|
On November 07 2011 05:36 StatX wrote:
I wish they would revert pylons as it was since you cant warp on a ramp and ramp vision has been reduced.
That change really randomly screwed up protosses.
that would be good, lol
tbh blizzard is REALLY looking for the community now, but it seems they LOVE polls, see about map change when they said they wouldnt change, we said we wanted 3 maps out and metalopolis and shattered without close, blizzard did it perfectly.
im pretty sure opinions are heard way better in polls, lets make a "what would balance the game" poll and see what happens, it seems to me theres more people understanding the game here than being rage kid after losing
|
On November 07 2011 05:39 InvalidID wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 05:18 doko100 wrote:Look at the overall win rate. In january terran has a 53,9% win rate but the curve is somewhere at around 55% and in july terran has a 53.8% win rate but the curve is at 52%. It makes this graph useless because when you have a first look just the line that is drawn makes it look alot more imbalanced than it is.. explain this to me please? On November 07 2011 05:16 Hetz wrote:
That top graph...why is the blue line always above the others? yeah it's bullshit, when zerg had a higher overall win rate than terran in june the line still showed an almost 3% advantage for terran. like I said soooo misleading The graph explains exactly what the trend line represents(moving average), and provides its scale precisely. The creator cannot help if you do not understand the information it provides. It is not misleading in any way. The scale is pretty normal(slightly larger then the biggest deviation from 50%), and provides its numbers. The 3 month moving average smooths out the random fluctuations to give you a better idea of the trend, hence the "trend line".
I do understand the graphs very well, the problem is that most other people interpret this as a proof for major imbalance when there really is none. 52%-48% is not imbalanced, that's about as balanced as it gets, neither is 46%-54% that is super balanced aswell.
Even if I play 100 games against an equally skilled player on my level there is no way we both would win 50 games each. it would be something like 54-46. Out of 100 games that is only 4 games 1 player won more than the other one did, that is NOTHING and doesnt prove anything. especially since the stats completely ignore individual skill.
|
689 Posts
On November 07 2011 05:35 Akhee wrote:better updated, much less reliable, doens't matter
You think that a database that results in having Stephano as the best player in the world (Sase 5th, Mana 6th, and Nerchio 10th) is much more reliable than a database that indicates that the top 9 players are koreans ?
|
It's funny how many people here don't understand how to read a graph... Thanks for the info and it makes me sad to be a toss but hey, protoss will rise in the fall as they always do (I heard Artosis say that and look, MC is back in code S and Huk even won dreamhack lol!).
|
On November 07 2011 04:25 ZenithM wrote:
Looking balanced to me.
And even if it was not, there is not enough data to conclude anything.
And stats don't mean anything.
And you have to actually look at the gameplay and not the results to form an opinion on balance.
And Terran players are just better.
You forgot one. "And I play Terran."
|
Switzerland2892 Posts
On November 07 2011 05:44 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 05:39 InvalidID wrote:On November 07 2011 05:18 doko100 wrote:Look at the overall win rate. In january terran has a 53,9% win rate but the curve is somewhere at around 55% and in july terran has a 53.8% win rate but the curve is at 52%. It makes this graph useless because when you have a first look just the line that is drawn makes it look alot more imbalanced than it is.. explain this to me please? On November 07 2011 05:16 Hetz wrote:
That top graph...why is the blue line always above the others? yeah it's bullshit, when zerg had a higher overall win rate than terran in june the line still showed an almost 3% advantage for terran. like I said soooo misleading The graph explains exactly what the trend line represents(moving average), and provides its scale precisely. The creator cannot help if you do not understand the information it provides. It is not misleading in any way. The scale is pretty normal(slightly larger then the biggest deviation from 50%), and provides its numbers. The 3 month moving average smooths out the random fluctuations to give you a better idea of the trend, hence the "trend line". I do understand the graphs very well, the problem is that most other people interpret this as a proof for major imbalance when there really is none. 52%-48% is not imbalanced, that's about as balanced as it gets, neither is 46%-54% that is super balanced aswell. Even if I play 100 games against an equally skilled player on my level there is no way we both would win 50 games each. it would be something like 54-46. Out of 100 games that is only 4 games 1 player won more than the other one did, that is NOTHING and doesnt prove anything. especially since the stats completely ignore individual skill.
It would be true if there was a variation nearly every month.
edit:On November 07 2011 05:46 Elean wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 05:35 Akhee wrote:On November 07 2011 05:31 Elean wrote:Since the 1.4 patch, protoss is 50.79% against terran according to http://www.sc2charts.net which is better updated than TLPD. Just saying... better updated, much less reliable, doens't matter You think that a database that results in having Stephano as the best player in the world is much more reliable than a database that indicates that the top 9 players are koreans ?
TL didn't create the elo rank, it was created for chess players.
|
On November 07 2011 05:40 VTPerfect wrote:
PvZ: Zergs have really explored this MU (especially on kor server). All the allins are well known and perfect responses known almost as well. Additionally, Zergs have developed or improved many of their own all ins which arent quite as known yet and therefore more difficult to stop on the protoss side. Currently the only thing that can be looked at as possibly OP is BL/Infestor.
MC style - play safe and respond to everything with a blink stalker heavy into colossus army.
Weakness - 130 Protoss Supply vs 200 Zerg supply when Protoss tries to secure a third
Weakness - Have to hit a timing before BL/Infestor
Hero style - Non commital aggression. Always attacking at awkward timings to find those that are cost efficient and then using them in the future while working on finding more. Uses Warp Prism play to secure faster third behind rocks while simultaneously putting on army pressure while simultaneously dropping/warping zealots to either snipe an important tech structure, hatch or clear drones.
Weakness - Very risky, if zerg spots your timing all your units will die for little damage done
Weakness - More susceptible to Zerg All ins because the stargate and sentry production is often held off in order to produce more combat units to stay more even with zerg with these awkward timings.
Weakness - Needs high level of multitasking, if you don't have enough you won't succeed.
Weakness - Still no answer for BL/Infestor
Perfect's Opinion - I think Hero PvZ is the future and requires alot of skill and enormous amount of game knowledge to pull off. Not even Hero has reached the zenith of this kind of play but hes definitely on to something. Only real justifiable change atm i feel is buffing some sort of unit that can be used against the BL. My suggestion is reintoruction of Flux Vanes on Void Rays or an Increase on the range of the void ray.
niice analysis, thats really the truth, personally i tried to use hero style but it seems you cant be solid, seriously, you have to control the game sooo much and sometimes it seems i can't (not sure if every protoss feels like that...), and MC style you have a really difficult time holding third, but if you can do it without zerg having like 5 bases before you secure your third you will be almost even
|
On November 07 2011 05:44 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 05:39 InvalidID wrote:On November 07 2011 05:18 doko100 wrote:Look at the overall win rate. In january terran has a 53,9% win rate but the curve is somewhere at around 55% and in july terran has a 53.8% win rate but the curve is at 52%. It makes this graph useless because when you have a first look just the line that is drawn makes it look alot more imbalanced than it is.. explain this to me please? On November 07 2011 05:16 Hetz wrote:
That top graph...why is the blue line always above the others? yeah it's bullshit, when zerg had a higher overall win rate than terran in june the line still showed an almost 3% advantage for terran. like I said soooo misleading The graph explains exactly what the trend line represents(moving average), and provides its scale precisely. The creator cannot help if you do not understand the information it provides. It is not misleading in any way. The scale is pretty normal(slightly larger then the biggest deviation from 50%), and provides its numbers. The 3 month moving average smooths out the random fluctuations to give you a better idea of the trend, hence the "trend line". I do understand the graphs very well, the problem is that most other people interpret this as a proof for major imbalance when there really is none. 52%-48% is not imbalanced, that's about as balanced as it gets, neither is 46%-54% that is super balanced aswell. Even if I play 100 games against an equally skilled player on my level there is no way we both would win 50 games each. it would be something like 54-46. Out of 100 games that is only 4 games 1 player won more than the other one did, that is NOTHING and doesnt prove anything. especially since the stats completely ignore individual skill.
I agree that 52-48% is pretty balanced, and 54-46 is not bad, but your analogy is not great. The graphs show the standard error(though I guess 95% CIs would be better), which demonstrates the expected bounds of random variation. They include a large number of players of differing skills. If you can make the assumption that the skill distribution is equal among the races at the highest level, then they are valid.
|
800 games last month?
that's 1/3 to 1/4 of the usual number, whats wrong.
|
On November 07 2011 05:44 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 05:39 InvalidID wrote:On November 07 2011 05:18 doko100 wrote:Look at the overall win rate. In january terran has a 53,9% win rate but the curve is somewhere at around 55% and in july terran has a 53.8% win rate but the curve is at 52%. It makes this graph useless because when you have a first look just the line that is drawn makes it look alot more imbalanced than it is.. explain this to me please? On November 07 2011 05:16 Hetz wrote:
That top graph...why is the blue line always above the others? yeah it's bullshit, when zerg had a higher overall win rate than terran in june the line still showed an almost 3% advantage for terran. like I said soooo misleading The graph explains exactly what the trend line represents(moving average), and provides its scale precisely. The creator cannot help if you do not understand the information it provides. It is not misleading in any way. The scale is pretty normal(slightly larger then the biggest deviation from 50%), and provides its numbers. The 3 month moving average smooths out the random fluctuations to give you a better idea of the trend, hence the "trend line". I do understand the graphs very well, the problem is that most other people interpret this as a proof for major imbalance when there really is none. 52%-48% is not imbalanced, that's about as balanced as it gets, neither is 46%-54% that is super balanced aswell. Even if I play 100 games against an equally skilled player on my level there is no way we both would win 50 games each. it would be something like 54-46. Out of 100 games that is only 4 games 1 player won more than the other one did, that is NOTHING and doesnt prove anything. especially since the stats completely ignore individual skill.
56.3 vs 43.7 in ZvP is actually quite significant. This means that zergs are winning more than 11 games for every 9 a protoss wins, or 56.3/43.7 --> ~30% more wins for zerg in ZvP than protoss.
Yes 1 month does not say much but look at the past 6 months. That's not just random.
|
On November 07 2011 05:47 Akhee wrote:
PvZ: Zergs have really explored this MU (especially on kor server). All the allins are well known and perfect responses known almost as well. Additionally, Zergs have developed or improved many of their own all ins which arent quite as known yet and therefore more difficult to stop on the protoss side. Currently the only thing that can be looked at as possibly OP is BL/Infestor.
MC style - play safe and respond to everything with a blink stalker heavy into colossus army.
Weakness - 130 Protoss Supply vs 200 Zerg supply when Protoss tries to secure a third
Weakness - Have to hit a timing before BL/Infestor
Hero style - Non commital aggression. Always attacking at awkward timings to find those that are cost efficient and then using them in the future while working on finding more. Uses Warp Prism play to secure faster third behind rocks while simultaneously putting on army pressure while simultaneously dropping/warping zealots to either snipe an important tech structure, hatch or clear drones.
Weakness - Very risky, if zerg spots your timing all your units will die for little damage done
Weakness - More susceptible to Zerg All ins because the stargate and sentry production is often held off in order to produce more combat units to stay more even with zerg with these awkward timings.
Weakness - Needs high level of multitasking, if you don't have enough you won't succeed.
Weakness - Still no answer for BL/Infestor
Perfect's Opinion - I think Hero PvZ is the future and requires alot of skill and enormous amount of game knowledge to pull off. Not even Hero has reached the zenith of this kind of play but hes definitely on to something. Only real justifiable change atm i feel is buffing some sort of unit that can be used against the BL. My suggestion is reintoruction of Flux Vanes on Void Rays or an Increase on the range of the void ray.
Juts a comment on the Her0 play style; I think the most important part about most of his builds is that whatever form of harassment he uses, be it void ray or warp prism etc., he does it to delay the zerg while he takes his THIRD. This is where I see most Protoss struggling. IMO
|
On November 07 2011 05:44 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 05:39 InvalidID wrote:On November 07 2011 05:18 doko100 wrote:Look at the overall win rate. In january terran has a 53,9% win rate but the curve is somewhere at around 55% and in july terran has a 53.8% win rate but the curve is at 52%. It makes this graph useless because when you have a first look just the line that is drawn makes it look alot more imbalanced than it is.. explain this to me please? On November 07 2011 05:16 Hetz wrote:
That top graph...why is the blue line always above the others? yeah it's bullshit, when zerg had a higher overall win rate than terran in june the line still showed an almost 3% advantage for terran. like I said soooo misleading The graph explains exactly what the trend line represents(moving average), and provides its scale precisely. The creator cannot help if you do not understand the information it provides. It is not misleading in any way. The scale is pretty normal(slightly larger then the biggest deviation from 50%), and provides its numbers. The 3 month moving average smooths out the random fluctuations to give you a better idea of the trend, hence the "trend line". I do understand the graphs very well, the problem is that most other people interpret this as a proof for major imbalance when there really is none. 52%-48% is not imbalanced, that's about as balanced as it gets, neither is 46%-54% that is super balanced aswell. Even if I play 100 games against an equally skilled player on my level there is no way we both would win 50 games each. it would be something like 54-46. Out of 100 games that is only 4 games 1 player won more than the other one did, that is NOTHING and doesnt prove anything. especially since the stats completely ignore individual skill.
you re wrong, 56-43 is a very imbalanced scenario
|
Lord_J
Kenya1085 Posts
On November 07 2011 05:49 iky43210 wrote:
800 games last month?
that's 1/3 to 1/4 of the usual number, whats wrong.
Yeah, that seems a bit odd. Maybe TLPD staff have been really busy and not updated everything, or they're being more selective when it comes to which events/cups make it in to the database?
|
On November 07 2011 05:49 InvalidID wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 05:44 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 05:39 InvalidID wrote:On November 07 2011 05:18 doko100 wrote:Look at the overall win rate. In january terran has a 53,9% win rate but the curve is somewhere at around 55% and in july terran has a 53.8% win rate but the curve is at 52%. It makes this graph useless because when you have a first look just the line that is drawn makes it look alot more imbalanced than it is.. explain this to me please? On November 07 2011 05:16 Hetz wrote:
That top graph...why is the blue line always above the others? yeah it's bullshit, when zerg had a higher overall win rate than terran in june the line still showed an almost 3% advantage for terran. like I said soooo misleading The graph explains exactly what the trend line represents(moving average), and provides its scale precisely. The creator cannot help if you do not understand the information it provides. It is not misleading in any way. The scale is pretty normal(slightly larger then the biggest deviation from 50%), and provides its numbers. The 3 month moving average smooths out the random fluctuations to give you a better idea of the trend, hence the "trend line". I do understand the graphs very well, the problem is that most other people interpret this as a proof for major imbalance when there really is none. 52%-48% is not imbalanced, that's about as balanced as it gets, neither is 46%-54% that is super balanced aswell. Even if I play 100 games against an equally skilled player on my level there is no way we both would win 50 games each. it would be something like 54-46. Out of 100 games that is only 4 games 1 player won more than the other one did, that is NOTHING and doesnt prove anything. especially since the stats completely ignore individual skill. I agree that 52-48% is pretty balanced, and 54-46 is not bad, but your analogy is not great. The graphs show the standard deviation, which demonstrates the expected bounds of random variation. They include a large number of players of differing skills. If you can make the assumption that the skill distribution is equal among the races at the highest level, then they are valid.
The graphs simply ignore individual skill, these numbers will never be valid as long as you have a majority of koreans who come to foreign events be terran and as long as they record games of semi-'pros' and SEA players against Koreans. The graphs don't show any imbalances, but they also don't prove anything because I personally was shocked when I checked the games from last month, there were players playing koreans that I've never even heard of before, SEA or really bad NA/EU semi-pros who lost to players like MKP or MMA. the fact that these matches are actually taken into account completely de-legitimizes this graph. random sea player X losing to MKP has nothing to do with imbalance.
On November 07 2011 05:53 Akhee wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 05:44 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 05:39 InvalidID wrote:On November 07 2011 05:18 doko100 wrote:Look at the overall win rate. In january terran has a 53,9% win rate but the curve is somewhere at around 55% and in july terran has a 53.8% win rate but the curve is at 52%. It makes this graph useless because when you have a first look just the line that is drawn makes it look alot more imbalanced than it is.. explain this to me please? On November 07 2011 05:16 Hetz wrote:
That top graph...why is the blue line always above the others? yeah it's bullshit, when zerg had a higher overall win rate than terran in june the line still showed an almost 3% advantage for terran. like I said soooo misleading The graph explains exactly what the trend line represents(moving average), and provides its scale precisely. The creator cannot help if you do not understand the information it provides. It is not misleading in any way. The scale is pretty normal(slightly larger then the biggest deviation from 50%), and provides its numbers. The 3 month moving average smooths out the random fluctuations to give you a better idea of the trend, hence the "trend line". I do understand the graphs very well, the problem is that most other people interpret this as a proof for major imbalance when there really is none. 52%-48% is not imbalanced, that's about as balanced as it gets, neither is 46%-54% that is super balanced aswell. Even if I play 100 games against an equally skilled player on my level there is no way we both would win 50 games each. it would be something like 54-46. Out of 100 games that is only 4 games 1 player won more than the other one did, that is NOTHING and doesnt prove anything. especially since the stats completely ignore individual skill. you re wrong, 56-43 is a very imbalanced scenario
It's borderline, but then again, these stats ignore individual skills. If I send 100 korean zergs and terrans to a tournament full of NA/EU protosses and the koreans win 90% of their matches does that really prove anything? And this is partially what happened.
|
On November 07 2011 05:52 LeakyBucket wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 05:47 Akhee wrote:
PvZ: Zergs have really explored this MU (especially on kor server). All the allins are well known and perfect responses known almost as well. Additionally, Zergs have developed or improved many of their own all ins which arent quite as known yet and therefore more difficult to stop on the protoss side. Currently the only thing that can be looked at as possibly OP is BL/Infestor.
MC style - play safe and respond to everything with a blink stalker heavy into colossus army.
Weakness - 130 Protoss Supply vs 200 Zerg supply when Protoss tries to secure a third
Weakness - Have to hit a timing before BL/Infestor
Hero style - Non commital aggression. Always attacking at awkward timings to find those that are cost efficient and then using them in the future while working on finding more. Uses Warp Prism play to secure faster third behind rocks while simultaneously putting on army pressure while simultaneously dropping/warping zealots to either snipe an important tech structure, hatch or clear drones.
Weakness - Very risky, if zerg spots your timing all your units will die for little damage done
Weakness - More susceptible to Zerg All ins because the stargate and sentry production is often held off in order to produce more combat units to stay more even with zerg with these awkward timings.
Weakness - Needs high level of multitasking, if you don't have enough you won't succeed.
Weakness - Still no answer for BL/Infestor
Perfect's Opinion - I think Hero PvZ is the future and requires alot of skill and enormous amount of game knowledge to pull off. Not even Hero has reached the zenith of this kind of play but hes definitely on to something. Only real justifiable change atm i feel is buffing some sort of unit that can be used against the BL. My suggestion is reintoruction of Flux Vanes on Void Rays or an Increase on the range of the void ray. Juts a comment on the Her0 play style; I think the most important part about most of his builds is that whatever form of harassment he uses, be it void ray or warp prism etc., he does it to delay the zerg while he takes his THIRD. This is where I see most Protoss struggling. IMO
So as Protoss, you have to outmacro the race that is designed and intended to outmacro everyone else in order to win is what you're saying? That looks like a huge balance/design flaw.
|
haha so funny the races that got nerfed actually got better winrates, while the race that got buffed looses. Poor toss, if the emp nerf goes live they will drop another 5% in winrate in pvt  .
|
On November 07 2011 05:49 iky43210 wrote:
800 games last month?
that's 1/3 to 1/4 of the usual number, whats wrong.
tlpd is backed up I think
|
On November 07 2011 04:24 HaXXspetten wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 04:22 Nemireck wrote:I don't understand why Protoss is so low. I lose to toss all the time  Try Muta/Ling, it's impossible T.T Anyway, I wonder just how long Blizz will have to keep nerfing Terran before they ever drop below 50% lol Looks just as stupid every month... ow well, BW took a long time before it became balanced as well, so... whatcha gonna do
Interestingly enough, with mutas (the best air unit in the game) being used in ZvZ now, muta ling is actually feasable in all 3 matchups. I find agregious that a player could concevably use 1 build, or at least one style, for all 3 MUs since the practise advantage would be so huge.
|
I can't wait for Korean edition. that will be fun!
|
On November 07 2011 05:55 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 05:49 InvalidID wrote:On November 07 2011 05:44 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 05:39 InvalidID wrote:On November 07 2011 05:18 doko100 wrote:Look at the overall win rate. In january terran has a 53,9% win rate but the curve is somewhere at around 55% and in july terran has a 53.8% win rate but the curve is at 52%. It makes this graph useless because when you have a first look just the line that is drawn makes it look alot more imbalanced than it is.. explain this to me please? On November 07 2011 05:16 Hetz wrote:
That top graph...why is the blue line always above the others? yeah it's bullshit, when zerg had a higher overall win rate than terran in june the line still showed an almost 3% advantage for terran. like I said soooo misleading The graph explains exactly what the trend line represents(moving average), and provides its scale precisely. The creator cannot help if you do not understand the information it provides. It is not misleading in any way. The scale is pretty normal(slightly larger then the biggest deviation from 50%), and provides its numbers. The 3 month moving average smooths out the random fluctuations to give you a better idea of the trend, hence the "trend line". I do understand the graphs very well, the problem is that most other people interpret this as a proof for major imbalance when there really is none. 52%-48% is not imbalanced, that's about as balanced as it gets, neither is 46%-54% that is super balanced aswell. Even if I play 100 games against an equally skilled player on my level there is no way we both would win 50 games each. it would be something like 54-46. Out of 100 games that is only 4 games 1 player won more than the other one did, that is NOTHING and doesnt prove anything. especially since the stats completely ignore individual skill. I agree that 52-48% is pretty balanced, and 54-46 is not bad, but your analogy is not great. The graphs show the standard deviation, which demonstrates the expected bounds of random variation. They include a large number of players of differing skills. If you can make the assumption that the skill distribution is equal among the races at the highest level, then they are valid. The graphs simply ignore individual skill, these numbers will never be valid as long as you have a majority of koreans who come to foreign events be terran and as long as they record games of semi-'pros' and SEA players against Koreans. The graphs don't show any imbalances, but they also don't prove anything because I personally was shocked when I checked the games from last month, there were players playing koreans that I've never even heard of before, SEA or really bad NA/EU semi-pros who lost to players like MKP or MMA. the fact that these matches are actually taken into account completely de-legitimizes this graph. random sea player X losing to MKP has nothing to do with imbalance. Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 05:53 Akhee wrote:On November 07 2011 05:44 doko100 wrote:On November 07 2011 05:39 InvalidID wrote:On November 07 2011 05:18 doko100 wrote:Look at the overall win rate. In january terran has a 53,9% win rate but the curve is somewhere at around 55% and in july terran has a 53.8% win rate but the curve is at 52%. It makes this graph useless because when you have a first look just the line that is drawn makes it look alot more imbalanced than it is.. explain this to me please? On November 07 2011 05:16 Hetz wrote:
That top graph...why is the blue line always above the others? yeah it's bullshit, when zerg had a higher overall win rate than terran in june the line still showed an almost 3% advantage for terran. like I said soooo misleading The graph explains exactly what the trend line represents(moving average), and provides its scale precisely. The creator cannot help if you do not understand the information it provides. It is not misleading in any way. The scale is pretty normal(slightly larger then the biggest deviation from 50%), and provides its numbers. The 3 month moving average smooths out the random fluctuations to give you a better idea of the trend, hence the "trend line". I do understand the graphs very well, the problem is that most other people interpret this as a proof for major imbalance when there really is none. 52%-48% is not imbalanced, that's about as balanced as it gets, neither is 46%-54% that is super balanced aswell. Even if I play 100 games against an equally skilled player on my level there is no way we both would win 50 games each. it would be something like 54-46. Out of 100 games that is only 4 games 1 player won more than the other one did, that is NOTHING and doesnt prove anything. especially since the stats completely ignore individual skill. you re wrong, 56-43 is a very imbalanced scenario It's borderline, but then again, these stats ignore individual skills. If I send 100 korean zergs and terrans to a tournament full of NA/EU protosses and the koreans win 90% of their matches does that really prove anything? And this is partially what happened.
Wonder why the korean s aren't playing protoss.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
