This means that you need to have at least 11 swarm hosts to accomplish anything at all, and once you have 11, each additional swarm host adds hugely to the amt of damage that can be done. Now let's imagine that swarm hosts function as follows: they still produce locusts at the same rate as presently. For the sake of the example, let's just say they presently produce 2 every 20 seconds. The new swarm host will produce 1 every 10 seconds. There will be a maximum number of locusts per swarm host. Let's just say: 8. These locusts get stored up and can be released all at once. In addition, you can place a burrowed swarm host on "auto-release" so that every time a new locust is produced, it will be released. This allows you to continue chipping steadily away at a position once you have broken its defenses entirely. This change would make a huge difference, but would have to be balanced carefully. In the initial scenario, you now only need 3 swarm hosts to build 24 locusts at once, breach the 20-locust threshold, and begin to do damage. But it will take 80 seconds to achieve this. Additionally, the locusts still time out in such a way that the maximum potential damage for a mass release is capped by the damage output of the locusts over their life expectancy. Now the obvious danger of this change is: what if you went ahead and built 10+ swarmhosts anyway. That could potentially be devastating. But this would be a risk because you would have to wait to build up all the locusts and you would only get one shot to do this massive damage every 80 seconds. In the meantime you would be vulnerable to attacks that the present SH is not vulnerable to since its continuous small waves of locusts provide a kind of screen against attacking units. Here are some other changes that might need to accompany this for balancing purposes. It might be found that, since total damage output is (locust #)x(dps)x(endurance time), the endurance time of locusts makes the potential damage of a big wave just too high. On the other hand, if you decrease endurance time, then you cannot siege from as great a distance. Perhaps this would call for much faster locusts that can arrive at a distant siege location quickly but that last for much less time. The speed increase would only affect the sorts of attack positions the locusts could reach while the shorter endurance would nerf total damage output. Another consideration is that it might be too powerful to allow unburrowed SH to kite away after releasing a big wave and still be producing new locusts while getting to safety. This could be balanced by requiring SH to be burrowed in order to build up the inventory of locusts. Finally, I think larger "volleys" of locusts would make re-position micro a lot more interesting with SH, and they would become a much more interesting and sneaky sort of siege unit, the likes of which we have never seen. Imagine 3 swarm hosts releasing 24 locusts to level a couple of missile turrets and immediately withdrawing while a flock of mutas swoops in for worker harass.
@ Mercurial_Mind: What you are saying is based on a false premise, or at least an incomplete picture, right here:
Right now part of the "critical mass" problem is the fact that, when you assault an enemy position, the defenses are able to take out a certain number of locusts before they do any damage. Let's imagine that you are assaulting an intrenched terran who has the dps to take out a maximum of 20 locusts before any damage is taken. This means that you need to have at least 11 swarm hosts to accomplish anything at all, and once you have 11, each additional swarm host adds hugely to the amt of damage that can be done.
This is only true if you are assaulting one position, constantly. Let's take a look at your example: If you are fighting a Terran that has the 4+ ranged DPS to take out 20 locusts before they get in range to attack, how many Swarm Hosts do you actually need to do any damage? If you are attacking one area, 11. If you are attack two areas, 6. If you are attacking three areas, 4. etc. So you can almost triple the effectiveness of your Swarm Hosts by assaulting different areas.
Now of course it's more complicated then this. If the Terran is using splash to kill these Swarm Hosts, then the smaller engagements favor the Swarm Host'ing player, because they can spread their Swarm Hosts/Locusts out more easily, negating some splash. So where they may have had the DPS to take out 20 locusts before, now divided in two they might only be able to take out 8 per group. Of course the narrowness of chokes plays a role here in preventing the Zerg from spreading their Locusts out. This isn't even considering the fact that Terrans/Protoss depend on being more supply efficient with their splash units, so using Swarm Hosts to spread them out, while the rest of your army can attack in one location, generally favors the Zerg.
(I do understand it's even still more complicated - fighting for air control to spot Locust movements, using Scans potentially [though that is some damage itself], and Sensor Towers especially are useful for this if the terrain allows one to be forward enough - SHs do have amazing range).
@KT(Rolster)HaunteR
If you are in a situation where your opponent can move out on the map, tank your Locust shots, and run in and kill your Swarm Hosts just because you unburrowed them, then either 1) It wasn't a good situation to make Swarm Hosts in the first place or 2) You made too many of them and went for the "all in" Swarm Host strategy that OP is talking about in his OP, and he countered your 1 dimensional composition.
|
Well I was complaining about the swarm host in HotS for a while and saying pretty much the same thing in this thread and after thinking about it for a while I came to the conclusion that if swarm hosts had further range slightly less damage and locusts fly it would make the unit more interesting and work better. The problem at the moment is that it blocks pathing which makes the unit a lot harder to stop in ZvZ in particular, swarm hosts are pretty much the ultimate army composition until broodlords come out and most of the time you die if you don't mass swarm hosts yourself.
So what im suggesting is making the swarm host kinda like a lower damage carrier light harass from range, extra DPS without being out front with the rest of the units, no path blocking so you would have to protect them correctly and have the locusts very microable.
|
I agree, there is an inherent problem with units that spawn free units. It lends to massing these units up, because why only make 2 free units when you can make 40? I feel like the idea of free unit-spawners needs to be removed, or at least redesigned, because it creates situations exactly like those the OP is referencing. Scrap the SwarmHost, replace with a cost efficient zerg unit.
|
I think it's not possible to know how the unit will be used in even a year if it remains in its current state. To take an example, look at ZvZ. For at least a year after wol release, no one would make mutas in zvz except if he was going for some kind of cheese and so mutas were considered to be something like a 2 port banshee. You couldnt transition out of it. If you used them, you were all-in unless you did terrible damage. Etc, etc. Making only a handfull of mutas? Why would you do that? They wouldnt even kill a queen+ a spore, and the investment in spores is less than what you are investing in mutas!
Then, month after month, and with new maps (bigger maps), a new strategy emerged, mutas en masse followed by mass lings or even speedbanelings to killl the hydras that were considered the counter. It was before infestor buff happened. You would deny the third then threaten basetrade as soon as you opponent would leave his base.
I would say a few months to a year ago we saw the mutas becoming a standard of zvz in an entirely different fashion, as said above. You would rush lair, make 8 mutas and be done with it. You wouldnt hope to kill your opponent with them. It's simply that the almighty infestor rised in popularity at the cost of 2 base roach timings that were so common, with every Z rushing to infestor on 2 base. And guess what? A few infestors dont do very well against a little pack of mutas.
So we saw three entirely different ways to use the same unit without a single patch affecting the said unit. No one could imagine the evolution of the metagame before it happened before our eyes. I honestly think that if some of the posters of this thread read this thread in a year they will simply smile.
TM;DR There are a ton of creative ways and builds using SH that will make sure their obvious weakness do not matter anymore. It's simply too soon to know where is it heading.
Edit: to take an example, I'd love to see how SH would be doing against the immortal all-in (Parting style). It could be their role, be a niche unit you would use to defend at certain key moments in the game and if you scouted certains builds. I would be totally fine with it even if it was the only use they would ever have in zvp.
|
Natalya,
I absolutely understand where you are coming from when you say we really can't know right now what kind of impact that this unit will have on the game. Your Mutalisk example was a very good one, and there are many other units from Wings that would fit this description.
That being said, I believe that the unit has the potential to be much more interesting than it is right now, and promote better gameplay. One of the main points of the Beta is to provide Blizzard with as much feedback as possible so that they may make changes as necessary. In some cases, units were even removed (Warhound) because they didn't quite make the cut. I don't think it is necessary to remove the Swarm Host, and I think the unit has a lot of potential.
By posting this thread here, and more importantly over at Battle.net, I am hoping to start a discussion on the unit and how we can make it function better. I think many people would agree that the Warhound wasn't functioning the way it was supposed to, that the unit design was flawed, and that changes were necessary. Although it may not be as obvious of an example, I feel the Swarm Host meets this description as well, and that there is still time to have our voices heard by Blizzard and to have positive changes implemented on the unit before the HOTS release date.
If you prefer a wait-and-see approach, by all means feel free to do so
|
I really don't like this unit at all. It's either critical mass (which costs enough to put you all-in) or it's useless. It's like a significantly worse brood lord for the same essential cost.
|
I would really like to see Locusts have less DPS but longer lifespan. This way, they can overlap when a new batch pops and do double damage for a few seconds. They could also possibly target Air units with this change.
|
Good post. Just an idea here. Maybe the swarm host can mutate by absorbing any zerg ground unit. It can then morph into "Baneling-Swarm Host" "Hydras-Swarm Host"
Baneling SH will swarm non-stop swarming 2 weaker version of banelings, Hydra-SH will be like lurker.
Just an idea. Might be too op.
|
I actually disagree completely with the OP. Sure, lower number of SH can not easily kill an opponent but neither should they. They do, however, provide you with certain temporary advantages that are quite interesting.
Most of the time, they will kill something. The unit has a range that pretty much always allows it to do damage. Unless your opponent decides to spend FF or gets a lot of collosi. Also, if fighting bio, you waste a lot of medivac energy which is amazing.
You force him to keep his army back. Without his army present your 10-12 locusts will deal quite a bit of damage. This forces him to stay behind at times when he would like to be moving out. (EG. certain bio builds have to delay some of their drops just to have enough to engage the locusts well.
You draw him out. The SH is so that when one wave of locusts dies really fast the opponent wants to go for the kill and attack before the next wave spawns. This forces the enemy to go out to the position where the locusts are, probably open terrain, making them much more suceptible to surrounds/tactical manouvers.
You constantly scout. The locusts that go forward see what units your opponent is building, the buildings nearby etc... This means you are constantly getting a pretty good scout of against your opponent allowing you to transition as you should behind it. The pressure you put on also makes it hard for the opponent to take a decently early third.
Now you said it does not synergize well with the other units. Once again i am forced to disagree. I agree it does not synergize well with ultras or broodlords but why would you need even more only anti-ground units. The SH is supposed to be a midgame tech that you can commit to without making them useless later like the WoL roach. It does synergize quite well with infestors, hydras and vipers. (mutas, maybe i dont know much about SH muta appart from ZvZ).
Infestors allow you to lock your opponent down while you retreat/wait for another round of locusts. Vipers can off cource abduct tanks, collosi etc, allowing your locusts to pick some off for free. And hydras have some really interesting relations with the lucusts. The locusts, having shorter range, tank for the hydras while they deal with air-threats and help increase the dps in low-surface area positions. I have had quite a bit of success with SH-hydra against bio and the new medivacs, belive it or not. The high ammount of pressure that the SH provides makes the decision to drop really tough for the terran. Pressuring one place allows lings/hydras to go to other places to deal damage at the third or other exposed areas. Blings delays the opponent or punishes him hard when he decides to move down his ramp.
Imo, the unit gives zerg the ability to pressure without having to make inefficient trades in the midgame. This pressure frees you up to do other things on the map while giving you a clue about whats up. It synergizes with other lair-units and and the viper allowing you to better deal with the defending compositions. Its a unit that is hard to decide how many you want of. But most of all its a unit that introduces totally new mechanics to a race that earlier has had a really allin relation to midgame pressure. Its interesting to me at least. Being quite an agressive player i do not konw much of using SH defencively while expanding or taking more bases, maybe they have even more potential?
|
The problem isn't the Swarm Host as much as it is SC2 itself. The deathball sydrome is gonna kill a unit design like this faster than any design decisions could ever correct. Fix deathball and the snowball problems and this unit becomes feasible. Until then, why even argue about it?
|
On December 16 2012 13:19 oOOoOphidian wrote: I really don't like this unit at all. It's either critical mass (which costs enough to put you all-in) or it's useless. It's like a significantly worse brood lord for the same essential cost.
I made a thread a few days ago suggesting a new upgrade that would make the swarm host feel swarmy and unique and solve the massing problem.
but the thread got closed -_-
|
What about a late game broodlord infestor army with squads of 5 - 8 swarmhosts laying siege on multiple locations, or used them in a similar way to the P zealot warp prism, so you can pull the death ball out of position.
|
On December 16 2012 16:40 Zergrusher wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 13:19 oOOoOphidian wrote: I really don't like this unit at all. It's either critical mass (which costs enough to put you all-in) or it's useless. It's like a significantly worse brood lord for the same essential cost. I made a thread a few days ago suggesting a new upgrade that would make the swarm host feel swarmy and unique and solve the massing problem. but the thread got closed -_-
Could you put the idea out to us? I would like to know.
|
On December 16 2012 17:04 porygon361 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 16:40 Zergrusher wrote:On December 16 2012 13:19 oOOoOphidian wrote: I really don't like this unit at all. It's either critical mass (which costs enough to put you all-in) or it's useless. It's like a significantly worse brood lord for the same essential cost. I made a thread a few days ago suggesting a new upgrade that would make the swarm host feel swarmy and unique and solve the massing problem. but the thread got closed -_- Could you put the idea out to us? I would like to know.
Well Plexa removed it -_-
I had the name for it , the cost etc etc I litterally had it completely done and made, it was perfect.
I was trying to look threw to see if i could have found a way to post a link to the thread, but i can't find it :/
I could put the idea out to you guys, But the last time(s) I put out good ideas The next thing i know my ideas are done in patches and i can no longer post on threads/forums/blogs etc etc, basically I've been threw some odd stuff.
One change you guys can thank me for the protoss upgrade cost decrease, I Got banned from the Bnet forums because..well thats a very very interesting story, that relates to to the "submission" of the costs.
But as for the swarm host Idea, I'll see If i can post something(by something I mean remake the thread but make it better and more detailed) about it, its on my "to do list" of threads I have to get around to making.
|
That was a pretty interesting read. I haven't Really messed with Swarm Hosts that much yet, so I wish I could give better feedback :-/
|
SH goal is not to be a siege units, flanker, defend drop (wth?) or multi paths attack or be used out side of the deathball, nor containing the enemy. Sure they can be used for that but the main goal of the SH is to allow Zerg to be more aggressive in the Mid game. (as they said in the past, but who know what are they wanting now)
So what's with the mid game? Currently Zerg can't do anything after Protoss get T3 (or get enough immortal) or when Terran gets enough units (you can't do anything off creep vs Terran). On the other hand other race can't do anything on creep and vs Infestor (defensively)
So naturally SH should allow Zerg to actually break enemy's superior force, break siege contain, strong enough (or allow your other units) to fight toe to toe vs other race's strong mid game force...
Which, ironically what the Viper does best And Infestor does the rest (defensive wise)
The ability to contain enemy and take more bases is exactly what the Muta can do
Really, it has no role beside being a huge cheesy jack-of-all trade unit
Here are some changes that should be made: -SH must be cheaper and easier to get. If I get Pit I will get other stuffs instead. SH itself is too expensive and weak at low number - really, 200 Min, 100 Gas? (of course it might be nerfed if it gets cheaper) -Its speed should be buffed. It should be an aggressive support unit, not an on creep defender. -Locus should be able to jump down from cliff - Zerg is the race with least benefit from taking positional high ground. -Reduce the time on Locus and the time for SH to create new units. Make it more constantly and aggressive, also allow new waves of Locus to appear behind the army and shoot with their high DPS instead of preventing your army movement (being better at supporting your army) -SH swarm more Locus at once, make it harder to mass SH. Increase its size as well -Increase Locus speed -Either remove or completely change the Upgrade which takes forever to research (which force you to commit into SH) Optional: Make Locus a 'floating' unit similar to Colossus which cannot stack like Air unit (so you can't mass Locus) but allow other units to walk pass them
Also I wish they change Locus design, they look like meat. Mosquito might look more interesting.
|
On December 16 2012 17:08 Zergrusher wrote: I could put the idea out to you guys, But the last time(s) I put out good ideas The next thing i know my ideas are done in patches and i can no longer post on threads/forums/blogs etc etc, basically I've been threw some odd stuff.
I know the feeling. I written a guide on WoL Zerg Wall-ins, and three days later, they released a HotS patch increasing the size of Spine crawlers.
Once you get your thread up, link it to this thread, I would like to see it.
|
zergrusher's (closed) thread is here + Show Spoiler +http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=387422
OT: imo just cut the price by a bit, decrease locus lifespan, increase locust spawning speed,
|
On December 16 2012 01:39 BronzeKnee wrote:I've given this a tremendous amount of thought, and posted this two weeks ago regarding the Swarmhost: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/7200032560. + Show Spoiler +My problem with the Swarm Host is that the doesn't unit functions well with other Zerg units (at least in PvZ) and doesn't offer anything different in PvZ really.
The Swarmhost lacks synergy with the fast moving Roach and Speedling, so it becomes a different form of play in the same way that Colossus play differs from Templar play in PvT. That is fine, but they cost a lot, you need a lot to make them work and the Swarmhost doesn't work that well with Ultralisk or Broodlords, limiting transitions. Compare this to the Infestor, which you can invest a lot into during the mid-game and use them defensively or offensively and then they synergize well with Broodlords or Ultralisks in the late game. Swarm Hosts do not synergize well with Ultralisks or Broodlords in the late game, so if you want to transition into the late game from the mid game, Infestors are still the best choice by far.
And when you are building large amounts of Swarmhosts, you have to end the game with that composition due to their cost and the fact they don't synergize with Broods or Ultralisks (you won't be able to protect your Broods like Infestors can, and Ultralisks will just get blocked by the Locusts and Fungal won't be there to hold units down for Ultralisks) so they will be best used for all-ins. Thus in many ways, they function like Hydras do in PvZ, good for some all-in timings, but not viable for late game play.
And so Zerg can build a bunch of them and hit a timing with Corrupters and Hydras or Infestors or whatever, but the Protoss player doesn't really need to do much different than standard play, teching up to Colossus and building a few for the lategame deathball (note that unlike the Swarm Host the Colossus works well in the mid-game and then transitions well as part of the late game deathball). It is these Colossus that allow you to defeat Swarm Hosts. So you simply need to scout your opponent, realize they are heading for Swarmhosts, and cut your tech and produce a lot of units. So you hold them the same way you'd hold any other all-in. The Swarmhost then just provides another all-in opportunity for Zerg in PvZ, rather than a new unique and interesting style of play.
I haven't had many issues with Swarmhosts as a Protoss player. I lose to them when I don't scout for them or prepare for them properly as I should. I have been playing versus Masters and GM Zergs lately. It is indeed an all-in unit, and one that doesn't synergize well with Hive Tech units as I explained in that post. At this point I am fairly certain there is not a way to fix this. It is a bad unit design. Either the unit ends up being Broods unnecessary because it is so powerful, or it ends simply not being used because Broods are a better choice. There really isn't any middle ground here due to the nature of the unit in relation to other Zerg units and the fact that you need a lot of them to be effective. Once you've committed to them, you have to stick with them. I will say that Vipers would probably work well with them though. It is a shame too, because the Swarmhost was one of the units I think seemed fun, but in the end it needs to be removed or radically altered.
I agree, the problem with the Swarmhost fwiw is that it's a Hive tech unit at Lair tech instead of a supplimental siege unit like the Siege Tank and you have to either go all-in with them or transition out of them completely, which is similar to the state of Mutalisks. Their resource and supply cost and relative ineffectiveness in small numbers I think are the main design problems, but aesthetically I still think it's one of the best HOTS units released.
|
I agree with this post entirely. There shouldn't be a mid-game unit, that's only purpose is to all-in. Bad design - again (feeling deja vu...).
I sense that the problem is that Blizzard refuses the idea of bringing back the Lurker. They just don't want SC2 to become Brood War, but if something is well designed, then it is well designed, they shouldn't be in denial that they cannot make a better balanced and designed game than BW.
|
Now that I think of it, what the op really wants with the SH is to fulfill a similar role to that of the helion in zvt pre-queen patch. Terran would most of the time only build 4 or 6 helions and get a soft contain :
- they could deny the creep before roaches or mutas - they could deny the third if the zerg didnt have said roaches or mutas - they threatened constantly to runby and kill workers if the zerg wanted to leave his base with his speedlings - if there were no spines, and if they were well microed, they could inflict some damage over time (kill lings here and there, slowly damage queens) - if the zerg was totally unprepared for the helions (no speed and no spine), they would do terrible terrible damage - they were efficient in small numbers and forced an answer from the zerg - last but not least, they represented a very little investment and terrans didnt feel all-in when using them
Now, the version of SH the op wants would deal more damage to buildings and units, but works in the same way: -little investment -force a preparation or big damage will be dealt -not alliny, either because it dont cost so much or because they could be used for something else after the pressure was applied (controlling a lane of attack,...)
Now, please, op, explain me why the lurker wouldn't be ideal here? Some in the post left and right said the lurker would be the solution but I dont think you answered them? My bad if I missed your post. If lurkers could attack buildings, you would need detection + air units to take them out without suffering terrible losses, even if there were only 4 or 5 of them. It would be interesting to see that Zerg would have the choice to add anti-air and detection himself to turn the locust pressure into a game ending leapfroging attack but would not be forced to do so.
|
I think that the whole idea of spawning locust shows how lazy the game designer is. The swarm-ness, zerginess is just pure excuse for a repetitive idea. Hows about making it spit some kind of acid missile, much like the orc's demolisher in warcraft3, and the missile is dodge-able.
|
The Swarm Host is actually very good to get map control and base harassment against mech. Just build 4-5, put them at different locations everywhere on the map, and spawn locust in direction of the terran bases. Its very annoying for them
It is also very strong when doing a doom drop in a terran base. Once the terran cleaned the doom drop, he still has locust spawning everywhere in his bases, and it's soo annoying for him
|
I did not read the whole thing but I agree with the basic idea.
As toss when zerg manages to set up multiple swarmhosts outside my base without me having collossi I am dead, storm does not help because the energy is gone too quickly unless you can straight up break the contain. Forcefields don't help.
But as zerg if I try it and fail I am almost certainly dead.
The whole thing feels very weird. Especially since the swarmhost does not help with any unit composition nor can it as you mentioned be used in low numbers.
You can do mass swarmhost supported with infestor/hydra which will negate all air counter and becomes almost unbreakable without storm and collossi.
|
On December 16 2012 22:54 Natalya wrote:
Now, please, op, explain me why the lurker wouldn't be ideal here?
I think re-introducing the Lurker would be a fantastic solution, and would probably fulfill the Swarm Host's intended role better than the Swarm Host ever could.
So why haven't I suggested replacing the Swarm Host with the Lurker?
Well, I'm not sure how realistic that type of solution is. I'm trying to draw attention to this important subject, and to start a conversation on how we can make some design improvements to the unit before the HOTS release date. I am not necessarily pushing for the most optimal solution (Lurker?), but rather pushing for Blizzard to recognize the current flaws of the unit design and to make the changes they feel is most appropriate.
I just don't think Blizzard is to keen on throwing the Lurker back into the game, even if it would function better. The Swarm Host sounds like it was Dustin's pet idea, with how "Zerg-y" he makes it sound in interviews. By scrapping his idea, and putting the Lurker back in, he may be hurting his own reputation as a Lead Game Designer, and his ability to introduce new ideas into an RTS.
If other people feel the Lurker is the best solution to the issue, such as yourself, then I strongly encourage them to explain why in a well thought-out manner. I just don't think I can afford to take this stance, when I have started something of a movement over at Battle.net. If you stop over at the Blizz forums, and look in the Beta section, you will see a large number of new threads and posts popping up on the topic of Swarm Host design flaws. If Blizzard takes the time to read my rather lengthy post, and see that my thesis is "Swarm Host sucks, we want the Lurker," then I don't think they will take me too seriously. If they see that I have pointed out some serious design flaws of the unit and have explained why the unit can't be balanced in its current state, then perhaps they will take my thread more seriously and look into what changes they feel are most appropriate.
You may not agree with my approach to this matter, and that is ok. But I hope you understand my reasoning and why I have taken the stance that I have.
Thanks for reading the post, it is rather lengthy
|
I don't really get the all-in point. I you see, that your contain don't do enough damage because the opponent has already enough tank/coloss, you can just retreat. There is no need to wait till you get overpowered (and if he can defend them without taking damage, he will overpower you for sure).
They may not have special synergies with other zerg units, but they aren't dead supply either. The locusts deal there high damage when used together with the rest of the army on open field.
And SWs are surprisingly good in harass. Drop them in the enemy main, let go 1-3 waves of locusts and retreat before the enemy army approaches. They'll deal great devastation due there lowhp highdps mechanic.
Swarmhosts are not tanks nor lurker. They are a truly new unit that didn't exist in scbw or WoL. And because of that there doesn't exist experience how they will perform longterm and metagame wise. I personally like them how they are and hope they won't change there mechanics (minor changes if they seem overall to weak oder strong are ofc ok).
|
Excellent thread. You've understood and successfully described the problems with the current Swarm Host. Conceptually, I do like the Swarm Host, but as it is used, it creates a bad kind of game play, just like you have described. The Swarm Host is currently a death-ball unit, more effective when massed and clumped. So, what is the best way to prevent the death-ball syndrome? Non-stacking AoE damage. Following this I will present my solution to this problem.
Possible solution: Each Swarm Host spawns one locust that has increased durability, increased size and does AoE damage in an area in front of it. I'm thinking the same kind of AoE that the ultralisk or hellbat has. This AoE damage does not stack (much like storm), meaning if you have more locusts attacking the same target, it won't do more damage than 1 locust attacking that target.
This solution would make any kind of death balling of the Swarm Host very ineffective. While just a few Swarm Hosts could hold their ground and hold chokes effectively. This would also enable you to use Swarm Hosts as defense, like holding a ramp from a clumped up force, or even defending drops.
On December 17 2012 01:32 Goj wrote: I don't really get the all-in point. I you see, that your contain don't do enough damage because the opponent has already enough tank/coloss, you can just retreat. There is no need to wait till you get overpowered (and if he can defend them without taking damage, he will overpower you for sure).
They may not have special synergies with other zerg units, but they aren't dead supply either. The locusts deal there high damage when used together with the rest of the army on open field.
And SWs are surprisingly good in harass. Drop them in the enemy main, let go 1-3 waves of locusts and retreat before the enemy army approaches. They'll deal great devastation due there lowhp highdps mechanic.
Swarmhosts are not tanks nor lurker. They are a truly new unit that didn't exist in scbw or WoL. And because of that there doesn't exist experience how they will perform longterm and metagame wise. I personally like them how they are and hope they won't change there mechanics (minor changes if they seem overall to weak oder strong are ofc ok).
The problem is, that going for a low count of swarm hosts ensures that they won't do anything at all. This is because once the locusts are cleaned up (which they are going to be), the opposing army will just be able to attack the swarm hosts directly. When this happens, there can be two outcomes: 1. You leave your swarm hosts where they are - they get killed. Getting more swarm hosts at this point would just lose you the game, since the opposing army could easily beat your original ones. 2. You unborrow your swarm hosts and retreat into a defensive posture. You have to get more swarm hosts in order to make them more effective, OR you have to transition into some other kind of unit. Doing the latter makes your first swarm hosts completely unnecessary, and next game you just don't build them in this fasion.
|
I don't agree with the OP at all, especially this part:
"The Zerg player knows that 5-6 swarm hosts won’t create a critical mass of locusts needed to break the Protoss players defensive position with Storm or Colossus on the way, and in response he/she proceeds to make 15 swarm hosts."
The Locusts of 6 Swarm Hosts will make it past and get in range of 6 Colossus with Thermal Lance. That's pretty good i'd say. If the Colossus don't move, they will take damage. If any units are in front of the Colossus then those units will take damage. You're not going to kill any units with the first wave, but as long as you do damage it's worth it, especially against Protoss. You can micro the Colossi back to prevent taking damage, but that still means you're putting pressure on the Protoss.
Also, using Storms to defend against Locusts is a bad idea. I'm sure every Zerg will be happy to have free units die to storm, that's one less Storm that can be cast on units that aren't free.
And yes, Swarm Hosts will be overrun if they are by themselves. But that is no different from Siege Tanks or Broodlords. They're not supposed to kill the opponent by themselves. They're supposed to put pressure on the opponent, possibly do some damage and force a reaction.
|
United Arab Emirates439 Posts
On December 17 2012 02:07 Elp wrote: I don't agree with the OP at all, especially this part:
"The Zerg player knows that 5-6 swarm hosts won’t create a critical mass of locusts needed to break the Protoss players defensive position with Storm or Colossus on the way, and in response he/she proceeds to make 15 swarm hosts."
The Locusts of 6 Swarm Hosts will make it past and get in range of 6 Colossus with Thermal Lance. That's pretty good i'd say. If the Colossus don't move, they will take damage. If any units are in front of the Colossus then those units will take damage. You're not going to kill any units with the first wave, but as long as you do damage it's worth it, especially against Protoss. You can micro the Colossi back to prevent taking damage, but that still means you're putting pressure on the Protoss.
Also, using Storms to defend against Locusts is a bad idea. I'm sure every Zerg will be happy to have free units die to storm, that's one less Storm that can be cast on units that aren't free.
And yes, Swarm Hosts will be overrun if they are by themselves. But that is no different from Siege Tanks or Broodlords. They're not supposed to kill the opponent by themselves. They're supposed to put pressure on the opponent, possibly do some damage and force a reaction.
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.
|
Swarm hosts are not a mid game power unit.
They are strong in mass.
you you litterally have to "swarm" the swarm host to make something work.
The thread i made Talked about a new upgrade that would not only make it a strong powerful unit, but would also solve the massing problem.
Now the locust life(which would effect both types of locust) upgrade would have to have a slighty cost decrease so that people would want to get both upgrades and invest in swarm hosts.
The problem with the swarm host is that it only feels swarmy when you mass it, so basically its underwelming, because its needed in mass, so design wise its a burrowed BL.
Now my upgrade would make it unique,cool, and make fully upgraded swarm hosts a presense felt on the battlefield, even in a small group.
|
The OP does a very good job at identifying the issues with the SH. Any siege unit should force a reaction, even in small numbers. If 2 tanks show up in your natural, that forces some kind of reaction, they provoke the opponent to engage. 2 SH can basically be ignored and this is the main reason why they fail as zerg's siege unit.
Any suggestion to make SH work as intended, should follow this premise: Once as little as 2-3 SH are burrowed in front of a base, they should do real damage, forcing the opponent to deal with them.
The OP suggestion is clearly a step in that direction and definitely deserves testing. I also think that anything that helps locusts survive until they engage is a good measure. So on possible suggestion would be something like giving locusts an undetectable burrowed movement and they would unburrow at the rally location or once they find a structure. Bonus damage vs structures could also be interesting.
|
very good write up. i think increasing the locust size a lot and maybe increasing its hp might help make them more viable in smaller numbers since they wont be killed by AoE so fast while if you want to mass them they get worse since the now bigger locusts block each other so there would be no point in massing them. if they are too strong after hp and size increase just nerf their damage so they actually reach their target better and tank for your army but do less damage by themselves.
|
In my experiment with SHs, you will have to make at least 8 and continue to pump roach/hydra/ling from behind to make the contain effective.
But I think despite the all-in part, the thing that I cannot take is that, for that much of a investment (1100 gas to make 8 SHs with upgrades), you will not have any anti-air to plan this attack, once you go into your opponents base and try to set up a contain, you saw "oh shit, voids/banshees/tempests" then you lose everything. It is just not worth the cost in my opinion.
I am thinking of the following solution:
1. nerf SHs slightly, but drop the cost (resources/supply), so that we can incorporate hydras in order to set up a contain.
2. keep the current stat, and maybe nerf it a bit, but give locusts a anti-air attack. That will make sure the opponent to choose the engagement wisely/scout better and making SH pushes not so much of a toss-up.
|
United States7483 Posts
I've played some games vs. a roach/hydra/viper composition where the zerg player mixed in a few swarm hosts late game to force me to engage him at a bad angle or do nothing with a decent chunk of my army. I just had to sit there at my fourth base killing locusts for a while, attempting to drop but failing because of his absurd spine/spore count. Meanwhile, he was abducting whatever units he could to pick them off, and I had no chance of securing a fifth. I couldn't push out due to his positioning, and I couldn't circumvent him due to the swarm host pressure. I wound up splitting my army and then he just pushed in and killed me.
|
Russian Federation4295 Posts
2. keep the current stat, and maybe nerf it a bit, but give locusts a anti-air attack. That will make sure the opponent to choose the engagement wisely/scout better and making SH pushes not so much of a toss-up.
Never! ZvZ will become TvT
|
I would say it promotes non-deathball play. If you clump all your swarmhosts and rally them towards the opponent tank/collossus-line, then they wont do shit (or win the game if you are way ahead). If you park a few near a lightly guarded base with cannons/a couple of bunkers. You will deal damage and force a repositioning of their army. Then you can pull back.
These are the scenarios I can see: either you split your army badly and dont keep track of his units: he can kill your army in two bites. Or you split your army well-putting pressure on one of his expos while forcing an engage through locusts vs your main army. Or he splits his army well, forcing your harass away while killing of the locusts spawning from your main position.
If I would advocate a change, It would be to make them faster so you can retreat more easily (but I dont know how well they retreat on creep for ex.).
I think it's a great idea for a unit, promotes completely different strategies due to the unique mechanics.
|
Russian Federation4295 Posts
(but I dont know how well they retreat on creep for ex.). Locust speed on creep is 2.65, which is 40% faster than offcreep at 1.88 speed.
|
On December 17 2012 02:34 ZjiublingZ wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 02:07 Elp wrote: I don't agree with the OP at all, especially this part:
"The Zerg player knows that 5-6 swarm hosts won’t create a critical mass of locusts needed to break the Protoss players defensive position with Storm or Colossus on the way, and in response he/she proceeds to make 15 swarm hosts."
The Locusts of 6 Swarm Hosts will make it past and get in range of 6 Colossus with Thermal Lance. That's pretty good i'd say. If the Colossus don't move, they will take damage. If any units are in front of the Colossus then those units will take damage. You're not going to kill any units with the first wave, but as long as you do damage it's worth it, especially against Protoss. You can micro the Colossi back to prevent taking damage, but that still means you're putting pressure on the Protoss.
Also, using Storms to defend against Locusts is a bad idea. I'm sure every Zerg will be happy to have free units die to storm, that's one less Storm that can be cast on units that aren't free.
And yes, Swarm Hosts will be overrun if they are by themselves. But that is no different from Siege Tanks or Broodlords. They're not supposed to kill the opponent by themselves. They're supposed to put pressure on the opponent, possibly do some damage and force a reaction. 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.
I think you and that other guy are severely overestimating the strength of 6 SH, their pushing power will likely kill nothing, a zealot or stalker here and there at most and will offer almost no map control. The thing is, having SH in a way reduces a zergs overall map control in favor of controling one path, if your opponent find a way around or does good drop play you have not much tech which can do anything about it. Mutas give waaaay better map control since you can actually respond to drops and kill them and use mobility to fight anywhere on the map. If sc2 is like chess then the SH is a Rook.
|
I to feel that swarm hosts don't really function the way that they should. doing some thinking on the subject, and trying to figure out how I would like to use/engage with a mid game army, i came up with a different solution to the "weak in large numbers, strong in small numbers" conclusion that the OP suggested.
in my opinion making the locusts beefier and less damage dealing will only serve to make the unit different, maybe it contributes more to the core army as a way to soak up damage, but it lacks in being able to be useful in creative and interesting gameplay. going back to the mutalisk example, what makes mutas so effective? its how fast and efficient they are. they can easily get in and get out and deal some damage/take map control. however when mutas are massed what happens? in zvt the thor will shut down mass muta play with its anti-light/splash anit-air, the siege tank do this to hydras as well. however in both of these examples better micro can make them more effective (magic boxing and spreading+speed)
what i suggest for the swarm host is to make the locus more like a glass cannon, high damage (or maybe just +vs light) and low health with a moderately fast move speed, (keep the timed life though), as well as lower the cost of the unit, as it stands they are too expensive for what little they do. what does this do?
1) it allows for the unit to have harassment potential b/c it would be good vs. workers/structures, this might make swarm host drops much more effective, and increase the incentive to make a timing push with them on thirds. Even into the late game the unit could be left near an expansion (yours or theirs), while the main army pushes for example.
2) with a high number of locus on the field the opponent can easily tech to a good aoe dealing unit to make short work of your swarm hosts, as colossi and tanks will both be good at dealing with them. however, what if the zerg player spread his swarm hosts before burrowing? that would make them way less vulnerable to concentrated splash. in fact in the beta i've seen a few pushes like these in zvz, where the other zerg player has 3-4 swarm hosts in their army, and i didn't go for swarm hosts. Because i don't have access to splash it forces me to retreat and try to out maneuver their army until i have a way to deal with the swarm hosts. this kind of dynamic would be great if we could bring it to the other matchups.
3) with a lower cost/build time and a very different attack potential I think timing pushes could develop around the swarm host, particularly timings where 2 base zerg could pressure a terran/toss trying to take a third or a even another zerg trying to take a 3rd or 4th. in addition, it could also make lair rushs more common vs ffe toss, if the zerg could have swarm hosts up before the infrastructure of the toss kicks in, then that kind of early play could become more common, as it stands now, zerg has very very few ways to be effective at tier 1.5-2 vs the other races.
these are just my thoughts
|
Here is a replay of a diamond zvp, demonstrating my use of swarm hosts. As depicted in the OP, they delay my hive, and take out of my other ground army. However, i was able to make use of small amounts as a small anchor for my army, as tanks are for marines. Yes, it was a little effective, but it was a mssive investment without little payback, had i not done my dropping strat.
I'm tired, and ill just leave the replay here without further detail: And yes, this not a pro game, but it still makes a point. It also shows some ultra use. http://drop.sc/284991
Anyway, I think a proper solution is to buff locusts' health, damage, and nerf their range. This will cause small numbers of them to be strong, and large numbers will lose effectiveness because due to reduced range, locusts cannot all be attacking at the same time. Just like ultras in a choke.
|
Excellent post. When I opened 'possible solutions' I expected an expansive post though, so I guess I was wrong there.
Anyway, in my opinion, I think Swarm Hosts would be a lot more interesting if they actually did some close to guaranteed damage, BUT that their damage would be decreased vastly.
There are different ways to implement such a mechanic. The first one, and probably extremely hard to balance way to achieve that would be to have invulnerable locusts. Yeah, yeah imbalanced. But what if their damage would be something like 3 instead of the 14(?) they do now AND their life time would be decreased so you can't run them as far, making it so you actually have to place them in pretty risky situations.
What would the consequence be? First, since their damage is so low, they wouldn't be able to be the backbone of your army. If you mass them, your opponent moves out and kills you, simple as that. On the other side however, they will do guaranteed damage, making it so your opponent can't stay in his base forever, or eventually the Zerg's army WILL be bigger as is, because even though he isn't taking terrible terrible damage, he's still taking some damage, and can't keep it up forever.
Another similar solution would be to decrease the dps of the locusts, but make the locusts themselves a lot quicker (and possibly give them eitjer extra range OR hp), so you're again guaranteed to do damage. Since again, the dps would be decreased bu quite a bit, they wouldn't be as powerful, but it would give the swarmhosts more of a supporting role making it so that when you have a few, they actually do damage, but if you build too many, your main army will have lost quite a bit of dps.
Those are my thoughts on the unit and how I think it would be more interesting to use.
|
Not saying nothing is wrong with the Swarm Host, but... Don't see how they get stronger in numbers, besides being easier to control at that point, since it's most of your army. Don't see why it must never be all in to make Swarm Host contain, if you Tank contain and everything dies, counter attack will be strong. You can set up defense at home, but so you can with Swarm Host. The instance you say, I must get down the third, or I'm screwed, you're allin and so the big investment doesn't have to pay off always.
|
How do we make the swarm host good in small numbers, but not IMBA in larger numbers?
I can think of only 2 solutions to this problem.
1) Make swarmhosts melee, think slow chunky zerglings with alot of health. eg. zerglings are not imbalanced in large number unless they are being throws from the skys, *hint hint blizz*.
2) Anyone remember this thing from red alert 2 http://cnc.wikia.com/wiki/Terror_drone_(Red_Alert_2). The terror drone latched on to enemy units killing, or severely damaging then. Due to the design, one single drone could attack an enemy unit at a time, blizzard could adjust the "latchon range" to balance this attack. Also could be interesting if they could leap over FF, but this could possibly be imbalanced.
|
Hi everyone,
I have expanded on the Solutions section. I offer my thoughts on the subject, as well as those of Engineer and Existor. I also included an explanation for why I have not pushed for a re-introduction of the Lurker in place of the Swarm Host, as that has been a common question.
If anybody feels I have left out some good solutions that were brought up here or in another thread, please let me know.
|
These are my suggestions:
1) Increase the effectiveness of Swarm Hosts in small numbers. An easy way to do that is to have them release bursts of Locusts instead of a steady stream. The cooldown would be increased to compensate.
2) Decrease the effectiveness of Swarm Hosts in large numbers. An easy way to do this is to increase the size of the Locusts so that they become much less effective in choke points.
3) Increase the harass ability of Swarm Hosts by making them more mobile. This makes them more effective at harassment and keeps the opponent guessing if he doesn't have vision.
4) Make Locusts die on impact but do a lot of damage. No splash.
Let's examine what these effects will do to the Swarm Host:
Controlled bursts but long cooldown with mobility allow the unit to harass at range. But sustained damage isn't as good so you won't want to build too many of them. It forces your opponent to split his forces to deal with the harass. You, as the Zerg player, get mobile harass that is relatively safe but it eats up supply from your main army. But if your opponent doesn't use enough defenses, he'll take substantial damage. If you try to build too many Swarm hosts, they bunch up at choke points and become far less effective. Not to mention a single forcefield stops them from going up a ramp.
Unlike muta harass which can target workers down, the Hosts should do substantial building/unit damage instead at a relatively safe range. It gives Zerg another option for harass. The extra speed allows them to join an army but the increased size of the locusts and lack of sustain DPS means more than a few swarm hosts is a bad idea.
It's just an idea based on theory (since I can't test said changes) but I believe this might be a good solution.
|
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.
|
On December 17 2012 02:34 ZjiublingZ wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 02:07 Elp wrote: I don't agree with the OP at all, especially this part:
"The Zerg player knows that 5-6 swarm hosts won’t create a critical mass of locusts needed to break the Protoss players defensive position with Storm or Colossus on the way, and in response he/she proceeds to make 15 swarm hosts."
The Locusts of 6 Swarm Hosts will make it past and get in range of 6 Colossus with Thermal Lance. That's pretty good i'd say. If the Colossus don't move, they will take damage. If any units are in front of the Colossus then those units will take damage. You're not going to kill any units with the first wave, but as long as you do damage it's worth it, especially against Protoss. You can micro the Colossi back to prevent taking damage, but that still means you're putting pressure on the Protoss.
Also, using Storms to defend against Locusts is a bad idea. I'm sure every Zerg will be happy to have free units die to storm, that's one less Storm that can be cast on units that aren't free.
And yes, Swarm Hosts will be overrun if they are by themselves. But that is no different from Siege Tanks or Broodlords. They're not supposed to kill the opponent by themselves. They're supposed to put pressure on the opponent, possibly do some damage and force a reaction. 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!
|
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.
|
Russian Federation4295 Posts
Highly recommend to view these videos from GomTV. Leenock used swarm hosts very well
|
What about giving them different options of units to spawn.
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.
|
On December 17 2012 10:41 ScoobySnacks wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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?
|
On December 17 2012 10:53 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 10:41 ScoobySnacks wrote: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. 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? 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.
|
On December 17 2012 10:53 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 10:41 ScoobySnacks wrote: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. 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?
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
|
I agree with the feeling that unless you have a lot of them they don't do enough. It's like you start to play line wars and the opponent can just turtle up a deathball at the base you are sieging and then when he has enough DPS he can push you over. At that point the hosts aren't any good anywhere. A hive upgrade to give the locusts flight would help and give the unit a fun decision (even if its a choice between a ground to ground locust swarm, or an air to air).
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.
|
I like the notion of flying Locusts. I have a suggestion to make it possible.
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?
|
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.
|
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.
|
On December 17 2012 23:56 porygon361 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
On December 18 2012 00:11 Umpteen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 23:56 porygon361 wrote: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. 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
|
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.
|
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.
[edit] Post Not Found (lol) (joke about post count)
|
Your example, shows that you are using swarm hosts without any other type of unit in the mix. 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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
In its current state the swarm host is great for casual players like me, but free units break the game in my opinion. There is no easy way to balance them.
|
I think giving them an higher amount of HP and instead of a timer, just decreasing their HP per sec would help. It would make the positioning of the SH way more important as you need to get closer to the enemy's base to have full hit point loccusts
|
What would be cool would be to have an upgrade that would give the locusts the ability to go above the cliffs, as the reapers do.
This way it would look like more like a siege unit, it could be way more annoying and more powerful as an harassment unit.
Maybe replace the locust longevity upgrade with a locust move-above-cliff upgrade
|
On December 17 2012 10:46 Existor wrote:Highly recommend to view these videos from GomTV. Leenock used swarm hosts very well
Thanks for posting this. It's important to note that how the top tier pros use the unit will ultimately determine its fate and how "good" of a unit it is. The experiences and thoughts on balance of non-top tier players (including most GMs), while sometimes interesting to read, really are somewhat meaningless in determining how useful a particular unit is. In theory it seems like the SH has the potential to be an awesome unit, both to use and to watch in action because of its potential for positional play, harassment and as a complement to an ultimate army. To get the full value out of swarm hosts it seems you need to keep repositioning them, changing the rallies on the locusts, in some cases, microing the locusts, etc., which means that the best players will be able to get a tremendous amount more value from them than your average masters or GM level player (let alone someone in diamond or below).
It took, what, about nine months (and Stephano) for Koreans to finally realize that the infestor (after the buff to FG) was the best unit in the game and about a year to realize that broodlord infestor is the ulimate late game army. It wasn't very long ago when many actually thought that P had the ultimate late game army, despite the fact Stephano was just about never losing to Protoss in the late game (and generally making them look silly and UP in the process). Given how long it took everyone to hit upon the ultimate late game zerg composition, I think everyone should show a bit of humility about the utility of the SH and acknowledge that you might be way-off base. If you think the unit isn't useful, let's see some VODs of high level pros using it and getting rolled. That would be a good starting point for criticizing the unit.
Edit: Typo
|
Cant you supliment low number locuses with zergling waves? Zerg usually have a mineral surpluses and it would reward good micro.
|
Here's a solution:
1. Bring back the Lurker in place of the Swarm Host 2. Give the Infestor (Which has now been significantly nerfed) the ability to Spawn Locusts (while burrowed and immobile)
This Way you re-introduce a beloved, highly efficient, micro-intensive SieGe unit AND you allow Dustin Browder and Co. to feel that they've done something New and zergy (i.e., have a unit that continuously spawns other zergy units).
The Infestor, like the Swarm Host, would Only be able to Spawn Locusts while underground and IMMOBILE. For those WhO say, "The Infestor already can create RaNgeD attackers - the Infested Terrans." Well, remove the Infested Terrans!
Now, tell me this isn't a brilliant idea...
|
On December 18 2012 05:42 Spergling wrote: Here's a solution:
1. Bring back the Lurker in place of the Swarm Host 2. Give the Infestor (Which has now been significantly nerfed) the ability to Spawn Locusts (while burrowed and immobile)
This Way you re-introduce a beloved, highly efficient, micro-intensive SieGe unit AND you allow Dustin Browder and Co. to feel that they've done something New and zergy (i.e., have a unit that continuously spawns other zergy units).
The Infestor, like the Swarm Host, would Only be able to Spawn Locusts while underground and IMMOBILE. For those WhO say, "The Infestor already can create RaNgeD attackers - the Infested Terrans." Well, remove the Infested Terrans!
Now, tell me this isn't a brilliant idea...
Lets replace collosi with reavers while we're at it...!!!!
Unfortunately blizzard will not contemplate bringing back old units no matter their conceptual brilliance or track record of promoting exciting play... Out with the old, in with the new. Our best hope is to make the most of what we have and press blizzard to improve the existing hots units.
|
On December 18 2012 05:42 Spergling wrote: Here's a solution:
1. Bring back the Lurker in place of the Swarm Host 2. Give the Infestor (Which has now been significantly nerfed) the ability to Spawn Locusts (while burrowed and immobile)
This Way you re-introduce a beloved, highly efficient, micro-intensive SieGe unit AND you allow Dustin Browder and Co. to feel that they've done something New and zergy (i.e., have a unit that continuously spawns other zergy units).
The Infestor, like the Swarm Host, would Only be able to Spawn Locusts while underground and IMMOBILE. For those WhO say, "The Infestor already can create RaNgeD attackers - the Infested Terrans." Well, remove the Infested Terrans!
Now, tell me this isn't a brilliant idea...
That isn't a brilliant idea. SC2 has no room for old BW units. They just won't work.
|
I never played Hots Beta but I personally think any units to create additional unit either by energy or cooldown is broken. Why can't carrier get free interceptors T_T. Is also bad for spectators, who want to watch these free units that require little micro and sometimes do a lot of damages.
Solutions: 1.) Make swarmhost a more harassing based unit, more expensive but more powerful that become more a supportive units in a smaller numbers. Redesign the spawning things similar to reaver/carrier that cost some minerals. 2.) Public beta let more people test it :D
|
I want to begin by saying that I am not a high level player and that I do not play zerg. What I intend to do is approach this from a design perspective, not as a representative of a future user of the unit. While what I say is highly speculative, so is everything else at this stage.
Swarm Host is very weak in low numbers, but begins to gain considerable strength in very large numbers, roughly 15+.
How does this relationship even work? Do we understand how that happens? I do not dispute that games with low amounts of swarm hosts might be less succesful than ones with higher amounts, but I would like a more in depth explanation as to why.
If I understand correctly, the idea is that an opponents army, consisting of X units of various types, will be able to deal Y damage to locust before they get to deal any damage in return, due to short range. Especially protoss, with force fields and shields will find ways to radically reduce the persistant damage that swarm hosts are able to put out. This is why small numbers are not so good.
But surely, this is also a scenario that is true for all units? If you built the same amount of resources of roaches or stalkers or marauders, they would also run into a wall of force fields and then get torched by colossus before they did anything of value.
The Zerg player knows that 5-6 swarm hosts won’t create a critical mass of locusts needed to break the Protoss players defensive position with Storm or Colossus on the way, and in response he/she proceeds to make 15 swarm hosts.
No single unit type can contain an entire army. Even siege weapons like tanks or colossus quite easily fall without an army composition to back them up. 5-6 swarm hosts equal about 3 colossus. If 3 colossus were trying to contain you on two bases, you would have none of it. Even zerglings could deal with that if need be. And I am not even thinking about attacking into a defensive position with these colossus. If I could field 9 colossus at 10 minutes however, that would a different story.
Do we want the Swarm host, on its own, to be able to contain an army? Any army? Or attack into that same army and do "decent" damage?
The same argument is being made for the siege tank, that it should be the single most effective ground versus ground unit in the game. Because it is stationary.
Truth is, the tank is exceptionally strong under the right circumstances. What makes it a great unit is how it comes down to the player to steer the game into a position where his tanks are exceptional, else they will just be bad. I like that.
Yet, 7-8 tanks that roll in and siege on a third base will accomplish nothing. They will get swarmed and killed. The reason is that the tanks are not of higher value than the opponents army and they will give up any positional advantage by attacking.
I think we need to consider not only what kind of units that do well against the swarm host, but also what kind of army composition the swarm host should be a part of. If we can determine that there is no unit that would ever benefit from being reinforced with swarm hosts, then there is a problem, but we are far from reaching that point. People are still talking about swarm hosts in a vacum and mostly in a a frontal attack fashion.
The matchup is ZvP, and the Protoss player does a Forge Fast Expand while the Zerg player takes a fast third base before taking gas. Protoss does a build that allows him to secure a third base around the 9 minute mark, and in response, the Zerg player decides he wants to pressure his opponent with Swarm Hosts.
Why are we even talking about breaking a defensive players position by attacking into it without an army advantage or eonomical advantage? Surely that is not the kind of situation that should ever be possible in a strategy game. If you and the opponent both have three bases uncontested then you will not have a bigger army, nor a stronger army.
players can completely negate this kind of harassment with, for example, a couple of well-placed siege tanks
The whole point is that nobody will have this kind of well placed siege tanks in a drawn out game with lots of things happening. Just like with spider mines, you can flawlessly disarm swarm hosts but it rarely happens unless it is the only thing that happens.
If you cannot pull an opponents army apart by attacking his fringe expansions, that is because the map you play on is bad. It is protoss' inability to deal with highly mobile opponents that has given us the triangle expansions of modern maps. With oracles, stronger VRs and MSC I hope we can leave those days behind us.
I do not agree that swarm hosts are vulnerable on their own. The have burrow and decent movement speed. Together with such massive range they can be damn near untouchable as long as the opponent is not left to his own devices long enough to go find them. Again, it comes down to maps, the bigger the map, the more powerful this unit becomes since it is harder to find it and easier for it to abuse its long range. Good maps do not have clusters of easily defendable expansions.
I think the most important aspect of why the swarm host is considered bad is because it is an entirely different way to play zerg. Slow movment, excels at good positioning and clear window of vulnerability. Sounds like a meching terran. Yet, there are so many games that I have seen where the zerg live and die by his ability to buy time. Time for his tech to finish, for his larvae to pile up. The swarm host is ideal for this kind of play.
I would also like to ask for clarification, why do you say "the inability to transition out of the unit"? In what way is this particular unit special?
Any army worth as much as 15 swarm hosts will make you lose the game if you lose that army.
The bottom line is that a unit such as the swarm host will not be measured by its ability to kill stuff in a straight up battle, nor should it. We have units like that in the marine, colossus or roach. Yet the units we love are not them but units like phoenix, banelings and ravens. Units with highly situational yet interesting mechanics. The swarm host has interesting mechanics to me and that trumps any actual stats at this stage of the game. A year from now we might see buffs or nerfs to it, but that is not a flaw of the unit at all. I am going to advocate a more conservative approach of small changes, because I do not feel that this unit is fundamentally boring or bad.
|
I support the people who suggested making the Locust more of a tank rather than a damage-dealer. This idea occured to me some time ago too.
If this change went through, even a small number of Swarm Hosts would be useful as the locusts would be able to draw siege tank/colossus fire while other units flank or shoot from behind. Too many Swarm Hosts, on the other hand, would be counter-productive as they would not do enough DPS.
This would promote a more diverse Zerg compositions, and make hydra usage more viable. Locusts can tank while hydras do damage from behind and protect the Swarm Hosts from air or small raiding groups such as stimmed MM or blink stalkers.
|
On December 18 2012 03:35 SCdinner wrote: Cant you supliment low number locuses with zergling waves? Zerg usually have a mineral surpluses and it would reward good micro.
No because once you make swarm host you are broke mineral wise because they are 200/100 and the 3 supply makes it so you have to dump 100 to build overlords after 2 sh.
|
On December 18 2012 12:11 phodacbiet wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 03:35 SCdinner wrote: Cant you supliment low number locuses with zergling waves? Zerg usually have a mineral surpluses and it would reward good micro. No because once you make swarm host you are broke mineral wise because they are 200/100 and the 3 supply makes it so you have to dump 100 to build overlords after 2 sh.
So... Swarmhost can be reinforced by some moderate-cost gas unit.
Options 1. Roaches 2. Hydralisks 3. Ultralisks (not moderate cost but I think its ok in the lategame)
By using Swarmhosts to contain the opponent, you can actually afford to expand like crazy and claim all the gasses. Then you can tech and go to either Infestors or Viper/Roach/Hydra to supplement the Swarmhosts.
|
On December 18 2012 08:29 justinpal wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 05:42 Spergling wrote: Here's a solution:
1. Bring back the Lurker in place of the Swarm Host 2. Give the Infestor (Which has now been significantly nerfed) the ability to Spawn Locusts (while burrowed and immobile)
This Way you re-introduce a beloved, highly efficient, micro-intensive SieGe unit AND you allow Dustin Browder and Co. to feel that they've done something New and zergy (i.e., have a unit that continuously spawns other zergy units).
The Infestor, like the Swarm Host, would Only be able to Spawn Locusts while underground and IMMOBILE. For those WhO say, "The Infestor already can create RaNgeD attackers - the Infested Terrans." Well, remove the Infested Terrans!
Now, tell me this isn't a brilliant idea...
That isn't a brilliant idea. SC2 has no room for old BW units. They just won't work.
That's just rediculous.
How many of the units in SCII are BW units? Hmmm. And how many of the new units in HOTS are simply poor copies of BW units? Oh.
These games are much more connected then you'd care to admit. It is silly to say that what is in one game cannot work in the other. Especially since SCII is toted as the better, more modern game...then why do the units introduced in HOTS seem so lackluster compared to those introduced in BW?
"Innovation...." is no excuse for poor design, period.
|
On December 18 2012 08:29 justinpal wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 05:42 Spergling wrote: Here's a solution:
1. Bring back the Lurker in place of the Swarm Host 2. Give the Infestor (Which has now been significantly nerfed) the ability to Spawn Locusts (while burrowed and immobile)
This Way you re-introduce a beloved, highly efficient, micro-intensive SieGe unit AND you allow Dustin Browder and Co. to feel that they've done something New and zergy (i.e., have a unit that continuously spawns other zergy units).
The Infestor, like the Swarm Host, would Only be able to Spawn Locusts while underground and IMMOBILE. For those WhO say, "The Infestor already can create RaNgeD attackers - the Infested Terrans." Well, remove the Infested Terrans!
Now, tell me this isn't a brilliant idea...
That isn't a brilliant idea. SC2 has no room for old BW units. They just won't work.
New Hots/sc2 units are just the dumb/worse version of the old bw unit =) Like swarm host vs lurker. Viper vs defiler etc etc.
|
On December 18 2012 03:21 The_Darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 10:46 Existor wrote:Highly recommend to view these videos from GomTV. Leenock used swarm hosts very well Thanks for posting this. It's important to note that how the top tier pros use the unit will ultimately determine its fate and how "good" of a unit it is. The experiences and thoughts on balance of non-top tier players (including most GMs), while sometimes interesting to read, really are somewhat meaningless in determining how useful a particular unit is. In theory it seems like the SH has the potential to be an awesome unit, both to use and to watch in action because of its potential for positional play, harassment and as a complement to an ultimate army. To get the full value out of swarm hosts it seems you need to keep repositioning them, changing the rallies on the locusts, in some cases, microing the locusts, etc., which means that the best players will be able to get a tremendous amount more value from them than your average masters or GM level player (let alone someone in diamond or below). It took, what, about nine months (and Stephano) for Koreans to finally realize that the infestor (after the buff to FG) was the best unit in the game and about a year to realize that broodlord infestor is the ulimate late game army. It wasn't very long ago when many actually thought that P had the ultimate late game army, despite the fact Stephano was just about never losing to Protoss in the late game (and generally making them look silly and UP in the process). Given how long it took everyone to hit upon the ultimate late game zerg composition, I think everyone should show a bit of humility about the utility of the SH and acknowledge that you might be way-off base. If you think the unit isn't useful, let's see some VODs of high level pros using it and getting rolled. That would be a good starting point for criticizing the unit. Edit: Typo
Honestly this is something that matters a lot. How long did it take until protoss started using Warp Prism regularly? Blue Flame Hellions weren't used that much but then Slayers came out of nowhere and dominated an MLG with a TvZ / TvT build order centered around fast blue flame.
At the end of the day we can arm chair analysis all we want but the pros are going to decide the fate of the units.
My biggest concerns is having a bunch of unwarranted nerfs to certain units after the release of HOTS. Similar to bunker build time / barracks build time / Rax not needing depot. Stuff that was only overpowered because of the small maps and players not being adaptable.
|
I'd like to offer a comparison to Brood War, but one that has nothing to do with the Lurker. Instead, I want to look at TvP in Brood War.
In Brood War TvP, the Terran player always built tanks (barring a couple of weird early-game all-ins). The entire dynamic of the game focused on the tanks. The Terran would build up a powerful push and go in against the Protoss. If the Toss couldn't break the tank line, he would lose. If he crushed the tank line, he would win. In rare cases, the players would come close to breaking even, and the game would transition to taking the whole map, potentially with all sorts of interesting stuff happening. This was one of the most exciting matchups in Brood War, showcasing amazing tactical minds, incredible unit control, spectacular flanks, and incredible use of special abilities such as psi storm, EMP, and stasis.
I am not saying that the swarm host presently offers the same tactical depth as the tank pushes of Brood War TvP. Frankly, I don't know enough about it to know the full extent of the tactical depth it offers. But I want to draw this comparison because I think that the idea of going for one unit, and even of being forced to go all-in, is not an inherently bad one. What is critical is that the game offers good tactical play that's fun to watch. If a Swarm Host that leads to all-in play and an exciting back and forth contain dynamic offers that kind of fun tactical play, that would be ideal. If it's not offering that kind of tactical play, then it should be adjusted in any of various ways to make it more exciting and dynamic.
However, I disagree that the mere fact that the unit design encourages an all-in push is inherently a problem.
|
On December 18 2012 08:29 justinpal wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 05:42 Spergling wrote: Here's a solution:
1. Bring back the Lurker in place of the Swarm Host 2. Give the Infestor (Which has now been significantly nerfed) the ability to Spawn Locusts (while burrowed and immobile)
This Way you re-introduce a beloved, highly efficient, micro-intensive SieGe unit AND you allow Dustin Browder and Co. to feel that they've done something New and zergy (i.e., have a unit that continuously spawns other zergy units).
The Infestor, like the Swarm Host, would Only be able to Spawn Locusts while underground and IMMOBILE. For those WhO say, "The Infestor already can create RaNgeD attackers - the Infested Terrans." Well, remove the Infested Terrans!
Now, tell me this isn't a brilliant idea...
That isn't a brilliant idea. SC2 has no room for old BW units. They just won't work.
Do you realize that marines/hydras/lings/zealots/tanks/observers/battle cruisers/carriers/mutas and so on come from sc1 no? Its a great idea imo but unfortunately DB will never bring back old bw units in the expansion of sc2 even if you try to trick him with infestor/locusts lol
|
Very interesting post. I hope Blizzard will read this.
|
|
|
|