On September 21 2012 01:42 MCDayC wrote: wtff. I thought this was kinda terrible.
The point about people whining balance and not talking about gameplay is good, but apart from that... well I'm at a loss.
What else in there was meaningful? There was some hope for BW units back in before (which we've heard a million times before). There was some complaining about marines (!). I'm honestly confused by why this has received a positive response. Some one help me please.
I'm not Filter, but my own point is that the game in is current state has some gameplay flaws that make some aspects of the game very boring. Instead of working out these issues, too many just scream OP UP on things instead of thinking about how the units work fundamentally, and that's what Blizz is doing as well.
I don't want BW with updated graphics, and neither does Filter I think. It's just that a game like BW is/was pretty much the benchmark for good fun RTS units and gameplay. You have to analyze why the units all had a great role and were fun to use, make generalizations from that, and then use those rules to make new units. It's just learning from the past, and some people think Blizzard have failed to analyze and learn from what made their past games great.
On September 21 2012 01:42 MCDayC wrote: wtff. I thought this was kinda terrible.
The point about people whining balance and not talking about gameplay is good, but apart from that... well I'm at a loss.
What else in there was meaningful? There was some hope for BW units back in before (which we've heard a million times before). There was some complaining about marines (!). I'm honestly confused by why this has received a positive response. Some one help me please.
I'm not Filter, but my own point is that the game in is current state has some gameplay flaws that make some aspects of the game very boring. Instead of working out these issues, too many just scream OP UP on things instead of thinking about how the units work fundamentally, and that's what Blizz is doing as well.
I don't want BW with updated graphics, and neither does Filter I think. It's just that a game like BW is/was pretty much the benchmark for good fun RTS units and gameplay. You have to analyze why the units all had a great role and were fun to use, make generalizations from that, and then use those rules to make new units. It's just learning from the past, and some people think Blizzard have failed to analyze and learn from what made their past games great.
I agree with the first bit, and as I said, that part of the video made sense, but the rest of it was a ramble on SC2, with no clarity or structure, and I won't even get started on the Marine QQing, that was just strange to hear in 2012.
On September 21 2012 01:42 MCDayC wrote: wtff. I thought this was kinda terrible.
The point about people whining balance and not talking about gameplay is good, but apart from that... well I'm at a loss.
What else in there was meaningful? There was some hope for BW units back in before (which we've heard a million times before). There was some complaining about marines (!). I'm honestly confused by why this has received a positive response. Some one help me please.
I'm not Filter, but my own point is that the game in is current state has some gameplay flaws that make some aspects of the game very boring. Instead of working out these issues, too many just scream OP UP on things instead of thinking about how the units work fundamentally, and that's what Blizz is doing as well.
I don't want BW with updated graphics, and neither does Filter I think. It's just that a game like BW is/was pretty much the benchmark for good fun RTS units and gameplay. You have to analyze why the units all had a great role and were fun to use, make generalizations from that, and then use those rules to make new units. It's just learning from the past, and some people think Blizzard have failed to analyze and learn from what made their past games great.
I agree with the first bit, and as I said, that part of the video made sense, but the rest of it was a ramble on SC2, with no clarity or structure, and I won't even get started on the Marine QQing, that was just strange to hear in 2012.
I definitely agree with you, it is a ramble, but to be honest he's a prominent community figure and I wanted to get a good discussion about SC gameplay going into HoTS. Everyone has their own opinion about what can be improved in Starcraft so all I really took from the video was that first part.
On September 21 2012 01:42 MCDayC wrote: wtff. I thought this was kinda terrible.
The point about people whining balance and not talking about gameplay is good, but apart from that... well I'm at a loss.
What else in there was meaningful? There was some hope for BW units back in before (which we've heard a million times before). There was some complaining about marines (!). I'm honestly confused by why this has received a positive response. Some one help me please.
I'm not Filter, but my own point is that the game in is current state has some gameplay flaws that make some aspects of the game very boring. Instead of working out these issues, too many just scream OP UP on things instead of thinking about how the units work fundamentally, and that's what Blizz is doing as well.
I don't want BW with updated graphics, and neither does Filter I think. It's just that a game like BW is/was pretty much the benchmark for good fun RTS units and gameplay. You have to analyze why the units all had a great role and were fun to use, make generalizations from that, and then use those rules to make new units. It's just learning from the past, and some people think Blizzard have failed to analyze and learn from what made their past games great.
Well, but what are those flaws? Turtlefests? Change the stats of the units accordingly that certain pressure/timings are only stoppable by building units, but if the timing/pressure doesn't hit, the units should be useful to perform pressure/do a timing on their own and now the opponent has to build units. Boring units? Change their stats until they are at sweetpoints that create interesting interaction (like stalkers kiting marines, marines splitting vs banelings, ling bling fights, MMM vs Tanks) Useless features? (like strike canons, tunneling claws, carriers, hydralisks, reapers) Just repair what is holding them back.
BW was not good because a slow unit with incredible damage is great design, it was good because the slow unit with incredible damage found a sweet spot in the balance, where you could tech to it somewhat safely and fast and overcome it's slowness with a dropship while your opponent did lack the tools to deal with the dropship easily.
I agree with most of what he said in his video, but that elitist crap he spews at around 6 - 7:30 almost nearly ruins his argument. All players need to be taken into account. All players as in every ladder level.
On September 21 2012 02:24 Kinaesthetic wrote: I agree with most of what he said in his video, but that elitist crap he spews at around 6 - 7:30 almost nearly ruins his argument. All players need to be taken into account. All players as in every ladder level.
No, they don't. The ideal is to improve oneself and become a better player. If the game caters to low-level players, where is the motivation to improve?
The skill ceiling should be as high as possible so that the game can support eSports in the best manner. Ten years from now the casual Bronzies and Silvers probably won't still be playing or watching StarCraft. They don't matter in the long run, and things should not be made easier for them so that they can feel rewarded for sub-par play. This is not elitist thinking. This is the basic competitive spirit that drives all sports.
On September 21 2012 02:24 Kinaesthetic wrote: I agree with most of what he said in his video, but that elitist crap he spews at around 6 - 7:30 almost nearly ruins his argument. All players need to be taken into account. All players as in every ladder level.
No, they don't. The ideal is to improve oneself and become a better player. If the game caters to low-level players, where is the motivation to improve?
The skill ceiling should be as high as possible so that the game can support eSports in the best manner. Ten years from now the casual Bronzies and Silvers probably won't still be playing or watching StarCraft. They don't matter in the long run, and things should not be made easier for them so that they can feel rewarded for sub-par play. This is not elitist thinking. This is the basic competitive spirit that drives all sports.
The skill ceiling is unreachable high, noone will ever play SC2 perfectly. I agree that Silvers and Bronzies should not be considered when it comes to design/balancing if this should be an esports title, yet everything else should be done to keep them playing/watching, else SC2 will be dead in 10years.
On September 21 2012 01:36 SigmaoctanusIV wrote: While I might not agree with his points I definitely agree with the "Fuck Balance" point and lets figure out better gameplay. Starcraft 2 might not last for LoV, Especially if HOTS is more of the same style. I know the numbers are going to dwindle over time but damn. Ladder is just Zerg and Protoss in the high master area on NA. I literally get 10% or less Terrans to play against.
I don't even know how many times I have posted about bringing the Reaver back just to test it on beta I can tell you it's more than 4, It's my favorite BW unit and easily a great replacement for the ever boring Colossus.
I am sure this video like many other will be looked over and nothing changed because Blizzard is pretty stubborn with the way they want to make their game. In the end it's up to them to make a game that we will continue to play like BW for 10+ years.
Would really be a shame if they killed bw and have this die out soon after.
Lol. HotS isn't going to die out "soon". It's still in fucking beta! The swarming bitchy gnats of TL aren't a good litmus test.
On September 21 2012 01:42 MCDayC wrote: wtff. I thought this was kinda terrible.
The point about people whining balance and not talking about gameplay is good, but apart from that... well I'm at a loss.
What else in there was meaningful? There was some hope for BW units back in before (which we've heard a million times before). There was some complaining about marines (!). I'm honestly confused by why this has received a positive response. Some one help me please.
I'm not Filter, but my own point is that the game in is current state has some gameplay flaws that make some aspects of the game very boring. Instead of working out these issues, too many just scream OP UP on things instead of thinking about how the units work fundamentally, and that's what Blizz is doing as well.
I don't want BW with updated graphics, and neither does Filter I think. It's just that a game like BW is/was pretty much the benchmark for good fun RTS units and gameplay. You have to analyze why the units all had a great role and were fun to use, make generalizations from that, and then use those rules to make new units. It's just learning from the past, and some people think Blizzard have failed to analyze and learn from what made their past games great.
I agree with the first bit, and as I said, that part of the video made sense, but the rest of it was a ramble on SC2, with no clarity or structure, and I won't even get started on the Marine QQing, that was just strange to hear in 2012.
I definitely agree with you, it is a ramble, but to be honest he's a prominent community figure and I wanted to get a good discussion about SC gameplay going into HoTS. Everyone has their own opinion about what can be improved in Starcraft so all I really took from the video was that first part.
Wait, how is he a prominent community figure? I've followed the SC 2 scene since release, but have never heard of filter until this thread.
On September 20 2012 23:53 Big J wrote: I did only watch up to 10mins, but I absolutly didn't want to watch any further, as I just completly disagree. Awesome gameplay is created by units that are balanced in ways so that they are used actively all the time.
Just using his examples: Reaper: 5rax reaper was completly overpowered, but it was awesome to play with, awesome tense to watch and even playing against it, was in a way awesome, because it felt soooo good when you could beat it, while it was sooooo tense all the time. What they did with the reaper was nerf it into an underpowered state. What they should have done, is BALANCE IT in a way that reapers would still get used! Find that sweetspot that creates tense gameplay, where most of the time a player will get an advantage of it, but not wins or loses straight up. Tempest: it's a unit that shoots the opponent. Always (not anymore with 15range, but I'd hope it gets a little bit more again throughout the beta). If properly BALANCED. How does that not create tense moments? What the game needs is more units that can attack even if you don't allin.
The HotS units are some of the best ideas because if we look at them: Oracle: fast harass unit; support unit for hit squads against fungal - introduces more active play Tempest: long ranged unit; when properly used, it should shoot the opponent and force a reaction that is not "turtle harder) - introduces active play MS Core: Allows Protoss to walk out on the map early; introduces active play Swarm Host: Sends Units to the opponent from long range; Should always do that, because the unit should be safe itself. - introduces active play Battle Hellion: allows the hellion to be a better combat unit if need be; producing more fast harass units means more active play.
Basically the only unit that is somewhat questionable in terms of more active play is the widow mine, as it could turn out that the best way to play against it would be to sit back and not move until you are ready to clear the map from minefields with a huge army (though for that the widow mine would have to be properly balanced first)
What blizzard needs to do, is balance units in ways so that they actually can do more stuff, even if the opponent turtles, while diminishing their all-in potential. In WoL, mostly just the 2nd one has been done. It's not a question of design, if the reaper is overpowered. It's a question of "how close is the battle between reapers and the defender".
sure balance is good, but if everything is already balanced in the beta or even before it, why not just release the game? Considering that you said that you stopped listening 10 minutes in means that youdidnt hear anything else that he had to say regarding the issue.
Yeah, listened to the rest now. All he talks is stuff that can and should be achieved via balance. Thors are too bad anti air vs anthing but mutalisks? Buff it against other things. AoE is too good? Nerf it. Marines are too good in big balls now? Nerf the big balls. There are a lot of simple parameters that are responsible for that (supply, range, dps, upgrades, production)
There is literarily nothing that he mentioned, that could not be dealt with by balancing.
almost everything you said goes against each other though. Only way to nerf big balls of marines is to have good aoe, but you also said nerf aoe. Thors are made to counter light air units, viking is supposed to counter everything else as the viking is basically a goliath that isnt ground based and doesnt have an aoe aa-attack.Maybe remove the viking and the thor to replace them with a bw goliath? marines do a ton of damage but only when together, if you make them spread then they are in small groups (1-3 if you are good at splitting). A single zealot or archon can clean up 3 marines easily right? just throwing around some random ideas.
Why is the only way to nerf marines good AoE? (apart from me not thinking that there is anything wrong with the relationship between AoE and Marines) Make marines bigger and give them less range and less dps and suddenly big marine balls suck hardcore, because instead of 50marines shooting at once, only 30will shoot and 20 will try to hump their big fat frontman.
Of course really balancing everything out with the the parameter changes I wrote is hard as it will create other problems. But autospread will give you incredible problems as well.
They tried with a unit called the Warhound. It was o big for its supply so army compositions with it seemed so big and scary even if it something like that it's not a big advantage. In chokepoints they sucked so hard because just 10% of them actually fight in these situations.
Well, people bitched so much about that, then Blizz removed it, Because people just coudn't blind counter it and were getting angrier.
Warhound had 7range and did not suck in chokepoints.
Well, a warhound still fits almost 4 squares, if you fight something not melee like MMM or Roaches, the third row of Warhounds won't shot. The dps density is too low, because the supply density it's also too low. This is the reason of why the Warhound had such speed, range and health. They would completely suck outside of early game or being a very specific Immortal counter (and Ghost saomewhat fill this role with EMP), in other words, they couldn't be "core" as Blizz wanted.
On September 21 2012 01:42 MCDayC wrote: wtff. I thought this was kinda terrible.
The point about people whining balance and not talking about gameplay is good, but apart from that... well I'm at a loss.
What else in there was meaningful? There was some hope for BW units back in before (which we've heard a million times before). There was some complaining about marines (!). I'm honestly confused by why this has received a positive response. Some one help me please.
I'm not Filter, but my own point is that the game in is current state has some gameplay flaws that make some aspects of the game very boring. Instead of working out these issues, too many just scream OP UP on things instead of thinking about how the units work fundamentally, and that's what Blizz is doing as well.
I don't want BW with updated graphics, and neither does Filter I think. It's just that a game like BW is/was pretty much the benchmark for good fun RTS units and gameplay. You have to analyze why the units all had a great role and were fun to use, make generalizations from that, and then use those rules to make new units. It's just learning from the past, and some people think Blizzard have failed to analyze and learn from what made their past games great.
I agree with the first bit, and as I said, that part of the video made sense, but the rest of it was a ramble on SC2, with no clarity or structure, and I won't even get started on the Marine QQing, that was just strange to hear in 2012.
I definitely agree with you, it is a ramble, but to be honest he's a prominent community figure and I wanted to get a good discussion about SC gameplay going into HoTS. Everyone has their own opinion about what can be improved in Starcraft so all I really took from the video was that first part.
Wait, how is he a prominent community figure? I've followed the SC 2 scene since release, but have never heard of filter until this thread.
Prominent isn't the right word; more like well-respected.
His bronze to masters series will basically bring you from complete noob to having a very good mechanical understanding of the game, which basically means it'll drill constant SCVs/Depots into your skull, make you understand timings, how tech works, how taking expansions works, how to analyze your replays etc etc. The idea is by the end of the videos you can pretty much go out and learn any strategy you want because you'll be able to execute it well and understand what you're doing. It's nothing absolutely revolutionary, but it's a very good practice routine for beginners and IMO the fastest way to improve.
On September 21 2012 02:24 Kinaesthetic wrote: I agree with most of what he said in his video, but that elitist crap he spews at around 6 - 7:30 almost nearly ruins his argument. All players need to be taken into account. All players as in every ladder level.
No, they don't. The ideal is to improve oneself and become a better player. If the game caters to low-level players, where is the motivation to improve?
The skill ceiling should be as high as possible so that the game can support eSports in the best manner. Ten years from now the casual Bronzies and Silvers probably won't still be playing or watching StarCraft. They don't matter in the long run, and things should not be made easier for them so that they can feel rewarded for sub-par play. This is not elitist thinking. This is the basic competitive spirit that drives all sports.
The skill ceiling is unreachable high, noone will ever play SC2 perfectly. I agree that Silvers and Bronzies should not be considered when it comes to design/balancing if this should be an esports title, yet everything else should be done to keep them playing/watching, else SC2 will be dead in 10years.
Every game that isn't turn based has unlimited skill ceiling, because you can always do things faster, make the perfect response at every time, 'kite' with units (no matter how boring, balanced,... the game is).
Brood war is a lot more skillfull than starcraft 2. Anyone with a brain and a little bit of basic knowledge about both games knows this. And I'm not even talking about things like auto-mine, smart-casting, unlimited selection etc. There's nothing like moving shot in sc2, there's no mutalisks micro, there's no vulture patrol micro, there's nothing that takes considerable amount of skill to become good at BESIDES marine micro. The potential in BW units is inifite while remaining humanly possible, the only 'infinite' potential in sc2's units is having 'automoton 2000' like micro which is humanly impossible.
No sc2 won't be dead if you make a FUN game and a game with depth to it, micro-wise and strategy wise. Brood war is the living proof of it, what more do you want??
All the points are really easy to understand and I fully agree with them, however he has missed one thing which is important to make SC2 less about balance and which is crucial to making all playstyles equally viable.
The different production speed boosts (Reactor, Chronoboost, Warp Gate, Larva inject) affect the production capabilities of the races differently. While Zerg can "burst produce" anything they want (up to the number of - theoretically unlimited - stockpiled larvae) Protoss and Terran arent that lucky. Protoss can at least burst-produce the core of their army, but even they dont have "Warp Gate" for air units. Terrans are the least lucky in that regard and not being able to quickly reproduce their Siege Tanks and Thors is the main reason for mech not being equally viable to bio in a competitive scene. Since these burst productions are new and linked to the economy production boost (chronoboosted Probes, extra larvae from the first few larvae injects) the corresponding terran skill (MULE) has to be removed as well.
Personally I also feel that limiting the number of units in a control group will be good for gameplay, because you stop thinking with the deathball-1-control-group. This in addition to the automatically&optional spread out units AND a buff to AoE damage (except Fungal Growth) should open up new opportunities for more interesting gameplay.
On September 21 2012 02:24 Kinaesthetic wrote: I agree with most of what he said in his video, but that elitist crap he spews at around 6 - 7:30 almost nearly ruins his argument. All players need to be taken into account. All players as in every ladder level.
I want to pull off stuff that's challenging for me. I've only reached gold league briefly, but I still like units that reward skill and attention. Just because a low level player can't do e.g. awesome marine splits doesn't mean they aren't taken into account. The problem with things that are easy to do is that they tend to make differences in skill less relevant than things that are hard to do.
Marines are an example of a unit that's easy to use but can reward differences in skill, because you can do difficult stuff that greatly increases their effectiveness. I can do simple splits but they aren't nearly as effective as MarineKing's.
The Reaver on it's own doesn't really feel difficult to use, but it's effectiveness keeps increasing as you get better at using it with the shuttle.
I went back to 6:30 in the video. Blizz shouldn't completely ignore casuals, but there definitely shouldn't be an a-move unit that crushes tank lines by itself because that negates the effort put in by the tank player with a no effort action.
I agree 100%. The mere fact that Blizzard has the reasources to test out some radical things for Hots and yet, still keeps on with the same old shit they've been doing/feeding us for the last 2 years is hillarious.
This video started kind of good, the design should go gameplay first, balance second. Everything after that just sounded extremely biased. Marines are bad, add the reaver and the goliath etc. etc. completely ignoring that the goliath would make vikings obsolete as it is basically the same unit or that the reaver was kinda dependant on BW pathing with huge gaps between units.
I agreed when he said he is ranting, because it sounds a lot like it. Nony put in effort to make a coherent argument, with prepared visual demonstration and this just looks like someone thinks he does the same when he rants about his love of BW, over some random game of his, which features ZvP, the matchup about which he doesn´t talk at all during his rant. More effort please.
On September 21 2012 02:24 Kinaesthetic wrote: I agree with most of what he said in his video, but that elitist crap he spews at around 6 - 7:30 almost nearly ruins his argument. All players need to be taken into account. All players as in every ladder level.
I want to pull off stuff that's challenging for me. I've only reached gold league briefly, but I still like units that reward skill and attention. Just because a low level player can't do e.g. awesome marine splits doesn't mean they aren't taken into account. The problem with things that are easy to do is that they tend to make differences in skill less relevant than things that are hard to do.
Marines are an example of a unit that's easy to use but can reward differences in skill, because you can do difficult stuff that greatly increases their effectiveness. I can do simple splits but they aren't nearly as effective as MarineKing's.
The Reaver on it's own doesn't really feel difficult to use, but it's effectiveness keeps increasing as you get better at using it with the shuttle.
I went back to 6:30 in the video. Blizz shouldn't completely ignore casuals, but there definitely shouldn't be an a-move unit that crushes tank lines by itself because that negates the effort put in by the tank player with a no effort action.
Bad players should not be able to perform anywhere near the level of a good player. Simple as that. Its tough love, but if you really want to pull of a sick tactic then work on it. Dumbing down the game for lower level player to feel better will hurt everyone. Its not elitist its the truth.
On September 20 2012 23:53 Big J wrote: I did only watch up to 10mins, but I absolutly didn't want to watch any further, as I just completly disagree. Awesome gameplay is created by units that are balanced in ways so that they are used actively all the time.
Just using his examples: Reaper: 5rax reaper was completly overpowered, but it was awesome to play with, awesome tense to watch and even playing against it, was in a way awesome, because it felt soooo good when you could beat it, while it was sooooo tense all the time. What they did with the reaper was nerf it into an underpowered state. What they should have done, is BALANCE IT in a way that reapers would still get used! Find that sweetspot that creates tense gameplay, where most of the time a player will get an advantage of it, but not wins or loses straight up. Tempest: it's a unit that shoots the opponent. Always (not anymore with 15range, but I'd hope it gets a little bit more again throughout the beta). If properly BALANCED. How does that not create tense moments? What the game needs is more units that can attack even if you don't allin.
The HotS units are some of the best ideas because if we look at them: Oracle: fast harass unit; support unit for hit squads against fungal - introduces more active play Tempest: long ranged unit; when properly used, it should shoot the opponent and force a reaction that is not "turtle harder) - introduces active play MS Core: Allows Protoss to walk out on the map early; introduces active play Swarm Host: Sends Units to the opponent from long range; Should always do that, because the unit should be safe itself. - introduces active play Battle Hellion: allows the hellion to be a better combat unit if need be; producing more fast harass units means more active play.
Basically the only unit that is somewhat questionable in terms of more active play is the widow mine, as it could turn out that the best way to play against it would be to sit back and not move until you are ready to clear the map from minefields with a huge army (though for that the widow mine would have to be properly balanced first)
What blizzard needs to do, is balance units in ways so that they actually can do more stuff, even if the opponent turtles, while diminishing their all-in potential. In WoL, mostly just the 2nd one has been done. It's not a question of design, if the reaper is overpowered. It's a question of "how close is the battle between reapers and the defender".
sure balance is good, but if everything is already balanced in the beta or even before it, why not just release the game? Considering that you said that you stopped listening 10 minutes in means that youdidnt hear anything else that he had to say regarding the issue.
Yeah, listened to the rest now. All he talks is stuff that can and should be achieved via balance. Thors are too bad anti air vs anthing but mutalisks? Buff it against other things. AoE is too good? Nerf it. Marines are too good in big balls now? Nerf the big balls. There are a lot of simple parameters that are responsible for that (supply, range, dps, upgrades, production)
There is literarily nothing that he mentioned, that could not be dealt with by balancing.
almost everything you said goes against each other though. Only way to nerf big balls of marines is to have good aoe, but you also said nerf aoe. Thors are made to counter light air units, viking is supposed to counter everything else as the viking is basically a goliath that isnt ground based and doesnt have an aoe aa-attack.Maybe remove the viking and the thor to replace them with a bw goliath? marines do a ton of damage but only when together, if you make them spread then they are in small groups (1-3 if you are good at splitting). A single zealot or archon can clean up 3 marines easily right? just throwing around some random ideas.
Why is the only way to nerf marines good AoE? (apart from me not thinking that there is anything wrong with the relationship between AoE and Marines) Make marines bigger and give them less range and less dps and suddenly big marine balls suck hardcore, because instead of 50marines shooting at once, only 30will shoot and 20 will try to hump their big fat frontman.
Of course really balancing everything out with the the parameter changes I wrote is hard as it will create other problems. But autospread will give you incredible problems as well.
They tried with a unit called the Warhound. It was o big for its supply so army compositions with it seemed so big and scary even if it something like that it's not a big advantage. In chokepoints they sucked so hard because just 10% of them actually fight in these situations.
Well, people bitched so much about that, then Blizz removed it, Because people just coudn't blind counter it and were getting angrier.
Warhound had 7range and did not suck in chokepoints.
Well, a warhound still fits almost 4 squares, if you fight something not melee like MMM or Roaches, the third row of Warhounds won't shot. The dps density is too low, because the supply density it's also too low. This is the reason of why the Warhound had such speed, range and health. They would completely suck outside of early game or being a very specific Immortal counter (and Ghost saomewhat fill this role with EMP), in other words, they couldn't be "core" as Blizz wanted.
Okay so.... Do we really need to discuss this further? What part of boring unit do you not get about the warhound? Its a steamroller. Not a strategic unit. Thats why we complained.
EPT
