EPTIn ladder? No. I odn't want 2 hours of laddering to = 4 games lol
The Close Spawning Position [poll] - Page 7
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
ffadicted
United States3545 Posts
In ladder? No. I odn't want 2 hours of laddering to = 4 games lol | ||
|
ALPINA
3791 Posts
On March 31 2011 22:13 ffadicted wrote: No lol not every single game ever should be a macro game. In pro leagues where it actually matters? Sure, remove it. In ladder? No. I odn't want 2 hours of laddering to = 4 games lol So why do you ladder? To improve or to get quick wins? Long games help improving multitasking and macro much more than 8 minute games. | ||
|
pwnasaurus
Canada190 Posts
Bigger maps clearly do not advantage zergs - if you watch ANY pro level tournament, you'll see that T and P are MORE than capable of keeping up with the macro of a Z without close positions. So no close positions =/= Z advantage, but close positions = Z disadvantage. See how that's an issue? | ||
|
Neo.NEt
United States785 Posts
| ||
|
BlasiuS
United States2405 Posts
There's a reason why steppes was removed from the map pool. There's a reason why you can't spawn close positions on shakuras plateau. There's a reason why the MLG versions of metalopolis & shattered temple have disabled close position spawns. They're all the same reason: having spawns that are too close overly encourages 1 base play and discourages macro games; it basically turns games into a rush fest, and is especially bad for zerg, who have the longest build time for static d out of all the races, and don't have an effective way of walling their ramp in the early-game. | ||
|
Kyuki
Sweden1867 Posts
| ||
|
Cain0
United Kingdom608 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'. What makes the game boring is people sitting on their base scared to attack each other because they know that if they fail slightly, they will lose because of the very short rush distance. | ||
|
Offhand
United States1869 Posts
| ||
|
Ownos
United States2147 Posts
| ||
|
THAmarx
65 Posts
On April 01 2011 01:09 pwnasaurus wrote: Man a lot of the people in this thread have terrible understanding of the game. Bigger maps clearly do not advantage zergs - if you watch ANY pro level tournament, you'll see that T and P are MORE than capable of keeping up with the macro of a Z without close positions. So no close positions =/= Z advantage, but close positions = Z disadvantage. See how that's an issue? your defintily watching other pro games then me  or your watching with zerg glasses  When i see pro games zerg is more then capable to win close position and terran has a very hard time on those long positions. look at the game for jinro vs zergstyle. jinro went for a dangerous fe before rax... something what terran can't do without danger. So he had some extra 'macro' funds terran normally don't have. Finally he lost because a couple of quick mutas which where a 55 seconds faster then that a normal zerg would do. it is redicilous to say that terran don't has a disadvantage same way as zerg has a disadvantage on close positions. | ||
|
ffadicted
United States3545 Posts
On March 31 2011 23:12 Alpina wrote: So why do you ladder? To improve or to get quick wins? Long games help improving multitasking and macro much more than 8 minute games. To have fun? lol A good macro game is fun once ina while, but generally I'd rather my games be around 8 - 12 minutes max | ||
|
THAmarx
65 Posts
On April 01 2011 02:19 ffadicted wrote: To have fun? lol A good macro game is fun once ina while, but generally I'd rather my games be around 8 - 12 minutes max same with me i like the battle most, that's why i like to play short games. But i know some people like long macro games... so having them both is nice... i like sc2 thx blizzard! | ||
|
flyingbangus
United States121 Posts
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a fucking cannon that detects and hits air takes 40 seconds while a crawler that eats a drone takes 50 seconds. + Show Spoiler + I've won most of my close positions ZvT and ZvP recently because my opponents think they can auto-win with some 1base push. So I take the economic hit and build 3-4 spine crawlers early and a bunch of speedlings.Hide the speedlings and flank as soon as they start to attack the crawlers. After wiping that push, go all-in with ling-bling or roach-ling or hydra-ling, depending on the opponent's race and build. Now, the games that I lost with this style of play are games where T or P scouts and realizes that I have crawlers and units -- so they just abandon their push, defend and/or expand. At this point, I already screwed myself over with the crawlers and speedlings. From watching replays, I'm usually at least 10 workers behind when they get their 2nd up. With that said, if Z can get emergency crawlers up fast enough, I think close positions add flavor to the games by forcing zerg to stay on 2base and deal enough damage before T or P gets their 2nd base up and running.......or doing a risky expand far away. | ||
|
ffadicted
United States3545 Posts
| ||
|
daffodil
Australia109 Posts
| ||
|
rysecake
United States2632 Posts
I don't enjoy 6 minute long 4 gate games, nor do I want/have enough time to play 30 minute games everytime. | ||
|
khOOM
United States87 Posts
On April 01 2011 02:17 Ownos wrote: so as long as they limit these maps to 3/9 so we can veto them. Blizzard can keep catering to a variety of "styles." I strongly agree with this. | ||
|
Termit
Sweden3466 Posts
| ||
|
Icx
Belgium853 Posts
On April 01 2011 10:26 rysecake wrote: Why is it that everyone thinks macro game means 30min-1 hour? That's not macro, that's a fucking drool fest. The average sc1 game was around 15 minutes, not 45. This. Altough I wouldn't go to say that the average (pro)game was only 15 (more towards 15-20, but I never really watched the time closely), ZvZ was shorter, TvT longer, PvP somewhere in beween. But ye 45 minute games are games where it is like super late game and you start mining out the map, that rarely happens. (in sc2) In the end I think blizzard should just make a big step forward in their maps, and if it were up to me it would be like this: 1) Make metal/temple/etc like shakuras, just no close positions. 2) Add more iccup/GSL maps, but at the same time give more veto's 3) Balance the map pool to have a more "casual" set of maps and at the same time have an option there for the more competitive people to not have to play in this stuff they don't want to (typhon peaks/slag pits) and add more gsl/iccup maps Or just change the whole veto system to be a "out of this map list I only want to play these 5-6" and let people decide. If the bronze/silver/gold who just want a quick 10 min game to have some fun then they can pick their steppes/etc, but blizzard, please stop just trying to get control over the map list, and trying to hide those good maps, and just give the people who want to play more competitively the options to do that. It's not only the grandmasters of the ladder that like to play on taldarim/terminus/crevasse/etc, there is a huge amount of people that want to play these maps from plat to the top level. I just started playing actively again, and I played my first games on taldarim/shakuras and I must say that they have been some of the most fun and interesting games I have played so far, this one toss spanked me around on tal'darim with forcefields, but I didn' care it was a really good game. While in the past with blistering/steppes/etc I was just frustrated all the time. And I didn't think I would say this, but imo this shouldn't be a question at all, it's just blizzard's stance on the ladder and the fact that they just want it more "noobfriendly" (or what they perceive as noobfriendly) and the fact that they just don't want to give up on controlling the map pool that something like this isn't getting changed. In the end I just want there to be a choice, for the people who want the mappool to be closer to the tournament mappools and for the people who just want some quick games. | ||
|
Zerker
Canada201 Posts
Close distance is retarded for the simple fact that you don't need to proxy a gateway or a barracks and you can apply pressure on a zerg which basically costs them the game, Or at least gives the toss/terran a natural advantage in certain spawns. | ||
| ||
