EPT
Sigh Protoss seems to be in dire straits, but I think Puma is really pretty good. And really, Mana has been on a tear in every tourneyIEM Global Challenge Cologne - "Dead Presidents" - Page 13
| Forum Index > News |
Please try to keep the discussion civil. And while I can't ask everyone to write a huge essay like tree.hugger, try to write out your opinions in a substantive, well-thought way. | ||
|
CeriseCherries
6170 Posts
Sigh Protoss seems to be in dire straits, but I think Puma is really pretty good. And really, Mana has been on a tear in every tourney | ||
|
rareh
Portugal298 Posts
LOL he is in code A There are much better protoss still in code S. Not saying he is bad or anything, but not good either. | ||
|
LuckyMacro
United States1482 Posts
| ||
|
Olinim
4044 Posts
On September 09 2011 03:45 rareh wrote: MC still playing well ? LOL he is in code A There are much better protoss still in code S. Not saying he is bad or anything, but not good either. Hahah no there aren't. None of the protoss in Code S are even competitors to win code s, yes huk and puzzle got farther because they got a better group/bracket. Of course when huk met MVP he got raped and puzzle can't even beat ryung. They didn't play any better than MC did. | ||
|
illsick
United States1770 Posts
Code S needs MC or some kind of dominant protoss player looking at code S next season, I just don't see a protoss that is a threat in taking the whole tournament | ||
|
Havefa1th
United States245 Posts
The fact of the matter remains is that Protoss is not underpowered, there just is no overarching Protoss "president," so to speak. Jinro himself says that MC has stagnated due to lack of provocative and innovative play. To be honest, there isn't any Protoss player that's innovating the race... meanwhile there are Zerg players (mainly foreign ones) commanding the helm of the Infestor battleship and Korean Zergs at the front of faster, safer roach based play that has shown success against a variety of unit compositions. And there are the Terrans like Boxer and the rest of SlayerS, who made one small unit (and therefore the mech composition) more popular of late due to aggressive, cost-efficient play. Where's the Protoss? You can argue for MC's storm drop play, but that's a technique that is shadowed in the end by standard, stagnated build orders and strategies. You can argue for White-Ra, who shoves the square Warp Prism into every round hole the PvX matchup has, but in the end, it's one unit that forces no special macro-related reaction from the other player. The lack of success is not the fault of an "imbalanced" race or the 1-1-1, it's MC's (and the rest of the Protoss PLAYERS) fault. You can't blame the losses of one player on the race. You just can't. However... Easily the best written article I've read on this website (about Starcraft 2, that is). Keep this shit up. | ||
|
-y0shi-
Germany994 Posts
And really, what do you want to innovate with protoss? All the units that are usable see use, prisms are really risky and can only do so much, evetyy other unit gets used as good as it gets. No Carriers wont solve anything... The problem is that terran is more flexible and can get units that require specific stuff, otherwise you loose. Protoss doesnt have something like that. I also cant understand why they made ghosts the way they are, its a unit thats invisible and good against everything?! | ||
|
Olinim
4044 Posts
On September 09 2011 04:06 Havefa1th wrote: To blame one player's downfall on the "faults" of an entire race is a racey and unwarranted claim. To say that no Protoss is good at ZvP is as an absurd statement as saying that 1-1-1 will forever be unholdable. The 1-1-1 will be, in the end, just another cheese (like the 4 gate and the roach-ling all-ins before it) that is scoutable and held cost-efficiently with slight build order changes and superior micro. The fact of the matter remains is that Protoss is not underpowered, there just is no overarching Protoss "president," so to speak. Jinro himself says that MC has stagnated due to lack of provocative and innovative play. To be honest, there isn't any Protoss player that's innovating the race... meanwhile there are Zerg players (mainly foreign ones) commanding the helm of the Infestor battleship and Korean Zergs at the front of faster, safer roach based play that has shown success against a variety of unit compositions. And there are the Terrans like Boxer and the rest of SlayerS, who made one small unit (and therefore the mech composition) more popular of late due to aggressive, cost-efficient play. Where's the Protoss? You can argue for MC's storm drop play, but that's a technique that is shadowed in the end by standard, stagnated build orders and strategies. You can argue for White-Ra, who shoves the square Warp Prism into every round hole the PvX matchup has, but in the end, it's one unit that forces no special macro-related reaction from the other player. The lack of success is not the fault of an "imbalanced" race or the 1-1-1, it's MC's (and the rest of the Protoss PLAYERS) fault. You can't blame the losses of one player on the race. You just can't. However... Easily the best written article I've read on this website (about Starcraft 2, that is). Keep this shit up. Actually when the whole race has a 30 percent winrate and hasn't had any success in korea for months, it's a completely warranted claim. 1/1/1 is not just another cheese and if you actually knew the scene this is apparent. This all in has absolutely insane winrates, a near auto win on some maps. It can be scouted, anticipated and still absolutely destroy. 4 gate does not meet this description. This isn't just the fall of MC, it's the fall of protoss who have been on a downward spiral for a while now. 5 protoss in code s. I'm sure if there were 0 protoss in code s and they have a 10 percent winrate you would still insist everything is fine(at this rate it will happen). | ||
|
syllabic
29 Posts
On September 09 2011 04:13 -y0shi- wrote: When people train for weeks to hold the 111 and cant even do it when they know it is coming its not just another cheese... You can say exactly the same thing about 4 gate. You can train for weeks to hold 4 gate, but if their execution is better than yours you still lose. | ||
|
Toadvine
Poland2234 Posts
On September 09 2011 04:26 syllabic wrote: You can say exactly the same thing about 4 gate. You can train for weeks to hold 4 gate, but if their execution is better than yours you still lose. Are you posting from the past? Like, October 2010? That would sound about right. | ||
|
Olinim
4044 Posts
On September 09 2011 04:26 syllabic wrote: You can say exactly the same thing about 4 gate. You can train for weeks to hold 4 gate, but if their execution is better than yours you still lose. What? But it's easy to hold a 4 gate so if you train for weeks to hold it and you can't you're just bad. No one can consistently hold 1/1/1...everyone can hold a 4 gate they are hardly even used anymore.(except in pvp) Seriously all you have to do is put up spines and bunkers...you could have the best 4 gate every and lose to some sloppily placed spines or bunkers. | ||
|
Paladia
802 Posts
On September 09 2011 04:06 Havefa1th wrote: To blame one player's downfall on the "faults" of an entire race is a racey and unwarranted claim. To say that no Protoss is good at ZvP is as an absurd statement as saying that 1-1-1 will forever be unholdable. The 1-1-1 will be, in the end, just another cheese (like the 4 gate and the roach-ling all-ins before it) that is scoutable and held cost-efficiently with slight build order changes and superior micro. The fact of the matter remains is that Protoss is not underpowered, there just is no overarching Protoss "president," so to speak. Jinro himself says that MC has stagnated due to lack of provocative and innovative play. To be honest, there isn't any Protoss player that's innovating the race... meanwhile there are Zerg players (mainly foreign ones) commanding the helm of the Infestor battleship and Korean Zergs at the front of faster, safer roach based play that has shown success against a variety of unit compositions. And there are the Terrans like Boxer and the rest of SlayerS, who made one small unit (and therefore the mech composition) more popular of late due to aggressive, cost-efficient play. Where's the Protoss? You can argue for MC's storm drop play, but that's a technique that is shadowed in the end by standard, stagnated build orders and strategies. You can argue for White-Ra, who shoves the square Warp Prism into every round hole the PvX matchup has, but in the end, it's one unit that forces no special macro-related reaction from the other player. The lack of success is not the fault of an "imbalanced" race or the 1-1-1, it's MC's (and the rest of the Protoss PLAYERS) fault. You can't blame the losses of one player on the race. You just can't. However... Easily the best written article I've read on this website (about Starcraft 2, that is). Keep this shit up. With that kind of argument you may just as well say that no matter how they make the game it cannot be unbalanced, it is always the players fault. It is completely faulty logic. There is no reason why people who pick Terran would be better players. Yet there are 17 Terrans in Code S and 5 Protoss. The top10 of the Korean ladder has 9 Terrans. Even the half decent Terran players are doing very well. It is a simple matter of one race having the best economy (mules) the best defense (tanks, bunkers, PF) and the best harass (banshee, medivac drops, hellion). I even play Terran myself but I think the current game is very lackluster to watch due to Terrans having almost no weakness yet having extremely strong points. Too much reward and too little risk involved with playing Terran currently. Z is being kept afloat by one gimmick being so superbly strong (fungal). There is no real point in arguing about it further though, the well written article and the current numbers speak for themselves. | ||
|
Pandain
United States12989 Posts
MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.) Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that. I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san. You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general. Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming. Against PuMa, a better BW pro but a worse SC2 player, MC rightly expected to face the Frankenstein child of Polt's old build that he lost his first GSL games against. In that three games series, MC faced the 1/1/1 twice with two different strategies, and was rendered utterly helpless in each game A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player. And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build. That said, an observer of MC's basic play would be hard pressed to find real signs of slumping. He still wins a good portion of his games, and it shouldn't be omitted that his IEM loss did indeed come in the final, after all. There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it. In his heyday, and even during his slumps, MC was a massive anomaly. Any casual observer of his play in the GSL could make that observation, yet statistics bear this out. MC's Korean winning percentage is 66%. The second best winning percentage from any protoss is Puzzle, who has a 62% win rate, a substantial part of it in weekly foreigner-run tournaments against vastly inferior competition. Alicia notches 54%. HongUn has a 51% win rate. San boasts the same. Look at MC's protoss contemporaries for yourself. There's no one even close to MC's winning percentages. You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries. in balance piles, protoss indisputably been terrible recently. Terrible, but not because of balance. The only reason that some gaping flaws in the protoss design have now been uncovered is because MC is no longer successful enough to cover them up. .... Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player. [/b] f you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition. Stop visiting the battlenet forums. Yet he knew he could not breach PuMa's main, and retook his expo, racing for charge If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you. MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. Or every single pro player on the planet. After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him. ... At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy | ||
|
Olinim
4044 Posts
On September 09 2011 04:34 Pandain wrote: [/b]Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums. MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.) Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that. I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san. You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general. Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming. A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player. And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build. There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it. You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries. Terrible, but not because of balance. .... Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player. Stop visiting the battlenet forums. If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you. I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. Or every single pro player on the planet. ... At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss? And just because that one time you can maybe hold 1/1/1 if you play perfectly, does not mean it's balanced. Several high level terrans have come out and said yes 1/1/1 is too strong. It's immensely stronger than any other cheese or all in, and scouting it does an alarmingly little amount when it comes to stopping it. | ||
|
SeaSwift
Scotland4486 Posts
On September 09 2011 04:06 Havefa1th wrote: To blame one player's downfall on the "faults" of an entire race is a racey and unwarranted claim. You start being wrong here. Tree.Hugger didn't blame one player's downfall on the "faults" of... yadda yadda yadda. He talks about all Korean Protoss in general, while trying to link it to the loss of MC in a recent tournament so that it is topical and therefore interesting. To say that no Protoss is good at ZvP is as an absurd statement as saying that 1-1-1 will forever be unholdable. The 1-1-1 will be, in the end, just another cheese (like the 4 gate and the roach-ling all-ins before it) that is scoutable and held cost-efficiently with slight build order changes and superior micro. Nice baseless assertion here. What exactly makes the 1-1-1 so like other cheeses? So many players, in fact in the exact tournament the article refers to, scout the cheese, use the most effective build order against it (example: 1gate FE, the mad Phoenix/Blink/DT build), builds which insta-lose vs other builds which are fairly common (2rax, gasless expand appropriately) and still get crushed? The fact of the matter remains is that Protoss is not underpowered I'd like to stop you there. By definition it cannot be a FACT because people are debating over it. For something to be a fact, there has to be conclusive proof of it. Because so many people are arguing over whether Protoss is underpowered or not there cannot be conclusive proof, therefore it is not a fact. , there just is no overarching Protoss "president," so to speak. Jinro himself says that MC has stagnated due to lack of provocative and innovative play. Warp Prism drops vs Select/Puma aren't innovative or provocative (including picking up 3 Hts in a Warp Prism and DODGING AN EMP with it)? How about the Blink/DT/Phoenix play? How about the 1gate expand Stargate that MC invented just to crush roach/ling all-ins and put pressure on Zerg thirds? None of them recent? None of them innovative? To be honest, there isn't any Protoss player that's innovating the race... meanwhile there are Zerg players (mainly foreign ones) commanding the helm of the Infestor battleship and Korean Zergs at the front of faster, safer roach based play that has shown success against a variety of unit compositions. And there are the Terrans like Boxer and the rest of SlayerS, who made one small unit (and therefore the mech composition) more popular of late due to aggressive, cost-efficient play. The notion of foreign players ever "commanding the helm" of play that affects Korea at all seems absurd to me, and as the highest level of play is in Korea surely that is what we should be talking about? Boxer, Slayers et al rediscovered an amazing unit in the Terrans' arsenal which was underused in all matches and popularised its use in one tournament. If anyone can give me a viable unit for Protoss which is underused and has potential to solve the problems that Protoss has vs Terran (specifically the worst ones like 1-1-1 and Ghosts lategame) then please, by all means enlighten me. Where's the Protoss? You can argue for MC's storm drop play, but that's a technique that is shadowed in the end by standard, stagnated build orders and strategies. You can argue for White-Ra, who shoves the square Warp Prism into every round hole the PvX matchup has, but in the end, it's one unit that forces no special macro-related reaction from the other player. I'm sorry, are you arguing FOR Protoss being imbalanced or AGAINST? You claim that the best tactic that the winner of 2 GSLs and a couple of billion foreign tournaments, as well as other Protoss players like HerO can come up with is shadowed by "standard, stagnated build orders and strategies" - and call that BALANCE? Yeah, White-Ra is a beast in Europe and one of my all-time favourite players for both play and manner, but the influence he has in Korea, again where the highest level of play is, is jack shit. The lack of success is not the fault of an "imbalanced" race or the 1-1-1, it's MC's (and the rest of the Protoss PLAYERS) fault. You can't blame the losses of one player on the race. You just can't. The lack of success is not the fault of MC's or the rest of the Protoss players fault, it's the 1-1-1's (and the rest of the racial IMBALANCE) fault. You can't blame the sustained losses of one race with a sufficient sample size to draw some conclusions on all it's players. You just can't. Sorry if it seemed condescending at any point, but a lot of what you said seemed ignorant and just conservative in it's views - like, the status quo is always balance regardless of evidence. If you don't want to discuss balance, don't, but don't try to force your baseless assertions on other people. | ||
|
Pandain
United States12989 Posts
On September 09 2011 04:40 Olinim wrote: [/b]What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss? There have been 5 bonjwas with broodwar. Boxer, Nada, Iloveoov, Savior, and Flash. Four terrans and one zerg. People knew that the player was OP, not the race, because they played flawless. When I see Nestea play, he makes few if no mistakes. And he constantly improves. When I see MVP play, I see a clear understanding of the matchup, solid macro, and awe-inspiring micro. I used to see that with MC. But look at my post, see his flaws, and you can tell that the issues he faced was simply not playing as well. Protoss players aren't dominating in GSL because they don't have that "spark." And the mid tier ones, like Violet, for instance, are dominating instead of protoss counter parts because up and down matches came just as the 1-1-1 awful strength was discvoered so they were knocked out. Just like how back in the day zergs got marine scv allined(nestea even lost to rain), and so you saw few amounts of zergs. For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple. | ||
|
SeaSwift
Scotland4486 Posts
On September 09 2011 04:45 Pandain wrote: For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple. That isn't how you decide whether something is imbalanced or not. If you have to play absolutely perfectly to beat a cheese that any platinum player could pull off it is imbalanced. Something is imbalanced if the player who played best loses, which is what I saw time and time again with MC vs Puma. | ||
|
lbmaian
United States689 Posts
EDIT: Very reactive as usual though. 1.4 PTR patch reduced whining for a couple days. So did the high number of protoss code A qualified players. And then came all the up&down matches. | ||
|
Olinim
4044 Posts
On September 09 2011 04:45 Pandain wrote: [/b]There have been 5 bonjwas with broodwar. Boxer, Nada, Iloveoov, Savior, and Flash. Four terrans and one zerg. People knew that the player was OP, not the race, because they played flawless. When I see Nestea play, he makes few if no mistakes. And he constantly improves. When I see MVP play, I see a clear understanding of the matchup, solid macro, and awe-inspiring micro. I used to see that with MC. But look at my post, see his flaws, and you can tell that the issues he faced was simply not playing as well. Protoss players aren't dominating in GSL because they don't have that "spark." And the mid tier ones, like Violet, for instance, are dominating instead of protoss counter parts because up and down matches came just as the 1-1-1 awful strength was discvoered so they were knocked out. Just like how back in the day zergs got marine scv allined(nestea even lost to rain), and so you saw few amounts of zergs. For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple. Sorry but that's an absolutely laughable definition of imbalance, so it has to be absolutely impossible to lose with to be too good? haha what shit. Also think about the repercussions 1/1/1 has on the matchup even when not used. The very fear of 1/1/1 already puts toss at a disadvantage, and requires immense preparation, usually to still lose. I mean, how the hell could MC improve with the matchup the way it is? | ||
|
farnham
1378 Posts
| ||
| ||
