| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
iCanada
Canada10660 Posts
Most times I spawn close positions I either roach-ling allin, or baneling bust if I see an opportunity (like a 3 supply depot wall for example.). And Terran/Toss players aren't stupid, they know that a Zerg player is in deep if they try to take a third and are likely just to allin. Hell, I recall Jinro saying something similar before. | ||
|
Kiaro
United States75 Posts
On July 20 2011 06:48 Probe1 wrote: 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. What I meant was that terrans are less numerous than both zergs and protoss, I assumed that anyone with a brain would understand that. I cannot stand the prevailing mentality of Zergs that they are much better than terran opponents when they win, and that whenever they lose, the game is somehow imbalanced. Learn to take a loss like a man and stop blaming it on race imbalance. | ||
|
Belial88
United States5217 Posts
While at the shitty starcraft2.com forums everyone qqs about imbalance, this is a mature discussion about the brokenness of close spawns. It's not race imbalance, it's map imbalance, and we've already seen how broken certain maps can be, and that the races are perfectly balanced at the moment barring ridiculous maps. | ||
|
Hashmeister
Germany238 Posts
 | ||
|
TENTHST
United States204 Posts
On July 22 2011 18:28 Hashmeister wrote: lol 80% for removing close position - Blizzard plz read this yea its pretty ridiculous that they havent even addressed this issue, let alone changed it | ||
|
InsigmaTheory
United States47 Posts
Btw, this poll doesn't accurately affect the statistics we're debating over. Voting No as well. Blizzard themself has stated in recent HotS interviews that things are seeming pretty balanced to them. There's only 2 things they're looking at and we don't quite know what they are. Once again, keep in mind people inherently want to win 3/4 games and consider that balanced. The problem with that is it isn't "balanced" for the other people that are losing 3/4 games. In general people blame losses on the first thing they can point a finger at instead of pointing it at themselves, and keep in mind people generally LOOK for statistics that support their theory instead of looking at the real statistics and drawing theories from those. | ||
|
Ninja_Bread
United States113 Posts
| ||
|
Yettyman
United States37 Posts
I play random btw. | ||
|
Belial88
United States5217 Posts
Once again, keep in mind people inherently want to win 3/4 games and consider that balanced. The problem with that is it isn't "balanced" for the other people that are losing 3/4 games. In general people blame losses on the first thing they can point a finger at instead of pointing it at themselves, and keep in mind people generally LOOK for statistics that support their theory instead of looking at the real statistics and drawing theories from those. If every single map was close spawn and 'broken' that'd be fine, but the issue is on ladder you are matched with an opponent. Generally the map is normal spawns, normal distance, and the game is considered an even match. But sometimes, it's close spawn. However, I guess we could assume the matchmaking system takes into account those 5-10% games on close spawn. I guess that means Zerg generally are always better players than their opponents on ladder, rofl. | ||
|
InsigmaTheory
United States47 Posts
On July 23 2011 06:53 Belial88 wrote: However, I guess we could assume the matchmaking system takes into account those 5-10% games on close spawn. I guess that means Zerg generally are always better players than their opponents on ladder, rofl. This is exactly why we can't seriously talk balance discussions here. Saying things like this only says that players "deserve" wins because they're "better". If your requirement for being the better player means click more buttons more often, go play Mario Party where the minigames actually require hitting buttons the fastest. Starcraft 2 is about timings, its about strategy, its not about who's the faster at hitting buttons. Its a war game, and EVERYTHING is fair in war. You do what you can to win. If you "feel" like he didn't win because he did X and X is cheesy, then you still lost to X, and didn't prepare for X. Its like saying "I ran 5 miles today, but I really feel like I ran 10 miles, so I deserve the 10 mile count." When you don't. It doesn't mean anything. You ran 5. Rushing is a viable strategy, and you CAN hold it off regardless of race. Pro's have been doing it for a long time. The only thing stopping you from winning is you. Fix it, don't fix it so others lose, fix it so you win. [If that makes sense] | ||
|
Kiaro
United States75 Posts
On July 23 2011 06:53 Belial88 wrote: If every single map was close spawn and 'broken' that'd be fine, but the issue is on ladder you are matched with an opponent. Generally the map is normal spawns, normal distance, and the game is considered an even match. But sometimes, it's close spawn. However, I guess we could assume the matchmaking system takes into account those 5-10% games on close spawn. I guess that means Zerg generally are always better players than their opponents on ladder, rofl. So basically, you think that because close spawns exist, zergs are better and more skilled than any other race on ladder... Please just learn to accept that your non-zerg opponent beat you because they are actually better than you, not because of some non-existant OPness. | ||
|
Jayjay54
Germany2296 Posts
blizz will never remove it, because it's kind of hard to explain to casual gamers where they can spawn. you know, those who do not even know the term 'close positions'. If blizzard says yeah you can spawn whereever you want but your opponent is actually not next to you in direction X, the player is prob confused. If you play for the first time, you just don't understand if the person can spawn close air? or close ground? why?And many would not know, given those who do know a tiny scout advantage. so blizzard just goes 'go ahead and change them in tournaments, we keep them'. and I somehow understand it considering how difficult it is for new players to just play the game. so on the one hand close pos is def imbalance (r we even discussing this?), but on the other hand, I can somehow understand why blizzard keeps them... | ||
|
Probe1
United States17920 Posts
| ||
|
Jayjay54
Germany2296 Posts
On July 23 2011 09:08 Probe1 wrote: Did you seriously just say Blizzard will never remove a imbalanced map feature because new players may not know about it? You do realize that Shakuras plateau has close ground disabled. I've never heard anyone complain about that one. hmm. ackknowledged. not much too say. that's a valid point. I still feel like this is kinda unfair for new players. | ||
|
Angry_Fetus
Canada444 Posts
On July 23 2011 09:12 Jayjay54 wrote: hmm. ackknowledged. not much too say. that's a valid point. I still feel like this is kinda unfair for new players. Unfair? How? New players will be competing against each other, so I fail to see what is unfair about them being oblivious to the fact that close positions are disabled. Besides, why is this very minor issue outweigh the balance of higher level play, where the people who commit far more time have to suffer? There is a lot of things new players have absolutely no idea about, that's what learning is for. | ||
|
Ihpares
United States40 Posts
On July 23 2011 07:52 InsigmaTheory wrote: + Show Spoiler + On July 23 2011 06:53 Belial88 wrote: However, I guess we could assume the matchmaking system takes into account those 5-10% games on close spawn. I guess that means Zerg generally are always better players than their opponents on ladder, rofl. This is exactly why we can't seriously talk balance discussions here. Saying things like this only says that players "deserve" wins because they're "better". If your requirement for being the better player means click more buttons more often, go play Mario Party where the minigames actually require hitting buttons the fastest. Starcraft 2 is about timings, its about strategy, its not about who's the faster at hitting buttons. Its a war game, and EVERYTHING is fair in war. You do what you can to win. If you "feel" like he didn't win because he did X and X is cheesy, then you still lost to X, and didn't prepare for X. Its like saying "I ran 5 miles today, but I really feel like I ran 10 miles, so I deserve the 10 mile count." When you don't. It doesn't mean anything. You ran 5. Rushing is a viable strategy, and you CAN hold it off regardless of race. Pro's have been doing it for a long time. The only thing stopping you from winning is you. Fix it, don't fix it so others lose, fix it so you win. [If that makes sense] The problem is, there are strategies that with close spawn are actually imbalanced. Let me lend you an example - in close spawns on Metalopolis, a Terran who does a three barracks all-in is AHEAD of a Zerg opponent, regardless of what the Zerg does. The reason for this is that the Terran WILL necessarily either destroy the natural expansion outright, or at the very least cut into the Zerg's capacity to make drones for a long while. Oh, and the Terran is able to maintain this pressure AND safely take an expansion, because of the income granted from MULEs. So it's not really all-in, but it forces an all-in defense from a Zerg player. Now, on NON-CLOSE spawns, in the same situation, the extra distance means that reinforcing units are slower to get to the Zerg players base, the defender's advantage is greater, and the Zerg can hold the all-in without falling behind. It's because of this that tournaments disable close spawn positions - They allow safe aggression and expansion and economy growth to one race, while disabling all of the above from another, and that's not balanced. | ||
|
Belial88
United States5217 Posts
On July 23 2011 07:52 InsigmaTheory wrote: This is exactly why we can't seriously talk balance discussions here. Saying things like this only says that players "deserve" wins because they're "better". If your requirement for being the better player means click more buttons more often, go play Mario Party where the minigames actually require hitting buttons the fastest. Starcraft 2 is about timings, its about strategy, its not about who's the faster at hitting buttons. Its a war game, and EVERYTHING is fair in war. You do what you can to win. If you "feel" like he didn't win because he did X and X is cheesy, then you still lost to X, and didn't prepare for X. Its like saying "I ran 5 miles today, but I really feel like I ran 10 miles, so I deserve the 10 mile count." When you don't. It doesn't mean anything. You ran 5. Rushing is a viable strategy, and you CAN hold it off regardless of race. Pro's have been doing it for a long time. The only thing stopping you from winning is you. Fix it, don't fix it so others lose, fix it so you win. [If that makes sense] Uh.... did you even read my post at all? I was saying if, as Kiaro argued, that the game/ladder is balanced now, which is only because of the inclusion of close spawn maps that obviously no Zerg ever win 5-10% when it happens, that must mean that Zerg are naturally better than their opponents that they meet with - approximately 5-10% better. It also may mean that Zerg is 5-10% 'imbalanced' as in 5-10% better than the other races, but close spawns 5-10% of the time means that every race as a 50% win ratio. This, of course, is a fucking ass backwards thing to say, but this is only using Kiaro's logic that close spawn should stay in the game because they make sure the game is balanced, according to whatever statistics he is pulling out of thin air (bbbbbut I win only 50% of the time on ladder!). blizz will never remove it, because it's kind of hard to explain to casual gamers where they can spawn. you know, those who do not even know the term 'close positions'. If blizzard says yeah you can spawn whereever you want but your opponent is actually not next to you in direction X, the player is prob confused. If you play for the first time, you just don't understand if the person can spawn close air? or close ground? why?And many would not know, given those who do know a tiny scout advantage. so blizzard just goes 'go ahead and change them in tournaments, we keep them'. and I somehow understand it considering how difficult it is for new players to just play the game. so on the one hand close pos is def imbalance (r we even discussing this?), but on the other hand, I can somehow understand why blizzard keeps them... What? New 'casual' players don't even know what map they are playing on, let alone worried about close spawn. They don't even scout with a worker, why would they care about close spawn? Ask any bronze league player how much map positions even matter to them. And not only that, but low league Zerg players know that close spawn is broken too. People seem to think that like close spawn adds variety, helps new players, such on and so on, but I think you fail to realize that EVERY zerg player just hates close spawn. Like, it's not even a fun game. It's not high pressure, it's not some intense game, no, it's just stressful and fucking miserable. Why would you want to play a game that is stressful and miserable? edit: I also want to clear up that I don't think close spawns are broken because of 3 rax, 2 rax, 2 gate, 2 rax scv all in, etc rush strats (things like 4 gate and speedling/baneling all-in negate map distance anyways), close spawns are only broken because of MACRO games. A zerg will never win a macro game against T/P on close spawn Metal or ST. Ever. | ||
|
K9GM3
Netherlands116 Posts
Close positions lend themselves to shorter games. Of course they do. But they also make the games more exciting, they allow for more variety (ever see Hydralisks in cross positions against Terran?), and they make the 'unclaimed' territory far larger, which inevitably means more room for flanks, hidden expansions, run-bys, etc... And I play Random, so I do experience close positions as Zerg. I stand by my statements. | ||
|
Phayze
Canada2029 Posts
| ||
|
Dalguno
United States2446 Posts
On July 25 2011 07:44 Phayze wrote: Blizzard uses the justification that they want more rush oriented maps for lower league players who like to rush. But to be honest, all rushes will work against lower players regardless of the rush distance. A 7rr vs a noob is going to work cross pos or close pos. It's just the truth. You'd think with their logic- "We like to cater to those who like rushing"- they'd allow those who don't like those rushes to opt for a veto to close positions. That way, people who want rushes can, and those who don't don't have to play it. | ||
| ||
|
The PondCast
KCM Race Survival
OSC
Escore
IntoTheTV X SOOP
CranKy Ducklings
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Shopify Rebellion Sundays
Spirit vs Mixu
Clem vs TBD
RSL Revival
Serral vs Rogue
BlizzCon
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
