EPTIt removes certain strategies specifically for close positions. A good player should know how to deal with any and all situations when placed in them, right?
The Close Spawning Position [poll] - Page 17
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Tatari
United States1179 Posts
It removes certain strategies specifically for close positions. A good player should know how to deal with any and all situations when placed in them, right? | ||
|
Lodgeinator
England8 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 You say that you don't mind close positions but you agree that close positions on meta, slag and shattered are bad. These are the three maps that zerg have the most problems on as they are the only maps in the ladder pool which have the chance of very close positions, putting zerg at a disadvantage. | ||
|
[Silverflame]
Germany640 Posts
| ||
|
berr0n!
Germany59 Posts
| ||
|
agahamsorr0w
Netherlands359 Posts
| ||
|
Falcor
Canada894 Posts
On June 17 2011 02:31 Tatari wrote: No. It removes certain strategies specifically for close positions. A good player should know how to deal with any and all situations when placed in them, right? No it doesn't it just delays certain strategies. You can cheese in any position, just in close positions your opponent has to react 100% perfectly or they lose. | ||
|
Zavior
Finland753 Posts
On June 17 2011 02:31 Tatari wrote: No. It removes certain strategies specifically for close positions. A good player should know how to deal with any and all situations when placed in them, right? What if, these positions allow for such strategies that while the players are of the highest level, the outcome of the match is decided solely on the positions that allow the other player to use a build that the other has no chance of stopping, even while perfectly scouted? | ||
|
Konsume
Canada466 Posts
As zerg it means that you will have to win before the 3rd expand needs to kick in or you're basicaly dead! since there is no way you'll be able to defend the drops and the hidden pylons warpin. Also you're like WAYYYY more vulnerable to terrans and toss allins that are.... PRETTY STRONG!!  Oh and to all of those that says "No, no, don't remove my free wins, it's more diverse play style" they're all either toss or terran and most likely all cheezers! | ||
|
imareaver3
United States906 Posts
On June 17 2011 02:31 Tatari wrote: No. It removes certain strategies specifically for close positions. A good player should know how to deal with any and all situations when placed in them, right? Sure. Then let's add "open base" maps, too, where your entire main is wide open and it's impossible to sim-city due to unbuildable terrain. Just to make sure that Terrans/Tosses can "adjust" to dealing with early Z aggression if they can't wall off. Point is, sure, pro players need to adjust, but if a situation favors one player completely over another, then that's still unfair; one guy has to "adjust"more than the other in a setting that's supposed to be a fair test of skill. | ||
|
Ravomat
Germany427 Posts
On June 17 2011 02:31 Tatari wrote: No. It removes certain strategies specifically for close positions. A good player should know how to deal with any and all situations when placed in them, right? This is probably the most arrogant post I've read in a while. Do you know why people want close positions removed? Because you can't deal with certain situations if you're too close to your opponent. Close spawns are usually an all-in fest because there is no 3rd to take. You can't do anything if you're lacking options. edit: typo | ||
|
Konsume
Canada466 Posts
On June 17 2011 02:38 imareaver3 wrote: Sure. Then let's add "open base" maps, too, where your entire main is wide open and it's impossible to sim-city due to unbuildable terrain. Just to make sure that Terrans/Tosses can "adjust" to dealing with early Z aggression if they can't wall off. Point is, sure, pro players need to adjust, but if a situation favors one player completely over another, then that's still unfair; one guy has to "adjust"more than the other in a setting that's supposed to be a fair test of skill. I just couldn't agree more! this guy spoke the thruth!! | ||
|
ODKStevez
Ireland1225 Posts
| ||
|
tsuxiit
1305 Posts
| ||
|
Foreplay
United States1154 Posts
| ||
|
Sinborn
United States275 Posts
| ||
|
Gnax
Sweden490 Posts
| ||
|
Micket
United Kingdom2163 Posts
Cross positions = fair game. If close positions was balanced, then I wouldn't mind it, even if strategy had to be diversified to account for it. But it's actually imba. No amount of creativity can allow the zerg to not be screwed royally on close positions. There is no 3rd! TvZ cross positions Taldarim is not hugely Z favoured as you think, Terran just has to macro and drop harass. Taldarim is quite balanced any positions TvZ. Close metal is NOT. | ||
|
Waking
United States46 Posts
| ||
|
Huludite
21 Posts
| ||
|
arb
Noobville17922 Posts
On June 17 2011 02:31 Tatari wrote: No. It removes certain strategies specifically for close positions. A good player should know how to deal with any and all situations when placed in them, right? It forces zerg to play an all in because theres no way to defend or do anything in time since its literally 1 mistake -> they're in your base and you lose like i said ealrier in this thread,should be 100% removed | ||
| ||
