Absolutely not. Each spawning position provides a different play style and a different game experience. If I was forced to play the same way every time I played a map, or expect the same exact thing every time, then I would not play this game. One of the great things about this game is that there are so many variables that dictate what could/could not happen in a given matchup, on a given map. If you take the map variables away it hurts the game, imo.

dbosworld

United States317 Posts

June 16 2011 15:33 GMT

#308

Isn't Blizzards reasoning for not removing these maps is because it provides a different type of gameplay/games then tournament play for the ladder? Blizzard understands that it is not the best for tournaments and because of that reason close position maps are not used in tournaments. They don't need to remove it. They want it in the ladder. Tournaments will remain absent of close position maps.

Ketara

United States15065 Posts

June 16 2011 15:40 GMT

#309

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.

FeyFey

Germany10114 Posts

June 16 2011 15:40 GMT

#310

close posi is so imba for zerg, zerg conters are unstoppable there, just get 19 drones and your expansion and take the free win. Enough of qq though hehe.
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

June 16 2011 15:52 GMT

#311

I think they defenetly should be removed. The terran slow pushes are almost impossible to hold off for both zerg and toss in close pos.

iCanada

Canada10660 Posts

June 16 2011 15:52 GMT

#312

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

June 16 2011 15:54 GMT

#313

It's funny I think close positions are imbalanced against zerg.

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

June 16 2011 15:57 GMT

#314

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

June 16 2011 16:01 GMT

#315

Removing close positions would be semi-optimal, close positions are also a part of certain strategies and the possibility to deal some early game pressure, to delay a expansion, to not let Zerg get to many drones and just get to far ahead in economy. To balance positional advantages Blizzard needs new maps that have more kind of middle-ranged positions, so that for example Terran can deal early game pressure but also Zerg can defend it. New maps would be in general good to balance this game, not some more or less random changes for units, building times and upgrades.

DoomsVille

Canada4885 Posts

June 16 2011 16:07 GMT

#316

I don't think we are going to see them removed until the next season. Blizzard said they will address the map pool then.

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

June 16 2011 16:33 GMT

#317

Close positions on Metalopolis and Shattered Temple are particularly bad for Zerg. Having to take a "Hidden", far away third leaves the Zerg WAY open to timing pushes, and even with the incredible mobility, it's impossible to defend a third without delaying it so long you're behind.

kNightLite

United States408 Posts

June 16 2011 17:26 GMT

#318

I voted no. I don't want every single game to be a macro game. Even the way things are now, when I'm watching a TvP in MLG/GSL I fast-forward to the point where scouting workers are killed/expelled, because there's literally no early game antics on those long maps.

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

June 16 2011 17:28 GMT

#319

no. close spawns encourage more diverse play and increase demand on the player to be able to adapt to a variety of different possible situations in such a position.