|
All protoss and terran units should sustain a little bit of damage every second that zerg doesn't have three fully saturated bases...
|
I am a protoss player and I feel like far spawn positions suits me much better than close positions. On the new patch 4 gate will be almost eliminated anyway so wont be such a big deal. Problem for me playing against Terran and Zerg on close positions is all the all-in much much more difficult to scout. I mean by the time you get hallucination/observer if you are going for expand its usually too late and speedlings deny scouting.
I think far positions would suit almost everyone, just look at pool 75% ppl saying yes to it also.
|
On May 04 2011 02:56 Anomandaris wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 02:38 vOdToasT wrote: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. Hydra ling with creepway dude.
Wtf, I feel the exact opposite, PvZ is massively in favor of P close positions from personal experience, I hate that shit. The entire "fake pushes" become infinitely stronger because on long positions, they have to stop moving out when halfway across the map or they're essentially committed, you're never committed close positions, you can go right up to the spines and run away if you want.
|
Voted no. I would rather see new maps without close mains. I don't really like when they have 3 possible spawns on 4 player maps I would prefer 4 spawns with no close positions.
|
Yes, although I don't think Blizzard will do it.
Mainly because the same reason they changed the 3rd on Tal'darim(adding rocks & +1 gas). That it's not something the casual gamer should need to worry about or know about.
|
On May 04 2011 04:26 whatthefat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 03:05 TimeSpiral wrote:On May 04 2011 02:51 whatthefat wrote:On May 04 2011 02:39 TimeSpiral wrote: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. 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.
That scenario certainly favors your position in this argument, lol.
We can agree to disagree, but what I will not do is go back and forth constructing scenarios that favor each person's position in the argument. That's silly.
|
I voted no for the sake of map diversity. It's fine to do this on some maps, but I think that there should always be some option of close spawns.
|
On May 04 2011 04:58 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 04:26 whatthefat wrote:On May 04 2011 03:05 TimeSpiral wrote:On May 04 2011 02:51 whatthefat wrote:On May 04 2011 02:39 TimeSpiral wrote: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. 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. 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. That scenario certainly favors your position in this argument, lol. We can agree to disagree, but what I will not do is go back and forth constructing scenarios that favor each person's position in the argument. That's silly.
my favorite is when terran pushes into your natural from the former island expansion, and youc ant do anything to stop it because you cant even attempt a flank
its especially annoying with mech style play
|
On May 04 2011 04:26 whatthefat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 03:05 TimeSpiral wrote:On May 04 2011 02:51 whatthefat wrote:On May 04 2011 02:39 TimeSpiral wrote: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. 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. 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.
In that case Terrans army isn't mobile enough to defend it's main, or to launch a big enough attack to kill your third. If you're spreading your base out that far and not using muta's to handle harass/defend then you're doing it wrong. That third would go unchecked for the most part, and if you got really creative a nydus would both freak terran out and allow you to reinforce against a drop easily.
|
Germany281 Posts
Almost everyone who has voted "no" would want close positions to just be non existant? This poll is failing because people press "no" if they mean "yes"  .
|
i don't like close positions when they are so close, so, of course, i voted yes.
as long as the spawning positions aren't ridiculously far away, then aggression will remain viable, and we will still see plenty of variety (if not more).
|
On May 04 2011 05:50 Filter wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 04:26 whatthefat wrote:On May 04 2011 03:05 TimeSpiral wrote:On May 04 2011 02:51 whatthefat wrote:On May 04 2011 02:39 TimeSpiral wrote: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. 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. 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. In that case Terrans army isn't mobile enough to defend it's main, or to launch a big enough attack to kill your third. If you're spreading your base out that far and not using muta's to handle harass/defend then you're doing it wrong. That third would go unchecked for the most part, and if you got really creative a nydus would both freak terran out and allow you to reinforce against a drop easily.
That's why you don't kill the third, you go straight to the natural... why in the world would you attack the third at that point. Cut off reinforcements to third --> drop it while pushing the nat, while the Zerg has essentially had zero time to prepare, let alone go mutas.
|
I don't mind having some super agressive maps like steppes or blistering sand as long as you know what kind of map it is, Temple and Metalo are too random, you have to guess the spawn position and if you're not lucky it's almost autoloose, you can't base your strategy on the map when you don't know if it's a super agro map or a macro map. Roll a dice and gg, is that the game we want to play ?
|
Blizzard should remove close spawns or maps where these redicolus rush distances are a factor.
|
Yes, eliminate them on maps where theyre a glaring problem. On metalopolis and Shattered T close positions are extremely unfair for Zerg to the extent that its unplayable beyond an all in. Gamepaly depth or not, close positions are unfair, and should thus be removed.
|
Yes, remove it.
I don't understand who would vote "no" unless they don't play zerg. It is so hard to drone because if you mess up drone timings just once, then they're at your doorstep and you have no units
|
I don't like close position maps as PvZ because it means 3 gate sentry expands are rather dangerous. I feel like i have to do an offensive opening to protect myself from roach ling aggression.
|
whenever i get close pos on metal or shattered temple i feel like i must get really lucky with them making some stupid attack where i blindly made alot of units to punish it or that i have to allin them to avoid real games
and i dont get people who say they want close pos on some maps to get more diversity. your basically forcing the players to play coinflip allins and aggression and blind defenses (guessing game) by being so close to each other.
if you get non-close pos its not all of a sudden impossible to put pressure on your opponent or do really well-timed allins
On May 04 2011 03:39 This is Aru wrote:
Eliminating close spawns is too easy. I am okay with different strategies being used depending on different spawning positions. If there currently exist no good strategies for a matchup/position, then that is on Blizzard to correct, and I feel we shouldn't let them take the easy out and just remove them altogether.
its a nice thought but its too difficult to design a game where all races are equally strong regardless of map design. you would basically have to redesign the entire game to make all races economics and production to work on the same level. and that would be a pretty bad game because then all races would be too similar.
bw was and still is the best rts game ever made and every race worked completely different. maps were really balanced and only was alittle imbalanced on the absolute top level. but they never ever allowed 5second walk to your opponents natural for a contain because that simply doesnt work...
|
i prefer good maps. so ones where you have to be flexible, and the once where you know its close or far. Removing the flexible map pool part would take away so much nice games. Sure macro games all the way look awesome, but then you miss the epicness that can happen on flexible maps or close posi maps.
For non close posi maps the options are pretty thin early game, because every race is godly in defending.
And on meta its not really a problem to scout close posi before you decide on your strategy. People only capable of playing one strat shouldn't be allowed to change the maps in their favor :3 , so they can stay on top with low effort. (well i wouldn't mind if they would stop complaining that the game is to easy at the same time hehe)
|
I'd like for there to be some real four player maps instead of this fake 4 main 3 position silliness. That said close spawns are ridiculously imbalanced and the current maps that allow it should either remove them or be removed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
