I'm sick of ZvT close positions, i always die to the 2 tank + a pack of marines push, no idea how I can hold this and still be prepared in case the terran went double port banshees or hellion drop instead.

phisku

Belgium864 Posts

May 03 2011 10:49 GMT

#144

yes we have to get rid of thoses close pos because zerg still ignore how powerfull early roach are...

CryMeAReaper

Denmark1135 Posts

May 03 2011 10:54 GMT

#145

make maps where you dont have a "close" position? sure 2 positions can be close together than others, just do not make it so u get a steppes type of close. sorry if this have already been discussed, im too lazy to read through it all soz ^^

michglich

United States29 Posts

May 03 2011 10:58 GMT

#146

As a Zerg, close positions is not as bad as people think. Once you hold off whatever push T/P are planning for close spawn, it's almost like any other game, albeit with your expansions being much more droppable.

Iyerbeth

England2410 Posts

May 03 2011 11:00 GMT

#147

I think SC2 would lose something if there was never any close position risk so I voted no. I play Zerg and yeah I hate seenig close positions, but I imagine most non Zerg don't feel too great spawning on a map like Scrap Station - and neither are close to impossible to win.

Tournaments skipping out close positions I think is alright though.

Pred8oar

Germany281 Posts

May 03 2011 11:00 GMT

#148

The problem with close positions especially for zerg is that you cant take a fast 3rd. As Zerg in the early game u want to make as many drones as possible and make units as you scout him moving out. In close positions you cant do that because the opponent will be right in your face. Also a lot of all ins are triggered by close posi, so i think they should be removed.

Morphs

Netherlands645 Posts

May 03 2011 11:02 GMT

#149

The main problem is that Zerg has to pull just too many strings to make close pos work. Sacrifice the whole economy in exchange for a fighting force.

Reducing spine build time would be a first step and IMO the buildtime is already a bit too long now.. it wouldn't be enough though..

For the rest.. T and P got all kinds of nice early game options that are strong too. Zerg either doesn't have them or they aren't discovered yet.

FeyFey

Germany10114 Posts

May 03 2011 11:05 GMT

#150

well its a nice option for maps where close spawn would be really really close like shakuras, that opens up map design thingies. But otherwise i go with, damn another bugged map, where close spawn isn't possible.

close spawns allows different tactics for any race and its not a problem anymore, plus you get really intense battles.

It really annoys me when people talk about that the game is to simple and at the same time want to simplyfi it for themself, because they learned one pro strat and can execute it, so they are high up in ladder, but refuse to learn other strats to keep up on different maps or positions.

But i guess people prefer the 240x60 map with no cliffs except the main. makes me think of ff13 and suddenly i understand why they did what they did

Kvz

United States463 Posts

May 03 2011 11:06 GMT

#151

close spawn shattered temple rush distance is closer than steppes of war i believe. there's some food for thought

Alver

United States177 Posts

May 03 2011 11:06 GMT

#152

i voted no not because of rush imbalance or any racial matchup imbalance but that its much harder to play past 2 bases each in close positions. id like to see it removed to have greater odds of macro games on those maps, their small enough allready.

Tofugrinder

Austria899 Posts

May 03 2011 11:07 GMT

#153

I dont get it why so many people voted no. Close positions on maps like Metalopolis are just not fair so obvisiously they must be removed. The better way of course would be to delete maps which are just bad in some positions. (I guess no one would argue that we need close positions disabled on maps like tal darim)

Bagi

Germany6799 Posts

May 03 2011 11:12 GMT

#154

I can only speak from a TvZ perspective, but I think close positions on metal is no more imbalanced than cross positions on Tal'darim altar - only the zerg gets the advantage there. Yet only one of these is considered a huge problem, because of the holy grail that is the "macro game". Because of the volatile nature of the matchup and especially the clumsiness that is the siege tank, I feel the matchup is only truly balanced with medium-sized maps, such as Shakuras.

I think that close positions are an important part of the game, and that macro games aren't always the most exciting ones. A good balance can most likely be found here - remove maps that have too close positions (like metal), but keep close positions an option on maps like Backwater Gulch (such an underrated map, we've seen amazing games on that in the NASL). Being able to play an active, aggressive game on close positions is a skill a good player should have.

Absentia

United Kingdom973 Posts

May 03 2011 11:19 GMT

#155

I responded no but now I am inclined to answer yes thinking about the actual question a little more.

Close position play isn't so bad a problem as the lack of expansions for Zerg when playing close position on certain maps.
Take metalopolis, for example. I find close position ZvT extremely exciting because it often begins with a micro intensive early game.
On a map such as metalopolis however, you can often be forced to 2 base all in as Zerg simply because anything greater than 2 base close position play becomes extremely difficult to do.

So whilst I don't think spawning close positions is necessarily bad in itself, I think that the maps on which close spawning can occur are. As such, close spawn positions should be removed on those maps.

I think it would be interesting if a map opened with close spawn positions but had expansions behind it, (leading gradually further away from the opponents main). It could possibly lead to some interesting dynamics, (and greater nydus worm usage).

WniO

United States2706 Posts

May 03 2011 11:21 GMT

#156

any 4 player map that removes close positions is fucking terrible from a design point of view... besides cheese there is no reason to.

why not make lost temple and metalopolis 2 player maps and change the other two mains into something more interesting and not so awkward.

Lobotomist

United States1541 Posts

May 03 2011 11:25 GMT

#157

Yes. ZvT 2 rax pressure is verrrrry effective in close positions, while 2-rax marine/scv all-in is impossible to stop. Similarly, tank pushes are impossible to stop if you have no space to maneuver in.

ZvP is a total toss up as well. I pretty much roach/speedling every ZvP close positions on Temple and Metalopolis and it gets me quite a few wins, but it's really up to whether the protoss has good FFs or not.

jere

United States121 Posts

May 03 2011 11:32 GMT

#158

No be able to play the game not just how you want. If all you can do is play a long macro game then you are not good at the game. If all you can do is play a short rush or all in game then you are not good at the game. I am talking about every game. Be a complete player be able to play the game in different ways not just one way.

I just remembered a game TvP on Metalopolis where close spawn was disabled so the Terran proxies a rax for Marauder got them there so fast that it basically won the game with like the first two units that just not fun for anyone. So it could create new imbalances without the close spawn.

Iyerbeth

England2410 Posts

May 03 2011 11:34 GMT

#159

It's also worth mentioning there are still veto's for people who want to avoid the most difficult of close positions.