|
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 MapsYes! (3087) 81% No! (state why below) (738) 19% 3825 total votes Your vote: Should Blizzard Eliminate Close Positions On These Maps (Vote): Yes!
(Vote): No! (state why below)
Be sure to comment as well Thanks for the read!
|
I guess it would be fair seeing as they removed steppes of war meaning that they did realise close rush distances are imba.
|
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.
|
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'.
|
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.
|
Slag Pits close spawns should definitely be disabled..
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
