A lot of people will say things like:
All good games must be patched frequently.
StarCraft 2 is not patched frequently.
Therefore, StarCraft 2 is not a good game.
However, "all good games must be patched frequently" is a false statement. What would be a more true statement is something like "all popular mobas are patched frequently" which doesn't contribute anything for us. The StarCraft 2 developers don't aim to appeal to the masses and it is not a moba, so it's pointless to argue using logic like the statements above yet I see people do this all the time.
Another line of thinking people use is something like the following:
A: StarCraft was popular.
B: StarCraft stopped being patched incredibly frequently.
C: StarCraft was no longer popular.
StarCraft no longer being patched incredibly frequently caused StarCraft to become unpopular. Or, "B occurred, then C occurred, therefore B caused C."
However, there's no evidence (that I've seen) to support this specific idea nor to support similar logic.
Example of this: "I walk into a store and buy a pizza. When I get back to my car it starts raining. Therefore, because I bought a pizza, it rained." It just doesn't make sense.
It's also faulty logic to claim without evidence that "if A, then B" such as "if Swarm Hosts get nerfed, the game will be more balanced." There's no reasoning behind that statement, you have to back it up with something. With replays, with discussion, and with testing out a change in a small, test tube environment. And even then, with game updates, player feedback should probably be factored into whether or not a change like this should occur, and most player feedback that involves discussions (that I've seen) about this end up concluding with the idea that Swarm Hosts are necessary to keep players from playing ultra-passively, give Zerg players a way to siege a heavily entrenched opponent, to keep Mech and turtle playstyles in check, so on.
And before someone else says it: Learn what the word viable means for Pete's sake please.