|
On July 19 2011 03:55 Belial88 wrote:Show nested quote +Metalopolis is completely different from xel naga caverns, just cause the rush distance cross spawn is about the same doesn't mean they are equally balanced. There are a lot of other things to account for too, like openness and ways to counterattack that make cross spawn metalopolis worse than xel naga for terran. So wait, a map that is 2 long chokes is harder for Terran than a map that is completely wide open with more than 3 attack routes? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Counterattacks are pretty good in any map, Zerg relies on it. It's what Terran has to account for on any map. Show nested quote +My reasoning is that if the tvz matchup is balanced now, with close spawns, then taking away close spawns would imbalance the matchup since close spawns favor terran. I'm talking about ladder, which effects eveyone, not about tournaments which effect only the pros. Why would you say it's balanced on close spawn on ladder? It's not, that such a ridiculous assumption. You do realize that the ladder system makes it so you win/lose 50/50 right? So that T or Z is winning 50/50 on ladder just means the ladder is working as intended, it also means it's possible that less skilled T are playing more skilled Z on imbalanced maps, and Blizzard has said exactly that many times in regards to looking at balance with ladder stats. Also, it doesn't matter if ladder affects everyone. What matters is if the game is balanced, just because Zerg is more skilled on average than Terran so therefore we must imbalance the game so the ladder makes it 50/50 isn't right. If you balance the game for tournaments and pros, then you balance the game for everyone. What's most important is game balance, not making sure that Zerg loses 100% on certain maps while Terran lose 100% on others to balance it out. your logic is just ridiculous. And if you read what people say, most say close spawn should be left in for reasons other than balance - they acknowledge that it's broken. It's also 600, an extreme minority. Remember the elvis factor, 10% of people think he's still alive. Many non-Zerg also straight up say they prefer to win more. More than 80% just shows that's it's obvious the community is against it.
You're just another zerg elitest, thinking that for some reason zerg players are better than terran players on average. Just because you lose some games doesn't mean that terran is OP or zerg sucks, you lose because the person you are playing is better than you.
20% is a significant number.
Metalopolois has 2 distinct avenues for attack that are pretty wide open, while xelnaga is much smaller with connected routes. Its pretty obvious that metalopolis cross spawn is a much more zerg favored map than xelnaga.
Your whole arguement that zerg players are better than terran players, but zerg is UP is ridiculous. Learn to accept that your race isn't more special than any other race.
|
On July 18 2011 14:51 Kiaro wrote:
No, if close positions are really imba then removing them would make tvz zerg favored because right now, the matchup is almost perfectly balanced according to statistics. Yes close positions are a headache for zerg but right now tvz seems fine (basically 50-50), so removing them would only cause the matchup to become unbalanced. Don't change whats not broken.
In what world does this logic make sense? If you want to look at balance then you should look at tournaments, and guess what, tournaments don't have close positions. So if TvZ is balanced on a tournament level, then it must be imbalanced on ladder, because close positions are terran favored (which you admitted it is).
According to your logic, everything that isn't close positions is zerg favored in TvZ, which means all tournaments would be zerg favored since they don't have close positions. Do you really think that's the case? And even if that was the case, then why would you fix such a balance problem with close positions?
|
Here's a question for Z's regarding Metalopolis+close spawn...
Okay, so as a Z I'm fairly confident in defending close position early game antics vs. P and T (4 gate, 2 rax, etc). However, I find that getting off 2 bases is extremely difficult. Taking the natural "third" is actually contesting the P or T's natural "third". Almost by definition at this point, Z does NOT want to expand 'towards' a P or T based off the styles of the races. T, and to a small extent P, are encouraged to expand towards Z for mobility reasons. Likewise with the gold - it's putting yourself at risk by definition of expanding as Z. It's extremely hard to hang onto these positions as the third hatch is morphing. That leaves one other option: taking a far base, be it far gold, close air spawn main, cross map main (enemy close air main), or either far map naturals+third. The thing is, ALL of those options are so far away that you are extremely vulnerable to drops, DT, VR, etc.
SO my question: When faced with a ZvT or ZvP in close spawn Metalopolis, is it better to simply plan to end the game on 2 bases one way or another? If not, what is a good plan with regard to securing a third? Obviously if you do huge damage early you can take a third safely, but in that case you can do a lot of things safely to pull an advantage so it's really beside the point. In an "even" mid game match in which you nor your opponent have done any significant damage, but rather merely traded back and forth a few times, how should Z go about expanding properly?
This map/spawn is really frustrating for me and not because of the rush distance - rather because of the third base issue instead.
|
On July 19 2011 04:38 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Here's a question for Z's regarding Metalopolis+close spawn...
Okay, so as a Z I'm fairly confident in defending close position early game antics vs. P and T (4 gate, 2 rax, etc). However, I find that getting off 2 bases is extremely difficult. Taking the natural "third" is actually contesting the P or T's natural "third". Likewise with the gold. It's extremely hard to hang onto these positions as the third hatch is morphing. That leaves one other option: taking a far base, be it far gold, close air spawn main, cross map main (enemy close air main), or either far map naturals+third. The thing is, ALL of those options are so far away that you are extremely vulnerable to drops, DT, VR, etc.
SO my question: When faced with a ZvT or ZvP in close spawn Metalopolis, is it better to simply plan to end the game on 2 bases one way or another? If not, what is a good plan with regard to securing a third? Obviously if you do huge damage early you can take a third safely, but in that case you can do a lot of things safely to pull an advantage so it's really beside the point. In an "even" mid game match in which you nor your opponent have done any significant damage, but rather merely traded back and forth a few times, how should Z go about expanding properly?
This map/spawn is really frustrating for me and not because of the rush distance - rather because of the third base issue instead.
This is exactly why zergs want close spawns removed, it's a common misconception that it's all about the rush distance. My advice is try to end the game on 2 bases, it's not really a good way to play, but what else can you do in close positions?
|
On July 19 2011 04:38 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Here's a question for Z's regarding Metalopolis+close spawn...
Okay, so as a Z I'm fairly confident in defending close position early game antics vs. P and T (4 gate, 2 rax, etc). However, I find that getting off 2 bases is extremely difficult. Taking the natural "third" is actually contesting the P or T's natural "third". Likewise with the gold. It's extremely hard to hang onto these positions as the third hatch is morphing. That leaves one other option: taking a far base, be it far gold, close air spawn main, cross map main (enemy close air main), or either far map naturals+third. The thing is, ALL of those options are so far away that you are extremely vulnerable to drops, DT, VR, etc.
SO my question: When faced with a ZvT or ZvP in close spawn Metalopolis, is it better to simply plan to end the game on 2 bases one way or another? If not, what is a good plan with regard to securing a third? Obviously if you do huge damage early you can take a third safely, but in that case you can do a lot of things safely to pull an advantage so it's really beside the point. In an "even" mid game match in which you nor your opponent have done any significant damage, but rather merely traded back and forth a few times, how should Z go about expanding properly?
This map/spawn is really frustrating for me and not because of the rush distance - rather because of the third base issue instead.
Completely agree with your post. While the rush distance and endless waves of instant reinforcements are indeed a problem with close spawns, you at least have a chance to deal with it like you said.
Whereas I find it pretty much impossible to take a 3rd.
|
On July 19 2011 04:11 Kiaro wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2011 03:55 Belial88 wrote:Metalopolis is completely different from xel naga caverns, just cause the rush distance cross spawn is about the same doesn't mean they are equally balanced. There are a lot of other things to account for too, like openness and ways to counterattack that make cross spawn metalopolis worse than xel naga for terran. So wait, a map that is 2 long chokes is harder for Terran than a map that is completely wide open with more than 3 attack routes? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Counterattacks are pretty good in any map, Zerg relies on it. It's what Terran has to account for on any map. My reasoning is that if the tvz matchup is balanced now, with close spawns, then taking away close spawns would imbalance the matchup since close spawns favor terran. I'm talking about ladder, which effects eveyone, not about tournaments which effect only the pros. Why would you say it's balanced on close spawn on ladder? It's not, that such a ridiculous assumption. You do realize that the ladder system makes it so you win/lose 50/50 right? So that T or Z is winning 50/50 on ladder just means the ladder is working as intended, it also means it's possible that less skilled T are playing more skilled Z on imbalanced maps, and Blizzard has said exactly that many times in regards to looking at balance with ladder stats. Also, it doesn't matter if ladder affects everyone. What matters is if the game is balanced, just because Zerg is more skilled on average than Terran so therefore we must imbalance the game so the ladder makes it 50/50 isn't right. If you balance the game for tournaments and pros, then you balance the game for everyone. What's most important is game balance, not making sure that Zerg loses 100% on certain maps while Terran lose 100% on others to balance it out. your logic is just ridiculous. And if you read what people say, most say close spawn should be left in for reasons other than balance - they acknowledge that it's broken. It's also 600, an extreme minority. Remember the elvis factor, 10% of people think he's still alive. Many non-Zerg also straight up say they prefer to win more. More than 80% just shows that's it's obvious the community is against it. You're just another zerg elitest, thinking that for some reason zerg players are better than terran players on average. Just because you lose some games doesn't mean that terran is OP or zerg sucks, you lose because the person you are playing is better than you. 20% is a significant number. Metalopolois has 2 distinct avenues for attack that are pretty wide open, while xelnaga is much smaller with connected routes. Its pretty obvious that metalopolis cross spawn is a much more zerg favored map than xelnaga. Your whole arguement that zerg players are better than terran players, but zerg is UP is ridiculous. Learn to accept that your race isn't more special than any other race.
You're derailing the argument. Berail was suggesting that the 50/50 winrates was the ladder system doing its job, and if the ladder is terran favored than winrates will still be 50/50. He was simply stating that this balanced winrate is not a valid argument in favor of close positions, not necessarily suggesting zerg players were better or that zerg is under powered.
That, and 20% is not significant from a statistics perspective, it's almost a negligible minority. You must account for the fact that there are trolls that will simply go against the majority because they can (hipsters?), and that some people could just be wrong, or misinformed, or bias. 400% more people are in favor of this change, that sounds much higher doesn't it?
|
Even ladder numbers for close spawns cannot reflect balance at all, it is more complicated on that map. For example, I get ZvT close spawns changes are I will just baneling bust off one base to end the game early one way or another. If I win it doesn't mean I am drastically better than the terran it just means he wasn't ready for an all in. In that case I am using the close spawns to my advantage but it still becomes a gamble and a stupid way to play the game.
Personally I don't think they should be removed based on if they are imbalanced but just not a fun way to play the game.
|
My two concerns with close spawns are gamedesign and gamebalance.
Looking at close positions from a gamedesign perspective it is very clear that those spawns favour allins and build order losses heavily in all matchups. Almost every game boils down to early cheese or 1/2 base allins, which is highly repetitiv and neither fun for the player or the spectator.
I shouldn't even have to address balance on these positions, but 20% is still too large for my taste.
Briefly explained close spawns is a nerve-wracking nightmare for Zergs vs. T/P. Not only is it impossible to prepare for a push when the enemy moves out, taking a third base is unbelievably hard against a competent opponent, which isn't that bad considering 90% of these games don't last long enough.
I think the fact that every tournament worth caring about has disabled close spawns speaks for itself.
|
On July 19 2011 03:27 branflakes14 wrote:
Voted no because I think it harms the game when players refuse to play close positions because they don't want to try to figure out a way of playing it. Why don't Blizzard just put in a NR20 rule while they're at it.
It's not about the rush, it's about the horrible map architecture. If I see a terran take his natural and prepare for a 2 base tank/marine play, then my response would be to get mutalisks out and contain the terran with harass to cover my third. I can't do the correct response on close positions because:
1) It's like 2 siege hops away from nat-to-nat, I can't counter attack if my opponent can cover their tanks and base at the same time.
2) What third do I take? This is the main issue that plagues all match-ups on close positions.
Your argument is assuming that there is a valid way to play as zerg on close positions, but that is simply not true as we have seen time and time again. If the game had something completely broken at core balance than it wouldn't suggest a new way to play for all races, it suggests a change to the game. If cannons were invincible structures then that would create a different gameplay approach for all races right? Games would turn into the protoss cannon rushing every game and winning, that's a new and interesting twist...
|
I agree that players need to LEARN HOW TO PLAY close positions better. HOWEVER on top of this there needs to be better map design for maps with short rush distances that provide zerg with options to expand safely. Something like a backdoor that is only accessible through the zerg main early -> midgame that goes to an expo or two would be good.
|
As a Zerg player, if you spawn close positions you need to not macro so much. All these zergs who make 40+ drones without so much as 2 zerglings and queen just doesn't cut it. Zerg is a strong race, but you cannot be too greedy with close positions. If you wanna play a macro game, get a nydus to expand safely and to be able to defend several positions. close positions forces zerg to either play smart or lose. I think having close positions help zerg players think more while they are ingame and forces them to play outside of their comfort zone.
Marine Tank is very hard to play against though xD. But it is not impossible! To my fellow Zergies, stop wining and think through the game more. You can do it c:
Maps will get better as time goes on… I hope O_O
|
I voted no because terran is already by far the least played race on the US/EU servers, and if you remove close positions and put GSL maps in the ladder pool the number of terran players is going to fall even further and I really, really don't feel like playing exclusively vZ games
|
Really? Is someone who has been playing Terran all this time going to pack up and say "well, they removed close positions on a couple of the maps, time to quit this race since I just can't win anymore." That seems ludicrous. How are close positions even fun TvZ, I remember Jinro saying he hates it because it's impossible to play a normal game, as your opponent will likely attempt an all-in.
|
SO my question: When faced with a ZvT or ZvP in close spawn Metalopolis, is it better to simply plan to end the game on 2 bases one way or another? If not, what is a good plan with regard to securing a third? Obviously if you do huge damage early you can take a third safely, but in that case you can do a lot of things safely to pull an advantage so it's really beside the point. In an "even" mid game match in which you nor your opponent have done any significant damage, but rather merely traded back and forth a few times, how should Z go about expanding properly?
Personally I scout at 9 to see if it's close spawn or not. Then I can either play normal, or if it's close spawn, I'll go 14/14 baneling bust 2 base bane vT or wzp 3 roach rush with speedlings (13p/12g). The roach rush is okay, it can win maybe 40%, baneling busts however are just bad and no way to deny scouting either. It's autoloss if they make a factory, mauraders, or bunkers.
Trying to play a macro game is just ridiculous on close spawns though. Against P you need at least 3 bases if you aren't doing a roach timing attack and against Terran you'll be starved out.
As a Zerg player, if you spawn close positions you need to not macro so much. All these zergs who make 40+ drones without so much as 2 zerglings and queen just doesn't cut it. Zerg is a strong race, but you cannot be too greedy with close positions. If you wanna play a macro game, get a nydus to expand safely and to be able to defend several positions. close positions forces zerg to either play smart or lose. I think having close positions help zerg players think more while they are ingame and forces them to play outside of their comfort zone.
Marine Tank is very hard to play against though xD. But it is not impossible! To my fellow Zergies, stop wining and think through the game more. You can do it c:
Huh? Who makes 40+ drones without so much as 2 zerglings when they scout aggression from an opponent? People saying "stop playing greedy' are just ridiculous. That's like telling Terran don't play so scrubby, the only reason they lose games is because they are playing scrubby. Stop scrubbing and you'll win more.
Sure, you can win on close spawn. You can win any game, but on close spawn it's not likely. Even pros sometimes leave a wall in opened temporarily on accident, or get supply blocked.
|
The only map I don't mind "close" spawns is XNC and that ofc is good old XNC!
I don't enjoy trying to hold off 4- 6gate / 3-6rax it seems like every single close position game. Maybe it's just a wrong impression but the only chance at having a macro game as Zerg close positions is ZvZ.
It's not that T or P is OP it's just they have some strong early game push BOs and take advantage of that, I may not like it but usually if I lose to it it's because I didn't react properly. It's also shitty to have to make units and replacement units instead of drones when the other races don't have to sacrifice unit production time for economy or vice versa in the particular way that zerg does; I want drone drone drone and get a stack of larvae that's why those mean humans and protoss come at me =(
|
^ The problem isn't early game aggression on close spawns, things like 4 gate and ling speed/morph for banes make distance a non-issue. The problem is not being to take a third and being unable to drone up. Paired with lack of zerg early game scouting, it's quite ridiculous.
|
On July 19 2011 03:25 Kiaro wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2011 20:54 Probe1 wrote:Belial I think the relevant statistic speaks for itself. Poll: Should Blizzard Eliminate Close Positions On These MapsYes! (3087) 81% No! (state why below) (738) 19% 3825 total votes Your vote: Should Blizzard Eliminate Close Positions On These Maps (Vote): Yes!
(Vote): No! (state why below)
3000+ people and if you think the majority of them are Zerg players, I think you're just trolling. Aside from 20% of voters, close spawn should be eliminated. I'm sure these results could be replicated in numerous polls. I'm also sure I am yet to see an argument that makes sense posted by someone who said no. But I have seen many arguments that flat out state they don't want close positions removed because they want easy wins. I'm pretty sure almost every terran voted no and every non-terran voted yes. People just want whats best for them, and thats why I like close spawns. I'm not surprised at how many people want close spawns to be removed, considering that protoss and zerg are much more numerous on tl than terrans. (I remember seeing a poll taken in may that shows this, I can't find the link though).
I'm going to go ahead and directly attack your intelligence.
-> "Iconsidering that protoss and zerg are much more numerous on tl than terrans".
Really? 2 out of 3 races are more numerous than one?
I cannot stand the prevailing mentality of Terrans that what we've complained about is unfair. Terrans can stop rushes better than either race on one base, deny scouting and scout better than either race and recover from mistakes easier than any other race. If I win close positions ZvT the only reason is I was a much, much better player. There is no game or strategy. It's pure luck- unless my opponent is a joke.
Hopefully you understand a small amount of the frustration that the other races feel playing close positions. I doubt it, as Dustin Browder himself has shown how painfully ignorant he is.
Luckily the tournament community realized long ago that this issue has been decided. Close positions are broken.
|
Close positions are imballenced
User was banned for this post.
|
There should be close positions, but some balance changes are required. Why keep close positons? Well, it adds something to the game, since it forces players to have more strategies in their arsenal, thereby making the game a bit more interesting. I prefere long macro games, but it's exciting to know that I may be in a situation where my opponent is going all in (this just makes the first 8 minutes of the game more interesting).
The point is that if we eliminate close positions, the game becomes more predictable.
|
On July 21 2011 02:29 Vague wrote:
There should be close positions, but some balance changes are required. Why keep close positons? Well, it adds something to the game, since it forces players to have more strategies in their arsenal, thereby making the game a bit more interesting. I prefere long macro games, but it's exciting to know that I may be in a situation where my opponent is going all in (this just makes the first 8 minutes of the game more interesting).
The point is that if we eliminate close positions, the game becomes more predictable.
I don't get statements like that. People want more variety or less predictability, so they are FOR positions that essentially pigeon hole a person into a very small amount of options?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
