| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
b0rt_
Norway931 Posts
On February 06 2014 21:52 MysticaL wrote: so the tl;dr is: David Kim dodging real questions with typical politically correct answers I don't get the point of this. Has Blizzard become a company of red tape rather than a developer at the forefront? SC2 is a shadow of a game compared to BW and everyone including Blizzard know that so............. I don't see what the point is of pretending otherwise. | ||
|
Dapper_Cad
United Kingdom964 Posts
I'll be here, hoping I can contribute to making what we have better. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11921 Posts
On February 06 2014 23:00 n0ise wrote: Judging from the reactions, I think I can safely award myself a 10/10 for the previous post. You're practicing against the easiest targets in the world, though. | ||
|
Spaylz
Japan1743 Posts
On February 06 2014 22:48 dargul wrote: It would be MUCH better if kim streamed his games on ladder for example playing the weakest race to show that it's not true and searching for ways to overcome weaknesses. And give answers on some questions at the end of the stream. Then people will see that he really good player and probably understand what he is doing with balance. Because now kim looks like "smart guy" sitting in blizzard doing nothing and getting paid for random changes which don't change balance at all. I think that's actually a good idea, at least in theory. It is easy to forget that before becoming a "balance bureaucrat", DK was an accomplished player with an excellent level of play. He's no Polt, but he sure can hold his own in GM I believe. I say "in theory", because with the current state of the SC2 community (especially the TL community and its member, who are more likely to watch such a stream), the chat would quickly degenerate into ugliness. I think Blizzard should be considering it nonetheless though. But the bottom line remains: a lot of players, pros included (Scarlet, IdrA, etc.), seem to be falling out of love with SC2. I don't play anymore, and I was never any good, my true passion was WC3, but I watch SC2 from time to time and from a spectator's point of view, I can say I don't enjoy watching the game. It lacks action, and the fights are too anticlimactic (read: long build up, long macro sessions, very short fight at hand). One could pin that on a simple incompatibility between my taste and the game, but as many people seem to share the same feelings... | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
Without rereading, I think he pretty much covered all the questions that were raised. | ||
|
dargul
Russian Federation125 Posts
On February 06 2014 19:51 dargul wrote: Lets poll and see if common players still trust Kim, or may be he is incompetent and must leave this game for god sake. Poll: You opinion about David Kim as balance designer Yeh he is awsome. (29) He is slowpoke but ok. (23) He is killing sc2 with his incompetence. (131) I don't care i play moba already. (17) 200 total votes Your vote: You opinion about David Kim as balance designer (Vote): Yeh he is awsome. up | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23782 Posts
On February 06 2014 20:30 ejozl wrote: Tbh it's just nostalgia. When I started playing WC3 I was like, what's up with all the heroes and shit. It stands in the way of the pure strategic depth that was there in SC:BW, I've played before. Of course I loved the game, but it was only when SC2 came out that I truly realized how unique of a game it was and missed the extra strategy input from all the RPG elements. Much more fun spells and upgrades etc. I guess we'll just have to wait for WC4 for people to really praise on SC2. Not really, WC3 and BW were different, but I preferred both of them to SC2, especially SC2 in its current state I wish people would stop devaluing the opinion of others by attributing it to nostalgia all the time, damn irritating. | ||
|
SC2Toastie
Netherlands5725 Posts
On February 07 2014 00:02 Big J wrote: I would really like to read the details from the people who say "DK is dodging questions". Without rereading, I think he pretty much covered all the questions that were raised. On February 06 2014 07:20 Pandain wrote: Questions Answered by Topic (relevant parts bolded): Other Compilation by Date Deathballs + Show Spoiler + We believe armies as a whole are easier to move around and control because of the better pathing and unlimited unit selection. As far as deathball goes, we believe having to micro armies and their positioning correctly to win major battles is a good thing. We don't like seeing games where two players both just sit back and mass up to their composition before engaging. This is why we're currently looking into the EU late game PvZ issue. We feel like we've done a lot in this area in HotS, especially compared to the end of Wings. If you recall towards the end of Wings, especially in PvT, both sides often just defended and macroed up for 1 final battle. We don't think we're completely there yet and will continue working towards a more action packed game where there's a lot of action leading into army vs. army battles sometimes. The end goal in this area in our opinion is not to get rid of mass army vs. mass army scenarios, but more so to have a lot of action, a lot of harassment opportunities, and have each game feeling different. Both questions remain unanswered. WHY? No answer, but an explanation of what a deathball game is. Has he thought about changing it? No - They don't want to get rid of "mass army vs. mass army" (aka Deathballs), but want some more harassment, and we all know what that brings us (ORACLES 0.0!!) + Show Spoiler + We feel Warp Gates are very race defining for Protoss. It's a completely different way to produce units. Because we want every race to feel unique and asymmetric, we like the design of Warp Gates. Warp Gates were problematic in the past when 1 base or 2 base all ins were too common. We've addressed this a lot in past years. We've talked about our stance on Force Fields in the past, and it still remains unchanged. We feel like we get a lot of feedback from forums saying there's no micro anyone can do against Force Fields. However, we just don't see this. For example, why do Zerglings or roaches try to bait out Force Fields if micro against them is not possible? Terran players picking off units on one side of Force Fields and dropping them on the more favorable side is another good example. We believe Force Fields are a very unique ability that sometimes feel there was nothing you could do, but that is okay because there are varying degrees of successes and failures. That is just StarCraft: If DTs come in when I have no detectors I'm dead, but that doesn't mean there was nothing I could have done. Forcefield and Warpgate make Protoss deathbally. Answer: It's racedefining ?! Also, the forcefield answer is weird. Forcefields limit micro from the opponent, or force a disengage. Protosses that are on top of their stuff hardly ever let units escape anymore, except for maybe 8 marines in 1 medivac. Also, DTs are a strategical choice and a risk you take in your build, Forcefields are a tactical occurance with all potential and micro on one player. Thus, again, he 'answers' another question than the one posed. Capitol Ships + Show Spoiler + We've learned that capital units such as BCs, Carriers, or Motherships are rare and lose their cool if they were built every game. Imagine every PvT ending with BCs. We are discussing ways to make captial ships more interesting to use and watch so that we can bring these units into play more often in the future. But I wouldn't say there will be changes coming to make this happen any time soon, as this is a tricky area that potentially requires delicate design changes. As I said earlier today, we prefer not to do design changes in a patch if we can, because changing how the unit functions completely will be very confusing to players. Nor does he reply to 'plans', he says there's 'discussion' and nothing will happen before LOTV. Mech + Show Spoiler + We wouldn't do a patch without at least testing the change first even if it's only for a few days. We do try our best to talk to pro players every time we do a test map, and our stance is that getting at least a few pros to test a change before we patch is always good. As for when the next balance test map is, we're currently gathering feedback including feedback from the community forums, and we hope to start laying out the actual change list for you guys to have an input on sometime next week. We don't believe tanks suck. Tanks seem to be a lot more effective in TvZ since the last buff, in TvT they were always very core and still are, and in PvT we do currently agree they're not being used much. But our stance on every unit is that not every single unit has to be used in every matchup. For example, Widow Mine especially before the nerf was considered one of the best units for Terran even though it was only really core in one matchup. With that said, I'd like to add that exploring mech play possibilities in PvT is still important. We've actually been getting feedback from a few different pros on the KR server in this area, and they've been seeing it a lot more on the ladder. We're hoping to see more of it in tournaments to confirm where mech is at right now in PvT. Late game Swarm Host PvZ is one of the things at the top of our list to look into right now. First part of the question is decently answered. WHEN isn't answered by "we need to test first", but at least the plans are laid out. They don't believe Tanks suck. TvT, yes, they're rock solid. TvZ? They ONLY work if you turtle up to 200/200 and then still are countered really easilly. They suck in TvP but we don't care because niche units are OK (see Ghost/Banshee/Mine/Hellbat/Tank/BC/Raven > all units with limited usability, Carrier/VoidRay for Toss, Hydra for Zerg). Half of the Terran arsenal is 'niche' and that is "their stance". Feedback from Korean pros about mech interests me the most. Why are they spending time practicing something they won't use in their tournament matches??? The comment about Mines is silly. The only reason they are core is that Mutalisk got a buff and became unmanagable without. + Show Spoiler + We like the unit as a whole. The main thing we're watching for with this unit is the mass Raven case in TvZ that allows Terran to just turtle the whole game while making a ridiculous number of Ravens. If this becomes a common trend or one of the best ways to play, we would need to address that. This compares well to the Tempest buff they want to do. Mass Raven is a problem because it allows Terran to turtle all game (FYI, Terran turtles TO GET the Raven, not to allow them to turtle -,-). Again they are considering a nerf to the only unit that can handle Swarm Hosts. Ravens and Tempest are not the problem -> Swarm Hosts and Zergs AA are! + Show Spoiler + In PvZ, we don't currently think Phoenix openers are problematic. It is a very core opener for Protoss, but doesn't cause major problems. Late game mass Raven/BC turtling play is something we're watching for. If it becomes clear that it's an issue, we'll take steps to address it. Again, Raven/BC turtle is only a problem because the Swarm Host negates ground play. Nerfing Raven/BC makes Mech auto-lose against Swarm Hosts. Nerf Hosts Buff Zerg AA, fixes 2 matchups OMG David! It can be that easy :-) Ofc, Phoenix comment was a stupid question Strength of Tanks + Show Spoiler + We wouldn't do a patch without at least testing the change first even if it's only for a few days. We do try our best to talk to pro players every time we do a test map, and our stance is that getting at least a few pros to test a change before we patch is always good. As for when the next balance test map is, we're currently gathering feedback including feedback from the community forums, and we hope to start laying out the actual change list for you guys to have an input on sometime next week. We don't believe tanks suck. Tanks seem to be a lot more effective in TvZ since the last buff, in TvT they were always very core and still are, and in PvT we do currently agree they're not being used much. But our stance on every unit is that not every single unit has to be used in every matchup. For example, Widow Mine especially before the nerf was considered one of the best units for Terran even though it was only really core in one matchup. With that said, I'd like to add that exploring mech play possibilities in PvT is still important. We've actually been getting feedback from a few different pros on the KR server in this area, and they've been seeing it a lot more on the ladder. We're hoping to see more of it in tournaments to confirm where mech is at right now in PvT. Late game Swarm Host PvZ is one of the things at the top of our list to look into right now. Protoss Strength in PvT + Show Spoiler + We wouldn't do a patch without at least testing the change first even if it's only for a few days. We do try our best to talk to pro players every time we do a test map, and our stance is that getting at least a few pros to test a change before we patch is always good. As for when the next balance test map is, we're currently gathering feedback including feedback from the community forums, and we hope to start laying out the actual change list for you guys to have an input on sometime next week. We don't believe tanks suck. Tanks seem to be a lot more effective in TvZ since the last buff, in TvT they were always very core and still are, and in PvT we do currently agree they're not being used much. But our stance on every unit is that not every single unit has to be used in every matchup. For example, Widow Mine especially before the nerf was considered one of the best units for Terran even though it was only really core in one matchup. With that said, I'd like to add that exploring mech play possibilities in PvT is still important. We've actually been getting feedback from a few different pros on the KR server in this area, and they've been seeing it a lot more on the ladder. We're hoping to see more of it in tournaments to confirm where mech is at right now in PvT. Late game Swarm Host PvZ is one of the things at the top of our list to look into right now. + Show Spoiler + The patch yesterday we believe should help. In case that's not enough, we will be testing other changes soon in the next balance test map. The fix to Blink All Ins is Mobius Reactor removal...?!?! :confused: He ignores the entire question because this is one of the few questions that was spot on about problems and he has no good answer. + Show Spoiler + At first, right when we made the change we saw a lot of Oracle play, but that has toned down. We got some "Oracle OP" feedback from pro players up until the end of last year. However, when we put it like this, most seem to understand our stance a bit better: Harassment options such as the Oracle harrass get weaker over time due to players learning how to defend better against them. Think back to when everyone was convinced that the Medivac speed boost was completely broken and OP. Almost no one says this now. Then look at Oracle usage right when that patch was released, look at how much they're used now, then how much less would it be 2 months from now even without nerfs. Another good example is Banshee cloak change in TvT: almost every TvT when the patch was made utilized it, but that's not the case now. This is silly too > Oracles see less use because Terrans adapted their builds to have 6 Marines in a mineral line at the Oracle timing. It has nothing to do with terran figuring out how to defend, it limits Terran in tech and economy early in the game just by the sheer threat of it. This is also why BCs are never used - The threat of Tempests shuts them out. Also, the buff was Late Game oriented, so putting an upgrade (even 50/50/60) at the Fleet Beacon MAKES it late game. Why does he ignore that question? Oracles + Show Spoiler + At first, right when we made the change we saw a lot of Oracle play, but that has toned down. We got some "Oracle OP" feedback from pro players up until the end of last year. However, when we put it like this, most seem to understand our stance a bit better: Harassment options such as the Oracle harrass get weaker over time due to players learning how to defend better against them. Think back to when everyone was convinced that the Medivac speed boost was completely broken and OP. Almost no one says this now. Then look at Oracle usage right when that patch was released, look at how much they're used now, then how much less would it be 2 months from now even without nerfs. Another good example is Banshee cloak change in TvT: almost every TvT when the patch was made utilized it, but that's not the case now. Warp Gate/Forcefields + Show Spoiler + We feel Warp Gates are very race defining for Protoss. It's a completely different way to produce units. Because we want every race to feel unique and asymmetric, we like the design of Warp Gates. Warp Gates were problematic in the past when 1 base or 2 base all ins were too common. We've addressed this a lot in past years. We've talked about our stance on Force Fields in the past, and it still remains unchanged. We feel like we get a lot of feedback from forums saying there's no micro anyone can do against Force Fields. However, we just don't see this. For example, why do Zerglings or roaches try to bait out Force Fields if micro against them is not possible? Terran players picking off units on one side of Force Fields and dropping them on the more favorable side is another good example. We believe Force Fields are a very unique ability that sometimes feel there was nothing you could do, but that is okay because there are varying degrees of successes and failures. That is just StarCraft: If DTs come in when I have no detectors I'm dead, but that doesn't mean there was nothing I could have done. ZvZ + Show Spoiler + We do agree ZvZ is probably the fastest paced matchup in the game, and it really comes down to every little decision and fast action. We believe this is very unique to the ZvZ matchup and is a good thing. Better players still seem to win out overall, and just the big difference of ZvZ compared to other matchups is cool, the same way TvT is interesting for a completely different set of reasons. As far as specific strategies and tools go in ZvZ, we do feel like players are favoring mass Roach play a lot more recently. That's why we've been exploring potential Hydralisk buffs. We believe a Hydralisk buff in this matchup could bring the Roach/Hydra mix in quicker to combat only-Roach compositions. The advantage of this: in Roach vs. Roach the defender's advantage is smaller than in Roach vs. Roach/Hydra. Therefore, we could potentially see units that counter these compositions such as Ultralisks or Broodlords a bit more. We believe each matchup in SC2 is not only about the matchup being fair, but also about each matchup being unique and fun. This is a stupid question. With David on this one. Just as a pointer for David, it's quite hypocritical to nerf Hellbats for TvT, refrain from a nerf because of PvP and consider a buff for ZvZ, that's pretty unfair. Also, Roach Hydra lategame is Broodlord Corruptor, eventually probably Vipers + Spores, seems like fun..? Swarm Hosts + Show Spoiler + We believe armies as a whole are easier to move around and control because of the better pathing and unlimited unit selection. As far as deathball goes, we believe having to micro armies and their positioning correctly to win major battles is a good thing. We don't like seeing games where two players both just sit back and mass up to their composition before engaging. This is why we're currently looking into the EU late game PvZ issue. We feel like we've done a lot in this area in HotS, especially compared to the end of Wings. If you recall towards the end of Wings, especially in PvT, both sides often just defended and macroed up for 1 final battle. We don't think we're completely there yet and will continue working towards a more action packed game where there's a lot of action leading into army vs. army battles sometimes. The end goal in this area in our opinion is not to get rid of mass army vs. mass army scenarios, but more so to have a lot of action, a lot of harassment opportunities, and have each game feeling different. + Show Spoiler + The first question in our minds don't matter as much at this point. At this point of the game, with the game having been out over a year, changing a unit or a strategy to be used exactly how we hoped isn't very relevant. What's more important is how they are currently being used and how good or bad that is for the game. The answer for the second question is yes in some scenarios and no in others. The easy no is the late game PvZ situation where both players refuse to engage and the game drags on for a long time. We'd really love to come up with an awesome solution to this problem without hurting the good uses of Swarm Hosts. The good use of Swarm Hosts: games that we see where there's constant action due to Swarm Hosts. For example, it's not uncommon to see games where Protoss players perform amazing multi-pronged attacks. Sometimes, they are really successful and just win the game, other times the Zerg player defends so well, and anywhere in between. Games where Swarm Hosts are used and there's constant action everywhere including Swarm Hosts aggressively moving around often after spawning locusts leading into each side's victory are really fun to watch. We don't generally do unit design changes with patches (only exception here I can think of off the top of my head was when we added the Phoenix range upgrade back in Wings), but for the Swarm Host in the long term, we are also internally discussing if it's a bad thing that locusts keep spawning automatically. The main reason being often times Zerg players just leave Swarm Hosts rally pointed at a location, and it's very common for the observer to go and watch nothing happening because there are no units to attack. But this isn't as big of an issue as the issue mentioned above. He cannot think of a solution to stop the constant locust stream and force the more fun active Swarm host usage? Really? He expects us to believe that? There's all sorts of options: Locust speed -, Life time -, Swarm Host speed +, Hosts can move through locust, Faster burrow/unburrow, Locust Range +/-, Locust DPS +/-, Amount of Locust +, Locust Health -, Spawn speed -, ... Seriously, almost every variable can be changed to make Hosts a more active unit EASILLY. + Show Spoiler + We wouldn't do a patch without at least testing the change first even if it's only for a few days. We do try our best to talk to pro players every time we do a test map, and our stance is that getting at least a few pros to test a change before we patch is always good. As for when the next balance test map is, we're currently gathering feedback including feedback from the community forums, and we hope to start laying out the actual change list for you guys to have an input on sometime next week. We don't believe tanks suck. Tanks seem to be a lot more effective in TvZ since the last buff, in TvT they were always very core and still are, and in PvT we do currently agree they're not being used much. But our stance on every unit is that not every single unit has to be used in every matchup. For example, Widow Mine especially before the nerf was considered one of the best units for Terran even though it was only really core in one matchup. With that said, I'd like to add that exploring mech play possibilities in PvT is still important. We've actually been getting feedback from a few different pros on the KR server in this area, and they've been seeing it a lot more on the ladder. We're hoping to see more of it in tournaments to confirm where mech is at right now in PvT. Late game Swarm Host PvZ is one of the things at the top of our list to look into right now. Zerg Anti-Air + Show Spoiler + In PvZ, we don't currently think Phoenix openers are problematic. It is a very core opener for Protoss, but doesn't cause major problems. Late game mass Raven/BC turtling play is something we're watching for. If it becomes clear that it's an issue, we'll take steps to address it. ...? It;s not that he doesn't really answer questions - he answers them in a politically correct way so that he can't be held responsible for anything because the answers actually say nothing at all. Next to that, a lot of those answers aren't thought through in any way. | ||
|
mostevil
United Kingdom611 Posts
On February 07 2014 00:02 Big J wrote: I would really like to read the details from the people who say "DK is dodging questions". Without rereading, I think he pretty much covered all the questions that were raised. He's responding without answering. "Why is SC2 so deathbally" isn't answered in any way by "we like it when the peoples micro". | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23782 Posts
Many of the people who rail against it is because the entire Protoss race has been balanced and designed around it, that map design has been always having to factor in the ability to FF chokes etc. In his position a redesign is too big a step IMO, Blizz aren't supporting the SC2 dev team much if I'm going into the realms of conjecture. The entire reason of the MSC was to enable Protoss to actually move out in the map in PvZ and do pressure without it being an all-or-nothing move, because losing your sentries meant losing the game in WoL. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16393 Posts
On February 07 2014 00:30 Wombat_NI wrote: Not really, WC3 and BW were different, but I preferred both of them to SC2, especially SC2 in its current state I wish people would stop devaluing the opinion of others by attributing it to nostalgia all the time, damn irritating. i love NHL '94 hockey. its EA's best sports game ever made IMO. thousands agree with me. we don't bother trying to get EA to make a sequel. we just play NHL '94. why not just play Brood War like we do with NHL '94? i've never made a single complaint post about any of EA's NHL series of games. its a waste of my time. if Blizzard got dead silence on SC2 they'd hear that more clearly than any complaint post you could ever make. | ||
|
PanzerKing
United States483 Posts
Because the Oracle is so strong, Terrans have to sit in their base and turtle up. Terrans have to build an early Ebay. Terrans have to keep at least part of their army inside their mineral line for defense. Terrans have to conform to very rigid build orders that ensure sufficient marines at very specific timings. If they don't, they risk a snowballing effect which simply ends the game. What's the end result? Terran play becomes extremely narrow, extremely predictable and extremely boring. Terrans are forced into extremely specific reactor and barracks timings that can easily be punished with a slight variation in Protoss play. Chrono out just a couple of early units instead of probes and you can easily gain a huge BO advantage because Terrans are simply so predictable. And what's the impact on Protoss play? Protoss can become greedier and greedier. The mere threat of a proxy Oracle allows progressively greedier openings which scared, turtle-y Terrans cannot punish. You see the same thing with Blink openings - the mere threat forces the Terran to be passive, forcing them into a defensive posture, which allows Protoss to take an early-mid game lead, which pretty much decides the game barring major Protoss fuckups. I want to believe that David Kim is smarter than his answers suggest. He probably is, but most of his intellectual energy is probably being directed towards Heroes of the Storm. Regardless, I'm just happy that we have Starbow, which is infinitely better than regular SC2 in its current state (and this is coming from someone who never played BW.) | ||
|
lilopuppy
Philippines542 Posts
| ||
|
RDaneelOlivaw
Vatican City State733 Posts
On February 06 2014 23:43 b0rt_ wrote: I don't get the point of this. Has Blizzard become a company of red tape rather than a developer at the forefront? SC2 is a shadow of a game compared to BW and everyone including Blizzard know that so............. I don't see what the point is of pretending otherwise. It seems that it has...now instead of taking two extra years to make a game to "get it right", they take three extra and hand us the likes of D3 @ release and SC2. Blizzard must own up to what a colossal screw-up SC2 is and start the overhaul process. Of course, that won't happen, but a man can dream | ||
|
Doomhunter
United States12 Posts
Just as a pointer for David, it's quite hypocritical to nerf Hellbats for TvT, refrain from a nerf because of PvP and consider a buff for ZvZ, that's pretty unfair. Also, Roach Hydra lategame is Broodlord Corruptor, eventually probably Vipers + Spores, seems like fun..?" In all fairness to DK here, it was the Terrans who wanted the Hellbat nerf the most for TvT and the matchup was just plain bad when it was constant Hellbat drops. The Nexus Cannon timer really has no effect on PvZ and PvT and I cant tell you how freaking horrible PvP was in wings and how much better it is now simply because of the nexus cannon - PvP is also the only matchup now where the attacking army literally sits 1 pixel outside nexus cannon range waiting for it to expire while I desperately try and get an immortal and some extra stalkers out to hold an all-in. In PvZ and PvT I cast and they either commit to burning the nexus or retreat - the 10 seconds is meaningless in these matchups but means the world in PvP. You got your MS core nerf and possibly a vision nerf coming so please just be happy with that. The ZvZ Hydra buff breaks the other matchup's so badly that I don't even know where to begin. | ||
|
aeligos
United States172 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
On February 07 2014 00:47 RDaneelOlivaw wrote: It seems that it has...now instead of taking two extra years to make a game to "get it right", they take three extra and hand us the likes of D3 @ release and SC2. Blizzard must own up to what a colossal screw-up SC2 is and start the overhaul process. Of course, that won't happen, but a man can dream It's funny that a developer with practically infinite money could be so incompetent... | ||
|
Loccstana
United States833 Posts
| ||
Zealously
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On February 07 2014 01:11 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: It's funny that a developer with practically infinite money could be so incompetent... That would indeed be funny. I'm not sure which developer you're talking about though? | ||
|
dcemuser
United States3248 Posts
On February 07 2014 00:35 mostevil wrote: He's responding without answering. "Why is SC2 so deathbally" isn't answered in any way by "we like it when the peoples micro". "Why is SC2 so deathbally" is easy and he answered it fine. Unlimited unit selection encourages deathballs, and he responded in the latter paragraph by saying they're working towards actively improving that aspect for LotV. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games Grubby5351 hiko1624 Beastyqt1365 Dendi1278 ceh9699 elazer423 Fuzer  300ArmadaUGS166 Trikslyr71 NeuroSwarm42 Chillindude33 JuggernautJason24 Railgan2 Organizations Other Games StarCraft 2 Other Games StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
Replay Cast
OSC
PiG Sty Festival
Clem vs Bunny
Solar vs Zoun
Replay Cast
BSL Nation Wars 2
Korean StarCraft League
PiG Sty Festival
herO vs Rogue
ByuN vs SKillous
SC Evo Complete
[BSL 2025] Weekly
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
