If you have criticism, you need to address the content, not the hosts. Idra and Artosis are 2 (1.5) Zerg players, but you can't point that out and then blanket them as biased. Respond to the content.
You can't tell them to "get 2 Terran and Protoss players". That's fucking obtuse advice. "Yo just get 4 more high level players to record with you." Yes, I think everyone sees the value in getting it, but it's not practical.
Respond to the content and use evidence / logic to back up your claims.
On February 04 2011 10:21 jalstar wrote: I really don't like their definition of imbalance, it seems like with the definition they use BW is more imbalanced than SC2 because there's more possible unit compositions to use in SC2. By Artosis and Idra's definition:
BW Siege Tanks are imbalanced, they're necessary in TvP and TvT and it's hard but not impossible to play TvZ without them. Scouts, Queens, Dark Archons, Devourers, Disruption Web, and Ghosts are all imbalanced, since it's almost always optimal to make some other unit instead. BW ZvZ is the most imbalanced matchup ever, since muta-ling crushes any sort of hydra or tech focused play. BW Marine-Medic is underpowered since it's impossible to use in any matchup besides Zerg.
Not every unit combination has to be viable in a balanced game. In fact, it's easier to balance a game if there's a good deal of units that are pretty much useless in high-level multiplayer. The only SC2 one I can think of is the Reaper, which Artosis claims is "balanced" even though it pretty much meets his definition of imbalance.
Basically the title seems like a way to rope people into watching a show about unit diversity, which I don't believe is something the game really needs.
Edit: My post seemed a bit unproductive, so here's what I'd rather see. I'd like to see a show about how to beat things that are considered imbalanced, even if it is just theorycrafting. I want to see them play a few PvP and PvZ games and try to take down colossus play instead of just talking about it. (obviously without going colossus in the PvP)
1) I think you completely misinterpreted their definitions.
2) Idra's a pro gamer whos been practicng day in day out ever since beta was released, and whos played in all gsls so far. You don't think he's "played a few PvP and PvZ games" to see how to deal with collosus? Really? Did you even watch the video? They spent like 5 minutes talking about how Idra Artosis Ret and Haypro spent days practicing early brood lords as a new style to ZvP
Did you read my post? Obviously he's played those games, so why not show us the reps and explain thought processes instead of just saying "it's imbalanced according to my completely made-up definition of imbalanced"
I want to see them play a few PvP and PvZ games and try to take down colossus play instead of just talking about it
I interpreted that as you saying "well why don't they actualyl try to beat it instead of talking about how to beat it", my bad?
Yes, they've already played these games and their opinions aren't made up, they're drawn from experience and practice. I agree it would add another layer of depth to the discussion if they showed replays and talked about them to prove their examples but its really not that practical. I'm sure Idra's really busy doing other things and practicing for tournaments. Finding replays to go along with their show can be time consuming, and probably wouldn't be worth it to a community thats really not receptive to the idea of balance and that is made up mostly of sub diamond players who think they know way more than they really do and are just gonna end up labeling the show Zerg QQ
I am impressed by the number of posts dictating how the show should be instead of talking about the content... this is so much disrespect to Idra and Artosis whatever you think of them in SC1 or SC2.
It's really boring to go through 999 pages to find only 3 posts that might discuss the actual OP. What is this seriously? If you do not agree the collossi MIGHT be imbalanced, then just give zergs some solutions, end of story but dont kill them right off the bat, because this leads nowhere. (Posts like this zaechis guy actually feeds the worst posts aka wall of polite complaining text).
- - -
Back to topic, Corruptors (IIRC) were patched a few times... What if some things like their - Move speed, - Corruption cd or - Attack range were modified ? Can someone help me about it ? Move speed might equal/nullify phoenixes (?) Attack range might equal/nullify vikings (?) Corruption cd decreased might be op (?)
On February 03 2011 16:23 AlBundy wrote: Hey guys I have a totally relevant comparison between Vikings and Corruptors: vikings can land and attack ground units, while corruptors can morph into broodlords.
I just blew your mind, didn't I?
Some people should really try to read between the lines, for a change.
No you didn't. Brood lord is expensive, morphs 1 way from corruptors, and takes a long time to create. If you have all that resources to morph corruptors then you're obviously bad at larvae mechanies or not losing to a protoss death ball.
I think corruptors and forcefields are a much bigger issue than colossus. Forcefields are too strong: last a fair amount of time, are invulnerable (without ultras), and don't even cost a whole lot. I've always been under the opinion that forcefields should be destructibles (500 hp or something) be it neutral or not.
Corruptors have a terribly unoriginal, terribly unskillful ability. Combine that with the fact they can only attack air, don't have the greatest DPS or range, and it makes them such a bad unit. It's no suprize that they are hardly made for anything at all (colossus, or phoenix on rare occasions)
On February 03 2011 16:23 AlBundy wrote: Hey guys I have a totally relevant comparison between Vikings and Corruptors: vikings can land and attack ground units, while corruptors can morph into broodlords.
I just blew your mind, didn't I?
Some people should really try to read between the lines, for a change.
No you didn't. Brood lord is expensive, morphs 1 way from corruptors, and takes a long time to create. If you have all that resources to morph corruptors then you're obviously bad at larvae mechanies or not losing to a protoss death ball.
That post was kind of sarcastic... except for the last sentence.
I liked the show. Since I started playing random i havent come up against the unbeatable collosi ball as zerg lately... But i have experienced it... I have seen attempts at the unbeatable ball... Its not that havent died to it though...
My current thoughts are if I come upon it I would rush to ultras... (Against all instinct)
Mainly because I watched this:
What do you think? The options presented were broods or a suicidal attack into a remax of units that counter whatever is left assuming the suicidal attack bought enough time to remax and worked in eliminating the critical mass of collosi... This seems like a third option. (And I almost never build ultras in fact it may actually be like weeks since I fielded them and take that with I play almost everyday but usually only for an hour or so).
doesn't it really making sense to you guys that a collosai ball rapes a 200 zerg army? it's much more expensive, much longer to get, much more imobile -expecting that you can easily counter it like you counter normal gateway units is just plain stupid in my opinion. also i would like to see them talk about carriers, talk about broken units..
Personally this show made me lol, was a pleasurable way to waste twenty five minutes after some studying for school quiz... I think Idra's skepticism regarding the effect of bigger mappool of GSL is unfounded, I'm curious to see what effects they have on the games of the next season of GSL.
On February 04 2011 13:43 BalanceFx wrote: But Are ultras a bad idea?
Ultras would be good as a surprise(much like broodlords vs Terran) but are easily countered by zealots and immortals if the Protoss has any clue that they are coming.
On February 04 2011 08:54 maahes wrote: Hello, Teamliquid - I am a long-time lurker, first time poster, and I wanted to address a post in the first few pages of this thread that was definitely a gem floating in an ocean of shit that many people seem to have quoted and pledged agreement with. Saechiis's post, which should be applauded for its calm, level-headed tone, violates many rules of debate and offers little in the way of legitimate criticism. While my response is as lengthy as the original, I think I offer a lot in the way of proper thinking about these kinds of discussions, so please take the time to read it.
On February 03 2011 11:43 Saechiis wrote: You explain how Starcraft 2 should be balanced around top level play since that's where the variable of "skill" relatively has the least influence. You fail to discuss though, the human factor, and what makes someone an objective judge of balance. Because let's face it, both you, IdrA and Artosis, are biased towards Zerg in the same way you were biased towards Terran when you played that race in BW. You're both easily the most vocal and quick in claiming imbalance in both versions of Starcraft and one can't help but notice that the arrow is always pointed at things that are disadvantageous to your race of play.
This is a mixture of ad-hominem and questioning credentials, neither of which pertain to the arguments presented by Idra and Artosis. If one were to read this paragraph without the context of having seen the episode, one might presume that the hosts are parading as game designers deciding upon what should or should not be changed in Starcraft 2. Neither of them claims that they are judges of balance - instead, the show's premise is based around the discussion of current strong trends in professional level Starcraft. In fact, they open the Colossus discussion with "talking about something that may or may not be imbalanced." This is not, in fact, a coy opening - Idra's stated conclusion is that a more diverse map pool will lead to an answer, and Artosis explicitly states he's not sold on the idea as-is. The entire twenty minutes between the opening and conclusion are spent discussing, not passing judgment.
On February 03 2011 11:43 Saechiis wrote: Even though I can see that you've tried to at least make logical steps of reasoning, it's still so obvious that you're both not objective in your judgement. You talk a little bit about Colossi in TvP and how it's balanced there, but watching that as spectator you just feel your disinterest in the subject and how you seem to be getting that part out of the way to get to the point you "really" want to talk about. Which becomes pretty obvious when Artosis says "now let's talk about Colossi in ZvP" and you both can't help but get a huge grin on your face since you get to tell it's overpowered.
You have both stated to not be familiar enough with other races than Zerg to play them at a competetive level. Doesn't that say enough about the validity of your judgement as two talented, but still biased Zerg players?
More ad-hominem, and more questioning credentials... There is no good criticism here. Additionally, the race preference of the hosts and any future guests is completely irrelevant to the truth of their argument(s). If what they say is valid, then that's what you have to call into question, not their background.
On February 03 2011 11:43 Saechiis wrote: You talk about the Colossus being a weapon of choice in all MU's and how it seriously obliterates ground. Concluding that it's too hard for Zerg to balance Corrupter count together with the economy required to churn them out. But that's obviously just 1 side of the story, you don't mention how Protoss gateway units all get totally raped by Roach/ Hydra, which is the reason why Toss needs ranged splash damage in the first place. The relative weakness of the core gateway units needs the additional DPS of Storm and Colossi for it to be cost-efficient. And since Storm is such an expensive and long tech path, Colossi are practically always the unit of choice to survive through midgame.
The other side of the story is that the Protoss tech to Colossi. This is an example of arguing in reverse - the point that Saechiis claims Idra and Artosis ignored was actually already assumed. It was also explicitly stated that the Colossus was not fundamentally broken - neither of these guys is suggesting that it should be removed, or that Protoss doesn't need the damage it provides.
Idra's conclusion is that the Zerg now has no direct response, unlike the Protoss's situation, where their next move against a roach/hydra army is to build colossi, and that the current map pool lacks both the resources and space to out-macro, outmaneuver or overwhelm a Colossus fueled army. He mentioned a possible alternative being proactive, using heavy Muta pressure and forcing a Protoss 2-base all-in instead of providing a direct response to Colossi. I don't know if he's right, but that's the point that you should be attacking.
On February 03 2011 11:43 Saechiis wrote: TeamLiquid is already overrun with hundreds of brainless bronze Zergs that cling to every word IdrA says and will go rampaging through the forums every time the magic word *imbalance* is proclaimed. For every person that can see through obvious bias, oversimplification and exaggeration there are at least two that don't or won't and it shows in the continuous degradation of TL's SC2 Strategy Forums.
On February 03 2011 11:43 Saechiis wrote: Basically, I feel that the only ones that are benefited by such a show are yourselves; whilst SC communities like the ones on TL, SCReddit and even the Bnet forums are left to deal with even more irrational balance whines than there are now.
These two quotes represent the real 'meat' of the post in question, I think - a truly valid opinion with some muscle behind it, and after lurking around Teamliquid, I can really empathize with Saechiis here. Regardless, it's not the job of any community's figureheads to pander to or consider the lowest common denominator of its membership. There are tons of intelligent people that are going to tune in, submit questions/have their questions answered, and influence discussion between their peers using the basis that Idra and Artosis have provided and it will be totally sweet - the amount of increased whining is unquantifiable, and an increased output of tripe that should already be ignored doesn't really matter... Zero times five equals zero, y'know?
Something unique to the SC2 community is its transparency - the people that are virtually celebrities not only produce content and stream games and give interviews are so very close to us that they interact with us directly on this board. No amount of baddie whining should detract from anyone's efforts to keep us close to the progamers that live at the bleeding edge of Starcraft 2's metagame and trends.
P.S. While writing this post and searching through the thread to see if anyone else had offered similar corrections, I stumbled upon Saechiis's post in response to Beetlelisk, where he simply launches another attack on character while either ignoring their arguments or twisting them into angles to attack their character. Notably, he never responded to any criticism of his initial post. I won't address the second post directly, but it is worth looking at to see how someone apparently level-headed can be completely abrasive and their words empty, which is why in these kinds of discussions, it's important to attack arguments, not people. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=7813653
Well, you certainly decided to enter in with a bang! We need more voices like these in the community. It's too easy to ride on charismatic parries feints without landing or blocking any real blows. And the internet just makes that easier.
The idea that a show with two guys talking for a half hour definitively announces the limits of SC2 is just ridiculous. It may well need a third party to give more, but what it has given so far is food for the thoughtful. A sandwich, not a feast.
This subject needs to be neither incendiary nor taboo. The limits of those first 30 minutes aside, the subject was broached well.
Whatever ax someone has to grind against Artosis or Idra's personalities already doesn't want to hear what they have to say.
On February 03 2011 10:13 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: players get flamed for balance complaints because they all whine subjectively about the race they play themselves, therefor<e> it's hard to take it serious. maybe if artosis and idra started saying zerg is overpowered that would be cool.
<snip> it's as if somebody else just randomly found out your password and shitposted.
Especially considering the CONTENT of the video was presented in a largely unbiased intelligent manner.
I'm surprised this isn't as much of an issue as it should be. <arches eyebrow> oh well...just stop the drama
Wow, the show was definitely not anything like what I was expecting reading through the first half of this thread. A really genuine talk, and really I didn't see the bias that a lot of people (not gonna lie, myself included) were expecting.
I think what I liked the most was the acknowledgment and clarification of different types of imbalances that can be found in the game. It definitely shows that you guys are looking at this from a professional view and are willing to say that a big part of many perceived imbalances can just be because the game is hardly figured out yet.
I can't wait to see the next episode, and I'm curious about what new ones will be centered around. Maybe comparisons of late-game strategies (where there seems to be some major disagreement between which race is strongest), just as an idea.
Your entire post consists of individual quotations from my plea and picking them apart like they're separate statements, whilst ignoring the underlaying theme and context in which they were deliberately put. Just like balance, you look at how something fits in the grand scheme, not how it behaves when you put it in a vacuum. As such it's extremely time consuming, laborious and stressing to address criticism that focuses completely on discrediting isolated sentences, especially when most people don't even care whether I have a good point or not.
Since you've at least taken the time to write an eloquent response though, I'll give you my thoughts in bolded italic:
On February 04 2011 08:54 maahes wrote: Hello, Teamliquid - I am a long-time lurker, first time poster, and I wanted to address a post in the first few pages of this thread that was definitely a gem floating in an ocean of shit that many people seem to have quoted and pledged agreement with. Saechiis's post, which should be applauded for its calm, level-headed tone, violates many rules of debate and offers little in the way of legitimate criticism. While my response is as lengthy as the original, I think I offer a lot in the way of proper thinking about these kinds of discussions, so please take the time to read it.
On February 03 2011 11:43 Saechiis wrote: You explain how Starcraft 2 should be balanced around top level play since that's where the variable of "skill" relatively has the least influence. You fail to discuss though, the human factor, and what makes someone an objective judge of balance. Because let's face it, both you, IdrA and Artosis, are biased towards Zerg in the same way you were biased towards Terran when you played that race in BW. You're both easily the most vocal and quick in claiming imbalance in both versions of Starcraft and one can't help but notice that the arrow is always pointed at things that are disadvantageous to your race of play.
This is a mixture of ad-hominem and questioning credentials, neither of which pertain to the arguments presented by Idra and Artosis. If one were to read this paragraph without the context of having seen the episode, one might presume that the hosts are parading as game designers deciding upon what should or should not be changed in Starcraft 2. Neither of them claims that they are judges of balance - instead, the show's premise is based around the discussion of current strong trends in professional level Starcraft. In fact, they open the Colossus discussion with "talking about something that may or may not be imbalanced." This is not, in fact, a coy opening - Idra's stated conclusion is that a more diverse map pool will lead to an answer, and Artosis explicitly states he's not sold on the idea as-is. The entire twenty minutes between the opening and conclusion are spent discussing, not passing judgment.
First of all, I never questioned IdrA and Artosis' credentials; I questioned their ability to objectively judge balance. I've even commented on their talent as Zerg players, which gets lost in your selectiveness of quoting. It's frankly a baseless accusation aimed at damaging my credibility, "violating many rules of debate and offering little in the way of legitimate criticism" along the way.
As for the dramatic claims of ad-hominem; questioning someone's ability to be objective in the subjectiveness that surrounds balance, is a completely valid concern. Especially when it comes to two iconic community figures discussing (im)balance on a public stage. I'm willing to bet that an overwhelming amount of people would testify that Artosis and IdrA, over the last decade, have had a tendency of being overly vocal and extreme in their claims of imbalance; most notably the overpoweredness of the other races in relation to their own. As such, it isn't exactly a stretch to question their objectiveness in judging imbalance while it IS a stretch to expect viewers to believe there not being a hidden agenda. They're grown men and they're completely responsible for their own public image. If they're not judging balance they should say so, because several thousands of people "somehow" got the idea that that's what their show "IMBALANCE" is all about.
On February 03 2011 11:43 Saechiis wrote: Even though I can see that you've tried to at least make logical steps of reasoning, it's still so obvious that you're both not objective in your judgement. You talk a little bit about Colossi in TvP and how it's balanced there, but watching that as spectator you just feel your disinterest in the subject and how you seem to be getting that part out of the way to get to the point you "really" want to talk about. Which becomes pretty obvious when Artosis says "now let's talk about Colossi in ZvP" and you both can't help but get a huge grin on your face since you get to tell it's overpowered.
You have both stated to not be familiar enough with other races than Zerg to play them at a competetive level. Doesn't that say enough about the validity of your judgement as two talented, but still biased Zerg players?
More ad-hominem, and more questioning credentials... There is no good criticism here. Additionally, the race preference of the hosts and any future guests is completely irrelevant to the truth of their argument(s). If what they say is valid, then that's what you have to call into question, not their background.
More irrelevant and plain untrue criticism ... there is no good criticism here.
You realize that stating something as if it's a fact doesn't make it true right? Because making unfounded conclusions would "violate many rules of debate" and would "offer little in the way of legitimate criticism".
Additionally, the race preference of the hosts is completely relevant since, in regards to balance, there isn't any hard truths in a complex game like Starcraft. There's only a collection of anecdotal arguments and subjective judgements on how hard it is to do something.
For instance: IdrA states it's relatively too hard to balance corrupter count with Colossi in comparison to what Toss has to do.
This argument, and practically all arguments used in regards to balance, rely completely on the source's credibility as an authority figure. Some people are going to agree and some people are going to disagree, it's not a factual argument either way. As such, the degree in which you deem IdrA and Artosis objective in their assesments of other races couldn't be more relevant. Especially since they've been been playing 1 race almost exclusively and are admittedly not at the same competetive level with their offraces.
On February 03 2011 11:43 Saechiis wrote: You talk about the Colossus being a weapon of choice in all MU's and how it seriously obliterates ground. Concluding that it's too hard for Zerg to balance Corrupter count together with the economy required to churn them out. But that's obviously just 1 side of the story, you don't mention how Protoss gateway units all get totally raped by Roach/ Hydra, which is the reason why Toss needs ranged splash damage in the first place. The relative weakness of the core gateway units needs the additional DPS of Storm and Colossi for it to be cost-efficient. And since Storm is such an expensive and long tech path, Colossi are practically always the unit of choice to survive through midgame.
The other side of the story is that the Protoss tech to Colossi. This is an example of arguing in reverse - the point that Saechiis claims Idra and Artosis ignored was actually already assumed. It was also explicitly stated that the Colossus was not fundamentally broken - neither of these guys is suggesting that it should be removed, or that Protoss doesn't need the damage it provides.
Saying that it "was actually already assumed" is just another way of admitting that the show lacked a non-Zerg perspective on the case, which is what I pointed out in the first place. I never implied they were saying the Colossus is "fundamentally broken", nor did I imply that they were saying the Colossus should be removed, nor that it doesn't need the damage it provides ... seems a bit pointless to point out things they've never said when I never implied they did.
I did imply their show is, unsurprisingly, Zerg-focused and that it might be useful to clearly point out that Colossi balance out the relative weakness of gateway units. As to not give people the idea that balance is as one dimensional as "unit A has dual ranged laz0rz WITH splash, this game is ridiculous". The need to have ranged splash damage during midgame and the fact that Colossi are cheaper, faster and safer to tech to than Storm was my reasoning behind the popularity of Colossi, as to not imply they're built much because they're too strong.
Idra's conclusion is that the Zerg now has no direct response, unlike the Protoss's situation, where their next move against a roach/hydra army is to build colossi, and that the current map pool lacks both the resources and space to out-macro, outmaneuver or overwhelm a Colossus fueled army. He mentioned a possible alternative being proactive, using heavy Muta pressure and forcing a Protoss 2-base all-in instead of providing a direct response to Colossi. I don't know if he's right, but that's the point that you should be attacking.
That's right, you don't know whether he's right, in fact, no-one can say with certainty that they're right. Which brings us back to the questioning of the objectivity of the show. For the rest, I've never touched upons IdrA's conclusion, so summing it up doesn't really serve a purpose. We know that IdrA knows how to play Zerg.
On February 03 2011 11:43 Saechiis wrote: TeamLiquid is already overrun with hundreds of brainless bronze Zergs that cling to every word IdrA says and will go rampaging through the forums every time the magic word *imbalance* is proclaimed. For every person that can see through obvious bias, oversimplification and exaggeration there are at least two that don't or won't and it shows in the continuous degradation of TL's SC2 Strategy Forums.
On February 03 2011 11:43 Saechiis wrote: Basically, I feel that the only ones that are benefited by such a show are yourselves; whilst SC communities like the ones on TL, SCReddit and even the Bnet forums are left to deal with even more irrational balance whines than there are now.
These two quotes represent the real 'meat' of the post in question, I think - a truly valid opinion with some muscle behind it, and after lurking around Teamliquid, I can really empathize with Saechiis here. Regardless, it's not the job of any community's figureheads to pander to or consider the lowest common denominator of its membership. There are tons of intelligent people that are going to tune in, submit questions/have their questions answered, and influence discussion between their peers using the basis that Idra and Artosis have provided and it will be totally sweet - the amount of increased whining is unquantifiable, and an increased output of tripe that should already be ignored doesn't really matter... Zero times five equals zero, y'know?
Something unique to the SC2 community is its transparency - the people that are virtually celebrities not only produce content and stream games and give interviews are so very close to us that they interact with us directly on this board. No amount of baddie whining should detract from anyone's efforts to keep us close to the progamers that live at the bleeding edge of Starcraft 2's metagame and trends.
Being a community celebrity has already given IdrA and Artosis significant amounts of leniency and attention. It should, however, not be a carte blanche to do whatever they please in the community. For instance, offensive, childish and flamebaiting posts are still unwanted on the forums, regardless of who does it. Doing a show on IMBALANCE knowing full well how it's going to affect SC communities, could also be described as such.
P.S. While writing this post and searching through the thread to see if anyone else had offered similar corrections, I stumbled upon Saechiis's post in response to Beetlelisk, where he simply launches another attack on character while either ignoring their arguments or twisting them into angles to attack their character. Notably, he never responded to any criticism of his initial post. I won't address the second post directly, but it is worth looking at to see how someone apparently level-headed can be completely abrasive and their words empty, which is why in these kinds of discussions, it's important to attack arguments, not people. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=7813653
As for your last part, read it for yourself in this order:
"which is why in these kinds of discussions, it's important to attack arguments, not people."
"P.S. While writing this post and searching through the thread to see if anyone else had offered similar corrections, I stumbled upon Saechiis's post in response to Beetlelisk, where he simply launches another attack on character while either ignoring their arguments or twisting them into angles to attack their character. Notably, he never responded to any criticism of his initial post. I won't address the second post directly, but it is worth looking at to see how someone apparently level-headed can be completely abrasive and their words empty"
Hypocricy's a bitch ... and it's even funnier when you compare my post to the Beetlelisk post which I was replying to, but that's probably the reason you didn't care to quote it. It certainly wasn't too strong of a post towards someone that insults the founder of TeamLiquid on a personal level, saying he should be ashamed of himself. Especially since there was no good reason to get angry at Nazgul's post in the first place. If my post crossed the line the mods will tell me, thank you.
I love how TL.net users generate several millions of words on daily basis in regard of balance with a delusion of self importance and always being right. I'd like to inform you that none of these words Blizzard gives a damn about. This is completely justified as they are the closest to be in position to actually assess the game balance even if it was only for the amount of data they have. Just after Blizzard there are the progamers, such as Idra and Artosis. Several aeons after them there are individual players.
If we're going to have this thread can we restrict it to master's only? As Idra said, it's not even meaningful to talk about low level balance (yah I know a lot of "masters" suck, but it cuts out 98% of the suck and it's an easy cutoff point to agree on.)
I'm sure this comment will get drowned out in the sea of derp, but I tried =/
On February 04 2011 14:56 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote: If we're going to have this thread can we restrict it to master's only? As Idra said, it's not even meaningful to talk about low level balance (yah I know a lot of "masters" suck, but it cuts out 98% of the suck and it's an easy cutoff point to agree on.)
I'm sure this comment will get drowned out in the sea of derp, but I tried =/
There's no Bnet integration implemented so how do you want to do this.
Of course, this would help greatly in assessing credibility of each user so I'm all for it.
EPT
