|
On August 15 2014 00:51 r691175002 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2014 00:32 Nebuchad wrote:
It takes a special kind of person to tell me that I'm wrong about what I enjoy to watch in my video games.
Also you should man up to your opinions. If terran match-ups are better than the others, we don't want a balanced game, we want a game where terran is favored, so that it's seen more often than the others. That should make everyone happy right? We could also ask how we can improve the other races. The most entertaining matchup is almost universally considered to be TvZ. Battles are often long and positional. Skirmishes can occur all over the map. Losing a single battle is rarely game-ending as Terran can retreat to a defensive position, and zerg has their next wave of units popping out. There are numerous viable strategies for both parties, and either one can take the initiative and force the other player to react. The protoss matchups are generally defined by a single large game-ending fight. Protoss almost always has the initiative and their opponent needs to identify what is coming or die.
The problem with Protoss (entertainment wise) is how their midgame is handled.
Early pokes, early harass, etc... Protoss does that all the time. Stalker/zealot/core pokes into the zerg's third, Phoenix harass, early oracle harass into perfect oracle scouting none stop through the late game, etc... The Protoss late game is also active with prism harass, zealot runbys, storm drops, etc...
The problem is that Protoss goes all in during the mid game or the remain passive during the midgame.
If Protoss plans to be active in the midgame they usually just do a 2-3 base timing push then gg if they fail.
If Protoss plans to be active in the late game then they turtle up during the midgame.
Neither looks very sexy. Not talking about balance here, I'm talking about sexiness. Protoss late game is fun to watch, but no if he say around casting force fields for 5-10 minutes. Midgame aggression is always fun to watch--but not if Protoss ggs after it fails to kill the opponent. What is sexy is a race trying to be aggressive in the midgame, but then their attacks are rebuffed so much that the game ends up in the late game anyway.
|
On August 15 2014 00:51 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2014 00:48 Nebuchad wrote:On August 15 2014 00:43 Faust852 wrote:On August 15 2014 00:32 Nebuchad wrote:It takes a special kind of person to tell me that I'm wrong about what I enjoy to watch in my video games. Also you should man up to your opinions. If terran match-ups are better than the others, we don't want a balanced game, we want a game where terran is favored, so that it's seen more often than the others. That should make everyone happy right? You not being on the trend doesn't make it less true. People tend to prefer match up terrans. And if terran becomes imbalanced, the match up will lose its flavor. I don't have a problem with people prefering terran match-ups. I have a problem with you deducing terran match-ups are better because of that. The overall trend shows that people tend to prefere match up with terran in it. It's better formulated this way ? 
Sure. But it's not a different formulation, it's a different statement.
|
I think TvZ is very snowbally, since u're always in your opponents face, you cannot make many strategical decisions to come back into the game, however if you have clearly stronger mechanics you can make up for it.
I think PvZ has very big comeback potential, with strategic decisions and how you take the fights and it's why it's one of my favourite matchups.
I think if we want to look at a matchup as a role model for the other matchups it's probably mostly TvT imo.
However Terran doesn't have too many cheese opportunities, which I think is very important in high level matches, you need to be able to mindgame your opponent.
|
On August 15 2014 01:08 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2014 00:51 Faust852 wrote:On August 15 2014 00:48 Nebuchad wrote:On August 15 2014 00:43 Faust852 wrote:On August 15 2014 00:32 Nebuchad wrote:It takes a special kind of person to tell me that I'm wrong about what I enjoy to watch in my video games. Also you should man up to your opinions. If terran match-ups are better than the others, we don't want a balanced game, we want a game where terran is favored, so that it's seen more often than the others. That should make everyone happy right? You not being on the trend doesn't make it less true. People tend to prefer match up terrans. And if terran becomes imbalanced, the match up will lose its flavor. I don't have a problem with people prefering terran match-ups. I have a problem with you deducing terran match-ups are better because of that. The overall trend shows that people tend to prefere match up with terran in it. It's better formulated this way ? Sure. But it's not a different formulation, it's a different statement.
Nah, it's the same, you are just nitpicking.
|
On August 15 2014 01:11 ejozl wrote:
I think TvZ is very snowbally, since u're always in your opponents face, you cannot make many strategical decisions to come back into the game, however if you have clearly stronger mechanics you can make up for it.
I think PvZ has very big comeback potential, with strategic decisions and how you take the fights and it's why it's one of my favourite matchups.
I think if we want to look at a matchup as a role model for the other matchups it's probably mostly TvT imo.
However Terran doesn't have too many cheese opportunities, which I think is very important in high level matches, you need to be able to mindgame your opponent.
I don't know about TvZ being this snowbally. Idk if you watched Bbyong vs SK yesterday but Bbyong made an awesome comeback, and I doubt he is better mechanically than SK. Really, it doesn't take much to reverse a situtation in TvZ. One good baneling trap, one failed split, medivacs being catched by mutas, or in the other side with good mines detonation, strong multitask, awesome split, etc...
|
On August 15 2014 01:13 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2014 01:08 Nebuchad wrote:On August 15 2014 00:51 Faust852 wrote:On August 15 2014 00:48 Nebuchad wrote:On August 15 2014 00:43 Faust852 wrote:On August 15 2014 00:32 Nebuchad wrote:It takes a special kind of person to tell me that I'm wrong about what I enjoy to watch in my video games. Also you should man up to your opinions. If terran match-ups are better than the others, we don't want a balanced game, we want a game where terran is favored, so that it's seen more often than the others. That should make everyone happy right? You not being on the trend doesn't make it less true. People tend to prefer match up terrans. And if terran becomes imbalanced, the match up will lose its flavor. I don't have a problem with people prefering terran match-ups. I have a problem with you deducing terran match-ups are better because of that. The overall trend shows that people tend to prefere match up with terran in it. It's better formulated this way ? Sure. But it's not a different formulation, it's a different statement. Nah, it's the same, you are just nitpicking.
When you say most people prefer terran match-ups, you're just stating a fact. That has no consequences, that's like saying most people prefer potatoes over brussels sprouts, the general answer should be 'okay, whatever'.
When you say terran match-ups are better, then you're introducing a quality factor into how we are entertained. There are a bunch of things wrong with that.
|
On August 15 2014 01:29 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2014 01:13 Faust852 wrote:On August 15 2014 01:08 Nebuchad wrote:On August 15 2014 00:51 Faust852 wrote:On August 15 2014 00:48 Nebuchad wrote:On August 15 2014 00:43 Faust852 wrote:On August 15 2014 00:32 Nebuchad wrote:It takes a special kind of person to tell me that I'm wrong about what I enjoy to watch in my video games. Also you should man up to your opinions. If terran match-ups are better than the others, we don't want a balanced game, we want a game where terran is favored, so that it's seen more often than the others. That should make everyone happy right? You not being on the trend doesn't make it less true. People tend to prefer match up terrans. And if terran becomes imbalanced, the match up will lose its flavor. I don't have a problem with people prefering terran match-ups. I have a problem with you deducing terran match-ups are better because of that. The overall trend shows that people tend to prefere match up with terran in it. It's better formulated this way ? Sure. But it's not a different formulation, it's a different statement. Nah, it's the same, you are just nitpicking. When you say most people prefer terran match-ups, you're just stating a fact. That has no consequences, that's like saying most people prefer potatoes over brussels sprouts, the general answer should be 'okay, whatever'. When you say terran match-ups are better, then you're introducing a quality factor into how we are entertained. There are a bunch of things wrong with that.
I think you're being nitpicky. He's saying that, when left up to the general population of StarCraft 2 viewers to vote on the best games (the ones they enjoyed the most), the community picked more games with Terran in them. Meaning more people prefer to watch games with Terran. Hence Terran produces "better" (more pleasing) games for the viewers.
I think the reason people prefer games with Terrans in them is because since HotS came out Terran has been slumping a bit and there haven't been too many good games involving Terran. So the ones that are good usually get the most recognition.
Proleague has had a ton of awesome PvPs.... but ... supply/demand means that the Terran games get more coverage in the "best games" section.
|
On August 15 2014 01:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2014 00:51 r691175002 wrote:On August 15 2014 00:32 Nebuchad wrote:
It takes a special kind of person to tell me that I'm wrong about what I enjoy to watch in my video games.
Also you should man up to your opinions. If terran match-ups are better than the others, we don't want a balanced game, we want a game where terran is favored, so that it's seen more often than the others. That should make everyone happy right? We could also ask how we can improve the other races. The most entertaining matchup is almost universally considered to be TvZ. Battles are often long and positional. Skirmishes can occur all over the map. Losing a single battle is rarely game-ending as Terran can retreat to a defensive position, and zerg has their next wave of units popping out. There are numerous viable strategies for both parties, and either one can take the initiative and force the other player to react. The protoss matchups are generally defined by a single large game-ending fight. Protoss almost always has the initiative and their opponent needs to identify what is coming or die. The problem with Protoss (entertainment wise) is how their midgame is handled. Early pokes, early harass, etc... Protoss does that all the time. Stalker/zealot/core pokes into the zerg's third, Phoenix harass, early oracle harass into perfect oracle scouting none stop through the late game, etc... The Protoss late game is also active with prism harass, zealot runbys, storm drops, etc... The problem is that Protoss goes all in during the mid game or the remain passive during the midgame. If Protoss plans to be active in the midgame they usually just do a 2-3 base timing push then gg if they fail. If Protoss plans to be active in the late game then they turtle up during the midgame. Neither looks very sexy. Not talking about balance here, I'm talking about sexiness. Protoss late game is fun to watch, but no if he say around casting force fields for 5-10 minutes. Midgame aggression is always fun to watch--but not if Protoss ggs after it fails to kill the opponent. What is sexy is a race trying to be aggressive in the midgame, but then their attacks are rebuffed so much that the game ends up in the late game anyway.
I think the issue with Protoss is that so many of their mechanics are about making their units survive and none of them are glascanons that are balanced around "getting that one shot of" and then dying, but still being worth it.
Blink, forcefield, shields, all the units being beefy, recall, hardened shields.
I think the exception here is the HT, the phoenix and to a certain degree the zealot if not just used as meatshield for other units. Obviously also the oracle and the DT, but those are rather gimmicks that are bandaids to make up for what the main army units cannot do.
In a battle it doesn't really matter if your race is 2xhealth, 1/2 damage. But outside of main army combats, this kind of design imposes mature limitations for Protoss, like the lack of harass with the units that you want to build for combats and the lack of being able to take a risk and just be on the map at some point, even at the risk of losing some stuff. You just can't risk losing units when their main strength is to fight in a bigass all-or-nothing battle.
|
On August 15 2014 01:16 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2014 01:11 ejozl wrote:
I think TvZ is very snowbally, since u're always in your opponents face, you cannot make many strategical decisions to come back into the game, however if you have clearly stronger mechanics you can make up for it.
I think PvZ has very big comeback potential, with strategic decisions and how you take the fights and it's why it's one of my favourite matchups.
I think if we want to look at a matchup as a role model for the other matchups it's probably mostly TvT imo.
However Terran doesn't have too many cheese opportunities, which I think is very important in high level matches, you need to be able to mindgame your opponent. I don't know about TvZ being this snowbally. Idk if you watched Bbyong vs SK yesterday but Bbyong made an awesome comeback, and I doubt he is better mechanically than SK. Really, it doesn't take much to reverse a situtation in TvZ. One good baneling trap, one failed split, medivacs being catched by mutas, or in the other side with good mines detonation, strong multitask, awesome split, etc...
ZvT has a lot of potential for comebacks due to mistakes from the opponent, but that's a little different. Mainly it will be in the form of the mutas or banes dying en masse to widow mines because of lack of micro or just not engaging from the right angle, or just plain bad luck. Zerg can get lucky by catching full medivacs or by getting mass bane hits it, but that requires terran to fuck up pretty badly.
SK vS Bbyong was basically SK getting ahead, then taking multiple awful engagements with poor control and dying because he didn't defend his fourth, ever. I think in the current meta, for zerg, once you are behind you are more or less dead. Terran has a bit more room with mega-mines that can swing battles in seconds.
|
On August 15 2014 01:44 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2014 01:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2014 00:51 r691175002 wrote:On August 15 2014 00:32 Nebuchad wrote:
It takes a special kind of person to tell me that I'm wrong about what I enjoy to watch in my video games.
Also you should man up to your opinions. If terran match-ups are better than the others, we don't want a balanced game, we want a game where terran is favored, so that it's seen more often than the others. That should make everyone happy right? We could also ask how we can improve the other races. The most entertaining matchup is almost universally considered to be TvZ. Battles are often long and positional. Skirmishes can occur all over the map. Losing a single battle is rarely game-ending as Terran can retreat to a defensive position, and zerg has their next wave of units popping out. There are numerous viable strategies for both parties, and either one can take the initiative and force the other player to react. The protoss matchups are generally defined by a single large game-ending fight. Protoss almost always has the initiative and their opponent needs to identify what is coming or die. The problem with Protoss (entertainment wise) is how their midgame is handled. Early pokes, early harass, etc... Protoss does that all the time. Stalker/zealot/core pokes into the zerg's third, Phoenix harass, early oracle harass into perfect oracle scouting none stop through the late game, etc... The Protoss late game is also active with prism harass, zealot runbys, storm drops, etc... The problem is that Protoss goes all in during the mid game or the remain passive during the midgame. If Protoss plans to be active in the midgame they usually just do a 2-3 base timing push then gg if they fail. If Protoss plans to be active in the late game then they turtle up during the midgame. Neither looks very sexy. Not talking about balance here, I'm talking about sexiness. Protoss late game is fun to watch, but no if he say around casting force fields for 5-10 minutes. Midgame aggression is always fun to watch--but not if Protoss ggs after it fails to kill the opponent. What is sexy is a race trying to be aggressive in the midgame, but then their attacks are rebuffed so much that the game ends up in the late game anyway. I think the issue with Protoss is that so many of their mechanics are about making their units survive and none of them are glascanons that are balanced around "getting that one shot of" and then dying, but still being worth it. Blink, forcefield, shields, all the units being beefy, recall, hardened shields. I think the exception here is the HT, the phoenix and to a certain degree the zealot if not just used as meatshield for other units. Obviously also the oracle and the DT, but those are rather gimmicks that are bandaids to make up for what the main army units cannot do. In a battle it doesn't really matter if your race is 2xhealth, 1/2 damage. But outside of main army combats, this kind of design imposes mature limitations for Protoss, like the lack of harass with the units that you want to build for combats and the lack of being able to take a risk and just be on the map at some point, even at the risk of losing some stuff. You just can't risk losing units when their main strength is to fight in a bigass all-or-nothing battle.
This. 3 Colossus and some gateway units vs. some bio is good with proper positioning and control. But if you take both armies, divide them into 3, and have 3 separate fights, the Terran will win. 1 Colossus and low numbers of gateway units (or even no colossus) are just bad.
Until Protoss can fight Terran in small engagements you're going to continue to see the same kind of play. I don't mind it, because I play Protoss and I understand the strategy and limitations of the race and it's fun to watch someone playa much better than I am capable of. But I can see how Terran viewers might dislike that, for example.
|
On August 15 2014 01:42 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2014 01:29 Nebuchad wrote:On August 15 2014 01:13 Faust852 wrote:On August 15 2014 01:08 Nebuchad wrote:On August 15 2014 00:51 Faust852 wrote:On August 15 2014 00:48 Nebuchad wrote:On August 15 2014 00:43 Faust852 wrote:On August 15 2014 00:32 Nebuchad wrote:It takes a special kind of person to tell me that I'm wrong about what I enjoy to watch in my video games. Also you should man up to your opinions. If terran match-ups are better than the others, we don't want a balanced game, we want a game where terran is favored, so that it's seen more often than the others. That should make everyone happy right? You not being on the trend doesn't make it less true. People tend to prefer match up terrans. And if terran becomes imbalanced, the match up will lose its flavor. I don't have a problem with people prefering terran match-ups. I have a problem with you deducing terran match-ups are better because of that. The overall trend shows that people tend to prefere match up with terran in it. It's better formulated this way ? Sure. But it's not a different formulation, it's a different statement. Nah, it's the same, you are just nitpicking. When you say most people prefer terran match-ups, you're just stating a fact. That has no consequences, that's like saying most people prefer potatoes over brussels sprouts, the general answer should be 'okay, whatever'. When you say terran match-ups are better, then you're introducing a quality factor into how we are entertained. There are a bunch of things wrong with that. I think you're being nitpicky. He's saying that, when left up to the general population of StarCraft 2 viewers to vote on the best games (the ones they enjoyed the most), the community picked more games with Terran in them. Meaning more people prefer to watch games with Terran. Hence Terran produces "better" (more pleasing) games for the viewers. I think the reason people prefer games with Terrans in them is because since HotS came out Terran has been slumping a bit and there haven't been too many good games involving Terran. So the ones that are good usually get the most recognition. Proleague has had a ton of awesome PvPs.... but ... supply/demand means that the Terran games get more coverage in the "best games" section.
You haven't brought up a new angle here. You're making an equivalence between "better" and "more pleasing". That's what I contested before your post, that's what I'll contest after it. People can enjoy whatever they want. People can't tell me what's right to enjoy.
|
On August 15 2014 00:32 Nebuchad wrote:
Also you should man up to your opinions. If terran match-ups are better than the others, we don't want a balanced game, we want a game where terran is favored, so that it's seen more often than the others. That should make everyone happy right?
?? That's a very odd argument. Spectators are not everything. If viewers tend to prefer match-ups from race A rather than race C it's not a reason at all to break the balance in favor of A while making C disappear. Players have the right to play a fair game even if their race is the least popular.
|
On August 15 2014 02:09 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2014 00:32 Nebuchad wrote:
Also you should man up to your opinions. If terran match-ups are better than the others, we don't want a balanced game, we want a game where terran is favored, so that it's seen more often than the others. That should make everyone happy right? ?? That's a very odd argument. Spectators are not everything. If viewers tend to prefer match-ups from race A rather than race C it's not a reason at all to break the balance in favor of A while making C disappear. Players have the right to play a fair game even if their race is the least popular.
And then we would have debates between people who want a fair game and people who want a spectator friendly game. A very annoying situation, that can easily be avoided by not supporting the position that terran match-ups are better than the others.
|
On August 15 2014 02:09 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2014 00:32 Nebuchad wrote:
Also you should man up to your opinions. If terran match-ups are better than the others, we don't want a balanced game, we want a game where terran is favored, so that it's seen more often than the others. That should make everyone happy right? ?? That's a very odd argument. Spectators are not everything. If viewers tend to prefer match-ups from race A rather than race C it's not a reason at all to break the balance in favor of A while making C disappear. Players have the right to play a fair game even if their race is the least popular.
Yeah it's kind of nonsensical.
I think the reason Terran games are in demand right now is because T has been weak and there has been a shortage of good T games.
If you made T dominant through patching, people would lose interest.
|
On August 15 2014 02:10 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2014 02:09 TheDwf wrote:On August 15 2014 00:32 Nebuchad wrote:
Also you should man up to your opinions. If terran match-ups are better than the others, we don't want a balanced game, we want a game where terran is favored, so that it's seen more often than the others. That should make everyone happy right? ?? That's a very odd argument. Spectators are not everything. If viewers tend to prefer match-ups from race A rather than race C it's not a reason at all to break the balance in favor of A while making C disappear. Players have the right to play a fair game even if their race is the least popular. And then we would have debates between people who want a fair game and people who want a spectator friendly game. A very annoying situation, that can easily be avoided by not supporting the position that terran match-ups are better than the others.
Imbalance is not spectator friendly.
If marines did 100 damage per shot, you think it would be more enjoyable to watch?
Fair game and spectator friendliness are not mutually exclusive.
|
On August 15 2014 02:13 Genome852 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2014 02:10 Nebuchad wrote:On August 15 2014 02:09 TheDwf wrote:On August 15 2014 00:32 Nebuchad wrote:
Also you should man up to your opinions. If terran match-ups are better than the others, we don't want a balanced game, we want a game where terran is favored, so that it's seen more often than the others. That should make everyone happy right? ?? That's a very odd argument. Spectators are not everything. If viewers tend to prefer match-ups from race A rather than race C it's not a reason at all to break the balance in favor of A while making C disappear. Players have the right to play a fair game even if their race is the least popular. And then we would have debates between people who want a fair game and people who want a spectator friendly game. A very annoying situation, that can easily be avoided by not supporting the position that terran match-ups are better than the others. Imbalance is not spectator friendly. If marines did 100 damage per shot, you think it would be more enjoyable to watch? Fair game and spectator friendliness are not mutually exclusive.
I was making that argument in the hypothetical world where terran match-ups are better than the others. In the real world, that's what is happening indeed.
|
On August 15 2014 00:24 Big J wrote:@ Socup: You are completely overgeneralizing what that post said: Show nested quote +We do agree that if both sides take few to no losses going into the late game, protoss can have an advantage. Can have an advantage is what you are continuously not mentioning. It can happen. It also cannot happen. Now you gotta ask yourself, why it can also not happen. Well, that is when the players don't play the "popular" way. But when they do, the second part of the quote comes into play: Show nested quote +That said, we also know that terran players have a lot of offensive capability and harassment options at their fingertips in the mid-game. If terran players press that mid-game advantage, then protoss can’t necessarily get into the late game at their full potential Again, you overgeneralize what he said here. He did not say "Terran has THE advantage in the midgame." He said, that Terran have AN advantage ( terran players press that mid-game advantage) in the form of having the offensive capability to inflict damage. Nowhere did he say that Terran has an overall midgame advantage, or that regardless of how the Terran plays, he must do damage. That's just exaggerating the content of the quote. If you don't believe me, watch Squirtle 2base Colossusing his way through GSL IN THE MIDGAME or Demuslim beating Korean Protoss players with mass Ghost/Viking IN THE LATEGAME. These were playable styles. If you rather 5rax 2based, then it was not the matchup's fault that you had to do damage.
What words of "Terran has mid game advantages and if terran players press that mid game advantage, then protoss cant necessarily get into their late game at their full potential" dont you understand?
What led up to those ghost viking mass in the lategame or 2 base colussus in the early game? Unless you're going to give us the upgrades, whether terran was active or passive midgame, and what kind of damage either side receive (where the BLUE post by the people that RUN the game themselves said that "if no side takes any significant damage, protoss has an advantage lategame), then you're full on troll.
|
On August 15 2014 02:27 Socup wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2014 00:24 Big J wrote:@ Socup: You are completely overgeneralizing what that post said: We do agree that if both sides take few to no losses going into the late game, protoss can have an advantage. Can have an advantage is what you are continuously not mentioning. It can happen. It also cannot happen. Now you gotta ask yourself, why it can also not happen. Well, that is when the players don't play the "popular" way. But when they do, the second part of the quote comes into play: That said, we also know that terran players have a lot of offensive capability and harassment options at their fingertips in the mid-game. If terran players press that mid-game advantage, then protoss can’t necessarily get into the late game at their full potential Again, you overgeneralize what he said here. He did not say "Terran has THE advantage in the midgame." He said, that Terran have AN advantage ( terran players press that mid-game advantage) in the form of having the offensive capability to inflict damage. Nowhere did he say that Terran has an overall midgame advantage, or that regardless of how the Terran plays, he must do damage. That's just exaggerating the content of the quote. If you don't believe me, watch Squirtle 2base Colossusing his way through GSL IN THE MIDGAME or Demuslim beating Korean Protoss players with mass Ghost/Viking IN THE LATEGAME. These were playable styles. If you rather 5rax 2based, then it was not the matchup's fault that you had to do damage. What words of "Terran has mid game advantages and if terran players press that mid game advantage, then protoss cant necessarily get into their late game at their full potential" dont you understand? What led up to those ghost viking mass in the lategame or 2 base colussus in the early game? Unless you're going to give us the upgrades, whether terran was active or passive midgame, and what kind of damage either side receive (where the BLUE post by the people that RUN the game themselves said that "if no side takes any significant damage, protoss has an advantage lategame), then you're full on troll.
Learn proper quoting... "Protoss can have an advantage". CAN!!!!!!!
|
If a protoss plays save on 3 bases with blink he always has an advantage
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On August 15 2014 02:54 TurboMaN wrote:
If a protoss plays save on 3 bases with blink he always has an advantage
No true. This is why Rain was talking about PvT imbalance. If you play safe blink into colossus you are too predictable. Though it can be true on ladder, I admit that 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
