|
On May 03 2011 21:18 Kar98 wrote:
I feel that there should be close positions (yes I'm a zerg) but it should only occur occasionaly. Even though statistically it you should only have like a 33% chance of spawning close positions it seems to happen 50-60% of all my games I'm getting close positions (where it's possible).
I feel that while close positions does make certian builds stronger such as 2rax, it is by no means impossible to beat, just pull more drones.
I use spanishwa's build so expanding isn't too much of an issue due to the creep spread, but I will admit is still harder. If I only got close positions on say LT, 25% of the time then I would find it acceptable
Actually....since theres 2 starting close positions and one staring cross position, its a 66/33 split.
|
I think rush distance gets too much attention for map imbalances.
Rotational Imbalance
I think it's a really important source of imbalance, but some maps like Tal'Darim Altar have huge rotational imbalances. For example if you're clockwise from your opponent you get to take your 3rd away from your opponent and there are more expansions that are easier to get that are all away from your opponent.
It is possible to mitigate rotational issues though by have a 4-player map in the style of metal and not allow close positions, this is a huge win!
There are some 3-player maps that deal with this, for example iCCup Testbug (one of my favorite maps) has very little rotational effect because of the angle of the natural is pretty steep towards the center without actually being so far towards the center.
However, it's really weird for a mirror-matchup to be imbalanced on a map, and yes, even ZvZ can be imbalanced on a map like Delta Quadrant because one natural is towards the opponent and one is away from the opponent.
|
Voted no. I think the problem lies with zerg not with the maps, maybe I'm just ignorant but does close spawn TvP suffer from the same issue? I think zerg ealry game is just terrible due to poor range, speed(speedling excluded) and lack of AA. In other words we need broodwar hydras back.
|
NO, but ...
(1) On the Ladder close positions should not be removed. Even this discussion seemingly feeds the myth that Zerg is somehow at a disadvantage to the other races. Certain play-styles and play versus play scenarios will play out like there is some sort of "disadvantage," but that is an illusion.
Close positions encourage rush plays, or heavy defense/tech plays. I think this is fine. If the Zerg defends the rush, or is not rushed, or launches a rush, and can go into the mid game and take another main the match is fine, if not in favor of the Zerg. Taking a third main for the Zerg in close spawns is super strong. Even FE's to another main can be strong. Taking a third for Terran or Protoss versus Zerg in close spawns is incredibly difficult in the mid game due to the frightening mobility of the Zerg, and most commonly, mass air strats. Additionally, Zerg's rushes, and all-in rushes are super strong and require a great deal of dedication from the opponent to stop, especially in close spawns.
(2) Yes, for spectator matches. Esports practitioners make specific changes to the maps (the only thing they can legitimately alter) to enhance the viewer experience based on their opinions and viewership feedback, not to balance the game.
If anything removing close spawns just give Zerg's an unfair advantage going into each match because any non-proxy rush is going to be significantly weaker than it could be had they rolled close spawns. But again, they do not do this for balance, they do it for ratings.
TL:DR - On the ladder, no. L2p. For Esports? Sure. They are in it for the ratings, and viewers favor longer games, usually.
|
It should just be eliminated from the game--ladder + tournaments. It makes for the least interesting games and makes it less certain the better player will win. Nothing I hate more than close spawn metal pvz or pvt; it's just boring and stupid, win or lose.
|
I love them because they add something to the game that make you play those 4 player maps differently. I don't like spawning positions that are "too" close, but when done right, it's adds to the difficulty and depth of the map.
If a certain MU ends up being imbalanced in that position (like bunkering up ramps) than that can be changed... but I don't buy the whole "autoloss" when I get close spawns, but I do understand how having to tweak builds for those maps could be seen as extra work.
|
No. Close/far positions affect builds and strategies so much. Taking out such a key part of the game would be stupid. When you spawn metalopolis as Protoss against Terran, you have to make a key decision. When do you expand? And that is a huge decision.
|
I voted yes, but that's only if there are changes to make it balanced. Spawn positions that change the game to be more aggressive are a good refreshing change, but if any matchups are broken on those kind of spawns then they should be removed until that is fixed.
|
Where does the notion that "macro maps make macro games and rush maps make rush games" come from? It really just makes no sense. Close positions on metal isn't a "rush" map, it's straight up bad design. The time it takes to make a round of units is greater than the time it takes for a whole army to walk from one base to the other, that's just plain old bad in every way shape and form.
Maps just need to be bigger, no matter what. Even xel'naga is small for me......
I really wish we could just start 100% over with the maps honestly..
|
voted yes just because of close spawn on ST and Meta currently. People are saying that they want to punish greedy play and you need to play safely but they dont realize that even if you play safely, zerg is still at a deficit at close positions. I wouldnt mind close positions at all if the P/T advantage wasnt so pronounced. At high levels of play, any slight advantage is a gamebreaker.
if you play greedy as Z on close positions, P/T can either all-in and auto win or macro for a fairly balanced game. If you play safe play as Z, P/T can either all-in and ull have some chance at defending or they can play greedy and be at an advantage. the ball is on their court and they can always choose a position to come out ahead.
close position on meta is so funny with tanks shelling u on the high ground outside ur natural. the rock area as others have stated also seems to be a problem for ST. vs T u basically HAVE to hatch first in order to hold off a bitbybitprime-style marine scv all in or you go pool first and blind bling nest and ruin your econ.
The ppl who voted no are just ignorant to the degree of imbalance close positions offer or they just want to be able to win vs players that are more skilled. players use the fact that they have lost on close positions to say its balanced but its just that u lost to more skilled players.
|
Absolutely NO! Gee maybe you should learn how to DEFEND all those different early pushes, or learn to do them yourself? Everyone seems to think there should be some sort of unspoken agreement that nobody is allowed to kill each other within the first 10 minutes. Dealing with rushes is part of the game and I think it's an awesome part of the game.
|
Yes because my early pushes as terran vs zerg are too easy to do damage with compared to long distance, it's not fair for my opponent when my 5marine 1helion comes like 10-20 sec earlier because of positions
|
This game is getting "nerfed" itself, no cliff, no close positions, no nothing. The solution is not this one, if blizzard can balance the different states of the game...
This is an strategy game, yeah, an strategy game in wich you make 200/200 and 1a to the victory -.-! Cliff Drops, close position rushes, small engage areas, all this things are important for the game... the problem is not there, the problem is with balance in general.
|
On May 04 2011 00:45 TimeSpiral wrote:
NO, but ...
(1) On the Ladder close positions should not be removed. Even this discussion seemingly feeds the myth that Zerg is somehow at a disadvantage to the other races. Certain play-styles and play versus play scenarios will play out like there is some sort of "disadvantage," but that is an illusion.
Close positions encourage rush plays, or heavy defense/tech plays. I think this is fine. If the Zerg defends the rush, or is not rushed, or launches a rush, and can go into the mid game and take another main the match is fine, if not in favor of the Zerg. Taking a third main for the Zerg in close spawns is super strong. Even FE's to another main can be strong. Taking a third for Terran or Protoss versus Zerg in close spawns is incredibly difficult in the mid game due to the frightening mobility of the Zerg, and most commonly, mass air strats. Additionally, Zerg's rushes, and all-in rushes are super strong and require a great deal of dedication from the opponent to stop, especially in close spawns.
(2) Yes, for spectator matches. Esports practitioners make specific changes to the maps (the only thing they can legitimately alter) to enhance the viewer experience based on their opinions and viewership feedback, not to balance the game.
If anything removing close spawns just give Zerg's an unfair advantage going into each match because any non-proxy rush is going to be significantly weaker than it could be had they rolled close spawns. But again, they do not do this for balance, they do it for ratings.
TL:DR - On the ladder, no. L2p. For Esports? Sure. They are in it for the ratings, and viewers favor longer games, usually.
I would think GSL changing maps is to balance the game cus so much money is on the line and players would complain about imbalances otherwise. then again i could be wrong since there has been match fixing prior which shows other things are more important than balance. i would think rushes are more exciting for spectating rather than long drawn out games on tal-darim-style maps. so maybe u have it reversed, ladders need to be balanced since no1is watching but spectator matches can have close positions for more excitement (commentators always go crazy when workers are pulled for all-ins)/variety
|
I voted no even though I play zerg. I do have a harder time on close positions but I like the idea of having to adjust your game plan based on the situation. On close positions on metalopolis, I'm more likely to go for some sort of bust and I take my third base on the other side of the map. Also, its very easy to get creep to your opponent's front door (until they start to clean it). Essentialy, I think close positions just requires some different (possibly more creative strategies) and theres nothing wrong with that.
|
Close position is nearly insta loss for toss against zerg and terran on metalopolis and slag pits.
|
On May 04 2011 00:45 TimeSpiral wrote:
NO, but ...
TL:DR - On the ladder, no. L2p. For Esports? Sure. They are in it for the ratings, and viewers favor longer games, usually.
I don't see how not being able to take a third base is a l2p issue.
|
On May 04 2011 02:20 Anomandaris wrote:
Close position is nearly insta loss for toss against zerg and terran on metalopolis and slag pits.
Photon cannons, dude. If he goes roach bust or any type of timing attack, he fails because of the cannons. If he doesn't go roach bust, he fails anyway even though you made cannons after your 3 gate expand, because it's close positions.
I am a P and Z user, and every time I play as P in a PvZ in close positions, I feel bad for my opponent.
|
On May 04 2011 02:33 whatthefat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 00:45 TimeSpiral wrote:
NO, but ...
TL:DR - On the ladder, no. L2p. For Esports? Sure. They are in it for the ratings, and viewers favor longer games, usually. I don't see how not being able to take a third base is a l2p issue.
Huh?
I'm not following you on this one : /
|
On May 04 2011 02:39 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 02:33 whatthefat wrote:On May 04 2011 00:45 TimeSpiral wrote:
NO, but ...
TL:DR - On the ladder, no. L2p. For Esports? Sure. They are in it for the ratings, and viewers favor longer games, usually. I don't see how not being able to take a third base is a l2p issue. Huh? I'm not following you on this one : /
In close spawns on Metalopolis or Shattered Temple, zerg's only chance for a third is a hidden expansion, which any good terran or protoss sniffs out in no time. Sure, it's not exactly easy for terran or protoss to take a third either, but expanding towards your opponent on those maps is not even a feasible option for zerg. Essentially the game is limited to 2 bases, which is incredibly restrictive for zerg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
