DUHHHHHH. Of course they should. Close positions takes no skill kill an opponent with a completely generic timing attack. At least on longer positions any timing attacks need to be well-planned

Gecko

United States519 Posts

March 29 2011 23:59 GMT

#22

On March 30 2011 08:42 Striding Strider wrote:
Slag Pits close spawns should definitely be disabled..

Slag pits should not exist lol

Deleted User 124618

1142 Posts

March 30 2011 00:03 GMT

#23

Close positions provide variety to gameplay. If a race has a problem dealing with close position spawns, the race should be changed. Not the maps.

darklordjac

Canada2231 Posts

March 30 2011 00:04 GMT

#24

Don't get rid of them, both have what they had in broodwar where it decreased the time by a bit, but not nearly as much as they have now.

i_am_immure

United States67 Posts

March 30 2011 00:49 GMT

#25

On March 30 2011 08:59 Gecko wrote:

Show nested quote +

Slag pits should not exist lol

Yeah I agree, slag pits should have never been added into the map pool.

FinestHour

United States18466 Posts

March 30 2011 00:54 GMT

#26

On March 30 2011 09:04 darklordjac wrote:
Don't get rid of them, both have what they had in broodwar where it decreased the time by a bit, but not nearly as much as they have now.

This. I really dont want to play a 20-30 minute game, every game. There needs to be variety and flavor. You cant really expect to play greedy every game and be safe from any kind of retaliation.

FuzzyLord

253 Posts

March 30 2011 00:54 GMT

#27

Nah, i think they should still keep the maps in the map pool. They are maps that play to terran and protoss strengths, just like how large maps play to zerg strength. If all the maps were macro-oriented, Zerg would have favorable games.

Aequos

Canada606 Posts

March 30 2011 00:56 GMT

#28

I'd say just design maps that are symmetric instead of rotationally symmetric. The rotational symmetry sets certain spawn positions on 4 person maps to obscenely close vs obscenely far.

shadowboxer

United States224 Posts

March 30 2011 00:57 GMT

#29

On March 30 2011 08:24 Tump wrote:
Don't eliminate close positions. Just make less rush maps. A balanced map pool is a good one.

Game would be boring if every single game was played on a macro map (and vice versa!). Just sayin'.

I hope you're joking. It's not like it's hard to cheese on a macro map, it's just not a free win for Terran/Protoss like it is if it's close positions vs. zerg.

Slago

Canada726 Posts

March 30 2011 00:57 GMT

#30

theres a TvZ push that will kill a zerg every single time on close position on Shattered temple

Carras

Argentina860 Posts

March 30 2011 00:58 GMT

#31

ok, close positions are really stupid.. THERES ABSOLUTELY NO WAY TO BEAT A TERRAN OR TOSS (WITH ZERG) IF THEY TAKE THEIR NATURAL... no fucking way... only by going with a very good all in vs a noob..
u cant even take a 3rd base..

HEROwithNOlegacy

United States850 Posts

March 30 2011 01:54 GMT

#32

Although I think it's good for a game to have close aggressive positions, these are just to close and to be honest completely imbalanced for zerg. Not being able to take and reasonable third base is ridiculous and having your opponent one attack command to your front door is ridiculous. However, because ladder matches are ladder matches and are not tournament games it really isn't that big of a deal as long as you don't make money from ladder.

Xapti

Canada2473 Posts

March 30 2011 05:18 GMT

#33

Metalopolis is bad for the same reasons of shattered temple, but Shattered temple is even worse than metal due to the 3rd in the corner that means instant death. Opponent just needs to wall/defend main a bit, expand through the corner expo, and make a super small push to destroy zerg's natural.

Personally I don't mind slag pits TOO MUCH. It's close positions have got to be the closest damn positions around making it terrible for ZvP, but at least it's not as bad if you play cautious vs terran.

Amandil

United States58 Posts

March 30 2011 07:23 GMT

#34

Close spawns are good to practice all ins as zerg, thats about it. Keeping a third base is ridiculously hard as any drop or zealot warp in is so far away you cant defend it without droping a good amount of money on static defense, nydus, or units that are not with your main army. Also there is no time to react against opponents agression, so you are forced to cut some econ for defense.
And no, 4 gate is much scarier close spawns then far. I'm assuming most zergs have learned by now that at least 1 of the 4 lings they spawn at the beginning of zvp have nothing better to do then search for lost probes and hidden pylons. If the army has to move out with the probe and wait for pylon to warp in for reinforcements thats a significant amount of reaction time you dont have when they can warp in at there base and be at your natural in 10 seconds.

Buddhist

United States658 Posts

March 30 2011 07:46 GMT

#35

Even if close positions don't disfavor Zerg, I still don't like the luck factor involved, ever.

Swede

New Zealand853 Posts

March 30 2011 07:55 GMT

#36

On March 30 2011 08:40 Spekulatius wrote:

Show nested quote +

This. Removing close spawn possibility indicates the map is flawed. They shouldn't be removed, Blizzard should solve the problem by balancing the close spawn problem or remove the map itself.

That doesn't make sense. Judging the map as 'flawed' based on a position being disabled is illogical. That judgment is entirely based on the knowledge that the position wasn't disabled at some point. In other words if Metalopolis was released for the first time tomorrow with no close positions you couldn't say the same thing.

The only thing a map should be judged on is whether or not is produces good games. Close positions on some maps don't produce good games, thus they shouldn't be enabled.

ALPINA

3791 Posts

March 30 2011 08:22 GMT

#37

On March 30 2011 08:26 Skillz_Man 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.

Of course you enjoy close positions in PvZ lol. The difference is that toss gets his collosus ball up and breaks the rocks and comes though the rocks into zerg natural and then zerg must fight in super small choke. Even if protoss does not know what forcefields are it would be extremelly hard.

But overall the longer the distance the easier for zerg to prepare to any kind of push - that's obvious I think.

Tookie22

United States187 Posts

March 30 2011 23:26 GMT

#38

I think changes to zerg would be ideal but i would take this since that wolnt happen...

ScythedBlade

308 Posts

March 30 2011 23:29 GMT

#39

Close positions make it balanced. Have you ever seen zerg go all in? On big maps where they just sack 20 roaches when they have no economy and then after a good while, you try to counter attack, you can't punish zerg.

I think Zerg is pretty OPed when you can't punish zerg for all-inning or just sacking everything to try and kill you early on. (Because Protoss and Terran will definitely pay their own price for allinning and losing all their units.

Ftwpker

United States165 Posts

March 30 2011 23:30 GMT

#40

Close spawns should be part of the game just like big rush distances. It varies the style and makes the game more interesting. No this does not mean a free Terran win. This can be abusable by zerg and toss. Zerg can just go all, bling bust, speedling while toss can go quick stalker rush or fast 5 gate attack