EPTOn May 05 2012 05:37 Pylons wrote:
They also said terran is too strong mid-late game ~ cry more terran players?
They also said terran is too strong mid-late game ~ cry more terran players?
early-midgame -_-
TvP Lategame comment from Blizzard - Page 40
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
nOondn
564 Posts
early-midgame -_- | ||
|
Joedaddy
United States1948 Posts
I guess that the common theme of "win before 15m or don't win at all" can't really be construed as balance whine now, can it? | ||
|
Wuster
1974 Posts
On May 05 2012 05:04 dde wrote: i think the whole problem is zealots can tank a lot specially under guardian shield effect. ( shield means something but not really that much because the healths got 1 initial armor that makes it super good against marines) Lately, I'm starting to feel this way too. Whenever I watch late game PvT where the Protoss just runs over T; more often than not it's because there are 30+ fully upgraded chargelots under guardian shield chasing the Terran around. With the warp-in mechanic, Protoss can literally reinforce with more Zealots before they all get killed. This is only late game of course; early and mid-game many a Protoss push dies with the Zealots (and no reinforcements ready). Plus early/mid-game Protoss won't have the econ to support constant zealot warp-in; but once they finish upgrades, get a healthy number of probes, throw down a few cannons to deter drops you better believe Protoss can keep up the Zealot stream lategame. It's also a weird numbers game: like 10 - 15 zealots will melt to a mid-sized bio ball., but 25+ Zealots against a large-sized bio ball last a long time. I have no idea why this is but I got a lot of speculative guesses: at that point the bioball is so big they can't all fire between stutters? or there are enough zealots that the fire gets too spread out? or a line grows longer faster than the perimeter of a circle - hence better surround? or blink+charge+feedback unit compositions get fleshed out enough late game that Protoss can nullify medivacs? Doesn't help that Zealots are mostly HP so EMP isn't as effective against them as they are against Stalkers. Maybe this is a sign that T needs to experiment with mixing in more Hellions lategame (some are starting to try Hellion openings). I doubt full-on mech is the solution, but lately Korean Terrans have been mixing in tanks (G1 Naninwa - MVP and G1 Supernova - Hero) so who knows what'll happen in the next few months. PS - to a lesser extend supported Archons are really, really hard for Terran to kill off too (supported as in you can't use all your emps on them) But Archons are so expensive and relatively slow to make that I think they should be tough to deal with. | ||
|
desarrisc
Canada226 Posts
On May 05 2012 05:36 freetgy wrote: + Show Spoiler + On May 05 2012 05:25 desarrisc wrote: Although I think Blizzard has a valid stance on this issue, I think that Terran T3 can be improved to mitigate the late game TvP issue. Particularly for Thor and/or Battlecruiser, they could have a passive buff (either researchable for cheap cost or innate) that prevents draining of energy (like how ultras can't be fungaled, stunned, or neural parasited). So EMP and feedback would not have effect on Thors and/or Battlecruisers. In this case, feedback would become directed towards caster-based units such as banshees, ghosts, and medivacs . This would likely force a shift in the unit composition for Protoss and make mech/air mix easier to implement without hindering other matchups. Zerg's neural parasite or fungal would be unchanged by this buff. Then the mid game would be stronger for terran, late game would be stronger for protoss, and very-late game (when T3 composition kicks in) would be fair for both races. was tried and revoked because it allows terran to all-in with a unbelievable winrate. Thors also thors are good in high numbers. The main difference is that was due to strike cannon being a CD ability rather than energy-based ability. Since gateway units have really difficult time in Thor rush, the protoss needed an immortal out. But the CD strike cannon made that immortal immediately dead. So an immortal defense would not be able to hold one thor/scv/marine timing. In patch 1.1.2, "250mm Strike Cannons is now cooldown-based on a 50-second cooldown. Ability starts with cooldown available (usable immediately after upgrade is researched)." from Liquipedia However, keeping the energy means that it takes a Thor 177 in-game seconds after production to use strike-cannon. Also, mass Thors production rate lose out to Immortal/Colossus/Zealot production in the late game assuming same number of bases. And to use the ability again after the initial use takes over 177 in-game seconds minimum (assuming Thor had full energy). So I think this would be a feasible minor adjustment to implement. | ||
|
yoigen
Germany369 Posts
On May 05 2012 05:43 Joedaddy wrote: My biggest and only complaint in TvP is that I dislike being forced into gimmicky 1 and 2 base all in type play. Why can't both races have an equal opportunity to win (when on equal footing) in the early, mid, and late game? I guess that the common theme of "win before 15m or don't win at all" can't really be construed as balance whine now, can it? You aren't. Try taking an early third and you are fine to go. | ||
|
Rye.
United Kingdom88 Posts
My problem isnt balance. Its that I have to be the aggressor. It seemed every game i played last season was against a zerg or toss who sat in his base until tier 3. (there were only a few TvT games, felt like 5% of games) At plat level, Toss KNOW they will win if they sit on 2 bases and max with HT and Collosus and a nice mix of gateway and when they move out take another 2 bases. Turtling on 2 bases as toss isnt difficult; as someone stated earlier you just need your stalkers in your main and everything else at your nat. When you move out you will roll a terran, Super hard if you land a money storm. At plat level, we terrans just dont have the micro to get a decent engagement, (not for a lack of trying). Zerg are a whole new level of boring. Sit on 2 / 3 bases... never attacking... tech straight to infestors and try to catch the terran army unsieged as it moves across the map. Then get broodlords and a load more bases. Even though i actually won some TvZ, it was all about MY attacking. If i didnt attack /drop in my games i know there wouldnt be any engagements for 15+ mins. Boring Boring Boring. So i havent played 1v1 this season. Blizzard are so concerned with their stats and balance that they dont actually check if the games are fun/interesting. Terrans should just do what i've done and quit 1v1. Blizzards stats will then show that terrans are quitting and they'll be forced to act. Then again, maybe the reason for this whole balance test map and their comments about TvP was because terrans have already started to quit. (many of us have noticed lack of ladder T's) And blizzard want to fix things but they cant because it would require a HUGE patch that would completely shake the game up. | ||
|
slane04
Canada23 Posts
Over the course of SC2, Terran's midgame has been rightfully nerfed so Protoss can actually get to its strong late-game (e.g. stim nerf, racks and bunker build-time nerfs). At the same time, maps have been getting MUCH larger, making late-game a much stronger possiblity. Over this same period of time, Protoss went from a 4gating race, to a turtle late-game race (with some viable all-ins). So, many of the changes Blizzard has enacted encourage late-game and discourage timing attacks (stim and warp gate nerf) . Now, here's my issue on where we're at in the current PvT: Terran = strong mid Protoss = strong late By this game design, Terran has to do damage or, by Blizzard's expectations, should lose by the time late game rolls around. However, since mid-game comes before late-game, Terran can't be too strong or no late-game will every occur -- Terran will just win outright. So, due to this poor game design, the game has and will continue to be balanced around the fact that any metagame shift that makes Terran slightly stronger mid-game willresult in either Protoss buffs of Terran nerfs, (1-1-1, 3racks-stim, hell even the increased map size discourages these type of strategies). So, when people encourage Terran to experiment, by default, if anything is too successful it will just be nerfed, because Protoss can't get to its late-game. The observer buff seems to stem from the fact that Terran can do too many builds, and that Protoss, as a turtle-race in TvP, must know what's coming, or they can't get to late-game. This makes no sense, and I feel for both Protoss and Terrans. Protoss needs mid-game strategies and Terran needs a late-game. | ||
|
Ccx55
Sweden62 Posts
On May 05 2012 05:49 slane04 wrote: Ok, didn't bother to read the last 20 pages, so I apologize if this has already been brought up. Over the course of SC2, Terran's midgame has been rightfully nerfed so Protoss can actuall get to its strong late-game (e.g. stim nerf, racks and bunker build-time nerfs). At the same time maps, have been getting MUCH larger, make late-game a much stronger possiblity. Over this same period of time, Protoss went from a 4gating race, to a turtle to late-game race (with some viable all-ins). So, many of the changes Blizzard has enacted encourage late-game and discourage timing attacks (stim and warp gate nerf) . Now, here's my issue on where we're at in the current PvT: Terran = strong mid Protoss = strong late By this game design, Terran has to do damage or, by Blizzard's expectations, should lose by the time late game rolls around. However, since mid-game comes before late-game, Terran can't be too strong or no late-game will every occur -- Terran will just win outright. So, due to this poor game design, the game has and will continue to be balanced around the fact that any metagame shift that makes Terran slightly stronger mid-game will incur either Protoss buffs of Terran nerfs, (1-1-1, 3racks-stim, hell even the increased map size discourages these type of strategies). So, when people encourage Terran to experiment, by default, if anything is too successful it will just be nerfed, because Protoss can't get to its late-game. This makes no sense, and I feel for both Protoss and Terrans. Protoss needs mid-game strategies and Terran needs a late-game. I agree completely with this logic. The game is flawed from the beginning. Starcraft: Brood War was experimental and could afford to do mistakes like this. However, for a game fit for 2010 (and now 2012), this neverending metagame problem just doesn't fit standards. No amount of patches can ever repent this, considering terran will still have strong mid/weak late and vice versa for protoss regardless of exact timings, simply because units cannot be "fixed" to such a high degree. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 05 2012 05:43 Joedaddy wrote: My biggest and only complaint in TvP is that I dislike being forced into gimmicky 1 and 2 base all in type play. Why can't both races have an equal opportunity to win (when on equal footing) in the early, mid, and late game? I guess that the common theme of "win before 15m or don't win at all" can't really be construed as balance whine now, can it? You should go back a couple of pages and read Fencer710's posts on the way to get beyond 15 minutes in TvP. The main problem that a lot of terrans are having is that they are playing the match up incorrectly and not preparing for the late game. | ||
Destructicon
4713 Posts
On May 05 2012 04:28 freetgy wrote: saying Protoss is favored in lategame is bullshit. Protoss has a timing, when they hit 200 vs. 200 yes, but the strength of this "deathball" goes immediately down the more ghosts get on the field and balance out the splash damage on both sides. Protoss can never win a lategame fight without good storms, even colossus deal not fast enough damage to deal with maxxed out Bio on Open field. If Terran player can prevent storms, which is still easy compared to hitting a very good storm they come ahead out of any engagement. If Terran want a Lategame buff, they will have to receive a mid game nerf in exchange, which i don't see. They already have the advantage due to Scouting issues / Metagaming in earlygame. have the advantage due to way better synergie in midgame (no need to rush into tech) become gradually weaker due to increased splash damage options of protoss. All terran has to do to win is to either setup in the midgame for the lategame or setup to prevent splash in lategame by preventing storms with ghosts. The problem with giving terran strong hightech units is that also terran has the best defensiv capabilities, which makes reaching lategame a non issue. They already have currently the strongest deathball. (Which has to be answered by protoss playing like Terran plays currently with Bio vs. Protoss). How about you take a look at the GSL more often, and maybe some big international tournaments and come back to say that. What you say and what I actually observe isn't as clear cut as you make it. Terran doesn't have a as strong a early or mid game as you make it out to be, a lot of protosses have figured out how to defend against those and coupled with the larger and more defensive maps, means they can hold reasonably well if they don't take too many risks. Protoss have also learned how to defend drops easier, with a good army split, well positioned cannons and HT + warp in they can hold on two or even three fronts relatively well. For a terran its actually harder to micro on 2-3 fronts then it is for a protoss. Yes terran also has the strongest defense, but it isn't as bullet proof as you make it out to be either. A immortal bust or even a 10 sentry bust with zealots and stalkers if well executed can either kill the terran, or set him back enough for the protoss to enter the late game with a lead. Yes its true terran has its strengths, but the value of those strengths is being grossly over estimated. Now if late game Protoss was so easy as continually mass ghosts, I wonder why haven't more GSL pros done it. Perhaps it is because you, again over estimate the ease of massing said ghosts. Not only do you have to build them, but you have to conserve them, and this is hard given that ghosts move slower then stimmed bio armies, that must always kite backwards to minimize damage. And the terran must essentially perform multiple actions at once, stutter step, split, manage vikings and control ghosts, its very hard to retain a high ghost count unless the first engagement went favorably. Lets not also forget about the tech switches. By late game a Toss usually has 2 robos. They can at that point reinforce on colossus much easier. If you lost all your vikings in a battle, even if you have mass ghosts it can still be rolled over by mass colossus. If he has many vikings left over his ground army will suffer in numbers and you can mix in more HT and again the terran is in a tough spot. Lastly to get to the ultra late game of when a terran can sack nearly all his SCVs because he has mass MULEs is incredibly hard, what's to stop the protoss at that point from doing warp in drops, storm drops or just regular zealot run bys? You're talking as if reaching that point is easy and done on a regular basis, when in fact I maybe see a game like that once every 2 months. What you're saying is all fine in theory, but what I'm seeing in the GSL is quite different. | ||
|
Torra
Norway469 Posts
| ||
|
NHL Fever
Canada104 Posts
On May 05 2012 05:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Just refuting your point that 1 ghost can't decide a battle as much as 1 high templar can, which is utterly ridiculous  Ghosts counter Protoss unit compositions easily as much as high templar counter Terran unit compositions. As a random player, I find this argument pretty silly. It's pretty obvious templars are easier to you use and more effective than ghosts, at least in my experience. It's not hard to figure out why, but the basics are this: 1) Storm area is WAY bigger than emp. It is far harder to dodge a storm than an emp. Diameter is at least 2-3x larger, total area probably 6-7x or more. 2) Templar are overall cheaper. 3) There are multiple units that need specific and precise targeting by ghosts - sentries, templar, archon and depleting shields of stsrong units. This is hard to do on a busy battlefield, and it's very hard to pull of without dying, and useless if you screw it up even a little bit. For storm you just aim for any decent chunk of the army and it works, you are never confused as to what you aiming at. The only way storm is bad is if you completely miss everything. With ghosts you could hit large chunks of the toss army with emp but miss a couple key units, and you're dead. 4) Ghosts die after use. They need to be in front for range and get killed, and they can't run away cause their slow. Templar transform into a very strong unit after use = recyclable. 5) Ghosts take a long time to build, templar are insta-build from anywhere. Its much easier and faster to work templar into your composition when needed, as a result. 6) Templar are extremely good both in army, and defending in base. Ghosts not so. 7) Ghosts needs racks with tech lab, which will probably be 50-60% of players rax. Templar can be made from any available gate. 8) Ghosts also need obs to be killed, which is very hard to do when there are a ton of units around even if you have detection. Even pros seem to have trouble with this. I have been frustrated with T as P, and with P as T, I understand where you are coming from. But ghosts are as good as templar? No way. They are both not as good and harder to incorporate because of basic game mechanics. | ||
|
klops
United States674 Posts
On May 05 2012 05:47 yoigen wrote: You aren't. Try taking an early third and you are fine to go. brilliant analysis. please do more in the future. | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
On May 04 2012 13:42 MattBarry wrote: You know, I'm no expert on BW. I played it for a decade casually with no knowledge of a pro-scene. But from what I've read, isn't there a ticking time bomb where Terran has to do damage before Hive in TvZ. What exactly is the difference? Well, while I'm certainly not one of those people complaining about TvP lategame (I think it's pretty good) In BW it wasn't so much about doing damage before Hive (though that was helpful) but getting position. It was paramount that by the time Defilers came out that Terran be as far across the map near the Zergs base as possible. If Zerg hit Hive tech while they were camped on the Terran's doorstep, it was basically GG. Midgame, before hive, it was Zerg slowing Terran down as T pushed across the map since you had lurkers and they had to leapfrog their tanks to slowly clean them up. Then the roles would reverse when Z got defilers and they'd start leapgfrogging back across the map pushing Terran back. Obviously a gross oversimplification, but it captures the basic idea. | ||
|
nkr
Sweden5451 Posts
On May 05 2012 05:49 Rye. wrote: I was a Plat Terran, but i havent played a game this season. BNet Profile - Rye My problem isnt balance. Its that I have to be the aggressor. It seemed every game i played last season was against a zerg or toss who sat in his base until tier 3. (there were only a few TvT games, felt like 5% of games) At plat level, Toss KNOW they will win if they sit on 2 bases and max with HT and Collosus and a nice mix of gateway and when they move out take another 2 bases. Turtling on 2 bases as toss isnt difficult; as someone stated earlier you just need your stalkers in your main and everything else at your nat. When you move out you will roll a terran, Super hard if you land a money storm. At plat level, we terrans just dont have the micro to get a decent engagement, (not for a lack of trying). Zerg are a whole new level of boring. Sit on 2 / 3 bases... never attacking... tech straight to infestors and try to catch the terran army unsieged as it moves across the map. Then get broodlords and a load more bases. Even though i actually won some TvZ, it was all about MY attacking. If i didnt attack /drop in my games i know there wouldnt be any engagements for 15+ mins. Boring Boring Boring. So i havent played 1v1 this season. Blizzard are so concerned with their stats and balance that they dont actually check if the games are fun/interesting. Terrans should just do what i've done and quit 1v1. Blizzards stats will then show that terrans are quitting and they'll be forced to act. Then again, maybe the reason for this whole balance test map and their comments about TvP was because terrans have already started to quit. (many of us have noticed lack of ladder T's) And blizzard want to fix things but they cant because it would require a HUGE patch that would completely shake the game up. I hope you realize when you say that terran has to be the agressor, it's because zerg actually can't attack you before broods. At all. Unless it's some roach bane allin, in which case you would be complaining anyway. | ||
|
Torra
Norway469 Posts
On May 05 2012 06:02 NHL Fever wrote: As a random player, I find this argument pretty silly. It's pretty obvious templars are easier to you use and more effective than ghosts, at least in my experience. It's not hard to figure out why, but the basics are this: 1) Storm area is WAY bigger than emp. It is far harder to dodge a storm than an emp. Diameter is at least 2-3x larger, total area probably 6-7x or more. 2) Templar are overall cheaper. 3) There are multiple units that need specific and precise targeting by ghosts - sentries, templar, archon and depleting shields of stsrong units. This is hard to do on a busy battlefield, and it's very hard to pull of without dying, and useless if you screw it up even a little bit. For storm you just aim for any decent chunk of the army and it works, you are never confused as to what you aiming at. The only way storm is bad is if you completely miss everything. With ghosts you could hit large chunks of the toss army with emp but miss a couple key units, and you're dead. 4) Ghosts die after use. They need to be in front for range and get killed, and they can't run away cause their slow. Templar transform into a very strong unit after use = recyclable. 5) Ghosts take a long time to build, templar are insta-build from anywhere. Its much easier and faster to work templar into your composition when needed, as a result. 6) Templar are extremely good both in army, and defending in base. Ghosts not so. 7) Ghosts needs racks with tech lab, which will probably be 50-60% of players rax. Templar can be made from any available gate. 8) Ghosts also need obs to be killed, which is very hard to do when there are a ton of units around even if you have detection. Even pros seem to have trouble with this. I have been frustrated with T as P, and with P as T, I understand where you are coming from. But ghosts are as good as templar? No way. They are both not as good and harder to incorporate because of basic game mechanics. This. The Ghosts > Templar logic by protosses is simply false. | ||
|
Joedaddy
United States1948 Posts
On May 05 2012 05:47 yoigen wrote: You aren't. Try taking an early third and you are fine to go. An early 3rd doesn't address anything I'm talking about. I should have put in bold text "when on equal footing." What you are suggesting is exactly what Blizzard has already said, and what most Terrans have known for months. You have to have an advantage going into the late game to win. An early 3rd is just another way to try and secure that advantage. What I believe should be the case is an equal opportunity for both races to win in all stages of the game *when both players are on equal footing. Also, on Fencer710's post. I personally haven't heard of him, but I do know who dde is (most everyone does). Him and a lot of other pro's all have similar feelings. if terran let protoss hit 200/200 and get all those crucial high templar counts and colossus counts. You should just gg out. The only way not to let that happen is a highly aggressive 1 or 2 base play. Taking an early 3rd and hoping Protoss doesn't scout it and do the same is not a very good solution. | ||
|
desarrisc
Canada226 Posts
On May 05 2012 06:02 NHL Fever wrote: As a random player, I find this argument pretty silly. It's pretty obvious templars are easier to you use and more effective than ghosts, at least in my experience. It's not hard to figure out why, but the basics are this: 1) Storm area is WAY bigger than emp. It is far harder to dodge a storm than an emp. Diameter is at least 2-3x larger, total area probably 6-7x or more. 2) Templar are overall cheaper. 3) There are multiple units that need specific and precise targeting by ghosts - sentries, templar, archon and depleting shields of stsrong units. This is hard to do on a busy battlefield, and it's very hard to pull of without dying, and useless if you screw it up even a little bit. For storm you just aim for any decent chunk of the army and it works, you are never confused as to what you aiming at. The only way storm is bad is if you completely miss everything. With ghosts you could hit large chunks of the toss army with emp but miss a couple key units, and you're dead. 4) Ghosts die after use. They need to be in front for range and get killed, and they can't run away cause their slow. Templar transform into a very strong unit after use = recyclable. 5) Ghosts take a long time to build, templar are insta-build from anywhere. Its much easier and faster to work templar into your composition when needed, as a result. 6) Templar are extremely good both in army, and defending in base. Ghosts not so. 7) Ghosts needs racks with tech lab, which will probably be 50-60% of players rax. Templar can be made from any available gate. 8) Ghosts also need obs to be killed, which is very hard to do when there are a ton of units around even if you have detection. Even pros seem to have trouble with this. I have been frustrated with T as P, and with P as T, I understand where you are coming from. But ghosts are as good as templar? No way. They are both not as good and harder to incorporate because of basic game mechanics. 1) Currently Storm area = EMP area. They are both 1.5 radius. (Liquipedia) Please check your facts before stating them as facts. 2) Templars cost heavier on gas, and overall is "cheaper" but Ghosts have passive attack ability, higher movespeed, researchable cloaking and anti-caster snipe. 3) Overgeneralization. Ghosts usually need to lead the terran army in engagements, scan to kill obs, then cloak and EMP. That way you guarantee hitting the major units. 4) Untrue. Snipe observers, then cloak. Protoss has no secondary detection method. Also, high templar into archon formation separated from main army equates to dead archons as well. Your logic, i'm sorry to say, is non sequitor in this case. 5) True, but High templar takes additonal 40 in game seconds to storm, whereas ghosts spawn with enough energy to EMP with the energy upgrade. 6) True, but different units are different. Templar can hold off drops, but same goes for small army of MM in base denies protoss drops too. 7) Tech lab builds relatively quickly and is cheap. The price of add-on is to accomodate for terran building's ability to float. 8) Somewhat true, but if the obs is in the centre of deathball, EMP-ing the army is easier because of the vision deficit. If observer is out too front of army, it is easy to kill the observer with scan and shoot. I'm sorry, different units may be different, but HT is not necessarily "better" than the ghost. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 05 2012 05:49 Rye. wrote: I was a Plat Terran, but i havent played a game this season. BNet Profile - Rye My problem isnt balance. Its that I have to be the aggressor. It seemed every game i played last season was against a zerg or toss who sat in his base until tier 3. (there were only a few TvT games, felt like 5% of games) At plat level, Toss KNOW they will win if they sit on 2 bases and max with HT and Collosus and a nice mix of gateway and when they move out take another 2 bases. Turtling on 2 bases as toss isnt difficult; as someone stated earlier you just need your stalkers in your main and everything else at your nat. When you move out you will roll a terran, Super hard if you land a money storm. At plat level, we terrans just dont have the micro to get a decent engagement, (not for a lack of trying). Zerg are a whole new level of boring. Sit on 2 / 3 bases... never attacking... tech straight to infestors and try to catch the terran army unsieged as it moves across the map. Then get broodlords and a load more bases. Even though i actually won some TvZ, it was all about MY attacking. If i didnt attack /drop in my games i know there wouldnt be any engagements for 15+ mins. Boring Boring Boring. So i havent played 1v1 this season. Blizzard are so concerned with their stats and balance that they dont actually check if the games are fun/interesting. Terrans should just do what i've done and quit 1v1. Blizzards stats will then show that terrans are quitting and they'll be forced to act. Then again, maybe the reason for this whole balance test map and their comments about TvP was because terrans have already started to quit. (many of us have noticed lack of ladder T's) And blizzard want to fix things but they cant because it would require a HUGE patch that would completely shake the game up. SC2 is not a game where you get to sit back and macro up to 200/200 armies. Protoss does not get to do it against zerg and terran doesn’t either. Aggression is key to winning any match up and people who don’t want to play that way should play a different race or game. Some races favor specific play styles and there is nothing wrong with looking for the one that suites you. Or you should look how to improve your play as terran and stop asking for the game to be changed to suite the style you wish to play. Also, Blizzard has come out and said that terrans are not leaving the ladder and there is not evidence to support that claim. | ||
|
yoigen
Germany369 Posts
On May 05 2012 06:04 klops wrote: brilliant analysis. please do more in the future. I don't know about you, but it has been working very well for me and progamers such as Kas do it alot aswell. And Kas is pretty good at TvP. | ||
| ||
