|
On December 26 2012 00:11 barwick11 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 08:18 Mavvie wrote:
?
If we scout an expansion, we can take a third. It's how the game is. Are you serious? Here, as a Terran, let me say exactly what you said and you'll laugh... "If we scout a [zerg] expansion, we can take a third. It's how the game is." Get real. That's how the game "currently" is thanks to the nerf bat on Terran and the steady diet of steroids given zerg.
Perhaps if you factor in the cost inefficiency of Zerg units, and how since BW zergs have had to stay a base up, it seems fine.
Honestly, since the start of the game Zergs have had to stay a base up on their opponents. I don't see why people suddenly think that shouldn't be true anymore.
As a sidenote, if Zerg expands then Terran can go for a reasonably timed 3OC, so it doesn't sound silly at all. You don't see 4:00 thirds in ZvT, you see 5:30-6:30 thirds behind >1k minerals of static defense. Honestly I don't see why people are mad at 6 queen openers. You still get map control with hellions, I still can't attack you, you can still slow down creep (not as well as before, but you can definitely slow it down), and you still force ~16-24 lings when Zerg is at 50ish drones.
I feel like a "Less QQ more pewpew" attitude would be beneficial to everyone in this thread. If you play better than your opponent, you will win. If you make mistakes, you will lose. That's how the game always has been, and always will be.
|
On December 26 2012 01:52 Mavvie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 00:11 barwick11 wrote:On December 25 2012 08:18 Mavvie wrote:
?
If we scout an expansion, we can take a third. It's how the game is. Are you serious? Here, as a Terran, let me say exactly what you said and you'll laugh... "If we scout a [zerg] expansion, we can take a third. It's how the game is." Get real. That's how the game "currently" is thanks to the nerf bat on Terran and the steady diet of steroids given zerg. Perhaps if you factor in the cost inefficiency of Zerg units, and how since BW zergs have had to stay a base up, it seems fine. Honestly, since the start of the game Zergs have had to stay a base up on their opponents. I don't see why people suddenly think that shouldn't be true anymore.
This is only true because Artosis and Idra said so early on in sc2's life. Even the first couple of GSLs we saw Nestea and Fruitdealer use all sorts of different strategies, including one base bane busts to spine crawler rushes to quick 2 base mutas to 2 base ling/infested terran busts.....etc etc. My point is, Zerg doesn't HAVE to always be up a base on their opponents, that's just what most people believe. It's just a stereotype that eventually became a rule on how you should play Zerg, and it has more or less made the metagame a complete snoozefest as everyone plays this style. No creativity, and it takes no skill either. Macroing in SC2 is much easier than BW.
Deciding to expand again on your opponent should be a strategic decision, not just how you play a race.
|
On December 26 2012 01:52 Mavvie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 00:11 barwick11 wrote:On December 25 2012 08:18 Mavvie wrote:
?
If we scout an expansion, we can take a third. It's how the game is. Are you serious? Here, as a Terran, let me say exactly what you said and you'll laugh... "If we scout a [zerg] expansion, we can take a third. It's how the game is." Get real. That's how the game "currently" is thanks to the nerf bat on Terran and the steady diet of steroids given zerg. Perhaps if you factor in the cost inefficiency of Zerg units, and how since BW zergs have had to stay a base up, it seems fine. Honestly, since the start of the game Zergs have had to stay a base up on their opponents. I don't see why people suddenly think that shouldn't be true anymore. As a sidenote, if Zerg expands then Terran can go for a reasonably timed 3OC, so it doesn't sound silly at all. You don't see 4:00 thirds in ZvT, you see 5:30-6:30 thirds behind >1k minerals of static defense. Honestly I don't see why people are mad at 6 queen openers. You still get map control with hellions, I still can't attack you, you can still slow down creep (not as well as before, but you can definitely slow it down), and you still force ~16-24 lings when Zerg is at 50ish drones. I feel like a "Less QQ more pewpew" attitude would be beneficial to everyone in this thread. If you play better than your opponent, you will win. If you make mistakes, you will lose. That's how the game always has been, and always will be.
Leenock has shown more than a few times now, that a 3 base zerg can beat an any base P/T. He has on occasion even sac'd his third and natural just to buy time to get the infestor/BL. Once you get that composition, there is no cost inefficiency, it is the greatest cost efficiency in the entire game. For example, the HerO game comes to mind. A 6 base protoss vs a zerg on 3 base the whole game (and almost mined out). But HerO could not kill any units with his repeated max army attacks. He couldn't have played any more perfect. The cost inefficiency is only true for hatch/lair phase. Once zerg hits hive, that is no longer true. Add in the queen range to help defend everything, and you have extremely early hives, which quickly means zerg does not have to be a base up.
Also, just because you scout a zerg third, does not mean they will no longer all-in you. I've seen many games of terran trying to take their fast third OC only to get hit by a roach all-in and lose. Terran needs to make sure you've droned up on the third base before it truly is safe.
The point of hellions in the past was to delay the third, so that they have a chance to hit some sort of timing. Now zerg can drone up to 70, and at that point they are already too far ahead. The hellion contained kept the game balanced by being an extremely powerful opening. Now without the powerful opening, the game is no longer balanced. That's why terran did it, it wasn't to force a few units, it was to really delay the third and drone production, force very early units, so that they could compete with the zerg.
I think most people are not "QQ" being they can't win on the ladder. In fact, everyone wins 50% of their games on the ladder, so balance doesn't matter at all. However, it isn't balanced at the pro level. That is why everyone has a "QQ" attitude. It isn't that the best player wins tournaments, it's that the best zerg will win.
|
On December 26 2012 01:52 Mavvie wrote:
Perhaps if you factor in the cost inefficiency of Zerg units, and how since BW zergs have had to stay a base up, it seems fine.
Infestor ling is one of the most cost efficient solutions. Unmicroed marines die to unmicroed lings for the same cost. Banelings are uber effective vs marines. Fungal is free energy. 6 lings runby can deny mining at a non-planetary expansion, you have to make a bunker at least. A burrowed ling needs a scan to clear. Zerg supply depot - overlords, can also spew creep (increasing speed), fly, and can be used as drop ships. A hatchery is all you need for both unit production and drone production. Tell me more how cost inefficient zerg is.
|
On December 26 2012 01:52 Mavvie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 00:11 barwick11 wrote:On December 25 2012 08:18 Mavvie wrote:
?
If we scout an expansion, we can take a third. It's how the game is. Are you serious? Here, as a Terran, let me say exactly what you said and you'll laugh... "If we scout a [zerg] expansion, we can take a third. It's how the game is." Get real. That's how the game "currently" is thanks to the nerf bat on Terran and the steady diet of steroids given zerg. Perhaps if you factor in the cost inefficiency of Zerg units, and how since BW zergs have had to stay a base up, it seems fine. Honestly, since the start of the game Zergs have had to stay a base up on their opponents. I don't see why people suddenly think that shouldn't be true anymore. As a sidenote, if Zerg expands then Terran can go for a reasonably timed 3OC, so it doesn't sound silly at all. You don't see 4:00 thirds in ZvT, you see 5:30-6:30 thirds behind >1k minerals of static defense. Honestly I don't see why people are mad at 6 queen openers. You still get map control with hellions, I still can't attack you, you can still slow down creep (not as well as before, but you can definitely slow it down), and you still force ~16-24 lings when Zerg is at 50ish drones. I feel like a "Less QQ more pewpew" attitude would be beneficial to everyone in this thread. If you play better than your opponent, you will win. If you make mistakes, you will lose. That's how the game always has been, and always will be.
Honestly in the more modern SC2 right now, Zerg units are incredibly cost efficient.
|
On December 26 2012 00:37 Brawny wrote:
Wow, this thread is literally a bunch of balance whiners saying "Well, maybe THIS thing is IMBA!" The dude who complains about creep(even removing it, wtf?), the guy complaining about harassment, the one guy complaining about zergs somehow getting 70 drones at 6 minutes.
It really is proving that most people posting here are low leaguers.
Actually I'm not a "low leaguer" and I even play zerg myself. I was just giving my opinion that without creep spread, I think the game would be much more interesting. This opinion is not founded on anything being imbalanced or not, although there certainly would be ramifications to current balance without question. I simply just think it would make for better gameplay overall.
|
On December 26 2012 05:04 Voodoo[z] wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 00:37 Brawny wrote:
Wow, this thread is literally a bunch of balance whiners saying "Well, maybe THIS thing is IMBA!" The dude who complains about creep(even removing it, wtf?), the guy complaining about harassment, the one guy complaining about zergs somehow getting 70 drones at 6 minutes.
It really is proving that most people posting here are low leaguers. Actually I'm not a "low leaguer" and I even play zerg myself. I was just giving my opinion that without creep spread, I think the game would be much more interesting. This opinion is not founded on anything being imbalanced or not, although there certainly would be ramifications to current balance without question. I simply just think it would make for better gameplay overall.
Not to mention, are there even any "low leaguers" left that still play SC2? It seems like it's only a fairly small group of hardcore players that still play/follow the game. I could be wrong though, that's just pure speculation.
|
I would love to see SC2 without fungal growth and perhaps an alternate ability. Im sick of seeing these anti micro spells running the entire game.
|
On December 26 2012 01:52 Mavvie wrote:
If you play better than your opponent, you will win. If you make mistakes, you will lose. That's how the game always has been, and always will be.
Not really. You can be better than your zerg opponent as terran, the zerg can make many mistakes, but it takes one good fungal and the game is even and even you are behind.
That is the problem: being beaten consistently by less mechanically skilled players than yourself. Don't tell me you don't see the problem if players like ForGG or Polt who have far better mechanics than their zerg counterparts but can lose and lose regularly to inferior mechanics of players like Nerchio or Scarlett or Idra.
|
On December 26 2012 01:52 Mavvie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 00:11 barwick11 wrote:On December 25 2012 08:18 Mavvie wrote:
?
If we scout an expansion, we can take a third. It's how the game is. Are you serious? Here, as a Terran, let me say exactly what you said and you'll laugh... "If we scout a [zerg] expansion, we can take a third. It's how the game is." Get real. That's how the game "currently" is thanks to the nerf bat on Terran and the steady diet of steroids given zerg. Perhaps if you factor in the cost inefficiency of Zerg units, and how since BW zergs have had to stay a base up, it seems fine. Honestly, since the start of the game Zergs have had to stay a base up on their opponents. I don't see why people suddenly think that shouldn't be true anymore. As a sidenote, if Zerg expands then Terran can go for a reasonably timed 3OC, so it doesn't sound silly at all. You don't see 4:00 thirds in ZvT, you see 5:30-6:30 thirds behind >1k minerals of static defense. Honestly I don't see why people are mad at 6 queen openers. You still get map control with hellions, I still can't attack you, you can still slow down creep (not as well as before, but you can definitely slow it down), and you still force ~16-24 lings when Zerg is at 50ish drones. I feel like a "Less QQ more pewpew" attitude would be beneficial to everyone in this thread. If you play better than your opponent, you will win. If you make mistakes, you will lose. That's how the game always has been, and always will be.
... Zerg does not need be up in bases, Terran and Toss do because infestor + broodlord counters everything cost effectively... unless zerg just clump + amove and gets hit by seekers or vortex, no other way.
"zerg need more bases than opponent" was true when other races could inflict damage meaning zerg had to make more cost inefficient unit and that was ok because they have the best economy, but now games jump right into infestor before action happens.
|
On December 26 2012 01:52 Mavvie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 00:11 barwick11 wrote:On December 25 2012 08:18 Mavvie wrote:
?
If we scout an expansion, we can take a third. It's how the game is. Are you serious? Here, as a Terran, let me say exactly what you said and you'll laugh... "If we scout a [zerg] expansion, we can take a third. It's how the game is." Get real. That's how the game "currently" is thanks to the nerf bat on Terran and the steady diet of steroids given zerg. Perhaps if you factor in the cost inefficiency of Zerg units, and how since BW zergs have had to stay a base up, it seems fine. Honestly, since the start of the game Zergs have had to stay a base up on their opponents. I don't see why people suddenly think that shouldn't be true anymore. As a sidenote, if Zerg expands then Terran can go for a reasonably timed 3OC, so it doesn't sound silly at all. You don't see 4:00 thirds in ZvT, you see 5:30-6:30 thirds behind >1k minerals of static defense. Honestly I don't see why people are mad at 6 queen openers. You still get map control with hellions, I still can't attack you, you can still slow down creep (not as well as before, but you can definitely slow it down), and you still force ~16-24 lings when Zerg is at 50ish drones. I feel like a "Less QQ more pewpew" attitude would be beneficial to everyone in this thread. If you play better than your opponent, you will win. If you make mistakes, you will lose. That's how the game always has been, and always will be.
I never really play anymore because I know exactly how every TvZ and TvP is going to play out, and very little of it seems to hinge on my own skill. When I win in those matchups it's very clear that my opponent made a tremendous amount of mistakes that led me to victory, not my own skill that caused it. I really enjoy TvT but when 1 out of 10 games is TvT if I'm lucky there's not really much point.
People don't QQ because it's imbalanced, people don't even QQ because it's imbalanced at the Pro level either. People have been QQing because it's boring to play, and extremely boring to watch. Every TvZ and TvP is going to play out exactly the same, in my games or Polts games. The Terran player is either going to die to a cheese or all in while trying to outgreed his opponent (Super frustrating) and there is no chance of defense. When a Terran goes for a 3CC build against a Zerg that busts him he'll die, every time no matter how good he is. If there is no cheese the game will keep going into the snoozefest of broodlord/infestor or Colo/HT in the case of TvP. Every single game is exactly the same.
Oh and the bases thing is old and no longer remotely true. In order for Terran to reproduce at the same rate as a Zerg he needs to investroughly 8x the resources in infrastructure the zerg does. As soon as zergs figured out they can exploit this by maxing out and banking larva before attacking the game was pretty shot.
|
Apart from Infestors, the whole thing boils down to larvae. In the past, you needed larvae to defend early pushes and to shoo off the contain from Reactor Hellion Expand quickly. Zerg players didn't like it. I vividly remember the endless inanity of "making Roaches is unacceptable because it means we can't drone/tech optimally". I am serious. The damage IdrA and Artosis have done to Zerg players' mindset cannot be underestimated.
The issue is that, as we all have (to our boredom) noticed over the last half a year, the Zerg economy, if unhindered, is broken. The ability to use all your production slots on nothing but economy is way too good to exist, except for the fact that in the past you could force Zerg to use larvae for defense. This meant both sides made army, econ and teched a bit. It was fair (though understandably felt bad for Z because they were literally being damaged).
Also, the only really boring part about Reactor Hellion was that T went for it almost always. The opener itself played out entertainingly enough: both sides had high stakes (immediate, long-lasting loss of map control for Terran, severe economic damage or outright game loss for Zerg) and there was lots of action happening. Terrans were busy trying to snipe tumors, Z was busy trying to sneak them past the Hellions, players had to watch their Queens/Hellions constantly to prevent a Hellion/Speedling snipe, respectively, and so forth. The most important thing of all, though, was that it led to an actual midgame.
And from here we get to the cascade effect the Queendralisk buff had. The early game implications are clear for all to see. But the ripple effects? Dear god. First, creep spread easily goes out of control, where spreading it was an effort before. The better economy allows for a very early swell of Infestors, which helps make Zerg safe and essentially kills the midgame, from which we get into quick, fast, Infestor/T3 comp with the accompanying tech switches. The sheer scale of the change is perhaps best realized when one stops to consider that in the past a 17 minute Hive was risky and greedy. Such a far cry from our current, absurdly safe 12 minute Hive timings, isn't it? That's all because Z had to invest into a midgame to fight off the Terran midgame (which they could get to due to less creep and slower Zerg development). And damn, was that midgame ever good.
The slower Hive timings also made the late game more bearable - Terran had more time to get their infrastructure up to contend with Zerg's endgame composition. The fundamental character of it was then, and still is expensive, inflexible Terran infrastructure making very narrow anti-1-unit counters that have no other use vs. a flexible Zerg infrastructure making little but threats.
The greatest casualty of the Queendralisk patch hasn't been balance, though - a certain amount of imbalance you can work around and it is even entertaining for some. The greatest casualties have been fun (the game has become dull), the idea that the game makes any kind of sense (the kind of imbalance and it's degree make the games feel just plain stupid). I also can't tell good and bad Zergs apart anymore. In the past, great creep spread was an achievement. There were brilliant holds, good game sense, great flanks. Mutas hadn't been eclipsed so badly and so were an actual (not just stubbornly stylistic) option. Now it's the same dull monotony where it feels like the sheer, absurd, dominant power of some key units does more work than the player.
|
On December 26 2012 07:40 truthUnderVeil wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 01:52 Mavvie wrote:
If you play better than your opponent, you will win. If you make mistakes, you will lose. That's how the game always has been, and always will be. Not really. You can be better than your zerg opponent as terran, the zerg can make many mistakes, but it takes one good fungal and the game is even and even you are behind. That is the problem: being beaten consistently by less mechanically skilled players than yourself. Don't tell me you don't see the problem if players like ForGG or Polt who have far better mechanics than their zerg counterparts but can lose and lose regularly to inferior mechanics of players like Nerchio or Scarlett or Idra.
It's not even all about fungal. Fungal compounds on top of the early game queen strengths and the economic power housing that happens behind them. Fungal helps Zerg have a great late game to aim for that they can use reliably to secure a win. Without it, Zerg has to use less reliable strategies and tactics, like larva banking for a fast remax or tech switch, and relying on great engagements before it's "too late."
As much as I hate comparing races and drawing quick parallels, I guess a good way to think of it is if Terran OCs were also PFs, and simultaneously tanks did 70 damage to every unit once again. Terran would expand as early as possible and then use the econ advantage to mass enough tanks+support to push across the map. A great late game strategy mixed with the ability to be greedy in the early game without recourse.
I don't use this as a literal example, but to illustrate the fundamental issue with how the other races have to approach vZ match ups these days. They have strong early game defenses as well as a great late game strategy to aim for. Neither perfect by any means, but strong nonetheless.
|
For what it's worth, I think the main cause of the above is Blizzard's design philosophy and seeming cluelessness. It feels like they balance for percentages, not gut feeling, and seem generally disconnected from what is going on. They also severely underestimate the potential of simple unit designs that move and make stuff go boom. Positioning is one of the deepest, most granular skills this game tests and I'd wish it tested more. Instead, Blizzard designs units like MOBA heroes. Lots and lots of bells and whistles (HELLO, ORACLE. THANK GOODNESS YOUR FIRST INCARNATION IS DEAD) and general gimmickry that forces units to be used formulaically. Their heavy focus on direct hard counters is also pretty questionable.
|
On December 26 2012 09:41 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 07:40 truthUnderVeil wrote:On December 26 2012 01:52 Mavvie wrote:
If you play better than your opponent, you will win. If you make mistakes, you will lose. That's how the game always has been, and always will be. Not really. You can be better than your zerg opponent as terran, the zerg can make many mistakes, but it takes one good fungal and the game is even and even you are behind. That is the problem: being beaten consistently by less mechanically skilled players than yourself. Don't tell me you don't see the problem if players like ForGG or Polt who have far better mechanics than their zerg counterparts but can lose and lose regularly to inferior mechanics of players like Nerchio or Scarlett or Idra. It's not even all about fungal. Fungal compounds on top of the early game queen strengths and the economic power housing that happens behind them. Fungal helps Zerg have a great late game to aim for that they can use reliably to secure a win. Without it, Zerg has to use less reliable strategies and tactics, like larva banking for a fast remax or tech switch, and relying on great engagements before it's "too late." As much as I hate comparing races and drawing quick parallels, I guess a good way to think of it is if Terran OCs were also PFs, and simultaneously tanks did 70 damage to every unit once again. Terran would expand as early as possible and then use the econ advantage to mass enough tanks+support to push across the map. A great late game strategy mixed with the ability to be greedy in the early game without recourse. I don't use this as a literal example, but to illustrate the fundamental issue with how the other races have to approach vZ match ups these days. They have strong early game defenses as well as a great late game strategy to aim for. Neither perfect by any means, but strong nonetheless.
It's funny, my standard sarcastic piece of insanity when someone suggests Hellions were 2GD is something along the lines "OMG I didn't wall off ling runby killed me lings imba! Give OCs PF cannon plz". The alternate was a PF that can fly and shoot from the air I think.
|
On December 26 2012 09:42 Coffee Zombie wrote:
For what it's worth, I think the main cause of the above is Blizzard's design philosophy and seeming cluelessness. It feels like they balance for percentages, not gut feeling, and seem generally disconnected from what is going on. They also severely underestimate the potential of simple unit designs that move and make stuff go boom. Positioning is one of the deepest, most granular skills this game tests and I'd wish it tested more. Instead, Blizzard designs units like MOBA heroes. Lots and lots of bells and whistles (HELLO, ORACLE. THANK GOODNESS YOUR FIRST INCARNATION IS DEAD) and general gimmickry that forces units to be used formulaically. Their heavy focus on direct hard counters is also pretty questionable.
This is what I've been saying since beta of WoL. The only thing is that I have no proof if they are balancing it this way on purpose...
|
On December 26 2012 09:36 Coffee Zombie wrote:
The issue is that, as we all have (to our boredom) noticed over the last half a year, the Zerg economy, if unhindered, is broken. The ability to use all your production slots on nothing but economy is way too good to exist, except for the fact that in the past you could force Zerg to use larvae for defense. This meant both sides made army, econ and teched a bit. It was fair (though understandably felt bad for Z because they were literally being damaged).
Larvae being a requirement for defense also meant that zergs would make those decisions of what to go for, at times waiting for their scouting information to come in, before deciding that they are safe and can pump. Being totally larvae independent is just such huge freedom ontop of everything else that is good about it.
|
On December 26 2012 09:36 Coffee Zombie wrote:
Apart from Infestors, the whole thing boils down to larvae. In the past, you needed larvae to defend early pushes and to shoo off the contain from Reactor Hellion Expand quickly. Zerg players didn't like it. I vividly remember the endless inanity of "making Roaches is unacceptable because it means we can't drone/tech optimally". I am serious. The damage IdrA and Artosis have done to Zerg players' mindset cannot be underestimated.
The issue is that, as we all have (to our boredom) noticed over the last half a year, the Zerg economy, if unhindered, is broken. The ability to use all your production slots on nothing but economy is way too good to exist, except for the fact that in the past you could force Zerg to use larvae for defense. This meant both sides made army, econ and teched a bit. It was fair (though understandably felt bad for Z because they were literally being damaged).
Also, the only really boring part about Reactor Hellion was that T went for it almost always. The opener itself played out entertainingly enough: both sides had high stakes (immediate, long-lasting loss of map control for Terran, severe economic damage or outright game loss for Zerg) and there was lots of action happening. Terrans were busy trying to snipe tumors, Z was busy trying to sneak them past the Hellions, players had to watch their Queens/Hellions constantly to prevent a Hellion/Speedling snipe, respectively, and so forth. The most important thing of all, though, was that it led to an actual midgame.
And from here we get to the cascade effect the Queendralisk buff had. The early game implications are clear for all to see. But the ripple effects? Dear god. First, creep spread easily goes out of control, where spreading it was an effort before. The better economy allows for a very early swell of Infestors, which helps make Zerg safe and essentially kills the midgame, from which we get into quick, fast, Infestor/T3 comp with the accompanying tech switches. The sheer scale of the change is perhaps best realized when one stops to consider that in the past a 17 minute Hive was risky and greedy. Such a far cry from our current, absurdly safe 12 minute Hive timings, isn't it? That's all because Z had to invest into a midgame to fight off the Terran midgame (which they could get to due to less creep and slower Zerg development). And damn, was that midgame ever good.
The slower Hive timings also made the late game more bearable - Terran had more time to get their infrastructure up to contend with Zerg's endgame composition. The fundamental character of it was then, and still is expensive, inflexible Terran infrastructure making very narrow anti-1-unit counters that have no other use vs. a flexible Zerg infrastructure making little but threats.
The greatest casualty of the Queendralisk patch hasn't been balance, though - a certain amount of imbalance you can work around and it is even entertaining for some. The greatest casualties have been fun (the game has become dull), the idea that the game makes any kind of sense (the kind of imbalance and it's degree make the games feel just plain stupid). I also can't tell good and bad Zergs apart anymore. In the past, great creep spread was an achievement. There were brilliant holds, good game sense, great flanks. Mutas hadn't been eclipsed so badly and so were an actual (not just stubbornly stylistic) option. Now it's the same dull monotony where it feels like the sheer, absurd, dominant power of some key units does more work than the player.
Spot on post, hit pretty much all the points
|
|
|
The control requirements are icing on the cake, IMHO. And even if they're unbalanced, some of that is good (because some people flat out like things being hard to do, so T being harder to execute isn't necessarily a bad thing as far as the degree isn't horrendous).
The fundamental problem is still safety/information/economy and the pace of the match where there are glaring hard numbers issues that need to be solved before combat control even becomes a factor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
