EPTThe Close Spawning Position [poll] - Page 5
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
| ||
|
5unrise
New Zealand646 Posts
On March 31 2011 08:29 ScythedBlade wrote: Close positions make it balanced. Have you ever seen zerg go all in? On big maps where they just sack 20 roaches when they have no economy and then after a good while, you try to counter attack, you can't punish zerg. I think Zerg is pretty OPed when you can't punish zerg for all-inning or just sacking everything to try and kill you early on. (Because Protoss and Terran will definitely pay their own price for allinning and losing all their units. I wish poeple who don't know how to play or simply don't play just stop commenting. Zerg can't be punished for all-inning as much as terran and protoss? you gotta be telling a bad joke. Zerg allins are much more "allin" by nature since they simply won't just be down a base, but will not have enough drones either, whereas T and P can "allin" and still keep worker production. People nowadays.... jeezus | ||
|
-FoX
United States479 Posts
| ||
|
ch33psh33p
7650 Posts
On March 31 2011 13:41 -FoX wrote: Doesn't make sense to remove close positions. It's a map advantage for T/P against Z, while long distance is advantage for Z against T/P. Please don't say this. FYI, T/P can expand too. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
| ||
|
ZenDeX
Philippines2916 Posts
| ||
|
-FoX
United States479 Posts
On March 31 2011 13:42 ch33psh33p wrote: Please don't say this. FYI, T/P can expand too. There's a lot more to it than just the fact that they can also expand. | ||
|
KingVietKong
United States170 Posts
Shakuras however has definitely benefited from the lack of close-by-ground spawns. I definitely think Slag Pits should also have close spawns eliminated, since it's basically a grittier Steppes of War at that point. At that, I play Slag Pits so rarely I wonder if people veto it for just this reason... Hmm... | ||
|
Vei
United States2845 Posts
i just lost on close spawn LT zvt, im so fucking sick of these free losses. theres no time to react, it's 100% unfair. if you voted they should exist, you're fucking biased as fuck. this map isn't "should it only be cross distance d.oasis favored zerg maps?" it's "should we remove obviously hugely unfair spawns?" fuck. | ||
|
NoobSkills
United States1603 Posts
Look back to broodwar. Units - moved slower and most did damage regardless of the unit they were fighting. A unit was just that a unit that did X attack. Maps - Designed larger and better than even the current GSL maps (relative). Workers - took more to efficiently mine a single base (supply issue) All of that aside (except maps) Blizzard then started to balance the gameplay of EVERY race based on the results of those maps, they also decided to balance the game based on Flavor of the week builds, 2v2, ect. Too many variables are changing all at once they don't KNOW what to do, but appease the masses. This provides them with sales, but weakens the pro scene which might actually do their sales some good. When people get into the game people on EVERY level learn from the pros. In BW if you didn't learn it from flash, you learned it from a guy who learned it from Strelock who learned it from Flash. Perhaps if in the next game when they release it they do a big overhaul they might reach success on a much higher level than this game. This game isn't bad, but it isn't what it should have been after 10 years. Edit: Thought I'd throw a few things out there as well. 1. Removing spawns because they're "close" is bad. Instead the races should be equal at all points in the game (in their own unique way), so this issue would actually be null. 2. The creep mechanic will major factor why zerg is weak because no other race has an ability that makes their units inherently weaker because they're not standing on it. 3. Races have lost their identity currently though Terran and Protoss might regain it. Zerg will never be the swarm in this game. 4. The removal many special micro tactics or their viability doesn't allow for as many intense moments throughout the game. 5. The spells somewhat have become boring. 6. Making a game to appease to the masses might be the reason SC2 fails, but SC2 is not destined to fail. | ||
|
redFF
United States3910 Posts
| ||
|
Wolf
Korea (South)3290 Posts
| ||
|
redFF
United States3910 Posts
On March 31 2011 14:34 Wolf wrote: Shouldn't yes also say 'state why below' ? Hahaha. No because it is blatantly obvious that yes is the correct answer.^^ | ||
|
alphafuzard
United States1610 Posts
The amount of skill it takes to stop a well designed close-position build is vastly greater than the amount it takes to execute one. | ||
|
Thrombozyt
Germany1269 Posts
On March 31 2011 14:39 SupastaR wrote: No because it is blatantly obvious that yes is the correct answer.^^ Yes should be the only possible answer, if (the vocal part of the) Zergs would then finally stop the whining. Seriously, just because the strongest strategies involve many expansions for Zerg it doesn't mean that it's the only thing you can and should ever do. It's called adaptation and for a race designed around evolution Zergies seem to be pretty opposed to it. Imagine the outcry, if Terrans would band together and rally for the removal of cross positions and rush distances longer than X. Thankfully there are also Zergs like him: On March 31 2011 12:30 CapnAmerica wrote: 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!  ).He has the right view. Funny thing, that rocks protecting your main+nat is for practice league and pre-match-agreements like "no rush the first 15 minutes" are considered to be for noobs only, but you actively try to push the map pool in a direction that automatically mimics the "NR15" phenotype by drastically weakening the rush options. Also you have to look at the bright side: Close positions means it's easier to spread creep to the opponents base and suddenly you can use hydras! | ||
|
Morphs
Netherlands645 Posts
| ||
|
JDub
United States976 Posts
I just like the variety. I'm okay with some short, super aggressive games and also some long macro games (e.g. Tal'darim altar) | ||
|
THAmarx
65 Posts
why: same as zerg has more problems on close positions terran has more problem on cross positions. And as terran should learn to know how to play cross positions as has zerg to learn how to play close positions. if zerg maby won't auto fe but go pool first they would have much less trouble to start with. i don't know how the percentage now is in evening out between cross or close postions. but if you look statisticly and if the chance to be on every spot is the same the you get double time the close position, that i don't find fair. cross or close should be 50% 50%. I don't know or that is already the chase. | ||
|
nihlon
Sweden5581 Posts
| ||
|
schmutttt
Australia3856 Posts
| ||
| ||
