|
On July 23 2011 07:52 InsigmaTheory wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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]
You argue that SC2 is about timings, then argue for close position spawns? The timing difference between close position and normal/far position spawns is fairly significant in high level play.
Also, look at the success of bitbybit for evidence against the argument of pros holding off rushes in close spawn positions. If anything, close positions force you to rush, because you lose if you dont rush yourself.
|
On July 25 2011 07:39 K9GM3 wrote:
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...
The only people that could logically want close positions are those that either don't understand the Zerg side of close positions or those who want much easier wins against Zerg when close positions are present.
Close spawns make games more uninteresting because they force Zerg to do a one or two base desparation all in. The other race merely has to play defensively and then collect an easy win when the attack fails. Zerg avoids Hydralisks not because they take forever to get anywhere, but because they greatly under perform in most battles and most situations. Hydralisks are fast enough on creep to be a defensive unit, but most battles don't happen on creep. Even in close spawns you wont be able to fight on creep. Hydralisks are too expensive and die too easily to be worth the investment.
More flanks, run-byes, and hidden expansions? That is completely ridiculous. Every base a Zerg can logically take as a third is "hidden." Run-byes work best when the main enemy army is too far away from a location to properly defend it. In close positions the army only has to point their guns in the other direction to defend the run by. Close positions also prohibit flanking. Close positions on Metalopolis basically require you to run into their natural and back behind their army to flank. Shattered temple also has some terrain that blocks additional angles of attack.
I'd like to see someone bring forth a valid argument for this because I think it would be interesting. I wont hold my breath. Close positions is not only imbalanced at the professional level, but it is also imbalanced as far down as platinum. It could also be imbalanced in the lower leagues, but I don't have experience there.
|
Close positions do mean quicker reinforcements, but only in terms of distance: the intervals between attacks should remain the same. Close positions also allow for faster attacks and counterattacks, which ensure a back-and-forth game and lots of small skirmishes. Personally, I find that much more interesting to watch and play than two maxed armies headbutting into each other.
Actually close positions discourage counterattacks. Despite having much, much faster units (zerglings vs mech), the slower units would get to the enemy base so quickly that the player cannot counterattack and then get back to his base to defend in time. All close spawn does is reward a player for making a huge, slow 1amove army, and punishes players who rely on mobility and harassment to force the enemy to stay in their base.
It makes PFs really ridiculous as well, as T can just expand toward their opponent.
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...
For Zerg, the only reason they are shorter games is because they have to all-in on close spawn, because they know that if they play a macro game on close spawn they will always lose. This sucks though, considering how bad Zerg all-ins are compared to T/P all-ins and defense.
It's great your random, but what league are you in? Hidden expos don't really work past Diamond, and are basically cheese because if the opponent finds out, you autolose. If they don't, you autowin, but you are only hoping they don't realize your army is bigger than it should be and doesn't scout or realize what your position is. Runbys also don't work on close spawn because T/P just expand toward you and turtle up, there is nothing to runby and if you do, they can hit your base so fast your screwed for moving out with your units at all.
|
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.
This guy sounds both delusional and non-Zerg. While this is a war game, this is definitely not war. So not 'everything is far' in this game, rofl. You make the game imbalanced, it's just less fun to play. It's taken less seriously. It hurts e-sports bro. And obviously, you aren't a Zerg player or you wouldn't say such a ridiculous thing. While you may say it's 'fair in war', it's not a fair game, which means it's bad game design. Only Terran and Protoss appreciate close spawns, but if you played Zerg you'd find it really fucking aggravating it's just autoloss on these maps.
|
I agree that it is seems much more difficult for zerg to win on such close position spawns. And you're right that it provides for less exciting games. I would love for Blizzard to change this for the ladder.
By the way I play protoss, so I'm not agreeing because I am zerg.
|
On July 26 2011 01:40 SLTR.Maverick wrote:
I agree that it is seems much more difficult for zerg to win on such close position spawns. And you're right that it provides for less exciting games. I would love for Blizzard to change this for the ladder.
By the way I play protoss, so I'm not agreeing because I am zerg.
I play Protoss and I am the same way. Close positions make for silly games in any match up. Zerg is totally screwed and protoss doesn't really like it much.
|
The lack of excitement in such games is the most valid argument - I agree, and generally prefer macro maps. Unfortunately Blizzard seems to think the casual player would prefer fast maps for quick games, which I think is a mistake on their assessment. But I also have to add that generally there should be strategies that allow each race to beat each other race, even if they spawn literally next to each other. Maybe there's a way to scout with a starting drone and throw very early pool in that case; and in the other case the general macro advantage should compensate this mining loss.
|
|
|
On July 26 2011 01:32 Belial88 wrote:Show nested quote +Close positions do mean quicker reinforcements, but only in terms of distance: the intervals between attacks should remain the same. Close positions also allow for faster attacks and counterattacks, which ensure a back-and-forth game and lots of small skirmishes. Personally, I find that much more interesting to watch and play than two maxed armies headbutting into each other. Actually close positions discourage counterattacks. Despite having much, much faster units (zerglings vs mech), the slower units would get to the enemy base so quickly that the player cannot counterattack and then get back to his base to defend in time. All close spawn does is reward a player for making a huge, slow 1amove army, and punishes players who rely on mobility and harassment to force the enemy to stay in their base. It makes PFs really ridiculous as well, as T can just expand toward their opponent. Show nested quote +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... For Zerg, the only reason they are shorter games is because they have to all-in on close spawn, because they know that if they play a macro game on close spawn they will always lose. This sucks though, considering how bad Zerg all-ins are compared to T/P all-ins and defense. It's great your random, but what league are you in? Hidden expos don't really work past Diamond, and are basically cheese because if the opponent finds out, you autolose. If they don't, you autowin, but you are only hoping they don't realize your army is bigger than it should be and doesn't scout or realize what your position is. Runbys also don't work on close spawn because T/P just expand toward you and turtle up, there is nothing to runby and if you do, they can hit your base so fast your screwed for moving out with your units at all.
Your reasoning doesn't make any sense at all. Since close spawns makes your opponenents and your own base much closer together, counterattacks have an easier time not only doing damage to your opponent but also getting back to your own base to defend becasue the 2 bases are so close together.
Also stop being such an elitest, diamond isn't very good so at least get good at the game before you pull out the league card. What you are saying about hidden expo's is complete bull. Ever watch the GSL or any other pro game? They take hidden expo's all the time! If you're zerg, its really easy to take a hidden expos cause your army is so mobile. Especailly against a meching terran, which is immobile as hell. Even if your hidden expo is found out about, if your opponent goes and tries to take it out, just counterattack them (which you can do, even on close spawns).
|
On July 26 2011 01:38 Belial88 wrote:Show nested quote +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. This guy sounds both delusional and non-Zerg. While this is a war game, this is definitely not war. So not 'everything is far' in this game, rofl. You make the game imbalanced, it's just less fun to play. It's taken less seriously. It hurts e-sports bro. And obviously, you aren't a Zerg player or you wouldn't say such a ridiculous thing. While you may say it's 'fair in war', it's not a fair game, which means it's bad game design. Only Terran and Protoss appreciate close spawns, but if you played Zerg you'd find it really fucking aggravating it's just autoloss on these maps.
So, zerg players never say "stupid" things? Wow, what a zerg supremecist. Nobody likes racists.
|
-.- Too predictable as in unable to allin and not play a macro game? Why does Blizzard have a problem with having good games? Meta without close spawn was one of the best maps we had. I dont wnat to see it after balance tinkring
|
Overall balance has also proven to be an issue on Metalopolis -- even factoring in close position spawn issues. It’s among the least balanced maps currently in the ladder pool[...]
Are they for real?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
