| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
askTeivospy
1525 Posts
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
| ||
|
Megaliskuu
United States5123 Posts
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
| ||
|
PhiliBiRD
United States2643 Posts
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
| ||
|
Nerski
United States1095 Posts
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
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
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
It adds to the match ups. | ||
|
eviltomahawk
United States11135 Posts
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
Canada6214 Posts
| ||
|
Sceptor87
Canada266 Posts
| ||
|
Ftwpker
United States165 Posts
On March 31 2011 08:33 Megaliskuu wrote: 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. 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
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
| ||
|
Fission
Canada1184 Posts
| ||
|
rysecake
United States2632 Posts
| ||
|
CrazyF1r3f0x
United States2120 Posts
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
| ||
| ||
|
|
Wardi Open
Wardi Open
PiGosaur Monday
Replay Cast
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
OSC
WardiTV Invitational
Online Event
RSL Revival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
