|
Why it is too early to make far-reaching balance changes
Preface
I have a lot to say about this topic and these are my credentials. I'm a 700 to 800 points mid diamond random player on Europe and according to sc2ranks.com I hold a top 300 region race rank position. I know that the points system is flawed and experienced that by myself, but if I tell you that I'm a decent player, you would probably agree.
I was very shocked when I saw the situation report and the proposed balance changes.
Let me discuss a few points.
Reapers
I don't understand the rioting about this unit at all. It is an option to do some early game action. Terrans need this to put their enemy under pressure. In the old PvZ, players sometimes engaged during the early game with a few zealots just for the sole purpose of forcing the enemy to build a sunken colony which ultimately hurt their economy.
Countering reapers isn't as hard as many people think. Spread the creep carefully. Fly your overlords to key-positions, so that your defence force can welcome the reapers. The queens have to be controlled very tightly, so that they don't run into their doom. You must have some practice and a good countering build order, though. Speed is obligatory but if the enemy accumulates considerable masses of reapers, only roaches will be able to fend them off. If done well, the threat will finally be fully neutralized by hydras, roach speed or mutas. In that case the game transitions into follow-ups and the Zerg might already have an advantage, because the Terran sunk tons of gas into reapers, which possess only a very low amount of hit-points.
At this stage everyone could argue a lot about the damage to the Zerg economy or the Terran strength of switching to marauders. Probably someone could write whole guides just about this particular TvZ constellation. But most of these games, that I saw, were decided by many small mistakes considering micro and positioning of the Zerg, who became nervous probably due to a lack of concentration and practice vs this opening. In that case, it's game over, like it's game over when you, after 500 games, forget to build a detector vs a dark templar rush. At the moment reapers mainly serve their purpose in some TvZ openings.
And by the way, the reaper's path-finding AI is so horribly broken and regularly causes some terrible, terrible damage to my nerves. I don't understand, why a game with such cunning controls allows such blunders.
Evolution in strategies and tactics
The speed at which the style of play is transitioning into new ones, is huge. The supply of high quality commentaries and other sources just exploded with the beginning of the beta. Newly discovered control tricks are constantly being distributed by forums posts or Youtube videos. Strategies become popular quite fast, often through tournaments.
A few weeks ago the Terran hard counter to mass mutas was humiliated by showing how mutas will escape their splash damage. At the moment sling/bling/muta may be the way to go vs Terrans. Many Terrans are currently experimenting around with ghosts. New mainstream strategies could easily emerge from that. Such strategies will from the start be overly successful and achieve higher win rates, when the every day life of a committed strategist becomes interrupted by the unforeseen and unusual.
Once a new strategy appears, a process of fermentation sets in. It should not be allowed to judge the whole balance of the game or a unit while this process is still going on. Everyone should wait until proper counters are forged and practised. This may take two to three weeks, I guess.
Possible shift in success
Recent tournaments have shown that Terrans might be losing their pole positions. The MLG was dominated by three Protoss players. Nevertheless, it has been reported in another thread that there definitely is a large crowd of Terrans in the highest ranks. Why is that so?
Map imbalances
In Broodwar the structure of a map was such an important factor, so that many spoke of map imbalances instead of calling the game itself imbalanced. The same is true for Starcraft 2. Large plateaus influence scouting behaviour, back doors limit the value of static defences and propel well-timed attacks to higher heights. Cliffs can translate into huge advantages for certain units. There are unique and special strategies a player can only pull off on one particular map.
My own statistics indicate that their are huge imbalances on a few maps for a few match-ups. This leads me to the next point.
Blizzard hasn't done it's homework
In order to be able to accurately judge if a map is skewed in favour of one race, data is required. The individual is already supplied by the community with a large array of tools like sc2gears, sc2ranks, yabot, sc2rar and so on. They are great. They are awesome sometimes. But they can't make up for the lack of data supplied by the battle.net.
Instead of showing sophisticated analyses, the whole character profile pages are full of flashy non-sense. I can't look up what the race win percentages on the ladder maps are, but I know that once some freaking medivacs healed 5000 hit-points in one of my games. I'm really angry at Blizzard that I have to look for smart kid's webpages to be able to gather sufficient data.
From my own stats I know that I have two match-ups with a win-rate of just 40%. There seem to be match-ups, which are imbalanced, not races. This might also just occur on particular maps. I'd like to know that.
The pawn analogy
Nerfing everything, which is too strong, is dangerous. Starcraft 2 already lacks a lot of AoE spells like plague, dark swarm or the old arbiter's skills (the mothership is rarely spotted). If every interesting unit is devalued into oblivion, Starcraft 2 will feel like chess, but where the only chess piece which is allowed, is the pawn. Noone would want a game like that. They did the same mistake with Warcraft 3. They even introduced damage caps. The result was horrible. They introduced so many special rules, so that the whole countering system became a mash.
Starcraft 2 is in danger of becoming something similar. A few units are already underused and don't serve a particular purpose in some match-ups, e.g. the carrier. That is the logical outcome if you nerf units too often, for example by higher build times. High build times really ruin strong units like the carrier, which will be scouted in time and henceforth can't be played as a response. I barely see any off carriers anymore in PvT like in the old game. Another solution should be pursued: the creation and maintenance of game mechanics, which feel overpowered, even if they only do so in special cases. If spells like plague would still rule, there wouldn't be a problem with the battlecruisers at all.
Conclusion
The proposed balance changes don't heed these points. They are the result of short-sided, overr-reacting sentiments and will cause additional damage to the depth of the game. These balance changes might even spring new imbalances and make Zerg too strong. Creating strong hard counters would serve the balance much better.
Appendixes (just because I'm posting):
1. The changes in detail
- Zealot build time and warpgate cooldown +5 seconds each:
I'd leave them alone.
- Reapers and bunkers build time +5 seconds:
I'd leave them also alone. There were no issues with the bunker at all.
- Siege tank nerf vs. light and unarmored:
My essay implies of course that this is unnecessary. It also doesn't make sense. These units should be blasted by the siege tanks all the more.
- Battlecruisers damage lowering:
Only necessary because of the lack of spells like plague.
- Ultralisk damage lowering and removal of the ram:
I completely agree on the removal. I don't think that the damage lowering will have a large impact. It's ok.
2. Things, that look patchy
- Neural parasite is broken. It adds a factor of uncertainty because the player doesn't know in which favor the situation will tip. It is also barely viable against big late game armies. Some change to its mechanics would be adorable.
- Reapers pathfinding AI. They are sometimes stuck.
- The marauder might need to lose stim. Maybe the slow-effect should in turn be improved.
- Psi storm is worse than in scbw. Not necessarily to be patched.
- Other units which might need some tweaks: corruptor with corruption. It lacks complexity when compared to the devourer. Mothership, carriers, archons are seldom used.
- Planetary fortresses are often mentioned, but are immobile, lack air-defence and don't have mules and scans. They are probably ok, as long as the player doesn't engage them with a ground force. ;-)
|
This is just screaming "Terran player, don't nerf my op race I don't want to lose games."
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On September 07 2010 14:55 StupidFatHobbit wrote:
This is just screaming "Terran player, don't nerf my op race I don't want to lose games." Basically... but he does point out Marauder + Stim is rofls. Not sure how that's never been addressed by Bliz.
|
You say top 300 by region... by rank. Well by random standards.... I mean when the max points are what, 1700 now... I'd say you might at best be decent but by no means qualified to say you are qualified enough to say what should or shouldn't actually be done.
|
Wow I'm really impressed with this post because I actually think it hits the nail on the head. I'm in the top 300 in NA and I completely agree with this.
WITH the exception of warp gates. I think warp gate cooldown is way too low right now. Adding 5 seconds to the warp gate cooldown is completely necessary, but everything else is fine (including zealots from gateways, they don't need 5 seconds added).
The tank/BC nerf is stupid. BC's are ONLY good at surprising enemies with large land armies..... So you nerf them from 8 to 6 dmg and they lose 25% of their DPS? THey will be USELESS!
This guy is right. Nerfs right now are going to make the game boring.
|
On September 07 2010 14:55 StupidFatHobbit wrote:
This is just screaming "Terran player, don't nerf my op race I don't want to lose games."
Way to take a well written, well thought-out post and attempt to make it worthless.
Anyways, I think this post focuses on a great point. This game is SO very young, and sometimes people can forget that. The "magic box" for mutas is a perfect point. In one fell swoop, Thors went from staple anti muta units to being almost worthless against them. Reapers are also starting to be seen as not AS overpowering as people thought when they saw the first 5 rax reaper rush. This game is evolving much quicker than BW, but it is still in it's infancy.
However that is not to say that balance changes are not necessary in any form yet. I'm in support of the proposed changes from blizzard, and I don't think any of them are really too severe to be included. For your argument regarding the siege tanks, that "[light units] should be blasted by the siege tanks all the more", would that mean then that armored units should have the damage against them reduced? Siege tanks, particularly in regards to the TvZ matchup, need to be changed. Zerglings should be able to better fill the role they had in SC1, pushing up close to the tank line so the bulk of the army can make a stronger assault.
There shouldn't be any huge, severe changes to any of the units just yet. But I definitely don't think the proposed changes from Blizzard fall into that category.
|
Perscienter, I think you're the one overreacting, not Blizzard.
Delaying early game tactics gives Zerg slightly more time to prepare build orders, which results in having more options, which results in more interesting games. Right now playing as Zerg for even high level players is basically trying desperately to keep your asscheeks covered, because there are so many ways you can get raped.
Quickly spreading creep and being masterful with a Queen is your solution to fast Reapers? All you have to do with Reapers is run and gun. Creating a creep tumor means that you lose 4 extra larva! Having to ruin your macro in order to spread creep early, in order to effectively hold off an extremely easy to execute rush strategy -- how is that fair? It's easy for Terran to block their ramp on almost every ramp, and most players do it by default.
The changes Blizzard is making are all welcome. It is becoming increasingly obvious that Zerg is a reactionary, weak race who currently has to rely on "tricks" (or much higher APM) to win. Once the patch is out, you'll notice that the whole game will become more interesting and enjoyable, unless you simply want Zerg to be frustrating forever.
|
On September 07 2010 14:51 Perscienter wrote:
...Countering reapers isn't as hard as many people think... The queens have to be controlled very tightly, so that they don't run into their doom. You must have some practice and a good countering build order, though...
...But most of these games, that I saw, were decided by many small mistakes considering micro and positioning of the Zerg...
Isn't that a bit the problem? If Zerg has the exact reactive build order to counter AND micro's perfectly, he can come out even. Maybe ahead, I'm not good enough to make that distinction.
However, if he makes a mistake, he outright looses. FE hatch destroyed pretty much equals gg.
If the Terran makes a micro mistake and looses too many reapers, no real counter attack is possible. Speedlings won't make it past the wall. Roaches might, but there are already plenty of baracks with tech labs on them, so marauders are an easy follow up for defense.
From the VODS I've seen it feels like the siege damage on the reapers is the real problem. Reapers could still harass the drones in the mineral and would still pressure Zerg to make units/crawlers to counter them. However, they would be less of a "micro-mistake-haha-I-win unit", as they could not destroy the hatchery or tech buildings so easily. I think it would make for a more interesting dynamic that way. Reaper to me feels like the first real victim of Blizzard's "Let's make every unit as cool as possible" design methodology.
Also, Chess with only pawns = Checkers 
|
I agree in spirit.
At the same time, I think the game is young and we can look at with fresh, theory-crafted eyes. Right now, we can question, "is it okay that X beats X?" In the future, that will just be how things are and all discussion will be based on how to deal with it. Think about how obnoxious it would be if someone started questioning the basis of a certain matchup for Brood War now.
My biggest concern is that, since its easier, only a few playstyles will end up being viable in each matchup and Blizzard will work to maintain a 50% win ratio. That means, if Protoss is winning 50% of the game versus Terran, no way units that don't currently get used in that matchup will get buffed-- don't want to ruin that perfect 50%! I mean, look at Ultralisks, they got buffed to high heaven because Zerg was losing. Carriers suck worse than Ultralisks ever did, and they never got buffed because Protoss has always been strong.
I guess its kinda hard to make my point but, in essence: While the game is young we NEED to try and examine the game's balance and push it in a positive direction. Obviously we need to accept that the Standard Phoenix/Void Ray opening of 2011 will make Marauders completely useless and anything but OP, but that doesn't change us from trying to think, look, and theorcrafy as best as we can while the game is still in flux.
Brood War had an accepted balance of lots of OP things balancing each other out. Lots of you like that. I don't. I would like to see lots of different strategies and unit compositions work in various match ups and situations. That doesn't mean I want Void rays to no longer pwn buildings or Marauders to no longer pwn everything on the ground ( ), but I want units that don't see any play to get looked at before they get forgotten.
|
On September 07 2010 14:51 Perscienter wrote:
Map imbalances
In Broodwar the structure of a map was such an important factor, so that many spoke of map imbalances instead of calling the game itself imbalanced. The same is true for Starcraft 2. Large plateaus influence scouting behaviour, back doors limit the value of static defences and propel well-timed attacks to higher heights. Cliffs can translate into huge advantages for certain units. There are unique and special strategies a player can only pull off on one particular map.
My own statistics indicate that their are huge imbalances on a few maps for a few match-ups. This leads me to the next point.
I would say that most of the maps make it hard for the whining Zerg to fully utilize their potential, since the race needs a good economy to be effective and once they have it they become very powerful or maybe even OP. To "help" the Zerg we need to make sure that they do not get harrassed as early as they are atm and there are two ways of doing it:
- nerf the units by increasing their production time OR
- increase the size of the maps.
Sadly Blizzard has taken the easy but wrong approach (changing a few numbers for units is wayy quicker than making 6-10 bigger maps).
Map size - not even the terrain features themselves - matters A LOT, because as a Zerg you NEED a big and open center to use your own mobility to surround an enemy army and a big map is needed to make the "immobility disadvantage" to actually be a disadvantage that has an impact on the game.
The actual balance or imbalance of a unit can be seen in direct battles of comparable armies, but it relies heavily on unit composition. Yesterday on GSL one Terran used a fast Battlecruiser tactic to beat a Protoss (who had mostly Zealots and only few Stalkers and Sentries) and Artosis used this as to justify a nerf to the Battlecruiser damage. That is not how you go about it, because a helium balloon which keeps you afloat and a bag of rocks allows you to kill a Zealot without danger. Build the wrong stuff and you lose and that is no justification to start whining.
On September 07 2010 14:51 Perscienter wrote:
Blizzard hasn't done it's homework
Well my approach is: Blizzard doesnt want to admit their tiny maps are the heart of the problem.
A big indicator for maps which are fair for Zerg is Scrap Station. Very long rushing distance, relatively small cliff to jump into the main base. Even the double-destructible rock path is something the Zerg could easily do with a Nydus worm on a really large map. Sadly Blizzard sticks to nerfs instead of truly caring about balanced maps.
|
It's not too early...
It's too late for my taste, Blizzard can't be that ignorant and not see that:
- Reapers and Marauders are heavily overpowered.
- Almost any kind of early timing-push (or 4-gateway-timing-push) is extremely hard for Zerg to hold (they have to sacrifice their economy basically).
- Structural defense is underpowered (cuz stuff like Marauders and Reapers deal ridiculous DMG).
- Zerg has too less options early on and their basic Unit (Zergling) is by far the weakest compared to Zealot/Marine.
- Terran Upgrades like Nitro Packs, Blue-Flames for Hellions and Stim Packs are too cheap and good, while Zergs Upgrades are too expensive and bad (Adrenalin-Upgrade for Zerglings)
- Tech Lab is too cheap, builds too fast and opens up too many Options for Terran.
- The Creep-Mechanic is totally f'd up...
- Several Skills like Neural parasite, 250mm Cannon and HSM have been nerfed to death with no apparent reason.
- THEIR MAPS FKN SUCK!
None of the changes Blizzard mentioned so far won't do anything to make the game more balanced. I mean: 5 sec's more on the reapers? With 5-rax-reapers, you can't build Reapers out of all raxes at any time anyways until the expansion is fully up- and running, so absolutely no harm done there. zealot -5 sec? Who cares if all the other Warpgate-Units still have a much too short cooldown for Zerg to hold without saccing their economy (while Protoss can pump Probes and even expand...). BC-change is ridiculous and the Siege-Tank-nerf will only make Tanks less viable in TvP, but everyone uses Bio in TvP anyways, so who cares?... rly, it's like Blizzard randomly throws dart at the wall with different Units and Stat-buff's/nerf and then implements them into the game - how can they be so oblivious?
|
I dont get op really..
I mean we played ages with that beta patch like 6weeks+ ? And the last betapatch already had the +5s on zealots and bunkers and it was really a good patch also according to some top players like Idra(just to mention one).
There is no more testing needed. There is no secret way to get zergling speed faster or to magically get a defense up for reaper/bunker rushes.. Its just like that.
Also Zealots are about the same. We even saw players like Dimaga loosing to the first 2 Zealots of Socke once. Its just one small mistake instantly lets you loose the game.
Its not possible to play hatch first builds or even 14 gas build are not working vs close pos P.
Saying that there is no issue with bunkers at all is showing the lack of understanding of Op regarding some of the matchups.
But yea nerfing siege tanks makes no sense because they should blast unarmored and light units.. I felt trolled reading through some that.. seriously.
|
When people claim their rank and race and skill as merit for what there saying they should have to post there battle.net profile for proof cause anyone can claim there top 300 and random but he could very well be a silver terran the way he defends everything terran except rauders, but then says slows should be improved, not saying its true just reeks of terran, BTW mine profile is http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/profile/414614/1/MIKEHUNTEASY/
|
On September 07 2010 14:51 Perscienter wrote:
Why it is too early to make far-reaching balance changes
Countering reapers isn't as hard as many people think. Spread the creep carefully. Fly your overlords to key-positions, so that your defence force can welcome the reapers. The queens have to be controlled very tightly, so that they don't run into their doom. You must have some practice and a good countering build order, though. Speed is obligatory but if the enemy accumulates considerable masses of reapers, only roaches will be able to fend them off. If done well, the threat will finally be fully neutralized by hydras, roach speed or mutas. In that case the game transitions into follow-ups and the Zerg might already have an advantage, because the Terran sunk tons of gas into reapers, which possess only a very low amount of hit-points.
I can't agree. Everything I quoted here is an insult to any professional Zerg player. What you are saying is that with enough amount of practice you can defend off a 5 rax reaper opening and have the economical advance as Zerg. Do you even watch Starcraft II sometimes? Your post is an insult.
I also find it disturbing that every time a well written post appears people are praising the OP for the fact that the wall of text is so well written that they forget to really read what he is saying.
You claim to have followed MLG, or you use MLG as an example that protoss can beat Terran, but did you see any TvZ? Sometimes it is not enough to see only the result of the tournament, sometimes you should also see some actual matches.
You do not see the problem with reapers at this moment? Try to watch some TvZ.
|
On September 07 2010 15:38 kickinhead wrote:
It's not too early...
It's too late for my taste, Blizzard can't be that ignorant and not see that:
- Reapers and Marauders are heavily overpowered.
- Almost any kind of early timing-push (or 4-gateway-timing-push) is extremely hard for Zerg to hold (they have to sacrifice their economy basically).
- Structural defense is underpowered (cuz stuff like Marauders and Reapers deal ridiculous DMG).
- Zerg has too less options early on and their basic Unit (Zergling) is by far the weakest compared to Zealot/Marine.
- Terran (mostly) Infantry Upgrades like Nitro Packs and Stim Packs are too cheap and good, while Zergs Upgrades are too expensive and bad.
- Tech Lab is too cheap, builds too fast and opens up too many Options for Terran.
- The Creep-Mechanic is totally f'd up...
- THEIR MAPS FKN SUCK!
None of the changes Blizzard mentioned so far won't do anything to make the game more balanced. I mean: 5 sec's more on the reapers? With 5-rax-reapers, you can't build Reapers out of all raxes at any time anyways until the expansion is fully up- and running, so absolutely no harm done there. zealot -5 sec? Who cares if all the other Warpgate-Units still have a much too short cooldown for Zerg to hold without saccing their economy (while Protoss can pump Probes and even expand...). BC-change is ridiculous and the Siege-Tank-nerf will only make Tanks less viable in TvP, but everyone uses Bio in TvP anyways, so who cares?... rly, it's like Blizzard randomly throws dart at the wall with different Units and Stat-buff's/nerf and then implements them into the game - how can they be so oblivious?
i agree with everything he said except the techlab and creep mechanic.
did op not watch morrow 5 reaper vs. zerg everygame and winning?? Hello .. he beat idrA in a lan
OP too noob to understand balance. He doesn't see how PvP allin zealot warpin is unstoppable. Battlecruisers are unstoppable against ground and when unexpected. (toomuch for it's cost) and so are ultralisks
you need to keep up with the metagame. I suggest watching TLO replays or events like IEM
|
I don't think it's too early to make changes, the game is clearly not balanced right now, so what's the point of waiting? Sure the game evolves, but you won't achieve "perfect" balance if you wait 6 months between each patches.
|
On September 07 2010 15:05 AJMcSpiffy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2010 14:55 StupidFatHobbit wrote:
This is just screaming "Terran player, don't nerf my op race I don't want to lose games." Way to take a well written, well thought-out post and attempt to make it worthless. Anyways, I think this post focuses on a great point. This game is SO very young, and sometimes people can forget that. The "magic box" for mutas is a perfect point. In one fell swoop, Thors went from staple anti muta units to being almost worthless against them. Reapers are also starting to be seen as not AS overpowering as people thought when they saw the first 5 rax reaper rush. This game is evolving much quicker than BW, but it is still in it's infancy. However that is not to say that balance changes are not necessary in any form yet. I'm in support of the proposed changes from blizzard, and I don't think any of them are really too severe to be included. For your argument regarding the siege tanks, that "[light units] should be blasted by the siege tanks all the more", would that mean then that armored units should have the damage against them reduced? Siege tanks, particularly in regards to the TvZ matchup, need to be changed. Zerglings should be able to better fill the role they had in SC1, pushing up close to the tank line so the bulk of the army can make a stronger assault. There shouldn't be any huge, severe changes to any of the units just yet. But I definitely don't think the proposed changes from Blizzard fall into that category.
I'm sorry, almost worthless? Have you played against a Marine, Hellion, and a thor or two army? Magic box isn't some magical strategy that completely nullfies thors. It forces the zerg fly directly above the Terran army. And nowadays people are smart about not just making marines against banelings and getting preigniter hellions. Normally, I think mutas would be a lot better at clearing the hellions up front, but they simply can't because the thor is right behind.
|
I agree with the OP but there are times when there is a feeling that a unit or strategy is too strong. for instance: marauder stim 
|
On September 07 2010 16:20 Sprouter wrote:I agree with the OP but there are times when there is a feeling that a unit or strategy is too strong. for instance: marauder stim
Way to contradict yourself....
U think it should stay imba or what?
|
Balance should have happened more actively during Beta and using the opinions of pro gamers instead of stats. They really really blew that opportunity and now that the game has been released and with GSL started, they won't be able to release changes too rapidly.
The changes they have proposed don't make much sense and really don't address the core issues. In any case, that would be better saved for another discussion.
Just to give my 2cents on a few points already made.
@AJMcSpiffy
RE: muta magic box
This isn't really the breakthrough that people make it out to be since it assumes your enemy has Thor's sitting out there on their own and that all the while your Zerg army is massing mutas you are no longer harrassing. This is down to poor scouting and decision making by Terran more so than some neat trick that Zerg have to own Thors. About the only thing it changed was the notion that if Terran spots Mutas, they can hard counter with Thor. Thors are still potent against mutas, especially cost for cost.
RE: 5 rax reaper
The problem isn't that it can't be beat, the problem is that the economic harrassment is too punishing and all the while the Terran opponent has time to expand. For a strategy with the devastating effectiveness of an all-in to also have a viable follow up strategy is one of the main issues, the other being the multitude of openings possible.
Reapers already have superior mobility, yet they get a cheap upgrade to get superior move speed as well. If that weren't enough, they have the ability to destroy buildings quite easily rendering static defense impotent. Instead of a 5 second increase to build time, they should have nitro packs cost 100/100 like ling speed and remove their building damage.
@Rabiator
Maps are a problem, but large maps won't solve all the problems either. A good surround would make things a little easier, but without units able to effectively destroy a bio ball at reasonable cost the followup is pretty much nonexistent.
Recall the Dimaga v Tarson match at IEM on Metalopolis. Day9 and Apollo were constantly amazed at how Tarson always came out ahead of Dimaga in food count whenever they clashed... I just sat there with a big fat "DUH" expression on my face. Banelings are a 1 time use unit. So of course if Dimaga has to blow up a bunch of banelings he is going to wind up with less food. The fact that the number of units needed to destroy that army was greater in food count shows how ineffective the Zerg units are even on a map like metalopolis where you can usually get multiple flanking positions. With the improved unit pathing it becomes even easier to use marauders as shields.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
