This has been an issue since beta. What i am talking about is the close spawning positions on certaint maps such as metalopolis(spelling?) and lost/shattered temple. From the beginning people watching matches saw the players and casters treat choosing these maps in a zvt or zvp as a lottery. Everyone knew that the zerg basically needed anything but close positions or they were pretty much screwed. I don't think this kinda luck should be what influences games so much. As a Zerg I feel helpless. Doomed to fend off wave after wave of attacks with virtually instant reinfocements. When I played protoss I would always 4gate in a match vs zerg on these maps and I can't remember ever loosing (Im sure I did a couple of times). In addition it is not commonly thought that zerg has the advantage in any other position.
Another problem with this is the excitement these games create. It is the opinion of most that longer more macro games are more fun/exciting to watch. These positions almost always create a quick 10-15 minute game with not much back and forth action.
MLG and Gom.tv have gone ahead and eliminated these positions from being possible on their version of these maps. Please vote bellow and comment on whether or not you thing Blizzard should follow suit.
Poll: Should Blizzard Eliminate Close Positions On These Maps
Yes! (3087)
81%
No! (state why below) (738)
19%
3825 total votes
Your vote: Should Blizzard Eliminate Close Positions On These Maps
I say yes, eliminate close positions as long as we are using these maps. A better option though is to make maps with these things in mind, as to best remove possible positional "imbalance". I feel removing close spawns is very much a bandaid solution, and kind of silly when you think of a map where one position will never face off against another.
In all honesty, if a map requires certain natural spawn positions to be "disabled" in order to produce good games, then it's a bad map. I'd much rather see a 2 player map with the basic design of Metalopolis than disabled close positions.
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.
You are exactly right in saying that it is an issue on these maps. There were plenty of maps in BW where close position spawns, as opposed to cross, did shorten the distance between bases. The problem with maps like Metal is that the distance is so significantly shorter between the different spawn possibilities. Entirely symmetrical maps would be boring, as would forcing no close spawn for the duration of SC2. I'd like to start seeing maps where close position isn't going to be an almost auto-lose for certain match ups, and will only decrease the rush distance by a few seconds.
I voted no but I think the close positions need to be more balanced. To me its kinda cool that players can spawn in positions that promote a more aggressive playstyle.
I would like if they made the close positions far enough so you can breathe though.
On March 30 2011 08:26 Skillz_Man 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.
I guess it is less so in a zvp but you have a really easy time getting your pylon up where as I would harass your army/probe or do a runby. Also in the later stages of the game its incredibly easy for a protoss deathball to just waltz into your natural without having to engage in a bad spot.
mm steppes was just silly. Actually my least favorite experience on that map was a zvz, since the spawns were so close it actually created a rock paper scizzors BO issue.
with 6 pool beating 13/14 pool 10 pool beating 6 pool, or at least getting a huge advantage. and 13/14 pool gaining a clear advantage over a 10 pool.
Anyway non zvz I don't mind. Yes you have to hold off early aggression but your 3rd and 4th bases are really easy to get since it takes the opponent sooo long to get to them. Actually far positions is one of my least favorites because every expansion i take moves me closer to the opponent. But, I am only low diamond.
NO! It adds a level of randomness to the game which is absolutely crucial. Taking away close spawning positions further promotes passive/macro style play. While that isn't bad, it's much more interesting to see a player be put into a position where macro play may not be the best option (and more challenging for the player). The game should be (and if its not now, will be) balanced to a point where all races are at an equal level for close spawn positions meaning that not a single race is at a disadvantage from the start.
On March 30 2011 08:24 Toadvine wrote: In all honesty, if a map requires certain natural spawn positions to be "disabled" in order to produce good games, then it's a bad map. I'd much rather see a 2 player map with the basic design of Metalopolis than disabled close positions.
This. Removing close spawn possibility indicates the map is flawed. They shouldn't be removed, Blizzard should solve the problem by balancing the close spawn problem or remove the map itself.
I lose more often than win in close positions but I like them in there. It's a very different game and that adds to the excitement of the map. I always hope for a macro game, but I enjoy the different pace when my opponent spawns close and forces aggression. I'll get my macro game in the next match;)
I voted no and I'd echo those who would rather the maps themselves be removed or modified in other ways (Slag, Temple (less so now), and Metal). BW easily just made rotational maps where close positions weren't a huge deal, SC2 should be able to as well. Also, I would love to have more 3 player maps in the pool (cough Testbug cough). The new Shakuras, for example, is much better than the old one, even "fixed" like MLG did, and it's a shame they're not including it in the pool.
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'.
Not really. It doesn't need to be the size of cross dist metal, but close spawn metal/LT have NO place in this game any more. They tried to force this shit on it (read: Incineration Zone) and it failed. Time to give up, Blizzard.
On March 30 2011 08:37 sureshot_ wrote: NO! It adds a level of randomness to the game which is absolutely crucial. Taking away close spawning positions further promotes passive/macro style play. While that isn't bad, it's much more interesting to see a player be put into a position where macro play may not be the best option (and more challenging for the player). The game should be (and if its not now, will be) balanced to a point where all races are at an equal level for close spawn positions meaning that not a single race is at a disadvantage from the start.
I disagree. Randomness is not a crucial part of the game. It breeds inconsistent results because it provides elements out of your control. Bullet spread in fps is random and terrible for the game.
Now is you're talking about variety, then that's a different issue.
Meh at least for 4 gate i have just as much success on cross positions as close, as long as you get a forward pylon up there isnt much of a difference you just put the forward pylon in advance and use it for your first warp in, i guess ther is a small advantage for close positions but i find it generally negligible and i actually probably have more luck with the 4 gate or 6 gate push on cross positions as the zerg is almost always less prepared for it. I dont think its a big deal close positions keep the game interesting and i think alot of zergs just get greedy and get punished for it. Putting up an extra spine or 2 cant hurt your economy too bad and it will really help, although i think they should make the maps that have close positions slightly more zerg friendly so that its easier to get expansions away from your opponents, i think defensive nydus's should be used more in close position games though for transfering drones and saving expansions i think it could help alot ^^
No. I don't mind having 1-3 maps that allow for close spawns, as anyone who despises them so much can just veto.
Having the possibility of close spawns brings variety and is still better than having a pure "rush map" like steppes of war.
I think the map pool caters enough to zerg players as it is. Nobody seems to be questioning how hard TvZ can be on cross position Metalopolis, but having the possibility of close positions is a huge issue for the entire game.
On March 30 2011 08:37 sureshot_ wrote: NO! It adds a level of randomness to the game which is absolutely crucial. Taking away close spawning positions further promotes passive/macro style play. While that isn't bad, it's much more interesting to see a player be put into a position where macro play may not be the best option (and more challenging for the player). The game should be (and if its not now, will be) balanced to a point where all races are at an equal level for close spawn positions meaning that not a single race is at a disadvantage from the start.
Close positions adds a dumb factor. If a rush is balanced on close positions, then it probably sucks horribly on far positions. If a rush is balanced on far positions, then it will be imbalanced close. That is just the way rushes work. Having a dynamic where a rush is slightly imbalanced on close position only kind of weak far positions is a ridiculous way to balance a matchup.
This remind me of TvP a few months ago. Statistics said it was a balanced matchup but majority of people agreed T>P early and P>T late. You had balanced stats but it was the stupidest state of game ever. Balance should generate equality throughout a whole game.
If blizzard seriously wants to balance the game (regardless of what state the game is in now), you should have some kind of standard definable map distance that you base everything around. Close positions is adding an extra factor for balance when they can barely get it right in the first place.
DUHHHHHH. Of course they should. Close positions takes no skill kill an opponent with a completely generic timing attack. At least on longer positions any timing attacks need to be well-planned
On March 30 2011 09:04 darklordjac wrote: Don't get rid of them, both have what they had in broodwar where it decreased the time by a bit, but not nearly as much as they have now.
This. I really dont want to play a 20-30 minute game, every game. There needs to be variety and flavor. You cant really expect to play greedy every game and be safe from any kind of retaliation.
Nah, i think they should still keep the maps in the map pool. They are maps that play to terran and protoss strengths, just like how large maps play to zerg strength. If all the maps were macro-oriented, Zerg would have favorable games.
I'd say just design maps that are symmetric instead of rotationally symmetric. The rotational symmetry sets certain spawn positions on 4 person maps to obscenely close vs obscenely far.
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'.
I hope you're joking. It's not like it's hard to cheese on a macro map, it's just not a free win for Terran/Protoss like it is if it's close positions vs. zerg.
ok, close positions are really stupid.. THERES ABSOLUTELY NO WAY TO BEAT A TERRAN OR TOSS (WITH ZERG) IF THEY TAKE THEIR NATURAL... no fucking way... only by going with a very good all in vs a noob.. u cant even take a 3rd base..
Although I think it's good for a game to have close aggressive positions, these are just to close and to be honest completely imbalanced for zerg. Not being able to take and reasonable third base is ridiculous and having your opponent one attack command to your front door is ridiculous. However, because ladder matches are ladder matches and are not tournament games it really isn't that big of a deal as long as you don't make money from ladder.
Metalopolis is bad for the same reasons of shattered temple, but Shattered temple is even worse than metal due to the 3rd in the corner that means instant death. Opponent just needs to wall/defend main a bit, expand through the corner expo, and make a super small push to destroy zerg's natural.
Personally I don't mind slag pits TOO MUCH. It's close positions have got to be the closest damn positions around making it terrible for ZvP, but at least it's not as bad if you play cautious vs terran.
Close spawns are good to practice all ins as zerg, thats about it. Keeping a third base is ridiculously hard as any drop or zealot warp in is so far away you cant defend it without droping a good amount of money on static defense, nydus, or units that are not with your main army. Also there is no time to react against opponents agression, so you are forced to cut some econ for defense. And no, 4 gate is much scarier close spawns then far. I'm assuming most zergs have learned by now that at least 1 of the 4 lings they spawn at the beginning of zvp have nothing better to do then search for lost probes and hidden pylons. If the army has to move out with the probe and wait for pylon to warp in for reinforcements thats a significant amount of reaction time you dont have when they can warp in at there base and be at your natural in 10 seconds.
On March 30 2011 08:24 Toadvine wrote: In all honesty, if a map requires certain natural spawn positions to be "disabled" in order to produce good games, then it's a bad map. I'd much rather see a 2 player map with the basic design of Metalopolis than disabled close positions.
This. Removing close spawn possibility indicates the map is flawed. They shouldn't be removed, Blizzard should solve the problem by balancing the close spawn problem or remove the map itself.
That doesn't make sense. Judging the map as 'flawed' based on a position being disabled is illogical. That judgment is entirely based on the knowledge that the position wasn't disabled at some point. In other words if Metalopolis was released for the first time tomorrow with no close positions you couldn't say the same thing.
The only thing a map should be judged on is whether or not is produces good games. Close positions on some maps don't produce good games, thus they shouldn't be enabled.
On March 30 2011 08:26 Skillz_Man 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.
Of course you enjoy close positions in PvZ lol. The difference is that toss gets his collosus ball up and breaks the rocks and comes though the rocks into zerg natural and then zerg must fight in super small choke. Even if protoss does not know what forcefields are it would be extremelly hard.
But overall the longer the distance the easier for zerg to prepare to any kind of push - that's obvious I think.
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.
Close spawns should be part of the game just like big rush distances. It varies the style and makes the game more interesting. No this does not mean a free Terran win. This can be abusable by zerg and toss. Zerg can just go all, bling bust, speedling while toss can go quick stalker rush or fast 5 gate attack
what is the point of 4 player maps then if you're just going to arbitrarily say something is unbalanced? might as well only make 2 or 3 player ones.
build order A is easily scoutable and beats build order B, you don't do build order B close enemy positions is easily scoutable and can beat build order B, you don't do build order B
deal with it, starcraft isn't a 1 build order game. learn builds based on whether or not you want to be aggressive, be safe, or be greedy and apply those based on specific locations
I'd rather something else be fixed, I don't know how, but some other way than disabling close spawn positions. If there was a way to make it better so certain races (zerg) able to do better at close spawns, i'd rather have that.
On March 31 2011 08:30 ftwpker wrote: Close spawns should be part of the game just like big rush distances. It varies the style and makes the game more interesting. No this does not mean a free Terran win. This can be abusable by zerg and toss. Zerg can just go all, bling bust, speedling while toss can go quick stalker rush or fast 5 gate attack
Thats fun to you?
Close spawn make the game way less enjoyable, as opposed to games with reasonable rush distances. Taking out garbage maps like steppes was a step forward, as was removing close spawn on shakuras, the same should be done for metal, temple, etc.
close positions don't give the option of more than 2 bases forcing players to play hyper aggressive. yes you can take a third but you have to be careful. generally no one likes to play close positions because they're boring games so don't really know why people would defend them
this combined with watch towers reallllly dumb the game down.
sure macro games are awesome, but just macro games can also get a little boring, alot of times the close spawn back and forth micro battles created many amazing games. in some instances sure they are TOO close but then the map becomes a LONG distance only map.
YES! Ideally, they wouldn't have to, but in the past few months of playing and watching starcraftt, its painfully clear that spawning close and far result in 2 MASSIVELY different games. You might as well have 2 versions of the same map with one close and one far and let plays veto. Its just disgustingly different.
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'.
Not a matter of macro or not macro it's a balance issue....if a balanced pool is a good one you can't have close positions...it's why they got rid of steppes.
I want some variety. Do we really have to macro every game? The only thing I disagree in with tl's big-map sentiment is that a lot feel like we need to play on maps like Tal'Darim every game. A well-balanced map pool is ideal - not every map like Steppes, but also not every map like Tal'Darim.
It adds a particular dynamic in all match-ups; a different set of strategies and different concepts from your traditional macro style game.
In tournament modes, consider this the home advantage for some races. You might select that map because you know you have a good pressure/close game, or you might veto it because you favor macro games. Sure everyone wants their best chance to win, but sometimes the game just can't be balanced in all aspects. Sure in baseball they will move outfield walls from time to time, but it isn't as if the visiting team starts complaining to the league commissioner about having to play at Team X's stadium because they have an advantage, or in basketball another team refuses to play because the opposing team's fans are too loud when shooting foul shots, or worse a football stadium is too WINDY.
I see everyone keep mentioning Close Meta and Close Shattered temple. With so much ire generated towards these maps one would think these are the ONLY maps people ever spawn on. The days of steppes and blistering are gone, and thumbing down DQ and Slag Pits are probably most people's 1-2. It's still a 1:3 chance, which is kind of favorable towards spawning NOT in close positions (DQ/slag pits as an exception).
If anything I think the major problem lies in the limited nature of zerg vs the slightly more early game versatility of the other 2 races, you can't exactly 1 base tech and delay an expansion as zerg without sacrificing just about everything else.
You'd think also by now that most people would have a strategy for close positions to give them an advantage rather then the auto-loss that most people accept them as.
On the other end of the spectrum, I may start rotating Tal Darim in and out of my bans because I honestly can't keep playing 35+ minute macro games 4x in a row. If you think about it, a 1:3 chance will be close position on meta/st, but a 1:1 chance will be a relatively far walk any time you draw Tal Darim in your ladder.
Close positions on GSL maps and many of BW's maps is not as punishing as close positions on Blizzard maps. It does give the rusher a slight advantage and thus forces safer builds, but unlike on Blizzard maps, it does not reward rushes and cheese as much.
Cross-positions-only on many of the Blizzard maps, such as Metalopolis and the new ladder maps, would be quite good at this point since close positions are too flawed on many of them. Close positions on many Blizzard maps rewards rushes and punishes defenders too much with short rush distances to a point where it really limits the variety of openings in the game.
Close positions shattered ZvP is absolutely stupid. I tried playing multiple games against my brother(mid masters protoss), and if he did a nice safe 3 gate expo, cannoned up + broke down rocks and cannoned the high ground before expanding there, there's almost nothing I could do beyond allining before this was possible. Especially with good forcefields and 5+ cannons at the top of the ramp, it's very hard if not impossible to break him. Considering how long it takes to tech to broods vs how long it takes for the protoss to get a deathball off of 3 bases that's almost impossible to kill in one go with a zerg mass, it's stupid.
Generally yeah. Close positions are retarded to deal with. Meta close is almost as short of a rush distance as Steppes (maybe shorter), but at least Steppes had an expansion that you might be able to defend. Meta is about as open as a whore's legs. I don't think it should be straight up cross though. It should be like Shakura's and basically turned into a 3 player map. At least there would be some randomization for scouting instead of just always knowing where your opponent is.
On March 31 2011 08:30 ftwpker wrote: Close spawns should be part of the game just like big rush distances. It varies the style and makes the game more interesting. No this does not mean a free Terran win. This can be abusable by zerg and toss. Zerg can just go all, bling bust, speedling while toss can go quick stalker rush or fast 5 gate attack
Thats fun to you?
Close spawn make the game way less enjoyable, as opposed to games with reasonable rush distances. Taking out garbage maps like steppes was a step forward, as was removing close spawn on shakuras, the same should be done for metal, temple, etc.
Yes thats fun for me. Although I'm not the best cheeser or rusher, I like to some of those builds. These builds are simply part of the game and do them once in a while especially on close spawn will force opponents to play safe rather then being greedy and quickly expanding,
For the longest time, why Terran was perceived to be imbalanced was due to close rush distances, and the newer maps have solved that yet we keep maps with ridiculously close rush distances which obviously favor Terran greatly. Even MYM.Cloud said during the HEAT show match series that Protoss were at a big disadvantage if they spawned close positions vs Terran.
Similarly, PvZ,TvZ don't favor the Zerg when in close proximity...
They should just eliminate close positions once and for all from maps like Met and ST
I really wished that with these big maps and basically the removal of stupid short rush distances that Blizzard removes depot before rax. I mean, the main thing that depot before rax was removed was the stupid short rush distances...
No because this kind of change serves only in the best interests of zerg players in particular, and it seems to me that zerg players do not need any more advantages than they already have in the matchups.
I'm leaning more towards keeping them, though I consider myself neutral too. Cheese/rushes are all part of the game. You can't have everything be a macro game.
On March 31 2011 09:17 Fission wrote: No because this kind of change serves only in the best interests of zerg players in particular, and it seems to me that zerg players do not need any more advantages than they already have in the matchups.
With the recent patch, heavily nerfing terran's early game with the stupidly high stim upgrade time, I don't see why close position would be imbalanced in one way of another. I think the game also has evolved since the beginning and zergs now know how to hold rushes that were previously thought to be almost impossible to stop. Close positions are alright now imho.
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 .
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)?
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.
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.
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.
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.
i dont think i contradicted myself so much as not clearly stating my opinion so i apologize and will likely edit it
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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! ).
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.
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.
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.
The other X factor with eliminating close spawns is that it can create further imbalance, which is why I think you should just remove the bad maps. I'm itching to see how MLG Metal does statistics wise because I'm not positive that if you remove close spawns you'll get near 50/50 rates TvZ (not that you have them already at 58% T favored). Why not just use better maps?
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.
There's a lot more to it than just the fact that they can also expand.
Definitely a map specific thing. Honestly Metalopolis can still create good games on close spawns, so while it might be convenient I don't think it's absolutely necessary.
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...
god i hate this 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?"
The whole game became fucked by Blizzard. The whole ZvP ZvT thing might not even be true yet.
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.
TvZ close positions (especially on shattered temple) is like taking candy from children. It should be removed because a zerg player's only real option to win against a competent terran is to all-in.
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.
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.^^
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.
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! ).
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!
I would prefer to see Zerg get something to deal with close positions. Something that makes early game agression (and thus) defense viable without fully sacrificing the economy. However, that doesn't seem very plausible to happen, so let's vote for "no close positions" then..
I like the spawning on a map and not knowing whether my opponent is super close or super far. In ZvT I 15 hatch regardless, but on close positions I'll go for a bling bust, and on far positions I'll just drone up, etc. I like having the variety. Sure, I'll die if I drone too hard on close positions, but I can also spread creep straight to my opponent's natural (although FruitDealer can do this on far positions Crevasse, I don't have that sort of creep spread yet).
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)
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.
On March 31 2011 16:23 THAmarx wrote: no, don't remove close positions.
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.
yeah because the "disadvantages" Terrans face on cross positions is anything to compare with the odds faced by a zerg on close positions.. jeezus, get some perspective. Cross positions simply means you actually are getting a decent challenge in a TvZ, which is what it should be.
Yes, the early maps, in particular delta quadrant and lost temple were terran favored for close positions. However, some zergs still do win in close positions. I'm toss, and lost a game against zerg in close positions tonight. I did not play my best, and he managed to keep my forces zealot sentry heavy then transitioned into a big muta push basically killing my econ, I massed what I could and got crushed.
The new modifications to LT (shattered temple) make close positions better, and more exciting since there is jockeying for who gets to take the corner expansions.
It takes some skill but it is possible to expand away from your opponent and gain advantages that way with mobile units.
Bottom line, close positions require different playstyles.
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.
yeah because the "disadvantages" Terrans face on cross positions is anything to compare with the odds faced by a zerg on close positions.. jeezus, get some perspective. Cross positions simply means you actually are getting a decent challenge in a TvZ, which is what it should be.
actual they are... terran is as slow and immobile as it gets. while zerg has the fastest units on and of creep. And zerg has the best macro abilities of all the races. That is why terran has to do damage or it's a auto loss. on cross positions terran can do hellions drops banshee or a big push. But when zerg goes for a couple of mutas banshee and drops are denied (not cost effective anymore). Then you have to put all in that one big push and if it fails your a goner. a good zerg denies reinforcement while you crawl to the zerg base and he can easily scout your army so he knows which units he has to produce more to counter. So no room for mistakes here for the terran player.
Your perspective is so zerg only. Just because you can't survive close positions doesn't mean that all odds are against you. Don't cry to much but focus on learning to play better against the matchup. Don't auto think i lost because of close position, but look back and see your errors. Make some new strategies or adapt your timings. I played enough good zergs who didnt liked close postion but had no problem playing it the same way as i as terran scouts cross position.
when you lose it's always hard to blame it on yourself... that why we have so much ridiculous post here about blizzard and imba's. because it is so simple to just blame something else. but most of the time it is because of your own faults.
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.
yeah because the "disadvantages" Terrans face on cross positions is anything to compare with the odds faced by a zerg on close positions.. jeezus, get some perspective. Cross positions simply means you actually are getting a decent challenge in a TvZ, which is what it should be.
actual they are... terran is as slow and immobile as it gets. while zerg has the fastest units on and of creep. And zerg has the best macro abilities of all the races. That is why terran has to do damage or it's a auto loss. on cross positions terran can do hellions drops banshee or a big push. But when zerg goes for a couple of mutas banshee and drops are denied (not cost effective anymore). Then you have to put all in that one big push and if it fails your a goner. a good zerg denies reinforcement while you crawl to the zerg base and he can easily scout your army so he knows which units he has to produce more to counter. So no room for mistakes here for the terran player.
Your perspective is so zerg only. Just because you can't survive close positions doesn't mean that all odds are against you. Don't cry to much but focus on learning to play better against the matchup. Don't auto think i lost because of close position, but look back and see your errors. Make some new strategies or adapt your timings. I played enough good zergs who didnt liked close postion but had no problem playing it the same way as i as terran scouts cross position.
when you lose it's always hard to blame it on yourself... that why we have so much ridiculous post here about blizzard and imba's. because it is so simple to just blame something else. but most of the time it is because of your own faults.
umm I never said I don't try to improve, but that has nothing to do with the fact that close spawns is not remotely fair. Why do people liek you like to put words into other people's mouths?
Oh by the way.. a good terran knows when to "crawl" and when to just stim run into a zerg base. If zerg has an army, you crawl, because the macro advantage rests with you if he hasn't droned, if zerg has only mutas, or is about to make units, you stim and run to his door. If you crawl, he will mass his units and getting away with the macro advantage. This knowledge is infinitely helpful to any terran who needs to play a map involving any reasonable distance. If you only know how to 'crawl" all the time, it is yur fault.
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.
yeah because the "disadvantages" Terrans face on cross positions is anything to compare with the odds faced by a zerg on close positions.. jeezus, get some perspective. Cross positions simply means you actually are getting a decent challenge in a TvZ, which is what it should be.
actual they are... terran is as slow and immobile as it gets. while zerg has the fastest units on and of creep. And zerg has the best macro abilities of all the races. That is why terran has to do damage or it's a auto loss. on cross positions terran can do hellions drops banshee or a big push. But when zerg goes for a couple of mutas banshee and drops are denied (not cost effective anymore). Then you have to put all in that one big push and if it fails your a goner. a good zerg denies reinforcement while you crawl to the zerg base and he can easily scout your army so he knows which units he has to produce more to counter. So no room for mistakes here for the terran player.
Your perspective is so zerg only. Just because you can't survive close positions doesn't mean that all odds are against you. Don't cry to much but focus on learning to play better against the matchup. Don't auto think i lost because of close position, but look back and see your errors. Make some new strategies or adapt your timings. I played enough good zergs who didnt liked close postion but had no problem playing it the same way as i as terran scouts cross position.
when you lose it's always hard to blame it on yourself... that why we have so much ridiculous post here about blizzard and imba's. because it is so simple to just blame something else. but most of the time it is because of your own faults.
umm I never said I don't try to improve, but that has nothing to do with the fact that close spawns is not remotely fair. Why do people liek you like to put words into other people's mouths?
Oh by the way.. a good terran knows when to "crawl" and when to just stim run into a zerg base. If zerg has an army, you crawl, because the macro advantage rests with you if he hasn't droned, if zerg has only mutas, or is about to make units, you stim and run to his door. If you crawl, he will mass his units and getting away with the macro advantage. This knowledge is infinitely helpful to any terran who needs to play a map involving any reasonable distance. If you only know how to 'crawl" all the time, it is yur fault.
terran units are crawling units... 2.25 for most units and siegetanks are slower and a must for terran. stimming to run at those distances your bio army is in the red and your siegetanks thors are very far behind. the movement of terran always feels like crawling. yes a few stimmed can run faster but you sacrifice alot of health for just getting a little of distance ? no you as slow as the slowest unit there in the push.
but it's a game of balance... the closer the better for terran the further the better for zerg... that just how these mechanics work. I don't say its auto loss for terran on cross but its just the same as it is for zerg on close.
then can we remove long distance positions? cuz the disadvantage z gets in close positions is similar if not the same as the disadvantage t or p gets in long positions
Against Zerg the other races do often get kind of a freewin because the Zerg Player has to react to what the other race does so the timezone he got to react gets a lot smaller and preparing for the attack becomes much harder.
I think the occasional short rush distance is ok and mixes up your ladder experience. I'm a random player and you can also do super effective baneling aggression via those short distances, so I don't think those spawns are a definite disadvantage for Zerg.
The only problem lies with the map pool imho. There are too many maps with super short distances, so even if you downvote 3 maps you will still have short distances a lot. This might also contribute to people being so annoyed with close spawns.
On March 31 2011 16:23 THAmarx wrote: no, don't remove close positions.
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.
In all honestly the problems terran has in cross spots are L2P issues. Whereas zergs problems in close spots are fundamental flaws of gameplay.
On March 30 2011 08:26 Skillz_Man 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.
Maybe it is because your protoss and you already claim to use proxy pylons, but there is something called a third base.
On March 31 2011 16:23 THAmarx wrote: no, don't remove close positions.
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.
In all honestly the problems terran has in cross spots are L2P issues. Whereas zergs problems in close spots are fundamental flaws of gameplay.
was just gonna post that. close positions are just inherently imbalanced especially for zerg because any kind of push is at ur nat in record time, and reinforced instantly. you have to play x15 times better than the other guy to win close positions. you can bet i all-in every time i get a ZvT/ZvP on close positions. i'd rather lose/win in 7 mins than 90% lose a macro game in 15.
example was tonight on the ladder i played a terran on tal darim, and he didnt expo by 7 mins, i scouted with ovie/poked with lings. saw a cheesy 1 base, blueflame/mara/thor/scv all in push, easily stopped it because i had the eco+map length to pump units to easily beat it.
i click find match instantly, i get him again. close positions metal. he does the same exact same thing. knew it was coming. didnt stand a chance. i had half the amount of drones as i did last game, half the time to make units. it really feels like on close positions you can't even make enough drones to fight off any push. if they don't expo by 7 mins, you have to blindly make units to fight off a push, and hope they didnt sneak a cc in their main behind their all in or you're behind.
garbage. just encourages one base/two base timing all in play. the most frustrating thing is, the players beating me on close positions don't even fathom taking a third base because they couldn't keep up with the macro. frustrating.
I think that the problems people have with close positions is less to do with the early game and more to do with the mid-late game. Expansions are just harder to hold for the zerg as the expand far away. plus any re-enforcements from these Hatches take longer to get to where they need to be. I play toss so not that worryed but I still don't think that games are as good when people spawn too close.
On March 31 2011 16:23 THAmarx wrote: no, don't remove close positions.
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.
In all honestly the problems terran has in cross spots are L2P issues. Whereas zergs problems in close spots are fundamental flaws of gameplay.
Wait.. let me guess.. you conclude that, because it's common knowledge that Zerg players have higher inherent skill than Terran players so any problem they face warrants and immediate patch while Terrans are just noobs that abused their race to Master league and are now in trouble as the game gets more balanced?
Damn.. this 'Zerg logic' is getting really old and was already flawed back in beta.
i like spawning close posi as zerg, means i can expand easily at t2 while my opponent can't. But most games are won before t2 even as opponents kill themself with their blind timing pushes. I mean early game zerg on creep is like the other races at a ramp. And still lots of players actually put more then they should into this early game push.
Only thing that is a bit annoying close posi is a tank or immortal timing push. Or a wide open natural, i miss LT was way easier to defend then shattered ^^.
But if those timing pushes fail close posi its over, cross posi its possible to hold the zerg conter, but close posi once you start to think about retreating the game is over.
I mean every race has abilitys allowing to take an expo even if the opponent is keeping you cut off from the map and the zergs one is by far the strongest. And there are enough timing pushes for the zerg as well, so i don't really see an issue with close posis. But i guess zerg maphack makes it easier to play cross posi games and zergs in general got to lazy to scout with stuff involving ressources, so most players are caught off guard close air or ground.
On March 31 2011 16:23 THAmarx wrote: no, don't remove close positions.
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.
In all honestly the problems terran has in cross spots are L2P issues. Whereas zergs problems in close spots are fundamental flaws of gameplay.
Wait.. let me guess.. you conclude that, because it's common knowledge that Zerg players have higher inherent skill than Terran players so any problem they face warrants and immediate patch while Terrans are just noobs that abused their race to Master league and are now in trouble as the game gets more balanced?
Damn.. this 'Zerg logic' is getting really old and was already flawed back in beta.
You can watch A LOT of macro games of TvZ when terran wins in straight up macro game where zerg does not make any critical mistakes. And all that in best tournements, so that pretty much says that on huge maps ZvT is pretty fair. And if you watch ZvT on close pos meta or LT you can see that zerg wins when either terran made mistakes or zerg made some kind of all-in.
On March 31 2011 16:23 THAmarx wrote: no, don't remove close positions.
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.
In all honestly the problems terran has in cross spots are L2P issues. Whereas zergs problems in close spots are fundamental flaws of gameplay.
They're really not. Back when T could build rax before depot and P didn't have the zealot build time nerf, they *might* have been, but right now Z is the only race that can begin to threaten the opponent with an army starting pool before overlord. A cross position fast expansion as Zerg cannot be punished if it's played correctly, but if your opponent metagames you and goes early pool your 14 CC/Nexus is not going to stand.
I know it mostly zerg worried about spawn positions. But there are other MU's to consider as well. In TvT spawning cross map can be a pain. On Taldrim Altar for instance. It will take forever to kill your opponent. Tank play often takes all the pace out of such a game, and you could easily end up in a game of over an hour. No fun.
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.
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.
Yes because I play Zerg. But really I think it's pretty lame how random and luck based it can make a map. It's pretty much "oh I spawned close on Metal... awesome" or "thank god I spawned cross map on Metal". I think close air is pretty fair though.
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.
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.
This game isn't balanced in the slightest in the early game. But 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."
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
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.
I think we need something like steppes back. meta/lt close spawn is essentially a steppes with more bases. the problem is, in regard to vetoing maps and having 'safe' maps, the randomness of the spawn location means you're gonna have to take a chance. at least with a close rush distance 1v1 map, you know what you're getting into/out of every time you play it. i personally find a lot of steppes games interesting. it's not like zerg are incapable of doing any close rush timings
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.
I don't enjoy 6 minute long 4 gate games, nor do I want/have enough time to play 30 minute games everytime.
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."
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.
Even if you don't spawn in close positions that doesn't mean people are going stop all-in 1 base plays. Even on large 4 player maps there is going be the 6pools, proxy gates, proxy racks because scouting can cost you a econ boost and on the flip side of the coin, if you do get scouted it costs you the rush.
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.
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.
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 ^^
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.
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.
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.
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 .
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.
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)
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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
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.
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 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 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.
On May 03 2011 21:18 Kar98 wrote: 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
Actually....since theres 2 starting close positions and one staring cross position, its a 66/33 split.
I think rush distance gets too much attention for map imbalances.
Rotational Imbalance I think it's a really important source of imbalance, but some maps like Tal'Darim Altar have huge rotational imbalances. For example if you're clockwise from your opponent you get to take your 3rd away from your opponent and there are more expansions that are easier to get that are all away from your opponent.
It is possible to mitigate rotational issues though by have a 4-player map in the style of metal and not allow close positions, this is a huge win!
There are some 3-player maps that deal with this, for example iCCup Testbug (one of my favorite maps) has very little rotational effect because of the angle of the natural is pretty steep towards the center without actually being so far towards the center.
However, it's really weird for a mirror-matchup to be imbalanced on a map, and yes, even ZvZ can be imbalanced on a map like Delta Quadrant because one natural is towards the opponent and one is away from the opponent.
Voted no. I think the problem lies with zerg not with the maps, maybe I'm just ignorant but does close spawn TvP suffer from the same issue? I think zerg ealry game is just terrible due to poor range, speed(speedling excluded) and lack of AA. In other words we need broodwar hydras back.
(1) On the Ladder close positions should not be removed. Even this discussion seemingly feeds the myth that Zerg is somehow at a disadvantage to the other races. Certain play-styles and play versus play scenarios will play out like there is some sort of "disadvantage," but that is an illusion.
Close positions encourage rush plays, or heavy defense/tech plays. I think this is fine. If the Zerg defends the rush, or is not rushed, or launches a rush, and can go into the mid game and take another main the match is fine, if not in favor of the Zerg. Taking a third main for the Zerg in close spawns is super strong. Even FE's to another main can be strong. Taking a third for Terran or Protoss versus Zerg in close spawns is incredibly difficult in the mid game due to the frightening mobility of the Zerg, and most commonly, mass air strats. Additionally, Zerg's rushes, and all-in rushes are super strong and require a great deal of dedication from the opponent to stop, especially in close spawns.
(2) Yes, for spectator matches. Esports practitioners make specific changes to the maps (the only thing they can legitimately alter) to enhance the viewer experience based on their opinions and viewership feedback, not to balance the game.
If anything removing close spawns just give Zerg's an unfair advantage going into each match because any non-proxy rush is going to be significantly weaker than it could be had they rolled close spawns. But again, they do not do this for balance, they do it for ratings.
TL:DR - On the ladder, no. L2p. For Esports? Sure. They are in it for the ratings, and viewers favor longer games, usually.
It should just be eliminated from the game--ladder + tournaments. It makes for the least interesting games and makes it less certain the better player will win. Nothing I hate more than close spawn metal pvz or pvt; it's just boring and stupid, win or lose.
I love them because they add something to the game that make you play those 4 player maps differently. I don't like spawning positions that are "too" close, but when done right, it's adds to the difficulty and depth of the map.
If a certain MU ends up being imbalanced in that position (like bunkering up ramps) than that can be changed... but I don't buy the whole "autoloss" when I get close spawns, but I do understand how having to tweak builds for those maps could be seen as extra work.
No. Close/far positions affect builds and strategies so much. Taking out such a key part of the game would be stupid. When you spawn metalopolis as Protoss against Terran, you have to make a key decision. When do you expand? And that is a huge decision.
I voted yes, but that's only if there are changes to make it balanced. Spawn positions that change the game to be more aggressive are a good refreshing change, but if any matchups are broken on those kind of spawns then they should be removed until that is fixed.
Where does the notion that "macro maps make macro games and rush maps make rush games" come from? It really just makes no sense. Close positions on metal isn't a "rush" map, it's straight up bad design. The time it takes to make a round of units is greater than the time it takes for a whole army to walk from one base to the other, that's just plain old bad in every way shape and form.
Maps just need to be bigger, no matter what. Even xel'naga is small for me......
I really wish we could just start 100% over with the maps honestly..
voted yes just because of close spawn on ST and Meta currently. People are saying that they want to punish greedy play and you need to play safely but they dont realize that even if you play safely, zerg is still at a deficit at close positions. I wouldnt mind close positions at all if the P/T advantage wasnt so pronounced. At high levels of play, any slight advantage is a gamebreaker.
if you play greedy as Z on close positions, P/T can either all-in and auto win or macro for a fairly balanced game. If you play safe play as Z, P/T can either all-in and ull have some chance at defending or they can play greedy and be at an advantage. the ball is on their court and they can always choose a position to come out ahead.
close position on meta is so funny with tanks shelling u on the high ground outside ur natural. the rock area as others have stated also seems to be a problem for ST. vs T u basically HAVE to hatch first in order to hold off a bitbybitprime-style marine scv all in or you go pool first and blind bling nest and ruin your econ.
The ppl who voted no are just ignorant to the degree of imbalance close positions offer or they just want to be able to win vs players that are more skilled. players use the fact that they have lost on close positions to say its balanced but its just that u lost to more skilled players.
Absolutely NO! Gee maybe you should learn how to DEFEND all those different early pushes, or learn to do them yourself? Everyone seems to think there should be some sort of unspoken agreement that nobody is allowed to kill each other within the first 10 minutes. Dealing with rushes is part of the game and I think it's an awesome part of the game.
Yes because my early pushes as terran vs zerg are too easy to do damage with compared to long distance, it's not fair for my opponent when my 5marine 1helion comes like 10-20 sec earlier because of positions
This game is getting "nerfed" itself, no cliff, no close positions, no nothing. The solution is not this one, if blizzard can balance the different states of the game...
This is an strategy game, yeah, an strategy game in wich you make 200/200 and 1a to the victory -.-! Cliff Drops, close position rushes, small engage areas, all this things are important for the game... the problem is not there, the problem is with balance in general.
On May 04 2011 00:45 TimeSpiral wrote: NO, but ...
(1) On the Ladder close positions should not be removed. Even this discussion seemingly feeds the myth that Zerg is somehow at a disadvantage to the other races. Certain play-styles and play versus play scenarios will play out like there is some sort of "disadvantage," but that is an illusion.
Close positions encourage rush plays, or heavy defense/tech plays. I think this is fine. If the Zerg defends the rush, or is not rushed, or launches a rush, and can go into the mid game and take another main the match is fine, if not in favor of the Zerg. Taking a third main for the Zerg in close spawns is super strong. Even FE's to another main can be strong. Taking a third for Terran or Protoss versus Zerg in close spawns is incredibly difficult in the mid game due to the frightening mobility of the Zerg, and most commonly, mass air strats. Additionally, Zerg's rushes, and all-in rushes are super strong and require a great deal of dedication from the opponent to stop, especially in close spawns.
(2) Yes, for spectator matches. Esports practitioners make specific changes to the maps (the only thing they can legitimately alter) to enhance the viewer experience based on their opinions and viewership feedback, not to balance the game.
If anything removing close spawns just give Zerg's an unfair advantage going into each match because any non-proxy rush is going to be significantly weaker than it could be had they rolled close spawns. But again, they do not do this for balance, they do it for ratings.
TL:DR - On the ladder, no. L2p. For Esports? Sure. They are in it for the ratings, and viewers favor longer games, usually.
I would think GSL changing maps is to balance the game cus so much money is on the line and players would complain about imbalances otherwise. then again i could be wrong since there has been match fixing prior which shows other things are more important than balance. i would think rushes are more exciting for spectating rather than long drawn out games on tal-darim-style maps. so maybe u have it reversed, ladders need to be balanced since no1is watching but spectator matches can have close positions for more excitement (commentators always go crazy when workers are pulled for all-ins)/variety
I voted no even though I play zerg. I do have a harder time on close positions but I like the idea of having to adjust your game plan based on the situation. On close positions on metalopolis, I'm more likely to go for some sort of bust and I take my third base on the other side of the map. Also, its very easy to get creep to your opponent's front door (until they start to clean it). Essentialy, I think close positions just requires some different (possibly more creative strategies) and theres nothing wrong with that.
On May 04 2011 00:45 TimeSpiral wrote: NO, but ... TL:DR - On the ladder, no. L2p. For Esports? Sure. They are in it for the ratings, and viewers favor longer games, usually.
I don't see how not being able to take a third base is a l2p issue.
On May 04 2011 02:20 Anomandaris wrote: Close position is nearly insta loss for toss against zerg and terran on metalopolis and slag pits.
Photon cannons, dude. If he goes roach bust or any type of timing attack, he fails because of the cannons. If he doesn't go roach bust, he fails anyway even though you made cannons after your 3 gate expand, because it's close positions.
I am a P and Z user, and every time I play as P in a PvZ in close positions, I feel bad for my opponent.
On May 04 2011 00:45 TimeSpiral wrote: NO, but ... TL:DR - On the ladder, no. L2p. For Esports? Sure. They are in it for the ratings, and viewers favor longer games, usually.
I don't see how not being able to take a third base is a l2p issue.
On May 04 2011 00:45 TimeSpiral wrote: NO, but ... TL:DR - On the ladder, no. L2p. For Esports? Sure. They are in it for the ratings, and viewers favor longer games, usually.
I don't see how not being able to take a third base is a l2p issue.
Huh?
I'm not following you on this one : /
In close spawns on Metalopolis or Shattered Temple, zerg's only chance for a third is a hidden expansion, which any good terran or protoss sniffs out in no time. Sure, it's not exactly easy for terran or protoss to take a third either, but expanding towards your opponent on those maps is not even a feasible option for zerg. Essentially the game is limited to 2 bases, which is incredibly restrictive for zerg.
On May 04 2011 02:20 Anomandaris wrote: Close position is nearly insta loss for toss against zerg and terran on metalopolis and slag pits.
Photon cannons, dude. If he goes roach bust or any type of timing attack, he fails because of the cannons. If he doesn't go roach bust, he fails anyway even though you made cannons after your 3 gate expand, because it's close positions.
I am a P and Z user, and every time I play as P in a PvZ in close positions, I feel bad for my opponent.
Rushes are far, far easier to scout in close positions. I'd rather stop a 6pool in close positions on Slag Pit a hundred times before facing it in a far spawn, just because I'd actually have time to react.
Close spawns make for more dynamic games and for more diverse strategies (on the ladder). The weirdest (and often most fun and action packed) games for me are games where there is a close spawn.
I understand the need for it to be removed on a true, professional level, but ladder map balancing doesn't need the same requirements. I don't want to play the same game on the same map over and over, and I truly enjoy close positions and adapting my game on the fly to it.
On May 04 2011 02:58 branflakes14 wrote: Rushes are far, far easier to scout in close positions. I'd rather stop a 6pool in close positions on Slag Pit a hundred times before facing it in a far spawn, just because I'd actually have time to react.
You are talking about obvous rushes, which are just few, but all other 1-2 base timing attacks / allins are very hard to scout no matter what spawn position.
On May 04 2011 00:45 TimeSpiral wrote: NO, but ... TL:DR - On the ladder, no. L2p. For Esports? Sure. They are in it for the ratings, and viewers favor longer games, usually.
I don't see how not being able to take a third base is a l2p issue.
Huh?
I'm not following you on this one : /
In close spawns on Metalopolis or Shattered Temple, zerg's only chance for a third is a hidden expansion, which any good terran or protoss sniffs out in no time. Sure, it's not exactly easy for terran or protoss to take a third either, but expanding towards your opponent on those maps is not even a feasible option for zerg. Essentially the game is limited to 2 bases, which is incredibly restrictive for zerg.
Nah ... read my whole response.
Taking a 3rd as Zerg in close spawns is fine. Sure it's not the same as when you spawn far, but do you realize how far out of position Terran or Protoss have to go to take out a third when it's a main, or a natural main in the midgame versus Zerg?
It's not a secret expand, really. It is completely standard play for Zerg to take a far third when spawning close, and it creates a situation that can favor the Zerg going into late-mid and late game.
Your play-style might feel restricted to two bases in that scenario, but the game is certainly not.
On March 30 2011 08:37 sureshot_ wrote: NO! It adds a level of randomness to the game which is absolutely crucial. Taking away close spawning positions further promotes passive/macro style play. While that isn't bad, it's much more interesting to see a player be put into a position where macro play may not be the best option (and more challenging for the player). The game should be (and if its not now, will be) balanced to a point where all races are at an equal level for close spawn positions meaning that not a single race is at a disadvantage from the start.
So watching zerg especially die because the opponents army is on you before you know it is fun?
Really? Truthfully close air or cross positions i dont feel bad about, but whenever i get close ground i just automatically lose hope since if the opponent isnt brain dead you're never going to win close positions 99% of the time
Close spawns make for more dynamic games and for more diverse strategies (on the ladder). The weirdest (and often most fun and action packed) games for me are games where there is a close spawn.
I understand the need for it to be removed on a true, professional level, but ladder map balancing doesn't need the same requirements. I don't want to play the same game on the same map over and over, and I truly enjoy close positions and adapting my game on the fly to it.
If by dynamic you mean 1 base pvt/tvp/tvt and 2 base zerg trying to all in a protoss every game than yeah, it's awfully dynamic
Hmm, almost seems like a pattern here. Zerg tends to prefer not having close distances because it's ridiculously hard to scout/predict when you're going to be attacked, everyone else thinks it's great because it adds "dynamism". When a race's reactionary survival depends on knowledge of an attack before that attack actually arrives, it only makes for interesting strategies because the reactionary race is basically rolling the dice and hoping their opponent doesn't hard counter their all-in, all the while droning is a complete crapshoot so you can't try to race ahead in macro either.
I play every close position game the same way. All in and hope I don't get hard countered, one build per race. No dynamism, no interesting new unique strategy, just do what you can and pray that it works because you will not have the time to actually build an economy. Really fun : /
The problem isn't close positions - it's a flaw with the races interactions that means that some races (Z) aren't viable in close position settings. It'd be better if Blizzard actually made the races more interesting and viable in a variety of situations, but we know their design philosophy doesn't leave a whole lot of room for that.
Eliminating close spawns is too easy. I am okay with different strategies being used depending on different spawning positions. If there currently exist no good strategies for a matchup/position, then that is on Blizzard to correct, and I feel we shouldn't let them take the easy out and just remove them altogether.
On May 04 2011 02:54 LittLeD wrote: It also further eliminates luck in the game. I voted yes
This is my reasoning for voting yes as well. I don't mind close distances, but all the random spawns of the bigger maps are just throwing in an element of randomness and luck into the game that isn't helpful or needed. If you're against a real cheese-type player, your scout timing is crucial to be able to respond to a rush.
A good example would be White-Ra vs. MC in their final match at the last Dreamhack. White-Ra didn't know it wasn't the ladder version of Shakuras Plateau - that it had set spawns. So he's randomly scouting each spawn location. Meanwhile MC scouts him straight away and places two proxy-gates with his probe. GG?
On March 30 2011 08:37 sureshot_ wrote: NO! It adds a level of randomness to the game which is absolutely crucial. Taking away close spawning positions further promotes passive/macro style play. While that isn't bad, it's much more interesting to see a player be put into a position where macro play may not be the best option (and more challenging for the player). The game should be (and if its not now, will be) balanced to a point where all races are at an equal level for close spawn positions meaning that not a single race is at a disadvantage from the start.
Close positions adds a dumb factor. If a rush is balanced on close positions, then it probably sucks horribly on far positions. If a rush is balanced on far positions, then it will be imbalanced close. That is just the way rushes work. Having a dynamic where a rush is slightly imbalanced on close position only kind of weak far positions is a ridiculous way to balance a matchup.
This remind me of TvP a few months ago. Statistics said it was a balanced matchup but majority of people agreed T>P early and P>T late. You had balanced stats but it was the stupidest state of game ever. Balance should generate equality throughout a whole game.
If blizzard seriously wants to balance the game (regardless of what state the game is in now), you should have some kind of standard definable map distance that you base everything around. Close positions is adding an extra factor for balance when they can barely get it right in the first place.
Except some rushes just plain don't work cross and are balanced close position. Close position metal is fine as long as things like cross position Tal Darim exist. Winning TvX when X is anything other than T on cross Tal is ridiculously hard.
On May 04 2011 02:20 Anomandaris wrote: Close position is nearly insta loss for toss against zerg and terran on metalopolis and slag pits.
Photon cannons, dude. If he goes roach bust or any type of timing attack, he fails because of the cannons. If he doesn't go roach bust, he fails anyway even though you made cannons after your 3 gate expand, because it's close positions.
I am a P and Z user, and every time I play as P in a PvZ in close positions, I feel bad for my opponent.
Hydra ling with creepway dude.
I don't want to be mean, but if you lose to that, you're bad. Hydra busts are extremely easy to see coming, and since you know it's coming, you can easily stop it by using all your chronoboosts on your warp gates and adding 6 cannons.You can make probes at the same time - he can't, so if you just survive you'll be ahead. Then you can take one of the third bases in between you and him, and easily defend it 'cause it's right next to your natural. You will also have built up probes so you can instantly saturate it.
I voted no but I think the close positions need to be more balanced. To me its kinda cool that players can spawn in positions that promote a more aggressive playstyle.
Second that. A micro intense battle every now and again is both fun to play and to watch. If close position spawning is imbalanced it should be fixed, more games will either force zerg players to adapt and overcome or show that imbalance is actually the case.
On May 04 2011 00:45 TimeSpiral wrote: NO, but ... TL:DR - On the ladder, no. L2p. For Esports? Sure. They are in it for the ratings, and viewers favor longer games, usually.
I don't see how not being able to take a third base is a l2p issue.
Huh?
I'm not following you on this one : /
In close spawns on Metalopolis or Shattered Temple, zerg's only chance for a third is a hidden expansion, which any good terran or protoss sniffs out in no time. Sure, it's not exactly easy for terran or protoss to take a third either, but expanding towards your opponent on those maps is not even a feasible option for zerg. Essentially the game is limited to 2 bases, which is incredibly restrictive for zerg.
Nah ... read my whole response.
Taking a 3rd as Zerg in close spawns is fine. Sure it's not the same as when you spawn far, but do you realize how far out of position Terran or Protoss have to go to take out a third when it's a main, or a natural main in the midgame versus Zerg?
It's not a secret expand, really. It is completely standard play for Zerg to take a far third when spawning close, and it creates a situation that can favor the Zerg going into late-mid and late game.
Your play-style might feel restricted to two bases in that scenario, but the game is certainly not.
I read it, and I disagree. I hear what you're saying about a distant third being theoretically advantageous to the player with better mobility (i.e., zerg usually). The problem IMO is that positionally this isn't viable.
Once terran or protoss take control of the circled region (e.g., with forward bunkers and tanks or a forward pylon), it is easy to send a couple of zealots or a drop to the hidden third. It is extremely difficult for zerg to then defend the third without becoming vulnerable to a push into the natural. In many cases it may not even be possible to reach the third by ground. To be honest, the only times this type of strategy has really worked out for me has been when the terran or protoss fails to consistently scout the map.
I am a protoss player and I feel like far spawn positions suits me much better than close positions. On the new patch 4 gate will be almost eliminated anyway so wont be such a big deal. Problem for me playing against Terran and Zerg on close positions is all the all-in much much more difficult to scout. I mean by the time you get hallucination/observer if you are going for expand its usually too late and speedlings deny scouting.
I think far positions would suit almost everyone, just look at pool 75% ppl saying yes to it also.
On May 04 2011 02:20 Anomandaris wrote: Close position is nearly insta loss for toss against zerg and terran on metalopolis and slag pits.
Photon cannons, dude. If he goes roach bust or any type of timing attack, he fails because of the cannons. If he doesn't go roach bust, he fails anyway even though you made cannons after your 3 gate expand, because it's close positions.
I am a P and Z user, and every time I play as P in a PvZ in close positions, I feel bad for my opponent.
Hydra ling with creepway dude.
Wtf, I feel the exact opposite, PvZ is massively in favor of P close positions from personal experience, I hate that shit. The entire "fake pushes" become infinitely stronger because on long positions, they have to stop moving out when halfway across the map or they're essentially committed, you're never committed close positions, you can go right up to the spines and run away if you want.
Voted no. I would rather see new maps without close mains. I don't really like when they have 3 possible spawns on 4 player maps I would prefer 4 spawns with no close positions.
Mainly because the same reason they changed the 3rd on Tal'darim(adding rocks & +1 gas). That it's not something the casual gamer should need to worry about or know about.
On May 04 2011 00:45 TimeSpiral wrote: NO, but ... TL:DR - On the ladder, no. L2p. For Esports? Sure. They are in it for the ratings, and viewers favor longer games, usually.
I don't see how not being able to take a third base is a l2p issue.
Huh?
I'm not following you on this one : /
In close spawns on Metalopolis or Shattered Temple, zerg's only chance for a third is a hidden expansion, which any good terran or protoss sniffs out in no time. Sure, it's not exactly easy for terran or protoss to take a third either, but expanding towards your opponent on those maps is not even a feasible option for zerg. Essentially the game is limited to 2 bases, which is incredibly restrictive for zerg.
Nah ... read my whole response.
Taking a 3rd as Zerg in close spawns is fine. Sure it's not the same as when you spawn far, but do you realize how far out of position Terran or Protoss have to go to take out a third when it's a main, or a natural main in the midgame versus Zerg?
It's not a secret expand, really. It is completely standard play for Zerg to take a far third when spawning close, and it creates a situation that can favor the Zerg going into late-mid and late game.
Your play-style might feel restricted to two bases in that scenario, but the game is certainly not.
I read it, and I disagree. I hear what you're saying about a distant third being theoretically advantageous to the player with better mobility (i.e., zerg usually). The problem IMO is that positionally this isn't viable.
Once terran or protoss take control of the circled region (e.g., with forward bunkers and tanks or a forward pylon), it is easy to send a couple of zealots or a drop to the hidden third. It is extremely difficult for zerg to then defend the third without becoming vulnerable to a push into the natural. In many cases it may not even be possible to reach the third by ground. To be honest, the only times this type of strategy has really worked out for me has been when the terran or protoss fails to consistently scout the map.
That scenario certainly favors your position in this argument, lol.
We can agree to disagree, but what I will not do is go back and forth constructing scenarios that favor each person's position in the argument. That's silly.
On May 04 2011 00:45 TimeSpiral wrote: NO, but ... TL:DR - On the ladder, no. L2p. For Esports? Sure. They are in it for the ratings, and viewers favor longer games, usually.
I don't see how not being able to take a third base is a l2p issue.
Huh?
I'm not following you on this one : /
In close spawns on Metalopolis or Shattered Temple, zerg's only chance for a third is a hidden expansion, which any good terran or protoss sniffs out in no time. Sure, it's not exactly easy for terran or protoss to take a third either, but expanding towards your opponent on those maps is not even a feasible option for zerg. Essentially the game is limited to 2 bases, which is incredibly restrictive for zerg.
Nah ... read my whole response.
Taking a 3rd as Zerg in close spawns is fine. Sure it's not the same as when you spawn far, but do you realize how far out of position Terran or Protoss have to go to take out a third when it's a main, or a natural main in the midgame versus Zerg?
It's not a secret expand, really. It is completely standard play for Zerg to take a far third when spawning close, and it creates a situation that can favor the Zerg going into late-mid and late game.
Your play-style might feel restricted to two bases in that scenario, but the game is certainly not.
I read it, and I disagree. I hear what you're saying about a distant third being theoretically advantageous to the player with better mobility (i.e., zerg usually). The problem IMO is that positionally this isn't viable.
Once terran or protoss take control of the circled region (e.g., with forward bunkers and tanks or a forward pylon), it is easy to send a couple of zealots or a drop to the hidden third. It is extremely difficult for zerg to then defend the third without becoming vulnerable to a push into the natural. In many cases it may not even be possible to reach the third by ground. To be honest, the only times this type of strategy has really worked out for me has been when the terran or protoss fails to consistently scout the map.
That scenario certainly favors your position in this argument, lol.
We can agree to disagree, but what I will not do is go back and forth constructing scenarios that favor each person's position in the argument. That's silly.
my favorite is when terran pushes into your natural from the former island expansion, and youc ant do anything to stop it because you cant even attempt a flank
On May 04 2011 00:45 TimeSpiral wrote: NO, but ... TL:DR - On the ladder, no. L2p. For Esports? Sure. They are in it for the ratings, and viewers favor longer games, usually.
I don't see how not being able to take a third base is a l2p issue.
Huh?
I'm not following you on this one : /
In close spawns on Metalopolis or Shattered Temple, zerg's only chance for a third is a hidden expansion, which any good terran or protoss sniffs out in no time. Sure, it's not exactly easy for terran or protoss to take a third either, but expanding towards your opponent on those maps is not even a feasible option for zerg. Essentially the game is limited to 2 bases, which is incredibly restrictive for zerg.
Nah ... read my whole response.
Taking a 3rd as Zerg in close spawns is fine. Sure it's not the same as when you spawn far, but do you realize how far out of position Terran or Protoss have to go to take out a third when it's a main, or a natural main in the midgame versus Zerg?
It's not a secret expand, really. It is completely standard play for Zerg to take a far third when spawning close, and it creates a situation that can favor the Zerg going into late-mid and late game.
Your play-style might feel restricted to two bases in that scenario, but the game is certainly not.
I read it, and I disagree. I hear what you're saying about a distant third being theoretically advantageous to the player with better mobility (i.e., zerg usually). The problem IMO is that positionally this isn't viable.
Once terran or protoss take control of the circled region (e.g., with forward bunkers and tanks or a forward pylon), it is easy to send a couple of zealots or a drop to the hidden third. It is extremely difficult for zerg to then defend the third without becoming vulnerable to a push into the natural. In many cases it may not even be possible to reach the third by ground. To be honest, the only times this type of strategy has really worked out for me has been when the terran or protoss fails to consistently scout the map.
In that case Terrans army isn't mobile enough to defend it's main, or to launch a big enough attack to kill your third. If you're spreading your base out that far and not using muta's to handle harass/defend then you're doing it wrong. That third would go unchecked for the most part, and if you got really creative a nydus would both freak terran out and allow you to reinforce against a drop easily.
Almost everyone who has voted "no" would want close positions to just be non existant? This poll is failing because people press "no" if they mean "yes" .
i don't like close positions when they are so close, so, of course, i voted yes.
as long as the spawning positions aren't ridiculously far away, then aggression will remain viable, and we will still see plenty of variety (if not more).
On May 04 2011 00:45 TimeSpiral wrote: NO, but ... TL:DR - On the ladder, no. L2p. For Esports? Sure. They are in it for the ratings, and viewers favor longer games, usually.
I don't see how not being able to take a third base is a l2p issue.
Huh?
I'm not following you on this one : /
In close spawns on Metalopolis or Shattered Temple, zerg's only chance for a third is a hidden expansion, which any good terran or protoss sniffs out in no time. Sure, it's not exactly easy for terran or protoss to take a third either, but expanding towards your opponent on those maps is not even a feasible option for zerg. Essentially the game is limited to 2 bases, which is incredibly restrictive for zerg.
Nah ... read my whole response.
Taking a 3rd as Zerg in close spawns is fine. Sure it's not the same as when you spawn far, but do you realize how far out of position Terran or Protoss have to go to take out a third when it's a main, or a natural main in the midgame versus Zerg?
It's not a secret expand, really. It is completely standard play for Zerg to take a far third when spawning close, and it creates a situation that can favor the Zerg going into late-mid and late game.
Your play-style might feel restricted to two bases in that scenario, but the game is certainly not.
I read it, and I disagree. I hear what you're saying about a distant third being theoretically advantageous to the player with better mobility (i.e., zerg usually). The problem IMO is that positionally this isn't viable.
Once terran or protoss take control of the circled region (e.g., with forward bunkers and tanks or a forward pylon), it is easy to send a couple of zealots or a drop to the hidden third. It is extremely difficult for zerg to then defend the third without becoming vulnerable to a push into the natural. In many cases it may not even be possible to reach the third by ground. To be honest, the only times this type of strategy has really worked out for me has been when the terran or protoss fails to consistently scout the map.
In that case Terrans army isn't mobile enough to defend it's main, or to launch a big enough attack to kill your third. If you're spreading your base out that far and not using muta's to handle harass/defend then you're doing it wrong. That third would go unchecked for the most part, and if you got really creative a nydus would both freak terran out and allow you to reinforce against a drop easily.
That's why you don't kill the third, you go straight to the natural... why in the world would you attack the third at that point. Cut off reinforcements to third --> drop it while pushing the nat, while the Zerg has essentially had zero time to prepare, let alone go mutas.
I don't mind having some super agressive maps like steppes or blistering sand as long as you know what kind of map it is, Temple and Metalo are too random, you have to guess the spawn position and if you're not lucky it's almost autoloose, you can't base your strategy on the map when you don't know if it's a super agro map or a macro map. Roll a dice and gg, is that the game we want to play ?
Yes, eliminate them on maps where theyre a glaring problem. On metalopolis and Shattered T close positions are extremely unfair for Zerg to the extent that its unplayable beyond an all in. Gamepaly depth or not, close positions are unfair, and should thus be removed.
I don't understand who would vote "no" unless they don't play zerg. It is so hard to drone because if you mess up drone timings just once, then they're at your doorstep and you have no units
I don't like close position maps as PvZ because it means 3 gate sentry expands are rather dangerous. I feel like i have to do an offensive opening to protect myself from roach ling aggression.
whenever i get close pos on metal or shattered temple i feel like i must get really lucky with them making some stupid attack where i blindly made alot of units to punish it or that i have to allin them to avoid real games
and i dont get people who say they want close pos on some maps to get more diversity. your basically forcing the players to play coinflip allins and aggression and blind defenses (guessing game) by being so close to each other. if you get non-close pos its not all of a sudden impossible to put pressure on your opponent or do really well-timed allins
On May 04 2011 03:39 This is Aru wrote: Eliminating close spawns is too easy. I am okay with different strategies being used depending on different spawning positions. If there currently exist no good strategies for a matchup/position, then that is on Blizzard to correct, and I feel we shouldn't let them take the easy out and just remove them altogether.
its a nice thought but its too difficult to design a game where all races are equally strong regardless of map design. you would basically have to redesign the entire game to make all races economics and production to work on the same level. and that would be a pretty bad game because then all races would be too similar.
bw was and still is the best rts game ever made and every race worked completely different. maps were really balanced and only was alittle imbalanced on the absolute top level. but they never ever allowed 5second walk to your opponents natural for a contain because that simply doesnt work...
i prefer good maps. so ones where you have to be flexible, and the once where you know its close or far. Removing the flexible map pool part would take away so much nice games. Sure macro games all the way look awesome, but then you miss the epicness that can happen on flexible maps or close posi maps. For non close posi maps the options are pretty thin early game, because every race is godly in defending.
And on meta its not really a problem to scout close posi before you decide on your strategy. People only capable of playing one strat shouldn't be allowed to change the maps in their favor :3 , so they can stay on top with low effort. (well i wouldn't mind if they would stop complaining that the game is to easy at the same time hehe)
I'd like for there to be some real four player maps instead of this fake 4 main 3 position silliness. That said close spawns are ridiculously imbalanced and the current maps that allow it should either remove them or be removed.
It's almost been a year since game came out and this bullshit still exists. Hey Blizz, if you're reading here, just NO MORE close positions! It's stupid, it supports all-ins, makes expanding a huge risk, and some pushes too strong to hold off.
On May 06 2011 22:54 guoguo wrote: I'd like for there to be some real four player maps instead of this fake 4 main 3 position silliness. That said close spawns are ridiculously imbalanced and the current maps that allow it should either remove them or be removed.
Asking for no close position spawn is the same as Terran asking for no far position spawn it's all subjective and should remain in the game for true neutral balance. To take away one aspect one of the game because it favors one race is ridiculous, different spawn locations open up different timings and strategies so all spawn locations should remain, whose to say maybe one day zerg will favor close spawns due to HoTs.
i voted 'no' because i don't want all maps to all have about the same distances in any position possible.
for Progames with spectators or even televised matches i can see, why the 'random'factor is not really something appreciated. The Reasons for those would be -Money is on the line, some Races have a harder time to deal with those closer positions, since there might be an imbalance. I myself would be pretty pissed if those matches for thousands of dollars would come down to a coinflip spawnwise. - for the spectators a 6minute game is widely considered a letdown. while i miself enjoy some really nice micromanagement in progames in the earlly game due to close positions, i kinda see why this is not interesting for other people.
however in the average laddermatch neither of those two arguments fit. actually even the opposite is the case. In fact, while playing, i pretty much enjoy the wide variation of different strategies i need going into a 4player map. i would really not enjoy metalopolis as much, as i do it now, if blizzard would decide to take some of those different possibilities away.
As a Zerg, I'd love to see these close positions gone. I wouldn't mind maps with close and far positions, but Meta and Temple have too close close positions. Closer and further positions are not inherently broken (see close air vs. far position on these maps), the rush distances on Meta and Temple close ground position spawns ARE.
Too close rush distances mean early pressure is really powerful, in which Terran (especially) and Protoss is much better than Zerg. Zerg doesn't have something like 2Rax, which is a safe (and really powerful) form of early pressure without the allin. Zergs early pressure options are very allin and scoutable in comparison (mainly baneling busts).
Another problem is, IMO, that Zerg has little way to bust an entrenched position without going allin in the early/mid game. And if you do manage to score an advantage without going allin, there is no place to get a third to "get more ahead"; you either take the expo in his backyard that will be constant under pressure or one so far away you can't defend it from drops/harass. All that is left is once again jamming your army into his defensive position :S
In conclusion, the close positions on current maps are too short for Zerg to have a solid, balanced, fighting chance against Protoss and Terran.
People also have to realize that rushes and early aggression still work on larger maps. You don't need Steppes of War distances for 2Rax etc. to be viable, pros still do it on the HUGE GSL maps. A larger (not necessarily Taldarim Altar size huge) map does not negate early pressure and force macro play, it just balances aggression vs. macro (better player wins) and makes the game more variated (instead of only having the aggressive option on short rush spawns).
Please Blizzard, fix the too short spawn distances. And while your at it, put some lowered neutral depots on the ramps...
No, honestly, I think the neutral depot should be enough, as well as getting rid of some space near the ramp to prevent abuse. If you're zerg, well I'm not a zerg
Honestly, I'm just sick of so many changes that favor zerg. As protoss I hate spawning close by air on metalopolis or shattered temple. Drops and mutas make me pull my hair out when I'm trying to take a 3rd and it isn't that far by land. In case you haven't noticed, bio and zerg armies have far greater mobility than toss. Med evacs, stim, nydus, creep, all help with mobility also the fact that protoss have slow units like sentries and colossus that are crucial to them winning a fight, and must be protected. I'm sure a lot of other protoss feel this way too, but you don't hear half as many protoss's whining that the game be changed to favor them as you do zerg players.
Also, when you realize that terrans can expand with out taking the risk of expanding because they have liftoff, bunkers and mules. Their are also mechanics to help take a 3rd like PF's and sensor towers. Terran can pin you at home too with the threat of things like banshees, drops, or hellions. Zerg has creep spread for vision and mobility things like nydus, huge drops, mutas to force defensive play. What does protoss have that compares to these things that help take a 3rd? Warp in is really about it. BTW, against zerg, toss has to choke the top of their ramp to 1 space otherwise zerg can just kill them with lings and if you don't get a sentry out in time zerg can take down protoss's first gateway and the wall with just lings. Then when the mid game comes we have to start squishing the fat assed stalkers through this choke to defend from air raids on our main and natural or 3rd. Protoss drops aren't nearly as scary as terrans or zergs for many reasons. Protoss's only real harass units are phoenix and dt's both get shut down by 1 missile turret. Also the fact that a 125/50 stalker has less dps than a 50$ unstimmed marine, that's toss's anti air. Think of how many can fit into a space like the area behind a mineral line, go on a diet stalkers! Also, missile turrets have around 3x the AA dps of a cannon which costs more. So if zergs shouldn't get close by ground, should toss not have to get close by air?
I am so annoyed with the whole zerg mentality that they should be able to fast expand in any matchup, defend any aggression without taking damage, have extremely cost effective units, map control all the time, and tier 3 that is almost impossible to deal with (ever try fighting a zerg ground army backed up with 4+ broodlords and infestors?) Most zerg's idea of balance isn't balance at all, it's simply what favors them. They just love to play the victim and are extremely stubborn about being creative. (Notice I said MOST zergs not ALL!)
As a protoss I feel like it would be equivalent to every protoss player doing a 15 nexus and every matchup and complaining until the game is changed making it defensible against anything. That is pretty much what zerg has done in starcraft 2. They make almost no units until they have 2x your economy and you can't even punish them for it. Before all the zergs start flaming me saying they don't have cost effective units, lings for example are 25$ a piece and are the fastest thing in the game. 2 roaches cost only 25 minerals more than 1 stalker, but roaches get +2 per upgrade and stalkers get +1. With the fact that they are protoss's main anti air, and to get blink is 150/150 plus the 150/100 for twilight their only upgrade, compared to 100/100 speed upgrade for roaches, who can also get tunneling, burrow and regeneration. Or how about the fact that protoss ground units need 100/100 armor upgrade and a 200/200 shield upgrade to get the same benefit that roaches get from just the carapace upgrade.
Whew, a little off subject there. But I just wanted to point out that not every change in the game has to make life easier on zerg. I've played quite a bit with all the races. The most annoying thing for me as zerg is the early game and their shitty anti air in that time. But even when I play zerg, their mid/late game seems very strong to me. Ultras, and broodlords seem amazing to me and I actually hear zergs complain about them. Banlings give zerg the ability to trade their resources for the opponents stuff, that is a nice thing to have when your economy is superior. I just wish as much attention was payed to promoting protoss macro play, as zergs. I feel like zerg is the strongest race right now, and I honestly can think of a few maps being changed to favor them, yet I can't think of 1 example of a map being changes so it helps favor protoss. Meanwhile, zerg gets a buff in almost every patch, and toss gets a nerf in every patch. I think a lot of zergs won't be satisfied until picking zerg before a match is like pushing the "I WIN" button. Getting buffs + map changes to improve a race at the same time is to drastic.
Have not read all of the replies so if my remarks has been taken up already, I apologise. I just read OP and skimmed first page. I was a bit tired when I wrote the reply and is not native english so any weird words or sentences can be overlooked, t(h)anks.
I feel like the reason metal for example is bad when spawned close positions has nothing to do with rush distance at all, besides what does distance mean for a protoss when he can warp in wherever he placed a pylon? Early game it does not matter where he spawns really, it just depends on how good you to fend of early pressure. That map is bad close ground positions for zerg due to the fact that you can not possibly take any reasonble 3rd base and therefor is stuck in mid-game. So, if you are zerg and spawn against a toss or terran you have to go ling/muta/(baneling) if you want to expand to other main for example. (the only way to get map control)
That compositions is good cross positions because you have the possibilty for counter attack and to kill off reinforcement when he pushes. You also have a much better "harrass angles" for your mutas. Close spot doesn't work the same way, you can not counter attack because his army is in the way when he is pushing, taking of reinforcement is not feasible because of the same reasoning. And getting to your opponents mineral line for worker harrass is way akward for mutas. They have to take a long loop around that leaves you open for any pressure, in other words you can not take your mutas back to defend in time if he pushes.
The strongest build zerg can do close pos. on metal is roach/lings all-ins imo, if the protoss FE, to strike before he get his colossus/void rays up. If the protoss do some weird 1 base Stargate or DT build you defend that, while trying to deny his expand. Terran tank pushes is really strong close positions and is darn hard to defend against. Or you can go for ninja expos at gold or main, and pray that your opponent do not scout.
We can compare it to the map Steppes of war, which had really close rush distance however if you had a game that lasted longer than the midgame the map were pretty balanced, with relative easy to take third, imo. The fourth was a bit undefined though however that is another question. Too bad not many games lasted that long on that map.
If you wonder, I voted no on the poll since taking away that factor from the game is not any solution to the problematic feature that arises from it, that is just to ignore the problem altogheter.
On May 07 2011 00:00 Reborn8u wrote: Honestly, I'm just sick of so many changes that favor zerg. As protoss I hate spawning close by air on metalopolis or shattered temple. Drops and mutas make me pull my hair out when I'm trying to take a 3rd and it isn't that far by land. In case you haven't noticed, bio and zerg armies have far greater mobility than toss. Med evacs, stim, nydus, creep, all help with mobility also the fact that protoss have slow units like sentries and colossus that are crucial to them winning a fight, and must be protected. I'm sure a lot of other protoss feel this way too, but you don't hear half as many protoss's whining that the game be changed to favor them as you do zerg players.
Also, when you realize that terrans can expand with out taking the risk of expanding because they have liftoff, bunkers and mules. Their are also mechanics to help take a 3rd like PF's and sensor towers. Terran can pin you at home too with the threat of things like banshees, drops, or hellions. Zerg has creep spread for vision and mobility things like nydus, huge drops, mutas to force defensive play. What does protoss have that compares to these things that help take a 3rd? Warp in is really about it. BTW, against zerg, toss has to choke the top of their ramp to 1 space otherwise zerg can just kill them with lings and if you don't get a sentry out in time zerg can take down protoss's first gateway and the wall with just lings. Then when the mid game comes we have to start squishing the fat assed stalkers through this choke to defend from air raids on our main and natural or 3rd. Protoss drops aren't nearly as scary as terrans or zergs for many reasons. Protoss's only real harass units are phoenix and dt's both get shut down by 1 missile turret. Also the fact that a 125/50 stalker has less dps than a 50$ unstimmed marine, that's toss's anti air. Think of how many can fit into a space like the area behind a mineral line, go on a diet stalkers! Also, missile turrets have around 3x the AA dps of a cannon which costs more. So if zergs shouldn't get close by ground, should toss not have to get close by air?
I am so annoyed with the whole zerg mentality that they should be able to fast expand in any matchup, defend any aggression without taking damage, have extremely cost effective units, map control all the time, and tier 3 that is almost impossible to deal with (ever try fighting a zerg ground army backed up with 4+ broodlords and infestors?) Most zerg's idea of balance isn't balance at all, it's simply what favors them. They just love to play the victim and are extremely stubborn about being creative. (Notice I said MOST zergs not ALL!)
As a protoss I feel like it would be equivalent to every protoss player doing a 15 nexus and every matchup and complaining until the game is changed making it defensible against anything. That is pretty much what zerg has done in starcraft 2. They make almost no units until they have 2x your economy and you can't even punish them for it. Before all the zergs start flaming me saying they don't have cost effective units, lings for example are 25$ a piece and are the fastest thing in the game. 2 roaches cost only 25 minerals more than 1 stalker, but roaches get +2 per upgrade and stalkers get +1. With the fact that they are protoss's main anti air, and to get blink is 150/150 plus the 150/100 for twilight their only upgrade, compared to 100/100 speed upgrade for roaches, who can also get tunneling, burrow and regeneration. Or how about the fact that protoss ground units need 100/100 armor upgrade and a 200/200 shield upgrade to get the same benefit that roaches get from just the carapace upgrade.
Whew, a little off subject there. But I just wanted to point out that not every change in the game has to make life easier on zerg. I've played quite a bit with all the races. The most annoying thing for me as zerg is the early game and their shitty anti air in that time. But even when I play zerg, their mid/late game seems very strong to me. Ultras, and broodlords seem amazing to me and I actually hear zergs complain about them. Banlings give zerg the ability to trade their resources for the opponents stuff, that is a nice thing to have when your economy is superior. I just wish as much attention was payed to promoting protoss macro play, as zergs. I feel like zerg is the strongest race right now, and I honestly can think of a few maps being changed to favor them, yet I can't think of 1 example of a map being changes so it helps favor protoss. Meanwhile, zerg gets a buff in almost every patch, and toss gets a nerf in every patch. I think a lot of zergs won't be satisfied until picking zerg before a match is like pushing the "I WIN" button. Getting buffs + map changes to improve a race at the same time is to drastic.
/end rant
Close pos makes hard for zerg due to their unit production mechanics - I don't think anyone disagrees here. But you just complaining w/o any arguments. Just "mutas are strong..., roaches are cheap...", etc. Does not make any sense at all you arguments. So what if roaches gets +2 attack, do you know that all toss ground units gets upgrades by just upgrading melee, while zerg missile upgrades and melee are different, why you don't mention that? And yeah roaches are cost effective but they are very supply non-effective.
You are just looking from you perspective - you are loosing vs. zergs and because of that complaining.
... As a protoss I feel like it would be equivalent to every protoss player doing a 15 nexus and every matchup and complaining until the game is changed making it defensible against anything. That is pretty much what zerg has done in starcraft 2. They make almost no units until they have 2x your economy and you can't even punish them for it...
That's just an absurd statement (as is almost everything else you said). The races play differently. You can't just do straight up comparisons with races that approach and use expansions in wildly different ways.
On May 07 2011 00:00 Reborn8u wrote: Honestly, I'm just sick of so many changes that favor zerg. As protoss I hate spawning close by air on metalopolis or shattered temple. Drops and mutas make me pull my hair out when I'm trying to take a 3rd and it isn't that far by land. In case you haven't noticed, bio and zerg armies have far greater mobility than toss. Med evacs, stim, nydus, creep, all help with mobility also the fact that protoss have slow units like sentries and colossus that are crucial to them winning a fight, and must be protected. I'm sure a lot of other protoss feel this way too, but you don't hear half as many protoss's whining that the game be changed to favor them as you do zerg players.
Also, when you realize that terrans can expand with out taking the risk of expanding because they have liftoff, bunkers and mules. Their are also mechanics to help take a 3rd like PF's and sensor towers. Terran can pin you at home too with the threat of things like banshees, drops, or hellions. Zerg has creep spread for vision and mobility things like nydus, huge drops, mutas to force defensive play. What does protoss have that compares to these things that help take a 3rd? Warp in is really about it. BTW, against zerg, toss has to choke the top of their ramp to 1 space otherwise zerg can just kill them with lings and if you don't get a sentry out in time zerg can take down protoss's first gateway and the wall with just lings. Then when the mid game comes we have to start squishing the fat assed stalkers through this choke to defend from air raids on our main and natural or 3rd. Protoss drops aren't nearly as scary as terrans or zergs for many reasons. Protoss's only real harass units are phoenix and dt's both get shut down by 1 missile turret. Also the fact that a 125/50 stalker has less dps than a 50$ unstimmed marine, that's toss's anti air. Think of how many can fit into a space like the area behind a mineral line, go on a diet stalkers! Also, missile turrets have around 3x the AA dps of a cannon which costs more. So if zergs shouldn't get close by ground, should toss not have to get close by air?
I am so annoyed with the whole zerg mentality that they should be able to fast expand in any matchup, defend any aggression without taking damage, have extremely cost effective units, map control all the time, and tier 3 that is almost impossible to deal with (ever try fighting a zerg ground army backed up with 4+ broodlords and infestors?) Most zerg's idea of balance isn't balance at all, it's simply what favors them. They just love to play the victim and are extremely stubborn about being creative. (Notice I said MOST zergs not ALL!)
As a protoss I feel like it would be equivalent to every protoss player doing a 15 nexus and every matchup and complaining until the game is changed making it defensible against anything. That is pretty much what zerg has done in starcraft 2. They make almost no units until they have 2x your economy and you can't even punish them for it. Before all the zergs start flaming me saying they don't have cost effective units, lings for example are 25$ a piece and are the fastest thing in the game. 2 roaches cost only 25 minerals more than 1 stalker, but roaches get +2 per upgrade and stalkers get +1. With the fact that they are protoss's main anti air, and to get blink is 150/150 plus the 150/100 for twilight their only upgrade, compared to 100/100 speed upgrade for roaches, who can also get tunneling, burrow and regeneration. Or how about the fact that protoss ground units need 100/100 armor upgrade and a 200/200 shield upgrade to get the same benefit that roaches get from just the carapace upgrade.
Whew, a little off subject there. But I just wanted to point out that not every change in the game has to make life easier on zerg. I've played quite a bit with all the races. The most annoying thing for me as zerg is the early game and their shitty anti air in that time. But even when I play zerg, their mid/late game seems very strong to me. Ultras, and broodlords seem amazing to me and I actually hear zergs complain about them. Banlings give zerg the ability to trade their resources for the opponents stuff, that is a nice thing to have when your economy is superior. I just wish as much attention was payed to promoting protoss macro play, as zergs. I feel like zerg is the strongest race right now, and I honestly can think of a few maps being changed to favor them, yet I can't think of 1 example of a map being changes so it helps favor protoss. Meanwhile, zerg gets a buff in almost every patch, and toss gets a nerf in every patch. I think a lot of zergs won't be satisfied until picking zerg before a match is like pushing the "I WIN" button. Getting buffs + map changes to improve a race at the same time is to drastic.
/end rant
Close pos makes hard for zerg due to their unit production mechanics - I don't think anyone disagrees here. But you just complaining w/o any arguments. Just "mutas are strong..., roaches are cheap...", etc. Does not make any sense at all you arguments. So what if roaches gets +2 attack, do you know that all toss ground units gets upgrades by just upgrading melee, while zerg missile upgrades and melee are different, why you don't mention that? And yeah roaches are cost effective but they are very supply non-effective.
You are just looking from you perspective - you are loosing vs. zergs and because of that complaining.
So he did the same every Zerg does. Not that bad, is it?
To topic: Close positions actually are bad, and more bad for Protoss. In PvT it is unfair because you can't have enough units in time to hold all-ins and you can't defend against tanks properly. It is just imbalanced. Closed positions in PvZ actually are balanced or even in favor of Zerg (funny thing is, no Zerg realized it yet). Hydra pushes are nearly impossible to stop unless you rush for Colossus, but if you rush for Colossus and the Zerg actually plays anything aside from the Hydra push (like Ling/Roach attacks, Mutalisks etc.) you can't defend that. You need to notice that every Protoss vs Zerg on closed positions does some kind of all-in. If you expect an all-in in the first place, just play a bit safer and then do your own attack based on what you scout. Because Protoss never gets a third on closed positions, he can't even turtle until mass VR.
So i'm against closed positions because they mostly are huge coinflips. And because it is really bad for Protoss.
As a zerg, close position are extreamly annoying to deal with, especially any sort of 2 rax play. It also forces zerg to take a 3rd, extreamly far away and valnurable to drops or forces us to do a 2 base timing, which most players will be expecting on these positions. So yes, I would love them to remove close spawns however, I doubt they will.
On May 06 2011 23:40 dNa wrote: i voted 'no' because i don't want all maps to all have about the same distances in any position possible.
for Progames with spectators or even televised matches i can see, why the 'random'factor is not really something appreciated. The Reasons for those would be -Money is on the line, some Races have a harder time to deal with those closer positions, since there might be an imbalance. I myself would be pretty pissed if those matches for thousands of dollars would come down to a coinflip spawnwise. - for the spectators a 6minute game is widely considered a letdown. while i miself enjoy some really nice micromanagement in progames in the earlly game due to close positions, i kinda see why this is not interesting for other people.
however in the average laddermatch neither of those two arguments fit. actually even the opposite is the case. In fact, while playing, i pretty much enjoy the wide variation of different strategies i need going into a 4player map. i would really not enjoy metalopolis as much, as i do it now, if blizzard would decide to take some of those different possibilities away.
But its imbalanced. Close positions are not fair, they put the Zerg player at a huge disadvantage. A ladder pool should be balanced otherwise its a joke. You really want to leave a huge imbalance in the map pool because taking it away may or may not compensate diversity?
On May 07 2011 00:00 Reborn8u wrote: Honestly, I'm just sick of so many changes that favor zerg. As protoss I hate spawning close by air on metalopolis or shattered temple. Drops and mutas make me pull my hair out when I'm trying to take a 3rd and it isn't that far by land. In case you haven't noticed, bio and zerg armies have far greater mobility than toss. Med evacs, stim, nydus, creep, all help with mobility also the fact that protoss have slow units like sentries and colossus that are crucial to them winning a fight, and must be protected. I'm sure a lot of other protoss feel this way too, but you don't hear half as many protoss's whining that the game be changed to favor them as you do zerg players.
Also, when you realize that terrans can expand with out taking the risk of expanding because they have liftoff, bunkers and mules. Their are also mechanics to help take a 3rd like PF's and sensor towers. Terran can pin you at home too with the threat of things like banshees, drops, or hellions. Zerg has creep spread for vision and mobility things like nydus, huge drops, mutas to force defensive play. What does protoss have that compares to these things that help take a 3rd? Warp in is really about it. BTW, against zerg, toss has to choke the top of their ramp to 1 space otherwise zerg can just kill them with lings and if you don't get a sentry out in time zerg can take down protoss's first gateway and the wall with just lings. Then when the mid game comes we have to start squishing the fat assed stalkers through this choke to defend from air raids on our main and natural or 3rd. Protoss drops aren't nearly as scary as terrans or zergs for many reasons. Protoss's only real harass units are phoenix and dt's both get shut down by 1 missile turret. Also the fact that a 125/50 stalker has less dps than a 50$ unstimmed marine, that's toss's anti air. Think of how many can fit into a space like the area behind a mineral line, go on a diet stalkers! Also, missile turrets have around 3x the AA dps of a cannon which costs more. So if zergs shouldn't get close by ground, should toss not have to get close by air?
I am so annoyed with the whole zerg mentality that they should be able to fast expand in any matchup, defend any aggression without taking damage, have extremely cost effective units, map control all the time, and tier 3 that is almost impossible to deal with (ever try fighting a zerg ground army backed up with 4+ broodlords and infestors?) Most zerg's idea of balance isn't balance at all, it's simply what favors them. They just love to play the victim and are extremely stubborn about being creative. (Notice I said MOST zergs not ALL!)
As a protoss I feel like it would be equivalent to every protoss player doing a 15 nexus and every matchup and complaining until the game is changed making it defensible against anything. That is pretty much what zerg has done in starcraft 2. They make almost no units until they have 2x your economy and you can't even punish them for it. Before all the zergs start flaming me saying they don't have cost effective units, lings for example are 25$ a piece and are the fastest thing in the game. 2 roaches cost only 25 minerals more than 1 stalker, but roaches get +2 per upgrade and stalkers get +1. With the fact that they are protoss's main anti air, and to get blink is 150/150 plus the 150/100 for twilight their only upgrade, compared to 100/100 speed upgrade for roaches, who can also get tunneling, burrow and regeneration. Or how about the fact that protoss ground units need 100/100 armor upgrade and a 200/200 shield upgrade to get the same benefit that roaches get from just the carapace upgrade.
Whew, a little off subject there. But I just wanted to point out that not every change in the game has to make life easier on zerg. I've played quite a bit with all the races. The most annoying thing for me as zerg is the early game and their shitty anti air in that time. But even when I play zerg, their mid/late game seems very strong to me. Ultras, and broodlords seem amazing to me and I actually hear zergs complain about them. Banlings give zerg the ability to trade their resources for the opponents stuff, that is a nice thing to have when your economy is superior. I just wish as much attention was payed to promoting protoss macro play, as zergs. I feel like zerg is the strongest race right now, and I honestly can think of a few maps being changed to favor them, yet I can't think of 1 example of a map being changes so it helps favor protoss. Meanwhile, zerg gets a buff in almost every patch, and toss gets a nerf in every patch. I think a lot of zergs won't be satisfied until picking zerg before a match is like pushing the "I WIN" button. Getting buffs + map changes to improve a race at the same time is to drastic.
/end rant
Close pos makes hard for zerg due to their unit production mechanics - I don't think anyone disagrees here. But you just complaining w/o any arguments. Just "mutas are strong..., roaches are cheap...", etc. Does not make any sense at all you arguments. So what if roaches gets +2 attack, do you know that all toss ground units gets upgrades by just upgrading melee, while zerg missile upgrades and melee are different, why you don't mention that? And yeah roaches are cost effective but they are very supply non-effective.
You are just looking from you perspective - you are loosing vs. zergs and because of that complaining.
I guess the real point I was making is close by air or cross positions from zerg just as much of a disadvantage for protoss as close positions is for zerg. So that by only getting one and not the other isn't balanced imo. If a map can be zerg favored or protoss/terran favored depending on a random spawn positions that is more balanced than zerg always getting a favorable spawn position. So if you don't want the randomness and the close postions are too much of a problem, remove the map. Don't just make it zerg favored. Also, Zerg has been receiving some pretty significant buffs lately. Changing the maps and giving them buff at the same time could be hard to correct later if it does make them too strong. Most of the other stuff in my post was just pointing out that I feel majority of the zerg community expects way to much from patches and map changes. I mostly play toss, and I've had to almost re-learn pvz several times because of changes to the game that help zerg. Meanwhile, zergs can do the same things they have always been doing in this matchup, it's just better now. Many of the things I've pointed out aren't just problems I have, I watch pro streams everyday and I see them struggle with the same issues I do. Except they don't complain about it the way many zerg pro's and streamers do. It's starting to seem like a case of the squeaky wheels get the oil.
About the whole upgrade thing, it is kinda off subject but you pointed out 1 thing that gives protoss an advantage for attack upgrades affecting all their units. Which btw most zergs get range attack upgrades and make roach hydra (not lings) so it doesn't even affect them. Did you see how many things I pointed out that give zerg an inherent racial upgrade advantage?
On May 07 2011 00:00 Reborn8u wrote: Honestly, I'm just sick of so many changes that favor zerg. As protoss I hate spawning close by air on metalopolis or shattered temple. Drops and mutas make me pull my hair out when I'm trying to take a 3rd and it isn't that far by land. In case you haven't noticed, bio and zerg armies have far greater mobility than toss. Med evacs, stim, nydus, creep, all help with mobility also the fact that protoss have slow units like sentries and colossus that are crucial to them winning a fight, and must be protected. I'm sure a lot of other protoss feel this way too, but you don't hear half as many protoss's whining that the game be changed to favor them as you do zerg players.
Also, when you realize that terrans can expand with out taking the risk of expanding because they have liftoff, bunkers and mules. Their are also mechanics to help take a 3rd like PF's and sensor towers. Terran can pin you at home too with the threat of things like banshees, drops, or hellions. Zerg has creep spread for vision and mobility things like nydus, huge drops, mutas to force defensive play. What does protoss have that compares to these things that help take a 3rd? Warp in is really about it. BTW, against zerg, toss has to choke the top of their ramp to 1 space otherwise zerg can just kill them with lings and if you don't get a sentry out in time zerg can take down protoss's first gateway and the wall with just lings. Then when the mid game comes we have to start squishing the fat assed stalkers through this choke to defend from air raids on our main and natural or 3rd. Protoss drops aren't nearly as scary as terrans or zergs for many reasons. Protoss's only real harass units are phoenix and dt's both get shut down by 1 missile turret. Also the fact that a 125/50 stalker has less dps than a 50$ unstimmed marine, that's toss's anti air. Think of how many can fit into a space like the area behind a mineral line, go on a diet stalkers! Also, missile turrets have around 3x the AA dps of a cannon which costs more. So if zergs shouldn't get close by ground, should toss not have to get close by air?
I am so annoyed with the whole zerg mentality that they should be able to fast expand in any matchup, defend any aggression without taking damage, have extremely cost effective units, map control all the time, and tier 3 that is almost impossible to deal with (ever try fighting a zerg ground army backed up with 4+ broodlords and infestors?) Most zerg's idea of balance isn't balance at all, it's simply what favors them. They just love to play the victim and are extremely stubborn about being creative. (Notice I said MOST zergs not ALL!)
As a protoss I feel like it would be equivalent to every protoss player doing a 15 nexus and every matchup and complaining until the game is changed making it defensible against anything. That is pretty much what zerg has done in starcraft 2. They make almost no units until they have 2x your economy and you can't even punish them for it. Before all the zergs start flaming me saying they don't have cost effective units, lings for example are 25$ a piece and are the fastest thing in the game. 2 roaches cost only 25 minerals more than 1 stalker, but roaches get +2 per upgrade and stalkers get +1. With the fact that they are protoss's main anti air, and to get blink is 150/150 plus the 150/100 for twilight their only upgrade, compared to 100/100 speed upgrade for roaches, who can also get tunneling, burrow and regeneration. Or how about the fact that protoss ground units need 100/100 armor upgrade and a 200/200 shield upgrade to get the same benefit that roaches get from just the carapace upgrade.
Whew, a little off subject there. But I just wanted to point out that not every change in the game has to make life easier on zerg. I've played quite a bit with all the races. The most annoying thing for me as zerg is the early game and their shitty anti air in that time. But even when I play zerg, their mid/late game seems very strong to me. Ultras, and broodlords seem amazing to me and I actually hear zergs complain about them. Banlings give zerg the ability to trade their resources for the opponents stuff, that is a nice thing to have when your economy is superior. I just wish as much attention was payed to promoting protoss macro play, as zergs. I feel like zerg is the strongest race right now, and I honestly can think of a few maps being changed to favor them, yet I can't think of 1 example of a map being changes so it helps favor protoss. Meanwhile, zerg gets a buff in almost every patch, and toss gets a nerf in every patch. I think a lot of zergs won't be satisfied until picking zerg before a match is like pushing the "I WIN" button. Getting buffs + map changes to improve a race at the same time is to drastic.
/end rant
Close pos makes hard for zerg due to their unit production mechanics - I don't think anyone disagrees here. But you just complaining w/o any arguments. Just "mutas are strong..., roaches are cheap...", etc. Does not make any sense at all you arguments. So what if roaches gets +2 attack, do you know that all toss ground units gets upgrades by just upgrading melee, while zerg missile upgrades and melee are different, why you don't mention that? And yeah roaches are cost effective but they are very supply non-effective.
You are just looking from you perspective - you are loosing vs. zergs and because of that complaining.
I guess the real point I was making is close by air or cross positions from zerg just as much of a disadvantage for protoss as close positions is for zerg. So that by only getting one and not the other isn't balanced imo. If a map can be zerg favored or protoss/terran favored depending on a random spawn positions that is more balanced than zerg always getting a favorable spawn position. So if you don't want the randomness and the close postions are too much of a problem, remove the map. Don't just make it zerg favored. Also, Zerg has been receiving some pretty significant buffs lately. Changing the maps and giving them buff at the same time could be hard to correct later if it does make them too strong. Most of the other stuff in my post was just pointing out that I feel majority of the zerg community expects way to much from patches and map changes. I mostly play toss, and I've had to almost re-learn pvz several times because of changes to the game that help zerg. Meanwhile, zergs can do the same things they have always been doing in this matchup, it's just better now. Many of the things I've pointed out aren't just problems I have, I watch pro streams everyday and I see them struggle with the same issues I do. Except they don't complain about it the way many zerg pro's and streamers do. It's starting to seem like a case of the squeaky wheels get the oil.
About the whole upgrade thing, it is kinda off subject but you pointed out 1 thing that gives protoss an advantage for attack upgrades affecting all their units. Which btw most zergs get range attack upgrades and make roach hydra (not lings) so it doesn't even affect them. Did you see how many things I pointed out that give zerg an inherent racial upgrade advantage?
Pretty significant buffs for zerg you mean change to infestor in like 3-4 months? Zerg is the race which was changed the least.
As protoss I hate spawning close by air on metalopolis or shattered temple
Well for mutas it does not matter that much what positions you are on, they are fast so you can harass when you are on cross map as well. And I may as well say that phoenix and voids are very strong on close air, right?
As a protoss I feel like it would be equivalent to every protoss player doing a 15 Nexus
It's such a nonsense. So you are comparing zerg FE with protoss FE? Zerg NEEDS extra base for unit production. I can't believe some people still think that zerg can play on 1 base.
They make almost no units until they have 2x your economy and you can't even punish them for it
Again because that's how zerg works. If zerg is not droning then he will be significantly behind if toss does not make a push.
Seriously half of your statements do not make any sense. Ant other half is about terran(?) while you are talking about zerg.
The thing that worries me about this is are we creating a map pool that is too bland and where every map is similar enough that all the timings remain relatively the same and all the games start to play out relatively the same. I like variety in styles and strategies and I think removing close spawns on some maps will eliminate some diversity.
On May 07 2011 01:26 Charger wrote: The thing that worries me about this is are we creating a map pool that is too bland and where every map is similar enough that all the timings remain relatively the same and all the games start to play out relatively the same. I like variety in styles and strategies and I think removing close spawns on some maps will eliminate some diversity.
But its unfair. It should be addressed because its completely unfair. That and theres tons of ways to encourage creativity and diversity than making the push distance 5 seconds =_=. Look at all the BW maps, the rush distances were more or less the same but there was incredible diversity because there were many different styles and architecture of maps. Thats how you push diversity, not by making a 2 base marine tank all in unbeatable.
On May 07 2011 01:26 Charger wrote: The thing that worries me about this is are we creating a map pool that is too bland and where every map is similar enough that all the timings remain relatively the same and all the games start to play out relatively the same. I like variety in styles and strategies and I think removing close spawns on some maps will eliminate some diversity.
But its unfair. It should be addressed because its completely unfair. That and theres tons of ways to encourage creativity and diversity than making the push distance 5 seconds =_=. Look at all the BW maps, the rush distances were more or less the same but there was incredible diversity because there were many different styles and architecture of maps. Thats how you push diversity, not by making a 2 base marine tank all in unbeatable.
Well if the ultimate goal is to make it completely fair, shouldn't there only be 1 map that is a big plain square with no chokes, no ramps, no rocks, etc - I mean as plain as plain can be. That is the only way to make it truly fair.
I do want to see the basic, standard large maps where no one has an advantage but I also want to see a map or two where each race is slightly favored in the map pool or tournament pool. I want to see great zergs overcoming that map that he should lose on to take the final game of a BO 7 in the finals of a tournament. That is exciting to me. I don't want the same map with a different skin played over and over and over and over.
To be honest, I hate the idea that close positions favor a certain race more, and cross positions favor another race. Rather than block those positions, I wish they would buff early zerg slightly and late terran slightly, and then maybe toss would need a buff as well, but I wish that every matchup could be balanced from every position.
No. They should simply make maps without the possibility of ridiculously close spawns. I think variations in distance depending on where you spawn is cool, but not on the stupid level of Metal and LT.
On May 07 2011 01:26 Charger wrote: The thing that worries me about this is are we creating a map pool that is too bland and where every map is similar enough that all the timings remain relatively the same and all the games start to play out relatively the same. I like variety in styles and strategies and I think removing close spawns on some maps will eliminate some diversity.
But its unfair. It should be addressed because its completely unfair. That and theres tons of ways to encourage creativity and diversity than making the push distance 5 seconds =_=. Look at all the BW maps, the rush distances were more or less the same but there was incredible diversity because there were many different styles and architecture of maps. Thats how you push diversity, not by making a 2 base marine tank all in unbeatable.
Well if the ultimate goal is to make it completely fair, shouldn't there only be 1 map that is a big plain square with no chokes, no ramps, no rocks, etc - I mean as plain as plain can be. That is the only way to make it truly fair.
I do want to see the basic, standard large maps where no one has an advantage but I also want to see a map or two where each race is slightly favored in the map pool or tournament pool. I want to see great zergs overcoming that map that he should lose on to take the final game of a BO 7 in the finals of a tournament. That is exciting to me. I don't want the same map with a different skin played over and over and over and over.
Or it could just be like it is in Brood War... multiple unique maps that are still balanced for all races. (Except for the rare cases when map makers fuck up)
Of course, first we have to balance the actual races.
I don't see the point really. It's often changed already where it does matter, which is tournaments. On ladder, idk, I think a level of randomness there is ok.
On May 06 2011 23:40 dNa wrote: i voted 'no' because i don't want all maps to all have about the same distances in any position possible.
for Progames with spectators or even televised matches i can see, why the 'random'factor is not really something appreciated. The Reasons for those would be -Money is on the line, some Races have a harder time to deal with those closer positions, since there might be an imbalance. I myself would be pretty pissed if those matches for thousands of dollars would come down to a coinflip spawnwise. - for the spectators a 6minute game is widely considered a letdown. while i miself enjoy some really nice micromanagement in progames in the earlly game due to close positions, i kinda see why this is not interesting for other people.
however in the average laddermatch neither of those two arguments fit. actually even the opposite is the case. In fact, while playing, i pretty much enjoy the wide variation of different strategies i need going into a 4player map. i would really not enjoy metalopolis as much, as i do it now, if blizzard would decide to take some of those different possibilities away.
But its imbalanced. Close positions are not fair, they put the Zerg player at a huge disadvantage. A ladder pool should be balanced otherwise its a joke. You really want to leave a huge imbalance in the map pool because taking it away may or may not compensate diversity?
well, close air positions put protoss at a huge disadvantage, generally far spread out expansions put terrans in a disadvantage (vs Zerg), every race has the one or the other problem with spawnplaces ... if you want to avoid those problems, every map would look the same.
and it's not like close positions would be unwinnable for zerg. it's just a harder spot to be in. I'd rather play some maps where iam in a disadvantage from the beginning, than always the same spawningpoints on always the same rush distance. i use that game as a source of interactive entertainment. how is playing the same thing every time entertaining? and even if you try to be really good at starcraft, those close positions are a pretty good way to keep you at your toes from the start. make you either refine your build to perfection, or choose a different one. so either way you get better at the game.
the only possible mindset i can think of, that would make you refuse to play close positions would be "i want to have a better winrating on the ladder." ... and for what?
I feel that close spawn positions is fun to watch. Not everytime, but the idea that the position determence what tactics people need to use. It also forces players to be more allrounded.
I can agree that the close spawn is/was (not sure how the new changes effected or are gonna effect the close spawn game) very hard for Zerg. But I feel like the game should be balanced around this. If the majority feels that the game should be balanced around big maps only, then who am I to talk :p
In my opinion they really should eliminate them as it makes for far less interesting games and results in either the Zerg go all in or the Opponent. If I try to play macro close metal pvz I get hit with an all in by the Zerg :/
On May 07 2011 02:23 dNa wrote: well, close air positions put protoss at a huge disadvantage,
No, they give non-air based Protoss starts a huge disadvantage against air-based strategies from the opponent. That's nothing to do with race or balance, that's to do with choosing a strategy based on close-air or whatever. How many Terrans do you see open banshees on close air positions, or go for otherwise fast starpots? There's a reason.
You also can't possibly compare the magnitude of the disadvantage for close-air positions against a turtling style Protoss, against a close positions Zerg against Terran or Protoss.
In most matchups close positions are not that terrible imo. For example in ZvP I don't think zerg is disadvantaged at all by being so close, playing very aggresive with roach/ling on those positions is very strong and hydra pushes also become very strong on those positions.
The only matchup screwed by close positions imo is ZvT. Close position marine aggression followed by marine tank play is just insanely strong. I'm not sure if this makes the map flawed or the map dependancy of that matchup flawed. For example huge maps with relatively open ramps are too hard for T in TvZ imo.
Overall I think removing close pos is best on these maps though. Not directly for balance reasons but mostly for fun of the game. Some cheeses are also just annoying close pos and can effectively be done from in base. Three player maps like shakuras and the edited metalopolis and shattered are also my favorite maps. They don't have that 'I'm unlucky because i scouted him last' factor that 4p maps do have. For example on a true 4p map hatch blocking is much more luck based whereas on a 3p map it isn't. Same for losing to 6 pools etc. Scouting luck at the start is never good for the game imo.
On May 07 2011 02:23 dNa wrote: well, close air positions put protoss at a huge disadvantage,
No, they give non-air based Protoss starts a huge disadvantage against air-based strategies from the opponent. That's nothing to do with race or balance, that's to do with choosing a strategy based on close-air or whatever. How many Terrans do you see open banshees on close air positions, or go for otherwise fast starpots? There's a reason.
You also can't possibly compare the magnitude of the disadvantage for close-air positions against a turtling style Protoss, against a close positions Zerg against Terran or Protoss.
so you are saying it is much worse to play a zerg with the inappropiate strategy for specific spawningpoints than protoss with the inappropiate strategy for specific spawning points? might be, i never played protoss
I play zerg btw. I believe removing close positions removes layers of dynamic that come with close positions. However i do belive that being able to take a closer 3rd would be more helpful because we are at a disadvantage not being able to get a 3rd up. I believe this is more of a problem than just the agression
On May 07 2011 01:26 Charger wrote: The thing that worries me about this is are we creating a map pool that is too bland and where every map is similar enough that all the timings remain relatively the same and all the games start to play out relatively the same. I like variety in styles and strategies and I think removing close spawns on some maps will eliminate some diversity.
But its unfair. It should be addressed because its completely unfair. That and theres tons of ways to encourage creativity and diversity than making the push distance 5 seconds =_=. Look at all the BW maps, the rush distances were more or less the same but there was incredible diversity because there were many different styles and architecture of maps. Thats how you push diversity, not by making a 2 base marine tank all in unbeatable.
Well if the ultimate goal is to make it completely fair, shouldn't there only be 1 map that is a big plain square with no chokes, no ramps, no rocks, etc - I mean as plain as plain can be. That is the only way to make it truly fair.
I do want to see the basic, standard large maps where no one has an advantage but I also want to see a map or two where each race is slightly favored in the map pool or tournament pool. I want to see great zergs overcoming that map that he should lose on to take the final game of a BO 7 in the finals of a tournament. That is exciting to me. I don't want the same map with a different skin played over and over and over and over.
No, you can have balanced maps that still have interesting architecture. Cross spawns metal, Xel naga, shakuras (without the stupid back door push), terminus, etc have all been fairly balanced maps right now. Saying a map has to be bland to be balanced is just flat out wrong. You can still have an interesting map and make it fair. A ridiculously close rush distance and no concievable 3rd is a huge problem that leads to unfair gameplay which is even worse than a boring map. To some extent it should be the races and the players that make the game interesting as well, not just the map. You know wat the most played maps on iccup were? Python until fighting spirit was introduced, and python / fighting spirit after fighting spirit was introduced. Literally 90% of games on iCCup below C level were played on those maps. If you look at python its an incredibly bland map, but we still saw great games because the players defined the games to a large extent.
On May 06 2011 23:40 dNa wrote: i voted 'no' because i don't want all maps to all have about the same distances in any position possible.
for Progames with spectators or even televised matches i can see, why the 'random'factor is not really something appreciated. The Reasons for those would be -Money is on the line, some Races have a harder time to deal with those closer positions, since there might be an imbalance. I myself would be pretty pissed if those matches for thousands of dollars would come down to a coinflip spawnwise. - for the spectators a 6minute game is widely considered a letdown. while i miself enjoy some really nice micromanagement in progames in the earlly game due to close positions, i kinda see why this is not interesting for other people.
however in the average laddermatch neither of those two arguments fit. actually even the opposite is the case. In fact, while playing, i pretty much enjoy the wide variation of different strategies i need going into a 4player map. i would really not enjoy metalopolis as much, as i do it now, if blizzard would decide to take some of those different possibilities away.
But its imbalanced. Close positions are not fair, they put the Zerg player at a huge disadvantage. A ladder pool should be balanced otherwise its a joke. You really want to leave a huge imbalance in the map pool because taking it away may or may not compensate diversity?
well, close air positions put protoss at a huge disadvantage, generally far spread out expansions put terrans in a disadvantage (vs Zerg), every race has the one or the other problem with spawnplaces ... if you want to avoid those problems, every map would look the same.
and it's not like close positions would be unwinnable for zerg. it's just a harder spot to be in. I'd rather play some maps where iam in a disadvantage from the beginning, than always the same spawningpoints on always the same rush distance. i use that game as a source of interactive entertainment. how is playing the same thing every time entertaining? and even if you try to be really good at starcraft, those close positions are a pretty good way to keep you at your toes from the start. make you either refine your build to perfection, or choose a different one. so either way you get better at the game.
the only possible mindset i can think of, that would make you refuse to play close positions would be "i want to have a better winrating on the ladder." ... and for what?
So by your reasoning there is no way to make a map balanced? Again, thats completely false. There are already balanced maps in tournament pools and theres a lot of diversity with in those maps. You have to have a balance of all features or at least architecture that doesn't give a certain component of a race a clear advantage.
Close spawns may not be unwinnable, but they are VERY hard to win in by doing anything other than a blind all in. I don't care about my ladder ranking, but that doesn't mean I don't care about losing more than I should be losing. When I start a game, I shouldn't have to be placed at an inherent disadvantage from the beginning because of the race I play or the spawn I'm in happens to suck. That's unfair gameplay, and it shouldn't happen if its avoidable. It's bad for the game, its frustrating for the player, and its especially terrible for the legitimacy of high level tournaments. There's a reason practically every tournament has removed close spawns on metalopolis and shattered temple. It's fucking unfair, and a map has to be fair for the games on it to be taken seriously.
I voted yes. But at the same time, imagine if only cross positions were available. I would imagine Protoss and Zerg players would be snickering as Terrans struggled to keep up with macro.
On May 07 2011 01:26 Charger wrote: The thing that worries me about this is are we creating a map pool that is too bland and where every map is similar enough that all the timings remain relatively the same and all the games start to play out relatively the same. I like variety in styles and strategies and I think removing close spawns on some maps will eliminate some diversity.
But its unfair. It should be addressed because its completely unfair. That and theres tons of ways to encourage creativity and diversity than making the push distance 5 seconds =_=. Look at all the BW maps, the rush distances were more or less the same but there was incredible diversity because there were many different styles and architecture of maps. Thats how you push diversity, not by making a 2 base marine tank all in unbeatable.
Well if the ultimate goal is to make it completely fair, shouldn't there only be 1 map that is a big plain square with no chokes, no ramps, no rocks, etc - I mean as plain as plain can be. That is the only way to make it truly fair.
I do want to see the basic, standard large maps where no one has an advantage but I also want to see a map or two where each race is slightly favored in the map pool or tournament pool. I want to see great zergs overcoming that map that he should lose on to take the final game of a BO 7 in the finals of a tournament. That is exciting to me. I don't want the same map with a different skin played over and over and over and over.
No, you can have balanced maps that still have interesting architecture. Cross spawns metal, Xel naga, shakuras (without the stupid back door push), terminus, etc have all been fairly balanced maps right now. Saying a map has to be bland to be balanced is just flat out wrong. You can still have an interesting map and make it fair. A ridiculously close rush distance and no concievable 3rd is a huge problem that leads to unfair gameplay which is even worse than a boring map. To some extent it should be the races and the players that make the game interesting as well, not just the map. You know wat the most played maps on iccup were? Python until fighting spirit was introduced, and python / fighting spirit after fighting spirit was introduced. Literally 90% of games on iCCup below C level were played on those maps. If you look at python its an incredibly bland map, but we still saw great games because the players defined the games to a large extent.
I'm not going to sit here and argue with you, all I said was what I find it entertaining to play and watch and that includes a map or two in the pool that maybe SLIGHTLY favors one race more than the others. So for instance, Tal'darim or typhon peaks are big maps and typically good for zerg but bad for terran ZvT. Close spawns metal is typically good for terran but bad for zerg ZvT. This is because of the current state of the game where Terran has to be harassing and attacking almost non stop to keep drone production down. Otherwise they go into the late game too far behind to stand much of a chance.
If I could snap my fingers and make it so distance doesn't favor or hurt one race over another then yeah, I wouldn't care if every map took 10 minutes to traverse but as it stands now, a race can benefit or get behind based on distance alone. Which is why I don't mind a mix of large, medium, and small (close spawns included) maps.
On May 07 2011 01:26 Charger wrote: The thing that worries me about this is are we creating a map pool that is too bland and where every map is similar enough that all the timings remain relatively the same and all the games start to play out relatively the same. I like variety in styles and strategies and I think removing close spawns on some maps will eliminate some diversity.
But its unfair. It should be addressed because its completely unfair. That and theres tons of ways to encourage creativity and diversity than making the push distance 5 seconds =_=. Look at all the BW maps, the rush distances were more or less the same but there was incredible diversity because there were many different styles and architecture of maps. Thats how you push diversity, not by making a 2 base marine tank all in unbeatable.
Well if the ultimate goal is to make it completely fair, shouldn't there only be 1 map that is a big plain square with no chokes, no ramps, no rocks, etc - I mean as plain as plain can be. That is the only way to make it truly fair.
I do want to see the basic, standard large maps where no one has an advantage but I also want to see a map or two where each race is slightly favored in the map pool or tournament pool. I want to see great zergs overcoming that map that he should lose on to take the final game of a BO 7 in the finals of a tournament. That is exciting to me. I don't want the same map with a different skin played over and over and over and over.
No, you can have balanced maps that still have interesting architecture. Cross spawns metal, Xel naga, shakuras (without the stupid back door push), terminus, etc have all been fairly balanced maps right now. Saying a map has to be bland to be balanced is just flat out wrong. You can still have an interesting map and make it fair. A ridiculously close rush distance and no concievable 3rd is a huge problem that leads to unfair gameplay which is even worse than a boring map. To some extent it should be the races and the players that make the game interesting as well, not just the map. You know wat the most played maps on iccup were? Python until fighting spirit was introduced, and python / fighting spirit after fighting spirit was introduced. Literally 90% of games on iCCup below C level were played on those maps. If you look at python its an incredibly bland map, but we still saw great games because the players defined the games to a large extent.
On May 06 2011 23:40 dNa wrote: i voted 'no' because i don't want all maps to all have about the same distances in any position possible.
for Progames with spectators or even televised matches i can see, why the 'random'factor is not really something appreciated. The Reasons for those would be -Money is on the line, some Races have a harder time to deal with those closer positions, since there might be an imbalance. I myself would be pretty pissed if those matches for thousands of dollars would come down to a coinflip spawnwise. - for the spectators a 6minute game is widely considered a letdown. while i miself enjoy some really nice micromanagement in progames in the earlly game due to close positions, i kinda see why this is not interesting for other people.
however in the average laddermatch neither of those two arguments fit. actually even the opposite is the case. In fact, while playing, i pretty much enjoy the wide variation of different strategies i need going into a 4player map. i would really not enjoy metalopolis as much, as i do it now, if blizzard would decide to take some of those different possibilities away.
But its imbalanced. Close positions are not fair, they put the Zerg player at a huge disadvantage. A ladder pool should be balanced otherwise its a joke. You really want to leave a huge imbalance in the map pool because taking it away may or may not compensate diversity?
well, close air positions put protoss at a huge disadvantage, generally far spread out expansions put terrans in a disadvantage (vs Zerg), every race has the one or the other problem with spawnplaces ... if you want to avoid those problems, every map would look the same.
and it's not like close positions would be unwinnable for zerg. it's just a harder spot to be in. I'd rather play some maps where iam in a disadvantage from the beginning, than always the same spawningpoints on always the same rush distance. i use that game as a source of interactive entertainment. how is playing the same thing every time entertaining? and even if you try to be really good at starcraft, those close positions are a pretty good way to keep you at your toes from the start. make you either refine your build to perfection, or choose a different one. so either way you get better at the game.
the only possible mindset i can think of, that would make you refuse to play close positions would be "i want to have a better winrating on the ladder." ... and for what?
So by your reasoning there is no way to make a map balanced? Again, thats completely false. There are already balanced maps in tournament pools and theres a lot of diversity with in those maps. You have to have a balance of all features or at least architecture that doesn't give a certain component of a race a clear advantage.
Close spawns may not be unwinnable, but they are VERY hard to win in by doing anything other than a blind all in. I don't care about my ladder ranking, but that doesn't mean I don't care about losing more than I should be losing. When I start a game, I shouldn't have to be placed at an inherent disadvantage from the beginning because of the race I play or the spawn I'm in happens to suck. That's unfair gameplay, and it shouldn't happen if its avoidable. It's bad for the game, its frustrating for the player, and its especially terrible for the legitimacy of high level tournaments. There's a reason practically every tournament has removed close spawns on metalopolis and shattered temple. It's fucking unfair, and a map has to be fair for the games on it to be taken seriously.
well, of course there are spawn positions, where certain strategies are harder to pull of than others. That goes for every race. So iam saying a Zerg that spawns in close positions has to, as well as a player of the other two races, adjust to the situation. build more defensive structures, or go for an aggressive opening. And while i understand that a zerg has a harder time transitioning out of those earlly aggression style openings, if he does not kill the opponent right away (yes, that is a possibility) it is not impossible to do that. So basically the spawningpoint does not suck because of the race you play, but because of you not choosing to play the strategy that would suit the spawningpoint-situation.
regarding the tournaments i completely understand your point tho. While i not neccessarily agree with that, i can understand why people are not happy with the idea, that they would have to depend on a 'coinflip' spawnwise, maybe even refer to an all-in. Also those games are, i understand that, not very appealing to the observers.
but we don't talk about tournaments, we don't talk about matches for money, we don't talk about games which are observed by people that get pissed because the anticipated 20minute game ends after 5. we talk about the general possibility to have short rush distances on the maps in general. that includes the ladder, where we play for fun, and can happily choose to all-in the guy who doesn't respond to our 'gl hf' and while i do enjoy macro games most of the time, i like to play some micro intensive fast short games just as much.
On May 07 2011 01:26 Charger wrote: The thing that worries me about this is are we creating a map pool that is too bland and where every map is similar enough that all the timings remain relatively the same and all the games start to play out relatively the same. I like variety in styles and strategies and I think removing close spawns on some maps will eliminate some diversity.
But its unfair. It should be addressed because its completely unfair. That and theres tons of ways to encourage creativity and diversity than making the push distance 5 seconds =_=. Look at all the BW maps, the rush distances were more or less the same but there was incredible diversity because there were many different styles and architecture of maps. Thats how you push diversity, not by making a 2 base marine tank all in unbeatable.
Well if the ultimate goal is to make it completely fair, shouldn't there only be 1 map that is a big plain square with no chokes, no ramps, no rocks, etc - I mean as plain as plain can be. That is the only way to make it truly fair.
I do want to see the basic, standard large maps where no one has an advantage but I also want to see a map or two where each race is slightly favored in the map pool or tournament pool. I want to see great zergs overcoming that map that he should lose on to take the final game of a BO 7 in the finals of a tournament. That is exciting to me. I don't want the same map with a different skin played over and over and over and over.
No, you can have balanced maps that still have interesting architecture. Cross spawns metal, Xel naga, shakuras (without the stupid back door push), terminus, etc have all been fairly balanced maps right now. Saying a map has to be bland to be balanced is just flat out wrong. You can still have an interesting map and make it fair. A ridiculously close rush distance and no concievable 3rd is a huge problem that leads to unfair gameplay which is even worse than a boring map. To some extent it should be the races and the players that make the game interesting as well, not just the map. You know wat the most played maps on iccup were? Python until fighting spirit was introduced, and python / fighting spirit after fighting spirit was introduced. Literally 90% of games on iCCup below C level were played on those maps. If you look at python its an incredibly bland map, but we still saw great games because the players defined the games to a large extent.
I'm not going to sit here and argue with you, all I said was what I find it entertaining to play and watch and that includes a map or two in the pool that maybe SLIGHTLY favors one race more than the others. So for instance, Tal'darim or typhon peaks are big maps and typically good for zerg but bad for terran ZvT. Close spawns metal is typically good for terran but bad for zerg ZvT. This is because of the current state of the game where Terran has to be harassing and attacking almost non stop to keep drone production down. Otherwise they go into the late game too far behind to stand much of a chance.
If I could snap my fingers and make it so distance doesn't favor or hurt one race over another then yeah, I wouldn't care if every map took 10 minutes to traverse but as it stands now, a race can benefit or get behind based on distance alone. Which is why I don't mind a mix of large, medium, and small (close spawns included) maps.
But this is not a "slight" imbalance. This isn't Tal Darim (which is actually very good for TvZ btw) which could favor a race a little more. Cross spawns is literally over 80% winrate for the non Zerg. You'd have to actually play Zerg to understand how obnoxious it is to play close spawns. That kind of ridiculous imbalance shouldn't exist anywhere.
Terrans adapted to Tal Darim. Drop play become very good as expos were spread out and creep spread between bases hard to keep up. An easy to secure 3rd and large distance led to Terran play centering around drop harass while building up a large core army off 3 bases, which is very powerful vs Zergs. The ability to siege up below the cliff overlooking the Zerg's natural expo also made 2 base pushes very strong despite the larger distance. The map had several types of play that were viable, and the stats are fairly even. Close spawns, however are not. They don't lead to diverse game play, they don't lead to creativity. All they do is give the Zerg player a massive disadvantage and make his only two options either all in off 1 base or all in off 2 base. This doesn't encourage any sort of interesting gameplay. You either do game ending damage or you lose. If you try to play a normal game on close spawns you're going to lose every time, provided you can even hold of their 2 base timing attack. I'm fine for a "rush map" here and there but I'm not fine for a rush map that gives Zergs a 20% winrate.
as a random i never had problems with close position (even as zerg) - the problem is that the players dont adapt their play enough to that situation, so they blame the short distance to the opponent for their inability to alter their playstyle. hint: there are more openings than hatch first and zerg can be effective without over9000 bases incl. drones.
OT: that is what i loved about the gsl at the geinning...games were avg 10-15min with crazy micro battles of small groups of units...blizz patched all the early action away and if you patch away the close position (as they already did for some maps for certain tournaments) there will only be boring 45min macro games => stop adding uber-large 4P maps and start working on small-medium 2P maps
Maps like Metal and Lost temple are fine, but these maps specifically need to be changed.
In Brood War, there were many maps shaped like Metal and Shattered (close air positions, close ground, and cross positions), the most popular which is Python
Notice how even though there are close positions, the bases are moved further away so that the close positions aren't so close. Air positions are about the same but those aren't nearly as much trouble as close ground positions.
Since they already took out so many small maps, they should definitely keep close ground positions in (adds more variety; just like they say, they want some games to be more rush orientated) but just fix the maps so the close ground positions aren't so close. If they add another 20 units of distance for close ground positions, the rush distance will be almost about 10 seconds longer, which is quite significant while not forcing the map to be changed so much. (The air positions should probably be just a few more units further away also, but that's not so much a map imbalance but instead something that promotes more air play and drop harass).
If lived near blizzard HQ I would go on a hunger strike outside their HQ and demand the removal of those motherfucking close positions. Playing on those is such a joke.
I'd say it's no mystery they should be removed...every single tournament has done it because just happening to get a close spawn on an opening map in a BO3 used to eliminate a lot of the top Zergs and even top Protoss.
Lose game 1 thanks cross spawns (get to maybe choose map) Win game 2 because the player is better opponent gets to choose map 3 gets close spawns again profit.
On May 07 2011 03:33 eXwOn wrote: I voted yes. But at the same time, imagine if only cross positions were available. I would imagine Protoss and Zerg players would be snickering as Terrans struggled to keep up with macro.
Maybe, but I'd rather have Terran macro be buffed and spawn positions normalized rather than leaving close positions in and favoring quick games.
But then this argument is moot, Blizzard has said that they deliberately leave in "rush maps" because they want game diversity on the ladder, and close spawns promote that as well. Sucks for those of us who voted yes, but there you have it.
I enjoy close positions. the matches in the past have shown every race can handle it (even though certain zergs have this victim mentality and cried(some still do) alot when they could not play NR10.
I agree that close spawn is not even close to how imbalanced most people want to make it seem like. It makes for dynamic gameplay if anything. Any zerg that still has a victim mentality needs to uninstall in my opinion. It's been a couple of patches since zerg has been completely fine, and I'm sparing my words. It just seems like they feel entitled to have impenetrable defense and triple expand.
On June 16 2011 23:52 ico wrote: I enjoy close positions. the matches in the past have shown every race can handle it (even though certain zergs have this victim mentality and cried(some still do) alot when they could not play NR10.
I say bring close positions back to tournaments.
Terran is imba in close positions, period. Zerg have it worst but it's nasty for toss too. The marine/tank/banshee/raven type allin in particular is almost impossible to stop because you can't harass/delay them. Aside from imba though, it just makes for nasty, short games. Not fun.
Anywho Blizz have said they're getting rid. Painful how slow they work, but better late than never.
close and cross position fav. some races and give them huge adv. blizz should go back to 2 player maps for 2 players and make fair distance. if blizz just remove close spawn but leave cross in the balance would be gone because the balance at moment give some races "free" wins on some positions. Like lt close for terran or meta cross for zerg
Man, do people not realize how retarded it is when, in a TVZ or PVZ, your opponent has an immobile as fuck army but you can't abuse it because it marches from his nat to yours in less time than it takes to dump your larva on zerglings?
I will happily continue smashing doors in with roach ling on these maps, but it isn't really fun to just coinflip these games as the only way of winning with any reliability.
The BW python map is a great example of having close ground spawning positions that aren't stupid. Yes, they were close, but they weren't THIS CLOSE.
On June 16 2011 23:56 Legion710 wrote: I agree that close spawn is not even close to how imbalanced most people want to make it seem like. It makes for dynamic gameplay if anything. Any zerg that still has a victim mentality needs to uninstall in my opinion. It's been a couple of patches since zerg has been completely fine, and I'm sparing my words. It just seems like they feel entitled to have impenetrable defense and triple expand.
If you honestly believe that a situation such as close positions metal isn't 'heavily imbalanced' you're either completely ignorant or moronic. Go play ZvT and defend against any grandmaster Terran who double 11rax's and controls it well. If you win a single legitimate game against a high level opponent under those circumstances let me know.
Absolutely not. Each spawning position provides a different play style and a different game experience. If I was forced to play the same way every time I played a map, or expect the same exact thing every time, then I would not play this game. One of the great things about this game is that there are so many variables that dictate what could/could not happen in a given matchup, on a given map. If you take the map variables away it hurts the game, imo.
Isn't Blizzards reasoning for not removing these maps is because it provides a different type of gameplay/games then tournament play for the ladder? Blizzard understands that it is not the best for tournaments and because of that reason close position maps are not used in tournaments. They don't need to remove it. They want it in the ladder. Tournaments will remain absent of close position maps.
I am very much against removing close spawn positions from ladder. Not everybody is masters league, and most games up until Platinum don't even go past 1 base.
I'm not necessarily against having a different map pool for masters league, nor am I against making new maps where you have close spawns but they are a little bit farther away, but that sort of thing takes more work than the current attitude.
I do think that this "no close spawns" ideology is hurting new tournament map design, however. Take a look at JackyPrime's new map Asteroid Junction (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=232726)
I feel like if you could balance close spawns on that map they could be very interesting and provide a very different sort of game than cross spawns, but the current attitude towards map making is that rather than design a map such that close spawns work, you should just remove them.
close posi is so imba for zerg, zerg conters are unstoppable there, just get 19 drones and your expansion and take the free win. Enough of qq though hehe. How about you ask about close air posis or cross posis, or xel naga towers etc etc. Alot of people say xel naga is a nice map, for me its a rush map worse then steppes. (on steppes you could force macro games and have a super easy to defend third).
Close posis should stay part of the game, its make the early game way more interesting, and if you watch old pro bw games, that was one base play without worker overproduction etc (and one bw base eco can't even support what one base in sc2 can). Just want to say that even if alot of people despise close posi (thats why its the least developed position), sc2 rushes compared to bw are sooooo much weaker, so i don't see an issue with close positions, it will evolve and will ad variiety to the matchups. (not talking about one base vs one base).
But if close posi goes, close air has to go as well. A zerg can easily 9 pool and when the ovi can scout the close air posi, if no one is there he knows where the opponent is, thats a way to fast scout compared to the other races. Or they remove the starting ovi and give hatches extra +8 supply and make em 100 minerals more expensiv.
I just hope blizzard won't listen and that tournament map makers will soon figure out how to make a proper 4 player map and not thos fake 4 player 3 player maps, because they are to lazy and just mirror the maps and remove the close posi. Will just sit this phase out, it is only a temporary event. Even if it stays, blizzard will buff t1 timings then, so big 4 player maps look like small 2 player maps in the early game hehe.
On June 17 2011 00:40 Ketara wrote: I am very much against removing close spawn positions from ladder. Not everybody is masters league, and most games up until Platinum don't even go past 1 base.
I'm not necessarily against having a different map pool for masters league, nor am I against making new maps where you have close spawns but they are a little bit farther away, but that sort of thing takes more work than the current attitude.
I do think that this "no close spawns" ideology is hurting new tournament map design, however. Take a look at JackyPrime's new map Asteroid Junction (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=232726)
I feel like if you could balance close spawns on that map they could be very interesting and provide a very different sort of game than cross spawns, but the current attitude towards map making is that rather than design a map such that close spawns work, you should just remove them.
It makes me sadface.
If they can balance it than great. As it currently stands, close positions on Metalopolis for example is just plain out obnoxious. As Zerg your options are really limited... you can't hatch first because a Terran can plant a bunker before you can plant your hatch and at that stage of the game you cannot afford to have five drones not mining.
So you are stuck on one base, so you sit their with worse production capacity and a worse economy because of Mules and just kind of suffer wave after wave of attack. And you have to preemptively make units/spines based on one of several times a push could come putting you even further behind economically.
I dunno, I feel like my only option at that point is just to flip a coin and go allin because you can't play a macro game, and you are at a huge disadvantage if you try to play a passive defensive style because of the larva mechanic. I dunno, I don't want to sit here and QQ, but what else are you supposed to do besides hoping your allin will catch a terran who is likely licking his chops at applying pressure all game long off guard?
It's funny I think close positions are imbalanced against zerg.
I follow a strict logic on this: Steppes of War was removed because players did not like the close rush distance. Shattered Temple has an equally close rush distance in close spawn positions. What the hell, at least before we could veto the map. Now we have to accept that every game there is a chance that ZvT will be a loss if skill is equal.
On June 17 2011 00:25 latan wrote: there is still such a thing as 'casuals', blizz should encourage variety. Pros and tournaments can use the map editor to do whatever they see best.
Steppes of War is still available in the map pool. Why should the ladder - which is conmpetitive and not casual - include maps with totally stupid close spawn positions? The casuals can play on the tiny maps if they want, but leave them out of the ladder because we already had too much balance whining and nerfs because of them. Competitions need a stable playing ground, but the [too] close spawns make the game too random.
Removing close positions would be semi-optimal, close positions are also a part of certain strategies and the possibility to deal some early game pressure, to delay a expansion, to not let Zerg get to many drones and just get to far ahead in economy. To balance positional advantages Blizzard needs new maps that have more kind of middle-ranged positions, so that for example Terran can deal early game pressure but also Zerg can defend it. New maps would be in general good to balance this game, not some more or less random changes for units, building times and upgrades.
I don't think we are going to see them removed until the next season. Blizzard said they will address the map pool then.
They had the foresight to prevent close positions on shakuras (although there would be a ton of problems beyond just rush distance) so I think there is a decent chance they remove close positions on ST/meta. Could just be wishful thinking though.
Close positions on Metalopolis and Shattered Temple are particularly bad for Zerg. Having to take a "Hidden", far away third leaves the Zerg WAY open to timing pushes, and even with the incredible mobility, it's impossible to defend a third without delaying it so long you're behind.
I voted no. I don't want every single game to be a macro game. Even the way things are now, when I'm watching a TvP in MLG/GSL I fast-forward to the point where scouting workers are killed/expelled, because there's literally no early game antics on those long maps.
I don't have a problem with close positions in general. Only with close positions on certain maps. Close by ground on metalopolis, slag pits, and shattered temple is bad, but on other maps its fine. I don't even mind DQ because even though close by ground positions are short ramp-to-ramp you still have the option of the backdoor expansion.
No map is ever going to be perfect with regards to positioning. In fact you could argue that cross spawns are imbalanced for Protoss because of warpin, or Zerg because of inject. Or you could argue that 2-player maps are imbalanced for 6-pool / proxy 2 rax / cannon rushing.
no. close spawns encourage more diverse play and increase demand on the player to be able to adapt to a variety of different possible situations in such a position.
It removes certain strategies specifically for close positions. A good player should know how to deal with any and all situations when placed in them, right?
I don't have a problem with close positions in general. Only with close positions on certain maps. Close by ground on metalopolis, slag pits, and shattered temple is bad
You say that you don't mind close positions but you agree that close positions on meta, slag and shattered are bad. These are the three maps that zerg have the most problems on as they are the only maps in the ladder pool which have the chance of very close positions, putting zerg at a disadvantage.
tbh 9 pool would be even better for zerg. I already do this alot vs toss and without close position i wouldnt even need to scout with drone. giving me an even bigger advantage.
It removes certain strategies specifically for close positions. A good player should know how to deal with any and all situations when placed in them, right?
No it doesn't it just delays certain strategies. You can cheese in any position, just in close positions your opponent has to react 100% perfectly or they lose.
It removes certain strategies specifically for close positions. A good player should know how to deal with any and all situations when placed in them, right?
What if, these positions allow for such strategies that while the players are of the highest level, the outcome of the match is decided solely on the positions that allow the other player to use a build that the other has no chance of stopping, even while perfectly scouted?
As zerg it means that you will have to win before the 3rd expand needs to kick in or you're basicaly dead! since there is no way you'll be able to defend the drops and the hidden pylons warpin. Also you're like WAYYYY more vulnerable to terrans and toss allins that are.... PRETTY STRONG!!
Oh and to all of those that says "No, no, don't remove my free wins, it's more diverse play style" they're all either toss or terran and most likely all cheezers!
It removes certain strategies specifically for close positions. A good player should know how to deal with any and all situations when placed in them, right?
Sure. Then let's add "open base" maps, too, where your entire main is wide open and it's impossible to sim-city due to unbuildable terrain. Just to make sure that Terrans/Tosses can "adjust" to dealing with early Z aggression if they can't wall off.
Point is, sure, pro players need to adjust, but if a situation favors one player completely over another, then that's still unfair; one guy has to "adjust"more than the other in a setting that's supposed to be a fair test of skill.
It removes certain strategies specifically for close positions. A good player should know how to deal with any and all situations when placed in them, right?
This is probably the most arrogant post I've read in a while.
Do you know why people want close positions removed? Because you can't deal with certain situations if you're too close to your opponent. Close spawns are usually an all-in fest because there is no 3rd to take. You can't do anything if you're lacking options.
It removes certain strategies specifically for close positions. A good player should know how to deal with any and all situations when placed in them, right?
Sure. Then let's add "open base" maps, too, where your entire main is wide open and it's impossible to sim-city due to unbuildable terrain. Just to make sure that Terrans/Tosses can "adjust" to dealing with early Z aggression if they can't wall off.
Point is, sure, pro players need to adjust, but if a situation favors one player completely over another, then that's still unfair; one guy has to "adjust"more than the other in a setting that's supposed to be a fair test of skill.
I just couldn't agree more! this guy spoke the thruth!!
No. Because a balanced map pool is something that the game needs in my opinion. Maps with short and long rush distances. And it's not like it happens every game.
The problem is the maps. 4 player maps should not have any positions that are that close. If they are going to keep maps like meta and temple than they absolutly need to take out close spawns though. It is completly broken for zerg.
If you remove close pos. it only makes the game easier as you don't have to take rushes and cheese into account. You can just herp derp a greedy build every game.
Close positions = imba. Cross positions = fair game.
If close positions was balanced, then I wouldn't mind it, even if strategy had to be diversified to account for it. But it's actually imba. No amount of creativity can allow the zerg to not be screwed royally on close positions. There is no 3rd!
TvZ cross positions Taldarim is not hugely Z favoured as you think, Terran just has to macro and drop harass. Taldarim is quite balanced any positions TvZ. Close metal is NOT.
This poll is not about playstyle preference. Removing close spawns because you prefer cross spawns is not the issue here. The issue is whether close spawns are not balanced for zerg, and so should be removed.
Close positions are always interesting as many people over compensate and play blindly in many cases, resulting in exciting timings that test the intuitive capability of each player
It removes certain strategies specifically for close positions. A good player should know how to deal with any and all situations when placed in them, right?
It forces zerg to play an all in because theres no way to defend or do anything in time since its literally 1 mistake -> they're in your base and you lose
like i said ealrier in this thread,should be 100% removed
a map that is fair in 66% and unfair in 33% is just a poorly designed map. The game is about finding out who is the better player and not about finding out who has got some spawn position luck.
On June 17 2011 02:55 Gnax wrote: If you remove close pos. it only makes the game easier as you don't have to take rushes and cheese into account. You can just herp derp a greedy build every game.
we're not playing the same game! cheese happens even cross position...
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.
That isn't the problem... The problem is expanding, tell me in close spawn shattered where you can take a safe third. Being forced into ridiculous 2 base all ins is not fun by any standard of the imagination.
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.
That isn't the problem... The problem is expanding, tell me in close spawn shattered where you can take a safe third. Being forced into ridiculous 2 base all ins is not fun by any standard of the imagination.
Agreed. Also, if terran can take a third by going through the rocks next to the nature(bottom or top expasions), they can seige your natural. I have had more than one terran ninja an expasion up their before I noticed. I pretty much want to GG right after that happens.
It seems pretty obvious that they should be removed. Tournaments realized this a long time ago and scrapped them.. As a result most cheeses and early aggression versus all the races now carries something of an actual risk.
Its likely Blizzard hasn't removed them yet because it would mess up win percentages in low/high masters... Unfortunately that essentially means that their using a coin flip to balance the different stages of the game. People ought to be more outraged at that, but for now the outcry isn't enough and Blizzard can keep dodging the question..
I think it's amazing that this thread is still going...
Jinro pretty much wrapped up the problem a long time ago, it's a matter of options.
Big maps allow for all kinds of play. You can still rush and use your all ins, as well as play macro games. There's no style of game eliminated by the map.
However, when you're at close position or on a tiny map, the map eliminates gameplay options. While it may or may not be imbalanced, it limits the options available to players.
That a map or positioning eliminates particular styles of play is enough to reject it.
On June 17 2011 03:11 Wren wrote: I think it's amazing that this thread is still going...
Jinro pretty much wrapped up the problem a long time ago, it's a matter of options.
Big maps allow for all kinds of play. You can still rush and use your all ins, as well as play macro games. There's no style of game eliminated by the map.
However, when you're at close position or on a tiny map, the map eliminates gameplay options. While it may or may not be imbalanced, it limits the options available to players.
That a map or positioning eliminates particular styles of play is enough to reject it.
I agree. It also comes down to having many cases where the worse player comes out on top because of a coinflip with build orders. Ever try holding a 2rax as zerg on close positions? Even with a pool first it is impossible with anything standard and the terran player can win in this circumstance before the zerg's mid/late game talent comes into play.
I'm still surprised Blizzard has done nothing about this. I guess they take their 'we value variety of playstyles on ladder' pretty seriously. I assume those saying so have never played zerg in close positions with good enough opponents to abuse it.
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.
That isn't the problem... The problem is expanding, tell me in close spawn shattered where you can take a safe third. Being forced into ridiculous 2 base all ins is not fun by any standard of the imagination.
Agreed. Also, if terran can take a third by going through the rocks next to the nature(bottom or top expasions), they can seige your natural. I have had more than one terran ninja an expasion up their before I noticed. I pretty much want to GG right after that happens.
Funny how on shakuras they thought it was imbalanced so they changed the map design....only to put in in a revised map..
Absolutely not, it changes different elements of the game. For each map you need to be prepared for multiple different strategies. For example, there are 3 different possibilities for Metalopolis and I love that, it creates more of a difference between every match up.
On June 17 2011 03:32 shr0ud wrote: And terran is supposed to...macro? Against zerg?
Might aswell remove the race all together if blizzard is actually going to implement this.
On anything but close-spawns, every strategy is available. If you're too scared to macro against a zerg, then do timings to your heart's content.
MMA hasn't lost a televised TvZ match yet, seems like it's a winnable macro game...
MMA also consistently outplays his opponents. If I'm facing a gold Zerg, yes, I can outmacro them to hell and back. If I'm playing somebody roughly my skill level, it's much harder to out macro them. It becomes even harder when they realize I'm trying to macro up (since they just double their efforts and lol at my attempt).
In cross positions, Terran is forced to play behind for the most part. You remove close spawns, you also unbalance a fairly balanced game. The only reason tournaments get away with it is because of the initial absence of Zerg pros back at release. Look MLG which had good race distribution among pros, which ended up with an OVERWHELMING majority of Zergs in the top placements. MLG has some of the most macro-oriented maps, eliminating close positions and reducing cheese against Zerg. I guess it paid of for them in the end.
I still don't get why zergs think close pos PvZ is that bad. Being able to creep up to your opponents base and do incredibly strong timing pushes with hydra's for example really doesn't make it that. Close position TvZ is just horrible though and for that reason alone the close spawning option should be removed.
Ideally the maps could be balanced regardless of base distance but that's simply not true, just like zerg is favored on some of the huge maps T is just insanely favored on the small ones. Removing them from the map pool or altering them is very important imo because such a map completely skews the statistics blizzard might have on balance.
How is this even being discussed? Ignoring how one dimensional and predictable it makes games, close spawns are completely imbalanced against Zerg. They should be removed for that reason alone.
On June 17 2011 03:11 Wren wrote: I think it's amazing that this thread is still going...
Jinro pretty much wrapped up the problem a long time ago, it's a matter of options.
Big maps allow for all kinds of play. You can still rush and use your all ins, as well as play macro games. There's no style of game eliminated by the map.
However, when you're at close position or on a tiny map, the map eliminates gameplay options. While it may or may not be imbalanced, it limits the options available to players.
That a map or positioning eliminates particular styles of play is enough to reject it.
I agree. It also comes down to having many cases where the worse player comes out on top because of a coinflip with build orders. Ever try holding a 2rax as zerg on close positions? Even with a pool first it is impossible with anything standard and the terran player can win in this circumstance before the zerg's mid/late game talent comes into play.
You mean it is unreasonable for a Zerg to be forced to pool first and cut economy to rush for Spinecrawler and Baneling/roach defence to survive marine pressure that a Terran can expand behind? Pfft...
That being said, close position PvZ isn't really all that different than far position PvZ with perhaps the exception of two gate pressure but most toss' FE these days, and fourgate is identical regardless of positions.
I don't think cross pos should be removed, map pool should just be changed and not have the issue with "close positions" anymore. >.> I don't play competitively, mostly for fun I don't mind losing to cheese and all that, so I guess it doesn't affect me... But I don't like the competitive maps where you know you always have "safe expansions" or always expanding away from your opponent, it gets kind of redundant. >.>
I feel that all 4p ladder maps should be in the style of tal'darim altar, backwater gulch, and typhon peaks. No close positions by ground or air. All positions should be close to equal distances from main to main.
It's only logical if a build or style gets favoured in a particular position. Like on Crevasse, where Terran spawns so that he is close to Zerg's natural and does drop play based on that, or whatever. But imho it's unacceptable for a map to have close positions, especially by ground because it gives players less time to react and prepare, especially Zerg, who has the larvae mechanic, presenting him with a brutal choice.
I mean, as Protoss, I see a push coming, and let's say it is close pos metalopolis. I chrono my warpates and get as many units as possible before it gets to me. I position my units and get ready to forcefield.
As Zerg, I see it coming, and I go, "shit, I just made 3 drones, so I'll have 6 less zerglings, and my zerglings are going to pop as he gets to me, so I can't do a flank, or position myself, and I don't have time for spine crawlers or queens, which are two of my three effective early game defense tools."
On June 17 2011 13:56 skrzmark wrote: Should we remove cross position? Honestly I never see a Terran win late game against a Zerg. This is really stupid...
You don't watch enough Starcraft then.
I suggest subscribing to any of GSL/MLG/NASL to see some epic Terran pwnage =]
I don't mind close spawns because at least in tvt and tvp you can see some unique play. But with how the maps have been made so far I wouldn't be surprised if next season's maps are all forced cross spawns with depots everywhere and giant nets surrounding bases so no air can pass in.
The reason this is even a problem to begin with is because Blizzard keeps stupidly designing their 4-player maps on an angle. If they just put the 4 start locations in the 4 corners of the map (like every single 4 player BW map that was good) there wouldn't even be a problem.
Close positions on ZvT/P on Shattered is simply stupid and that's why I said they should get rid of close positions! I'm tired of them taking their third at that corner base...and I can't do anything about it.
Otherwise, I do think close positions are fine. It does create a different state of game as opposed to proxy positions or cross that I enjoy when I'm not losing to something abusive.
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.
The further away the enemy base is, the easier it is to stop your proxy pylon from going down, since it takes more time for your probe to get there and drop it, and for the guarding zealot/stalker to traverse the map, and gives them more time to scout the incoming units and react. If I leave a zergling outside your base, and see the zealot/stalker coming, and I immediately start making, let's say roaches, the longer it takes for you to get that pylon down and reach my base, the more time I have to make sure my roaches finish, let queen injects finish, make more roaches, and get spine crawlers down.
On June 17 2011 14:26 MethodSC wrote: Statistics for people that voted No: 90% Terran 10% Protoss 100% Platinum League or below
Well obviously this change would hurt terran because it makes early game aggression less viable, which is absolutely vital in TvZ. Do zerg players really think that terran has as good of a chance as zerg to win the game lategame by macro alone? See mlg columbus, the tournament had the biggest saturation of 'macro' (hint: zerg favoured) maps and 5 of the top 8 finishers were zerg, 2 protoss and 1 terran. I'm not against long games by any means, but implementation of this would severely handicap terran in TvZ, which is already zerg favoured in the current metagame.
They shouldn't change it all the time. It is really hard to get used to all different settings on all different kinds of maps. U never know whether close spawn is in the cards or not
On June 17 2011 14:26 MethodSC wrote: Statistics for people that voted No: 90% Terran 10% Protoss 100% Platinum League or below
Well obviously this change would hurt terran because it makes early game aggression less viable, which is absolutely vital in TvZ. Do zerg players really think that terran has as good of a chance as zerg to win the game lategame by macro alone? See mlg columbus, the tournament had the biggest saturation of 'macro' (hint: zerg favoured) maps and 5 of the top 8 finishers were zerg, 2 protoss and 1 terran. I'm not against long games by any means, but implementation of this would severely handicap terran in TvZ, which is already zerg favoured in the current metagame.
Regardless or cross or close: 2rax still forces speedlings blue hellion openers still force roaches banshee openers still force queens/spores The point of early aggression is in no way to kill the opponent, it's to force them to not do what they want. And since your using recent tournys as evidence rather than sense, shall we have a look at what people are calling gomtvtvtvtvt?
Who bumped this 2 month old thread to bring back this discussion? + Show Spoiler +
I voted no. While I can see your argument, I think restricting spawning positions to cross positions isn't a great idea because early harass doesn't become as effective, scouting wouldn't be needed in certain cases since you can deduce where your opponent is and there is less variety. Basically, I feel it gimps the game because you are eliminating yet another factor that makes the game exciting.
I've spawned close positions in a ZvsT on meta before. I was at 12, he was at 9. He kept sending marine waves, one after another. I was able to hold him off but lost my exp. I managed to get a bane nest after defeating one of his waves and was able to get some banes to hit his marine ball and moped up the rest using slings. Eventually, I bane busted and won the game. It was tough but it was also a lot of fun. Being on the edge of losing then coming back to win the game is a truly remarkable experience and I'm sure that's a game I won't be forgetting anytime soon
Only if they eliminate cross/long positions as well. Otherwise it's just unfair race favouritism. TvZ cross positions metal is pretty much impossible, even MKP said it in an interview a couple of months back when asked whether close positions are advantageous to terran.
On June 17 2011 15:07 BigFan wrote: I voted no. While I can see your argument, I think restricting spawning positions to cross positions isn't a great idea because early harass doesn't become as effective, scouting wouldn't be needed in certain cases since you can deduce where your opponent is and there is less variety. Basically, I feel it gimps the game because you are eliminating yet another factor that makes the game exciting.
I've spawned close positions in a ZvsT on meta before. I was at 12, he was at 9. He kept sending marine waves, one after another. I was able to hold him off but lost my exp. I managed to get a bane nest after defeating one of his waves and was able to get some banes to hit his marine ball and moped up the rest using slings. Eventually, I bane busted and won the game. It was tough but it was also a lot of fun. Being on the edge of losing then coming back to win the game is a truly remarkable experience and I'm sure that's a game I won't be forgetting anytime soon
all i got from this was the terran had to make a mistake for the zerg to win on close positions
Removing spawns that are too close (whatever too close is), is the wrong way and an artificial fix for a problem (many feel it as a problem at least).
1. If spawns are too close, fix the maps not the way the players spawn. 2. This is a game for the masses. It is completely intransparent to have an algorythm that reduces the possibility of spawn locations. 3. Removing them in tournaments is a completely different thing, because you have competitive (usually pro) players there.
It would be no problem to make a minimun rush distance on all ladder maps and that would be the correct solution.
Odds are not many people are going to read this, this far into the thread, but I voted no. I feel that all parts of the game should be "mastered" and the possibility of close positions should be an option. People will complain that its unfair or "imbalanced towards a race" but I feel it just is another thing to master while playing the game and adds a certain level of excitement.
If every game started with far away positions where early micro games were nullified and every game ended as a 30 minute macro fest the game would get boring after awhile. Occasionally I like a good rush game to break up the repeating pace. (And for those saying you can't have a micro early game, you know what I mean (re: rush all-in))
In summary: I feel people that vote for getting rid of close positions are too narrow minded and don't want to expand their play. The more different play styles/builds the better Starcraft 2 will be. And if you cut out close positions that will limit the different possibilities.
Removing close spawns is not the right way imo. Its like certain position should require different ways of playing. I mean cross position is not favored for terran at all. Long push distance=lots of scans=lots of chance to be caught unsieging but guess what if terran is always trying for 2 base timing in far postion then yea their win precentage is gonna go down. The same should be for zerg, in close position zerg has to switch styles instead of being passive/macro, go aggressive or something. It adds more dynamic to the game rather than the 30 min macro game every game which is fun 70-80% of the time but I also love myself some micro wars(I remember the epic low econ micro war between ret vs some terran on jungle basin in GSL oh man that was so sweet).
On June 17 2011 13:56 skrzmark wrote: Should we remove cross position? Honestly I never see a Terran win late game against a Zerg. This is really stupid...
You don't watch enough Starcraft then.
I suggest subscribing to any of GSL/MLG/NASL to see some epic Terran pwnage =]
You mean a league that is dominated by the best (and most aggressive) Terrans in the world, and 2 other leagues where 50% or more of the top 16 are Zerg? I wouldn't call those great examples of Terran winning late game against Zerg.
On June 17 2011 16:01 grs wrote: Removing spawns that are too close (whatever too close is), is the wrong way and an artificial fix for a problem (many feel it as a problem at least).
1. If spawns are too close, fix the maps not the way the players spawn. 2. This is a game for the masses. It is completely intransparent to have an algorythm that reduces the possibility of spawn locations. 3. Removing them in tournaments is a completely different thing, because you have competitive (usually pro) players there.
It would be no problem to make a minimun rush distance on all ladder maps and that would be the correct solution.
I agree with this. Disabling close spawns makes the maps feel artificial, and poorly planned. On four player maps it also promotes split map situations, because you always have half the map. Close positions encourages a different type of game, simply because expanding beyond two or three bases is much more difficult than it is cross-map.
Personally I think close spawns should be eliminated but I think it would honestly be fair if we had another Crossfire-style map in the rotation so there is two maps that are average for Zerg.
Spawns make games and maps random but if you know a map is not good for a race from the outset it is a lot less random but still balanced IMO.
I think this close spawn stuff does hamper zerg a little, at the same time, cross-position hampers terran (sorry toss). Especially with the late game BL infestor combo, playing cross is especially difficult.
I say keep the close pos but perhaps at a reduced probability.
If a toss scouts after a 9 pylon on shattered temple, his probe will reach the back corner of the his zerg opponents creep if he spawns in the close air position at 2:50 mark. This is assuming, of course, toss uses the most common scouting pattern of close ground, then cross, then close air.
If a zerg 6pools, his lings leave his own ramp at 2:20 (barely avoiding vision of the probe) and make it to the toss ramp at 2:52. This means that the toss has 2 game seconds to react until he has lings in his base. 2 game seconds isnt enough to get a probe in position to make a forge and definitely not enough time to save 250 mins for a forge and pylon.
If there were no close positions, a toss would get to the z base earlier and would be able to scout and react properly to a 6pool.
I know people will say to send a probe to check for the overlord, but a 6pooling zerg doesnt have to send the overlord. He can either know the timings and assume that 99% of toss scout after the 9 pylon and scout close ground, cross, then close air, thus infering where they spawned by when the probe makes it to their base. Or he can send a drone when the pool is just over half done to check the close and cross positions.
On June 17 2011 16:07 Schoenhole wrote: Odds are not many people are going to read this, this far into the thread, but I voted no. I feel that all parts of the game should be "mastered" and the possibility of close positions should be an option. People will complain that its unfair or "imbalanced towards a race" but I feel it just is another thing to master while playing the game and adds a certain level of excitement.
If every game started with far away positions where early micro games were nullified and every game ended as a 30 minute macro fest the game would get boring after awhile. Occasionally I like a good rush game to break up the repeating pace. (And for those saying you can't have a micro early game, you know what I mean (re: rush all-in))
In summary: I feel people that vote for getting rid of close positions are too narrow minded and don't want to expand their play. The more different play styles/builds the better Starcraft 2 will be. And if you cut out close positions that will limit the different possibilities.
Note: This is my opinion, flame away!
I think I can guess what race you play...
Close positions makes it nearly impossible to take a third as a zerg player and makes any terran aggression infinitely scarier and sometimes straight up impossible to respond to without fallign far, far behind.
If ladder winrates are overall very even with close spawning positions, then removal of close positions would screw the winrates in favour of a certain race and the game's inherent design flaw (races uneven at various stages of the game) would have to be dealt with as well.
I would really like to hear what all the pro gamers have said specifically about close spawn. Obviously everyone knows it's broken, but just what exactly they said, and if any have disagreed with it.
I mean it's obvious everyone acknowledges it's totally broken.
I don't actually think 2 rax expo into a 2 factory siege tank push is stoppable in close positions TvZ. If every Terran was clever and just used this build, Terran wouldn't lose a close position TvZ. Clearly it is imba, others are just too bad to realize this.
On June 17 2011 16:07 Schoenhole wrote: Odds are not many people are going to read this, this far into the thread, but I voted no. I feel that all parts of the game should be "mastered" and the possibility of close positions should be an option. People will complain that its unfair or "imbalanced towards a race" but I feel it just is another thing to master while playing the game and adds a certain level of excitement.
If every game started with far away positions where early micro games were nullified and every game ended as a 30 minute macro fest the game would get boring after awhile. Occasionally I like a good rush game to break up the repeating pace. (And for those saying you can't have a micro early game, you know what I mean (re: rush all-in))
In summary: I feel people that vote for getting rid of close positions are too narrow minded and don't want to expand their play. The more different play styles/builds the better Starcraft 2 will be. And if you cut out close positions that will limit the different possibilities.
Note: This is my opinion, flame away!
Close spawn makes it impossible for zerg to macro, unless they get an overwhelming advantage. No zerg will even attempt to play a standard game on those positions, and will just do a crappy one base all-in, or something to that effect. I don't know where this misconception stems from, though, that, longer rush distances negate any possibilities of aggression. In fact, there are a variety of two base timings, as well as other general strategies which allow for an active, aggressive play-style, and which can end the game well before 30 minutes. Believe me, as a zerg player I'd love to win games without having to go 5 base hive tech broodlords to break a terran, so I try to take decisive wins if I see the opportunity.
On June 17 2011 13:56 skrzmark wrote: Should we remove cross position? Honestly I never see a Terran win late game against a Zerg. This is really stupid...
You don't watch enough Starcraft then.
I suggest subscribing to any of GSL/MLG/NASL to see some epic Terran pwnage =]
You mean a league that is dominated by the best (and most aggressive) Terrans in the world, and 2 other leagues where 50% or more of the top 16 are Zerg? I wouldn't call those great examples of Terran winning late game against Zerg.
Actually that is 100% UNTRUE. The other 2 leagues actually have 33% in favour of all the races basically.
On June 17 2011 13:56 skrzmark wrote: Should we remove cross position? Honestly I never see a Terran win late game against a Zerg. This is really stupid...
You don't watch enough Starcraft then.
I suggest subscribing to any of GSL/MLG/NASL to see some epic Terran pwnage =]
You mean a league that is dominated by the best (and most aggressive) Terrans in the world, and 2 other leagues where 50% or more of the top 16 are Zerg? I wouldn't call those great examples of Terran winning late game against Zerg.
Actually that is 100% UNTRUE. The other 2 leagues actually have 33% in favour of all the races basically.
In terms of the number of players per race it's similar but the stats overall point to the GSL being dominated by terrans (most of the time), MLG being mainly zerg (statistically most dominant in open bracket, and most of top 16), and the NASL finals had more zerg players I believe but they were mainly engaged in ZvZs.
I think that the winner of these tournaments was probably the best player at the time who could take down any race, it just happened to be terrans like MMA and PuMa.
I think they should eliminate close position, because it is about all-inning every time. You just have to mass up and go for it and if your opponent was stupid enough to play macro then you win.... so yeah, I definitely would vote them out.
I say no. The reason is that map are different for giving different strategies/gaming option. It's true that the main thing is done by the player and the chooise he/she does. But if there weren't map short, or no big maps, the game will be all the same....all macro play. A good combination of short/long map and with multiple position is a good way to ruote different kind of playstile.
ive gone through this entire thread and i think of the people who are in support of close positions - meaning those people who DO NOT want them removed - about 85% of them are terran players.
On June 20 2011 17:17 EmilA wrote: If ladder winrates are overall very even with close spawning positions, then removal of close positions would screw the winrates in favour of a certain race and the game's inherent design flaw (races uneven at various stages of the game) would have to be dealt with as well.
Isn't this a good reason to remove close position? Instead of relaying on close positions to keep the statistics even, they would actually have to balance the game properly. Or more late game strategy's might be developed.
On June 20 2011 17:17 EmilA wrote: If ladder winrates are overall very even with close spawning positions, then removal of close positions would screw the winrates in favour of a certain race and the game's inherent design flaw (races uneven at various stages of the game) would have to be dealt with as well.
Isn't this a good reason to remove close position? Instead of relaying on close positions to keep the statistics even, they would actually have to balance the game properly. Or more late game strategy's might be developed.
unfortunately it seems that blizzard thinks it's too much :effort: to fully balance this game that way, and just throws in close positions..
though why should I have to play in close positions when I feel I just have to just ragequit from close position games right when I realize it's close positions to like.... not waste my time? = =
As a zerg player close positions makes me want to pull my hair out, as it instantly means that my T or P opponent is a living time bomb (if they play safe) and if I'm not able to kill them during a certain period of time i lose.
So basically everyone either wants close positions removed or just more 2 player maps and the rest loves All ins or cheese and loves to get a free win in certain matchups? I really dont get it why people love close positions.
I think the maps should be like closest positions aren't even that big of a problem but in general: YES!!! I feel horrible everytime I have to play close positons meta/ST even if i win.
It's a fallacious argument that being spawn close position makes zerg more vulnerable to 4 gate. Warp in negates the traveling distance notwithstanding the map.
Plus, while zerg constantly complains that they have less time to react to attack, please be reminded that conversely, toss are more vulnerable to roach-ling all in as well.
So I find this amount of grousing very silly. Once a zerg promptly quit when he scouted me close position - all that is left for me to say is WTH?
I hope metal and shattered get fixed next season or removed from the map pool. With how imba the new maps look, it seems like the Blizzard ladder may become completely useless for improvement.
I think Z is too strong on cross positions vs Protoss, because it's rather easy to deny a 3rd for a long time. Hence we have alot of 2base all ins from P on xpositions.
The real issue with temple/metal is the variance based on spawn positions. Better to just remove the maps than fiddle with spawning locations. Disabling close spawns just turns them into Zerg heaven maps.
On July 16 2011 22:10 Quochobao wrote: It's a fallacious argument that being spawn close position makes zerg more vulnerable to 4 gate. Warp in negates the traveling distance notwithstanding the map.
Plus, while zerg constantly complains that they have less time to react to attack, please be reminded that conversely, toss are more vulnerable to roach-ling all in as well.
So I find this amount of grousing very silly. Once a zerg promptly quit when he scouted me close position - all that is left for me to say is WTH?
Protoss can play really safe on close positions vs z and is prepared for all ins and also we are not talking about 4gate but about taking a 3rd... and also about more matchups and all ins. Especially a Zerg just needs time to prepare for a timing attack and this isnt given by close positions.
On July 16 2011 22:10 Quochobao wrote: So I find this amount of grousing very silly. Once a zerg promptly quit when he scouted me close position - all that is left for me to say is WTH?
As a Zerg player, I think it's pretty ridiculous as well. Close positions aren't my favorite, but they forced me to adapt my play and develop some pretty nasty 2-base all-ins. I don't see the point in quitting without trying, that's as bad as complaining about the protoss deathball without trying different ways to take it town in my eyes.
On July 16 2011 22:12 Sina92 wrote: I think Z is too strong on cross positions vs Protoss, because it's rather easy to deny a 3rd for a long time. Hence we have alot of 2base all ins from P on xpositions.
I don't know where you're getting this idea from. The fact that protoss is still competitive at high levels, at tournaments such as MLG, GSL and Dreamhack where the map pool is composed solely of long-rush distance maps, makes me think this is completely false.
On July 16 2011 22:18 Slivered Skin wrote: I don't know where you're getting this idea from. The fact that protoss is still competitive at high levels, at tournaments such as MLG, GSL and Dreamhack where the map pool is composed solely of long-rush distance maps, makes me think this is completely false.
Of course long rush distance favors Zerg - they're a reactive race. It's not the only possible feature of a map though - stuff like security/availability of the 3rd, choke points etc also matter. Most maps have a mix of features to offer something to all races. Some - like cross Metal or Terminus, offer too much to the Zerg and are thus imba.
Tournaments tend to have some imba maps for each race so the results don't mean much.
I really feel like close position should stay in the game. They promote diversity, you don't have to all-in in close positions, all-ins are just stronger than macro oriented builds. If you do want to do a macro oriented build you just have to play safer.
On July 16 2011 22:16 Yaotzin wrote: The real issue with temple/metal is the variance based on spawn positions. Better to just remove the maps than fiddle with spawning locations. Disabling close spawns just turns them into Zerg heaven maps.
This is the problem. In a TvZ matchup the close position really favors the Terran while the cross position equally favors the Zerg. I don't think one should be removed without the other being removed.
Yes, remove them please, or at the very least, make the rush distance longer or with some drawbacks (don't know what they can do about it but anything would be welcomed)
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'.
The problem is that Blizzard didn't design all the races to be balanced on rush maps, so the only way for actual fair gameplay without granting one race free advantages over the other is to use so-called macro maps.
On July 16 2011 22:10 Quochobao wrote: It's a fallacious argument that being spawn close position makes zerg more vulnerable to 4 gate. Warp in negates the traveling distance notwithstanding the map.
Plus, while zerg constantly complains that they have less time to react to attack, please be reminded that conversely, toss are more vulnerable to roach-ling all in as well.
So I find this amount of grousing very silly. Once a zerg promptly quit when he scouted me close position - all that is left for me to say is WTH?
The problem for Z are not 1 base all ins. I agree that it can be tricky to secure an expo in close position in PvZ but if P has acomlished that then zerg has to take protoss army head on head. You can't counter attack, dropping is nearly impossible and stuff like muta switches etc. are even more risky then they are usually and I say that as protoss.
On July 16 2011 22:10 Quochobao wrote: It's a fallacious argument that being spawn close position makes zerg more vulnerable to 4 gate. Warp in negates the traveling distance notwithstanding the map.
Plus, while zerg constantly complains that they have less time to react to attack, please be reminded that conversely, toss are more vulnerable to roach-ling all in as well.
So I find this amount of grousing very silly. Once a zerg promptly quit when he scouted me close position - all that is left for me to say is WTH?
The problem for Z are not 1 base all ins. I agree that it can be tricky to secure an expo in close position in PvZ but if P has acomlished that then zerg has to take protoss army head on head. You can't counter attack, dropping is nearly impossible and stuff like muta switches etc. are even more risky then they are usually and I say that as protoss.
Those are all problems, but i would say taht the biggest issue with close spawns as Z, is that you have zero preperation time when you see the opponent moving out.
I think zergs should have to adapt their play style to the map, not just the usual macro style everyone expects of them. I think it would play playing on these maps a little more fun, but unfortunately all zergs seem to know how to do is all-in every time they get into these positions. As a terran I voted to remove close pos simply because it's super annoying when 100% of the credit for you winning against them in close pos is "map imbalance" and that it has nothing to do with your skill. When a zerg says "close pos is so hard" I feel for them, but when they say "ef this bs" it's frustrating.
On July 17 2011 01:37 Syntaxs wrote: Off of these 3k voting guys are playing 2,3k Zerg? wow didnt thought that there are so many Zerg players are out there.
False, I'm protoss and i don't enjoy freewins so i voted yes? many of the "Yes" voters probably think the same way.
I dont think they should take close positions away. Currently most of the maps favor long drawn out macro games anyway and its nice to occasionally have some variety. I realize zergs feel that rushes are stronger which is true, but zerg also can scout easier with close spawns (overlord sacking) and can react accordingly. For instance if im playing as zerg close spawns i dont mind taking a later expansion if i can pressure early with roaches. This can actually mess up many conventional terran builds i see (reactor hellion, two rax marines ect.) Overall i think it adds variety to the game and i dont think its super imbalanced. It just requires different builds and a different play style.
On July 17 2011 01:46 phiinix wrote: I think zergs should have to adapt their play style to the map, not just the usual macro style everyone expects of them. I think it would play playing on these maps a little more fun, but unfortunately all zergs seem to know how to do is all-in every time they get into these positions. As a terran I voted to remove close pos simply because it's super annoying when 100% of the credit for you winning against them in close pos is "map imbalance" and that it has nothing to do with your skill. When a zerg says "close pos is so hard" I feel for them, but when they say "ef this bs" it's frustrating.
How about you play close positions metal/shattered as zerg for a while and try to "adapt". The only viable strat is to all-in, or at least end the game quickly unless the opponent is really bad. Hilarious how you're trying to tell zergs that they are doing it wrong when you clearly don't understand the position they are in.
You cant scout with ovies easier in close pos, in zvt you cant scout entirely if hes patrolling marines, in zvp you usually can scout due to 1 aa unit usually, so it gives alot of time. Close pos doesn't make it better at all, and close by air are way better for example. And some people don't see problem, that map dictates if you have to rush or not many times, if it's big tournament, and game is decided by starting positions, i think it's reall bad. Also macro game/rush game should be determined by players tactics (special of course;), mindgames, and gameplan, not "he's close pos, so he will probably die to timing/all in, guess i will just go and kill him". When i play offrace protoss, i feel close position makes zerg play by gamble, not by skill, cause protoss can be attacking/pressuring and defending at same time, distance is so small, you cant do anything reactively, you can't powerdrone and it needs additional defense just to not autolose. I don't think it's fair, same vice versa, if zerg is aggresive it gives him unfair advantage in close pos, but to lesser extend (protoss doesnt have to choose drones/army, so it's not so deadly if attack comes moment earlier)
On July 17 2011 01:46 phiinix wrote: I think zergs should have to adapt their play style to the map, not just the usual macro style everyone expects of them. I think it would play playing on these maps a little more fun, but unfortunately all zergs seem to know how to do is all-in every time they get into these positions. As a terran I voted to remove close pos simply because it's super annoying when 100% of the credit for you winning against them in close pos is "map imbalance" and that it has nothing to do with your skill. When a zerg says "close pos is so hard" I feel for them, but when they say "ef this bs" it's frustrating.
Platinum? What do you mean adapt, you make 1 drone too many and you're dead, close spawns are pretty shit you try playing as zerg.
On July 17 2011 01:56 RedMosquito wrote: I dont think they should take close positions away. Currently most of the maps favor long drawn out macro games anyway and its nice to occasionally have some variety. I realize zergs feel that rushes are stronger which is true, but zerg also can scout easier with close spawns (overlord sacking) and can react accordingly. For instance if im playing as zerg close spawns i dont mind taking a later expansion if i can pressure early with roaches. This can actually mess up many conventional terran builds i see (reactor hellion, two rax marines ect.) Overall i think it adds variety to the game and i dont think its super imbalanced. It just requires different builds and a different play style.
What league are you in? You've got be kidding me if you think its remotely close to balanced, you ever try playing macro game as zerg on close spawn, no? Well that's because you can't. And have some variety lol, you can have more variety if it's not close ground spawn.
I am a "macro Terran" and have been since release, very very rarely rushing and instead playing with Greedy or Standard builds. I have lost many times to the same disadvantages of close positions that you are talking about here (Try Tank/Marine/Viking TvT close position on Shattered Temple sometimes). I don't feel that they should be removed. Removing elements of the game is a way to limit the actual playability of the maps. This would make the game inherently easier for some playstyles like mine and much harder for those nitpicky rush tactics that (believe it or not) HAVE a place in the game. Eliminating rush tactics entirely for the sake of simplicity is absolute BS.
I definitely think that the game would lose a lot of interesting playstyles if these were removed. They are not imbalanced; they are *strong*. Imbalanced mean that the vast majority of the time they will win the game or do damage no matter what preparations you've taken. Close positions are easily scouted and force all of us to change the way that we are playing the game. This is a good thing! Not to mention, there are literally only the two maps in the current Season 2 ladder pool that feature close positions anyways; Shattered Temple and Metalopolis, which us a good amount of variety. Shakuras Plateau has the close position spawns disabled, and the rest of the maps really don't have close positions like these maps do. It's just the way the game is and people need to figure out how to take advantage of them rather than bitch about losing because their opponents take advantage of them.
EDIT: Reading the post above me made me realize that Zerg feels themselves to be in a position where they can play a macro game every single game. This is true and it's right for the Zerg. But there are several "safe" macro builds for Zerg, Speedling Expand negates many early threats for their still very early expansion. Choose a different build to play on these particular maps if you feel that you're losing consistently.
Blaming imbalance for mistakes you yourself are making is a way to make sure you don't become an all-around solid player.
I think the data speaks for themselves. After many tournaments started using edited maps where you dont get close spawns, game quality has increased, and you get a more rounded set of races in the top of the brackets.
The kind of extreme close spawns where you literally just need to leapfrog two times with your siege tanks needs to be removed from the map pool.
Edit: We should revisit this topic after the release of heart of the swarm. Maybe that expansion pack will give zerg the tools needed to play a fair solid game on extreme close spawns.
Even pvt sucks ass close spawn early mm push was much stronger and it's almost impossible to be cost effective against it.
I love macro games and I don't care what people say about protoss being advantaged in close spawn i any matchup. I like to be rewarded for good map awareness and good scouting, pvz if they decide to all in you notice it at your door same with pvp and pvt. At least cross spawn or close air you have time to react, if you played greedy and went probes and upgrads for a while you have tim to cut probe production and have 2 solid round of warp ins for the attack.
Close spawn just makes me want to all in cause they are retaded and not fun to play.
The problem with close positions isn't the rush, but instead the timing attacks. Close positions reduces the amount of time that the other player has to react, and the speed in which a player can walk to the other player's natural without any delay is ridiculous.
In SC2 with the improved movement AI, the attacker can simply walk into the other player's natural, rarely exposing his army to any attack. In BW, without a good movement AI, an army could be killed moving across the map, just since the movement AI caused units to spread out a lot more. As a result, players would have to watch their army and continuously keep it together, which does buy a small amount of time. But in SC2, the armies move in perfect formation, allowing the army to waltz across the map without worry.
This wouldn't be a problem if there were units that could stall a push. In BW, zerg had lurkers to stall marines, vultures would a protoss army from running around the map, and dragoons could easily pick off lone tanks. None of this exists in SC2. There is no unit that can actually cause a push to slow down. There is no unit that causes a timing push to stop for a moment in order to regroup and/or defend. Now, it would be easy to start complaining about how the unit changes caused this to happen, but that's irrelevant.
Now for everyone saying to simply scout better, scouting can be hard, if not impossible. Any player can easily hide their units and usually by the time even a good player notices a timing attack is coming, it can often be too late.
The problem isn't the distance, but the time. With the lack of opportunity to stall the push in close positions, the only way to fix this problem is to remove close positions.
Close spawns being balanced or not is now a moot point as tournaments, of which the metagame arises, no longer use them. This leaves us with forced non standard ladder games that will never offer any insight that is valid in a tournament setting.
Add to that the fact that the only fun these maps offer is abusing imbalance.
Zergs need to stop bitching about closed positions, they just have to accept that thier standard strategies won't work. From my experience in mid-masters, PvZ on closed positions shattered temple the spanishiwa no gas style can hold off any early aggression while droning up comfortably, and it transitions into a nearly unstoppable spine crawler/queen rush. You can't get colossus fast enough, void rays die to 5 or more queens, mass gateway style loses to transfuse on the spine crawlers and roaches. Cannon + building walloff gets picked off by spines.
I guess 5 gate robo/ immortal could do decently at stalling the inevitable push by picking off creep tumors and attempting to power trough the queen's transfuses by focus firing the spine crawlers and forcefielding away the roaches, but it leaves you really vulnerable to a hydralisk transition. It's tough, and by no means imbalanced
I voted yes, and im Terran & Zerg. I think that this of course should be a short term fix for the current maps where it affects the gameplay (Like Shattered Temple & Metalopolis) and hope that the maps keep improving to the point that different positions don't screw with the game balance.
On July 17 2011 02:40 Jonas wrote: Zergs need to stop bitching about closed positions, they just have to accept that thier standard strategies won't work. From my experience in mid-masters, PvZ on closed positions shattered temple the spanishiwa no gas style can hold off any early aggression while droning up comfortably, and it transitions into a nearly unstoppable spine crawler/queen rush. You can't get colossus fast enough, void rays die to 5 or more queens, mass gateway style loses to transfuse on the spine crawlers and roaches. Cannon + building walloff gets picked off by spines.
I guess 5 gate robo/ immortal could do decently at stalling the inevitable push by picking off creep tumors and attempting to power trough the queen's transfuses by focus firing the spine crawlers and forcefielding away the roaches, but it leaves you really vulnerable to a hydralisk transition. It's tough, and by no means imbalanced
I think maps like Metalopolis and Shattered Temple are very great maps without the close position. They don't encourage rushes, but they don't discourage them either. They're still viable without being unstoppable. I see 2 rax with the 2nd rax being on lowground, then flying it up to your main is a very smart way to 2 rax (especially on close air) because it takes like no time to fly the rax back up.The maps also don't discourage macro games as it is possible to divide me maps. Easy accessible thirds (with no rocks) while still being relatively vulnerable to attacks is a big plus in my book. On the other hand I don't understand why maps like Delta Quadrant is still in the pool. Rocks everywhere and close positions. Just my thoughts on the subject.
On July 17 2011 02:40 Jonas wrote: Zergs need to stop bitching about closed positions, they just have to accept that thier standard strategies won't work. From my experience in mid-masters, PvZ on closed positions shattered temple the spanishiwa no gas style can hold off any early aggression while droning up comfortably, and it transitions into a nearly unstoppable spine crawler/queen rush. You can't get colossus fast enough, void rays die to 5 or more queens, mass gateway style loses to transfuse on the spine crawlers and roaches. Cannon + building walloff gets picked off by spines.
I guess 5 gate robo/ immortal could do decently at stalling the inevitable push by picking off creep tumors and attempting to power trough the queen's transfuses by focus firing the spine crawlers and forcefielding away the roaches, but it leaves you really vulnerable to a hydralisk transition. It's tough, and by no means imbalanced
What league are you in and how many points, link to profile please.
voted yes as protoss, i really dislike PvT in close positions or even PvZ as most zergs are playing really cheesy in close pos and i cant really blame them. But even as protoss its almost impossible to take a third base and the game usually end by some 2 base timing or an all in.
I think close positions can lead to some pretty interesting expansion patterns/situations in the mid-game. I don't feel particularly bad for zerg in the close position situation because they shouldn't be able to get fully use their macro mechanic for only drones in every single situation... protoss and terran have to modify their macro mechanic given the situation as well. For instance, terrans are sometimes faced with the choice of scan or mule depending on the situation. Maybe you would like to mule but you HAVE to scan because of the game situation. For protoss close spawn can mean favoring chronoboosting gateways instead of the tech or probes.
all in all zerg isn't struggling at all. You may play zerg... and you may struggle with a matchup, but by and large your race is completely fine. If you really feel otherwise, either zerg isn't the race for you, you haven't worked hard enough to improve, or you have plateau'd at whatever level you are at.
On July 17 2011 02:40 Jonas wrote: Zergs need to stop bitching about closed positions, they just have to accept that thier standard strategies won't work. From my experience in mid-masters, PvZ on closed positions shattered temple the spanishiwa no gas style can hold off any early aggression while droning up comfortably, and it transitions into a nearly unstoppable spine crawler/queen rush. You can't get colossus fast enough, void rays die to 5 or more queens, mass gateway style loses to transfuse on the spine crawlers and roaches. Cannon + building walloff gets picked off by spines.
I guess 5 gate robo/ immortal could do decently at stalling the inevitable push by picking off creep tumors and attempting to power trough the queen's transfuses by focus firing the spine crawlers and forcefielding away the roaches, but it leaves you really vulnerable to a hydralisk transition. It's tough, and by no means imbalanced
What league are you in and how many points, link to profile please.
He says right in his post
Ok so what is mid masters, to someone it can be 800-1000 to someone else it can be 1400-1600
There should be more (any:D) 3 players maps as they provide as low randomness in starting possitions as 2 players maps, still removing many blind cheeses (proxy etc.) as effective as 4 players maps - only disadvantage they have compared to 2 players maps is randomness in scouting, not as much as 4 players maps have though.
Ares[Effort] wrote: What league are you in? You've got be kidding me if you think its remotely close to balanced, you ever try playing macro game as zerg on close spawn, no? Well that's because you can't. And have some variety lol, you can have more variety if it's not close ground spawn.
Ares[Effort] wrote: What league are you in and how many points, link to profile please.
Ares[Effort] wrote:Ok so what is mid masters, to someone it can be 800-1000 to someone else it can be 1400-1600
Asking everyone that disagrees with you what their ladder ranking in is a pretty shitty way to conclude if their opinion is valid or not. There are plenty of non-high ranked players with knowledgeable opinions (ie. just about every single caster around). Do you see day9 linking his ladder rank in chat after every daily he states his opinion on certain controversial sc2 topics? Dayvie, ranked pretty high random player, ALSO 1/2 of the balance team shares the same opinion with some of these guys: close spawning positions are meant to encourage different playing styles. Do you want dayvie to link his profile after that interview where he clearly states he is under the impression that close positions are fine?
Stop trying to police the thread and accept the fact that some people will disagree with you and actually embrace the idea in which people should be encouraged to come up with rushing strats when spawning close to their opponent.
On July 17 2011 02:40 Jonas wrote: Zergs need to stop bitching about closed positions, they just have to accept that thier standard strategies won't work. From my experience in mid-masters, PvZ on closed positions shattered temple the spanishiwa no gas style can hold off any early aggression while droning up comfortably, and it transitions into a nearly unstoppable spine crawler/queen rush. You can't get colossus fast enough, void rays die to 5 or more queens, mass gateway style loses to transfuse on the spine crawlers and roaches. Cannon + building walloff gets picked off by spines.
I guess 5 gate robo/ immortal could do decently at stalling the inevitable push by picking off creep tumors and attempting to power trough the queen's transfuses by focus firing the spine crawlers and forcefielding away the roaches, but it leaves you really vulnerable to a hydralisk transition. It's tough, and by no means imbalanced
What league are you in and how many points, link to profile please.
He says right in his post
Ok so what is mid masters, to someone it can be 800-1000 to someone else it can be 1400-1600
I'm not going to act like I'm amazing at this game, I play like maybe 5 or 10 games a week, not enough to spend my bonus pool. I don't have anything to hide http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/profile/291937/1/Jonas/
Presumably my opponents are also as bad at the game as you assumed me to be, so regardless of how good you think I am my argument doesn't sudden become invalidated
On July 17 2011 02:40 Jonas wrote: Zergs need to stop bitching about closed positions, they just have to accept that thier standard strategies won't work. From my experience in mid-masters, PvZ on closed positions shattered temple the spanishiwa no gas style can hold off any early aggression while droning up comfortably, and it transitions into a nearly unstoppable spine crawler/queen rush. You can't get colossus fast enough, void rays die to 5 or more queens, mass gateway style loses to transfuse on the spine crawlers and roaches. Cannon + building walloff gets picked off by spines.
I guess 5 gate robo/ immortal could do decently at stalling the inevitable push by picking off creep tumors and attempting to power trough the queen's transfuses by focus firing the spine crawlers and forcefielding away the roaches, but it leaves you really vulnerable to a hydralisk transition. It's tough, and by no means imbalanced
Actually all the Protoss has to do is go around the spine crawler (there are 2 paths on metal and you can go through the 3rd on shattered so spines and queens stay at home until you get a siege unit.
Additionally zeros do know our strategies don't work because they requires a 3 base Zerg vs a 2 base non-Zerg. At this point I have to option to expand towards you (where unless my opponent is really bad, I lose) ortake a ninja expo, which if scouted, will die and then till be even bases, and I lose.
This problem gets even worse vs Terran as 2-rax in those positions in an infant win, especially coupled with the fact that on can still wall off at the bottom of ramps. In the mid game then, when Terran decides to push out with tanks, the push could be stopped as Zerg could stall for time as Terran lusts across a longer distance and now although Zerg may still stall for time, the amount he receives is significantly less and will usually not have enough units unless he was about to all-in.
The fact of the matter is that Anyone who has played Zerg at pretty much any level including pro-play will tell you that close positions was imbalanced and Zerg could not win vs a Terran or protoss of equal skill.
Ares[Effort] wrote: What league are you in? You've got be kidding me if you think its remotely close to balanced, you ever try playing macro game as zerg on close spawn, no? Well that's because you can't. And have some variety lol, you can have more variety if it's not close ground spawn.
Ares[Effort] wrote:Ok so what is mid masters, to someone it can be 800-1000 to someone else it can be 1400-1600
Asking everyone that disagrees with you what their ladder ranking in is a pretty shitty way to conclude if their opinion is valid or not. There are plenty of non-high ranked players with knowledgeable opinions (ie. just about every single caster around). Do you see day9 linking his ladder rank in chat after every daily he states his opinion on certain controversial sc2 topics? Dayvie, ranked pretty high random player, ALSO 1/2 of the balance team shares the same opinion with some of these guys: close spawning positions are meant to encourage different playing styles. Do you want dayvie to link his profile after that interview where he clearly states he is under the impression that close positions are fine?
Stop trying to police the thread and accept the fact that some people will disagree with you and actually embrace the idea in which people should be encouraged to come up with rushing strats when spawning close to their opponent.
No, it's not whether their opinion is valid, but whether or not the solution that they say works for them will actually work for not just their level.
Ares[Effort] wrote: What league are you in? You've got be kidding me if you think its remotely close to balanced, you ever try playing macro game as zerg on close spawn, no? Well that's because you can't. And have some variety lol, you can have more variety if it's not close ground spawn.
Ares[Effort] wrote:Ok so what is mid masters, to someone it can be 800-1000 to someone else it can be 1400-1600
Asking everyone that disagrees with you what their ladder ranking in is a pretty shitty way to conclude if their opinion is valid or not. There are plenty of non-high ranked players with knowledgeable opinions (ie. just about every single caster around). Do you see day9 linking his ladder rank in chat after every daily he states his opinion on certain controversial sc2 topics? Dayvie, ranked pretty high random player, ALSO 1/2 of the balance team shares the same opinion with some of these guys: close spawning positions are meant to encourage different playing styles. Do you want dayvie to link his profile after that interview where he clearly states he is under the impression that close positions are fine?
Stop trying to police the thread and accept the fact that some people will disagree with you and actually embrace the idea in which people should be encouraged to come up with rushing strats when spawning close to their opponent.
Define 'non-high ranked'. Day9 was a BW pro, he is not the normal caster at all. Most casters have an low to average game knowledge, and then there are a few like Painuser that used be at the top level but now just cast. Even when I listen to low to mid masters level casters they say some of the most off the wall statements and make me facepalm.
Your '1/2 of the balance team' comment is pretty interesting, which members of the balance team don't agree with the other half? I'm sure this statement is accurate...
So your solution to ZvX close position is to come up with new rushing strats? Do you realize how completely silly that sounds? Not only does zerg have some of the worst rush capability of all the races, but they are extremely easy to predict and counter. Protoss: walled cannons and sentries counter every all in possible. Terran: walled bunkers and marines counter every all in possible. This sounds like a promising waste of time to me! Or maybe I should take the advice of another person in this thread and do the "spine with queen rush". WTF?
Even Catz, one of the most original zergs in terms of build order and timings, even agrees that close position against an even opponent is absurd (there is a screenshot of him talking to Dayvie about it).
I still play out close position games if it's not against someone I know is good, and still win a decent amount. But it's not because it's balanced it's because the other player isn't very good.
On July 17 2011 03:31 dhe95 wrote: No, it's not whether their opinion is valid, but whether or not the solution that they say works for them will actually work for not just their level.
I'm not even sure what you're disagreeing with or what "solution" you're talking about, or even what "level" of play you want these "solutions" to work for. The ladder is comprised of many tiers of play. Even the top players SPAWN CLOSE..OMG. So why are there highly ranked zergs? Are they the fortunate few that DON'T spawn close to Terrans? Please don't post one liners thinking your thoughts are conveyed appropriately.
On July 17 2011 03:40 aquanda wrote: Define 'non-high ranked'. Day9 was a BW pro, he is not the normal caster at all. Most casters have an low to average game knowledge, and then there are a few like Painuser that used be at the top level but now just cast. Even when I listen to low to mid masters level casters they say some of the most off the wall statements and make me facepalm.
Your '1/2 of the balance team' comment is pretty interesting, which members of the balance team don't agree with the other half? I'm sure this statement is accurate...
So your solution to ZvX close position is to come up with new rushing strats? Do you realize how completely silly that sounds? Not only does zerg have some of the worst rush capability of all the races, but they are extremely easy to predict and counter. Protoss: walled cannons and sentries counter every all in possible. Terran: walled bunkers and marines counter every all in possible. This sounds like a promising waste of time to me! Or maybe I should take the advice of another person in this thread and do the "spine with queen rush". WTF?
Even Catz, one of the most original zergs in terms of build order and timings, even agrees that close position against an even opponent is absurd (there is a screenshot of him talking to Dayvie about it).
"1/2" was stating that dayvie is one half of the balance team, not that just half agree with this. I can't define "non-high ranked" because I'm not sure what Ares is looking for in terms of rank before allowing their opinion to have some validity.
You're claiming that MY SOLUTION is to come up with rushing strats. I never said it was. I said that Ares shouldn't patrol the thread asking everyone that agrees with close spawns what their ladder rankings are. I don't agree with close spawns either, but that doesn't mean I'll counter their opinions by questioning where they stand on blizzard's ladder.
I really agree, close spawns need to be removed, but heres the thing...
Blizzard wants maps that appeal to everybody. Cross spawns may appeal to GM, Masters, Diamond, and macro players etc. But Close positions make it fun for newbies who probably don't understand how and when to expand or even how to play with a mid or end game strategy. I think it's clear with the maps they've chosen in season 3 is that they want maps that can be long macro maps or a cheese map depending on where you spawn, offering different play styles and variety.
Obviously it's a pain, but for ladder it's fine because tournaments have decided not to use close spawn.
Honestly I don't think its possible as zerg to beat terran on metalopolis close position if the players are equally skilled. Slow tank push with turrets and you can't do anything unless you bling bomb his entire army or something. I seriously think that it needs to be removed. Not only does it make life difficult for zerg, but it results in shitty games with 2 base allins.
I haven't read through the whole thread, but ill address the last 2 pages.
From what i've seen people are talking about balance of close positions for zerg...since people like aquanda and ares are so hostile over it. I think people have to realize that it affects the other race's playstyles as well. On a map such as metalopolis (and im going to address this map as an example), it becomes much harder to get a third.
I dont play zerg but I could see something like taking the gold something that almost forces P or T into a 2 base push / harass tactic which is reasonable unless you make 70 drones and 6 lings. Also, the map has other issues in ZvT as well such as close by air being very favorable to ling muta play which arguably tips the scale back to about even. Either way..I don't see this map being so terrible for zerg in any position. You would have to sit behind bomber or nestea or mc and watch them play positions over and over till I think any positional balance can be addressed.
Even someone like bomber has metalopolis vetoed off. Can anyone explain this exactly? probably not. Everyone has their own playstyle and reasons.
It seems to me it comes down two 2 things. You support close positions because you like free wins vs zerg (you should never lose close posis vs zerg, ask or watch any top zerg player - catz,idra,spanishiwa,ect)
or you don't support it because you understand how horrendously unfair it is.
Voted no as a protoss. The ladder is, in my opinion, for training. I feel I learn a lot from the close position games, in terms of developing safe macro practices. It makes mistakes and builds much more pointed. Even if it is unfair, consider it like what swimmers do when training sometimes-they wear suits with extra drag to increase training load.
I find it surprising that people are even suggesting that close positions are balanced in any way. Try playing ZvT on close positions at a high level, and you'll quickly notice how silly it is. Either you kill the terran with an all-in (which is very predictable and easy to prepare against) or the game gets to a point where you're both on 2 bases and the terran is leapfrogging tanks to your base without any way to stop it.
It's not like the terran needs to all-in himself at all (although all-ins are quite strong as well on close positions), because if he's able to establish a 2nd base and survive, he'll be in a formidable position. There's a reason why close positions are banned in pretty much every single tournament; they produce one-dimensional, imbalanced games. Try to think about how many good games you've seen that were on close positions. I personally can't think of a single one.
And how exactly do close positions create variety and force people to try other styles? Forcing people to all-in only limits the options available, whereas on maps with normal rush distance both macro and rushing are possible.
And last but not least, what makes people think that lower level players enjoy extremely short rush distances? Pretty much every time i hear low level players complain about something it is how much people cheese and rush in bronze.
I dont think I ever lose close position vs zerg if I really don't want to. Sometimes it gets old and I decide not to all-in and its still too easy. Its pretty much the same but to much less of a degree vs protoss. So, yeh close rush distances is retarded
On July 17 2011 05:03 kaisr wrote: I dont think I ever lose close position vs zerg if I really don't want to. Sometimes it gets old and I decide not to all-in and its still too easy. Its pretty much the same but to much less of a degree vs protoss. So, yeh close rush distances is retarded
I dunno what the best way to make blizzard understand how horrible close positions are for zerg. You essentially HAVE to do a 1-2 base all-in. If the enemy has either the sense to make siege tanks or any skill at forcefields you almost always lose.
I voted no. On maps like metalopolis I think close positions add some variety
We don't mind variety.
I think close positions on Typhon for example (even though it's a bad map in other ways) are perfectly fine, it's maps like Metal and Slag that are just retarded.
Theres a difference between playing differently, and forcing you to two bases and/or all-inning EVERY game.
That being said, simply disabling close spawns metal/etc is only a temporary solution, what needs be done is maps that are fair from the beginning; we don't want 10 different versions of the same map because blizzard thinks close spawns and walling off ramps are okay. And not just 4 player maps either. Two and three player maps (why not a 5 player map, or an 8 player 1v1 map?) would be great as well.
On July 17 2011 04:59 Fredbrik wrote: And last but not least, what makes people think that lower level players enjoy extremely short rush distances? Pretty much every time i hear low level players complain about something it is how much people cheese and rush in bronze.
The ones who complain about getting cheesed all the time are an extremely vocal minority. At this point, most every active player in bronze league is either a career cheeser, portrait farmer, or rapidly on their way out.
Voted no as a protoss. The ladder is, in my opinion, for training. I feel I learn a lot from the close position games, in terms of developing safe macro practices. It makes mistakes and builds much more pointed. Even if it is unfair, consider it like what swimmers do when training sometimes-they wear suits with extra drag to increase training load.
I don't think non-Zerg players realize how frustrating it is. Like, it's not fun. The game is simply not fun to play on close spawns. The only reason Zerg don't simply leave immediately is because they give a shit about ladder ranking. Personally, I scout on 9 vP to do a 3 roach rush on Metal/ST to see if close spawn so I can do the 13pool/12gas/15roach, or 14/14 into baneling bust if it's close. These rushes only take 5 minutes to decide the game for the 20% P/T doesn't scout, otherwise I'd autoleave every time.
I mean it's not fun. It's like actually miserable for Zerg on close spawn. Why would blizzard leave such frustrating map positions still in the game? I know Protoss and Terran think it may be good practice, but Zerg play on close spawn a lot. We already figured out it's imbalanced, it fucking sucks, and it's just not fun to play, and it's irritating. No one enjoys playing the game when you lose every single time on close spawn or only win against an opponent who wasn't worth your time in the first place.
I play toss, and I don't like the close positions on meta and temple. Not just because of the early game, but because any possible third is far away. It just feels goofy and you can't have a long game.
I like variety, but the way close positions work on those maps is just weird and you are pretty much forced into a 1 or 2 base all in.
Every serious competitive setting has already settled this. No serious competitive tournaments have any maps with ridiculous close positions - they no longer exist in tournament play. The community has spoken.
So what's left? The ladder. Why on earth should the ladder differ so markedly from competitive play? Hell, the ladder map-makers are ridiculously stupid. Remember when the map team removed shakuras to replace it with the so called "macro map" Slag Pits? That really tells you all you need to know about how much the map-makers at Blizzard understand the game.
It seems to me that those who wish to keep close positions understand the game just as well as the map-makers at Blizzard do. I.e., not at all.
Give zerg an early rush strong as 2 rax bunker rush or 2gate zealot rush, reduce spine crawler building time by 15 sec, narrow naturals on maps that have really close spawns, and the game is balanced.
The current state of the ladder forces players to go certain strategies, which makes the game too much "w/o variety(sry lack of vocabulary)" (like spawning close positions and rushing against a FE and insta winning, or falling behind in eco). Giving players an insta-gg is not giving them more choices.
No!, Just because it seems like most players think long macro games are more entertaining, this does not speak for everyone, I for one and many of my friends prefer shorter more micro intensive games, as I view macro games as boreing, (mainly because I am under the impression that even a computer can macro, why is it a big deal).
I figure close spawning positions should be just like BW where they arn't as gamebreaking. (I could be wrong about this because i just barely started watching BW)
I voted yes - not because I believe that it should be all macro games, but because of balance, it's just stupid to keep it in without making other changes to the zerg race/other races.
On July 17 2011 12:20 DivinitySC2 wrote: No!, Just because it seems like most players think long macro games are more entertaining, this does not speak for everyone, I for one and many of my friends prefer shorter more micro intensive games, as I view macro games as boreing, (mainly because I am under the impression that even a computer can macro, why is it a big deal).
... Longer games are going to be more micro intensive than shorter games because you have more units.
People who say they don't like macro games clearly don't play Zerg. You think every Zerg player likes macro games, and likes that the only way to play the race with any amount of skill instead of luck wants every game to be 20+ minutes long? It's just the only way to play the race, early game aggression by Zerg is easily scoutable (whereas T/P can deny early game scouting and it isn't as obvious as a bunch of units or lack of drones) and isn't nearly as strong as the other races.
Also higher league games tend to always be long anyways, as people tend not to straight up die to early game aggression anymore.
It's like you think that Zerg players a stuck up prissies who want every game to be based on a contest of skill and 20+ minutes long. No, it gets old sometimes, but Zerg doesn't have any choice at the moment. Hopefully HoTS will address this, as it's not really a balance issue but more of a design issue, but at the moment the only way to fix it is to remove broken maps. Any buff or nerf in the early game to the races at the moment would imbalance the game.
On July 17 2011 04:54 InvalidID wrote: Voted no as a protoss. The ladder is, in my opinion, for training. I feel I learn a lot from the close position games, in terms of developing safe macro practices. It makes mistakes and builds much more pointed. Even if it is unfair, consider it like what swimmers do when training sometimes-they wear suits with extra drag to increase training load.
Thats like saying swim 10km with 20kg of bricks tied to your feet.
I'm pretty sure the win ratios for Zerg on close spawn metalopolis/shattered are close to probably 10-30%. The only time Zerg wins is when Protoss/Terran play extremely greedy or the Zerg is unbelievably better than the P/T - which shouldn't happen on ladder.
Find me a Masters or GM League game of ZvT or ZvP where the Z wins. Then find me a game where the T or P is competent.
On July 17 2011 19:19 ProxyKnoxy wrote: If close spawns are favoured for Terran then aren't non-close spawns favoured for Zerg?
Jus saying I don't really like close spawns but it's just another perspective
If you remove a position that strongly favors a race over another isn't equal with shifting balance towards the other race. Close spawns heavily favors Terran over Zerg whereas close air / far distance does not put Terran at a real disadvantage. It just evens out stuff.
You can still rush or cheese and put pressure, but Zerg can actually do something against it.
If close spawns are favoured for Terran then aren't non-close spawns favoured for Zerg?
no. You can still all-in in cross position, you can still cheese cross position. You can't macro close position. Thats the difference. They created a race which has to macro and create map spawns which deny it.
Give zerg powerful and hard to scout all-ins, and close position is fine again. Its not that zerg wants to macro no matter what. There are times i just want to go all-in because going into macro games every game kinda sucks... But then again, i look at the ramp, the wall-in, my options to all-in... shake my head just wait for the scv train
as soon as i scout close positions i just cheese. this has led to me having a better understanding of cheese as zerg since i've done it so many times, my cheese is more creative and all that, but close still sucks because winning a real game is incredibly unlikely. it isolates your strategy into a coin flip almost entirely regardless of what the strategy is.
On July 17 2011 19:40 Herculix wrote: as soon as i scout close positions i just cheese. this has led to me having a better understanding of cheese as zerg since i've done it so many times, my cheese is more creative and all that, but close still sucks because winning a real game is incredibly unlikely. it isolates your strategy into a coin flip almost entirely regardless of what the strategy is.
QFT
//woops, enter just made me post
but anyways what i was saying was that when i scout close spawns on metalopolis i usually just do "one base roach" and attack, usually allows for an easy win. Otherwise it means i have to work my ass off to try and get map control and usually just go mutas to try and defend my third which will usually be the close air main.
as for the main argument, i do feel like close spawn is unfair in pro play, which is why in tournaments like MLG they take out close spawns but in ladder i don't mind as much because it practically forces a zerg player who LOVES macro and the late game (like me) to try cheesy tactics like "one base roach" or "baneling bust all in." Kind of mixes it up a little.
No, if close positions are really imba then removing them would make tvz zerg favored because right now, the matchup is almost perfectly balanced according to statistics. Yes close positions are a headache for zerg but right now tvz seems fine (basically 50-50), so removing them would only cause the matchup to become unbalanced. Don't change whats not broken.
So you say close position is a 'headache', but right now the only reason ZvT is balanced is because Terran autolose big maps and Zerg autolose small maps? So is that why Zerg always win tournaments, because close spawn is removed?
You register an account to post here something no one agrees with, and use ridiculous logic to say so. The game needs to be balanced, saying that the game is balanced because Zerg always win on certain maps, and Terran always win on certain maps, therefore game is balanced, is just the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
You're also aware that far spawns on Metal and ST are the same distance as Xel Naga Caverns right? But I guess everyone knows that XNC is a just a completely broken map, which is why Zerg win 100% on it, because the game is imbalanced, and the only way Terran stands a chance or makes the win ratio 50-50 is because of close spawn... even though tournaments remove close spawn.
3000+ people and if you think the majority of them are Zerg players, I think you're just trolling. Aside from 20% of voters, close spawn should be eliminated. I'm sure these results could be replicated in numerous polls. I'm also sure I am yet to see an argument that makes sense posted by someone who said no.
But I have seen many arguments that flat out state they don't want close positions removed because they want easy wins.
I think it should be a case by case basis. The way Shakuras works is a great example of no close spawns done right. I think for the most part it would be pretty easy to identify which maps would be more fair with no close spawns, but that doesn't mean all close spawns are imbalanced.
I voted yes. Close positions is really horrible as zerg. Also, Blizzard should have a standard on the distances between spawn positions for map makers.
Get rid of the maps where close spawn is ridiculously imbalanced. Removing close spawns entirely seems silly, it can add variety rather than be instant all-in if we had some different maps.
^ It's a pretty good map that's a lot of fun and has lots of variety, and it makes use of lots of drops, air, creep, and been around for a long time so everyone knows it very well. Familiarity is probably the biggest reason, plus it's just a cool setting. Almost as cool as belshir beach.
I'd rather they removed close spawns then removed that map. God forbid they replace it with another slag pits or delta quadrant. Even shattered temple is a pretty lame, boring map. LT was kind of a cool map, it was sad to see it go but it was necessary due to how ridiculous it was. That's just the State of the game right now, it's still not really developed enough to really be able to play with things like close spawn or lots of cliffs.
On July 18 2011 20:45 Belial88 wrote: ^ What statistics?
So you say close position is a 'headache', but right now the only reason ZvT is balanced is because Terran autolose big maps and Zerg autolose small maps? So is that why Zerg always win tournaments, because close spawn is removed?
You register an account to post here something no one agrees with, and use ridiculous logic to say so. The game needs to be balanced, saying that the game is balanced because Zerg always win on certain maps, and Terran always win on certain maps, therefore game is balanced, is just the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
You're also aware that far spawns on Metal and ST are the same distance as Xel Naga Caverns right? But I guess everyone knows that XNC is a just a completely broken map, which is why Zerg win 100% on it, because the game is imbalanced, and the only way Terran stands a chance or makes the win ratio 50-50 is because of close spawn... even though tournaments remove close spawn.
Metalopolis is completely different from xel naga caverns, just cause the rush distance cross spawn is about the same doesn't mean they are equally balanced. There are a lot of other things to account for too, like openness and ways to counterattack that make cross spawn metalopolis worse than xel naga for terran.
Actually, a registered an account here to post something some people agree with, if you look at the poll. In fact, over 600 people from this poll alone agree with me. Saying that no one agrees with me shows how biased and one-sided you are.
My reasoning is that if the tvz matchup is balanced now, with close spawns, then taking away close spawns would imbalance the matchup since close spawns favor terran. I'm talking about ladder, which effects eveyone, not about tournaments which effect only the pros.
3000+ people and if you think the majority of them are Zerg players, I think you're just trolling. Aside from 20% of voters, close spawn should be eliminated. I'm sure these results could be replicated in numerous polls. I'm also sure I am yet to see an argument that makes sense posted by someone who said no.
But I have seen many arguments that flat out state they don't want close positions removed because they want easy wins.
I'm pretty sure almost every terran voted no and every non-terran voted yes. People just want whats best for them, and thats why I like close spawns.
I'm not surprised at how many people want close spawns to be removed, considering that protoss and zerg are much more numerous on tl than terrans. (I remember seeing a poll taken in may that shows this, I can't find the link though).
I play random and close positions on Shattered Temple just feels dumb. I just make a lot of shit off two bases and go kill them. Somehow it never felt like this in Brood War on Python. I guess Brood War maps were still bigger and the game was much more refined.
Voted no because I think it harms the game when players refuse to play close positions because they don't want to try to figure out a way of playing it. Why don't Blizzard just put in a NR20 rule while they're at it.
Metalopolis is completely different from xel naga caverns, just cause the rush distance cross spawn is about the same doesn't mean they are equally balanced. There are a lot of other things to account for too, like openness and ways to counterattack that make cross spawn metalopolis worse than xel naga for terran.
So wait, a map that is 2 long chokes is harder for Terran than a map that is completely wide open with more than 3 attack routes? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Counterattacks are pretty good in any map, Zerg relies on it. It's what Terran has to account for on any map.
My reasoning is that if the tvz matchup is balanced now, with close spawns, then taking away close spawns would imbalance the matchup since close spawns favor terran. I'm talking about ladder, which effects eveyone, not about tournaments which effect only the pros.
Why would you say it's balanced on close spawn on ladder? It's not, that such a ridiculous assumption. You do realize that the ladder system makes it so you win/lose 50/50 right? So that T or Z is winning 50/50 on ladder just means the ladder is working as intended, it also means it's possible that less skilled T are playing more skilled Z on imbalanced maps, and Blizzard has said exactly that many times in regards to looking at balance with ladder stats.
Also, it doesn't matter if ladder affects everyone. What matters is if the game is balanced, just because Zerg is more skilled on average than Terran so therefore we must imbalance the game so the ladder makes it 50/50 isn't right. If you balance the game for tournaments and pros, then you balance the game for everyone. What's most important is game balance, not making sure that Zerg loses 100% on certain maps while Terran lose 100% on others to balance it out.
your logic is just ridiculous. And if you read what people say, most say close spawn should be left in for reasons other than balance - they acknowledge that it's broken. It's also 600, an extreme minority. Remember the elvis factor, 10% of people think he's still alive. Many non-Zerg also straight up say they prefer to win more. More than 80% just shows that's it's obvious the community is against it.
Metalopolis is completely different from xel naga caverns, just cause the rush distance cross spawn is about the same doesn't mean they are equally balanced. There are a lot of other things to account for too, like openness and ways to counterattack that make cross spawn metalopolis worse than xel naga for terran.
So wait, a map that is 2 long chokes is harder for Terran than a map that is completely wide open with more than 3 attack routes? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Counterattacks are pretty good in any map, Zerg relies on it. It's what Terran has to account for on any map.
My reasoning is that if the tvz matchup is balanced now, with close spawns, then taking away close spawns would imbalance the matchup since close spawns favor terran. I'm talking about ladder, which effects eveyone, not about tournaments which effect only the pros.
Why would you say it's balanced on close spawn on ladder? It's not, that such a ridiculous assumption. You do realize that the ladder system makes it so you win/lose 50/50 right? So that T or Z is winning 50/50 on ladder just means the ladder is working as intended, it also means it's possible that less skilled T are playing more skilled Z on imbalanced maps, and Blizzard has said exactly that many times in regards to looking at balance with ladder stats.
Also, it doesn't matter if ladder affects everyone. What matters is if the game is balanced, just because Zerg is more skilled on average than Terran so therefore we must imbalance the game so the ladder makes it 50/50 isn't right. If you balance the game for tournaments and pros, then you balance the game for everyone. What's most important is game balance, not making sure that Zerg loses 100% on certain maps while Terran lose 100% on others to balance it out.
your logic is just ridiculous. And if you read what people say, most say close spawn should be left in for reasons other than balance - they acknowledge that it's broken. It's also 600, an extreme minority. Remember the elvis factor, 10% of people think he's still alive. Many non-Zerg also straight up say they prefer to win more. More than 80% just shows that's it's obvious the community is against it.
You're just another zerg elitest, thinking that for some reason zerg players are better than terran players on average. Just because you lose some games doesn't mean that terran is OP or zerg sucks, you lose because the person you are playing is better than you.
20% is a significant number.
Metalopolois has 2 distinct avenues for attack that are pretty wide open, while xelnaga is much smaller with connected routes. Its pretty obvious that metalopolis cross spawn is a much more zerg favored map than xelnaga.
Your whole arguement that zerg players are better than terran players, but zerg is UP is ridiculous. Learn to accept that your race isn't more special than any other race.
On July 18 2011 14:51 Kiaro wrote: No, if close positions are really imba then removing them would make tvz zerg favored because right now, the matchup is almost perfectly balanced according to statistics. Yes close positions are a headache for zerg but right now tvz seems fine (basically 50-50), so removing them would only cause the matchup to become unbalanced. Don't change whats not broken.
In what world does this logic make sense? If you want to look at balance then you should look at tournaments, and guess what, tournaments don't have close positions. So if TvZ is balanced on a tournament level, then it must be imbalanced on ladder, because close positions are terran favored (which you admitted it is).
According to your logic, everything that isn't close positions is zerg favored in TvZ, which means all tournaments would be zerg favored since they don't have close positions. Do you really think that's the case? And even if that was the case, then why would you fix such a balance problem with close positions?
Here's a question for Z's regarding Metalopolis+close spawn...
Okay, so as a Z I'm fairly confident in defending close position early game antics vs. P and T (4 gate, 2 rax, etc). However, I find that getting off 2 bases is extremely difficult. Taking the natural "third" is actually contesting the P or T's natural "third". Almost by definition at this point, Z does NOT want to expand 'towards' a P or T based off the styles of the races. T, and to a small extent P, are encouraged to expand towards Z for mobility reasons. Likewise with the gold - it's putting yourself at risk by definition of expanding as Z. It's extremely hard to hang onto these positions as the third hatch is morphing. That leaves one other option: taking a far base, be it far gold, close air spawn main, cross map main (enemy close air main), or either far map naturals+third. The thing is, ALL of those options are so far away that you are extremely vulnerable to drops, DT, VR, etc.
SO my question: When faced with a ZvT or ZvP in close spawn Metalopolis, is it better to simply plan to end the game on 2 bases one way or another? If not, what is a good plan with regard to securing a third? Obviously if you do huge damage early you can take a third safely, but in that case you can do a lot of things safely to pull an advantage so it's really beside the point. In an "even" mid game match in which you nor your opponent have done any significant damage, but rather merely traded back and forth a few times, how should Z go about expanding properly?
This map/spawn is really frustrating for me and not because of the rush distance - rather because of the third base issue instead.
On July 19 2011 04:38 FallDownMarigold wrote: Here's a question for Z's regarding Metalopolis+close spawn...
Okay, so as a Z I'm fairly confident in defending close position early game antics vs. P and T (4 gate, 2 rax, etc). However, I find that getting off 2 bases is extremely difficult. Taking the natural "third" is actually contesting the P or T's natural "third". Likewise with the gold. It's extremely hard to hang onto these positions as the third hatch is morphing. That leaves one other option: taking a far base, be it far gold, close air spawn main, cross map main (enemy close air main), or either far map naturals+third. The thing is, ALL of those options are so far away that you are extremely vulnerable to drops, DT, VR, etc.
SO my question: When faced with a ZvT or ZvP in close spawn Metalopolis, is it better to simply plan to end the game on 2 bases one way or another? If not, what is a good plan with regard to securing a third? Obviously if you do huge damage early you can take a third safely, but in that case you can do a lot of things safely to pull an advantage so it's really beside the point. In an "even" mid game match in which you nor your opponent have done any significant damage, but rather merely traded back and forth a few times, how should Z go about expanding properly?
This map/spawn is really frustrating for me and not because of the rush distance - rather because of the third base issue instead.
This is exactly why zergs want close spawns removed, it's a common misconception that it's all about the rush distance. My advice is try to end the game on 2 bases, it's not really a good way to play, but what else can you do in close positions?
On July 19 2011 04:38 FallDownMarigold wrote: Here's a question for Z's regarding Metalopolis+close spawn...
Okay, so as a Z I'm fairly confident in defending close position early game antics vs. P and T (4 gate, 2 rax, etc). However, I find that getting off 2 bases is extremely difficult. Taking the natural "third" is actually contesting the P or T's natural "third". Likewise with the gold. It's extremely hard to hang onto these positions as the third hatch is morphing. That leaves one other option: taking a far base, be it far gold, close air spawn main, cross map main (enemy close air main), or either far map naturals+third. The thing is, ALL of those options are so far away that you are extremely vulnerable to drops, DT, VR, etc.
SO my question: When faced with a ZvT or ZvP in close spawn Metalopolis, is it better to simply plan to end the game on 2 bases one way or another? If not, what is a good plan with regard to securing a third? Obviously if you do huge damage early you can take a third safely, but in that case you can do a lot of things safely to pull an advantage so it's really beside the point. In an "even" mid game match in which you nor your opponent have done any significant damage, but rather merely traded back and forth a few times, how should Z go about expanding properly?
This map/spawn is really frustrating for me and not because of the rush distance - rather because of the third base issue instead.
Completely agree with your post. While the rush distance and endless waves of instant reinforcements are indeed a problem with close spawns, you at least have a chance to deal with it like you said.
Whereas I find it pretty much impossible to take a 3rd.
Metalopolis is completely different from xel naga caverns, just cause the rush distance cross spawn is about the same doesn't mean they are equally balanced. There are a lot of other things to account for too, like openness and ways to counterattack that make cross spawn metalopolis worse than xel naga for terran.
So wait, a map that is 2 long chokes is harder for Terran than a map that is completely wide open with more than 3 attack routes? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Counterattacks are pretty good in any map, Zerg relies on it. It's what Terran has to account for on any map.
My reasoning is that if the tvz matchup is balanced now, with close spawns, then taking away close spawns would imbalance the matchup since close spawns favor terran. I'm talking about ladder, which effects eveyone, not about tournaments which effect only the pros.
Why would you say it's balanced on close spawn on ladder? It's not, that such a ridiculous assumption. You do realize that the ladder system makes it so you win/lose 50/50 right? So that T or Z is winning 50/50 on ladder just means the ladder is working as intended, it also means it's possible that less skilled T are playing more skilled Z on imbalanced maps, and Blizzard has said exactly that many times in regards to looking at balance with ladder stats.
Also, it doesn't matter if ladder affects everyone. What matters is if the game is balanced, just because Zerg is more skilled on average than Terran so therefore we must imbalance the game so the ladder makes it 50/50 isn't right. If you balance the game for tournaments and pros, then you balance the game for everyone. What's most important is game balance, not making sure that Zerg loses 100% on certain maps while Terran lose 100% on others to balance it out.
your logic is just ridiculous. And if you read what people say, most say close spawn should be left in for reasons other than balance - they acknowledge that it's broken. It's also 600, an extreme minority. Remember the elvis factor, 10% of people think he's still alive. Many non-Zerg also straight up say they prefer to win more. More than 80% just shows that's it's obvious the community is against it.
You're just another zerg elitest, thinking that for some reason zerg players are better than terran players on average. Just because you lose some games doesn't mean that terran is OP or zerg sucks, you lose because the person you are playing is better than you.
20% is a significant number.
Metalopolois has 2 distinct avenues for attack that are pretty wide open, while xelnaga is much smaller with connected routes. Its pretty obvious that metalopolis cross spawn is a much more zerg favored map than xelnaga.
Your whole arguement that zerg players are better than terran players, but zerg is UP is ridiculous. Learn to accept that your race isn't more special than any other race.
You're derailing the argument. Berail was suggesting that the 50/50 winrates was the ladder system doing its job, and if the ladder is terran favored than winrates will still be 50/50. He was simply stating that this balanced winrate is not a valid argument in favor of close positions, not necessarily suggesting zerg players were better or that zerg is under powered.
That, and 20% is not significant from a statistics perspective, it's almost a negligible minority. You must account for the fact that there are trolls that will simply go against the majority because they can (hipsters?), and that some people could just be wrong, or misinformed, or bias. 400% more people are in favor of this change, that sounds much higher doesn't it?
Even ladder numbers for close spawns cannot reflect balance at all, it is more complicated on that map. For example, I get ZvT close spawns changes are I will just baneling bust off one base to end the game early one way or another. If I win it doesn't mean I am drastically better than the terran it just means he wasn't ready for an all in. In that case I am using the close spawns to my advantage but it still becomes a gamble and a stupid way to play the game.
Personally I don't think they should be removed based on if they are imbalanced but just not a fun way to play the game.
My two concerns with close spawns are gamedesign and gamebalance. Looking at close positions from a gamedesign perspective it is very clear that those spawns favour allins and build order losses heavily in all matchups. Almost every game boils down to early cheese or 1/2 base allins, which is highly repetitiv and neither fun for the player or the spectator.
I shouldn't even have to address balance on these positions, but 20% is still too large for my taste. Briefly explained close spawns is a nerve-wracking nightmare for Zergs vs. T/P. Not only is it impossible to prepare for a push when the enemy moves out, taking a third base is unbelievably hard against a competent opponent, which isn't that bad considering 90% of these games don't last long enough. I think the fact that every tournament worth caring about has disabled close spawns speaks for itself.
On July 19 2011 03:27 branflakes14 wrote: Voted no because I think it harms the game when players refuse to play close positions because they don't want to try to figure out a way of playing it. Why don't Blizzard just put in a NR20 rule while they're at it.
It's not about the rush, it's about the horrible map architecture. If I see a terran take his natural and prepare for a 2 base tank/marine play, then my response would be to get mutalisks out and contain the terran with harass to cover my third. I can't do the correct response on close positions because: 1) It's like 2 siege hops away from nat-to-nat, I can't counter attack if my opponent can cover their tanks and base at the same time. 2) What third do I take? This is the main issue that plagues all match-ups on close positions.
Your argument is assuming that there is a valid way to play as zerg on close positions, but that is simply not true as we have seen time and time again. If the game had something completely broken at core balance than it wouldn't suggest a new way to play for all races, it suggests a change to the game. If cannons were invincible structures then that would create a different gameplay approach for all races right? Games would turn into the protoss cannon rushing every game and winning, that's a new and interesting twist...
I agree that players need to LEARN HOW TO PLAY close positions better. HOWEVER on top of this there needs to be better map design for maps with short rush distances that provide zerg with options to expand safely. Something like a backdoor that is only accessible through the zerg main early -> midgame that goes to an expo or two would be good.
As a Zerg player, if you spawn close positions you need to not macro so much. All these zergs who make 40+ drones without so much as 2 zerglings and queen just doesn't cut it. Zerg is a strong race, but you cannot be too greedy with close positions. If you wanna play a macro game, get a nydus to expand safely and to be able to defend several positions. close positions forces zerg to either play smart or lose. I think having close positions help zerg players think more while they are ingame and forces them to play outside of their comfort zone.
Marine Tank is very hard to play against though xD. But it is not impossible! To my fellow Zergies, stop wining and think through the game more. You can do it c:
I voted no because terran is already by far the least played race on the US/EU servers, and if you remove close positions and put GSL maps in the ladder pool the number of terran players is going to fall even further and I really, really don't feel like playing exclusively vZ games
Really? Is someone who has been playing Terran all this time going to pack up and say "well, they removed close positions on a couple of the maps, time to quit this race since I just can't win anymore." That seems ludicrous. How are close positions even fun TvZ, I remember Jinro saying he hates it because it's impossible to play a normal game, as your opponent will likely attempt an all-in.
SO my question: When faced with a ZvT or ZvP in close spawn Metalopolis, is it better to simply plan to end the game on 2 bases one way or another? If not, what is a good plan with regard to securing a third? Obviously if you do huge damage early you can take a third safely, but in that case you can do a lot of things safely to pull an advantage so it's really beside the point. In an "even" mid game match in which you nor your opponent have done any significant damage, but rather merely traded back and forth a few times, how should Z go about expanding properly?
Personally I scout at 9 to see if it's close spawn or not. Then I can either play normal, or if it's close spawn, I'll go 14/14 baneling bust 2 base bane vT or wzp 3 roach rush with speedlings (13p/12g). The roach rush is okay, it can win maybe 40%, baneling busts however are just bad and no way to deny scouting either. It's autoloss if they make a factory, mauraders, or bunkers.
Trying to play a macro game is just ridiculous on close spawns though. Against P you need at least 3 bases if you aren't doing a roach timing attack and against Terran you'll be starved out.
As a Zerg player, if you spawn close positions you need to not macro so much. All these zergs who make 40+ drones without so much as 2 zerglings and queen just doesn't cut it. Zerg is a strong race, but you cannot be too greedy with close positions. If you wanna play a macro game, get a nydus to expand safely and to be able to defend several positions. close positions forces zerg to either play smart or lose. I think having close positions help zerg players think more while they are ingame and forces them to play outside of their comfort zone.
Marine Tank is very hard to play against though xD. But it is not impossible! To my fellow Zergies, stop wining and think through the game more. You can do it c:
Huh? Who makes 40+ drones without so much as 2 zerglings when they scout aggression from an opponent? People saying "stop playing greedy' are just ridiculous. That's like telling Terran don't play so scrubby, the only reason they lose games is because they are playing scrubby. Stop scrubbing and you'll win more.
Sure, you can win on close spawn. You can win any game, but on close spawn it's not likely. Even pros sometimes leave a wall in opened temporarily on accident, or get supply blocked.
The only map I don't mind "close" spawns is XNC and that ofc is good old XNC!
I don't enjoy trying to hold off 4- 6gate / 3-6rax it seems like every single close position game. Maybe it's just a wrong impression but the only chance at having a macro game as Zerg close positions is ZvZ.
It's not that T or P is OP it's just they have some strong early game push BOs and take advantage of that, I may not like it but usually if I lose to it it's because I didn't react properly. It's also shitty to have to make units and replacement units instead of drones when the other races don't have to sacrifice unit production time for economy or vice versa in the particular way that zerg does; I want drone drone drone and get a stack of larvae that's why those mean humans and protoss come at me =(
^ The problem isn't early game aggression on close spawns, things like 4 gate and ling speed/morph for banes make distance a non-issue. The problem is not being to take a third and being unable to drone up. Paired with lack of zerg early game scouting, it's quite ridiculous.
3000+ people and if you think the majority of them are Zerg players, I think you're just trolling. Aside from 20% of voters, close spawn should be eliminated. I'm sure these results could be replicated in numerous polls. I'm also sure I am yet to see an argument that makes sense posted by someone who said no.
But I have seen many arguments that flat out state they don't want close positions removed because they want easy wins.
I'm pretty sure almost every terran voted no and every non-terran voted yes. People just want whats best for them, and thats why I like close spawns.
I'm not surprised at how many people want close spawns to be removed, considering that protoss and zerg are much more numerous on tl than terrans. (I remember seeing a poll taken in may that shows this, I can't find the link though).
I'm going to go ahead and directly attack your intelligence. -> "Iconsidering that protoss and zerg are much more numerous on tl than terrans". Really? 2 out of 3 races are more numerous than one?
I cannot stand the prevailing mentality of Terrans that what we've complained about is unfair. Terrans can stop rushes better than either race on one base, deny scouting and scout better than either race and recover from mistakes easier than any other race. If I win close positions ZvT the only reason is I was a much, much better player. There is no game or strategy. It's pure luck- unless my opponent is a joke.
Hopefully you understand a small amount of the frustration that the other races feel playing close positions. I doubt it, as Dustin Browder himself has shown how painfully ignorant he is.
Luckily the tournament community realized long ago that this issue has been decided. Close positions are broken.
There should be close positions, but some balance changes are required. Why keep close positons? Well, it adds something to the game, since it forces players to have more strategies in their arsenal, thereby making the game a bit more interesting. I prefere long macro games, but it's exciting to know that I may be in a situation where my opponent is going all in (this just makes the first 8 minutes of the game more interesting).
The point is that if we eliminate close positions, the game becomes more predictable.
On July 21 2011 02:29 Vague wrote: There should be close positions, but some balance changes are required. Why keep close positons? Well, it adds something to the game, since it forces players to have more strategies in their arsenal, thereby making the game a bit more interesting. I prefere long macro games, but it's exciting to know that I may be in a situation where my opponent is going all in (this just makes the first 8 minutes of the game more interesting).
The point is that if we eliminate close positions, the game becomes more predictable.
I don't get statements like that. People want more variety or less predictability, so they are FOR positions that essentially pigeon hole a person into a very small amount of options?
I feel like close spawns are imbalanced because you cannot take a third, and Zerg (atleast as of right now) doesn't really have the same strong 1-2 base options that Terran/Protoss do.
Most times I spawn close positions I either roach-ling allin, or baneling bust if I see an opportunity (like a 3 supply depot wall for example.).
And Terran/Toss players aren't stupid, they know that a Zerg player is in deep if they try to take a third and are likely just to allin. Hell, I recall Jinro saying something similar before.
3000+ people and if you think the majority of them are Zerg players, I think you're just trolling. Aside from 20% of voters, close spawn should be eliminated. I'm sure these results could be replicated in numerous polls. I'm also sure I am yet to see an argument that makes sense posted by someone who said no.
But I have seen many arguments that flat out state they don't want close positions removed because they want easy wins.
I'm pretty sure almost every terran voted no and every non-terran voted yes. People just want whats best for them, and thats why I like close spawns.
I'm not surprised at how many people want close spawns to be removed, considering that protoss and zerg are much more numerous on tl than terrans. (I remember seeing a poll taken in may that shows this, I can't find the link though).
I'm going to go ahead and directly attack your intelligence. -> "Iconsidering that protoss and zerg are much more numerous on tl than terrans". Really? 2 out of 3 races are more numerous than one?
I cannot stand the prevailing mentality of Terrans that what we've complained about is unfair. Terrans can stop rushes better than either race on one base, deny scouting and scout better than either race and recover from mistakes easier than any other race. If I win close positions ZvT the only reason is I was a much, much better player. There is no game or strategy. It's pure luck- unless my opponent is a joke.
Hopefully you understand a small amount of the frustration that the other races feel playing close positions. I doubt it, as Dustin Browder himself has shown how painfully ignorant he is.
Luckily the tournament community realized long ago that this issue has been decided. Close positions are broken.
What I meant was that terrans are less numerous than both zergs and protoss, I assumed that anyone with a brain would understand that.
I cannot stand the prevailing mentality of Zergs that they are much better than terran opponents when they win, and that whenever they lose, the game is somehow imbalanced. Learn to take a loss like a man and stop blaming it on race imbalance.
^ Where does any Zerg say they are much better than Terran opponents, and what does that have to do with close spawns?
While at the shitty starcraft2.com forums everyone qqs about imbalance, this is a mature discussion about the brokenness of close spawns. It's not race imbalance, it's map imbalance, and we've already seen how broken certain maps can be, and that the races are perfectly balanced at the moment barring ridiculous maps.
Just out of curiosity, I'm looking for all these statistics people are spouting off. I'm having trouble finding current statistics that are specifically what we're looking for. [Keep in mind most people resort to Correlation = Causation fallacies.]
Btw, this poll doesn't accurately affect the statistics we're debating over.
Voting No as well. Blizzard themself has stated in recent HotS interviews that things are seeming pretty balanced to them. There's only 2 things they're looking at and we don't quite know what they are.
Once again, keep in mind people inherently want to win 3/4 games and consider that balanced. The problem with that is it isn't "balanced" for the other people that are losing 3/4 games. In general people blame losses on the first thing they can point a finger at instead of pointing it at themselves, and keep in mind people generally LOOK for statistics that support their theory instead of looking at the real statistics and drawing theories from those.
I wouldn't say close positions benefit one race more than another. I do feel that it take enjoyment out of the game because I know it will most likely end up being one base play which is lame in my opinion.
Once again, keep in mind people inherently want to win 3/4 games and consider that balanced. The problem with that is it isn't "balanced" for the other people that are losing 3/4 games. In general people blame losses on the first thing they can point a finger at instead of pointing it at themselves, and keep in mind people generally LOOK for statistics that support their theory instead of looking at the real statistics and drawing theories from those.
If every single map was close spawn and 'broken' that'd be fine, but the issue is on ladder you are matched with an opponent. Generally the map is normal spawns, normal distance, and the game is considered an even match. But sometimes, it's close spawn.
However, I guess we could assume the matchmaking system takes into account those 5-10% games on close spawn. I guess that means Zerg generally are always better players than their opponents on ladder, rofl.
On July 23 2011 06:53 Belial88 wrote: However, I guess we could assume the matchmaking system takes into account those 5-10% games on close spawn. I guess that means Zerg generally are always better players than their opponents on ladder, rofl.
This is exactly why we can't seriously talk balance discussions here. Saying things like this only says that players "deserve" wins because they're "better". If your requirement for being the better player means click more buttons more often, go play Mario Party where the minigames actually require hitting buttons the fastest.
Starcraft 2 is about timings, its about strategy, its not about who's the faster at hitting buttons. Its a war game, and EVERYTHING is fair in war. You do what you can to win. If you "feel" like he didn't win because he did X and X is cheesy, then you still lost to X, and didn't prepare for X. Its like saying "I ran 5 miles today, but I really feel like I ran 10 miles, so I deserve the 10 mile count." When you don't. It doesn't mean anything. You ran 5.
Rushing is a viable strategy, and you CAN hold it off regardless of race. Pro's have been doing it for a long time. The only thing stopping you from winning is you. Fix it, don't fix it so others lose, fix it so you win. [If that makes sense]
Once again, keep in mind people inherently want to win 3/4 games and consider that balanced. The problem with that is it isn't "balanced" for the other people that are losing 3/4 games. In general people blame losses on the first thing they can point a finger at instead of pointing it at themselves, and keep in mind people generally LOOK for statistics that support their theory instead of looking at the real statistics and drawing theories from those.
If every single map was close spawn and 'broken' that'd be fine, but the issue is on ladder you are matched with an opponent. Generally the map is normal spawns, normal distance, and the game is considered an even match. But sometimes, it's close spawn.
However, I guess we could assume the matchmaking system takes into account those 5-10% games on close spawn. I guess that means Zerg generally are always better players than their opponents on ladder, rofl.
So basically, you think that because close spawns exist, zergs are better and more skilled than any other race on ladder... Please just learn to accept that your non-zerg opponent beat you because they are actually better than you, not because of some non-existant OPness.
[edit: post may not be as clever, as close pos is disabled on shakuras, which I didn't consider]
blizz will never remove it, because it's kind of hard to explain to casual gamers where they can spawn. you know, those who do not even know the term 'close positions'. If blizzard says yeah you can spawn whereever you want but your opponent is actually not next to you in direction X, the player is prob confused. If you play for the first time, you just don't understand if the person can spawn close air? or close ground? why?And many would not know, given those who do know a tiny scout advantage. so blizzard just goes 'go ahead and change them in tournaments, we keep them'. and I somehow understand it considering how difficult it is for new players to just play the game.
so on the one hand close pos is def imbalance (r we even discussing this?), but on the other hand, I can somehow understand why blizzard keeps them...
Did you seriously just say Blizzard will never remove a imbalanced map feature because new players may not know about it? You do realize that Shakuras plateau has close ground disabled. I've never heard anyone complain about that one.
On July 23 2011 09:08 Probe1 wrote: Did you seriously just say Blizzard will never remove a imbalanced map feature because new players may not know about it? You do realize that Shakuras plateau has close ground disabled. I've never heard anyone complain about that one.
hmm. ackknowledged. not much too say. that's a valid point. I still feel like this is kinda unfair for new players.
On July 23 2011 09:08 Probe1 wrote: Did you seriously just say Blizzard will never remove a imbalanced map feature because new players may not know about it? You do realize that Shakuras plateau has close ground disabled. I've never heard anyone complain about that one.
hmm. ackknowledged. not much too say. that's a valid point. I still feel like this is kinda unfair for new players.
Unfair? How? New players will be competing against each other, so I fail to see what is unfair about them being oblivious to the fact that close positions are disabled. Besides, why is this very minor issue outweigh the balance of higher level play, where the people who commit far more time have to suffer? There is a lot of things new players have absolutely no idea about, that's what learning is for.
On July 23 2011 06:53 Belial88 wrote: However, I guess we could assume the matchmaking system takes into account those 5-10% games on close spawn. I guess that means Zerg generally are always better players than their opponents on ladder, rofl.
This is exactly why we can't seriously talk balance discussions here. Saying things like this only says that players "deserve" wins because they're "better". If your requirement for being the better player means click more buttons more often, go play Mario Party where the minigames actually require hitting buttons the fastest.
Starcraft 2 is about timings, its about strategy, its not about who's the faster at hitting buttons. Its a war game, and EVERYTHING is fair in war. You do what you can to win. If you "feel" like he didn't win because he did X and X is cheesy, then you still lost to X, and didn't prepare for X. Its like saying "I ran 5 miles today, but I really feel like I ran 10 miles, so I deserve the 10 mile count." When you don't. It doesn't mean anything. You ran 5.
Rushing is a viable strategy, and you CAN hold it off regardless of race. Pro's have been doing it for a long time. The only thing stopping you from winning is you. Fix it, don't fix it so others lose, fix it so you win. [If that makes sense]
The problem is, there are strategies that with close spawn are actually imbalanced. Let me lend you an example - in close spawns on Metalopolis, a Terran who does a three barracks all-in is AHEAD of a Zerg opponent, regardless of what the Zerg does. The reason for this is that the Terran WILL necessarily either destroy the natural expansion outright, or at the very least cut into the Zerg's capacity to make drones for a long while.
Oh, and the Terran is able to maintain this pressure AND safely take an expansion, because of the income granted from MULEs. So it's not really all-in, but it forces an all-in defense from a Zerg player.
Now, on NON-CLOSE spawns, in the same situation, the extra distance means that reinforcing units are slower to get to the Zerg players base, the defender's advantage is greater, and the Zerg can hold the all-in without falling behind. It's because of this that tournaments disable close spawn positions - They allow safe aggression and expansion and economy growth to one race, while disabling all of the above from another, and that's not balanced.
On July 23 2011 06:53 Belial88 wrote: However, I guess we could assume the matchmaking system takes into account those 5-10% games on close spawn. I guess that means Zerg generally are always better players than their opponents on ladder, rofl.
This is exactly why we can't seriously talk balance discussions here. Saying things like this only says that players "deserve" wins because they're "better". If your requirement for being the better player means click more buttons more often, go play Mario Party where the minigames actually require hitting buttons the fastest.
Starcraft 2 is about timings, its about strategy, its not about who's the faster at hitting buttons. Its a war game, and EVERYTHING is fair in war. You do what you can to win. If you "feel" like he didn't win because he did X and X is cheesy, then you still lost to X, and didn't prepare for X. Its like saying "I ran 5 miles today, but I really feel like I ran 10 miles, so I deserve the 10 mile count." When you don't. It doesn't mean anything. You ran 5.
Rushing is a viable strategy, and you CAN hold it off regardless of race. Pro's have been doing it for a long time. The only thing stopping you from winning is you. Fix it, don't fix it so others lose, fix it so you win. [If that makes sense]
Uh.... did you even read my post at all? I was saying if, as Kiaro argued, that the game/ladder is balanced now, which is only because of the inclusion of close spawn maps that obviously no Zerg ever win 5-10% when it happens, that must mean that Zerg are naturally better than their opponents that they meet with - approximately 5-10% better. It also may mean that Zerg is 5-10% 'imbalanced' as in 5-10% better than the other races, but close spawns 5-10% of the time means that every race as a 50% win ratio.
This, of course, is a fucking ass backwards thing to say, but this is only using Kiaro's logic that close spawn should stay in the game because they make sure the game is balanced, according to whatever statistics he is pulling out of thin air (bbbbbut I win only 50% of the time on ladder!).
blizz will never remove it, because it's kind of hard to explain to casual gamers where they can spawn. you know, those who do not even know the term 'close positions'. If blizzard says yeah you can spawn whereever you want but your opponent is actually not next to you in direction X, the player is prob confused. If you play for the first time, you just don't understand if the person can spawn close air? or close ground? why?And many would not know, given those who do know a tiny scout advantage. so blizzard just goes 'go ahead and change them in tournaments, we keep them'. and I somehow understand it considering how difficult it is for new players to just play the game.
so on the one hand close pos is def imbalance (r we even discussing this?), but on the other hand, I can somehow understand why blizzard keeps them...
What? New 'casual' players don't even know what map they are playing on, let alone worried about close spawn. They don't even scout with a worker, why would they care about close spawn? Ask any bronze league player how much map positions even matter to them.
And not only that, but low league Zerg players know that close spawn is broken too. People seem to think that like close spawn adds variety, helps new players, such on and so on, but I think you fail to realize that EVERY zerg player just hates close spawn. Like, it's not even a fun game. It's not high pressure, it's not some intense game, no, it's just stressful and fucking miserable. Why would you want to play a game that is stressful and miserable?
edit: I also want to clear up that I don't think close spawns are broken because of 3 rax, 2 rax, 2 gate, 2 rax scv all in, etc rush strats (things like 4 gate and speedling/baneling all-in negate map distance anyways), close spawns are only broken because of MACRO games. A zerg will never win a macro game against T/P on close spawn Metal or ST. Ever.
Close positions do mean quicker reinforcements, but only in terms of distance: the intervals between attacks should remain the same. Close positions also allow for faster attacks and counterattacks, which ensure a back-and-forth game and lots of small skirmishes. Personally, I find that much more interesting to watch and play than two maxed armies headbutting into each other.
Close positions lend themselves to shorter games. Of course they do. But they also make the games more exciting, they allow for more variety (ever see Hydralisks in cross positions against Terran?), and they make the 'unclaimed' territory far larger, which inevitably means more room for flanks, hidden expansions, run-bys, etc...
And I play Random, so I do experience close positions as Zerg. I stand by my statements.
Blizzard uses the justification that they want more rush oriented maps for lower league players who like to rush. But to be honest, all rushes will work against lower players regardless of the rush distance. A 7rr vs a noob is going to work cross pos or close pos. It's just the truth.
On July 25 2011 07:44 Phayze wrote: Blizzard uses the justification that they want more rush oriented maps for lower league players who like to rush. But to be honest, all rushes will work against lower players regardless of the rush distance. A 7rr vs a noob is going to work cross pos or close pos. It's just the truth.
You'd think with their logic- "We like to cater to those who like rushing"- they'd allow those who don't like those rushes to opt for a veto to close positions. That way, people who want rushes can, and those who don't don't have to play it.
On July 23 2011 06:53 Belial88 wrote: However, I guess we could assume the matchmaking system takes into account those 5-10% games on close spawn. I guess that means Zerg generally are always better players than their opponents on ladder, rofl.
Starcraft 2 is about timings, its about strategy, its not about who's the faster at hitting buttons. Its a war game, and EVERYTHING is fair in war. You do what you can to win. If you "feel" like he didn't win because he did X and X is cheesy, then you still lost to X, and didn't prepare for X. Its like saying "I ran 5 miles today, but I really feel like I ran 10 miles, so I deserve the 10 mile count." When you don't. It doesn't mean anything. You ran 5.
Rushing is a viable strategy, and you CAN hold it off regardless of race. Pro's have been doing it for a long time. The only thing stopping you from winning is you. Fix it, don't fix it so others lose, fix it so you win. [If that makes sense]
You argue that SC2 is about timings, then argue for close position spawns? The timing difference between close position and normal/far position spawns is fairly significant in high level play.
Also, look at the success of bitbybit for evidence against the argument of pros holding off rushes in close spawn positions. If anything, close positions force you to rush, because you lose if you dont rush yourself.
On July 25 2011 07:39 K9GM3 wrote: Close positions lend themselves to shorter games. Of course they do. But they also make the games more exciting, they allow for more variety (ever see Hydralisks in cross positions against Terran?), and they make the 'unclaimed' territory far larger, which inevitably means more room for flanks, hidden expansions, run-bys, etc...
The only people that could logically want close positions are those that either don't understand the Zerg side of close positions or those who want much easier wins against Zerg when close positions are present.
Close spawns make games more uninteresting because they force Zerg to do a one or two base desparation all in. The other race merely has to play defensively and then collect an easy win when the attack fails. Zerg avoids Hydralisks not because they take forever to get anywhere, but because they greatly under perform in most battles and most situations. Hydralisks are fast enough on creep to be a defensive unit, but most battles don't happen on creep. Even in close spawns you wont be able to fight on creep. Hydralisks are too expensive and die too easily to be worth the investment.
More flanks, run-byes, and hidden expansions? That is completely ridiculous. Every base a Zerg can logically take as a third is "hidden." Run-byes work best when the main enemy army is too far away from a location to properly defend it. In close positions the army only has to point their guns in the other direction to defend the run by. Close positions also prohibit flanking. Close positions on Metalopolis basically require you to run into their natural and back behind their army to flank. Shattered temple also has some terrain that blocks additional angles of attack.
I'd like to see someone bring forth a valid argument for this because I think it would be interesting. I wont hold my breath. Close positions is not only imbalanced at the professional level, but it is also imbalanced as far down as platinum. It could also be imbalanced in the lower leagues, but I don't have experience there.
Close positions do mean quicker reinforcements, but only in terms of distance: the intervals between attacks should remain the same. Close positions also allow for faster attacks and counterattacks, which ensure a back-and-forth game and lots of small skirmishes. Personally, I find that much more interesting to watch and play than two maxed armies headbutting into each other.
Actually close positions discourage counterattacks. Despite having much, much faster units (zerglings vs mech), the slower units would get to the enemy base so quickly that the player cannot counterattack and then get back to his base to defend in time. All close spawn does is reward a player for making a huge, slow 1amove army, and punishes players who rely on mobility and harassment to force the enemy to stay in their base.
It makes PFs really ridiculous as well, as T can just expand toward their opponent.
Close positions lend themselves to shorter games. Of course they do. But they also make the games more exciting, they allow for more variety (ever see Hydralisks in cross positions against Terran?), and they make the 'unclaimed' territory far larger, which inevitably means more room for flanks, hidden expansions, run-bys, etc...
For Zerg, the only reason they are shorter games is because they have to all-in on close spawn, because they know that if they play a macro game on close spawn they will always lose. This sucks though, considering how bad Zerg all-ins are compared to T/P all-ins and defense.
It's great your random, but what league are you in? Hidden expos don't really work past Diamond, and are basically cheese because if the opponent finds out, you autolose. If they don't, you autowin, but you are only hoping they don't realize your army is bigger than it should be and doesn't scout or realize what your position is. Runbys also don't work on close spawn because T/P just expand toward you and turtle up, there is nothing to runby and if you do, they can hit your base so fast your screwed for moving out with your units at all.
Starcraft 2 is about timings, its about strategy, its not about who's the faster at hitting buttons. Its a war game, and EVERYTHING is fair in war. You do what you can to win. If you "feel" like he didn't win because he did X and X is cheesy, then you still lost to X, and didn't prepare for X. Its like saying "I ran 5 miles today, but I really feel like I ran 10 miles, so I deserve the 10 mile count." When you don't. It doesn't mean anything. You ran 5.
This guy sounds both delusional and non-Zerg. While this is a war game, this is definitely not war. So not 'everything is far' in this game, rofl. You make the game imbalanced, it's just less fun to play. It's taken less seriously. It hurts e-sports bro. And obviously, you aren't a Zerg player or you wouldn't say such a ridiculous thing. While you may say it's 'fair in war', it's not a fair game, which means it's bad game design. Only Terran and Protoss appreciate close spawns, but if you played Zerg you'd find it really fucking aggravating it's just autoloss on these maps.
I agree that it is seems much more difficult for zerg to win on such close position spawns. And you're right that it provides for less exciting games. I would love for Blizzard to change this for the ladder.
By the way I play protoss, so I'm not agreeing because I am zerg.
On July 26 2011 01:40 SLTR.Maverick wrote: I agree that it is seems much more difficult for zerg to win on such close position spawns. And you're right that it provides for less exciting games. I would love for Blizzard to change this for the ladder.
By the way I play protoss, so I'm not agreeing because I am zerg.
I play Protoss and I am the same way. Close positions make for silly games in any match up. Zerg is totally screwed and protoss doesn't really like it much.
The lack of excitement in such games is the most valid argument - I agree, and generally prefer macro maps. Unfortunately Blizzard seems to think the casual player would prefer fast maps for quick games, which I think is a mistake on their assessment. But I also have to add that generally there should be strategies that allow each race to beat each other race, even if they spawn literally next to each other. Maybe there's a way to scout with a starting drone and throw very early pool in that case; and in the other case the general macro advantage should compensate this mining loss.
Close positions do mean quicker reinforcements, but only in terms of distance: the intervals between attacks should remain the same. Close positions also allow for faster attacks and counterattacks, which ensure a back-and-forth game and lots of small skirmishes. Personally, I find that much more interesting to watch and play than two maxed armies headbutting into each other.
Actually close positions discourage counterattacks. Despite having much, much faster units (zerglings vs mech), the slower units would get to the enemy base so quickly that the player cannot counterattack and then get back to his base to defend in time. All close spawn does is reward a player for making a huge, slow 1amove army, and punishes players who rely on mobility and harassment to force the enemy to stay in their base.
It makes PFs really ridiculous as well, as T can just expand toward their opponent.
Close positions lend themselves to shorter games. Of course they do. But they also make the games more exciting, they allow for more variety (ever see Hydralisks in cross positions against Terran?), and they make the 'unclaimed' territory far larger, which inevitably means more room for flanks, hidden expansions, run-bys, etc...
For Zerg, the only reason they are shorter games is because they have to all-in on close spawn, because they know that if they play a macro game on close spawn they will always lose. This sucks though, considering how bad Zerg all-ins are compared to T/P all-ins and defense.
It's great your random, but what league are you in? Hidden expos don't really work past Diamond, and are basically cheese because if the opponent finds out, you autolose. If they don't, you autowin, but you are only hoping they don't realize your army is bigger than it should be and doesn't scout or realize what your position is. Runbys also don't work on close spawn because T/P just expand toward you and turtle up, there is nothing to runby and if you do, they can hit your base so fast your screwed for moving out with your units at all.
Your reasoning doesn't make any sense at all. Since close spawns makes your opponenents and your own base much closer together, counterattacks have an easier time not only doing damage to your opponent but also getting back to your own base to defend becasue the 2 bases are so close together.
Also stop being such an elitest, diamond isn't very good so at least get good at the game before you pull out the league card. What you are saying about hidden expo's is complete bull. Ever watch the GSL or any other pro game? They take hidden expo's all the time! If you're zerg, its really easy to take a hidden expos cause your army is so mobile. Especailly against a meching terran, which is immobile as hell. Even if your hidden expo is found out about, if your opponent goes and tries to take it out, just counterattack them (which you can do, even on close spawns).
Starcraft 2 is about timings, its about strategy, its not about who's the faster at hitting buttons. Its a war game, and EVERYTHING is fair in war. You do what you can to win. If you "feel" like he didn't win because he did X and X is cheesy, then you still lost to X, and didn't prepare for X. Its like saying "I ran 5 miles today, but I really feel like I ran 10 miles, so I deserve the 10 mile count." When you don't. It doesn't mean anything. You ran 5.
This guy sounds both delusional and non-Zerg. While this is a war game, this is definitely not war. So not 'everything is far' in this game, rofl. You make the game imbalanced, it's just less fun to play. It's taken less seriously. It hurts e-sports bro. And obviously, you aren't a Zerg player or you wouldn't say such a ridiculous thing. While you may say it's 'fair in war', it's not a fair game, which means it's bad game design. Only Terran and Protoss appreciate close spawns, but if you played Zerg you'd find it really fucking aggravating it's just autoloss on these maps.
So, zerg players never say "stupid" things? Wow, what a zerg supremecist. Nobody likes racists.
-.- Too predictable as in unable to allin and not play a macro game? Why does Blizzard have a problem with having good games? Meta without close spawn was one of the best maps we had. I dont wnat to see it after balance tinkring
Overall balance has also proven to be an issue on Metalopolis -- even factoring in close position spawn issues. It’s among the least balanced maps currently in the ladder pool[...]