|
On May 14 2018 02:32 KR_4EVR wrote:
I like people having strongly biased views and heated arguments. It's fun. But let's all try to be more factual when talking about things, especially with regards to terminology in balance changes.
For example, I've heard a lot of people complain about a 'nerf' just because a buff given in a trial period was removed. This is not a nerf. I've also heard a lot of people complain about a 'buff' when a unit is restored to a previous long-duration static level. This is not a buff.
Starcraft II has been through a lot of variations in unit strengths at all times, so the history is rich. Everyone, please try to be more precise when you're complaining. That way it's fun and educational for everyone.
Strictly speaking, it would be nice if people began providing links to the complete unit history from liquipedia since WOL whenever discussing a unit. I think I'll try to do that myself from now on. The whole graph is much more informative than the instantaneous value and derivative.
Why looking for a complicated and false definition.
It's simple :
If the unit become stronger, it's a buff, if it becomes weaker a nerf, if it fits a different role, it's a design change.
With your definition, we can come back into mass reaper area because it stays long so it's not " a buff" according to you.
|
These changes might ultimately not truly change TvZ but smoothen it out a little bit. Zerg will be very hard to push early on but that should still be possible. When the ultra tech hits right now, terran has to go back and turtle on raven/ghost because marauders simply tickle ultralisks. If terrans survive the transition and can secure some extra bases, they almost always seem to win (maru is godlike at this, while innovation has lost a lot before getting to that stage for example).
With this change, it might be that you dont have to instantly turtle against ultra tech as marauders do deal with them much better. Then it will be easier to go into ghosts and some ravens but of course that will be weaker. Yet in practise raven + some buffed vikings and some bio/tanks can probably do really well against broodlord corruptor still.
Worst case either marauders kill ultras too easily forcing zerg on lair tech, or the terran lategame raven flock becomes so weak that terran once again is forced to all in before lategame.
|
On May 14 2018 08:28 Jerom wrote:
These changes might ultimately not truly change TvZ but smoothen it out a little bit. Zerg will be very hard to push early on but that should still be possible. When the ultra tech hits right now, terran has to go back and turtle on raven/ghost because marauders simply tickle ultralisks. If terrans survive the transition and can secure some extra bases, they almost always seem to win (maru is godlike at this, while innovation has lost a lot before getting to that stage for example).
With this change, it might be that you dont have to instantly turtle against ultra tech as marauders do deal with them much better. Then it will be easier to go into ghosts and some ravens but of course that will be weaker. Yet in practise raven + some buffed vikings and some bio/tanks can probably do really well against broodlord corruptor still.
Worst case either marauders kill ultras too easily forcing zerg on lair tech, or the terran lategame raven flock becomes so weak that terran once again is forced to all in before lategame.
Hopefully we hit a happy medium.
|
On May 14 2018 08:28 Jerom wrote:
These changes might ultimately not truly change TvZ but smoothen it out a little bit. Zerg will be very hard to push early on but that should still be possible. When the ultra tech hits right now, terran has to go back and turtle on raven/ghost because marauders simply tickle ultralisks. If terrans survive the transition and can secure some extra bases, they almost always seem to win (maru is godlike at this, while innovation has lost a lot before getting to that stage for example).
With this change, it might be that you dont have to instantly turtle against ultra tech as marauders do deal with them much better. Then it will be easier to go into ghosts and some ravens but of course that will be weaker. Yet in practise raven + some buffed vikings and some bio/tanks can probably do really well against broodlord corruptor still.
Worst case either marauders kill ultras too easily forcing zerg on lair tech, or the terran lategame raven flock becomes so weak that terran once again is forced to all in before lategame.
This is only Terran perspective. Terran midgame is quite strong in current state, especially with all that variety of early and early midgame pressure. Often, rushing to Hive and Ultras was a saving grace for Zerg, securing them possibility of transitioning to lategame. With much stronger Marauders, which are concideribly cheap comparing to Ultras, that will be very hard if possible.
I guess we'll see but i think the change which was designed to helo Terran in PvT will destroy balance in ZvT unfortunaly.
|
Woah woah, guys. Easy! Reading through the thread my eyes are widening while i'm bleeding from the inside. These balance change proposals... I'm glad you are not on the balance team. God. This terran whine is over the board. First of all. "TvP issue" was never really an issue (winrates for the last half a year clearly indicate that). And i'm glad blizzard understood that at the last moment throwing you a bone with so called marauder "buff". As a protoss i dont give a single f about that as i mostly go for stalker/colosi comps w/o armor upgraids, so yes, marauders will deal + 1 additional damage on my shieldless stalkers (in 50 if not less % of scenarios)... and after the first terran attack upgraid it will go back to prepatch state. Viking hp buff is a bit annoying though. And missile nerf is just on spot.
|
If you do the maths right with upgrades/sentry shield it's huge change vs stalker/collosi comps. You probably didn't play HoTs maurauder-drop-the-toss Cure-style era to not remember the difference between the old and the new maraudeur (yep i know lot of other things have changed, like eco and upgrades, but still )
For your TvP balance statement, simply check trop korean players winrates in the MU.
Maru, best player in the world, is at 44% vs Korean Toss since December 2017
Innovation at 57%
GuMiho at 50%
TY at 44%
That was the 4 best ranked korean terran players. Now let's whatch the best Protoss :
Classic : 81%
herO : 67 %
Zest : 70%
Stats : 70%
sOs : 65%
Hard to say anything more.
|
These changes seem to be moving in the right direction. I think a lot of people are underrating the Viking 10hp buff. Terran did need some help vs Toss. I play Toss and my winrate vs T is the best by a long way, it really has felt too easy for a while now (at least at my MMR).
My issue is actually with Skytoss funnily enough. I hate being forced into going Skytoss vs Skytoss if I don't flat-out stop my opponent with a blink stalker rush. Carriers are just too strong in high numbers and with upgrades. It's largely the same issue (but probably even worse) for Terran and Zerg. I don't want Carriers to be useless I just don't want them to be the be-all and end-all of protoss (if not T and Z as well). And I feel like I'm letting down my team-mate/s in 2v2/3v3 if I don't play Skytoss :/.
|
Czech Republic12128 Posts
On May 15 2018 19:33 xongnox wrote:If you do the maths right with upgrades/sentry shield it's huge change vs stalker/collosi comps. You probably didn't play HoTs maurauder-drop-the-toss Cure-style era to not remember the difference between the old and the new maraudeur (yep i know lot of other things have changed, like eco and upgrades, but still ) For your TvP balance statement, simply check trop korean players winrates in the MU. Maru, best player in the world, is at 44% vs Korean Toss since December 2017Innovation at 57% GuMiho at 50% TY at 44% That was the 4 best ranked korean terran players. Now let's whatch the best Protoss : Classic : 81% herO : 67 % Zest : 70% Stats : 70% sOs : 65% Hard to say anything more.
Yeah, if you check Maru's list he met a lot of team mates(which doesn't make a good case as they know each other), he met Classic a lot and his personal nemesis - Dear. And even if we don't cherry-pick. It's a fucking 19 matches!!! So huge sample I lost my words.
The sample isn't too big.
While I'm not saying the balance is perfect(and it actually isn't), this is an offense to statistics to be used. We have what, 6 months of games and whopping 19 matches of Maru. And when I checked Inno - a lot of nonames or weak players which doesn't bring anything to the discussion.
|
On May 15 2018 20:15 winsonsonho wrote:
These changes seem to be moving in the right direction. I think a lot of people are underrating the Viking 10hp buff. Terran did need some help vs Toss. I play Toss and my winrate vs T is the best by a long way, it really has felt too easy for a while now (at least at my MMR).
My issue is actually with Skytoss funnily enough. I hate being forced into going Skytoss vs Skytoss if I don't flat-out stop my opponent with a blink stalker rush. Carriers are just too strong in high numbers and with upgrades. It's largely the same issue (but probably even worse) for Terran and Zerg. I don't want Carriers to be useless I just don't want them to be the be-all and end-all of protoss (if not T and Z as well). And I feel like I'm letting down my team-mate/s in 2v2/3v3 if I don't play Skytoss :/.
Well Carriers have been absurd for a long time. They may not be quite as problematic at top pro level as on ladder, but on ladder level they are absurd.
I think the core problem is the leach range combined with psi storm. Vikings are supposed to counter Carriers but instead Carriers counter Vikings.
Without the leach range it would be easier to get to the Carriers without losing DPS all the time by having to dodge storms.
The 8% more hit points on Vikings will do almost nothing for this problem. Vikings will still work in the unit tester but not in the real game.
I am not sure why Blizzard do not nerf Carriers. It makes mech obsolete vs Protoss (and mech would still be weak in TvP if Carrier did not even exist) and it ruins team games completely.
And Carriers are not even an interesting unit. There is not much difference between a top pro using Carriers and a diamond player using Carriers. In comparison there is gigantic difference between a diamond Stalker and top pro Stalker.
|
On May 15 2018 19:33 xongnox wrote:
If you do the maths right with upgrades/sentry shield it's huge change vs stalker/collosi comps. You probably didn't play HoTs maurauder-drop-the-toss Cure-style era to not remember the difference between the old and the new maraudeur (yep i know lot of other things have changed, like eco and upgrades, but still )
Old 0/0 marauder - 20(s)/18(hp)dmg per attack vs 0/0 stalker. 16/14 (with Sentry shield)
New 0/0 marauder - 20(s)/19(hp)dmg per attack vs 0/0 stalker. 18/17 (with Sentry shield)
Old 1/1 marauder - 22(s)/20(hp)dmg per attack vs 1/0 stalker. 18/16 (with Sentry shield)
New 1/1 marauder - 22(s)/21(hp)dmg per attack vs 1/0 stalker. 20/19 (with Sentry shield)
Old 2/2 marauder - 24(s)/22(hp)dmg per attack vs 2/0 stalker. 20/18 (with Sentry shield)
New 2/2 marauder - 24(s)/23(hp)dmg per attack vs 2/0 stalker. 22/21 (with Sentry shield)
Old 3/3 marauder - 26(s)/24(hp)dmg per attack vs 3/0 stalker. 22/20 (with Sentry shield)
New 3/3 marauder - 26(s)/25(hp)dmg per attack vs 3/0 stalker. 24/23 (with Sentry shield)
So, right math indicated this buff is worth a whole lot of 0,5 dmg per attack a 2-2,5% damage increase (w/o sentry shield).
Sure, sentry shield makes more difference (2,5 dmg per attack). So average dmg per attack equals 12-16% increase.
But assuming it has at most 50% uptime, overall buff is worth 1,5 dmg ((2,5 dmg + 0,5 dmg) / 2), with a total of 7-9% damage increase. And that's on unupgraded Stalker - an armored unit. This change got alomost NO effect on zealot, as single marauder attack gets only 1 vs nonarmored units (while old one got + 2).
On May 15 2018 19:33 xongnox wrote:For your TvP balance statement, simply check trop korean players winrates in the MU. Maru, best player in the world, is at 44% vs Korean Toss since December 2017Innovation at 57% GuMiho at 50% TY at 44% That was the 4 best ranked korean terran players. Now let's whatch the best Protoss : Classic : 81% herO : 67 % Zest : 70% Stats : 70% sOs : 65% Hard to say anything more.
No, not hard at all.
According to aligulac since september 2017 PvT was 47%-54%. That's just a healthy volatility. On the other hand, PvZ was 43%-49%. Have you read a single whine post from a protoss players regarding this MU within half a year? Right, because whining is terran prerogative. And hiroshone's.
|
On May 15 2018 19:33 xongnox wrote:If you do the maths right with upgrades/sentry shield it's huge change vs stalker/collosi comps. You probably didn't play HoTs maurauder-drop-the-toss Cure-style era to not remember the difference between the old and the new maraudeur (yep i know lot of other things have changed, like eco and upgrades, but still ) For your TvP balance statement, simply check trop korean players winrates in the MU. Maru, best player in the world, is at 44% vs Korean Toss since December 2017Innovation at 57% GuMiho at 50% TY at 44% That was the 4 best ranked korean terran players. Now let's whatch the best Protoss : Classic : 81% herO : 67 % Zest : 70% Stats : 70% sOs : 65% Hard to say anything more.
And Byun is 52% vs Korean Protoss since December 1. It's pretty clear that the top Korean Protoss have had it easier against the top Korean Terran in the last 5 months.
|
8748 Posts
On May 15 2018 21:17 insitelol wrote:
This change got alomost NO effect on zealot, as single marauder attack gets only 1 vs nonarmored units (while old one got + 2).
Specifically I think the issue was about 0-0 terran vs 1-1 protoss w/ guardian shield, or 1-1 terran vs 2-2 protoss w/ guardian shield. In those cases, a marauder used to do 2 damage on a zealot and now it'll do 6. Against a stalker, it was 12 damage and now it'll be 16 (0-0 vs 1-1) or 17 (1-1 vs 2-2). Those are big differences that'll have a big effect on the whole matchup because terrans were having to play in weird ways specifically to avoid fights where protoss could take advantage of invincible zealots.
|
On May 15 2018 23:20 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2018 21:17 insitelol wrote:
This change got alomost NO effect on zealot, as single marauder attack gets only 1 vs nonarmored units (while old one got + 2). Specifically I think the issue was about 0-0 terran vs 1-1 protoss w/ guardian shield, or 1-1 terran vs 2-2 protoss w/ guardian shield. In those cases, a marauder used to do 2 damage on a zealot and now it'll do 6. Against a stalker, it was 12 damage and now it'll be 16 (0-0 vs 1-1) or 17 (1-1 vs 2-2). Those are big differences that'll have a big effect on the whole matchup because terrans were having to play in weird ways specifically to avoid fights where protoss could take advantage of invincible zealots.
Just curious, how often does Protoss even use Guardian Shield in PvT? I rarely see it in pro games because you're absolutely right about Guardian Shield being the thing that is most impacted by the Marauder change.
But I just rarely see it used so I don't know if it's going to have a big impact on the winrate of the match up by itself.
This change is just going to make Marauders a little better vs Immortals and Collosus.
|
On May 15 2018 23:20 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2018 21:17 insitelol wrote:
This change got alomost NO effect on zealot, as single marauder attack gets only 1 vs nonarmored units (while old one got + 2). Specifically I think the issue was about 0-0 terran vs 1-1 protoss w/ guardian shield, or 1-1 terran vs 2-2 protoss w/ guardian shield. In those cases, a marauder used to do 2 damage on a zealot and now it'll do 6. Against a stalker, it was 12 damage and now it'll be 16 (0-0 vs 1-1) or 17 (1-1 vs 2-2). Those are big differences that'll have a big effect on the whole matchup because terrans were having to play in weird ways specifically to avoid fights where protoss could take advantage of invincible zealots.
I get your idea here, but this is just too much. Be should stop babysitting terrans. Being behind in upgrades (if its even an issue) is an eco problem that shouldnt be adressed with wierd unit tweaks. Anyways. Zealots MELT to mines. Its absurd how efficient mines are against zealot plays. And lets be honest already. PvT is almost perfectly fine without any tweaks. All that whine is just an echo from the past of those who dont want to adjust their plays.
|
Why exactly do they think they need to buff against Zerg when no Zerg has won a single GSL since Life more than three years ago?
|
On May 15 2018 21:17 insitelol wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2018 19:33 xongnox wrote:
If you do the maths right with upgrades/sentry shield it's huge change vs stalker/collosi comps. You probably didn't play HoTs maurauder-drop-the-toss Cure-style era to not remember the difference between the old and the new maraudeur (yep i know lot of other things have changed, like eco and upgrades, but still ) Old 0/0 marauder - 20(s)/18(hp)dmg per attack vs 0/0 stalker. 16/14 (with Sentry shield)New 0/0 marauder - 20(s)/19(hp)dmg per attack vs 0/0 stalker. 18/17 (with Sentry shield)Old 1/1 marauder - 22(s)/20(hp)dmg per attack vs 1/0 stalker. 18/16 (with Sentry shield)New 1/1 marauder - 22(s)/21(hp)dmg per attack vs 1/0 stalker. 20/19 (with Sentry shield)Old 2/2 marauder - 24(s)/22(hp)dmg per attack vs 2/0 stalker. 20/18 (with Sentry shield)New 2/2 marauder - 24(s)/23(hp)dmg per attack vs 2/0 stalker. 22/21 (with Sentry shield)Old 3/3 marauder - 26(s)/24(hp)dmg per attack vs 3/0 stalker. 22/20 (with Sentry shield)New 3/3 marauder - 26(s)/25(hp)dmg per attack vs 3/0 stalker. 24/23 (with Sentry shield)So, right math indicated this buff is worth a whole lot of 0,5 dmg per attack a 2-2,5% damage increase (w/o sentry shield). Sure, sentry shield makes more difference ( 2,5 dmg per attack). So average dmg per attack equals 12-16% increase. But assuming it has at most 50% uptime, overall buff is worth 1,5 dmg ((2,5 dmg + 0,5 dmg) / 2), with a total of 7-9% damage increase. And that's on unupgraded Stalker - an armored unit. This change got alomost NO effect on zealot, as single marauder attack gets only 1 vs nonarmored units (while old one got + 2). Show nested quote +On May 15 2018 19:33 xongnox wrote:For your TvP balance statement, simply check trop korean players winrates in the MU. Maru, best player in the world, is at 44% vs Korean Toss since December 2017Innovation at 57% GuMiho at 50% TY at 44% That was the 4 best ranked korean terran players. Now let's whatch the best Protoss : Classic : 81% herO : 67 % Zest : 70% Stats : 70% sOs : 65% Hard to say anything more. No, not hard at all. According to aligulac since september 2017 PvT was 47%-54%. That's just a healthy volatility. On the other hand, PvZ was 43%-49%. Have you read a single whine post from a protoss players regarding this MU within half a year? Right, because whining is terran prerogative. And hiroshone's.
main reason behind 'the whine' is simply because terran is not fun, frustrating and extremely unforgiving to play compare to other 2, thats why terrans from low leagues to korean tops are acting similar.
|
On May 16 2018 01:04 Haukinger wrote:
Why exactly do they think they need to buff against Zerg when no Zerg has won a single GSL since Life more than three years ago?
Because outside of GSL Zerg has been pretty damn dominant for the last couple of years.
The foreign scene in particular is a massive Zerg fest, and it's only getting worse with Serral reaching Super Saiyan Blue status.
And even in GSL's case, sure no Zerg has won the whole thing since Life, but we've had Zergs basically in the finals every year with soO being there like 4-5 times.
If soO wasn't so cursed Zerg could easily have like 3-4 GSL titles since Life.
|
Actually that's not entirely the case.
From 2016-2018 there have been six GSL seasons.
2016 Season 1: Zest wins vs TY
2016 Season 2: Byun wins over sOs
2017 Season 1: Stats wins over soO
2017 Season 2: GuMiho wins over soO
2017 Season 3: INnoVation wins over sOs
2018 Season 1: Maru wins over Stats
P two wins, three seconds, T four wins, one second Z no wins, three seconds. Not really trying to say something one way or another.
|
8748 Posts
On May 16 2018 00:51 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2018 23:20 NonY wrote:On May 15 2018 21:17 insitelol wrote:
This change got alomost NO effect on zealot, as single marauder attack gets only 1 vs nonarmored units (while old one got + 2). Specifically I think the issue was about 0-0 terran vs 1-1 protoss w/ guardian shield, or 1-1 terran vs 2-2 protoss w/ guardian shield. In those cases, a marauder used to do 2 damage on a zealot and now it'll do 6. Against a stalker, it was 12 damage and now it'll be 16 (0-0 vs 1-1) or 17 (1-1 vs 2-2). Those are big differences that'll have a big effect on the whole matchup because terrans were having to play in weird ways specifically to avoid fights where protoss could take advantage of invincible zealots. Just curious, how often does Protoss even use Guardian Shield in PvT? I rarely see it in pro games because you're absolutely right about Guardian Shield being the thing that is most impacted by the Marauder change. But I just rarely see it used so I don't know if it's going to have a big impact on the winrate of the match up by itself. This change is just going to make Marauders a little better vs Immortals and Collosus.
Well that's what I mean by saying these changes could have a big effect on the whole matchup. Terran has been playing a different way out of necessity. So protoss plays differently. But if terrans started repeatedly playing old styles of just heavy MMM, you'd see protoss respond and deal with it extremely effectively. I don't think that this patch will make it so that there are certain builds terrans can immediately start doing with great success. But the increased effectiveness of marauders will creep into each terran's play as they figure out which situations marauders are okay to get. And in the long term it'll be better for the game for a basic unit to be a little more reliable.
On May 16 2018 00:59 insitelol wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2018 23:20 NonY wrote:On May 15 2018 21:17 insitelol wrote:
This change got alomost NO effect on zealot, as single marauder attack gets only 1 vs nonarmored units (while old one got + 2). Specifically I think the issue was about 0-0 terran vs 1-1 protoss w/ guardian shield, or 1-1 terran vs 2-2 protoss w/ guardian shield. In those cases, a marauder used to do 2 damage on a zealot and now it'll do 6. Against a stalker, it was 12 damage and now it'll be 16 (0-0 vs 1-1) or 17 (1-1 vs 2-2). Those are big differences that'll have a big effect on the whole matchup because terrans were having to play in weird ways specifically to avoid fights where protoss could take advantage of invincible zealots. I get your idea here, but this is just too much. Be should stop babysitting terrans. Being behind in upgrades (if its even an issue) is an eco problem that shouldnt be adressed with wierd unit tweaks. Anyways. Zealots MELT to mines. Its absurd how efficient mines are against zealot plays. And lets be honest already. PvT is almost perfectly fine without any tweaks. All that whine is just an echo from the past of those who dont want to adjust their plays.
They get behind in upgrades because protoss has chrono boost. You'd begin unraveling the whole game just to keep some particular thing you want, without a care for all the people who like the things you're taking away.
I think each race enjoys being able to build a solid basic army. It's been a desire for protoss for a long time (to buff gateway units). I think it's good for the game to make MMM a little more solid and reliable in general.
|
On May 15 2018 20:38 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2018 19:33 xongnox wrote:If you do the maths right with upgrades/sentry shield it's huge change vs stalker/collosi comps. You probably didn't play HoTs maurauder-drop-the-toss Cure-style era to not remember the difference between the old and the new maraudeur (yep i know lot of other things have changed, like eco and upgrades, but still ) For your TvP balance statement, simply check trop korean players winrates in the MU. Maru, best player in the world, is at 44% vs Korean Toss since December 2017Innovation at 57% GuMiho at 50% TY at 44% That was the 4 best ranked korean terran players. Now let's whatch the best Protoss : Classic : 81% herO : 67 % Zest : 70% Stats : 70% sOs : 65% Hard to say anything more. Yeah, if you check Maru's list he met a lot of team mates(which doesn't make a good case as they know each other), he met Classic a lot and his personal nemesis - Dear. And even if we don't cherry-pick. It's a fucking 19 matches!!! So huge sample I lost my words. The sample isn't too big. While I'm not saying the balance is perfect(and it actually isn't), this is an offense to statistics to be used. We have what, 6 months of games and whopping 19 matches of Maru. And when I checked Inno - a lot of nonames or weak players which doesn't bring anything to the discussion.
1. It's not only Maru but all top korean terrans. The best in TvP winrate is Innovation, and like you said, he is at 57% only because he played noobs. We also have top protoss PvT winrates. So in total it's not 20games but hundreds.
2. Yep the sample is still kinda small, yet it is the best we have to describe the top-level. The very top level today is very small, like 4 or 5 koreans players of each race. After that the skill level drops. If we wait for a sufficient big number of games of very top level to be sure at 99% of balance, we will wait for eternity. (and, maps will change, and maps interact with balance and meta)
3. If we take into account the winrate (so, the matchs) of the top5 koreans terrans since 6 months and compare it to the same stats to past aera, it should be pretty significant i guess. You know, top players used to have better than 50% winrate...
4. To use a more sophisticated statistical way to look at it, accounting who each players play, aligulac provides match-up MMR per player. In PvT we have :
1.Classic : 2875
2. herO : 2791
3. Zest : 2709
4. Stats : 2681
5. sOs : 2617
And in TvP ?
1. Maru 2761
2. Inno 2596
3. Gumi 2594
4. TY 2579
5. Byun 2561
So all-in-all it's 100 MMR lower across the board, very clear, no exception. In aligulac ranking, 100 points is the difference between being 3rd or 9th in the complete list, so for top players it's really significant.
Last but not least, we have these stats despite players adapting to TvP total macro imbalance, so if you watch Maru/inno games etc, they bullshit/2 bases all-in most of their games versus top tier opponent (and imo bs/2-base is way moe strong than macro in TvP). In a standard macro game, even Maru struggle to death to barely win someone like Drogo, while in BS mode, even MaSa take a lot of games versus Neeb.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
