EPTThe Close Spawning Position [poll] - Page 23
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Azuroz
Sweden1630 Posts
| ||
|
Jayrod
1820 Posts
all in all zerg isn't struggling at all. You may play zerg... and you may struggle with a matchup, but by and large your race is completely fine. If you really feel otherwise, either zerg isn't the race for you, you haven't worked hard enough to improve, or you have plateau'd at whatever level you are at. | ||
|
Kaitokid
Germany1327 Posts
| ||
Ares[Effort]
DEMACIA6550 Posts
Ok so what is mid masters, to someone it can be 800-1000 to someone else it can be 1400-1600 | ||
|
Sek-Kuar
Czech Republic593 Posts
| ||
|
aquanda
United States477 Posts
| ||
|
waitwhat
United States152 Posts
Ares[Effort] wrote: Platinum? Ares[Effort] wrote: What league are you in? You've got be kidding me if you think its remotely close to balanced, you ever try playing macro game as zerg on close spawn, no? Well that's because you can't. And have some variety lol, you can have more variety if it's not close ground spawn. Ares[Effort] wrote: What league are you in and how many points, link to profile please. Ares[Effort] wrote:Ok so what is mid masters, to someone it can be 800-1000 to someone else it can be 1400-1600 Asking everyone that disagrees with you what their ladder ranking in is a pretty shitty way to conclude if their opinion is valid or not. There are plenty of non-high ranked players with knowledgeable opinions (ie. just about every single caster around). Do you see day9 linking his ladder rank in chat after every daily he states his opinion on certain controversial sc2 topics? Dayvie, ranked pretty high random player, ALSO 1/2 of the balance team shares the same opinion with some of these guys: close spawning positions are meant to encourage different playing styles. Do you want dayvie to link his profile after that interview where he clearly states he is under the impression that close positions are fine? Stop trying to police the thread and accept the fact that some people will disagree with you and actually embrace the idea in which people should be encouraged to come up with rushing strats when spawning close to their opponent. | ||
|
Voltaire
United States1485 Posts
| ||
|
Jonas :)
United States511 Posts
On July 17 2011 03:16 Ares[Effort] wrote: Ok so what is mid masters, to someone it can be 800-1000 to someone else it can be 1400-1600 I'm not going to act like I'm amazing at this game, I play like maybe 5 or 10 games a week, not enough to spend my bonus pool. I don't have anything to hide http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/profile/291937/1/Jonas/ Presumably my opponents are also as bad at the game as you assumed me to be, so regardless of how good you think I am my argument doesn't sudden become invalidated | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
| ||
|
DroneAllDay
United States140 Posts
On July 17 2011 02:40 Jonas  wrote:Zergs need to stop bitching about closed positions, they just have to accept that thier standard strategies won't work. From my experience in mid-masters, PvZ on closed positions shattered temple the spanishiwa no gas style can hold off any early aggression while droning up comfortably, and it transitions into a nearly unstoppable spine crawler/queen rush. You can't get colossus fast enough, void rays die to 5 or more queens, mass gateway style loses to transfuse on the spine crawlers and roaches. Cannon + building walloff gets picked off by spines. I guess 5 gate robo/ immortal could do decently at stalling the inevitable push by picking off creep tumors and attempting to power trough the queen's transfuses by focus firing the spine crawlers and forcefielding away the roaches, but it leaves you really vulnerable to a hydralisk transition. It's tough, and by no means imbalanced Actually all the Protoss has to do is go around the spine crawler (there are 2 paths on metal and you can go through the 3rd on shattered so spines and queens stay at home until you get a siege unit. Additionally zeros do know our strategies don't work because they requires a 3 base Zerg vs a 2 base non-Zerg. At this point I have to option to expand towards you (where unless my opponent is really bad, I lose) ortake a ninja expo, which if scouted, will die and then till be even bases, and I lose. This problem gets even worse vs Terran as 2-rax in those positions in an infant win, especially coupled with the fact that on can still wall off at the bottom of ramps. In the mid game then, when Terran decides to push out with tanks, the push could be stopped as Zerg could stall for time as Terran lusts across a longer distance and now although Zerg may still stall for time, the amount he receives is significantly less and will usually not have enough units unless he was about to all-in. The fact of the matter is that Anyone who has played Zerg at pretty much any level including pro-play will tell you that close positions was imbalanced and Zerg could not win vs a Terran or protoss of equal skill. | ||
|
dhe95
United States1213 Posts
On July 17 2011 03:17 waitwhat wrote: Asking everyone that disagrees with you what their ladder ranking in is a pretty shitty way to conclude if their opinion is valid or not. There are plenty of non-high ranked players with knowledgeable opinions (ie. just about every single caster around). Do you see day9 linking his ladder rank in chat after every daily he states his opinion on certain controversial sc2 topics? Dayvie, ranked pretty high random player, ALSO 1/2 of the balance team shares the same opinion with some of these guys: close spawning positions are meant to encourage different playing styles. Do you want dayvie to link his profile after that interview where he clearly states he is under the impression that close positions are fine? Stop trying to police the thread and accept the fact that some people will disagree with you and actually embrace the idea in which people should be encouraged to come up with rushing strats when spawning close to their opponent. No, it's not whether their opinion is valid, but whether or not the solution that they say works for them will actually work for not just their level. | ||
|
aquanda
United States477 Posts
On July 17 2011 03:17 waitwhat wrote: Asking everyone that disagrees with you what their ladder ranking in is a pretty shitty way to conclude if their opinion is valid or not. There are plenty of non-high ranked players with knowledgeable opinions (ie. just about every single caster around). Do you see day9 linking his ladder rank in chat after every daily he states his opinion on certain controversial sc2 topics? Dayvie, ranked pretty high random player, ALSO 1/2 of the balance team shares the same opinion with some of these guys: close spawning positions are meant to encourage different playing styles. Do you want dayvie to link his profile after that interview where he clearly states he is under the impression that close positions are fine? Stop trying to police the thread and accept the fact that some people will disagree with you and actually embrace the idea in which people should be encouraged to come up with rushing strats when spawning close to their opponent. Define 'non-high ranked'. Day9 was a BW pro, he is not the normal caster at all. Most casters have an low to average game knowledge, and then there are a few like Painuser that used be at the top level but now just cast. Even when I listen to low to mid masters level casters they say some of the most off the wall statements and make me facepalm. Your '1/2 of the balance team' comment is pretty interesting, which members of the balance team don't agree with the other half? I'm sure this statement is accurate... So your solution to ZvX close position is to come up with new rushing strats? Do you realize how completely silly that sounds? Not only does zerg have some of the worst rush capability of all the races, but they are extremely easy to predict and counter. Protoss: walled cannons and sentries counter every all in possible. Terran: walled bunkers and marines counter every all in possible. This sounds like a promising waste of time to me! Or maybe I should take the advice of another person in this thread and do the "spine with queen rush". WTF? Even Catz, one of the most original zergs in terms of build order and timings, even agrees that close position against an even opponent is absurd (there is a screenshot of him talking to Dayvie about it). I still play out close position games if it's not against someone I know is good, and still win a decent amount. But it's not because it's balanced it's because the other player isn't very good. | ||
|
waitwhat
United States152 Posts
On July 17 2011 03:31 dhe95 wrote: No, it's not whether their opinion is valid, but whether or not the solution that they say works for them will actually work for not just their level. I'm not even sure what you're disagreeing with or what "solution" you're talking about, or even what "level" of play you want these "solutions" to work for. The ladder is comprised of many tiers of play. Even the top players SPAWN CLOSE..OMG. So why are there highly ranked zergs? Are they the fortunate few that DON'T spawn close to Terrans? Please don't post one liners thinking your thoughts are conveyed appropriately. | ||
|
waitwhat
United States152 Posts
On July 17 2011 03:40 aquanda wrote: Define 'non-high ranked'. Day9 was a BW pro, he is not the normal caster at all. Most casters have an low to average game knowledge, and then there are a few like Painuser that used be at the top level but now just cast. Even when I listen to low to mid masters level casters they say some of the most off the wall statements and make me facepalm. Your '1/2 of the balance team' comment is pretty interesting, which members of the balance team don't agree with the other half? I'm sure this statement is accurate... So your solution to ZvX close position is to come up with new rushing strats? Do you realize how completely silly that sounds? Not only does zerg have some of the worst rush capability of all the races, but they are extremely easy to predict and counter. Protoss: walled cannons and sentries counter every all in possible. Terran: walled bunkers and marines counter every all in possible. This sounds like a promising waste of time to me! Or maybe I should take the advice of another person in this thread and do the "spine with queen rush". WTF? Even Catz, one of the most original zergs in terms of build order and timings, even agrees that close position against an even opponent is absurd (there is a screenshot of him talking to Dayvie about it). "1/2" was stating that dayvie is one half of the balance team, not that just half agree with this. I can't define "non-high ranked" because I'm not sure what Ares is looking for in terms of rank before allowing their opinion to have some validity. You're claiming that MY SOLUTION is to come up with rushing strats. I never said it was. I said that Ares shouldn't patrol the thread asking everyone that agrees with close spawns what their ladder rankings are. I don't agree with close spawns either, but that doesn't mean I'll counter their opinions by questioning where they stand on blizzard's ladder. | ||
|
emc
United States3088 Posts
Blizzard wants maps that appeal to everybody. Cross spawns may appeal to GM, Masters, Diamond, and macro players etc. But Close positions make it fun for newbies who probably don't understand how and when to expand or even how to play with a mid or end game strategy. I think it's clear with the maps they've chosen in season 3 is that they want maps that can be long macro maps or a cheese map depending on where you spawn, offering different play styles and variety. Obviously it's a pain, but for ladder it's fine because tournaments have decided not to use close spawn. | ||
|
Wr3k
Canada2533 Posts
| ||
|
Bambipwnsu
Canada698 Posts
From what i've seen people are talking about balance of close positions for zerg...since people like aquanda and ares are so hostile over it. I think people have to realize that it affects the other race's playstyles as well. On a map such as metalopolis (and im going to address this map as an example), it becomes much harder to get a third. I dont play zerg but I could see something like taking the gold something that almost forces P or T into a 2 base push / harass tactic which is reasonable unless you make 70 drones and 6 lings. Also, the map has other issues in ZvT as well such as close by air being very favorable to ling muta play which arguably tips the scale back to about even. Either way..I don't see this map being so terrible for zerg in any position. You would have to sit behind bomber or nestea or mc and watch them play positions over and over till I think any positional balance can be addressed. Even someone like bomber has metalopolis vetoed off. Can anyone explain this exactly? probably not. Everyone has their own playstyle and reasons. | ||
|
grungust
United States325 Posts
or you don't support it because you understand how horrendously unfair it is. | ||
|
InvalidID
United States1050 Posts
| ||
| ||
