|
On October 03 2019 03:09 Xain0n wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2019 02:46 Charoisaur wrote:
On topic - I'm pretty sure Rogue is right that Serral won't be able to do anything against him in a long macro game.
Yes, he beat him at the last Blizzcon but that wasn't peak Rogue. peak Rogue was from IEM Shanghai to IEM Katowice 2018.
You could clearly see in his play vs Serral that it wasn't the Rogue from 2017.
Is he in his old form again? I don't know. But if he is confident, so am I. You already tried to do something similar once, but Serral and Rogue aren't symmetrical. Rogue has never beaten Serral offline, non peak Serral even defeated peak Rogue(2-1 at IEM Katowice 2018); I have to remind you Rogue was just as confident last year right before being dismantled in macro games. Show nested quote +On October 03 2019 03:00 The_Red_Viper wrote:
I think we should open the blizzcon thread as soon as possible and let the usual suspects discuss 'all things serral' in there, that's the way we beat 2013's glorious 1.2k pages.
Quote if you agree. I agree with you, Viper.
Love the mental gymnastics of you trying to justify "he didn't play at his peak" being a valid excuse for Serral but not for Rogue. Watch Rogue's games vs Serral - that's not the Rogue that won 3 consecutive tournaments in 2017.
|
On October 03 2019 06:01 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2019 03:09 Xain0n wrote:On October 03 2019 02:46 Charoisaur wrote:
On topic - I'm pretty sure Rogue is right that Serral won't be able to do anything against him in a long macro game.
Yes, he beat him at the last Blizzcon but that wasn't peak Rogue. peak Rogue was from IEM Shanghai to IEM Katowice 2018.
You could clearly see in his play vs Serral that it wasn't the Rogue from 2017.
Is he in his old form again? I don't know. But if he is confident, so am I. You already tried to do something similar once, but Serral and Rogue aren't symmetrical. Rogue has never beaten Serral offline, non peak Serral even defeated peak Rogue(2-1 at IEM Katowice 2018); I have to remind you Rogue was just as confident last year right before being dismantled in macro games. On October 03 2019 03:00 The_Red_Viper wrote:
I think we should open the blizzcon thread as soon as possible and let the usual suspects discuss 'all things serral' in there, that's the way we beat 2013's glorious 1.2k pages.
Quote if you agree. I agree with you, Viper. Love the mental gymnastics of you trying to justify "he didn't play at his peak" being a valid excuse for Serral but not for Rogue. Watch Rogue's games vs Serral - that's not the Rogue that won 3 consecutive tournaments in 2017.
You are the one going for an absurd mental gymnastic: you speak of Rogue not being at his peak when he lost at BlizzCon, since, you say, Rogue's peak started with Shanghai and ended with Katowice. Then, we find out non peak Serral defeated Rogue...at Katowice, when the latter was supposedly at his peak(by your own words)? This is getting ridicolous...
On a side note if you were honest you would recognize Rogue played very well against Serral at BlizzCon, he really was amazing in a ZvZ and I don't doubt he'd have bested soO again with his lategame prowess but Serral was too strong. I want to remind you that Rogue in 2017 won three consecutive weekenders while suffering heavy defeats in Code S, do you remember Scarlett?
|
Czech Republic12125 Posts
On October 03 2019 06:01 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2019 03:09 Xain0n wrote:On October 03 2019 02:46 Charoisaur wrote:
On topic - I'm pretty sure Rogue is right that Serral won't be able to do anything against him in a long macro game.
Yes, he beat him at the last Blizzcon but that wasn't peak Rogue. peak Rogue was from IEM Shanghai to IEM Katowice 2018.
You could clearly see in his play vs Serral that it wasn't the Rogue from 2017.
Is he in his old form again? I don't know. But if he is confident, so am I. You already tried to do something similar once, but Serral and Rogue aren't symmetrical. Rogue has never beaten Serral offline, non peak Serral even defeated peak Rogue(2-1 at IEM Katowice 2018); I have to remind you Rogue was just as confident last year right before being dismantled in macro games. On October 03 2019 03:00 The_Red_Viper wrote:
I think we should open the blizzcon thread as soon as possible and let the usual suspects discuss 'all things serral' in there, that's the way we beat 2013's glorious 1.2k pages.
Quote if you agree. I agree with you, Viper. Love the mental gymnastics of you trying to justify "he didn't play at his peak" being a valid excuse for Serral but not for Rogue. Watch Rogue's games vs Serral - that's not the Rogue that won 3 consecutive tournaments in 2017.
Love how you still try :-)
|
On October 03 2019 07:16 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2019 06:01 Charoisaur wrote:On October 03 2019 03:09 Xain0n wrote:On October 03 2019 02:46 Charoisaur wrote:
On topic - I'm pretty sure Rogue is right that Serral won't be able to do anything against him in a long macro game.
Yes, he beat him at the last Blizzcon but that wasn't peak Rogue. peak Rogue was from IEM Shanghai to IEM Katowice 2018.
You could clearly see in his play vs Serral that it wasn't the Rogue from 2017.
Is he in his old form again? I don't know. But if he is confident, so am I. You already tried to do something similar once, but Serral and Rogue aren't symmetrical. Rogue has never beaten Serral offline, non peak Serral even defeated peak Rogue(2-1 at IEM Katowice 2018); I have to remind you Rogue was just as confident last year right before being dismantled in macro games. On October 03 2019 03:00 The_Red_Viper wrote:
I think we should open the blizzcon thread as soon as possible and let the usual suspects discuss 'all things serral' in there, that's the way we beat 2013's glorious 1.2k pages.
Quote if you agree. I agree with you, Viper. Love the mental gymnastics of you trying to justify "he didn't play at his peak" being a valid excuse for Serral but not for Rogue. Watch Rogue's games vs Serral - that's not the Rogue that won 3 consecutive tournaments in 2017. Love how you still try :-)
Not sure why I'm still doing this. This guy is beyond all reason. The first time on TL I really want an ignore function.
|
On October 03 2019 07:40 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2019 07:16 deacon.frost wrote:On October 03 2019 06:01 Charoisaur wrote:On October 03 2019 03:09 Xain0n wrote:On October 03 2019 02:46 Charoisaur wrote:
On topic - I'm pretty sure Rogue is right that Serral won't be able to do anything against him in a long macro game.
Yes, he beat him at the last Blizzcon but that wasn't peak Rogue. peak Rogue was from IEM Shanghai to IEM Katowice 2018.
You could clearly see in his play vs Serral that it wasn't the Rogue from 2017.
Is he in his old form again? I don't know. But if he is confident, so am I. You already tried to do something similar once, but Serral and Rogue aren't symmetrical. Rogue has never beaten Serral offline, non peak Serral even defeated peak Rogue(2-1 at IEM Katowice 2018); I have to remind you Rogue was just as confident last year right before being dismantled in macro games. On October 03 2019 03:00 The_Red_Viper wrote:
I think we should open the blizzcon thread as soon as possible and let the usual suspects discuss 'all things serral' in there, that's the way we beat 2013's glorious 1.2k pages.
Quote if you agree. I agree with you, Viper. Love the mental gymnastics of you trying to justify "he didn't play at his peak" being a valid excuse for Serral but not for Rogue. Watch Rogue's games vs Serral - that's not the Rogue that won 3 consecutive tournaments in 2017. Love how you still try :-) Not sure why I'm still doing this. This guy is beyond all reason. The first time on TL I really want an ignore function.
Yes, why? Why are you still doing this?
Everyone knows you are so stupendously reasonable, I'm so dull for not accepting the undeniable truth you try to show me.
|
Its tiresome to read various boards and threads all around internet these days. Zerg is so OP, broken, IMBA that its almost like no other race has managed to win a match for months, that's the impression. That's also hyperbole.
While I have no reason to doubt what Rogue or Serral has said about late game Zerg strengths, it seems to me now that people straightforwardly extrapolate perceived imbalance to entire game and all Zerg matchups vs Terran and Protoss, thus Top Zergs' statements are starting cause effect that probably result changes/fixes that will go beyond scope of the original, perceived balance problem. Over-correction expected. Fixes to what wasn't even broken probable.
Few months after next patch, its likely that same people crying loud out there now, will cry about new (possibly even more severe) balance issues caused by the next patch.
When imbalance issue (that seems to be founded and very real) is ballooned to out of proportions, people start question skills and abilities of players who manage to win tournaments with their "OP race" rendering their tournament victories near meaningless. Enough echoing and players themselves start parrot what a public, general "consensus" pressure upon them. Little more raving and people accuse infestors and broodlords or what ever for a Protoss loss in a cheesy 7 minutes low quality error prone game, where such units didn't even appear... and Top Zerg sighs and nods for compliance.
But, even today, its still nice to see that one-in-twenty game where a Zerg actually manages to make it into an endgame, to truly get any advantage from the imbalance, and even then only if the Zerg player know what he/she is doing.
#imbametawhine
|
Dunno if Rogue is too honest here but he probably knows better x)
Gratz to him anyway, regardless of the balance, he played solid at least, he seems way better than last year.
|
This is Rogue taking one for team Zerg, right? After calling Zerg imba, he now loses to atone for his words. Or maybe Zerg is just slightly too strong in the lategame and not imba imba imba. Protoss has many tools to hurt Zerg before they get that infestor comp going, and Trap played badly, whereas Stats made use of those tools.
|
Fluffy.
Dark's, Reynor's, Solar's, and SoO's statements on the topic still missing, while RagnaroK, Scarlett, Elazer, Impact, Cham, and Lambo could give the beat from background when The World's best Zergs gather together to piss in a corner of their natural to contemplate how the current meta was actually evolved in the first place, and then whole cohort together would sing as chorus to apologize the abysmal state of the game...
Truly good thing here is that if aforementioned group of Top SC2 players manage clear their adversaries fast enough out from the Blizzcon playoffs brackets, we all will be rewarded with totally IMBA-whine free, high quality Ro4 and Finals:
True competition that goes down to the pure skill, ability, grit, concentration, and determination in the most complex, active, fast moving, action based, versatile, and demanding match up possible in the SC2. Nyduses popping up everywhere like mushrooms in an autumn forest, swarms ravaging across a terrain nearly perfectly covered by creep, everything so infected that even roaches have difficulties to hold their pukes, parasitic neural network webbing across hordes of..., splash covered grounds of exploding banelings, and ever continuing ling harass at quadruple simultaneus fronts of eternal base trading... 
Every, black, mutated Zerg heart would feel deep happiness. Their entire race would've evolved to a next phase on the road of genetic perfection, without interruptions of non-essential annoyances by lesser cosmic races. How nice it would be. Aww...
|
On October 03 2019 08:10 Xain0n wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2019 07:40 Charoisaur wrote:On October 03 2019 07:16 deacon.frost wrote:On October 03 2019 06:01 Charoisaur wrote:On October 03 2019 03:09 Xain0n wrote:On October 03 2019 02:46 Charoisaur wrote:
On topic - I'm pretty sure Rogue is right that Serral won't be able to do anything against him in a long macro game.
Yes, he beat him at the last Blizzcon but that wasn't peak Rogue. peak Rogue was from IEM Shanghai to IEM Katowice 2018.
You could clearly see in his play vs Serral that it wasn't the Rogue from 2017.
Is he in his old form again? I don't know. But if he is confident, so am I. You already tried to do something similar once, but Serral and Rogue aren't symmetrical. Rogue has never beaten Serral offline, non peak Serral even defeated peak Rogue(2-1 at IEM Katowice 2018); I have to remind you Rogue was just as confident last year right before being dismantled in macro games. On October 03 2019 03:00 The_Red_Viper wrote:
I think we should open the blizzcon thread as soon as possible and let the usual suspects discuss 'all things serral' in there, that's the way we beat 2013's glorious 1.2k pages.
Quote if you agree. I agree with you, Viper. Love the mental gymnastics of you trying to justify "he didn't play at his peak" being a valid excuse for Serral but not for Rogue. Watch Rogue's games vs Serral - that's not the Rogue that won 3 consecutive tournaments in 2017. Love how you still try :-) Not sure why I'm still doing this. This guy is beyond all reason. The first time on TL I really want an ignore function. Yes, why? Why are you still doing this? Everyone knows you are so stupendously reasonable, I'm so dull for not accepting the undeniable truth you try to show me.
Hey guys, what's going on? Is this discussion THAT important? I mean arguing about some players beating each other on the peak of their form or not. Have you considered that loosing or winning (especially in a extremely volatile game like SC2) doesnt always depend on those players "form" (let alone such thing doesn't even exist or at least is such a complex and mostly subjective concept that noone can grasp) but could be a result of billions of "minor" things, like the an extra half an hour of sleep before the match, stars aligning in the wrong order whatsoever.
|
Maybe there are reasons why different races cannot have different Max supply values/maximum number of troops possible? I haven't noticed such discussions nor I do know any reasons why that possibility isn't discussed more.
If Zerg end-game imbalance can be verified with enough rigorous statistical analysis, why the solution to it couldn't be as simple as adding for example +10 or +20 or something like that (in accordance with and to ratio given by analysis of degree of power imbalance) to a late-game Protoss' (as example) max supply in that same moment when Zerg first time start produce Infestors (and/or other 'problematic' units)? Extra supply could be even directly related to amounts of these "OP-units" on the field. If Zerg late-game OP tend to drain P and T unreasonably fast, what exactly prevent that to be corrected with changes in quantity of troops available for those races in countering that, instead of 'normal' qualitative tinkering with unit's stats and abilities (that are not phase of a game -specific by default, and that can mess the balance of other phases of a game of match up)?
Lore-wise its almost too easy to think what could be good reason/mechanics/trigger for such extra "reinforcements" to arrive on the battle grounds. For example:
Terran Command: "Infestor pheromones detected! Condition red! General Alarm! Request to all Terran mercs and armed civilians broadcast via all channels! Temporary pardon for all criminal entities."
Protoss Librarian: "Broodlord overpopulation interference-gene mutation MDX-5-889 detected in the creep sample! Unrestricted emergency portal procedure initiated! Reinforcements requested! Priority command."
If this is completely stupid comment, just ignore it. Better, why exactly it would be stupid idea?
|
On October 03 2019 19:28 UnLarva wrote:
Maybe there are reasons why different races cannot have different Max supply values/maximum number of troops possible? I haven't noticed such discussions nor I do know any reasons why that possibility isn't discussed more.
If Zerg end-game imbalance can be verified with enough rigorous statistical analysis, why the solution to it couldn't be as simple as adding for example +10 or +20 or something like that (in accordance with and to ratio given by analysis of degree of power imbalance) to a late-game Protoss' (as example) max supply in that same moment when Zerg first time start produce Infestors (and/or other 'problematic' units)? Extra supply could be even directly related to amounts of these "OP-units" on the field. If Zerg late-game OP tend to drain P and T unreasonably fast, what exactly prevent that to be corrected with changes in quantity of troops available for those races in countering that, instead of 'normal' qualitative tinkering with unit's stats and abilities (that are not phase of a game -specific by default, and that can mess the balance of other phases of a game of match up)?
Lore-wise its almost too easy to think what could be good reason/mechanics/trigger for such extra "reinforcements" to arrive on the battle grounds. For example:
Terran Command: "Infestor pheromones detected! Condition red! General Alarm! Request to all Terran mercs and armed civilians broadcast via all channels! Temporary pardon for all criminal entities."
Protoss Librarian: "Broodlord overpopulation interference-gene mutation MDX-5-889 detected in the creep sample! Unrestricted emergency portal procedure initiated! Reinforcements requested! Priority command."
If this is completely stupid comment, just ignore it. Better, why exactly it would be stupid idea?
Zerg can technically cheat their supply higher to compensate. Nothing is impossible when you have the bank.
|
On October 03 2019 20:01 dUTtrOACh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2019 19:28 UnLarva wrote:
Maybe there are reasons why different races cannot have different Max supply values/maximum number of troops possible? I haven't noticed such discussions nor I do know any reasons why that possibility isn't discussed more.
If Zerg end-game imbalance can be verified with enough rigorous statistical analysis, why the solution to it couldn't be as simple as adding for example +10 or +20 or something like that (in accordance with and to ratio given by analysis of degree of power imbalance) to a late-game Protoss' (as example) max supply in that same moment when Zerg first time start produce Infestors (and/or other 'problematic' units)? Extra supply could be even directly related to amounts of these "OP-units" on the field. If Zerg late-game OP tend to drain P and T unreasonably fast, what exactly prevent that to be corrected with changes in quantity of troops available for those races in countering that, instead of 'normal' qualitative tinkering with unit's stats and abilities (that are not phase of a game -specific by default, and that can mess the balance of other phases of a game of match up)?
Lore-wise its almost too easy to think what could be good reason/mechanics/trigger for such extra "reinforcements" to arrive on the battle grounds. For example:
Terran Command: "Infestor pheromones detected! Condition red! General Alarm! Request to all Terran mercs and armed civilians broadcast via all channels! Temporary pardon for all criminal entities."
Protoss Librarian: "Broodlord overpopulation interference-gene mutation MDX-5-889 detected in the creep sample! Unrestricted emergency portal procedure initiated! Reinforcements requested! Priority command."
If this is completely stupid comment, just ignore it. Better, why exactly it would be stupid idea? Zerg can technically cheat their supply higher to compensate. Nothing is impossible when you have the bank.
Hmm... counter-balancing extra sur-plus supply could come as a drop/teleport accompanied with adequate mineral/gas bank. It would be then entirely upon a T or P player how to use and utilize that extra supply and bank.
But, this all is just speculation about possibilities to fix imbalance, that really need enough strong verification by proper analysis. Also, idea itself feels little bit a band-aid solution, but at least it could work as point-blank measure to specific imbalance, being relatively isolated and not influencing too much to overall game balance. Ofc, situation for T is different than its for P, and thus exact amount of extra supply and bank should be determined for each races separately. Furthermore, as its also a question of exact late-game zerg unit composition, it won't be easy task to really determine what kind situations with what amounts of "OP-units" exactly produce the imbalance scenario, and to what degree, to justify this kind god-given drops from the heaven.
|
The problem seems very easy to solve and should be done before Blizzcon.
1. Increase Infestor supply to 3.
2. Fix the BroodLord range bug.
SwarmHost/Nydus and similiar issues can be looked at after Blizzcon.
|
On October 03 2019 20:37 MockHamill wrote:
The problem seems very easy to solve and should be done before Blizzcon.
1. Increase Infestor supply to 3.
2. Fix the BroodLord range bug.
SwarmHost/Nydus and similiar issues can be locked at after Blizzcon.
Seems very reasonable suggestion.
After all, the last thing to do would be complete overhaul by nerfing everything between an earth and sky same time. Its pretty much impossible to detect an impact of each change if there are multitude of them in same patch, and complex dependancies between each unit(s) can cause effects that were both unforeseen, but also counter-productive to the very reasons why changes were made in a first place.
These days it seems that practically everything with Zerg is OP according a discussions all around, and its hard to find an unit of zerg that isn't already suggested to get nerfed as soon as possible. Logic of the game itself dictates that all demands cannot be rationally justified, nor that they would actually improve the balance if becoming the reality. There is imminent and obvious risk for a child to get jettisoned with his washing water all the same if even half of all of those marvellous nerf-zerg ideas are included to the next balance patch.
Top zergs should send their written and well thought interpretations over the issue to Blizzard's balance team (or is it just one person during this golden renaissance of the game?) for preventing the destructive scenario of over-nerfing.
|
On October 03 2019 06:01 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2019 03:09 Xain0n wrote:On October 03 2019 02:46 Charoisaur wrote:
On topic - I'm pretty sure Rogue is right that Serral won't be able to do anything against him in a long macro game.
Yes, he beat him at the last Blizzcon but that wasn't peak Rogue. peak Rogue was from IEM Shanghai to IEM Katowice 2018.
You could clearly see in his play vs Serral that it wasn't the Rogue from 2017.
Is he in his old form again? I don't know. But if he is confident, so am I. You already tried to do something similar once, but Serral and Rogue aren't symmetrical. Rogue has never beaten Serral offline, non peak Serral even defeated peak Rogue(2-1 at IEM Katowice 2018); I have to remind you Rogue was just as confident last year right before being dismantled in macro games. On October 03 2019 03:00 The_Red_Viper wrote:
I think we should open the blizzcon thread as soon as possible and let the usual suspects discuss 'all things serral' in there, that's the way we beat 2013's glorious 1.2k pages.
Quote if you agree. I agree with you, Viper. Love the mental gymnastics of you trying to justify "he didn't play at his peak" being a valid excuse for Serral but not for Rogue. Watch Rogue's games vs Serral - that's not the Rogue that won 3 consecutive tournaments in 2017.
Love the word mental gymnastics from you hahah xD
|
Northern Ireland23322 Posts
On October 03 2019 21:10 UnLarva wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2019 20:37 MockHamill wrote:
The problem seems very easy to solve and should be done before Blizzcon.
1. Increase Infestor supply to 3.
2. Fix the BroodLord range bug.
SwarmHost/Nydus and similiar issues can be locked at after Blizzcon. Seems very reasonable suggestion. After all, the last thing to do would be complete overhaul by nerfing everything between an earth and sky same time. Its pretty much impossible to detect an impact of each change if there are multitude of them in same patch, and complex dependancies between each unit(s) can cause effects that were both unforeseen, but also counter-productive to the very reasons why changes were made in a first place. These days it seems that practically everything with Zerg is OP according a discussions all around, and its hard to find an unit of zerg that isn't already suggested to get nerfed as soon as possible. Logic of the game itself dictates that all demands cannot be rationally justified, nor that they would actually improve the balance if becoming the reality. There is imminent and obvious risk for a child to get jettisoned with his washing water all the same if even half of all of those marvellous nerf-zerg ideas are included to the next balance patch. Top zergs should send their written and well thought interpretations over the issue to Blizzard's balance team (or is it just one person during this golden renaissance of the game?) for preventing the destructive scenario of over-nerfing.
Yes, I was against nerfing the warp prism and reducing cost of overlord speed in the same patch for that reason. They’re both largely targeted at Immortal timings/Protoss shenanigans
Maybe the meta/knowledge, which was shifting anyway would have been enough to redress issues. Maybe either of those changes singularly would have made a nice balance.
Instead we had two changes on top of an already shifting meta.
Perhaps users or the balance team wouldn’t like if it singular changes to single units and costs were implemented more frequently, which is why patches tend to include a fair few changes at once.
Still always feels there’s so much change at once it’s hard to calculate what will do what, and even after the fact what changes are impactful in the desired way, what ones aren’t and what ones create further problems
|
On October 03 2019 20:37 MockHamill wrote:
The problem seems very easy to solve and should be done before Blizzcon.
1. Increase Infestor supply to 3.
2. Fix the BroodLord range bug.
SwarmHost/Nydus and similiar issues can be looked at after Blizzcon.
Broodlords don't need to be changed. It's literally been this way for 9 years. The infestor and the nydus worm are the two keys that need to be looked at. This thread is also pretty funny after watching Rogue get bopped by Stats. Adds some flair to the discussion.
|
Czech Republic12125 Posts
On October 03 2019 20:37 MockHamill wrote:
The problem seems very easy to solve and should be done before Blizzcon.
1. Increase Infestor supply to 3.
2. Fix the BroodLord range bug.
SwarmHost/Nydus and similiar issues can be looked at after Blizzcon.
I'm afraid in this state of Blizzard they won't even aknowledge this .
On October 04 2019 01:33 Hunta15 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2019 20:37 MockHamill wrote:
The problem seems very easy to solve and should be done before Blizzcon.
1. Increase Infestor supply to 3.
2. Fix the BroodLord range bug.
SwarmHost/Nydus and similiar issues can be looked at after Blizzcon. Broodlords don't need to be changed. It's literally been this way for 9 years. The infestor and the nydus worm are the two keys that need to be looked at. This thread is also pretty funny after watching Rogue get bopped by Stats. Adds some flair to the discussion.
Considering Blizzcon being soon people are asking for easy changes to be implemented so the balance is better. It's not like this was said by 1 random Zerg...
|
On October 03 2019 20:37 MockHamill wrote:
The problem seems very easy to solve and should be done before Blizzcon.
1. Increase Infestor supply to 3.
2. Fix the BroodLord range bug.
SwarmHost/Nydus and similiar issues can be looked at after Blizzcon.
i like the supply change idea but i would also compensate it by adding some hp or +1 armor. so it's not an all-or-nothing glass cannon spell caster but more of a robust support that has powerful spells but they must be used judiciously.
this would be a very big change, though. a slight nerf but more of a design change because the way infestors interact with other units is very clearly flawed and this has been an issue since the game was in beta.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
