On January 10 2014 12:34 IncubusSC wrote: lol uses a 6 day statistic sample to support his argument, then says that one tournament is too small of a sample size.
What a fucking goon, it's hilarious how he hasn't been fired for his incompetence.
User was warned for this post
Ya because 30 games in Proleague equals 1 week of EVERY GAME played on B.net ladder on EVERY SERVER. That makes a lot of sense right?
Everyone needs to chill out a little and think logically and clearly before ranting and getting all pissed off, patience people jesus christ.
Sound logic.
What about your comment has anything to with logic? Using the words "jesus christ" as an exclamation of ridiculousness is somehow proof of "unsound logic" in a sarcastic manner? Nice try buddy, the intelligence level in this thread is pretty baffling, and really makes me glad that someone like David Kim is balancing this game and not all these emotionally charged teenagers who suck at the game.
On January 10 2014 12:34 IncubusSC wrote: lol uses a 6 day statistic sample to support his argument, then says that one tournament is too small of a sample size.
What a fucking goon, it's hilarious how he hasn't been fired for his incompetence.
User was warned for this post
Ya because 30 games in Proleague equals 1 week of EVERY GAME played on B.net ladder on EVERY SERVER. That makes a lot of sense right?
Everyone is so bent out of shape and dead set on proving David Kim wrong or finding some mistake in his wording that the things they are saying doesn't even make any sense. He never said he wasn't going to tweak the matchup even? All he said was that he wanted to wait longer to see how things play out. How come that's so hard for people to understand? And everyone saying that PvT is somehow all of a sudden a "stale" matchup, either hasn't been playing, or hasn't been watching any PvT recently. I've been getting all kinds of different strategies thrown at me from both sides, I think it's actually one of the more exciting matchups at this time. Blink all-in is only strong on certain maps, and even then we are seeing Terran's able to defend it. Part of the reason it's so good is because of the strategy most Terran's have been using i.e. MMA, Innovation, open up Reaper and 1 rax Reactor, 1 rax Tech Lab, which pretty much guarantee's the Terran won't have enough marauders or units in general to stop the all-in. Not to mention the resources to get 1-2 more barracks. Which is exactly why we aren't seeing that as much, or the Terran's are recognizing the weakness of this on Blink favored maps.
Everyone needs to chill out a little and think logically and clearly before ranting and getting all pissed off, patience people jesus christ.
Look, how much time did DK give for the oracle buff? Even when protosses themselves didn't think it was needed. Did they give hellbats tons of time for players to figure out? How about widow mines? It was pretty obvious that the top zergs were getting really good at playing against them. That is why terrans are pissed, because DK is very inconsistent with his patching reasoning and timing.
On January 10 2014 12:34 IncubusSC wrote: lol uses a 6 day statistic sample to support his argument, then says that one tournament is too small of a sample size.
What a fucking goon, it's hilarious how he hasn't been fired for his incompetence.
User was warned for this post
Ya because 30 games in Proleague equals 1 week of EVERY GAME played on B.net ladder on EVERY SERVER. That makes a lot of sense right?
Everyone needs to chill out a little and think logically and clearly before ranting and getting all pissed off, patience people jesus christ.
Sound logic.
What about your comment has anything to with logic? Using the words "jesus christ" as an exclamation of ridiculousness is somehow proof of "unsound logic" in a sarcastic manner? Nice try buddy, the intelligence level in this thread is pretty baffling, and really makes me glad that someone like David Kim is balancing this game and not all these emotionally charged teenagers who suck at the game.
Having you in the thread certainty doesn't help with the intelligence level...
If anything, Blizzard should make "balance" changes just to shake games up a bit. Things are bland.
What happened to reducing photon overcharge duration for more options to be aggressive, increasing Roach burrow movespeed to see it used more often, or to make some changes to "allow" mech play? sigh >_>
Stop mixing up balance versus gameplay/design reasons. =\
Please keep in mind these are not straight-up win percentages. They’re win percentages with player skill factored out. When we grab win/loss data for balance purposes, we categorize each game with 2 different variables per side: one being player skill and other being race strength. So by factoring the player skill out, we are able to more accurately check how each race is doing at each skill level.
Without an explanation as to what this actually means, statistically speaking, this sounds like like linguistic flourish justifying cherrypicking one's data to one's advantage, a component of lying with statistics.
Elucidation would be greatly appreciated, because I have to assume this isn't the case.
Perhaps because good players play more games, if you just present the data unaltered good players would make influence the winrates more than their proportion in the population.
Here's the thing though: all they do is present win-rates, and they already break down the win-rates by tier. Ignoring or weighting data based on their stated filters in this context is only done assuming you want to shape the data to your advantage.
That assumes that your goal is to mislead the people you are presenting the data to, which David and Blizzard have almost no reason to do. In fact, they have numerous reasons to provide us with the most accurate information possible.
Unless you believe that DKim is trying to mislead us and sell us on the idea that the game is balance when he knows that one race is over powers.
I question all use of statistics, and it leads me to question people's motives when I sense bad methodology. I don't make the assumption that all data and interpretations of data presented to me are kosher, precisely because I know how easy it is to shape any data set to say whatever it is I want it to say and phrase it in such a way that few people will question it.
Ok, but I am going to ask you the same question, why would they do that? You don't just imply that their data is incorrectly gathered, but they do so with purpose with the intent to mislead. Do you really think they want an imbalanced game? I don't really see any good reason for them to "cook the numbers" to make the game appear balanced.
I don't think they would purposely mislead anyone. But it's easy to mislead yourself into just looking at the numbers. There was a reason BL/infestor wasn't touched for the last 6-8 months of WoL and it was because the numbers were balanced. It's easy to mislead yourself into thinking winrates are the problem rather than the design or function of the matchups. There are just too few people with too much information and too many objectives to comprehensively cover all paths and solutions to everything the want. From what I've seen in the last few years they want:
1) A balanced game across all levels of play (to attract more casual players. I can understand the sentiment, but you won't be attracting casuals to play more through ladder imho.) 2) They want it to be fun and dynamic. 3) They want to increase the skill cap. 4) They want less deathball matchups. 5) They want Zerg to be "Zergy" 6) The bunker must be changed. 7) They want to all races to have multiple options per matchup.
But a lot of those objectives are contradictory. They felt Protoss was too weak early so they gave them photon cannon. That helped balance but increased the amount of deathball matchups and fun and dynamic gameplay (Nothing is more deflating than watching a TvP about to ramp up in speed to only be stopped cold by a photon cannon.) They want the game to be more fun and dynamic so they increase the speed of mutas, medivacs and oracles. But at the same time it decreases tension and awe of the game. Mass drops are now a standard play capable of being done by every solid Terran instead of a hard earned specialty way to play that was only done by MMA and Gumiho. Mutas became faster and gained regen increasing the "Multitasking" of Zerg players but in the end all it really did was let weaker players play like Soulkey/DRG/Leenook at the end of WoL without the extreme control, intuition and practice as it was much more forgiving.
They wanted to give Protoss more options in the early game against both Zerg and Terran so they gave them the MSC, cheaper dts and an oracle. While Zerg can still play a variety of opening builds, Terran has been pigeonholed into going reaper cc every game unless they want to just randomly gamble on a cc or double proxy rax compared to Protoss' 4-5 solid openings that all transition well into mid-late (And this doesn't include obscure builds like First's double forge robo immortal build.)
Which is why I assume they read all of the balance threads on here and other places. Even if they never release how they are reaching those numbers, even being critical of the methodology is still an important point to bring up so that both spectators and the dev.team don't take the numbers as the only truth. I doubt very much that they will ever comprehensively tell us how they came to these numbers and honestly they shouldn't. It only opens them to more criticism and takes away from actual balance discussion but its always important to not take these numbers at face value either.
But what would be the point of releasing these numbers? To back their point, to have the unsinkable argument when some one would question their thinking? Without saying how they came up with these numbers, it even more sinkable argument, because everyone can question it. Seriously, what they were thinking?
They just wanted something concrete to show why they think Protoss isn't as much of a problem as the community is making it out to be? Maybe they just wanted to show some of their reasoning and keep us as informed as they can without violating company policy? Who knows.
The problem is they are giving people more ammunition to shoot at them.
I am not saying that they should do nothing, but such postings are not the way to handle the current situation, in my opinion. Essentially, David Kim is becoming (or perhaps he already is) enemy #1 of the community and player base by advertising it with his name. The immortal we know but we won't tell is not gonna work now. People lost their patience.
the popular belief that Terran almost never wins vs. Protoss can be put to rest
Should be posted in the Designated Balance Whine Discussion Thread, just like every other time it's announced.
Anyways, I'm of the (hopeful) impression that if Terran mech would be viable in TvP, Terrans wouldn't complain as much. I think it's more about the lack of versatility in their race rather than them having a problem with their actual win percentage. So hopefully some changes can be implemented to help solve that problem, without destroying the balanced match-ups... some time before LotV ^^
That, and end game is simply not viable vs Protoss. Given enough time, Protoss will be guaranteed victory. Instant army creation at any location with a pylon? Best AOE in the game? NBD.
People in this thread should no longer be disillusioned with the state of the game. Wake up and face the starkness of the situation. It's been abundantly clear that the SC2 team clearly has no idea how to improve the game as a spectator sport. Anyone remember DK's interview responding to the "Depth of Micro" thread? That should have been quite the eye opener. When someone tries to justify the lack of micro in STARCRAFT because simple, casual players couldn't "understand" it, you know he/she is clueless.
Just because I'm a F level BW player in ICCUP doesn't mean I can't appreciate Fantasy's immaculate vulture play. Just because I can't dunk a basketball doesn't mean I can't appreciate Lebron James performing on the court. What a pathetic, nonsensical attempt at vindication.
On January 10 2014 11:55 CutTheEnemy wrote: On EU, 24% of masters players are terran now compared with 35% and 38% for zerg and protoss. How can he say its balanced considering this? His appeal to win percentages within leagues is highly misleading.
He's also been speaking for years as though he's ignorant of our main complaint- its isn't balance per se, its how hard and stressful it is to play terran and win. We know terrans can win once they go pro, but most of us aren't capable of sustaining the serious damage to our personal relationships, grades, hands and paychecks it takes in order to play the race competitively.
^ I think this is the point
It's reflected everywhere that while there may be balance among the skilled players, people hate playing terran because it's too frustrating and hard. Although this sounds like QQ, it's shown by how many Terrans are still competing.
8/41 players that played in Proleague so far are Terran. Once again, the same counter-argument is there, "it's a small sample size." Well, it's going to continue being a small sample size.
While I understand this small sample size argument... the truth is the entire SC2 pro-scene is a small sample size of the select few hundred players, and Terran is definitely under-represented in the pro scene. Whether win rates back it up or not, not many like playing Terran at the pro-level.
Like I said, it's fine if you're extremely good at the game (shown by the god-mode skilled terrans like Maru, Flash, TY all doing well).
The reason why we're seeing a lot of 50% in general is because you are matched with people your MMR. If one race struggles, the only impact this makes is every player of that race has lower MMR. It has nothing to do with "who is the better player" - in the game's perspective, the better player is the one with higher MMR, but we all know that's not true. The MMR system automatically adjusts your opponent so that you have a roughly ~50% win ratio. Ladder win ratios are a misleading indicator of balance.
I'll repeat this as much as necessary to as many people as necessary:
The ladder matches you up to win 50% of your games, right? Great!
So it thus follows that your matchups will all approximate 50%, right? ...Not even remotely.
Most people have strong and weak matchups, so they may have a 50% overall, but a 60% TvZ, a 50% TvT, and a 40% TvP. So even if they win 50% of their games, they won't win 50% of their games in every matchup.
This actually makes it EXTREMELY easy to tell if there is an overall racial imbalance, because what you'll find is that even though there is a 50% winrate for the total populations, the matchup winrates will be more or less than 50% for the non-mirrors, as a population. Protoss appears to be (extremely slightly) overpowered vs. T at the moment, having just above 50% PvT winrates across region, skill level, and at the pro level. But it's nothing like the huge imbalance it's been claimed to be.
TL;DR: The matchmaking system's desire to put you at 50% winrate makes it extremely easy to spot racial imbalances across a population, because a Terran population-wide problem in TvP would require an increase in TvZ winrates to keep the population at 50%.
And towards the end of WOL, at the height of Broodlord/Infestor bullshit when Patchzergs took games off of clearly superior Terrans and Protoss, Blizzard's stats were 49.8% PvZ and 48.8% ZvT.
So either Terrans were (extremely slightly) overpowered vs. Zerg... or results-oriented statistics can be completely meaningless when there are balance factors inside of games that frustrate players and spectators.
I'd believe it, for the ladder results. The game was pretty clearly imbalanced on the pro level where the Zerg players were good enough to play the BL-infestor style with very little holes. That doesn't mean the same was true for for the ladder-level players. And I'd be curious what the full breakdown by league would look like. I imagine the closer you got to the top, the better the ZvT winrate would be.
Blizzard (apparently) doesn't care about ladder and neither do I. Ladder is only important insofar as it's able to hint at trends that are more obscured at the pro level.
I honestly can't really imagine what balance factors inside of games you would be upset about with for TvP, that you wouldn't have been equally upset about from the other direction in WoL (hint-- you weren't).
This is what happens when you make assumptions. Go digging through my WOL post history, you'll find a neat little thread I started about how the design of Protoss and Zerg actually limits what Protoss and Zerg pros can do with all of their skill in-game, because (among other reasons) their harass options were severely limited.
Zerg issues have more or less sorted themselves out through meta-game shifts (at least in ZvT), whereas in terms of harass Protoss did a 180 and now the Terrans are forced into playing stupidly passive games. And Protoss aggressive openings don't even require that much skill. (Compare the amount of work that went into a 1/1/1 siege contain by MVP vs. the amount of work that goes into the most micro-intensive opening, the Blink Stalker All-in, and stare in slackjawed amazement at the difference. Both are OP except one takes skill and is a genuine all-in, while the other doesn't and isn't. One gets nerfed, the other we should just wait until it's figured out.)
As players get better at scouting and inferring from minimal info, and figuring out where they need to place their units in defense, most of the the Protoss aggression options will lose their OP stigma. We've seen this time and time again in every single matchup throughout SC2's history. This storm (har), too, shall pass.
If the most optimistic, the most charitable interpretation of this sentiment is prophetically correct, then we're still stuck with useless mech and a gimmick-oriented Protoss race that's incapable of playing micro-intensive standard games unless Rain is at the helm. And if the most optimistic, most charitable interpretation of your sentiment isn't spot on, we don't even have that.
But first you want us to wait patiently to find out. It's been four years, man.
On January 10 2014 12:18 itsjustatank wrote: [quote]
Without an explanation as to what this actually means, statistically speaking, this sounds like like linguistic flourish justifying cherrypicking one's data to one's advantage, a component of lying with statistics.
Elucidation would be greatly appreciated, because I have to assume this isn't the case.
Perhaps because good players play more games, if you just present the data unaltered good players would make influence the winrates more than their proportion in the population.
Here's the thing though: all they do is present win-rates, and they already break down the win-rates by tier. Ignoring or weighting data based on their stated filters in this context is only done assuming you want to shape the data to your advantage.
That assumes that your goal is to mislead the people you are presenting the data to, which David and Blizzard have almost no reason to do. In fact, they have numerous reasons to provide us with the most accurate information possible.
Unless you believe that DKim is trying to mislead us and sell us on the idea that the game is balance when he knows that one race is over powers.
I question all use of statistics, and it leads me to question people's motives when I sense bad methodology. I don't make the assumption that all data and interpretations of data presented to me are kosher, precisely because I know how easy it is to shape any data set to say whatever it is I want it to say and phrase it in such a way that few people will question it.
Ok, but I am going to ask you the same question, why would they do that? You don't just imply that their data is incorrectly gathered, but they do so with purpose with the intent to mislead. Do you really think they want an imbalanced game? I don't really see any good reason for them to "cook the numbers" to make the game appear balanced.
I don't think they would purposely mislead anyone. But it's easy to mislead yourself into just looking at the numbers. There was a reason BL/infestor wasn't touched for the last 6-8 months of WoL and it was because the numbers were balanced. It's easy to mislead yourself into thinking winrates are the problem rather than the design or function of the matchups. There are just too few people with too much information and too many objectives to comprehensively cover all paths and solutions to everything the want. From what I've seen in the last few years they want:
1) A balanced game across all levels of play (to attract more casual players. I can understand the sentiment, but you won't be attracting casuals to play more through ladder imho.) 2) They want it to be fun and dynamic. 3) They want to increase the skill cap. 4) They want less deathball matchups. 5) They want Zerg to be "Zergy" 6) The bunker must be changed. 7) They want to all races to have multiple options per matchup.
But a lot of those objectives are contradictory. They felt Protoss was too weak early so they gave them photon cannon. That helped balance but increased the amount of deathball matchups and fun and dynamic gameplay (Nothing is more deflating than watching a TvP about to ramp up in speed to only be stopped cold by a photon cannon.) They want the game to be more fun and dynamic so they increase the speed of mutas, medivacs and oracles. But at the same time it decreases tension and awe of the game. Mass drops are now a standard play capable of being done by every solid Terran instead of a hard earned specialty way to play that was only done by MMA and Gumiho. Mutas became faster and gained regen increasing the "Multitasking" of Zerg players but in the end all it really did was let weaker players play like Soulkey/DRG/Leenook at the end of WoL without the extreme control, intuition and practice as it was much more forgiving.
They wanted to give Protoss more options in the early game against both Zerg and Terran so they gave them the MSC, cheaper dts and an oracle. While Zerg can still play a variety of opening builds, Terran has been pigeonholed into going reaper cc every game unless they want to just randomly gamble on a cc or double proxy rax compared to Protoss' 4-5 solid openings that all transition well into mid-late (And this doesn't include obscure builds like First's double forge robo immortal build.)
Which is why I assume they read all of the balance threads on here and other places. Even if they never release how they are reaching those numbers, even being critical of the methodology is still an important point to bring up so that both spectators and the dev.team don't take the numbers as the only truth. I doubt very much that they will ever comprehensively tell us how they came to these numbers and honestly they shouldn't. It only opens them to more criticism and takes away from actual balance discussion but its always important to not take these numbers at face value either.
But what would be the point of releasing these numbers? To back their point, to have the unsinkable argument when some one would question their thinking? Without saying how they came up with these numbers, it even more sinkable argument, because everyone can question it. Seriously, what they were thinking?
They just wanted something concrete to show why they think Protoss isn't as much of a problem as the community is making it out to be? Maybe they just wanted to show some of their reasoning and keep us as informed as they can without violating company policy? Who knows.
In any case, I am glad that they keep their methods in-house and do not publicise. Nor should they (especially to a community as over-represented in armchair experts as SC2). It's a pity he felt he had to share it, even if partially. A more blatant fuck you to the community would have been a lot better. I'm sure it would have been a lot more cathartic for him too.
Slow and steady as she goes from Blizzard suits me just fine.
I would honestly much rather have some radical change, but I know that Blizzard can't and won't do that until the expansion (if they do it at all).
I think the two most valuable insights people can give Blizzard right now are:
A) Short term - what small changes can be made to make the game more fun to play and/or more fun to watch?
B) Long term - what radical changes can be made to overhaul game systems, map attributes, race mechanics, or entire units to make the game more fun to play and/or more fun to watch?
There are lots of good topics about point B (though they're scattered across the last four years - maybe making a big "large changes that could improve SC2 list with all the big featured blogs/threads from TL would be cool), but there isn't a lot of feedback about point A.
That's why I guess I felt frustrated earlier in the thread with the detour to statistics; the majority of the informed SC2 community doesn't actually think there is a statistical balance problem with win rates. That isn't the game's issue -remotely-. The problem is keeping everything interesting, fresh, and evolving over a long period of time. If SC2 (and its final expansion) are able to engage users and players, then that's what will give SC2 a legacy like Brood War. If it can't do that, it will eventually fail a couple of years after LotV.
SC2 doesn't have to beat MOBAs, and it doesn't even need perfect balance (Brood War's balance certainly wasn't perfect - not in win rates or unit potential). It just needs to keep people interested, and the fans will keep the game alive.
As players get better at scouting and inferring from minimal info, and figuring out where they need to place their units in defense, most of the the Protoss aggression options will lose their OP stigma. We've seen this time and time again in every single matchup throughout SC2's history. This storm (har), too, shall pass.
If the most optimistic, the most charitable interpretation of this sentiment is prophetically correct, then we're still stuck with useless mech and a gimmick-oriented Protoss race that's incapable of playing micro-intensive standard games unless Rain is at the helm. And if the most optimistic, most charitable interpretation of your sentiment isn't spot on, we don't even have that.
But first you want us to wait patiently to find out. It's been four years, man.
Eh, this pretty much describes how Protoss (especially TvP) evolved in Brood War though. TvP win ratio starts high and trends downwards over the years.
On January 10 2014 11:39 geokilla wrote: Protoss losing so much in Proleague is due to the map pool for one. Star Station and Outboxer aren't really good Protoss maps I think? I'd have to rewatch all of Proleague to confirm my guess, unless there's some sort of stats out there on the Internet.
IMO its because Maru, flash and TY are amazing terran players that why protoss that are not parting rain or sora can beat them.
On January 10 2014 12:34 IncubusSC wrote: lol uses a 6 day statistic sample to support his argument, then says that one tournament is too small of a sample size.
What a fucking goon, it's hilarious how he hasn't been fired for his incompetence.
User was warned for this post
Ya because 30 games in Proleague equals 1 week of EVERY GAME played on B.net ladder on EVERY SERVER. That makes a lot of sense right?
Everyone is so bent out of shape and dead set on proving David Kim wrong or finding some mistake in his wording that the things they are saying doesn't even make any sense. He never said he wasn't going to tweak the matchup even? All he said was that he wanted to wait longer to see how things play out. How come that's so hard for people to understand? And everyone saying that PvT is somehow all of a sudden a "stale" matchup, either hasn't been playing, or hasn't been watching any PvT recently. I've been getting all kinds of different strategies thrown at me from both sides, I think it's actually one of the more exciting matchups at this time. Blink all-in is only strong on certain maps, and even then we are seeing Terran's able to defend it. Part of the reason it's so good is because of the strategy most Terran's have been using i.e. MMA, Innovation, open up Reaper and 1 rax Reactor, 1 rax Tech Lab, which pretty much guarantee's the Terran won't have enough marauders or units in general to stop the all-in. Not to mention the resources to get 1-2 more barracks. Which is exactly why we aren't seeing that as much, or the Terran's are recognizing the weakness of this on Blink favored maps.
Everyone needs to chill out a little and think logically and clearly before ranting and getting all pissed off, patience people jesus christ.
Thing is, people (including myself) arent patient anymore, looking how he dealt with problems since WoL, and its been like this for 3(?) years. Vomiting statistics to justify his actions pisses everyone off..
Lol his job isn't to please every bronze-silver-gold league player who complains about losing a fucking ladder game, you aren't an expert on game balance and he's not going to ruin the game because for 1 month people are upset about a certain match-up or strategy being deployed in said matchup. That's probably the WORST thing he could do, ever. There's so many variables and so many little nuances in the game that for 1 week while 1 matchup is favored slightly one way, the next month a whole new set of strategies and nuances in said strategies can completely change therefor making the "balance" in the matchup swing the other way. So listening to emotionally charged below average players about balance isn't whats going to happen, there's people who play this game as a fucking job and if the results of those matches doesn't show any imbalance then he's not going to fuck it up. why is this hard to understand?
Thing is, this is game, and a product of blizzard, not a fucking stable sport as football. From blizzard POV championship and esports crap is just a way to promote his shit, blizz objective is generate $$$$$, with Esports or not. BW raised as Progaming became people loved playing it and companies were interested in invest on that, thats all. People are playing LoL because they think it is fun, not because it is 100% balanced.
As I said, I dont give a fuck about losing 90% about my matches, as long as I have fun. My win ratio is totally shit on Dota because Im bad and my friends are equally horrible, but it doesnt matter as long as Im having fun.
So easy these days, you don't need to spend nights theorycrafting and testing your new strategies if you race appears to have disadvantage with currently popular builds. All you need is to wait for Blizzard to buff/nerf something, so you can continue playing the way you did, but now with better win %.
I really, honestly, genuinely miss the old days when games balance was patched extremely rarely if ever. When, speaking particularly of Starcraft, people like Bisu or Savior could shine.
On January 10 2014 11:35 DBS wrote: So i guess the thoretical mech buff has been forgotten, so sad :'(
Hell getting Ravens back to how they worked in WoL would be a buff. Can't fucking hit shit with seekers now, way too unreliable
Do what Bomber does.
That's not something you can really recreate in ladder play though. There was so much going in in the fight that the enemy didn't notice the medivac until it was too late. Time it wrong just a millisecond and you just lose everything. Also it ALWAYS gives the enemy time to react since if you see the seekers (and no red on your units), u know what's going on, and allyou achieve is wastetons of energy and a medivac. The old seekers at keast gave you the opportunity to blow your opponent without giving him more than a second to react.
On January 10 2014 15:19 Sejanus wrote: So easy these days, you don't need to spend nights theorycrafting and testing your new strategies if you race appears to have disadvantage with currently popular builds. All you need is to wait for Blizzard to buff/nerf something, so you can continue playing the way you did, but now with better win %.
I really, honestly, genuinely miss the old days when games balance was patched extremely rarely if ever. When, speaking particularly of Starcraft, people like Bisu or Savior could shine.
if you thought two seconds before writing you'd have remark than when one side get a buff/nerf, the other side adapt itself. There is a reason why TvZ went from 1rax hellion to 1rax Fe in WoL. Or even better, the recent oracle buff changed how T openings were played and you actually see some T coming back to early ebay builds.
Thinking ppl don't create stuff from buff/nerf is straight up stupid.
On January 10 2014 15:29 geokilla wrote: Just watched Taeja play on ladder against barcode Protoss.. 1 rax into triple CC on Frost and still manages to defends Oracles..
1gate Fe oracles. He was 100% dead vs a proxy on 1base, he just gambled and it payed off. just won with another gamble build lol.
EPT
.
