EPTThe game is about finding out who is the better player and not about finding out who has got some spawn position luck.
The Close Spawning Position [poll] - Page 18
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
TigerKarl
1757 Posts
The game is about finding out who is the better player and not about finding out who has got some spawn position luck. | ||
|
Konsume
Canada466 Posts
On June 17 2011 02:55 Gnax wrote: If you remove close pos. it only makes the game easier as you don't have to take rushes and cheese into account. You can just herp derp a greedy build every game. we're not playing the same game! cheese happens even cross position... | ||
|
Yamulo
United States2096 Posts
On March 30 2011 08:26 FiWiFaKi wrote: I want to ask, what difference does close or cross positions on shattered temple make in zvp? As a protoss I'll have a close pylon anyways. I'm personally really enjoy close positions so I'm againsts it... I think it's fine - Until you're top top masters a push arriving 5-10 seconds earlier would have killed you either way and it's way overdone. If you have such a problem, don't play those maps. That isn't the problem... The problem is expanding, tell me in close spawn shattered where you can take a safe third. Being forced into ridiculous 2 base all ins is not fun by any standard of the imagination. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 17 2011 03:07 Yamulo wrote: That isn't the problem... The problem is expanding, tell me in close spawn shattered where you can take a safe third. Being forced into ridiculous 2 base all ins is not fun by any standard of the imagination. Agreed. Also, if terran can take a third by going through the rocks next to the nature(bottom or top expasions), they can seige your natural. I have had more than one terran ninja an expasion up their before I noticed. I pretty much want to GG right after that happens. | ||
|
zawk9
United States427 Posts
Its likely Blizzard hasn't removed them yet because it would mess up win percentages in low/high masters... Unfortunately that essentially means that their using a coin flip to balance the different stages of the game. People ought to be more outraged at that, but for now the outcry isn't enough and Blizzard can keep dodging the question.. | ||
|
Wren
United States745 Posts
Jinro pretty much wrapped up the problem a long time ago, it's a matter of options. Big maps allow for all kinds of play. You can still rush and use your all ins, as well as play macro games. There's no style of game eliminated by the map. However, when you're at close position or on a tiny map, the map eliminates gameplay options. While it may or may not be imbalanced, it limits the options available to players. That a map or positioning eliminates particular styles of play is enough to reject it. | ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
I'd say 20%-30% of a good zerg player's total ladder losses are ones that would have been wins if close positions didn't exist. | ||
|
Soluhwin
United States1287 Posts
On June 17 2011 03:11 Wren wrote: I think it's amazing that this thread is still going... Jinro pretty much wrapped up the problem a long time ago, it's a matter of options. Big maps allow for all kinds of play. You can still rush and use your all ins, as well as play macro games. There's no style of game eliminated by the map. However, when you're at close position or on a tiny map, the map eliminates gameplay options. While it may or may not be imbalanced, it limits the options available to players. That a map or positioning eliminates particular styles of play is enough to reject it. I agree. It also comes down to having many cases where the worse player comes out on top because of a coinflip with build orders. Ever try holding a 2rax as zerg on close positions? Even with a pool first it is impossible with anything standard and the terran player can win in this circumstance before the zerg's mid/late game talent comes into play. | ||
|
Telcontar
United Kingdom16710 Posts
| ||
|
shr0ud
Finland222 Posts
Might aswell remove the race all together if blizzard is actually going to implement this. | ||
|
Wren
United States745 Posts
On June 17 2011 03:32 shr0ud wrote: And terran is supposed to...macro? Against zerg? Might aswell remove the race all together if blizzard is actually going to implement this. On anything but close-spawns, every strategy is available. If you're too scared to macro against a zerg, then do timings to your heart's content. MMA hasn't lost a televised TvZ match yet, seems like it's a winnable macro game... | ||
|
Falcor
Canada894 Posts
On June 17 2011 03:10 Plansix wrote: Agreed. Also, if terran can take a third by going through the rocks next to the nature(bottom or top expasions), they can seige your natural. I have had more than one terran ninja an expasion up their before I noticed. I pretty much want to GG right after that happens. Funny how on shakuras they thought it was imbalanced so they changed the map design....only to put in in a revised map.. | ||
|
DavidLindley
United States84 Posts
| ||
|
MonkSEA
Australia1227 Posts
| ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On June 17 2011 05:01 Wren wrote: On anything but close-spawns, every strategy is available. If you're too scared to macro against a zerg, then do timings to your heart's content. MMA hasn't lost a televised TvZ match yet, seems like it's a winnable macro game... MMA also consistently outplays his opponents. If I'm facing a gold Zerg, yes, I can outmacro them to hell and back. If I'm playing somebody roughly my skill level, it's much harder to out macro them. It becomes even harder when they realize I'm trying to macro up (since they just double their efforts and lol at my attempt). In cross positions, Terran is forced to play behind for the most part. You remove close spawns, you also unbalance a fairly balanced game. The only reason tournaments get away with it is because of the initial absence of Zerg pros back at release. Look MLG which had good race distribution among pros, which ended up with an OVERWHELMING majority of Zergs in the top placements. MLG has some of the most macro-oriented maps, eliminating close positions and reducing cheese against Zerg. I guess it paid of for them in the end. | ||
|
Markwerf
Netherlands3728 Posts
Close position TvZ is just horrible though and for that reason alone the close spawning option should be removed. Ideally the maps could be balanced regardless of base distance but that's simply not true, just like zerg is favored on some of the huge maps T is just insanely favored on the small ones. Removing them from the map pool or altering them is very important imo because such a map completely skews the statistics blizzard might have on balance. | ||
|
birdkicker
United States752 Posts
O yea good point. Terrans should never have to outplay their opponents. | ||
|
TheSubtleArt
Canada2527 Posts
| ||
|
Xorphene
United Kingdom492 Posts
On June 17 2011 03:32 shr0ud wrote: And terran is supposed to...macro? Against zerg? Might aswell remove the race all together if blizzard is actually going to implement this. Drop dem Mules, brohan! Close Metal is shortest rush distance in SC2. In ZvT it's absolute bullshit and any player who claims otherwise is in denial (or plays Terran). | ||
|
iCanada
Canada10660 Posts
On June 17 2011 03:15 Soluhwin wrote: I agree. It also comes down to having many cases where the worse player comes out on top because of a coinflip with build orders. Ever try holding a 2rax as zerg on close positions? Even with a pool first it is impossible with anything standard and the terran player can win in this circumstance before the zerg's mid/late game talent comes into play. You mean it is unreasonable for a Zerg to be forced to pool first and cut economy to rush for Spinecrawler and Baneling/roach defence to survive marine pressure that a Terran can expand behind? Pfft... That being said, close position PvZ isn't really all that different than far position PvZ with perhaps the exception of two gate pressure but most toss' FE these days, and fourgate is identical regardless of positions. | ||
| ||
