|
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.
Note: This is my opinion, flame away!
|
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 14:00 me_viet wrote:Show nested quote +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 20 2011 14:12 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2011 14:00 me_viet wrote: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.
|
Of course.
Close positions puts a handicap on the current play style of Zerg. Take it out IMO.
|
On July 16 2011 18:09 enecateReAP wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2011 14:12 aksfjh wrote:On June 17 2011 14:00 me_viet wrote: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.
what does that tell you....
|
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.
|
|
|
|