they should reintroduce blood bath imo.
The Close Spawning Position [poll] - Page 8
Forum Index > SC2 General |
Gak2
Canada418 Posts
they should reintroduce blood bath imo. | ||
Tookie22
United States187 Posts
On April 01 2011 12:30 Gak2 wrote: voted no. they should reintroduce blood bath imo. >.> | ||
NeonFox
2373 Posts
| ||
phisku
Belgium864 Posts
| ||
CryMeAReaper
Denmark1135 Posts
| ||
michglich
United States29 Posts
| ||
Iyerbeth
England2410 Posts
Tournaments skipping out close positions I think is alright though. | ||
Pred8oar
Germany281 Posts
| ||
Morphs
Netherlands645 Posts
Reducing spine build time would be a first step and IMO the buildtime is already a bit too long now.. it wouldn't be enough though.. For the rest.. T and P got all kinds of nice early game options that are strong too. Zerg either doesn't have them or they aren't discovered yet. | ||
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
close spawns allows different tactics for any race and its not a problem anymore, plus you get really intense battles. It really annoys me when people talk about that the game is to simple and at the same time want to simplyfi it for themself, because they learned one pro strat and can execute it, so they are high up in ladder, but refuse to learn other strats to keep up on different maps or positions. But i guess people prefer the 240x60 map with no cliffs except the main. makes me think of ff13 and suddenly i understand why they did what they did . | ||
Kvz
United States463 Posts
| ||
Alver
United States177 Posts
| ||
Tofugrinder
Austria899 Posts
| ||
Bagi
Germany6799 Posts
I think that close positions are an important part of the game, and that macro games aren't always the most exciting ones. A good balance can most likely be found here - remove maps that have too close positions (like metal), but keep close positions an option on maps like Backwater Gulch (such an underrated map, we've seen amazing games on that in the NASL). Being able to play an active, aggressive game on close positions is a skill a good player should have. | ||
Absentia
United Kingdom973 Posts
Close position play isn't so bad a problem as the lack of expansions for Zerg when playing close position on certain maps. Take metalopolis, for example. I find close position ZvT extremely exciting because it often begins with a micro intensive early game. On a map such as metalopolis however, you can often be forced to 2 base all in as Zerg simply because anything greater than 2 base close position play becomes extremely difficult to do. So whilst I don't think spawning close positions is necessarily bad in itself, I think that the maps on which close spawning can occur are. As such, close spawn positions should be removed on those maps. I think it would be interesting if a map opened with close spawn positions but had expansions behind it, (leading gradually further away from the opponents main). It could possibly lead to some interesting dynamics, (and greater nydus worm usage). | ||
WniO
United States2706 Posts
why not make lost temple and metalopolis 2 player maps and change the other two mains into something more interesting and not so awkward. | ||
Lobotomist
United States1541 Posts
ZvP is a total toss up as well. I pretty much roach/speedling every ZvP close positions on Temple and Metalopolis and it gets me quite a few wins, but it's really up to whether the protoss has good FFs or not. | ||
jere
United States121 Posts
I just remembered a game TvP on Metalopolis where close spawn was disabled so the Terran proxies a rax for Marauder got them there so fast that it basically won the game with like the first two units that just not fun for anyone. So it could create new imbalances without the close spawn. | ||
Iyerbeth
England2410 Posts
| ||
DashedHopes
Canada414 Posts
| ||
| ||