|
On October 22 2026 22:49 M3t4PhYzX wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 22:00 Soft_General_5023 wrote:
Players get this?
Did any top Protoss ever complained about imbalance? Except Stork, and, well, Bonyth?
I recall Jinjin's video that Snow explicitly denied ZvP imbalance and admited he lost because he played badly.
And then another video when Shuttle admitted he practices only 2 games before ASL group and still winning the group lol.
Afaik in Korean culture, complaining about anything else than your own "bad perfromance" after you've lost is seen quite unfavourably maybe that's why they don't
Somewhat ironically, if you're the type of player to whine constantly about perceived imbalance well over your own shortcomings you don't get very far in this game. They always hit a wall. I can guarantee you that in life as well, the people who whine constantly, don't have the energy to persevere and succeed after they spend most of their time feeling sorry for themselves and holding everything external to blame.
|
On October 23 2026 05:27 Xenixx wrote:
There is a randomness to the outcome of the game based on the build(s) chosen or planned, I already account for this, it's one of the many factors why I don't believe the game is imbalanced for Protoss players. I have also already accounted for all of these things here in text. Written plain as day. Random luck or chance is the same for everyone who plays the game. Or are you suggesting Lady Luck only plays for Terran and Zerg?
Except for mirror matchups, the payoff matrices aren't symmetrical. This should be obvious from the roulette example, where luck effectively favors the house. It is true of asymmetric games in general, including PvZ in StarCraft. The only thing that's arguable is whether P or Z has the "house advantage" and how big it is.
To give a concrete example of how your challenge is incoherent, take some Protoss moving out with the first 3 Zealots to scout and/or apply pressure to the Zerg. Assume he loses them all, trading for like 5 Zerglings. In the context of that individual game, this obviously looks like a mistake, but it doesn't make any sense to evaluate the decision in isolation. It has to be evaluated against the distribution of strategies that Zergs tend to play, e.g. pure eco that needs to be pressured and hydra busts that need to be scouted before the first Corsair.
Is moving out with the first 3 Zealots always a mistake? Always correct? Usually a mistake, except against some particular Zergs which tend to be greedy? Correct if it works and a mistake if it doesn't, despite the Protoss not having enough information and being forced to guess?
Nobody knows the true answer. It's a function of Zerg players' habits, which is itself a moving target. So trying to take any particular replay and adjudicating which player made the fewest mistakes and deserved to win is never going to work, unless you already understand the matchup and the balance on such an extremely fine grained level that you can authoritatively say that blindly moving out with 3 Zealots is a misplay. And if you do have that understanding, that specific game isn't going to tell you anything you don't already know.
|
On October 23 2026 09:04 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2026 05:27 Xenixx wrote:
There is a randomness to the outcome of the game based on the build(s) chosen or planned, I already account for this, it's one of the many factors why I don't believe the game is imbalanced for Protoss players. I have also already accounted for all of these things here in text. Written plain as day. Random luck or chance is the same for everyone who plays the game. Or are you suggesting Lady Luck only plays for Terran and Zerg?
Except for mirror matchups, the payoff matrices aren't symmetrical. This should be obvious from the roulette example, where luck effectively favors the house. It is true of asymmetric games in general, including PvZ in StarCraft. The only thing that's arguable is whether P or Z has the "house advantage" and how big it is. To give a concrete example of how your challenge is incoherent, take some Protoss moving out with the first 3 Zealots to scout and/or apply pressure to the Zerg. Assume he loses them all, trading for like 5 Zerglings. In the context of that individual game, this obviously looks like a mistake, but it doesn't make any sense to evaluate the decision in isolation. It has to be evaluated against the distribution of strategies that Zergs tend to play, e.g. pure eco that needs to be pressured and hydra busts that need to be scouted before the first Corsair. Is moving out with the first 3 Zealots always a mistake? Always correct? Usually a mistake, except against some particular Zergs which tend to be greedy? Correct if it works and a mistake if it doesn't, despite the Protoss not having enough information and being forced to guess? Nobody knows the true answer. It's a function of Zerg players' habits, which is itself a moving target. So trying to take any particular replay and adjudicating which player made the fewest mistakes and deserved to win is never going to work, unless you already understand the matchup and the balance on such an extremely fine grained level that you can authoritatively say that blindly moving out with 3 Zealots is a misplay. And if you do have that understanding, that specific game isn't going to tell you anything you don't already know.
So this is just a you problem, you don't have the framework or skillset to analyze. You can't gather and examine evidence, you can't ask critical questions, you can't look for a link and you can't form or explain your logic. What's that supposed to mean to me? I know I can do it, I know other people can do it.
Why do you believe in something you believe you can't tell whether it actually exists or not? Why am I on a video game forum talking to people who have a faith based position about a competitive game and exhibit magical thinking.
|
not too well versed in 1v1, but in teams, no we don't care about the imbalance, its been figured out, and the game is all about mechanical skill, and the glitching/imbalance is what makes the game GOAT.
|
I have never said that there exists no imbalance in the game, I said quite plainly that maps can be imbalanced, even in the modern era. They certainly were years ago. You should've picked up on the implication in my questions which indicated that people lose for a variety of reasons in this game, one of which can be map design which is biased against or for certain race or races. You should've remembered when I clarified to you that the game is not one set scenario, in which, yes due to a number of factors one player, playing a race may be utterly disadvantaged against another in that scenario. Builds do have hard counters in this game. So I can't see how you were confused about this, probably the problem with arguing off of someone's posts constantly.
Bruh if you say this you're already admitting racial imbalance.
Every time we talk about balance we're actually talking about it with in an underlying condition, which is "in the realm of the current map design", which is basically "9 mineral patches in main, 7 in nat, entrance can be walled off with 2-3 gaps..." Not like we're playing in a map pool like this: Fighting Spirit, Fastest Possible, Bloodbath, a 256x256 map, Crazy Critters, Sparkle with only 1 gas,... are we?
You can't talk about racial imbalance in total isolation. The whole reason P can even compete with Z is because of the current map design which allows fast expansion with 2-3 gaps. Imagine if the map is just a plain open field, we can definitely say Z>>>P.
|
On October 23 2026 09:37 Xenixx wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2026 09:04 Darkwhite wrote:On October 23 2026 05:27 Xenixx wrote:
There is a randomness to the outcome of the game based on the build(s) chosen or planned, I already account for this, it's one of the many factors why I don't believe the game is imbalanced for Protoss players. I have also already accounted for all of these things here in text. Written plain as day. Random luck or chance is the same for everyone who plays the game. Or are you suggesting Lady Luck only plays for Terran and Zerg?
Except for mirror matchups, the payoff matrices aren't symmetrical. This should be obvious from the roulette example, where luck effectively favors the house. It is true of asymmetric games in general, including PvZ in StarCraft. The only thing that's arguable is whether P or Z has the "house advantage" and how big it is. To give a concrete example of how your challenge is incoherent, take some Protoss moving out with the first 3 Zealots to scout and/or apply pressure to the Zerg. Assume he loses them all, trading for like 5 Zerglings. In the context of that individual game, this obviously looks like a mistake, but it doesn't make any sense to evaluate the decision in isolation. It has to be evaluated against the distribution of strategies that Zergs tend to play, e.g. pure eco that needs to be pressured and hydra busts that need to be scouted before the first Corsair. Is moving out with the first 3 Zealots always a mistake? Always correct? Usually a mistake, except against some particular Zergs which tend to be greedy? Correct if it works and a mistake if it doesn't, despite the Protoss not having enough information and being forced to guess? Nobody knows the true answer. It's a function of Zerg players' habits, which is itself a moving target. So trying to take any particular replay and adjudicating which player made the fewest mistakes and deserved to win is never going to work, unless you already understand the matchup and the balance on such an extremely fine grained level that you can authoritatively say that blindly moving out with 3 Zealots is a misplay. And if you do have that understanding, that specific game isn't going to tell you anything you don't already know. So this is just a you problem, you don't have the framework or skillset to analyze. You can't gather and examine evidence, you can't ask critical questions, you can't look for a link and you can't form or explain your logic. What's that supposed to mean to me? I know I can do it, I know other people can do it. Why do you believe in something you believe you can't tell whether it actually exists or not? Why am I on a video game forum talking to people who have a faith based position about a competitive game and exhibit magical thinking.
This reminds me of Bisu vs Soma ASL game set 7. Soma goes for a rather early extractor (the game is being played on that 2 player map with 2 gases in main). Because of the nature of Soma's build, the probe is denied, protoss sits in his wall. And there, as you mentioned, Bisu the progamer, tries to gather and examine evidence, by moving a single unit out of his natural wall-in just by a little bit, to see if more units are streaming in. Maybe for this reason or not, Bisu ultimately fails to close his 1,5 zealot gap (lings cannot go through if zealot is perfectly positioned in the middle). Now, you can say that it was Bisu's error and it was. However, this is just one of many opportunities that zerg has to win the game right away. Protosses hardly have that against zerg.
You tend to say, that the balance depends on the maps and in theory, you are right. You can make island maps, maps with neutral d-webs everywhere, and protoss win rate will improve (ever wondered why they introduced such maps? Vieriety? Or protoss needed to look better?). So, in my opinion, the current understanding of a standard map unfavors protoss.
In another response you say that if one thinks game is imbalanced, one cannot improve (or slower). Half-true. If one doesn't believe skill triumphs over imbalance, the one is stuck. I believe that skill is more important than anything, but I also believe that if you take 3 equally skilled people, and tell them to play all 3 different races, after 3 years of playing the protoss player will be the best out of the 3; after 15 years the protoss player will get the worst win rate. Now, if the protoss player practises for 5 more years (or gets a 5 year head start), there is a good chance he will be the best out of the 3.
|
Protoss just have defend the ling all in and win the game why different if win minuts 4 or minuts 8 ? i mean if defended well or almost well P 100% will win little bit later. + every elapsed minute ok not as Bisu because he is fast and etc favor for P in a bo7. + have to mention the biggest mistake from Bisu lost his probe from slow lings because missclick. The zealot position its okay because its not easy positioning when game 7 and u panicing ok he is pro but its okay but the probe reaction time also was slow comparated to Bisu i just again have to say like Flash last game against Soma in ASL they are just to old and enough for little bit slowest reaction if these games 10 years ago i cant imagine Soma can win a single game honestly ok probably can but like these no way :D however i completly understand frustrating about this from P players i am also when lost game against z when i played p because ling all in or so was so anyoing.
|
On October 23 2026 15:07 Bonyth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2026 09:37 Xenixx wrote:On October 23 2026 09:04 Darkwhite wrote:On October 23 2026 05:27 Xenixx wrote:
There is a randomness to the outcome of the game based on the build(s) chosen or planned, I already account for this, it's one of the many factors why I don't believe the game is imbalanced for Protoss players. I have also already accounted for all of these things here in text. Written plain as day. Random luck or chance is the same for everyone who plays the game. Or are you suggesting Lady Luck only plays for Terran and Zerg?
Except for mirror matchups, the payoff matrices aren't symmetrical. This should be obvious from the roulette example, where luck effectively favors the house. It is true of asymmetric games in general, including PvZ in StarCraft. The only thing that's arguable is whether P or Z has the "house advantage" and how big it is. To give a concrete example of how your challenge is incoherent, take some Protoss moving out with the first 3 Zealots to scout and/or apply pressure to the Zerg. Assume he loses them all, trading for like 5 Zerglings. In the context of that individual game, this obviously looks like a mistake, but it doesn't make any sense to evaluate the decision in isolation. It has to be evaluated against the distribution of strategies that Zergs tend to play, e.g. pure eco that needs to be pressured and hydra busts that need to be scouted before the first Corsair. Is moving out with the first 3 Zealots always a mistake? Always correct? Usually a mistake, except against some particular Zergs which tend to be greedy? Correct if it works and a mistake if it doesn't, despite the Protoss not having enough information and being forced to guess? Nobody knows the true answer. It's a function of Zerg players' habits, which is itself a moving target. So trying to take any particular replay and adjudicating which player made the fewest mistakes and deserved to win is never going to work, unless you already understand the matchup and the balance on such an extremely fine grained level that you can authoritatively say that blindly moving out with 3 Zealots is a misplay. And if you do have that understanding, that specific game isn't going to tell you anything you don't already know. So this is just a you problem, you don't have the framework or skillset to analyze. You can't gather and examine evidence, you can't ask critical questions, you can't look for a link and you can't form or explain your logic. What's that supposed to mean to me? I know I can do it, I know other people can do it. Why do you believe in something you believe you can't tell whether it actually exists or not? Why am I on a video game forum talking to people who have a faith based position about a competitive game and exhibit magical thinking. This reminds me of Bisu vs Soma ASL game set 7. Soma goes for a rather early extractor (the game is being played on that 2 player map with 2 gases in main). Because of the nature of Soma's build, the probe is denied, protoss sits in his wall. And there, as you mentioned, Bisu the progamer, tries to gather and examine evidence, by moving a single unit out of his natural wall-in just by a little bit, to see if more units are streaming in. Maybe for this reason or not, Bisu ultimately fails to close his 1,5 zealot gap (lings cannot go through if zealot is perfectly positioned in the middle). Now, you can say that it was Bisu's error and it was. However, this is just one of many opportunities that zerg has to win the game right away. Protosses hardly have that against zerg. You tend to say, that the balance depends on the maps and in theory, you are right. You can make island maps, maps with neutral d-webs everywhere, and protoss win rate will improve (ever wondered why they introduced such maps? Vieriety? Or protoss needed to look better?). So, in my opinion, the current understanding of a standard map unfavors protoss. In another response you say that if one thinks game is imbalanced, one cannot improve (or slower). Half-true. If one doesn't believe skill triumphs over imbalance, the one is stuck. I believe that skill is more important than anything, but I also believe that if you take 3 equally skilled people, and tell them to play all 3 different races, after 3 years of playing the protoss player will be the best out of the 3; after 15 years the protoss player will get the worst win rate. Now, if the protoss player practises for 5 more years (or gets a 5 year head start), there is a good chance he will be the best out of the 3.
Seems to me, Terrans have most of the same problems in TvZ, and this has come up before, and in ZvZ this scenario is also a thing. We don't call it racial imbalance in either of those two cases, one for obvious reasons. Apparently we don't even call it a problem because that's just Zerg. They do play differently than the other two races.
Take your scenario and put it on an island map. That scenario does not exist any longer. Zergs ability to dictate the early game just totally evaporated. We could be really egregious and just take Zerg out of the tournament all together with maps with no natural expansion, and infinite or fastest type minerals in the mains. Zerg is severely hampered on fastest type maps, all the win rates show it. Clearly the map plays a major role not limited to theory. I always look at the win rates for races on maps during & after ASL, because that's always a viable statistic, let me remind you that this season was supposed to have Protoss favored maps. They didn't have the qualifiers on those maps and it didn't pan out that way. That doesn't mean that the maps were definitely P favored and there's racial imbalance or something else going on, it clearly, very simply, means that people were just wrong about the maps. A racial imbalance, by its' very nature, would transcend the maps, all the other factors, because it's an inherent problem with the race, not the map the matchup is being played on. From what I've read here from other people, they're trying to change what balance means and they're, in two cases, straight up equating other problems, like Slayer91 did with map design, to an inherent racial imbalance. I'll put anyone who actually believes that out to pasture.
Map designers know this type of thing as well and they try to design maps that are much more equal in chance to win compared to what I grew up playing with. So I don't have any problem saying they went too far on recent maps-- and by recent, I mean, few years or so --making Zerg way too safe, they did, and they do, but that doesn't explain why Protoss pros are playing poorly and they are playing poorly. They are playing poorly in PvT and often in PvP as well. This reminds me of JinJin's recent video about the state of Protoss showing their #5 ranked player, Tulbo, looking... well, like he did in the clips. If you've seen it, no explanation from me is necessary. That's what I'm constantly getting at. Why do we expect people to win and advance when they're making bad decisions and playing poorly? The last few seasons that this talk has become increasingly louder, not once have there been Protoss players playing at a championship level against Zerg. Perhaps not literally, just that I can remember but I'm no encyclopedia. No question in my mind, there's no racial imbalance, they change these maps around instead and Protoss win rates will go up. On Aiolos, for example, Protoss dominated the match up. A 60% win rate in PvZ indicates favorability for Protoss.
There are a lot of factors involved like that too, not just maps, because of the structure of the tournament (ASL), which I haven't had a chance to talk about until now, Bo1 matches will drive win rates down or at least make things look worse than they actually are. It wouldn't look so bad for Protoss if we started at Bo3 instead, but they're making a television product first and foremost, I get it. They have limitations and that's never going to happen. There will be no Protoss champion unless by some miracle they get through to the Ro4 and never play a Zerg. Because Bisu and Mini are making poor decisions and getting caught consistently. If we're looking at outcomes as evidence then there are only about 10 or 15 different factors that obviously explain it before we even get to the idea of an imbalance in the races.
It's not unlike now with these variations on the Bisu build; that has been cracked because it has limitations. No Protoss does anything different or even thinks about the game differently. As a group of players, they are stagnant, stale and stuck. Their opponents read and predict them so effortlessly. They were in this position before, as you know. It's like late 19th century physics, if you've never heard the story, the people in the field considered it solved. Then there was a discovery and the landscape was suddenly wide open. That landscape in BW could be the maps or the strategy/builds but there's just no indication that the game is solved and it's impossible for Protoss because they're inherently disfavored. Maybe there's nothing to be done, I don't know, I'm not going to re-invent the race in a game I haven't played competitively for 10+ years. It's not up to me, it's up to the top-billed Protoss talent.
I never played at the highest levels of SCBW, at least not at a korean level, I did great for a white guy, but I did play at the highest levels in counterstrike, dota and league, and, in all my years of competing at all these different games I have never seen anyone at the top exhibit this defeated mindset. I have never seen anyone improve or even play well competitively who does. They all get hard stuck at low ranks and they dwindle, stagnate and often disappear.
And to their credit, korean starcraft pros don't either. The top guys are usually doing something new year after year, Flash always was.
|
Well, now you get to know me, unless you don't count non-korean leagues.
|
United Kingdom1744 Posts
On October 22 2026 04:11 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 03:01 ImbaTosS wrote:
Anyone hijacking this thread with debating whether the game is balanced, please don't. This wasn't about balance, it was about whether we care about balance, and if so, why, and to what extent. It's nice that so many people have taken this in the spirit intended, and I really really don't want this to be a fucking "is the game balanced" debate thread.Those suck. ....what were you expecting?
Heh well, yes I naturally expected some of this. But I got more interesting responses than I had bargained for as well, so it's worthwhile.
|
to answer the original question i quote a post i wrote last month:
On September 18 2026 11:45 quaristice wrote:
it doesnt really matter if protoss is bad or not. the game is good, all the matchups are still entertaining, and protoss still has a chance in general regardless.
plenty of games with much worse faction/character balance stay competitive and stay hype for 20+ years.
the game is good, it's fun, it's good to watch, it's good to think about
if starcraft 1 came out and the only matchup it included was tvt or zvz it would still easily clear every other rts that's ever come out
|
On October 23 2026 17:13 Xenixx wrote:
Take your scenario and put it on an island map. That scenario does not exist any longer. Zergs ability to dictate the early game just totally evaporated. We could be really egregious and just take Zerg out of the tournament all together with maps with no natural expansion, and infinite or fastest type minerals in the mains. Zerg is severely hampered on fastest type maps, all the win rates show it. Clearly the map plays a major role not limited to theory. I always look at the win rates for races on maps during & after ASL, because that's always a viable statistic, let me remind you that this season was supposed to have Protoss favored maps. They didn't have the qualifiers on those maps and it didn't pan out that way. That doesn't mean that the maps were definitely P favored and there's racial imbalance or something else going on, it clearly, very simply, means that people were just wrong about the maps. A racial imbalance, by its' very nature, would transcend the maps, all the other factors, because it's an inherent problem with the race, not the map the matchup is being played on. From what I've read here from other people, they're trying to change what balance means and they're, in two cases, straight up equating other problems, like Slayer91 did with map design, to an inherent racial imbalance. I'll put anyone who actually believes that out to pasture.
Map designers know this type of thing as well and they try to design maps that are much more equal in chance to win compared to what I grew up playing with. So I don't have any problem saying they went too far on recent maps-- and by recent, I mean, few years or so --making Zerg way too safe, they did, and they do, but that doesn't explain why Protoss pros are playing poorly and they are playing poorly. They are playing poorly in PvT and often in PvP as well. This reminds me of JinJin's recent video about the state of Protoss showing their #5 ranked player, Tulbo, looking... well, like he did in the clips. If you've seen it, no explanation from me is necessary. That's what I'm constantly getting at. Why do we expect people to win and advance when they're making bad decisions and playing poorly? The last few seasons that this talk has become increasingly louder, not once have there been Protoss players playing at a championship level against Zerg. Perhaps not literally, just that I can remember but I'm no encyclopedia. No question in my mind, there's no racial imbalance, they change these maps around instead and Protoss win rates will go up. On Aiolos, for example, Protoss dominated the match up. A 60% win rate in PvZ indicates favorability for Protoss.
You can tone down your "enthusiasm" mate. "Put anyone out to pasture" lol. What are you? Starcraft Punisher?
So, like I suspected, we are just mostly arguing over semantics. You like to talk about balance in total isolation. Most people refer to balance on the underlying current map designs.
Also it seems to me that you, like many, are heavily affected by those jinjin videos, which maybe unintentionally agenda-driven. So you seem to absorb and believe a lot of misinformation:
- The maps last season were not supposed to favor Protoss, despite the claim/lie of the map selector. All they tried to do was put in Odyssey RE, which they didn't even know would favor Protoss or not, while still keeping the two proven Protoss graveyards Octagon and Attitude. Anyone with basic human thinking skill would know that's not helping Protoss (apparently map selector didn't)
- Aiolos is only 54.7% in PvZ from jack tier and above (ASL level)
- Tulbo is not #5 Protoss. Never have been. That claims is purely for meme purpose by jinjin. Claiming Tulbo as #5 Protoss because he had one good ASL (because of a favorable run) is just like claiming Leta as #4 Terran or so. #5 is Rain regardless of activity, #6 and #7 are still Stork and Shuttle. Tulbo just share the #8 spot with the likes of Motive, Paralyze,...
Finally, you keep making the same mistake: you can't claim that players of a race play poorly without proving the matchup is balanced first. That they often play poorly or make more mistakes could be a result of matchup imbalance. A very obvious example: if on a map, the typical win rate for standard play is very bad, players will have to gamble or cheese to get advantage, and when it fails, it would look as if they're playing poorly. We saw that multiple times with 12 Nexus attempts from Protoss last season. You said it yourself above: if there's no nat expansion, Zerg will just resort to all sorts of gimmick plays and mostly fail spectacularly. Does that count as playing poorly?
|
Bisu just destroyed Soma in sponsored match.
Imbalance my ass.
What is really concerning are same old faces in every ASL and every proleague.
Even Soma is 31.
|
sponsored match doesn't mean shit though
it s like friendly match in soccer
|
On October 25 2026 19:18 winson wrote:
sponsored match doesn't mean shit though
it s like friendly match in soccer
yes, because they aren't trying when money is on the line right? its only asl that matters right? twice a year, and btw for much less money than daily proleagues
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES51706 Posts
sponmatches is what a lot of these players care about, even more than ASL. this is how they make their money on a daily basis.
|
On October 24 2026 19:26 Soft_General_5023 wrote:
Bisu just destroyed Soma in sponsored match.
Imbalance my ass.
What is really concerning are same old faces in every ASL and every proleague.
Even Soma is 31.
Bisu just destroy almost everyone when he almost only played ums called maple defense on some point. I mean he is one of the best rts player for me but still i would think twice if I were in the shoes of those who say zerg imba. So this is just further proof that they don't have much sense :D + complemented by players age = so funny what is imba and what is not.
|
On October 25 2026 23:43 sas.Sziky wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2026 19:26 Soft_General_5023 wrote:
Bisu just destroyed Soma in sponsored match.
Imbalance my ass.
What is really concerning are same old faces in every ASL and every proleague.
Even Soma is 31.
Bisu just destroy almost everyone when he almost only played ums called maple defense on some point. I mean he is one of the best rts player for me but still i would think twice if I were in the shoes of those who say zerg imba. So this is just further proof that they don't have much sense :D + complemented by players age = so funny what is imba and what is not.
Oh, I think this argument that Protoss is uniquely disfavored, especially against Zerg, has completely shown their ass in this thread. All we had to do was give them enough rope to hang themselves by talking about their position, after they spent months dodging talking about it.
The best they were able to come up with why they believe it is because they 1). They expect equal representation from all races in tournament championships, because individual skill doesn't matter and 2). They shift the goal posts constantly, now, they're claiming race imbalance is something else. Then there's a huge gap and you get to some amalgamation of magical thinking where it's both clear and present, and yet invisible and no evidence exists or could exist. No evidence, no games to talk about, no arguments, nothing. One can only hope that this puts this nonsense to bed for a while but for that to happen, they'd have to be reasonable people.
Yes, the game is balanced and that is of utter import to watching it, let alone playing it. The balance is probably the only thing keeping SCBW going after 25 years.
|
On October 26 2026 04:31 Xenixx wrote:
One can only hope that this puts this nonsense to bed for a while but for that to happen, they'd have to be reasonable people.
Wow. Thank you so much for single-handedly settling the balance debate. No one has ever been able to do it but here you are, solving the issue with utter delusion. Masterpiece.
|
Tvz, zvz and zvp used to be my favorite matches to watch. It's easily my least favorite matches nowadays for obvious reasons.
It gets to the point where the issues are so glaring it's hard to enjoy it. This season's ASL was rough with all ZvZ it was hard to get excited.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
