| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
grs
Germany2339 Posts
1. If spawns are too close, fix the maps not the way the players spawn. 2. This is a game for the masses. It is completely intransparent to have an algorythm that reduces the possibility of spawn locations. 3. Removing them in tournaments is a completely different thing, because you have competitive (usually pro) players there. It would be no problem to make a minimun rush distance on all ladder maps and that would be the correct solution. | ||
|
Schoenhole
United States88 Posts
If every game started with far away positions where early micro games were nullified and every game ended as a 30 minute macro fest the game would get boring after awhile. Occasionally I like a good rush game to break up the repeating pace. (And for those saying you can't have a micro early game, you know what I mean (re: rush all-in)) In summary: I feel people that vote for getting rid of close positions are too narrow minded and don't want to expand their play. The more different play styles/builds the better Starcraft 2 will be. And if you cut out close positions that will limit the different possibilities. Note: This is my opinion, flame away! | ||
|
xbankx
703 Posts
| ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On June 17 2011 14:00 me_viet wrote: You don't watch enough Starcraft then. I suggest subscribing to any of GSL/MLG/NASL to see some epic Terran pwnage =] You mean a league that is dominated by the best (and most aggressive) Terrans in the world, and 2 other leagues where 50% or more of the top 16 are Zerg? I wouldn't call those great examples of Terran winning late game against Zerg. | ||
|
Icekommander
Canada483 Posts
On June 17 2011 16:01 grs wrote: Removing spawns that are too close (whatever too close is), is the wrong way and an artificial fix for a problem (many feel it as a problem at least). 1. If spawns are too close, fix the maps not the way the players spawn. 2. This is a game for the masses. It is completely intransparent to have an algorythm that reduces the possibility of spawn locations. 3. Removing them in tournaments is a completely different thing, because you have competitive (usually pro) players there. It would be no problem to make a minimun rush distance on all ladder maps and that would be the correct solution. I agree with this. Disabling close spawns makes the maps feel artificial, and poorly planned. On four player maps it also promotes split map situations, because you always have half the map. Close positions encourages a different type of game, simply because expanding beyond two or three bases is much more difficult than it is cross-map. | ||
|
schmutttt
Australia3856 Posts
Spawns make games and maps random but if you know a map is not good for a race from the outset it is a lot less random but still balanced IMO. | ||
|
EricCartman
Canada306 Posts
I say keep the close pos but perhaps at a reduced probability. | ||
|
ATUkno
United States17 Posts
If a zerg 6pools, his lings leave his own ramp at 2:20 (barely avoiding vision of the probe) and make it to the toss ramp at 2:52. This means that the toss has 2 game seconds to react until he has lings in his base. 2 game seconds isnt enough to get a probe in position to make a forge and definitely not enough time to save 250 mins for a forge and pylon. If there were no close positions, a toss would get to the z base earlier and would be able to scout and react properly to a 6pool. I know people will say to send a probe to check for the overlord, but a 6pooling zerg doesnt have to send the overlord. He can either know the timings and assume that 99% of toss scout after the 9 pylon and scout close ground, cross, then close air, thus infering where they spawned by when the probe makes it to their base. Or he can send a drone when the pool is just over half done to check the close and cross positions. | ||
|
pnad
United States46 Posts
On June 17 2011 16:07 Schoenhole wrote: Odds are not many people are going to read this, this far into the thread, but I voted no. I feel that all parts of the game should be "mastered" and the possibility of close positions should be an option. People will complain that its unfair or "imbalanced towards a race" but I feel it just is another thing to master while playing the game and adds a certain level of excitement. If every game started with far away positions where early micro games were nullified and every game ended as a 30 minute macro fest the game would get boring after awhile. Occasionally I like a good rush game to break up the repeating pace. (And for those saying you can't have a micro early game, you know what I mean (re: rush all-in)) In summary: I feel people that vote for getting rid of close positions are too narrow minded and don't want to expand their play. The more different play styles/builds the better Starcraft 2 will be. And if you cut out close positions that will limit the different possibilities. Note: This is my opinion, flame away! I think I can guess what race you play... Close positions makes it nearly impossible to take a third as a zerg player and makes any terran aggression infinitely scarier and sometimes straight up impossible to respond to without fallign far, far behind. | ||
|
EmilA
Denmark4618 Posts
| ||
|
Belial88
United States5217 Posts
I mean it's obvious everyone acknowledges it's totally broken. | ||
|
Micket
United Kingdom2163 Posts
| ||
|
KimJongChill
United States6429 Posts
On June 17 2011 16:07 Schoenhole wrote: Odds are not many people are going to read this, this far into the thread, but I voted no. I feel that all parts of the game should be "mastered" and the possibility of close positions should be an option. People will complain that its unfair or "imbalanced towards a race" but I feel it just is another thing to master while playing the game and adds a certain level of excitement. If every game started with far away positions where early micro games were nullified and every game ended as a 30 minute macro fest the game would get boring after awhile. Occasionally I like a good rush game to break up the repeating pace. (And for those saying you can't have a micro early game, you know what I mean (re: rush all-in)) In summary: I feel people that vote for getting rid of close positions are too narrow minded and don't want to expand their play. The more different play styles/builds the better Starcraft 2 will be. And if you cut out close positions that will limit the different possibilities. Note: This is my opinion, flame away! Close spawn makes it impossible for zerg to macro, unless they get an overwhelming advantage. No zerg will even attempt to play a standard game on those positions, and will just do a crappy one base all-in, or something to that effect. I don't know where this misconception stems from, though, that, longer rush distances negate any possibilities of aggression. In fact, there are a variety of two base timings, as well as other general strategies which allow for an active, aggressive play-style, and which can end the game well before 30 minutes. Believe me, as a zerg player I'd love to win games without having to go 5 base hive tech broodlords to break a terran, so I try to take decisive wins if I see the opportunity. | ||
|
enecateReAP
United Kingdom378 Posts
On June 20 2011 14:12 aksfjh wrote: You mean a league that is dominated by the best (and most aggressive) Terrans in the world, and 2 other leagues where 50% or more of the top 16 are Zerg? I wouldn't call those great examples of Terran winning late game against Zerg. Actually that is 100% UNTRUE. The other 2 leagues actually have 33% in favour of all the races basically. | ||
|
CameronJ
United States57 Posts
Close positions puts a handicap on the current play style of Zerg. Take it out IMO. | ||
|
13JackaL
United States577 Posts
On July 16 2011 18:09 enecateReAP wrote: Actually that is 100% UNTRUE. The other 2 leagues actually have 33% in favour of all the races basically. In terms of the number of players per race it's similar but the stats overall point to the GSL being dominated by terrans (most of the time), MLG being mainly zerg (statistically most dominant in open bracket, and most of top 16), and the NASL finals had more zerg players I believe but they were mainly engaged in ZvZs. I think that the winner of these tournaments was probably the best player at the time who could take down any race, it just happened to be terrans like MMA and PuMa. | ||
|
Hashmeister
Germany238 Posts
| ||
|
Zaganna
Italy17 Posts
The reason is that map are different for giving different strategies/gaming option. It's true that the main thing is done by the player and the chooise he/she does. But if there weren't map short, or no big maps, the game will be all the same....all macro play. A good combination of short/long map and with multiple position is a good way to ruote different kind of playstile. | ||
|
TENTHST
United States204 Posts
what does that tell you.... | ||
|
haffy
United Kingdom430 Posts
On June 20 2011 17:17 EmilA wrote: If ladder winrates are overall very even with close spawning positions, then removal of close positions would screw the winrates in favour of a certain race and the game's inherent design flaw (races uneven at various stages of the game) would have to be dealt with as well. Isn't this a good reason to remove close position? Instead of relaying on close positions to keep the statistics even, they would actually have to balance the game properly. Or more late game strategy's might be developed. | ||
| ||
|
|
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
OSC
WardiTV Invitational
Online Event
RSL Revival
RSL Revival
WardiTV Invitational
Afreeca Starleague
Snow vs Soma
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
