|
I find it surprising that people are even suggesting that close positions are balanced in any way. Try playing ZvT on close positions at a high level, and you'll quickly notice how silly it is. Either you kill the terran with an all-in (which is very predictable and easy to prepare against) or the game gets to a point where you're both on 2 bases and the terran is leapfrogging tanks to your base without any way to stop it.
It's not like the terran needs to all-in himself at all (although all-ins are quite strong as well on close positions), because if he's able to establish a 2nd base and survive, he'll be in a formidable position. There's a reason why close positions are banned in pretty much every single tournament; they produce one-dimensional, imbalanced games. Try to think about how many good games you've seen that were on close positions. I personally can't think of a single one.
And how exactly do close positions create variety and force people to try other styles? Forcing people to all-in only limits the options available, whereas on maps with normal rush distance both macro and rushing are possible.
And last but not least, what makes people think that lower level players enjoy extremely short rush distances? Pretty much every time i hear low level players complain about something it is how much people cheese and rush in bronze.
|
I dont think I ever lose close position vs zerg if I really don't want to. Sometimes it gets old and I decide not to all-in and its still too easy. Its pretty much the same but to much less of a degree vs protoss. So, yeh close rush distances is retarded
|
On July 17 2011 05:03 kaisr wrote:
I dont think I ever lose close position vs zerg if I really don't want to. Sometimes it gets old and I decide not to all-in and its still too easy. Its pretty much the same but to much less of a degree vs protoss. So, yeh close rush distances is retarded
This, I feel the same
|
I dunno what the best way to make blizzard understand how horrible close positions are for zerg. You essentially HAVE to do a 1-2 base all-in. If the enemy has either the sense to make siege tanks or any skill at forcefields you almost always lose.
|
I voted no. On maps like metalopolis I think close positions add some variety
We don't mind variety.
I think close positions on Typhon for example (even though it's a bad map in other ways) are perfectly fine, it's maps like Metal and Slag that are just retarded.
Theres a difference between playing differently, and forcing you to two bases and/or all-inning EVERY game.
That being said, simply disabling close spawns metal/etc is only a temporary solution, what needs be done is maps that are fair from the beginning; we don't want 10 different versions of the same map because blizzard thinks close spawns and walling off ramps are okay. And not just 4 player maps either. Two and three player maps (why not a 5 player map, or an 8 player 1v1 map?) would be great as well.
|
On July 17 2011 04:59 Fredbrik wrote:
And last but not least, what makes people think that lower level players enjoy extremely short rush distances? Pretty much every time i hear low level players complain about something it is how much people cheese and rush in bronze.
The ones who complain about getting cheesed all the time are an extremely vocal minority. At this point, most every active player in bronze league is either a career cheeser, portrait farmer, or rapidly on their way out.
Edit: Fixed quote.
|
Voted no as a protoss. The ladder is, in my opinion, for training. I feel I learn a lot from the close position games, in terms of developing safe macro practices. It makes mistakes and builds much more pointed. Even if it is unfair, consider it like what swimmers do when training sometimes-they wear suits with extra drag to increase training load.
I don't think non-Zerg players realize how frustrating it is. Like, it's not fun. The game is simply not fun to play on close spawns. The only reason Zerg don't simply leave immediately is because they give a shit about ladder ranking. Personally, I scout on 9 vP to do a 3 roach rush on Metal/ST to see if close spawn so I can do the 13pool/12gas/15roach, or 14/14 into baneling bust if it's close. These rushes only take 5 minutes to decide the game for the 20% P/T doesn't scout, otherwise I'd autoleave every time.
I mean it's not fun. It's like actually miserable for Zerg on close spawn. Why would blizzard leave such frustrating map positions still in the game? I know Protoss and Terran think it may be good practice, but Zerg play on close spawn a lot. We already figured out it's imbalanced, it fucking sucks, and it's just not fun to play, and it's irritating. No one enjoys playing the game when you lose every single time on close spawn or only win against an opponent who wasn't worth your time in the first place.
|
I play toss, and I don't like the close positions on meta and temple. Not just because of the early game, but because any possible third is far away. It just feels goofy and you can't have a long game.
I like variety, but the way close positions work on those maps is just weird and you are pretty much forced into a 1 or 2 base all in.
|
On July 17 2011 03:19 Voltaire wrote:
I voted no. On maps like metalopolis I think close positions add some variety.
You think you increase variety by essentially forcing players to 1 or 2 base all in?
|
No. People sometimes need to be forced into aggression, especially europe/NA.
|
Every serious competitive setting has already settled this. No serious competitive tournaments have any maps with ridiculous close positions - they no longer exist in tournament play. The community has spoken.
So what's left? The ladder. Why on earth should the ladder differ so markedly from competitive play? Hell, the ladder map-makers are ridiculously stupid. Remember when the map team removed shakuras to replace it with the so called "macro map" Slag Pits? That really tells you all you need to know about how much the map-makers at Blizzard understand the game.
It seems to me that those who wish to keep close positions understand the game just as well as the map-makers at Blizzard do. I.e., not at all.
|
Give zerg an early rush strong as 2 rax bunker rush or 2gate zealot rush, reduce spine crawler building time by 15 sec, narrow naturals on maps that have really close spawns, and the game is balanced.
The current state of the ladder forces players to go certain strategies, which makes the game too much "w/o variety(sry lack of vocabulary)" (like spawning close positions and rushing against a FE and insta winning, or falling behind in eco).
Giving players an insta-gg is not giving them more choices.
|
No!, Just because it seems like most players think long macro games are more entertaining, this does not speak for everyone, I for one and many of my friends prefer shorter more micro intensive games, as I view macro games as boreing, (mainly because I am under the impression that even a computer can macro, why is it a big deal).
|
I figure close spawning positions should be just like BW where they arn't as gamebreaking. (I could be wrong about this because i just barely started watching BW)
|
I voted yes - not because I believe that it should be all macro games, but because of balance, it's just stupid to keep it in without making other changes to the zerg race/other races.
|
On July 17 2011 12:20 DivinitySC2 wrote:
No!, Just because it seems like most players think long macro games are more entertaining, this does not speak for everyone, I for one and many of my friends prefer shorter more micro intensive games, as I view macro games as boreing, (mainly because I am under the impression that even a computer can macro, why is it a big deal).
...
Longer games are going to be more micro intensive than shorter games because you have more units.
|
its part of the game, cross spawn every map is stupid and boring
|
removing close postions is not making a 4 player map a 2 player map T.T
Where do people get that idea from? This is one of the best steps SC2 could possibly take.
|
People who say they don't like macro games clearly don't play Zerg. You think every Zerg player likes macro games, and likes that the only way to play the race with any amount of skill instead of luck wants every game to be 20+ minutes long? It's just the only way to play the race, early game aggression by Zerg is easily scoutable (whereas T/P can deny early game scouting and it isn't as obvious as a bunch of units or lack of drones) and isn't nearly as strong as the other races.
Also higher league games tend to always be long anyways, as people tend not to straight up die to early game aggression anymore.
It's like you think that Zerg players a stuck up prissies who want every game to be based on a contest of skill and 20+ minutes long. No, it gets old sometimes, but Zerg doesn't have any choice at the moment. Hopefully HoTS will address this, as it's not really a balance issue but more of a design issue, but at the moment the only way to fix it is to remove broken maps. Any buff or nerf in the early game to the races at the moment would imbalance the game.
|
I'm terran and I strongly dislike close spawns.
Favors close spawns= "i want the easier win because I don't think I can win consistently in longer games vs better players"
imo
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
