|
On May 03 2011 20:35 DashedHopes wrote:
Wow this is so dumb you need some various maps that may have that ability to not let a zerg be greedy
1. Zergs are loosing games vs. early marine/bunker pressure early games even on largest maps.
2. On larger maps terran can easily be greedy himself - and that's what most high level terrans do.
3. Zerg is at a disadvantage on close pos like meta or shattered, I don't see why race should be at a huge disadvantage on certain maps.
|
Gives me a good excuse to all-in I guess... they're pretty awful though, especially slag pits, I mean I know most Zergs probably have that checked off but, just go look at it sometime it's quite hilarious. The cliff is just icing on the cake.
|
No
Why: Blizzard should balance (or at least try to) close positions. Maps should not be manipulated in ways to balance out the game.
I like that on current maps people have eliminated close positions but it is merely a band aid fix, nothing else.
Unlike most people, i actually believe Blizzard will get it right, especially after HotS and they get to change the game in more drastic ways (1-2 new units) than in typical balance patches.
Close positions produce different kinds of macro games, we just arent there yet where all 3 races can survive in those positions, but i am confident we will be there.
|
I feel that there should be close positions (yes I'm a zerg) but it should only occur occasionaly. Even though statistically it you should only have like a 33% chance of spawning close positions it seems to happen 50-60% of all my games I'm getting close positions (where it's possible).
I feel that while close positions does make certian builds stronger such as 2rax, it is by no means impossible to beat, just pull more drones.
I use spanishwa's build so expanding isn't too much of an issue due to the creep spread, but I will admit is still harder. If I only got close positions on say LT, 25% of the time then I would find it acceptable
|
Close positions is a part of the game. Just because the majority likes macrogames doesn't mean close position games can be competitive and balanced. It's just that the players will have to adapt more to their environment than play macro every game.
|
i voted no because, its a part of the game and it forces you to do other things that you normally wouldnt. i think its good for the game =)
|
On May 03 2011 20:44 Alpina wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2011 20:35 DashedHopes wrote:
Wow this is so dumb you need some various maps that may have that ability to not let a zerg be greedy 1. Zergs are loosing games vs. early marine/bunker pressure early games even on largest maps. 2. On larger maps terran can easily be greedy himself - and that's what most high level terrans do. 3. Zerg is at a disadvantage on close pos like meta or shattered, I don't see why race should be at a huge disadvantage on certain maps.
They're not at a "huge" disadvantage, I don't even see the problem.
|
No close positions is fun because if you catch your opponent off guard or unprepared you win the game. I imagine most of the fuss is about the early game, but I see nothing wrong with mid/late game close position spawns.
|
I voted "no", even though I'd agree that close positions metal is not a very good thing. I like different styles of maps though, and I like starting positions to matter. There is no point in having 4 player maps with removed starting positions, It would be better to have a 2 or 3 player map in that case. Or just make 4 player maps where close positions are not as close as in metal or shattered temple (not even talking about slag pits...)
|
On May 03 2011 21:33 lundell100 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2011 20:44 Alpina wrote:On May 03 2011 20:35 DashedHopes wrote:
Wow this is so dumb you need some various maps that may have that ability to not let a zerg be greedy 1. Zergs are loosing games vs. early marine/bunker pressure early games even on largest maps. 2. On larger maps terran can easily be greedy himself - and that's what most high level terrans do. 3. Zerg is at a disadvantage on close pos like meta or shattered, I don't see why race should be at a huge disadvantage on certain maps. They're not at a "huge" disadvantage, I don't even see the problem.
They are at a huge if opponent is doing all-in. If toss is doing fake expand into 4/5 gate the difference is really huge, on cross spawns you can get much more units and even then defending is very hard.
|
On May 03 2011 21:33 lundell100 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2011 20:44 Alpina wrote:On May 03 2011 20:35 DashedHopes wrote:
Wow this is so dumb you need some various maps that may have that ability to not let a zerg be greedy 1. Zergs are loosing games vs. early marine/bunker pressure early games even on largest maps. 2. On larger maps terran can easily be greedy himself - and that's what most high level terrans do. 3. Zerg is at a disadvantage on close pos like meta or shattered, I don't see why race should be at a huge disadvantage on certain maps. They're not at a "huge" disadvantage, I don't even see the problem.
Close position is basically a 10-20% nerf to Zerg economy.
Think about that... what if your probes only brought back 4 minerals per trip instead of 5?
That is effectively what happens in close position due to the fact that Zerg can't skimp on their standing army.
Now you can't really say having the capability to skimp on standing armies is OP, because larger maps aren't an auto-win for Zerg, they're balanced.
So one of the two has to be wrong, forcing Zerg to have a standing army is either too harsh, or allowing Zerg to freely mass drone in the early game is too easy for them.
Which one is it?
|
Absolutely they should be removed. If people still want 4 player maps than those maps should be modified to at least stretch out the distances between bases.
There's a reason why almost all the serious tournaments have already disabled close spawn positions
|
In your poll you forget to specify "These Maps" if you want to use your poll results to convince anyone you should clarify which maps.
|
On May 03 2011 22:26 redux46 wrote:
There's a reason why almost all the serious tournaments have already disabled close spawn positions
There's also a reason 99,99% of ladder players are not playing in these tournaments: Their skill level is not even comarable. Not everything that makes sense in tournaments is also good for the ladder.
|
No
It is much easier to scv all in on small maps
|
On May 03 2011 22:55 DestroManiak wrote:
No
It is much easier to scv all in on small maps
Not even this. Small maps make it very hard for Zerg to get past 2 bases (even that) since the rush distance is nothing. Protoss and Terran can be aggressive so easily, Zerg just gets stomped.
|
On May 03 2011 23:02 monitor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2011 22:55 DestroManiak wrote:
No
It is much easier to scv all in on small maps Not even this. Small maps make it very hard for Zerg to get past 2 bases (even that) since the rush distance is nothing. Protoss and Terran can be aggressive so easily, Zerg just gets stomped.
?
Which is why I do not want the maps removed.
|
need to get rid of any positional advantages! why doyou play a map where you feel like you not at a disadvantage from the start.? it so stupid
|
On March 30 2011 08:26 FiWiFaKi wrote:
I want to ask, what difference does close or cross positions on shattered temple make in zvp? As a protoss I'll have a close pylon anyways. I'm personally really enjoy close positions so I'm againsts it... I think it's fine - Until you're top top masters a push arriving 5-10 seconds earlier would have killed you either way and it's way overdone.
If you have such a problem, don't play those maps.
It makes a huge difference. On Shattered Temple, P can expand to the expansion that has rocks blocking it off, and the gold expansion, both of which are between the two players. Then the P can just sit there with his death ball and Z can't do anything to stop it. Not only can Z not stop P from taking and defending those expansions, but P can also launch attacks from them - right next to the Zerg natural!
|
I think the multiple postings from protoss stating that close positions has no bearing, just to enlighten, playing as a zerg in these positions, you don't have the option to either drone or produce army units. You have to constantly do both, since you don't have the breathing room required to spawn an army once your opponent decides to move out.
Being as zerg can't make workers and an army at the same time, this is bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
