what is the point of 4 player maps then if you're just going to arbitrarily say something is unbalanced? might as well only make 2 or 3 player ones.

build order A is easily scoutable and beats build order B, you don't do build order B
close enemy positions is easily scoutable and can beat build order B, you don't do build order B

deal with it, starcraft isn't a 1 build order game. learn builds based on whether or not you want to be aggressive, be safe, or be greedy and apply those based on specific locations

LuckyMacro

United States1482 Posts

March 30 2011 23:33 GMT

#42

I'd rather something else be fixed, I don't know how, but some other way than disabling close spawn positions. If there was a way to make it better so certain races (zerg) able to do better at close spawns, i'd rather have that.

Megaliskuu

United States5123 Posts

March 30 2011 23:33 GMT

#43

On March 31 2011 08:30 ftwpker wrote:
Close spawns should be part of the game just like big rush distances. It varies the style and makes the game more interesting. No this does not mean a free Terran win. This can be abusable by zerg and toss. Zerg can just go all, bling bust, speedling while toss can go quick stalker rush or fast 5 gate attack

Thats fun to you?

Close spawn make the game way less enjoyable, as opposed to games with reasonable rush distances. Taking out garbage maps like steppes was a step forward, as was removing close spawn on shakuras, the same should be done for metal, temple, etc.

brutality

United States167 Posts

March 30 2011 23:34 GMT

#44

close positions don't give the option of more than 2 bases forcing players to play hyper aggressive. yes you can take a third but you have to be careful. generally no one likes to play close positions because they're boring games so don't really know why people would defend them

PhiliBiRD

United States2643 Posts

March 30 2011 23:35 GMT

#45

this combined with watch towers reallllly dumb the game down.

sure macro games are awesome, but just macro games can also get a little boring, alot of times the close spawn back and forth micro battles created many amazing games. in some instances sure they are TOO close but then the map becomes a LONG distance only map.

Angelbelow

United States3728 Posts

March 30 2011 23:37 GMT

#46

YES! Ideally, they wouldn't have to, but in the past few months of playing and watching starcraftt, its painfully clear that spawning close and far result in 2 MASSIVELY different games. You might as well have 2 versions of the same map with one close and one far and let plays veto. Its just disgustingly different.

Nerski

United States1095 Posts

March 30 2011 23:42 GMT

#47

On March 30 2011 08:24 Tump wrote:
Don't eliminate close positions. Just make less rush maps. A balanced map pool is a good one.

Game would be boring if every single game was played on a macro map (and vice versa!). Just sayin'.

Not a matter of macro or not macro it's a balance issue....if a balanced pool is a good one you can't have close positions...it's why they got rid of steppes.

DuckS

United States845 Posts

March 30 2011 23:50 GMT

#48

I want some variety. Do we really have to macro every game? The only thing I disagree in with tl's big-map sentiment is that a lot feel like we need to play on maps like Tal'Darim every game. A well-balanced map pool is ideal - not every map like Steppes, but also not every map like Tal'Darim.

It adds a particular dynamic in all match-ups; a different set of strategies and different concepts from your traditional macro style game.

Sv1

United States204 Posts

March 30 2011 23:54 GMT

#49

In tournament modes, consider this the home advantage for some races. You might select that map because you know you have a good pressure/close game, or you might veto it because you favor macro games. Sure everyone wants their best chance to win, but sometimes the game just can't be balanced in all aspects. Sure in baseball they will move outfield walls from time to time, but it isn't as if the visiting team starts complaining to the league commissioner about having to play at Team X's stadium because they have an advantage, or in basketball another team refuses to play because the opposing team's fans are too loud when shooting foul shots, or worse a football stadium is too WINDY.

I see everyone keep mentioning Close Meta and Close Shattered temple. With so much ire generated towards these maps one would think these are the ONLY maps people ever spawn on. The days of steppes and blistering are gone, and thumbing down DQ and Slag Pits are probably most people's 1-2. It's still a 1:3 chance, which is kind of favorable towards spawning NOT in close positions (DQ/slag pits as an exception).

If anything I think the major problem lies in the limited nature of zerg vs the slightly more early game versatility of the other 2 races, you can't exactly 1 base tech and delay an expansion as zerg without sacrificing just about everything else.

You'd think also by now that most people would have a strategy for close positions to give them an advantage rather then the auto-loss that most people accept them as.

On the other end of the spectrum, I may start rotating Tal Darim in and out of my bans because I honestly can't keep playing 35+ minute macro games 4x in a row. If you think about it, a 1:3 chance will be close position on meta/st, but a 1:1 chance will be a relatively far walk any time you draw Tal Darim in your ladder.

hidiliho

Canada685 Posts

March 30 2011 23:55 GMT

#50

No.

It adds to the match ups.

eviltomahawk

United States11135 Posts

March 30 2011 23:56 GMT

#51

It really depends on the map itself.

Close positions on GSL maps and many of BW's maps is not as punishing as close positions on Blizzard maps. It does give the rusher a slight advantage and thus forces safer builds, but unlike on Blizzard maps, it does not reward rushes and cheese as much.

Cross-positions-only on many of the Blizzard maps, such as Metalopolis and the new ladder maps, would be quite good at this point since close positions are too flawed on many of them. Close positions on many Blizzard maps rewards rushes and punishes defenders too much with short rush distances to a point where it really limits the variety of openings in the game.

Lmui

Canada6213 Posts

March 30 2011 23:58 GMT

#52

Close positions shattered ZvP is absolutely stupid. I tried playing multiple games against my brother(mid masters protoss), and if he did a nice safe 3 gate expo, cannoned up + broke down rocks and cannoned the high ground before expanding there, there's almost nothing I could do beyond allining before this was possible. Especially with good forcefields and 5+ cannons at the top of the ramp, it's very hard if not impossible to break him. Considering how long it takes to tech to broods vs how long it takes for the protoss to get a deathball off of 3 bases that's almost impossible to kill in one go with a zerg mass, it's stupid.

Sceptor87

Canada266 Posts

March 31 2011 00:02 GMT

#53

Generally yeah. Close positions are retarded to deal with. Meta close is almost as short of a rush distance as Steppes (maybe shorter), but at least Steppes had an expansion that you might be able to defend. Meta is about as open as a whore's legs. I don't think it should be straight up cross though. It should be like Shakura's and basically turned into a 3 player map. At least there would be some randomization for scouting instead of just always knowing where your opponent is.

Ftwpker

United States165 Posts

March 31 2011 00:09 GMT

#54

On March 31 2011 08:33 Megaliskuu wrote:

Show nested quote +

Yes thats fun for me. Although I'm not the best cheeser or rusher, I like to some of those builds. These builds are simply part of the game and do them once in a while especially on close spawn will force opponents to play safe rather then being greedy and quickly expanding,

Dommk

Australia4865 Posts

March 31 2011 00:11 GMT

#55

For the longest time, why Terran was perceived to be imbalanced was due to close rush distances, and the newer maps have solved that yet we keep maps with ridiculously close rush distances which obviously favor Terran greatly. Even MYM.Cloud said during the HEAT show match series that Protoss were at a big disadvantage if they spawned close positions vs Terran.

Similarly, PvZ,TvZ don't favor the Zerg when in close proximity...

They should just eliminate close positions once and for all from maps like Met and ST

Antisocialmunky

United States5912 Posts

March 31 2011 00:15 GMT

#56

I really wished that with these big maps and basically the removal of stupid short rush distances that Blizzard removes depot before rax. I mean, the main thing that depot before rax was removed was the stupid short rush distances...

Fission

Canada1184 Posts

March 31 2011 00:17 GMT

#57

No because this kind of change serves only in the best interests of zerg players in particular, and it seems to me that zerg players do not need any more advantages than they already have in the matchups.

rysecake

United States2632 Posts

March 31 2011 00:19 GMT

#58

I'm leaning more towards keeping them, though I consider myself neutral too. Cheese/rushes are all part of the game. You can't have everything be a macro game.

CrazyF1r3f0x

United States2120 Posts

March 31 2011 00:21 GMT

#59

On March 31 2011 09:17 Fission wrote:
No because this kind of change serves only in the best interests of zerg players in particular, and it seems to me that zerg players do not need any more advantages than they already have in the matchups.

...
Care to elaborate?

CursedFeanor

Canada539 Posts

March 31 2011 00:25 GMT

#60

With the recent patch, heavily nerfing terran's early game with the stupidly high stim upgrade time, I don't see why close position would be imbalanced in one way of another. I think the game also has evolved since the beginning and zergs now know how to hold rushes that were previously thought to be almost impossible to stop. Close positions are alright now imho.