EPTThe Close Spawning Position [poll] - Page 11
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Trawler
Sweden382 Posts
| ||
|
LittLeD
Sweden7973 Posts
| ||
|
Anomandaris
Afghanistan440 Posts
On May 04 2011 02:38 vOdToasT wrote: 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. Hydra ling with creepway dude. | ||
|
branflakes14
2082 Posts
| ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
Close spawns make for more dynamic games and for more diverse strategies (on the ladder). The weirdest (and often most fun and action packed) games for me are games where there is a close spawn. I understand the need for it to be removed on a true, professional level, but ladder map balancing doesn't need the same requirements. I don't want to play the same game on the same map over and over, and I truly enjoy close positions and adapting my game on the fly to it. | ||
|
ALPINA
3791 Posts
On May 04 2011 02:58 branflakes14 wrote: Rushes are far, far easier to scout in close positions. I'd rather stop a 6pool in close positions on Slag Pit a hundred times before facing it in a far spawn, just because I'd actually have time to react. You are talking about obvous rushes, which are just few, but all other 1-2 base timing attacks / allins are very hard to scout no matter what spawn position. | ||
|
TimeSpiral
United States1010 Posts
On May 04 2011 02:51 whatthefat wrote: 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. Nah ... read my whole response. Taking a 3rd as Zerg in close spawns is fine. Sure it's not the same as when you spawn far, but do you realize how far out of position Terran or Protoss have to go to take out a third when it's a main, or a natural main in the midgame versus Zerg? It's not a secret expand, really. It is completely standard play for Zerg to take a far third when spawning close, and it creates a situation that can favor the Zerg going into late-mid and late game. Your play-style might feel restricted to two bases in that scenario, but the game is certainly not. | ||
|
arb
Noobville17921 Posts
On March 30 2011 08:37 sureshot_ wrote: NO! It adds a level of randomness to the game which is absolutely crucial. Taking away close spawning positions further promotes passive/macro style play. While that isn't bad, it's much more interesting to see a player be put into a position where macro play may not be the best option (and more challenging for the player). The game should be (and if its not now, will be) balanced to a point where all races are at an equal level for close spawn positions meaning that not a single race is at a disadvantage from the start. So watching zerg especially die because the opponents army is on you before you know it is fun? Really? Truthfully close air or cross positions i dont feel bad about, but whenever i get close ground i just automatically lose hope since if the opponent isnt brain dead you're never going to win close positions 99% of the time | ||
|
Alejandrisha
United States6565 Posts
On May 04 2011 03:02 Derez wrote: No, Close spawns make for more dynamic games and for more diverse strategies (on the ladder). The weirdest (and often most fun and action packed) games for me are games where there is a close spawn. I understand the need for it to be removed on a true, professional level, but ladder map balancing doesn't need the same requirements. I don't want to play the same game on the same map over and over, and I truly enjoy close positions and adapting my game on the fly to it. If by dynamic you mean 1 base pvt/tvp/tvt and 2 base zerg trying to all in a protoss every game than yeah, it's awfully dynamic | ||
|
SolidusR
United States217 Posts
I play every close position game the same way. All in and hope I don't get hard countered, one build per race. No dynamism, no interesting new unique strategy, just do what you can and pray that it works because you will not have the time to actually build an economy. Really fun : / | ||
|
Irrelevant
United States2364 Posts
| ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
| ||
|
This is Aru
United States91 Posts
| ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
On May 04 2011 02:54 LittLeD wrote: It also further eliminates luck in the game. I voted yes This is my reasoning for voting yes as well. I don't mind close distances, but all the random spawns of the bigger maps are just throwing in an element of randomness and luck into the game that isn't helpful or needed. If you're against a real cheese-type player, your scout timing is crucial to be able to respond to a rush. A good example would be White-Ra vs. MC in their final match at the last Dreamhack. White-Ra didn't know it wasn't the ladder version of Shakuras Plateau - that it had set spawns. So he's randomly scouting each spawn location. Meanwhile MC scouts him straight away and places two proxy-gates with his probe. GG? | ||
|
Mercadia
United States257 Posts
On March 30 2011 08:56 kNyTTyM wrote: Close positions adds a dumb factor. If a rush is balanced on close positions, then it probably sucks horribly on far positions. If a rush is balanced on far positions, then it will be imbalanced close. That is just the way rushes work. Having a dynamic where a rush is slightly imbalanced on close position only kind of weak far positions is a ridiculous way to balance a matchup. This remind me of TvP a few months ago. Statistics said it was a balanced matchup but majority of people agreed T>P early and P>T late. You had balanced stats but it was the stupidest state of game ever. Balance should generate equality throughout a whole game. If blizzard seriously wants to balance the game (regardless of what state the game is in now), you should have some kind of standard definable map distance that you base everything around. Close positions is adding an extra factor for balance when they can barely get it right in the first place. Except some rushes just plain don't work cross and are balanced close position. Close position metal is fine as long as things like cross position Tal Darim exist. Winning TvX when X is anything other than T on cross Tal is ridiculously hard. | ||
|
vOdToasT
Sweden2870 Posts
I don't want to be mean, but if you lose to that, you're bad. Hydra busts are extremely easy to see coming, and since you know it's coming, you can easily stop it by using all your chronoboosts on your warp gates and adding 6 cannons.You can make probes at the same time - he can't, so if you just survive you'll be ahead. Then you can take one of the third bases in between you and him, and easily defend it 'cause it's right next to your natural. You will also have built up probes so you can instantly saturate it. | ||
|
champy
Sweden33 Posts
I voted no but I think the close positions need to be more balanced. To me its kinda cool that players can spawn in positions that promote a more aggressive playstyle. Second that. A micro intense battle every now and again is both fun to play and to watch. If close position spawning is imbalanced it should be fixed, more games will either force zerg players to adapt and overcome or show that imbalance is actually the case. | ||
|
Kinetik_Inferno
United States1431 Posts
| ||
|
whatthefat
United States918 Posts
On May 04 2011 03:05 TimeSpiral wrote: Nah ... read my whole response. Taking a 3rd as Zerg in close spawns is fine. Sure it's not the same as when you spawn far, but do you realize how far out of position Terran or Protoss have to go to take out a third when it's a main, or a natural main in the midgame versus Zerg? It's not a secret expand, really. It is completely standard play for Zerg to take a far third when spawning close, and it creates a situation that can favor the Zerg going into late-mid and late game. Your play-style might feel restricted to two bases in that scenario, but the game is certainly not. I read it, and I disagree. I hear what you're saying about a distant third being theoretically advantageous to the player with better mobility (i.e., zerg usually). The problem IMO is that positionally this isn't viable. ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/PwcxF.jpg) Once terran or protoss take control of the circled region (e.g., with forward bunkers and tanks or a forward pylon), it is easy to send a couple of zealots or a drop to the hidden third. It is extremely difficult for zerg to then defend the third without becoming vulnerable to a push into the natural. In many cases it may not even be possible to reach the third by ground. To be honest, the only times this type of strategy has really worked out for me has been when the terran or protoss fails to consistently scout the map. | ||
|
narcissus
Denmark53 Posts
 | ||
| ||
