|
On September 11 2011 17:05 Belial88 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Now, considering the fast third late lair has been around months as a response to forge fast expand, could you please explain to me why the highest level professional gamers in the world have been unable to come to the stunningly simple conclusion a Zerg Masters player has been able come to? No, it hasn't been around for months. Show me a single replay where Zerg goes fast third and 100+ supply lair, because I know Nestea and Losira stayed on 2 base before last July. Even if you disagree, you cannot deny that Zerg's have been absolutely crushing FFE play recently with super fast thirds. Call it whatever you want, but right now the Zerg metagame has figured out a way to handle FFE. Either Protoss will figure out a better way to make FFE work (like huk did vs nestea in the showmatches, by goin macro instead of harass), or Protoss will stop FFE. This season the only FFE to win was MC vs Kryix, where MC did an all-in vs a sub-par Zerg who executed his build horribly (no drones, hydras, lair and fast third before 60 supply, wtf). It wasn't like Zerg made infestors every time, it wasn't that Zerg dropped every time, it was Zerg outplayed the opening and found a hole in that build. So, the brilliant Masters level Zerg strategist has come to the brilliant conclusion that both forge fast expands and Stargate openers in the Protoss versus Zerg matchup are sub-optimal. I hate to be sarcastic, but you have to earnestly ask yourself why Protoss players opening forge fast expand and Stargate. If you can see weaknesses to a build, you need to understand that professional Protoss players also see those same weaknesses, yet choose to use it regardless. I want you to explain to me in detail while why the Protoss players chose the builds they did in the games they did. If you cannot, stop lecturing us. I told you why. Zerg assumed that if Protoss went stargate, their third would be denied. And often times when they tried, it was. Only recently have we seen Zerg take thirds in spite of stargate, and the efficiency which Zerg has held stargate this season is unprecedented. Whenever you insult the players of a specific race, you show that you are a fool. With limited exceptions, the best Protoss players in the world are in the GSL. When you insult those players, you make yourself sound ridiculous. Yet, you do it again just a few sentences later: I didn't insult the race, I insulted players. There are extremely capable protoss players. In fact, the number of godly Protoss, the complete lack of 'okay (by GSL standards) Protoss, and just high number of shitty Protoss, is much like Zerg. There's really only 2 good Zergs, 2-3 other Zergs showing great promise (but have flaws, leenock and DRG), and then a ton of shitty Zergs. I would say Protoss has more better players than Zerg does, we just have THE best player, and a close 2nd. Of course, you caveat that there are some 'Godly' Protoss who were unable to show us their glorious Protoss versus Zerg because they lost to Terran. And Alicia, of course, who had build order loss. But again, I'd put money down that you cannot explain why Alicia chose the build he did. MC showed us his glorious PvZ, he just didn't get matched up against Nestea or Losira or DRG or Leenock, really the only 'good' Zerg right now in the GSL. And Alicia went with blink as a follow up because he pretty much already lost the game already (DT opening did zero damage, and then Leenock was able to get his third). There wasn't really anything Alicia could've done when his DT's did absolutely zero damage, I'm sure he thought he would at least do something. He took a risk, and paid for it. He's a great protoss player, but Leenock is one of the few great Zergs as well. Wonderful. By the end of your post you've explained why forge fast expand, Stargate, and Dark Templars are horrible builds. So, apparently all Protoss should three gate expand every time. You say you are a masters Zerg. You should switch to Protoss. People constantly say Protoss players lack creativity, and with a dynamic mind like yours we'll be pumping out quality builds in no time! We see that when Protoss plays macro, they do extremely well in the GSL. That's why I say Protoss should go 3 gate sentry, or similar macro play. There were quite a few high level PvZs in the GSTL where Protoss went macro, and rolled Zerg. One example is Leenock vs... (forgot his name) on TalDarim, and Zerg was supposedly ahead in an unlosable position. But the Protoss simply macro'd on, and won. Right now a lot of Protoss are playing risky, and doing builds they thought were safe. For fucks sake, if what I'm saying is so alien to you, tell me, did oGsInca play smart? Or did he play exactly as Idra would have put it? By the way, you lied about when you edited your post about VoidRay Carrier. Don't think I didn't notice that, or that I forgot it as I wrote out this reply. I didn't edit out shit, I added to the post. I don't know what you think I'm going back on, and I never said it was OP. I was merely replying to somenoe saying carriers were worthless, I replied saying they don't have a place because their use is to kill mass siege tanks in PvT (like popular in BW), and that Carrier/Void, which is ridiculously impossible to get, just liek Ultra/BL/Queen is unstoppable, once out, is pretty fucking unstoppable. I don't know what's so disagreeable about this, and I really don't give a shit, because I don't think Carrier/VR is a problem, I don't think it's imbalanced, it's a theorycraft build that's only good on paper. Anyways, you can't deny that Protoss is taking a risk when going stargate or DT. If you claim that Protoss must always go some harass opening as such, then you might as well say "Zerg units kill Protoss too well" which is obviously ridiculous. Right now Protoss might as well be going 4 gate every game - it's risky, it could win, but if Zerg knows what's up, you lose. Protoss can simply play less risky, it's not that hard to figure out. They did very coin flip builds this season with stargate and DT, and the Zergs were prepared for it. Insisting that Protoss must open stargate is like insisting Terran must open cloaked banshees. It's ridiculous, and only works when Zerg is surprised. If they know it's coming, the P will be behind, as we saw in literalyl every ZvP this season.
I think you don't understand very well the stargate builds Protoss players use against Zerg. Let's take the MC build (1 gate FE stargate). It has been mainly designed to be safe against roach ling all ins. The nice follow up is to have complete map control for a good amount of time. But deny the third? Sure, they try, but they know that they most likely won't deny shit. If they do it's just a bonus, but they do not expect to do huge damage. So yeah, MC will pick up a queen here, kill a popping tumor there and shut down tower vision, but nothing more. To expect a reaction from Zerg aside from 1 spore crawler and a few extra queens, you must go double stargate and commit way more (one example is Trickster vs DRG at MLG).
You're completely wrong in thinking that stargate openings (with one single stargate, mind you) are coinflippy, in fact, most of the time, Protoss won't actually care if you scout it or not (it's always better to keep your opponent in the dark, but you know what I'm talking about, it's not like scouting a dark shrine or a 2port banshees or a hatch cancel).
Now, your point still stands. It may very well be a bad opening that Zerg can somehow punish. But it's not considered as a "cheese" or even a "harass based" opening, it's very much the safest opening we have. The problem is that it's maybe too safe, as you commit to units and tech that won't be useful in midgame and don't do enough damage with it.
Edit: And another thing, contrary to popular zerg belief (:p), Zerg didn't learn to "deal with stargate" or "figure out stargate openings", spore crawler burrow time was reduced greatly as a buff. Moving spore crawlers are not vulnerable anymore to a 1 void ray snipe. That's why stargate openings have lost their edge nowadays, not sheer zerg genius, sorry :/
|
Ahh nm, I'm too die hard for this shit.
|
Just a small tought.
I think bizzard patches game way too often. Even 3 times a year seems way too much.
I tought if current blizzard would have been ballancing Starcraft:Broodwar.
Tanks would do way less damage.
Plague would be nonexistant, same to irradiate.
Swarm would be noneexistant.
Vulture mines would been removed.
etc
Look at World of Warcraft, it can never stabilize because eatch patch throws in new balance changes. Obviously it might be that World of Warcraft is just way too big and complex.
Thats what i try to say, you can never ballance the game when you want to ballance it constantly. Does not make sense but, if you want to ballance it too fast, it means players come and go, ideas come and go. If you ballance too often then the varables (player skills, slumps, metagame) will never ever let you ballance it well, since you just dont know the exact state of the game.
yes yes, bad english
|
Neural parasite would be more balanced if it just destroyed the unit for 100 energy cause that is what it does in a nutshell. So be honest and ask yourselves if spell like that should exist?
|
243 Posts
On September 12 2011 00:44 Rorschach wrote:
Neural parasite would be more balanced if it just destroyed the unit for 100 energy cause that is what it does in a nutshell. So be honest and ask yourselves if spell like that should exist?
I think the problem with sc2 is that there aren't really any high risk, high reward techs. Pretty much all the tech gets used in games. IIRC Dark Archon and its mind control ability were very rarely seen due to the risky nature of it.
I think Neural Parasite should be a permanent mind control, but pushed away really far so that it's hard to get. Overall, it would benefit zergs who have the presence of mind to turn a long game around, but it'd be fairly rare.
Less accessible, but more powerful - although it's unlikely to fit in with modern Blizz's design philosophy.
|
On September 12 2011 03:19 Brotocol wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2011 00:44 Rorschach wrote:
Neural parasite would be more balanced if it just destroyed the unit for 100 energy cause that is what it does in a nutshell. So be honest and ask yourselves if spell like that should exist? I think the problem with sc2 is that there aren't really any high risk, high reward techs. Pretty much all the tech gets used in games. IIRC Dark Archon and its mind control ability were very rarely seen due to the risky nature of it. I think Neural Parasite should be a permanent mind control, but pushed away really far so that it's hard to get. Overall, it would benefit zergs who have the presence of mind to turn a long game around, but it'd be fairly rare. Less accessible, but more powerful - although it's unlikely to fit in with modern Blizz's design philosophy.
I really like your idea.
In BW storm was something to be feared as was EMP (on the science vessel).
|
I feel like like corruptors really arn't worth their full cost considering how they perform against colossi compared to vikings. Considering that the time they come out is when you are pumping gas into melee carapace, a greater spire, hive and adrenal glands, you're generally floating a lot of minerals.
It would be interesting if for a patch cycle Blizzard reduced the cost of corruptors to 150/75 and upped the broodlord morph to 150/175 to compensate and see if it becomes a significantly more robust response unit.
|
To take the discussion away from PvZ, I just watched MC vs Jjakjji in the Up/Down Matches, and without spoiling the results, I think it is ridiculous how MMM balls can just march through Storms without dying. I don't know what Blizzard were thinking when they made MMMG so good against everything Protoss has.
|
I'd just like to throw my 2 cents regarding "the game should be balanced for the highest lvl of play (Korea GM)"
OK, it might be true, but it doesn't change the fact that protoss is just too easy... a+move and go.. couldn't they get some obstacles? Maybe they should turn on "hardened shields" for immortal manually? Or make sentry's shield spell last shorter but also reduce it energy. I don't know, something like that. Or make collosus unable to walk over protoss army so it would have to be microed as well.
Korean GM's won't feel the diffrence but lower league noobs won't be able to mass deathball and stomp everyone so easly with a+move... I fell like getting to plat/diamond for protoss is one weekend of 4-gating or massing deathball.
|
243 Posts
On September 12 2011 05:41 Aiurr wrote:
I'd just like to throw my 2 cents regarding "the game should be balanced for the highest lvl of play (Korea GM)"
OK, it might be true, but it doesn't change the fact that protoss is just too easy... a+move and go.. couldn't they get some obstacles? Maybe they should turn on "hardened shields" for immortal manually? Or make sentry's shield spell last shorter but also reduce it energy. I don't know, something like that. Or make collosus unable to walk over protoss army so it would have to be microed as well.
Korean GM's won't feel the diffrence but lower league noobs won't be able to mass deathball and stopm everyone so easly...
Please try a-moving a Protoss army on ladder, and provide us with a replay. 
|
On September 12 2011 05:41 Aiurr wrote:
I'd just like to throw my 2 cents regarding "the game should be balanced for the highest lvl of play (Korea GM)"
OK, it might be true, but it doesn't change the fact that protoss is just too easy... a+move and go.. couldn't they get some obstacles? Maybe they should turn on "hardened shields" for immortal manually? Or make sentry's shield spell last shorter but also reduce it energy. I don't know, something like that. Or make collosus unable to walk over protoss army so it would have to be microed as well.
Korean GM's won't feel the diffrence but lower league noobs won't be able to mass deathball and stomp everyone so easly with a+move...
are you being serious?
|
On September 12 2011 05:42 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2011 05:41 Aiurr wrote:
I'd just like to throw my 2 cents regarding "the game should be balanced for the highest lvl of play (Korea GM)"
OK, it might be true, but it doesn't change the fact that protoss is just too easy... a+move and go.. couldn't they get some obstacles? Maybe they should turn on "hardened shields" for immortal manually? Or make sentry's shield spell last shorter but also reduce it energy. I don't know, something like that. Or make collosus unable to walk over protoss army so it would have to be microed as well.
Korean GM's won't feel the diffrence but lower league noobs won't be able to mass deathball and stomp everyone so easly with a+move... are you being serious?
Sry, can't help it, this is what I think of protoss from bronze to plat (maybe low diamond too). Just mass stalkers, zealots, get 3 collosi and gogogogo.
|
On September 12 2011 00:15 LeibSaiLeib wrote:
Just a small tought.
I think bizzard patches game way too often. Even 3 times a year seems way too much.
I tought if current blizzard would have been ballancing Starcraft:Broodwar.
Tanks would do way less damage.
Plague would be nonexistant, same to irradiate.
Swarm would be noneexistant.
Vulture mines would been removed.
etc
Look at World of Warcraft, it can never stabilize because eatch patch throws in new balance changes. Obviously it might be that World of Warcraft is just way too big and complex.
Thats what i try to say, you can never ballance the game when you want to ballance it constantly. Does not make sense but, if you want to ballance it too fast, it means players come and go, ideas come and go. If you ballance too often then the varables (player skills, slumps, metagame) will never ever let you ballance it well, since you just dont know the exact state of the game.
yes yes, bad english
That may indeed be true. However, consider that SC1 without BW was extremely imbalanced. One of the reasons BW ended up so well balanced, is that it had built upon the experience of vanilla.
Besides, SC2 is just a much more volatile game, with macro mechanics contributing to extremely powerful all-ins, defender's advantage being largely removed compared to BW, and just general stupidity. If they hadn't started balancing it decisively, we'd still be living in 5 rax reaper land.
Really, HotS will be the main test, an opportunity to make drastic changes to the core game mechanics. If we get another 6 months of retarded 1basing after HotS release, then it's probably time to look for a different game.
|
On September 12 2011 05:46 Aiurr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2011 05:42 Shiori wrote:On September 12 2011 05:41 Aiurr wrote:
I'd just like to throw my 2 cents regarding "the game should be balanced for the highest lvl of play (Korea GM)"
OK, it might be true, but it doesn't change the fact that protoss is just too easy... a+move and go.. couldn't they get some obstacles? Maybe they should turn on "hardened shields" for immortal manually? Or make sentry's shield spell last shorter but also reduce it energy. I don't know, something like that. Or make collosus unable to walk over protoss army so it would have to be microed as well.
Korean GM's won't feel the diffrence but lower league noobs won't be able to mass deathball and stomp everyone so easly with a+move... are you being serious? Sry, can't help it, this is what I think of protoss from bronze to plat (maybe low diamond too). Just mass stalkers, zealots, get 3 collosi and gogogogo.
A testament of how little you know about others races......
|
On September 12 2011 05:46 Aiurr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2011 05:42 Shiori wrote:On September 12 2011 05:41 Aiurr wrote:
I'd just like to throw my 2 cents regarding "the game should be balanced for the highest lvl of play (Korea GM)"
OK, it might be true, but it doesn't change the fact that protoss is just too easy... a+move and go.. couldn't they get some obstacles? Maybe they should turn on "hardened shields" for immortal manually? Or make sentry's shield spell last shorter but also reduce it energy. I don't know, something like that. Or make collosus unable to walk over protoss army so it would have to be microed as well.
Korean GM's won't feel the diffrence but lower league noobs won't be able to mass deathball and stomp everyone so easly with a+move... are you being serious? Sry, can't help it, this is what I think of protoss from bronze to plat (maybe low diamond too). Just mass stalkers, zealots, get 3 collosi and gogogogo.
its funny because that's how it is for every race at platinum level...especially terran that is get marines marauders medivacs and gogogo. All this to tell you that your plat experience doesnt mean much, or , actually, could be applied to any race, be it zerg, protoss or terran.
|
no, if you a move with zerg you lose, cause u cant attack into a defensive position with the low range zerg units.
but bronze to plat should never be an argument for balance
|
thor is so imba with auto-repair scvs....
exhibit A: Here
exhibit B: His Apm. My Apm...
I'm Toss, Warmdelights. gold league. I understand i'm in gold league and doesn't deserve balance bitching rights but this is ridiculous.
|
On September 11 2011 17:46 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2011 17:05 Belial88 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Now, considering the fast third late lair has been around months as a response to forge fast expand, could you please explain to me why the highest level professional gamers in the world have been unable to come to the stunningly simple conclusion a Zerg Masters player has been able come to? No, it hasn't been around for months. Show me a single replay where Zerg goes fast third and 100+ supply lair, because I know Nestea and Losira stayed on 2 base before last July. Even if you disagree, you cannot deny that Zerg's have been absolutely crushing FFE play recently with super fast thirds. Call it whatever you want, but right now the Zerg metagame has figured out a way to handle FFE. Either Protoss will figure out a better way to make FFE work (like huk did vs nestea in the showmatches, by goin macro instead of harass), or Protoss will stop FFE. This season the only FFE to win was MC vs Kryix, where MC did an all-in vs a sub-par Zerg who executed his build horribly (no drones, hydras, lair and fast third before 60 supply, wtf). It wasn't like Zerg made infestors every time, it wasn't that Zerg dropped every time, it was Zerg outplayed the opening and found a hole in that build. So, the brilliant Masters level Zerg strategist has come to the brilliant conclusion that both forge fast expands and Stargate openers in the Protoss versus Zerg matchup are sub-optimal. I hate to be sarcastic, but you have to earnestly ask yourself why Protoss players opening forge fast expand and Stargate. If you can see weaknesses to a build, you need to understand that professional Protoss players also see those same weaknesses, yet choose to use it regardless. I want you to explain to me in detail while why the Protoss players chose the builds they did in the games they did. If you cannot, stop lecturing us. I told you why. Zerg assumed that if Protoss went stargate, their third would be denied. And often times when they tried, it was. Only recently have we seen Zerg take thirds in spite of stargate, and the efficiency which Zerg has held stargate this season is unprecedented. Whenever you insult the players of a specific race, you show that you are a fool. With limited exceptions, the best Protoss players in the world are in the GSL. When you insult those players, you make yourself sound ridiculous. Yet, you do it again just a few sentences later: I didn't insult the race, I insulted players. There are extremely capable protoss players. In fact, the number of godly Protoss, the complete lack of 'okay (by GSL standards) Protoss, and just high number of shitty Protoss, is much like Zerg. There's really only 2 good Zergs, 2-3 other Zergs showing great promise (but have flaws, leenock and DRG), and then a ton of shitty Zergs. I would say Protoss has more better players than Zerg does, we just have THE best player, and a close 2nd. Of course, you caveat that there are some 'Godly' Protoss who were unable to show us their glorious Protoss versus Zerg because they lost to Terran. And Alicia, of course, who had build order loss. But again, I'd put money down that you cannot explain why Alicia chose the build he did. MC showed us his glorious PvZ, he just didn't get matched up against Nestea or Losira or DRG or Leenock, really the only 'good' Zerg right now in the GSL. And Alicia went with blink as a follow up because he pretty much already lost the game already (DT opening did zero damage, and then Leenock was able to get his third). There wasn't really anything Alicia could've done when his DT's did absolutely zero damage, I'm sure he thought he would at least do something. He took a risk, and paid for it. He's a great protoss player, but Leenock is one of the few great Zergs as well. Wonderful. By the end of your post you've explained why forge fast expand, Stargate, and Dark Templars are horrible builds. So, apparently all Protoss should three gate expand every time. You say you are a masters Zerg. You should switch to Protoss. People constantly say Protoss players lack creativity, and with a dynamic mind like yours we'll be pumping out quality builds in no time! We see that when Protoss plays macro, they do extremely well in the GSL. That's why I say Protoss should go 3 gate sentry, or similar macro play. There were quite a few high level PvZs in the GSTL where Protoss went macro, and rolled Zerg. One example is Leenock vs... (forgot his name) on TalDarim, and Zerg was supposedly ahead in an unlosable position. But the Protoss simply macro'd on, and won. Right now a lot of Protoss are playing risky, and doing builds they thought were safe. For fucks sake, if what I'm saying is so alien to you, tell me, did oGsInca play smart? Or did he play exactly as Idra would have put it? By the way, you lied about when you edited your post about VoidRay Carrier. Don't think I didn't notice that, or that I forgot it as I wrote out this reply. I didn't edit out shit, I added to the post. I don't know what you think I'm going back on, and I never said it was OP. I was merely replying to somenoe saying carriers were worthless, I replied saying they don't have a place because their use is to kill mass siege tanks in PvT (like popular in BW), and that Carrier/Void, which is ridiculously impossible to get, just liek Ultra/BL/Queen is unstoppable, once out, is pretty fucking unstoppable. I don't know what's so disagreeable about this, and I really don't give a shit, because I don't think Carrier/VR is a problem, I don't think it's imbalanced, it's a theorycraft build that's only good on paper. Anyways, you can't deny that Protoss is taking a risk when going stargate or DT. If you claim that Protoss must always go some harass opening as such, then you might as well say "Zerg units kill Protoss too well" which is obviously ridiculous. Right now Protoss might as well be going 4 gate every game - it's risky, it could win, but if Zerg knows what's up, you lose. Protoss can simply play less risky, it's not that hard to figure out. They did very coin flip builds this season with stargate and DT, and the Zergs were prepared for it. Insisting that Protoss must open stargate is like insisting Terran must open cloaked banshees. It's ridiculous, and only works when Zerg is surprised. If they know it's coming, the P will be behind, as we saw in literalyl every ZvP this season. I think you don't understand very well the stargate builds Protoss players use against Zerg. Let's take the MC build (1 gate FE stargate). It has been mainly designed to be safe against roach ling all ins. The nice follow up is to have complete map control for a good amount of time. But deny the third? Sure, they try, but they know that they most likely won't deny shit. If they do it's just a bonus, but they do not expect to do huge damage. So yeah, MC will pick up a queen here, kill a popping tumor there and shut down tower vision, but nothing more. To expect a reaction from Zerg aside from 1 spore crawler and a few extra queens, you must go double stargate and commit way more (one example is Trickster vs DRG at MLG). You're completely wrong in thinking that stargate openings (with one single stargate, mind you) are coinflippy, in fact, most of the time, Protoss won't actually care if you scout it or not (it's always better to keep your opponent in the dark, but you know what I'm talking about, it's not like scouting a dark shrine or a 2port banshees or a hatch cancel). Now, your point still stands. It may very well be a bad opening that Zerg can somehow punish. But it's not considered as a "cheese" or even a "harass based" opening, it's very much the safest opening we have. The problem is that it's maybe too safe, as you commit to units and tech that won't be useful in midgame and don't do enough damage with it. Edit: And another thing, contrary to popular zerg belief (:p), Zerg didn't learn to "deal with stargate" or "figure out stargate openings", spore crawler burrow time was reduced greatly as a buff. Moving spore crawlers are not vulnerable anymore to a 1 void ray snipe. That's why stargate openings have lost their edge nowadays, not sheer zerg genius, sorry :/
MC 1 gate stargate is not only more safe than 3 gate expo, but it is also more economical. While it still lets you scout and pressure. The problem is it is basically impossible to punish early hatch build without coinflips.
Losira met MC. It wasn't even close. MC had no chance in the entire game to take a 3rd. Balance changes have made Zerg have an easier time vs gateway pushes and SG openings. Maps are becoming more and more Z favoured. Getting a 3rd is key for Protoss to be able to macro against Zerg and wth maps like belshire beach, dualsight and xelnaga fortress it is not as easy as say shakuras or metal.
|
On September 12 2011 06:17 Zeon0 wrote:
no, if you a move with zerg you lose, cause u cant attack into a defensive position with the low range zerg units.
but bronze to plat should never be an argument for balance
well, at least you get my point ^^
And then again, A lot of zergs are indeed attacking in those positions anyways at plat level.
|
On September 12 2011 05:48 Toadvine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2011 00:15 LeibSaiLeib wrote:
Just a small tought.
I think bizzard patches game way too often. Even 3 times a year seems way too much.
I tought if current blizzard would have been ballancing Starcraft:Broodwar.
Tanks would do way less damage.
Plague would be nonexistant, same to irradiate.
Swarm would be noneexistant.
Vulture mines would been removed.
etc
Look at World of Warcraft, it can never stabilize because eatch patch throws in new balance changes. Obviously it might be that World of Warcraft is just way too big and complex.
Thats what i try to say, you can never ballance the game when you want to ballance it constantly. Does not make sense but, if you want to ballance it too fast, it means players come and go, ideas come and go. If you ballance too often then the varables (player skills, slumps, metagame) will never ever let you ballance it well, since you just dont know the exact state of the game.
yes yes, bad english That may indeed be true. However, consider that SC1 without BW was extremely imbalanced. One of the reasons BW ended up so well balanced, is that it had built upon the experience of vanilla.
The "Balance" of BW was pure luck, there was never an intention from the Blizzard of that time to create a balanced multiplayer.
In BW many things just somehow lined up, and of course through the dedication and skill of koreans and maps eventually things started to work out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
