|
On November 20 2013 11:13 Snusmumriken wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2013 09:51 H0i wrote:On November 20 2013 09:25 Snusmumriken wrote:On November 20 2013 09:19 vRadiatioNv wrote:On November 20 2013 08:21 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 20 2013 08:06 vRadiatioNv wrote:On November 20 2013 07:56 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 20 2013 07:47 vRadiatioNv wrote:On November 20 2013 07:32 Courthead wrote:On November 20 2013 06:43 TheDwf wrote:[quote] Interestingly enough, the same thing can be observed on all servers: ![[image loading]](http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/910412GML.jpg) Racial distribution as of today, source nios.kr. Korean Terrans were even a bit less represented in the last weeks of the last season, but otherwise the 20-25/40-45/35 distribution is remarkably unchanged since I started checking those numbers at the end of September. So we have to ask ourselves, if it's literally 100% easier for certain races to achieve success on ladder, what does that say about game balance? What does that say about how we should be dealing with those expressing frustration at ladder play? What does that say about Blizzard's repeated pronouncements that "everything looks good"? Except you cannot conclude that from these numbers at all. Maybe the reason most people don't play Terran is that they think it's stale using Marines as the primary unit in every single match up (which is exactly what most people complain about). There can be plenty of other reasons as well but you cannot conclude from those numbers that Terran is underpowered or to what degree it may be underpowered. That doesn't make sense. That would suggest that there are less terran players all together, but that's not true. Terrans are only underrepresented at higher levels, which suggests that it's harder to reach higher levels with terran. The sad thing is, I can barely remember a time when this wasn't the case. Except the people who are higher on the ladder most likely practice more often. If the playstyles are stale they will be less likely to continue playing. If I only play an hour or two every day at a low level I probably wouldn't get bored with Terran. Again, you cannot draw conclusions of balance off these numbers alone. That's mere speculation at best; making it up as you go along is more likely. As others have said, there are reasons why the ladder is dominated by P and T is underrepresented (all-ins help if you are anonymous and bo1) but there are unanswered questions. First, most pro players know each other's barcodes, so anonymity is not guaranteed. Second, Korea is as bad as the other regions, despite having a strong showing of terrans. Third, zerg doesn't benefit from all-ins, and it's especially vulnerable to them, yet it outperforms terran on ladder. The bo1 theory does not account for this. Lolwhat. My argument is at least as reasonable (imo moreso) than "omgwtfbbq look at % of ppl playing terran = UP." As many people have already said the winrates do not show Terran being absurdly underpowered. My argument makes much more sense and I only said there are plenty of other explanations and, again, low % of terran players does not directly translate to imbalance. It is you who are trying to make these figures seem like more than they are. you do realize winrates on ladder are meant to approximate 50%, thats how you get higher/lower on the ladder, right? However if we break down the winrates for terran its VERY common to have something like 70% in tvt and 40% or even less in tvp. Very common. So give me a break with your guesswork. Amusingly, if one group of terrans has a very high TvT winrate and low winrate in the other matchups, then there must be another group of terrans with a significantly lower TvT winrate, and thus, a much better winrate in the other matchups. Some terrans have high tvt winrate and some have high tvz winrate, almost none have high tvp winrate. Amusing? I think not. Moreover, its fucking boring playing protoss all the fucking time. Its the same shit in masters and grandmasters, twice the amount of protoss as terrans. Its really fucking boring, and its really infuriating to keep losing to protoss allins. Oh wait did I say allins? Protoss has almost no allins anymore just high reward zero risk earlygame pressures. You didnt scout that one place on the map where he randomly placed his stargate/twilight/dt shrine? Tough shit youre dead. You found it? No worries contain till ahead. Its a fucking joke.
Irrelevant to the point he made about TvT, which admittedly is quite funny.
TvP is my best MU too, I wish I had more of it, I'm 72 - 39  . Wish my TvZ didn't suck at 57 - 81 lmao, easily my worst MU.
|
On November 20 2013 11:13 Snusmumriken wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2013 09:51 H0i wrote:On November 20 2013 09:25 Snusmumriken wrote:On November 20 2013 09:19 vRadiatioNv wrote:On November 20 2013 08:21 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 20 2013 08:06 vRadiatioNv wrote:On November 20 2013 07:56 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 20 2013 07:47 vRadiatioNv wrote:On November 20 2013 07:32 Courthead wrote:On November 20 2013 06:43 TheDwf wrote:[quote] Interestingly enough, the same thing can be observed on all servers: Racial distribution as of today, source nios.kr. Korean Terrans were even a bit less represented in the last weeks of the last season, but otherwise the 20-25/40-45/35 distribution is remarkably unchanged since I started checking those numbers at the end of September. So we have to ask ourselves, if it's literally 100% easier for certain races to achieve success on ladder, what does that say about game balance? What does that say about how we should be dealing with those expressing frustration at ladder play? What does that say about Blizzard's repeated pronouncements that "everything looks good"? Except you cannot conclude that from these numbers at all. Maybe the reason most people don't play Terran is that they think it's stale using Marines as the primary unit in every single match up (which is exactly what most people complain about). There can be plenty of other reasons as well but you cannot conclude from those numbers that Terran is underpowered or to what degree it may be underpowered. That doesn't make sense. That would suggest that there are less terran players all together, but that's not true. Terrans are only underrepresented at higher levels, which suggests that it's harder to reach higher levels with terran. The sad thing is, I can barely remember a time when this wasn't the case. Except the people who are higher on the ladder most likely practice more often. If the playstyles are stale they will be less likely to continue playing. If I only play an hour or two every day at a low level I probably wouldn't get bored with Terran. Again, you cannot draw conclusions of balance off these numbers alone. That's mere speculation at best; making it up as you go along is more likely. As others have said, there are reasons why the ladder is dominated by P and T is underrepresented (all-ins help if you are anonymous and bo1) but there are unanswered questions. First, most pro players know each other's barcodes, so anonymity is not guaranteed. Second, Korea is as bad as the other regions, despite having a strong showing of terrans. Third, zerg doesn't benefit from all-ins, and it's especially vulnerable to them, yet it outperforms terran on ladder. The bo1 theory does not account for this. Lolwhat. My argument is at least as reasonable (imo moreso) than "omgwtfbbq look at % of ppl playing terran = UP." As many people have already said the winrates do not show Terran being absurdly underpowered. My argument makes much more sense and I only said there are plenty of other explanations and, again, low % of terran players does not directly translate to imbalance. It is you who are trying to make these figures seem like more than they are. you do realize winrates on ladder are meant to approximate 50%, thats how you get higher/lower on the ladder, right? However if we break down the winrates for terran its VERY common to have something like 70% in tvt and 40% or even less in tvp. Very common. So give me a break with your guesswork. Amusingly, if one group of terrans has a very high TvT winrate and low winrate in the other matchups, then there must be another group of terrans with a significantly lower TvT winrate, and thus, a much better winrate in the other matchups. Some terrans have high tvt winrate and some have high tvz winrate, almost none have high tvp winrate. Amusing? I think not.
Aligulac proves you wrong. The rest of your post is frustrated whining.
Also you clearly demonstrate you're mostly clueless, by speaking of "randomly placed twilights and dark shrines on the map". Nobody proxies twilights and dark shrines anymore, maybe in bronze league. It's all about the stargate.
|
On November 20 2013 12:47 H0i wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2013 11:13 Snusmumriken wrote:On November 20 2013 09:51 H0i wrote:On November 20 2013 09:25 Snusmumriken wrote:On November 20 2013 09:19 vRadiatioNv wrote:On November 20 2013 08:21 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 20 2013 08:06 vRadiatioNv wrote:On November 20 2013 07:56 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 20 2013 07:47 vRadiatioNv wrote:On November 20 2013 07:32 Courthead wrote:
[quote]
So we have to ask ourselves, if it's literally 100% easier for certain races to achieve success on ladder, what does that say about game balance? What does that say about how we should be dealing with those expressing frustration at ladder play? What does that say about Blizzard's repeated pronouncements that "everything looks good"? Except you cannot conclude that from these numbers at all. Maybe the reason most people don't play Terran is that they think it's stale using Marines as the primary unit in every single match up (which is exactly what most people complain about). There can be plenty of other reasons as well but you cannot conclude from those numbers that Terran is underpowered or to what degree it may be underpowered. That doesn't make sense. That would suggest that there are less terran players all together, but that's not true. Terrans are only underrepresented at higher levels, which suggests that it's harder to reach higher levels with terran. The sad thing is, I can barely remember a time when this wasn't the case. Except the people who are higher on the ladder most likely practice more often. If the playstyles are stale they will be less likely to continue playing. If I only play an hour or two every day at a low level I probably wouldn't get bored with Terran. Again, you cannot draw conclusions of balance off these numbers alone. That's mere speculation at best; making it up as you go along is more likely. As others have said, there are reasons why the ladder is dominated by P and T is underrepresented (all-ins help if you are anonymous and bo1) but there are unanswered questions. First, most pro players know each other's barcodes, so anonymity is not guaranteed. Second, Korea is as bad as the other regions, despite having a strong showing of terrans. Third, zerg doesn't benefit from all-ins, and it's especially vulnerable to them, yet it outperforms terran on ladder. The bo1 theory does not account for this. Lolwhat. My argument is at least as reasonable (imo moreso) than "omgwtfbbq look at % of ppl playing terran = UP." As many people have already said the winrates do not show Terran being absurdly underpowered. My argument makes much more sense and I only said there are plenty of other explanations and, again, low % of terran players does not directly translate to imbalance. It is you who are trying to make these figures seem like more than they are. you do realize winrates on ladder are meant to approximate 50%, thats how you get higher/lower on the ladder, right? However if we break down the winrates for terran its VERY common to have something like 70% in tvt and 40% or even less in tvp. Very common. So give me a break with your guesswork. Amusingly, if one group of terrans has a very high TvT winrate and low winrate in the other matchups, then there must be another group of terrans with a significantly lower TvT winrate, and thus, a much better winrate in the other matchups. Some terrans have high tvt winrate and some have high tvz winrate, almost none have high tvp winrate. Amusing? I think not. Aligulac proves you wrong. The rest of your post is frustrated whining. Also you clearly demonstrate you're mostly clueless, by speaking of "randomly placed twilights and dark shrines on the map". Nobody proxies twilights and dark shrines anymore, maybe in bronze league. It's all about the stargate.
Aligulac tracks professional games IIRC.
The new patch hasn't yet had much time to be reflected in professional games. It remains yet to be seen if the reduction to widow-mine drop's effectiveness against Protoss (which often forced toss to get some detection, cannon or observers) and the buff to oracles will result in any imbalance at the professional level.
For ladders, you cannot ignore that twice the amount of Protoss (compared to Terrans) have achieved MMR high enough to earn spots in the GM league.
The inherent BO1 format of ladder should not be an issue since the sample size is large enough that all sorts of play, macro and all-ins, will be a part of the data.
|
On November 20 2013 12:57 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2013 12:47 H0i wrote:On November 20 2013 11:13 Snusmumriken wrote:On November 20 2013 09:51 H0i wrote:On November 20 2013 09:25 Snusmumriken wrote:On November 20 2013 09:19 vRadiatioNv wrote:On November 20 2013 08:21 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 20 2013 08:06 vRadiatioNv wrote:On November 20 2013 07:56 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 20 2013 07:47 vRadiatioNv wrote:
[quote]
Except you cannot conclude that from these numbers at all. Maybe the reason most people don't play Terran is that they think it's stale using Marines as the primary unit in every single match up (which is exactly what most people complain about). There can be plenty of other reasons as well but you cannot conclude from those numbers that Terran is underpowered or to what degree it may be underpowered. That doesn't make sense. That would suggest that there are less terran players all together, but that's not true. Terrans are only underrepresented at higher levels, which suggests that it's harder to reach higher levels with terran. The sad thing is, I can barely remember a time when this wasn't the case. Except the people who are higher on the ladder most likely practice more often. If the playstyles are stale they will be less likely to continue playing. If I only play an hour or two every day at a low level I probably wouldn't get bored with Terran. Again, you cannot draw conclusions of balance off these numbers alone. That's mere speculation at best; making it up as you go along is more likely. As others have said, there are reasons why the ladder is dominated by P and T is underrepresented (all-ins help if you are anonymous and bo1) but there are unanswered questions. First, most pro players know each other's barcodes, so anonymity is not guaranteed. Second, Korea is as bad as the other regions, despite having a strong showing of terrans. Third, zerg doesn't benefit from all-ins, and it's especially vulnerable to them, yet it outperforms terran on ladder. The bo1 theory does not account for this. Lolwhat. My argument is at least as reasonable (imo moreso) than "omgwtfbbq look at % of ppl playing terran = UP." As many people have already said the winrates do not show Terran being absurdly underpowered. My argument makes much more sense and I only said there are plenty of other explanations and, again, low % of terran players does not directly translate to imbalance. It is you who are trying to make these figures seem like more than they are. you do realize winrates on ladder are meant to approximate 50%, thats how you get higher/lower on the ladder, right? However if we break down the winrates for terran its VERY common to have something like 70% in tvt and 40% or even less in tvp. Very common. So give me a break with your guesswork. Amusingly, if one group of terrans has a very high TvT winrate and low winrate in the other matchups, then there must be another group of terrans with a significantly lower TvT winrate, and thus, a much better winrate in the other matchups. Some terrans have high tvt winrate and some have high tvz winrate, almost none have high tvp winrate. Amusing? I think not. Aligulac proves you wrong. The rest of your post is frustrated whining. Also you clearly demonstrate you're mostly clueless, by speaking of "randomly placed twilights and dark shrines on the map". Nobody proxies twilights and dark shrines anymore, maybe in bronze league. It's all about the stargate. Aligulac tracks professional games IIRC. The new patch hasn't yet had much time to be reflected in professional games. It remains yet to be seen if the reduction to widow-mine drop's effectiveness against Protoss (which often forced toss to get some detection, cannon or observers) and the buff to oracles will result in any imbalance at the professional level. For ladders, you cannot ignore that twice the amount of Protoss (compared to Terrans) have achieved MMR high enough to earn spots in the GM league. The inherent BO1 format of ladder should not be an issue since the sample size is large enough that all sorts of play, macro and all-ins, will be a part of the data.
Silly to base any data on new patches, before the "defensive" race (in this case terran) has time to adapt. It's always been Zerg in the past, having to adapt to new timings, etc. based on what the other races came up with. Things are always erratic for a short period of time.
|
we have already been dealing with this timing for several months now. the problem is it got even harder to deal with. The meta in TvP is incredably boring and this patch is continuing the trend of pidgeon holing the range of builds terran can do. atm we have maybe 1 or 2 builds that we have to do or if we do anything else we will die unless we get lucky and get a toss that does't all in (and by all in, i mean any range of builds they can do to kill us outright while expanding behind it due to the fact we cant do shit due to msc)
|
I think blizzard likes the deatball style honestly... the one matchup TvZ without it (the most exciting matchup to watch) got nerfed because of it.
|
Indeed, the current state of TvP is that Terran only has 2 viable openers (1 rax expo, reaper expo), during and after which we must sit scared in our bases until we've got stim, combat shields, and medivacs out.
Protoss, on the other hand, has about 20 different openers that can potentially kill or irreversibly maim the Terran, even if scouted. The sad thing is, despite these openers having "all-inish" strength, they can be performed with no real consequences due to the defensive strength of the mothership core. Pro players have been complaining about this for months, and the new patch only made things worse. I watched Bomber -- one of the top 3 Terran in the world -- drop five completely one-sided games to no-name Protoss players on NA last week. Blizzard's buff to the oracle might as well have been a signed note reading, "We have no idea what the fuck we're doing lulz."
I don't know why people are disputing the facts and pointing to Aligulac (which only analyzes pro-level play) as if that proves anything. The stats speak for themselves: there are equal percentages of Terran and Protoss on ladder, yet Protoss has double the representation in GM. The only way that can happen is if Protoss players win more often. Period.
|
Germany2002 Posts
The only way that can happen is if Protoss players win more often. Period.
Thats not how ladder works.
Especially low GM (150-200) favors players that are theoretically "bad" but can execute well thought allins. Terran is the race with the fewest allins right now and most of them are scv pulls between 12 and 14 minutes. That means that there are more "cheese" Protoss GM´s out there because Protoss allins tends to hit earlier which results in more games in the same period of time.
Imagine a random GM playing 3 hours a day, i can imagine that Protoss players just makes more games in that time due to PvP (TvT most likely the longest mirror on average) and the 2 base capabilities on PvZ.
To be honest i think Master Top8 is maybe a better sample size then GM. The thing with GM is that it doesn´t fit with the rest of the ladder because it breaks out of the elo´ish concept of the rest. It is open later, the bonus pool works different and you drop out faster which makes it inconsistent in comparison with the rest of the ladder.
|
Winning with all-ins is still winning. For your theory to hold water, there would have to be evidence that GMs all-in more often than do players in other leagues, and there is no such evidence. (Anecdotally, I see much more cheese from the low-level players I face than from the GMs I occasionally face.)
I examined the rest of your theories as well, but the data still shows gross imbalances. Even if we leave out the 150-200 range low GM players, Protoss still make up ~43% of the top 150. I'm sure the top 8 master would be similar to GM, since it consists of people who barely didn't make the GM cutoff, and since the rest of the master league shows racial imbalances similar to GM as well.
|
Considering i know some people having up to 4 or 5 account in GM, I guess these number, which are already very low sample size, become fairly irrelevant, but this is just my point of view.
|
Germany2002 Posts
On November 20 2013 17:01 Courthead wrote:
Winning with all-ins is still winning. For your theory to hold water, there would have to be evidence that GMs all-in more often than do players in other leagues, and there is no such evidence. (Anecdotally, I see much more cheese from the low-level players I face than from the GMs I occasionally face.)
I examined the rest of your theories as well, but the data still shows gross imbalances. Even if we leave out the 150-200 range low GM players, Protoss still make up ~43% of the top 150. I'm sure the top 8 master would be similar to GM, since it consists of people who barely didn't make the GM cutoff, and since the rest of the master league shows racial imbalances similar to GM as well.
The thing is my "theory" is basically that ladder favors "playing more". So the data i would need to base my opinion would be the average time of the matchups.
The problem i have with the "ladder shows racial imbalance" is that the ladder is basically rigged for 99.9% of all players (i am ignoring right now the .1% problem at the top and the bottom, that always occurs in matchmaking like this).
Ladder is designed to a 50% win rate no matter how bad you are. The average silver player will have around 50 and the average master player will have around 50.
Imagine the balance is perfect but Protoss is 10 times funnier than Terran or Zerg. You would have a massive racial imbalance that has nothing to do with the actual game balance.
The Ladder just has too many other things that are influencing it to use it as valuable data for balancing the actual game.
|
On November 20 2013 12:47 H0i wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2013 11:13 Snusmumriken wrote:On November 20 2013 09:51 H0i wrote:On November 20 2013 09:25 Snusmumriken wrote:On November 20 2013 09:19 vRadiatioNv wrote:On November 20 2013 08:21 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 20 2013 08:06 vRadiatioNv wrote:On November 20 2013 07:56 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 20 2013 07:47 vRadiatioNv wrote:On November 20 2013 07:32 Courthead wrote:
[quote]
So we have to ask ourselves, if it's literally 100% easier for certain races to achieve success on ladder, what does that say about game balance? What does that say about how we should be dealing with those expressing frustration at ladder play? What does that say about Blizzard's repeated pronouncements that "everything looks good"? Except you cannot conclude that from these numbers at all. Maybe the reason most people don't play Terran is that they think it's stale using Marines as the primary unit in every single match up (which is exactly what most people complain about). There can be plenty of other reasons as well but you cannot conclude from those numbers that Terran is underpowered or to what degree it may be underpowered. That doesn't make sense. That would suggest that there are less terran players all together, but that's not true. Terrans are only underrepresented at higher levels, which suggests that it's harder to reach higher levels with terran. The sad thing is, I can barely remember a time when this wasn't the case. Except the people who are higher on the ladder most likely practice more often. If the playstyles are stale they will be less likely to continue playing. If I only play an hour or two every day at a low level I probably wouldn't get bored with Terran. Again, you cannot draw conclusions of balance off these numbers alone. That's mere speculation at best; making it up as you go along is more likely. As others have said, there are reasons why the ladder is dominated by P and T is underrepresented (all-ins help if you are anonymous and bo1) but there are unanswered questions. First, most pro players know each other's barcodes, so anonymity is not guaranteed. Second, Korea is as bad as the other regions, despite having a strong showing of terrans. Third, zerg doesn't benefit from all-ins, and it's especially vulnerable to them, yet it outperforms terran on ladder. The bo1 theory does not account for this. Lolwhat. My argument is at least as reasonable (imo moreso) than "omgwtfbbq look at % of ppl playing terran = UP." As many people have already said the winrates do not show Terran being absurdly underpowered. My argument makes much more sense and I only said there are plenty of other explanations and, again, low % of terran players does not directly translate to imbalance. It is you who are trying to make these figures seem like more than they are. you do realize winrates on ladder are meant to approximate 50%, thats how you get higher/lower on the ladder, right? However if we break down the winrates for terran its VERY common to have something like 70% in tvt and 40% or even less in tvp. Very common. So give me a break with your guesswork. Amusingly, if one group of terrans has a very high TvT winrate and low winrate in the other matchups, then there must be another group of terrans with a significantly lower TvT winrate, and thus, a much better winrate in the other matchups. Some terrans have high tvt winrate and some have high tvz winrate, almost none have high tvp winrate. Amusing? I think not. Aligulac proves you wrong. The rest of your post is frustrated whining. Also you clearly demonstrate you're mostly clueless, by speaking of "randomly placed twilights and dark shrines on the map". Nobody proxies twilights and dark shrines anymore, maybe in bronze league. It's all about the stargate.
Aligulac tracks progames not ladder. Im masterleague in EU and I see plenty of proxies of all sorts. I also frequently watch gm-terrans and they face proxy twilight quite often so sorry but youre wrong. If anything proxy oracles are a little less common post-patch due to how fast the oracle is now. The point isnt that protoss always proxies their twilight or whatever, the point is that they CAN, and so you end up having to scout the entire fucking map and if you missed a spot, well then fuck you youre dead.
|
On November 20 2013 17:30 USvBleakill wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2013 17:01 Courthead wrote:
Winning with all-ins is still winning. For your theory to hold water, there would have to be evidence that GMs all-in more often than do players in other leagues, and there is no such evidence. (Anecdotally, I see much more cheese from the low-level players I face than from the GMs I occasionally face.)
I examined the rest of your theories as well, but the data still shows gross imbalances. Even if we leave out the 150-200 range low GM players, Protoss still make up ~43% of the top 150. I'm sure the top 8 master would be similar to GM, since it consists of people who barely didn't make the GM cutoff, and since the rest of the master league shows racial imbalances similar to GM as well. The thing is my "theory" is basically that ladder favors "playing more". So the data i would need to base my opinion would be the average time of the matchups. The problem i have with the "ladder shows racial imbalance" is that the ladder is basically rigged for 99.9% of all players (i am ignoring right now the .1% problem at the top and the bottom, that always occurs in matchmaking like this). Ladder is designed to a 50% win rate no matter how bad you are. The average silver player will have around 50 and the average master player will have around 50. Imagine the balance is perfect but Protoss is 10 times funnier than Terran or Zerg. You would have a massive racial imbalance that has nothing to do with the actual game balance. The Ladder just has too many other things that are influencing it to use it as valuable data for balancing the actual game.
Except there arent less terran players than protoss overall.
And as to your "master is more relevant than gm". By all means, take a look:
http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/race/hots/global/1v1/master
The same bullshit we have in gm is also the case in master, particularly in the top of masterleague.
|
If the game was balanced a lot of people would be out of a job...They HAVE to create problems so they have something to get paid for. Conspiracy 2013
|
Statistics definitely speak for themselves........ I'm pretty sure this is what Blizzard wants though is just to have Protoss do better and Terran be the underdog..... I'm not joking at all with this.
If you think about it if you play a race and you keep losing to another race and you are the balance designer what are you going to do? Regardless of what the statistics say you are either buff your race or nerf the one you are losing to..
I would like to know whta race DK fancies when he plays SC2 
|
On November 20 2013 22:27 Pirfiktshon wrote:Statistics definitely speak for themselves........ I'm pretty sure this is what Blizzard wants though is just to have Protoss do better and Terran be the underdog..... I'm not joking at all with this. If you think about it if you play a race and you keep losing to another race and you are the balance designer what are you going to do? Regardless of what the statistics say you are either buff your race or nerf the one you are losing to.. I would like to know whta race DK fancies when he plays SC2
Mere speculation.
|
Mere speculation.
Speculation with Circumstantial evidence which is more than enough to put someone in jail in a murder investigation
|
We don't have such lax standards in balance discussion.
|
Northern Ireland27206 Posts
Besides from the end of WoL I have really picked a terrible time to raceswitch to Terran lol.
|
We don't have such lax standards in balance discussion.
LOL Taking a Jab at the Justice System.....I like it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
