for the spectator it means more variance in gameplay. it also challanges the players to adapt their builds flexible based on scouting. Ofc it can be a disadvantage for Z, but not that much (maybe some 5%). In general close postion favors the more agressive player, regardless of race. I am pretty sure Julyzerg enjoys close position

.. however it depends how "close" those closepositions are. I can be too short .

LanTAs

United States1091 Posts

March 31 2011 00:29 GMT

#63

No, once in a while, i wanna rush, and come on seriously? eliminating closed positions would make rushes almost nonexistent, like who likes that( apparently 77% of ppl on pool currently)?

I like rushes, and being rushed =)

schimmetje

Netherlands1104 Posts

March 31 2011 00:52 GMT

#64

It is kind of map layout/size dependent I feel, but yes in certain cases a close spawn simply puts some races at a disadvantage. Meta/LT come to mind, screaming and banging 2 pans together. That's just not an ideal situation and I don't really see how people can argue "suck it up it's part of the game" (or I can, but not in a particularly positive light), especially since it's really not like you can only rush there.

I'm not a proponent of banishing them altogether however, the random factor adds a little variety to the game as well, but said randomness shouldn't be a game decider unless you play perfectly or just flip a coin and hope you rush better. Then it just takes variety out of the game.

Juddas

768 Posts

March 31 2011 01:08 GMT

#65

no way! i play random (like a baller) and that is just part of the matchup/race. Zerg are weak early game. It would seem like a viable strategy is abusing this fact so that you dont lose to a 300 food push in the late game. If you dont like it, then switch races because there is no reason that any race should get an advantage over another just because they are weaker early game. This is a little ridiculous imho.

Gigaudas

Sweden1213 Posts

March 31 2011 01:23 GMT

#66

Close spawn positions would be okay for varieties sake if the races were balanced on all spawning positions.
.

Ruyguy

Canada988 Posts

March 31 2011 01:27 GMT

#67

Yes, but only for a zerg point of view. I like seeing PvP, PvT, and TvT on close spawn positions.

schimmetje

Netherlands1104 Posts

March 31 2011 01:27 GMT

#68

On March 31 2011 10:08 Juddas wrote:
no way! i play random (like a baller) and that is just part of the matchup/race. Zerg are weak early game. It would seem like a viable strategy is abusing this fact so that you dont lose to a 300 food push in the late game. If you dont like it, then switch races because there is no reason that any race should get an advantage over another just because they are weaker early game. This is a little ridiculous imho.

You do realize you're contradicting yourself right? Love the not having to start out behind is an advantage argument though, if that's what you're saying.

Logarythm

United States264 Posts

March 31 2011 01:30 GMT

#69

Counter rush with 6 pool! :D :D :D

Juddas

768 Posts

March 31 2011 01:34 GMT

#70

On March 31 2011 10:27 schimmetje wrote:

Show nested quote +

You do realize you're contradicting yourself right? Love the not having to start out behind is an advantage argument though, if that's what you're saying.

i dont think i contradicted myself so much as not clearly stating my opinion so i apologize and will likely edit it

AndersE

Sweden25 Posts

March 31 2011 01:48 GMT

#71

I voted yes.
I feel it would make the game less based on luck but at the same time, I feel it might become less dynamic.

MuTT

United States398 Posts

March 31 2011 01:51 GMT

#72

i hate that shit just get new maps they are old anyways. When you take out a location like that proxying is 1000x times stronger. You can just put your proxy at the gold base on meta for example its reaaallly hard to scout on a 4 player map.

Yoshi Kirishima

United States10380 Posts

March 31 2011 02:03 GMT

#73

Yes, but it has been a bit messy they way they're balancing. For example now that they nerfed stim, the maps are also bigger, hurting terran quite a lot. If they add bigger maps and/or eliminate close spawns then perhaps the stim nerf wasn't needed, etc.

I just hope things get resolved quickly :D

Toads

Canada1795 Posts

March 31 2011 02:07 GMT

#74

I don't understand why we chould rid of the close position. this is the threath who sometime creat a great game

KillerPlague

United States1386 Posts

March 31 2011 02:25 GMT

#75

longer games may be more fun to watch, but i think only having 2 places to scout and cross positions every game is annoying. i'd prefer if maps started becoming more square in that each base faces a different direction.

Grezzz

United Kingdom78 Posts

March 31 2011 02:25 GMT

#76

Personally I would love to see close positions removed from the game. It doesn't make for interesting or fun gameplay.

I do think that zerg has some options in close positions, and I think that the positions could be a lot more balanced than people think. Zerg aggression/rushes are definately viable, as shown by all the success that July has been having with his aggressive builds, and it stands to reason that these builds would be very potent in close positions. I think the issue is more the "omg must macro" mentallity of zerg players rather than the race itself or the map positions.

Still, whether it is balanced or not, I find the longer games more entertaining/fun and would prefer to avoid close positions whenever possible.

Morbidius

Brazil3449 Posts

March 31 2011 03:19 GMT

#77

It would be fine if it was balanced, but zerg just insta-dies vs any competent terran on close positions so yes they should br disabled, for balances sake.

CapnAmerica

United States508 Posts

March 31 2011 03:30 GMT

#78

On March 31 2011 12:19 Elementsu wrote:
It would be fine if it was balanced, but zerg just insta-dies vs any competent terran on close positions so yes they should br disabled, for balances sake.

I play Zerg and this is a bold-faced lie. If I scout close positions on LT or Metalopolis I just go all-in with a baneling bust, ling aggression, or something fancy.

Zerg standard macro play revolves around getting a second base up, which reduces the rush distance to your opponent. On close positions this is suicide, so it makes more sense to just straight up kill your opponent. It adds a new dynamic to every race -- instead of sitting behind your Practice League rocks and trying to macro you are committed to some form of violent interaction early game, unless you can convince your opponent to NR15.

People complaining about close positions as any race just don't like playing micro-intensive aggressive games. Everyone has their own preference. There's a reason that Jinro often opens CC first on big maps -- he likes to play a more passive macro-oriented style, whereas on shorter distances he will 2rax in TvZ. He prefers macro play but accepts that some build orders are simply better on different maps, which is a standard SC dynamic and is the way the game should be.

You shouldn't be able to win with one strategy on every map. That's just dumb. Spice it up a bit and you won't hate close positions any longer unless you're a pacifist (in which case I might suggest this game is not for you!

Stiver

Canada285 Posts

March 31 2011 04:29 GMT

#79

Look.

I'm fine with Blizzard using close positions on the ladder. It's ladder. I think they are on the right track mixing in aggressive/macro maps. Gives some flavour to the game. There's no money involved. If I'm a zerg, and I can hold off a hyper agressive build on close poitions that means I'm Good doing that build in any position. When the maps get larger, I'm the much better at holding.

Tournaments shouldn't use close positions, and that seems to be the case which I approve.