I also think that Artosis has some great points as well. Im so sick and tired of hearing someone saying the word biased.... It's kind of like the word awesome, it's been used so much that it doesn't have any meaning anymore, especially in this thread. From a zergs point of view Artosis does a good job of communicating his worries,
Map Balance - The Worst of the Worst - Page 19
Forum Index > Closed |
Silkk
United States41 Posts
I also think that Artosis has some great points as well. Im so sick and tired of hearing someone saying the word biased.... It's kind of like the word awesome, it's been used so much that it doesn't have any meaning anymore, especially in this thread. From a zergs point of view Artosis does a good job of communicating his worries, | ||
beetlelisk
Poland2276 Posts
On June 21 2010 01:03 Fyrewolf wrote: I'm not going to go into alternate tactical use on these maps right, though I did touch on this briefly earlier, like using drops/nydus/burrowed movement to get around cramped area, but rather to incite the complete shutdown of this thread, on the grounds that there are only enough total games of SC2 played to date for 1 person (if they played every game to date) to be an expert at a race (not the game). What everyone doesn't seem to realize is that SC2 is NOT SC:BW. It also HASN"T EVEN BEEN RELEASED YET. Any discussion by anyone (besides Blizzard themselves) is completely ignorant. At this point in the game nobody has fleshed out ANY single build to its fullest potential. In case y'all don't remember, Brood War had many many many times where 1 race would dominate, and then someone would come around and revoutionize the matchup creatively and it would switch. Boxer started playing Terran when it was seen as underpowered. Savior (cheating asshole) was practically unbeatable until Bisu 3-0 him. Very rarely was there "balance" at any point in Starcraft history. And remember people, Blizzard has all the race stats globally, and divided by skill, matchup, region, server, etc. They can see if there is a discrepency in win rates, but the rates are different on different leagues and servers, like in the Asia sector where Zerg is dominating. Think back to TvZ in Brood War. There was so much tactical positioning and response to the enemy it was insane. Terran opens with MMF, which have their own micro idosyncracies, but then the Zerg respond with Lurkers. Lurkers normally pwned marines. Then we learned to micro the marines. Then Zerg throws down Dark Swarms, then we learn to tactically retreat our forces in battle. Or the Zerg learns Muta Micro and learns lots of delaying tactics. For instance, a zergling outside the natural tells you when T moves out, and you throw down sunken colonies only after. None of these ideas where around when SC was young, they came over a long learning period of years. SC 1 was very unbalanced until a good while after it came out, it wasn't until 1.08/1.09 that the game got really competitive. That's because strategy games have to evolve to even work. Blizzard had no idea how the balance was going to work out when they started SC 1. They let the community figure everything out. And that's the point. We have yet to figure out the many many aspects of SC2. All of Starcraft has EVOLVED over time. And since SC2 IS NOT SC:BW, no player anywhere, no matter his rank, can yet speak about issues like this. Even Artosis and Idra, with their heavy practice in their builds, still have yet to explore the entirety of their own builds, because SC2 will continue to evolve and throw new challenges towards their builds. I have a lot of respect for Artosis and Idra's skill in SC Brood War, but Brood War skill does not make you an expert at SC2. We have to look at SC2 play only to talk about SC2, and completely ignore any leftover biases or tendencies from Brood War, because they don't apply. And all of us are only playing a BETA, there is not enough SC2 data around for there to be any experts yet. The people that know most about the balance right now are the Blizzard testers. They're the only ones that can actually be objective at this point in development, since SC2 is still in utero. The idea that people are already so knowledgeable about a game(which isn't even FINISHED yet) that they are completely infallible and make absolutist claims (Z cannot beat T on DO), is completely insane. That's cool and dandy until you notice there were 15 patches. How do you know this game is balanced or not? You said it yourself that it is not finished yet. The only bad thing I can say about this article is it's name and I think it's the only thing that you read because at the beginning of the article itself Artosis uses word "discussion" multiple times. I can't see any claims about him mastering the Zerg race. Read this PLEASE NOTE #1: This article addresses only top-level play. Balance is impossible to properly address at lower levels because there are so many other factors to consider when looking at that level of play. and tell me what skill and experience do you have to call what Artosis writes inaccurate - this is what you mean by saying it's to early and we should wait for this game to evolve more. This PLEASE NOTE #2: I will be ignoring Mech vs Zerg. Properly played Mech is a very powerful strategy that is not yet fully understood which means it skews map and balance analysis in general, so we will discuss non-mech balance when talking about ZvT in this article. is the same as him saying that his knowledge about Zerg MUs isn't perfect, it isn't complete. And somehow you accuse him of making "absolutist claims". If someone says "let's discuss this" it's the same as "hey, I can be wrong" and once you dig into this thread and find his posts you can see that making absolutist claims is the last thing he wanted to make when writing this article. edit: BW has evolved but before each step people had problems with certain strategies. Since they had noticed it, they were talking and writing about it. I don't understand what's wrong about people writing what they find problematic. The worst thing that can happen is other top players sharing their point of view and experience they've earned on other servers. Don't forget that playstyles can differ between servers. | ||
antelope591
Canada820 Posts
On June 21 2010 01:49 iCCup.Diamond wrote: I don't think there is a single person in this thread that does not know Artosis has done leaps and bounds for the community. What I think the collective is upset about is since the release of SCII most of Artosis' main written pieces have become increasingly about bitching about how bad Zerg is and how every patch and well everything hurts them and makes them the weakest race in the game. For example this article would not get so much hate if he had consulted someone that was non Zerg. Frankly the old anolgy of "it true cause Idra said it" does not hold water anymore. He's not the top player in SCII and is known for his lack of innovation. As soon as he cannot mass one unit he cries IMBA. Artosis is the fucking man and I love u dude, but the community as a whole seems to be tired of you screaming Zerg are weak. When's the last time you have done any major balance discussion on Protoss? You have access to the same people in the community as me (ie: everyone) so use it. This week when we do the big map breakdown cast I'm planning I will include all Terran, Protoss, and Zerg. To get two Zerg players together (that play together non stop and have almost mirror styles) is not a good poll. You should look to include other players such as members of .Root, EG, Liquid, etc..... Again I love Artosis and watch everything he puts out for the community more than once but I feel this is what the community (me included) is really trying to say. Pretty much agreed with this whole post....I definitely think the maps Artosis discussed are bad. Hell I checked off DO a long time ago cause I just hate playing it. Kulas would be decent if they opened it up a bit though. However, it gets old seeing Artosis talk about how terrible zerg is and how strong other races are in every single artlice/post he makes =\ | ||
v3chr0
United States856 Posts
On June 21 2010 02:31 Salv wrote: Like ICCup.Diamond & Hider said, this has nothing to do with Artosis doing a lot for the community. Clearly there are a lot of people with the opinion that Artosis is far too biased towards his own race, which I personally find irritating when others and himself insist that he is being objective. This is a general complaint, as maybe Artosis will release another article detailing maps that Zerg is too strong on, but the overwhelming majority of Artosis' posts and articles always seem to favour Zerg if it's SC2 or Terran if it's SC1. It's a legitimate gripe. Once again, he plays Zerg, what do you expect? + Show Spoiler + On June 21 2010 02:32 DeMusliM wrote: Think most people here are seeing this article wrongly. It's pretty much a general conclusion that a couple of zergs have come up with - which by all means everyone is entitled to do so, and are sharing their view with others. People are seeing this as whine, or simply disagreeing with what is written because - something different happens to them. This article - along with the future few (which are going to talk about zerg's stronger maps) are all going to hit areas that both Artosis and Idra have touched on, and probaly more zerg players and are gonna share their experiences/views with others. I'm quite happy to read this from the other side - although i personally don't agree with every point made i do find it interesting. What people need to stop doing is seeing this article as a whinefest or what ever, i found it pretty nice seeing it from the other side of the table (a zerg's POV) and while i do like discussing stuff, alot of people failed to see the point, Maybe releasing an article on zerg's weaker maps first was a mistake - and should of maybe talked about 1 bad map, and 1 good map for zerg each week to look less biased or what ever - to cause less problems with viewers. This article was to share with others what zerg players have came to the conclusion over on certain maps - with fairly detailed reasons why, i'm pretty thankful, while some things like DO i would always class as a zerg map - i can some what see it from the other side. People need to stop being so heavy handed with their judgements and opinions - if someone chooses to share something, which he has also talked with friends, top level gamers about then by all means. If i chose to share my opinions - i wouldn't want this kind of response purely because some people disagree with what was said - this is what the beta was for after all, if everybody stayed silent - the game would of advanced on a set of foundations made of badness. People seem to forget that. Demuslim is definitely right, you guys have a different opinion and make it seem like if it's not in favor of your opinion, it's bias annoying slander. Don't read his articles if you think it's biased, it clearly isn't and he is just relaying all his experience playing Zerg, whats the big damn deal? Some things have to be written in one perspective so its not diluted and the points get across. Instead of Artosis filling the job of 8 people doing write ups and playing each race really thoroughly maybe more emphasis should be on others reading/doing more Terran and Protoss write ups if people are really threatened that Artosis complaints will turn Zerg into a landslide of death, which isn't the case, just sharing his/others perspective and ideas. | ||
Fyrewolf
United States1533 Posts
On June 21 2010 03:01 beetlelisk wrote: That's cool and dandy until you notice there were 15 patches. How do you know this game is balanced or not? You said it yourself that it is not finished yet. The only bad thing I can say about this article is it's name and I think it's the only thing that you read because at the beginning of the article itself Artosis uses word "discussion" multiple times. I can't see any claims about him mastering the Zerg race. Read this and tell me what skill and experience do you have to call what Artosis writes inaccurate - this is what you mean by saying it's to early and we should wait for this game to evolve more. This is the same as him saying that his knowledge about Zerg MUs isn't perfect, it isn't complete. And somehow you accuse him of making "absolutist claims". If someone says "let's discuss this" it's the same as "hey, I can be wrong" and once you dig into this thread and find his posts you can see that making absolutist claims is the last thing he wanted to make when writing this article. edit: BW has evolved but before each step people had problems with certain strategies. Since they had noticed it, they were talking and writing about it. I don't understand what's wrong about people writing what they find problematic. The worst thing that can happen is other top players sharing their point of view and experience they've earned on other servers. Don't forget that playstyles can differ between servers. You misunderstand me. I would very much wish that this be a discussion. However, this article is not written to foster discussion. My main gripe is the complete lack of detail in the article. I did the read the entire thing more than once, and my problem is that he glosses over every single aspect he brings up. If you want to discuss something, discuss it, don't just mention it and give an ultimatum that the matchup is impossible on the map. Every single point brung up in the original article is explained quite shallowly. No responses to problems are discussed, only that they exist, and many of them overlap (wide open expansion, ledge behind rocks). Instead of trying to explore solutions the article merely dismisses any attempt the Zerg could make to do anything against the problems. This article is not discussion. This article is a rant. | ||
Rabbet
Canada404 Posts
I really liked the Blizzard map pool during the beta. The maps had variety and you saw a wide range of play styles on each of them. Sure, there might be some issues with particular maps and a given play style, but without this variety in the map pool many aspects of the game would have gone untouched and untested. Having a base with a breakable back door was really frustrating to me, but Blizzard had to test the idea out to see if it could work. The breakable rock back doors actually added a lot of value to certain maps as variant strategies were available. The more I read here and the more streams I watch, the more I get the impression that people want this game to be just like Brood War. Creating the game to be exactly like Brood War would be boring and there is already very little difference in the units that are currently in the game compared with BW. To me the main difference between the two games is user interface and graphics. With that said, I hope it is not the case that a Zerg player MUST do a quick expansion just like I hope it is not the case that Protoss MUST FE vs. a Zerg. | ||
Sadistx
Zimbabwe5568 Posts
On June 21 2010 03:23 Fyrewolf wrote: + Show Spoiler + On June 21 2010 03:01 beetlelisk wrote: That's cool and dandy until you notice there were 15 patches. How do you know this game is balanced or not? You said it yourself that it is not finished yet. The only bad thing I can say about this article is it's name and I think it's the only thing that you read because at the beginning of the article itself Artosis uses word "discussion" multiple times. I can't see any claims about him mastering the Zerg race. Read this and tell me what skill and experience do you have to call what Artosis writes inaccurate - this is what you mean by saying it's to early and we should wait for this game to evolve more. This is the same as him saying that his knowledge about Zerg MUs isn't perfect, it isn't complete. And somehow you accuse him of making "absolutist claims". If someone says "let's discuss this" it's the same as "hey, I can be wrong" and once you dig into this thread and find his posts you can see that making absolutist claims is the last thing he wanted to make when writing this article. edit: BW has evolved but before each step people had problems with certain strategies. Since they had noticed it, they were talking and writing about it. I don't understand what's wrong about people writing what they find problematic. The worst thing that can happen is other top players sharing their point of view and experience they've earned on other servers. Don't forget that playstyles can differ between servers. You misunderstand me. I would very much wish that this be a discussion. However, this article is not written to foster discussion. My main gripe is the complete lack of detail in the article. I did the read the entire thing more than once, and my problem is that he glosses over every single aspect he brings up. If you want to discuss something, discuss it, don't just mention it and give an ultimatum that the matchup is impossible on the map. Every single point brung up in the original article is explained quite shallowly. No responses to problems are discussed, only that they exist, and many of them overlap (wide open expansion, ledge behind rocks). Instead of trying to explore solutions the article merely dismisses any attempt the Zerg could make to do anything against the problems. This article is not discussion. This article is a rant. You're right, it's a rant, and on most forums rants in balance forums get closed almost immediately, and the only reason this one isn't still is because Artosis wrote it and mentioned IdrA. Also, Artosis hasn't posted since like page 10, so I'm hoping he realized it wasn't a very thought out article and there's really nothing to discuss until he presents substantiated arguments. | ||
Fyrewolf
United States1533 Posts
I would very much like to discuss any solutions to the perceived problems. Let's make this thread actually have a point, instead of just being a shoutfest. | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
I agree, Zerg is imbalanced. Could the spell checker for this site include into the reference "zerg" so that it doesn't get underlined as having the incorrect spelling? Protoss should be added to the spell checker reference. There is no spell checker - if you are using firefox, that's probably the built in spell checker you are seeing. | ||
Silkk
United States41 Posts
I think that the consensus of this thread is that terrain matters.... And it matters big time. Quite frankly the zerg race are incredibly deficient at using the terrain to there advantage. In many ways this makes sense as their units are not made to do so (a la the siege tank). To me instead of saying a map needs to be changed i think it should be more along the lines of, how can zerg better deal with the problems that terrain creates. Right now there are no answers and i think we can all agree that we want maps with cliffs and other great terrain features. | ||
USn
United States376 Posts
| ||
DooMDash
United States1015 Posts
| ||
lovewithlea
168 Posts
On June 21 2010 03:33 Fyrewolf wrote: If anyone is interested in exploring solutions to the problems, please post on this thread. However, if you aren't going to advance any ideas of how to deal with problems please refrain from posting and flaming any of the venerable members. I would very much like to discuss any solutions to the perceived problems. Let's make this thread actually have a point, instead of just being a shoutfest. good point there. btt: i wonder if most of the adressed problems are really map issues. imo the problem lies in zergs need of a very early expansion and therefore struggling defending both while saturating. just writing this feals wrong, since i kinda want zerg to need a fast expansion just because i am used to due to SC:BW. | ||
Salv
Canada3083 Posts
On June 21 2010 03:16 v3chr0 wrote: Once again, he plays Zerg, what do you expect? + Show Spoiler + On June 21 2010 02:32 DeMusliM wrote: Think most people here are seeing this article wrongly. It's pretty much a general conclusion that a couple of zergs have come up with - which by all means everyone is entitled to do so, and are sharing their view with others. People are seeing this as whine, or simply disagreeing with what is written because - something different happens to them. This article - along with the future few (which are going to talk about zerg's stronger maps) are all going to hit areas that both Artosis and Idra have touched on, and probaly more zerg players and are gonna share their experiences/views with others. I'm quite happy to read this from the other side - although i personally don't agree with every point made i do find it interesting. What people need to stop doing is seeing this article as a whinefest or what ever, i found it pretty nice seeing it from the other side of the table (a zerg's POV) and while i do like discussing stuff, alot of people failed to see the point, Maybe releasing an article on zerg's weaker maps first was a mistake - and should of maybe talked about 1 bad map, and 1 good map for zerg each week to look less biased or what ever - to cause less problems with viewers. This article was to share with others what zerg players have came to the conclusion over on certain maps - with fairly detailed reasons why, i'm pretty thankful, while some things like DO i would always class as a zerg map - i can some what see it from the other side. People need to stop being so heavy handed with their judgements and opinions - if someone chooses to share something, which he has also talked with friends, top level gamers about then by all means. If i chose to share my opinions - i wouldn't want this kind of response purely because some people disagree with what was said - this is what the beta was for after all, if everybody stayed silent - the game would of advanced on a set of foundations made of badness. People seem to forget that. Demuslim is definitely right, you guys have a different opinion and make it seem like if it's not in favor of your opinion, it's bias annoying slander. Don't read his articles if you think it's biased, it clearly isn't and he is just relaying all his experience playing Zerg, whats the big damn deal? Some things have to be written in one perspective so its not diluted and the points get across. Instead of Artosis filling the job of 8 people doing write ups and playing each race really thoroughly maybe more emphasis should be on others reading/doing more Terran and Protoss write ups if people are really threatened that Artosis complaints will turn Zerg into a landslide of death, which isn't the case, just sharing his/others perspective and ideas. Artosis is free to share his bias, and I'm free to criticize it. The idea that I should just not view the thread is illogical. Why should we close any threads then? Why do threads full of bias with out any supporting evidence get closed? You could say in any of those cases that it's a perspective and we should just ignore it. Why did you even respond to my comment? If you don't like it, don't read it *eyeroll*. Artosis wanted feedback, and I am giving it to him: I have a hard time taking anything he says seriously because he consistently presents a biased viewpoint. EDIT: The point is a general complaint about Artosis' articles, not necessarily pointing at this direct article. I've stated that in a previous post. | ||
Fyrewolf
United States1533 Posts
Zerg does feel weaker on tier 1, but I think it's supposed to feel weaker. Protoss has naturally stronger units the same way. This means that zerg doesn't want direct confrontation, because of the squishyness of units. The zerg also can have vision over the entire map for free pretty much with creep tumours. Also I feel that territorial power is a new power to SC2 that was less prominent in Brood War, just like economic power, army power, production power, tech power, or even threat power (BW Mutas keep you from leaving your base early). Xel-naga towers make territorial power much more interesting, as if you can maintain the territory, you get free map vision, as well as many maps having multiple entrances to bases that are best covered from an point more towards the middle of the map, the so-called "sweet spot" on maps like Blistering Sands. In Brood War I don't assault a Terran Main and wonder why his siege expand slaughtered the hydras. I drop the hydras in the back and take out his base. While true for every race its more true for Zerg, that you should never ever EVER attack where your enemy wants you to. Thus I want to see the use of map control with the right pressure in the right places to completely overrun opponents more, with abilities and units like Burrow and Nydus especially. | ||
LEGAsee
170 Posts
On June 20 2010 03:13 Madkipz wrote: why should they bend their play to the map? you can notice from several turnaments that idra forces his strategy to work via overlord drops and flanking rather than abandone his entire gameplan, its nothing new. What?...Because if they want to win then they have to take the map into consideration....Because they are different. Have you ever played Starcraft before? | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
With that said, I hope it is not the case that a Zerg player MUST do a quick expansion just like I hope it is not the case that Protoss MUST FE vs. a Zerg. I actually hope that zerg do have to fast expo, or at least outexpand their opponent. My reasoning for this is that if they don't, then Zerg would have to become a lot more similiar to Terran or Protoss, to be able to play 1 base effectively. | ||
beetlelisk
Poland2276 Posts
On June 21 2010 03:23 Fyrewolf wrote: + Show Spoiler + On June 21 2010 03:01 beetlelisk wrote: That's cool and dandy until you notice there were 15 patches. How do you know this game is balanced or not? You said it yourself that it is not finished yet. The only bad thing I can say about this article is it's name and I think it's the only thing that you read because at the beginning of the article itself Artosis uses word "discussion" multiple times. I can't see any claims about him mastering the Zerg race. Read this and tell me what skill and experience do you have to call what Artosis writes inaccurate - this is what you mean by saying it's to early and we should wait for this game to evolve more. This is the same as him saying that his knowledge about Zerg MUs isn't perfect, it isn't complete. And somehow you accuse him of making "absolutist claims". If someone says "let's discuss this" it's the same as "hey, I can be wrong" and once you dig into this thread and find his posts you can see that making absolutist claims is the last thing he wanted to make when writing this article. edit: BW has evolved but before each step people had problems with certain strategies. Since they had noticed it, they were talking and writing about it. I don't understand what's wrong about people writing what they find problematic. The worst thing that can happen is other top players sharing their point of view and experience they've earned on other servers. Don't forget that playstyles can differ between servers. You misunderstand me. I would very much wish that this be a discussion. However, this article is not written to foster discussion. My main gripe is the complete lack of detail in the article. I did the read the entire thing more than once, and my problem is that he glosses over every single aspect he brings up. If you want to discuss something, discuss it, don't just mention it and give an ultimatum that the matchup is impossible on the map. Every single point brung up in the original article is explained quite shallowly. No responses to problems are discussed, only that they exist, and many of them overlap (wide open expansion, ledge behind rocks). Instead of trying to explore solutions the article merely dismisses any attempt the Zerg could make to do anything against the problems. This article is not discussion. This article is a rant. I thought that was your 1st post in this thread. I guess it shouldn't be a problem for him to add few details like opening builds and replays. I think he decided to focus on what's the problem with maps only because otherwise article would at least double in size but not necessarily be that much better. All we can say about doing something different is theorycrafting with all servers down and no date for the next phase set yet. I agree with this: On June 20 2010 06:31 Paramore wrote: I like how zerg players feel that they should automatically have a free expansion. They have no clue that they could easily play one-base and expand later, like every other race. Its like if they can't have 2-base they think its imbalanced. Too bad protoss production buildlings can't act as an extra nexus that we can put at our natural and just saturate with probes while building an army. Not saying that its an imbalanced matchup, but seriously, you can't call a map bad just because the other races can put pressure early on a fast expansion. If you want an expansion, you should have to defend it. Its not fuckin free. except in BW every race can fast expand in ZvsX, inability for every race to do this in SC2 was and I think it remains a huge concern. | ||
TheRabidDeer
United States3806 Posts
On June 21 2010 03:01 beetlelisk wrote: That's cool and dandy until you notice there were 15 patches. How do you know this game is balanced or not? You said it yourself that it is not finished yet. The only bad thing I can say about this article is it's name and I think it's the only thing that you read because at the beginning of the article itself Artosis uses word "discussion" multiple times. I can't see any claims about him mastering the Zerg race. Read this and tell me what skill and experience do you have to call what Artosis writes inaccurate - this is what you mean by saying it's to early and we should wait for this game to evolve more. This is the same as him saying that his knowledge about Zerg MUs isn't perfect, it isn't complete. And somehow you accuse him of making "absolutist claims". If someone says "let's discuss this" it's the same as "hey, I can be wrong" and once you dig into this thread and find his posts you can see that making absolutist claims is the last thing he wanted to make when writing this article. edit: BW has evolved but before each step people had problems with certain strategies. Since they had noticed it, they were talking and writing about it. I don't understand what's wrong about people writing what they find problematic. The worst thing that can happen is other top players sharing their point of view and experience they've earned on other servers. Don't forget that playstyles can differ between servers. Problem is, he never says it is supposed to be a discussion. The article is a summary of the things that he and Idra find issues with on these maps and conclusions are drawn when they shouldnt be. Whether they were unintended conclusions I dont know, but the fact that they are in there make this article rubbish, especially when he makes a claim that it is to be an objective look. An objective look at map balance would imply that he would want to look at all of the angles, even from other races, but he only focuses on zerg. I also dislike how you call somebody out on skill. Personally I am only high ranked diamond, but thats all I can really say. I have been unable to really participate in any tournaments or try for a #1 spot because of work and other things. Does this mean that my opinion on the matter is invalid? EDIT: To clarify. If I write an article, I can say discuss multiple times, but that does not mean I want to have an active discussion about it with people. It merely means I want to bring the point up. | ||
Gokain
United States49 Posts
tbh, the TvZ harassment tactics viable on maps like KR are leagues less viable on DO b/c of the differences in terrain for each of the maps. True, the nat is difficult to defend on DO, but unlike KR, there is no abusable high grd that Vikings and Thors can exploit so effectively. Due to the same reason, the main fairly easily defended as well. And once the spire tech is complete, mutas are able to contain the Terran very effectively since they will find it difficult to expand. The early game does not encourage fast expo for the Zerg, but as midgame arises, the ability of Zerg to expand creep and secure their expos feel far more manageable than the other races. so while Artosis has claimed that these 3 are the worst maps for Zerg, and whether this may be true or not, I feel that DO is far better than the other two mentioned. | ||
| ||