The Close Spawning Position [poll] - Page 4
Forum Index > SC2 General |
sinani206
United States1959 Posts
| ||
Schnullerbacke13
Germany1199 Posts
| ||
LanTAs
United States1091 Posts
I like rushes, and being rushed =) | ||
schimmetje
Netherlands1104 Posts
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. | ||
Juddas
768 Posts
| ||
Gigaudas
Sweden1213 Posts
. | ||
Ruyguy
Canada988 Posts
| ||
schimmetje
Netherlands1104 Posts
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. | ||
Logarythm
United States264 Posts
| ||
Juddas
768 Posts
On March 31 2011 10:27 schimmetje wrote: 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 | ||
AndersE
Sweden25 Posts
I feel it would make the game less based on luck but at the same time, I feel it might become less dynamic. | ||
MuTT
United States398 Posts
| ||
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10156 Posts
I just hope things get resolved quickly :D | ||
Toads
Canada1795 Posts
| ||
KillerPlague
United States1386 Posts
| ||
Grezzz
United Kingdom78 Posts
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. | ||
Morbidius
Brazil3449 Posts
| ||
CapnAmerica
United States508 Posts
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! ). | ||
Stiver
Canada285 Posts
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. | ||
Deleted User 109835
629 Posts
| ||
| ||