EPTThe Close Spawning Position [poll] - Page 14
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Charger
United States2405 Posts
| ||
|
loveeholicce
Korea (South)785 Posts
On May 07 2011 01:26 Charger wrote: The thing that worries me about this is are we creating a map pool that is too bland and where every map is similar enough that all the timings remain relatively the same and all the games start to play out relatively the same. I like variety in styles and strategies and I think removing close spawns on some maps will eliminate some diversity. But its unfair. It should be addressed because its completely unfair. That and theres tons of ways to encourage creativity and diversity than making the push distance 5 seconds =_=. Look at all the BW maps, the rush distances were more or less the same but there was incredible diversity because there were many different styles and architecture of maps. Thats how you push diversity, not by making a 2 base marine tank all in unbeatable. | ||
|
Charger
United States2405 Posts
On May 07 2011 01:29 loveeholicce wrote: But its unfair. It should be addressed because its completely unfair. That and theres tons of ways to encourage creativity and diversity than making the push distance 5 seconds =_=. Look at all the BW maps, the rush distances were more or less the same but there was incredible diversity because there were many different styles and architecture of maps. Thats how you push diversity, not by making a 2 base marine tank all in unbeatable. Well if the ultimate goal is to make it completely fair, shouldn't there only be 1 map that is a big plain square with no chokes, no ramps, no rocks, etc - I mean as plain as plain can be. That is the only way to make it truly fair. I do want to see the basic, standard large maps where no one has an advantage but I also want to see a map or two where each race is slightly favored in the map pool or tournament pool. I want to see great zergs overcoming that map that he should lose on to take the final game of a BO 7 in the finals of a tournament. That is exciting to me. I don't want the same map with a different skin played over and over and over and over. | ||
|
Mwentworth56
146 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
Kovaz
Canada233 Posts
| ||
|
FenneK
France1231 Posts
| ||
|
vOdToasT
Sweden2870 Posts
On May 07 2011 01:46 Charger wrote: Well if the ultimate goal is to make it completely fair, shouldn't there only be 1 map that is a big plain square with no chokes, no ramps, no rocks, etc - I mean as plain as plain can be. That is the only way to make it truly fair. I do want to see the basic, standard large maps where no one has an advantage but I also want to see a map or two where each race is slightly favored in the map pool or tournament pool. I want to see great zergs overcoming that map that he should lose on to take the final game of a BO 7 in the finals of a tournament. That is exciting to me. I don't want the same map with a different skin played over and over and over and over. Or it could just be like it is in Brood War... multiple unique maps that are still balanced for all races. (Except for the rare cases when map makers fuck up) Of course, first we have to balance the actual races. | ||
|
flipstar
226 Posts
It's a good reason why the good tournaments use maps without close spawn. | ||
|
Rabbitmaster
1357 Posts
| ||
|
shinwa
Sweden225 Posts
| ||
|
dNa
Germany591 Posts
On May 07 2011 00:41 loveeholicce wrote: But its imbalanced. Close positions are not fair, they put the Zerg player at a huge disadvantage. A ladder pool should be balanced otherwise its a joke. You really want to leave a huge imbalance in the map pool because taking it away may or may not compensate diversity? well, close air positions put protoss at a huge disadvantage, generally far spread out expansions put terrans in a disadvantage (vs Zerg), every race has the one or the other problem with spawnplaces ... if you want to avoid those problems, every map would look the same. and it's not like close positions would be unwinnable for zerg. it's just a harder spot to be in. I'd rather play some maps where iam in a disadvantage from the beginning, than always the same spawningpoints on always the same rush distance. i use that game as a source of interactive entertainment. how is playing the same thing every time entertaining? and even if you try to be really good at starcraft, those close positions are a pretty good way to keep you at your toes from the start. make you either refine your build to perfection, or choose a different one. so either way you get better at the game. the only possible mindset i can think of, that would make you refuse to play close positions would be "i want to have a better winrating on the ladder." ... and for what? | ||
|
Deckkie
Netherlands1595 Posts
I can agree that the close spawn is/was (not sure how the new changes effected or are gonna effect the close spawn game) very hard for Zerg. But I feel like the game should be balanced around this. If the majority feels that the game should be balanced around big maps only, then who am I to talk :p | ||
|
Leetley
1796 Posts
On March 30 2011 08:24 Tump wrote: Don't eliminate close positions. Just make less rush maps. A balanced map pool is a good one. Game would be boring if every single game was played on a macro map (and vice versa!). Just sayin'. Yeah, I'm pretty much with this post. They shouldn't make ridiculous maps like Slag pits. | ||
ZeromuS
Canada13414 Posts
| ||
|
Dragar
United Kingdom971 Posts
On May 07 2011 02:23 dNa wrote: well, close air positions put protoss at a huge disadvantage, No, they give non-air based Protoss starts a huge disadvantage against air-based strategies from the opponent. That's nothing to do with race or balance, that's to do with choosing a strategy based on close-air or whatever. How many Terrans do you see open banshees on close air positions, or go for otherwise fast starpots? There's a reason. You also can't possibly compare the magnitude of the disadvantage for close-air positions against a turtling style Protoss, against a close positions Zerg against Terran or Protoss. | ||
|
Markwerf
Netherlands3728 Posts
The only matchup screwed by close positions imo is ZvT. Close position marine aggression followed by marine tank play is just insanely strong. I'm not sure if this makes the map flawed or the map dependancy of that matchup flawed. For example huge maps with relatively open ramps are too hard for T in TvZ imo. Overall I think removing close pos is best on these maps though. Not directly for balance reasons but mostly for fun of the game. Some cheeses are also just annoying close pos and can effectively be done from in base. Three player maps like shakuras and the edited metalopolis and shattered are also my favorite maps. They don't have that 'I'm unlucky because i scouted him last' factor that 4p maps do have. For example on a true 4p map hatch blocking is much more luck based whereas on a 3p map it isn't. Same for losing to 6 pools etc. Scouting luck at the start is never good for the game imo. | ||
|
dNa
Germany591 Posts
On May 07 2011 02:34 Dragar wrote: No, they give non-air based Protoss starts a huge disadvantage against air-based strategies from the opponent. That's nothing to do with race or balance, that's to do with choosing a strategy based on close-air or whatever. How many Terrans do you see open banshees on close air positions, or go for otherwise fast starpots? There's a reason. You also can't possibly compare the magnitude of the disadvantage for close-air positions against a turtling style Protoss, against a close positions Zerg against Terran or Protoss. so you are saying it is much worse to play a zerg with the inappropiate strategy for specific spawningpoints than protoss with the inappropiate strategy for specific spawning points? might be, i never played protoss  | ||
|
MageWarden
United States95 Posts
| ||
|
loveeholicce
Korea (South)785 Posts
On May 07 2011 01:46 Charger wrote: Well if the ultimate goal is to make it completely fair, shouldn't there only be 1 map that is a big plain square with no chokes, no ramps, no rocks, etc - I mean as plain as plain can be. That is the only way to make it truly fair. I do want to see the basic, standard large maps where no one has an advantage but I also want to see a map or two where each race is slightly favored in the map pool or tournament pool. I want to see great zergs overcoming that map that he should lose on to take the final game of a BO 7 in the finals of a tournament. That is exciting to me. I don't want the same map with a different skin played over and over and over and over. No, you can have balanced maps that still have interesting architecture. Cross spawns metal, Xel naga, shakuras (without the stupid back door push), terminus, etc have all been fairly balanced maps right now. Saying a map has to be bland to be balanced is just flat out wrong. You can still have an interesting map and make it fair. A ridiculously close rush distance and no concievable 3rd is a huge problem that leads to unfair gameplay which is even worse than a boring map. To some extent it should be the races and the players that make the game interesting as well, not just the map. You know wat the most played maps on iccup were? Python until fighting spirit was introduced, and python / fighting spirit after fighting spirit was introduced. Literally 90% of games on iCCup below C level were played on those maps. If you look at python its an incredibly bland map, but we still saw great games because the players defined the games to a large extent. On May 07 2011 02:23 dNa wrote: well, close air positions put protoss at a huge disadvantage, generally far spread out expansions put terrans in a disadvantage (vs Zerg), every race has the one or the other problem with spawnplaces ... if you want to avoid those problems, every map would look the same. and it's not like close positions would be unwinnable for zerg. it's just a harder spot to be in. I'd rather play some maps where iam in a disadvantage from the beginning, than always the same spawningpoints on always the same rush distance. i use that game as a source of interactive entertainment. how is playing the same thing every time entertaining? and even if you try to be really good at starcraft, those close positions are a pretty good way to keep you at your toes from the start. make you either refine your build to perfection, or choose a different one. so either way you get better at the game. the only possible mindset i can think of, that would make you refuse to play close positions would be "i want to have a better winrating on the ladder." ... and for what? So by your reasoning there is no way to make a map balanced? Again, thats completely false. There are already balanced maps in tournament pools and theres a lot of diversity with in those maps. You have to have a balance of all features or at least architecture that doesn't give a certain component of a race a clear advantage. Close spawns may not be unwinnable, but they are VERY hard to win in by doing anything other than a blind all in. I don't care about my ladder ranking, but that doesn't mean I don't care about losing more than I should be losing. When I start a game, I shouldn't have to be placed at an inherent disadvantage from the beginning because of the race I play or the spawn I'm in happens to suck. That's unfair gameplay, and it shouldn't happen if its avoidable. It's bad for the game, its frustrating for the player, and its especially terrible for the legitimacy of high level tournaments. There's a reason practically every tournament has removed close spawns on metalopolis and shattered temple. It's fucking unfair, and a map has to be fair for the games on it to be taken seriously. | ||
|
shizna
United Kingdom803 Posts
close distance should still favour rush strategies, but not so much that they become impossible to defend. | ||
| ||
