EPTThe Close Spawning Position [poll] - Page 15
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
eXwOn
Canada351 Posts
| ||
|
sCfO20
176 Posts
I just wish they'd do something about the close positions on Xel naga caverns.. Srslyimba. | ||
|
Charger
United States2405 Posts
On May 07 2011 03:20 loveeholicce wrote: 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. I'm not going to sit here and argue with you, all I said was what I find it entertaining to play and watch and that includes a map or two in the pool that maybe SLIGHTLY favors one race more than the others. So for instance, Tal'darim or typhon peaks are big maps and typically good for zerg but bad for terran ZvT. Close spawns metal is typically good for terran but bad for zerg ZvT. This is because of the current state of the game where Terran has to be harassing and attacking almost non stop to keep drone production down. Otherwise they go into the late game too far behind to stand much of a chance. If I could snap my fingers and make it so distance doesn't favor or hurt one race over another then yeah, I wouldn't care if every map took 10 minutes to traverse but as it stands now, a race can benefit or get behind based on distance alone. Which is why I don't mind a mix of large, medium, and small (close spawns included) maps. | ||
|
dNa
Germany591 Posts
On May 07 2011 03:20 loveeholicce wrote: 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. 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. well, of course there are spawn positions, where certain strategies are harder to pull of than others. That goes for every race. So iam saying a Zerg that spawns in close positions has to, as well as a player of the other two races, adjust to the situation. build more defensive structures, or go for an aggressive opening. And while i understand that a zerg has a harder time transitioning out of those earlly aggression style openings, if he does not kill the opponent right away (yes, that is a possibility) it is not impossible to do that. So basically the spawningpoint does not suck because of the race you play, but because of you not choosing to play the strategy that would suit the spawningpoint-situation. regarding the tournaments i completely understand your point tho. While i not neccessarily agree with that, i can understand why people are not happy with the idea, that they would have to depend on a 'coinflip' spawnwise, maybe even refer to an all-in. Also those games are, i understand that, not very appealing to the observers. but we don't talk about tournaments, we don't talk about matches for money, we don't talk about games which are observed by people that get pissed because the anticipated 20minute game ends after 5. we talk about the general possibility to have short rush distances on the maps in general. that includes the ladder, where we play for fun, and can happily choose to all-in the guy who doesn't respond to our 'gl hf'  and while i do enjoy macro games most of the time, i like to play some micro intensive fast short games just as much. | ||
|
loveeholicce
Korea (South)785 Posts
On May 07 2011 03:49 Charger wrote: I'm not going to sit here and argue with you, all I said was what I find it entertaining to play and watch and that includes a map or two in the pool that maybe SLIGHTLY favors one race more than the others. So for instance, Tal'darim or typhon peaks are big maps and typically good for zerg but bad for terran ZvT. Close spawns metal is typically good for terran but bad for zerg ZvT. This is because of the current state of the game where Terran has to be harassing and attacking almost non stop to keep drone production down. Otherwise they go into the late game too far behind to stand much of a chance. If I could snap my fingers and make it so distance doesn't favor or hurt one race over another then yeah, I wouldn't care if every map took 10 minutes to traverse but as it stands now, a race can benefit or get behind based on distance alone. Which is why I don't mind a mix of large, medium, and small (close spawns included) maps. But this is not a "slight" imbalance. This isn't Tal Darim (which is actually very good for TvZ btw) which could favor a race a little more. Cross spawns is literally over 80% winrate for the non Zerg. You'd have to actually play Zerg to understand how obnoxious it is to play close spawns. That kind of ridiculous imbalance shouldn't exist anywhere. Terrans adapted to Tal Darim. Drop play become very good as expos were spread out and creep spread between bases hard to keep up. An easy to secure 3rd and large distance led to Terran play centering around drop harass while building up a large core army off 3 bases, which is very powerful vs Zergs. The ability to siege up below the cliff overlooking the Zerg's natural expo also made 2 base pushes very strong despite the larger distance. The map had several types of play that were viable, and the stats are fairly even. Close spawns, however are not. They don't lead to diverse game play, they don't lead to creativity. All they do is give the Zerg player a massive disadvantage and make his only two options either all in off 1 base or all in off 2 base. This doesn't encourage any sort of interesting gameplay. You either do game ending damage or you lose. If you try to play a normal game on close spawns you're going to lose every time, provided you can even hold of their 2 base timing attack. I'm fine for a "rush map" here and there but I'm not fine for a rush map that gives Zergs a 20% winrate. | ||
|
Trawler
Sweden382 Posts
| ||
|
eighteen8
105 Posts
hint: there are more openings than hatch first and zerg can be effective without over9000 bases incl. drones. OT: that is what i loved about the gsl at the geinning...games were avg 10-15min with crazy micro battles of small groups of units...blizz patched all the early action away and if you patch away the close position (as they already did for some maps for certain tournaments) there will only be boring 45min macro games => stop adding uber-large 4P maps and start working on small-medium 2P maps | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10339 Posts
In Brood War, there were many maps shaped like Metal and Shattered (close air positions, close ground, and cross positions), the most popular which is Python ![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/jkillashark/4Python11.jpg) Notice how even though there are close positions, the bases are moved further away so that the close positions aren't so close. Air positions are about the same but those aren't nearly as much trouble as close ground positions. Since they already took out so many small maps, they should definitely keep close ground positions in (adds more variety; just like they say, they want some games to be more rush orientated) but just fix the maps so the close ground positions aren't so close. If they add another 20 units of distance for close ground positions, the rush distance will be almost about 10 seconds longer, which is quite significant while not forcing the map to be changed so much. (The air positions should probably be just a few more units further away also, but that's not so much a map imbalance but instead something that promotes more air play and drop harass). | ||
|
Megaliskuu
United States5123 Posts
| ||
|
Nerski
United States1095 Posts
Lose game 1 thanks cross spawns (get to maybe choose map) Win game 2 because the player is better opponent gets to choose map 3 gets close spawns again profit. | ||
|
archon256
United States363 Posts
On May 07 2011 03:33 eXwOn wrote: I voted yes. But at the same time, imagine if only cross positions were available. I would imagine Protoss and Zerg players would be snickering as Terrans struggled to keep up with macro. Maybe, but I'd rather have Terran macro be buffed and spawn positions normalized rather than leaving close positions in and favoring quick games. But then this argument is moot, Blizzard has said that they deliberately leave in "rush maps" because they want game diversity on the ladder, and close spawns promote that as well. Sucks for those of us who voted yes, but there you have it. | ||
|
Bleak
Turkey3059 Posts
| ||
|
Legion710
Canada423 Posts
| ||
|
incifan
Germany138 Posts
I say bring close positions back to tournaments. | ||
|
Legion710
Canada423 Posts
| ||
|
Yaotzin
South Africa4280 Posts
On June 16 2011 23:52 ico wrote: I enjoy close positions. the matches in the past have shown every race can handle it (even though certain zergs have this victim mentality and cried(some still do) alot when they could not play NR10. I say bring close positions back to tournaments. Terran is imba in close positions, period. Zerg have it worst but it's nasty for toss too. The marine/tank/banshee/raven type allin in particular is almost impossible to stop because you can't harass/delay them. Aside from imba though, it just makes for nasty, short games. Not fun. Anywho Blizz have said they're getting rid. Painful how slow they work, but better late than never. | ||
|
skeldark
Germany2223 Posts
blizz should go back to 2 player maps for 2 players and make fair distance. if blizz just remove close spawn but leave cross in the balance would be gone because the balance at moment give some races "free" wins on some positions. Like lt close for terran or meta cross for zerg | ||
|
Jarky
Sweden26 Posts
If there's a problem. You don't remove it. You solve it! | ||
|
sylverfyre
United States8298 Posts
I will happily continue smashing doors in with roach ling on these maps, but it isn't really fun to just coinflip these games as the only way of winning with any reliability. The BW python map is a great example of having close ground spawning positions that aren't stupid. Yes, they were close, but they weren't THIS CLOSE. | ||
|
Shuffleus
Australia764 Posts
On June 16 2011 23:56 Legion710 wrote: I agree that close spawn is not even close to how imbalanced most people want to make it seem like. It makes for dynamic gameplay if anything. Any zerg that still has a victim mentality needs to uninstall in my opinion. It's been a couple of patches since zerg has been completely fine, and I'm sparing my words. It just seems like they feel entitled to have impenetrable defense and triple expand. If you honestly believe that a situation such as close positions metal isn't 'heavily imbalanced' you're either completely ignorant or moronic. Go play ZvT and defend against any grandmaster Terran who double 11rax's and controls it well. If you win a single legitimate game against a high level opponent under those circumstances let me know. | ||
| ||
