EPTThe Close Spawning Position [poll] - Page 16
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Jedi Master
Germany185 Posts
| ||
|
Probe1
United States17920 Posts
| ||
|
Zarahtra
Iceland4053 Posts
| ||
|
Warpath
Canada1242 Posts
| ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
| ||
|
latan
740 Posts
| ||
|
blamous
United States377 Posts
| ||
|
dbosworld
United States317 Posts
| ||
|
Ketara
United States15065 Posts
I'm not necessarily against having a different map pool for masters league, nor am I against making new maps where you have close spawns but they are a little bit farther away, but that sort of thing takes more work than the current attitude. I do think that this "no close spawns" ideology is hurting new tournament map design, however. Take a look at JackyPrime's new map Asteroid Junction (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=232726) I feel like if you could balance close spawns on that map they could be very interesting and provide a very different sort of game than cross spawns, but the current attitude towards map making is that rather than design a map such that close spawns work, you should just remove them. It makes me sadface. | ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
How about you ask about close air posis or cross posis, or xel naga towers etc etc. Alot of people say xel naga is a nice map, for me its a rush map worse then steppes. (on steppes you could force macro games and have a super easy to defend third). Close posis should stay part of the game, its make the early game way more interesting, and if you watch old pro bw games, that was one base play without worker overproduction etc (and one bw base eco can't even support what one base in sc2 can). Just want to say that even if alot of people despise close posi (thats why its the least developed position), sc2 rushes compared to bw are sooooo much weaker, so i don't see an issue with close positions, it will evolve and will ad variiety to the matchups. (not talking about one base vs one base). But if close posi goes, close air has to go as well. A zerg can easily 9 pool and when the ovi can scout the close air posi, if no one is there he knows where the opponent is, thats a way to fast scout compared to the other races. Or they remove the starting ovi and give hatches extra +8 supply and make em 100 minerals more expensiv. I just hope blizzard won't listen and that tournament map makers will soon figure out how to make a proper 4 player map and not thos fake 4 player 3 player maps, because they are to lazy and just mirror the maps and remove the close posi. Will just sit this phase out, it is only a temporary event. Even if it stays, blizzard will buff t1 timings then, so big 4 player maps look like small 2 player maps in the early game hehe. | ||
|
Neino
Norway295 Posts
| ||
|
iCanada
Canada10660 Posts
On June 17 2011 00:40 Ketara wrote: I am very much against removing close spawn positions from ladder. Not everybody is masters league, and most games up until Platinum don't even go past 1 base. I'm not necessarily against having a different map pool for masters league, nor am I against making new maps where you have close spawns but they are a little bit farther away, but that sort of thing takes more work than the current attitude. I do think that this "no close spawns" ideology is hurting new tournament map design, however. Take a look at JackyPrime's new map Asteroid Junction (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=232726) I feel like if you could balance close spawns on that map they could be very interesting and provide a very different sort of game than cross spawns, but the current attitude towards map making is that rather than design a map such that close spawns work, you should just remove them. It makes me sadface. If they can balance it than great. As it currently stands, close positions on Metalopolis for example is just plain out obnoxious. As Zerg your options are really limited... you can't hatch first because a Terran can plant a bunker before you can plant your hatch and at that stage of the game you cannot afford to have five drones not mining. So you are stuck on one base, so you sit their with worse production capacity and a worse economy because of Mules and just kind of suffer wave after wave of attack. And you have to preemptively make units/spines based on one of several times a push could come putting you even further behind economically. I dunno, I feel like my only option at that point is just to flip a coin and go allin because you can't play a macro game, and you are at a huge disadvantage if you try to play a passive defensive style because of the larva mechanic. I dunno, I don't want to sit here and QQ, but what else are you supposed to do besides hoping your allin will catch a terran who is likely licking his chops at applying pressure all game long off guard? | ||
|
Probe1
United States17920 Posts
I follow a strict logic on this: Steppes of War was removed because players did not like the close rush distance. Shattered Temple has an equally close rush distance in close spawn positions. What the hell, at least before we could veto the map. Now we have to accept that every game there is a chance that ZvT will be a loss if skill is equal. | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On June 17 2011 00:25 latan wrote: there is still such a thing as 'casuals', blizz should encourage variety. Pros and tournaments can use the map editor to do whatever they see best. Steppes of War is still available in the map pool. Why should the ladder - which is conmpetitive and not casual - include maps with totally stupid close spawn positions? The casuals can play on the tiny maps if they want, but leave them out of the ladder because we already had too much balance whining and nerfs because of them. Competitions need a stable playing ground, but the [too] close spawns make the game too random. | ||
|
dadu
8 Posts
| ||
|
DoomsVille
Canada4885 Posts
They had the foresight to prevent close positions on shakuras (although there would be a ton of problems beyond just rush distance) so I think there is a decent chance they remove close positions on ST/meta. Could just be wishful thinking though. | ||
|
Ihpares
United States40 Posts
| ||
|
kNightLite
United States408 Posts
I don't have a problem with close positions in general. Only with close positions on certain maps. Close by ground on metalopolis, slag pits, and shattered temple is bad, but on other maps its fine. I don't even mind DQ because even though close by ground positions are short ramp-to-ramp you still have the option of the backdoor expansion. No map is ever going to be perfect with regards to positioning. In fact you could argue that cross spawns are imbalanced for Protoss because of warpin, or Zerg because of inject. Or you could argue that 2-player maps are imbalanced for 6-pool / proxy 2 rax / cannon rushing. | ||
|
J.E.G.
United States389 Posts
| ||
|
Binabik
Germany686 Posts
| ||
| ||
