Second most is that he seems to think pressing "c" to cloak a banshee is micro.
Wtf is that?
Forum Index > SC2 General |
bovineblitz
United States314 Posts
Second most is that he seems to think pressing "c" to cloak a banshee is micro. Wtf is that? | ||
kochujang
Germany1226 Posts
On June 13 2011 12:22 bovineblitz wrote: Honestly the most disturbing thing to me is that Browder thinks a blink stalker can outmicro a marauder and win. Second most is that he seems to think pressing "c" to cloak a banshee is micro. Wtf is that? It IS micro. Pressing A to build a marine is macro. He stated the obvious, but now I'm not so sure how obvious it is. | ||
kochujang
Germany1226 Posts
On June 13 2011 11:35 Doc Daneeka wrote: i just find it weird that some of the main problems people have with sc2 are that it doesn't share brood war's technological and design limitations. like 'hey you know how to make sc2 better? make the pathing AI retarded just like in brood war!'... and you know, various other artificial limitations. i have a lot of respect for the mechanical geniuses that can thrive in a clunky game like brood war, but freaking come on. i kinda like to relate to my experience as a musician. which instrument is harder to play - trumpet or piano? well i challenge you to pick up a trumpet and play a high c above the staff, and if you can indeed reach that high c, then i challenge you to play it without it sounding like a leprechaun farting. a high c on the piano, on the other hand, is the easiest thing in the world. you just press it - the piano is all buttons, and when you press it, the piano plays the note for you. but because piano is so theoretically and physically simple and elegant, the pianist is free to play crazy complicated stuff with both hands that is physically impossible on most other instruments. so basically what i'm saying is uh if you think you've got apm to burn, find something to spend it on. I like this analogy. Starcraft 1 & 2 is more similar than piano and trumpet, but that doesn't really detract from what you want to say. | ||
bovineblitz
United States314 Posts
On June 13 2011 12:26 kochujang wrote: Show nested quote + On June 13 2011 12:22 bovineblitz wrote: Honestly the most disturbing thing to me is that Browder thinks a blink stalker can outmicro a marauder and win. Second most is that he seems to think pressing "c" to cloak a banshee is micro. Wtf is that? It IS micro. Pressing A to build a marine is macro. He stated the obvious, but now I'm not so sure how obvious it is. Cloak isn't micro, it's an ability. Micro would be kiting marines. | ||
kochujang
Germany1226 Posts
On June 13 2011 12:30 bovineblitz wrote: Show nested quote + On June 13 2011 12:26 kochujang wrote: On June 13 2011 12:22 bovineblitz wrote: Honestly the most disturbing thing to me is that Browder thinks a blink stalker can outmicro a marauder and win. Second most is that he seems to think pressing "c" to cloak a banshee is micro. Wtf is that? It IS micro. Pressing A to build a marine is macro. He stated the obvious, but now I'm not so sure how obvious it is. Cloak isn't micro, it's an ability. Micro would be kiting marines. Using abilities is micro. It is what you do with your units. Sieging up is micro, blink is micro, using PDD is micro, hell, even harvesting is micro. | ||
Zanno
United States1484 Posts
On June 13 2011 07:46 Karthane wrote: you know what zerg used to tank damage for their main damage dealers in brood war?In regards to people saying the roach and marauder are uninteresting, i see how that may be true but every single unit in the game doesn't have to do some cool thing or some interesting spell. The races need that core "meaty" unit that can deal decent damage and be the brunt of their army. I think the main problem obviously lies within the collosus. The unit itself is pretty uninteresting, but because of how powerful it is, it forces units that are made to counter it, intern creating more uninteresting units. The corruptor, in my opinion, is flat out the worst unit in the game. It's only really good against the collosus and phoenix. It fails against void rays and is essentially useless there are collosi. Blizzard just needs to take a good hard look at the collosus and the units that revolve around it's purpose, and go back to the drawing board. zerglings | ||
Antisocialmunky
United States5912 Posts
On June 13 2011 12:34 Zanno wrote: Show nested quote + you know what zerg used to tank damage for their main damage dealers in brood war?On June 13 2011 07:46 Karthane wrote: In regards to people saying the roach and marauder are uninteresting, i see how that may be true but every single unit in the game doesn't have to do some cool thing or some interesting spell. The races need that core "meaty" unit that can deal decent damage and be the brunt of their army. I think the main problem obviously lies within the collosus. The unit itself is pretty uninteresting, but because of how powerful it is, it forces units that are made to counter it, intern creating more uninteresting units. The corruptor, in my opinion, is flat out the worst unit in the game. It's only really good against the collosus and phoenix. It fails against void rays and is essentially useless there are collosi. Blizzard just needs to take a good hard look at the collosus and the units that revolve around it's purpose, and go back to the drawing board. zerglings Late game zerg didn't need meatshield because it had DARK SWARM. | ||
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On June 13 2011 03:25 theburricane wrote: Design is hard Designing stuff is hard. Designing games is hard, designing thermostats is hard, designing web sites is hard. I think all of us will generally agree that this stuff is hard. But many people don’t know why it’s hard. One of the reasons designing stuff is so hard is because there are no solutions to any problems, at least not in a larger, systemic view. “But theburricane! What about chat channels at release? That seems like a pretty simple freakin’ thing to include that everybody and their dog wanted!” Fair enough, if Blizz had included chat channels at release that would have solved the “have chat channels at release problem”. But if they had spent time on chat channels, something else would have had to fall off the radar. Maybe we would have had no Achievements. “Pffft. Those are unimportant to competitive play.” Perhaps we would have had no FFA matchmaking. “Again, how does that affect the serious gamers?” Maybe it doesn’t. Perhaps we wouldn’t have had the RealID friend system when the game launched. “You mean facebook integration? Guffaw. Puh-lease.” But you see the point? Design is not about solving problems, because those solutions will invariably cause problems elsewhere. Design is about making conscious tradeoffs to address the problems that are most impactful, and address them at the appropriate time. Takeaway 1 I’m not saying “hey man, lay off Blizzard they’re tryin’ real hard here!” They are, but that’s no reason to lay off them. We simply have to sit down and ask, “Why is Blizzard making/not making this change at this time?” I guarantee you the answer is not because they have “bad communication”, are “blinded by their own pride”, or are “[fascinated] with ’meat shield units’.”. Blizzard’s “bad communication” It is easy to interpret good user research as bad communication. Research participants will make suggestions, “I think you should do X here”, but when they see the finished/updated product, their suggestions won’t be included. The designers will have implemented something that addresses that problem in a different way, and all the participant can see is “Well this solution doesn’t fix everything mine did! Why didn’t they go with what I had suggested?” An example: Everybody and their dog says to Blizzard, “You really need to change your maps. Seriously, Steppes of War? Seriously?!” So Blizzard begins to add new maps into their map pool, and look to community feedback as to what maps they would like to see. “GSL maps, of course!” But when we finally get Tal’Darim Altar, it’s got a bunch of destructible rocks and giant chokes and crap. “That’s not what we suggested! This doesn’t solve the problem. Look at LSPrime, he even gave them reasons why they shouldn’t do what they did. And they still did it. That’s aggravating.” (Of course, what LSPrime was arguing for, the imbalance achieved by a 3rd base with 8 minerals 2 gas, is something that will go unfelt by everyone up to very tippy-top of Masters League. How many of us have honestly thought to ourselves, “The third has 8 minerals?! Great, that means I can run Plexa’s Shock and Awe build more effectively once I take it!”, or something similar?) However, from Blizzard’s perspective they are making balancing their solution so that it applies positively to every group. To simplify it, “We are giving the ‘competitive’ players larger maps, and we are giving the ‘casual’ players maps that limit their options enough to suggest clear goals.” Takeaway 2 Think systemically when you encounter a solution different from the one you’ve proposed. Chances are either ‘solves’ the problem in an entirely different way, or it solves problems you didn’t even know existed. Know your audience It is very easy for us at teamliquid to labor under the misapprehension that we make up the majority of the SC2 community. Or that we + the reddit community are the majority. Or that we + all the online SC2 communities are the majority of SC2 players. But the truth is if you walked up to every SC2 player individually and said, “My opening build order is 10 depot, 12 rax, 13 gas” more than half would respond, “Why do you build 10 depots? Don’t you just have one SCV building depots the whole game?” Most SC2 players lack even the basic vocabulary that we as a competitive community have developed as a tool to help us think critically and reflectively about the way we play. Most SC2 players don’t know why Steppes of War was removed, unless they’ve read the Blizzard Situation Report explaining why. They probably had no idea it was blacklisted by thousands of people. Blizzard has the daunting, grizzling task of designing a product that meets the expectations and needs of an infinitely large and diverse user group. All designs suffer from this requirement to varying extent, but Blizzard in particular has a very polar user base. Bronze league 4v4ers versus Grandmasters 1v1 Rank 1. Takeaway 3 When Blizzard designs for their broader user base, it feels like they are not listening to their competitive, online communities. Because we live in our dream world where everyone has a finely-crafted opening BO, aggressive yet thoughtful 3rd base timing, and over-arching gameplan, we can completely ignore the huge number of people who enter a game thinking nothing but “I’m going to make a forge right away so I can get a cannon up in case he zergling rushes me.” When we encounter a decision by Blizzard that impacts us ‘negatively,’ we also need to think about the people who are being affected ‘positively’ and how their experience playing this game is going to change. Overall takeaway I have a lot of respect for sluggaslamoo, who took the time to voice the opinions of many community members. Specifically opnions regarding how Blizzard is out of touch with its player base via poor communication and decision making, even though they think they are right next to us, hwaiting all the way. Although I disagree with him whole-heartedly, I agree that the overall experience TL’ers have expressed, the feelings and emotions they have felt, over the past few months is that whatever Blizzard hands them is 50% treasure, 50% trash. I think this is a mindset problem, however. We need to realize that what we as reflective, competitive gamers define as trash is really treasure for a gigantic number of ‘casual’, one-game-a-day players. They have extremely different needs than we do, and it is something Blizzard owes to everyone who pays them to play their game to provide the best experience possible. They have a duty to systemically support all of their user bases as they continue to design and implement two more expansions. Thanks for this answer, it is well written and thought-out. Putting it in OP, I think that it would be unfair not to, even if I kind of disagree. EDIT: And here is my answer Although this answers the unexpected changes, the willingness to side-track and "share their knowledge of the game" rather than respond to the answer is not something that can be explained through logic, but more or less psychology and attitude. Answers like "We encourage users to go back to BW if they want to" does not help SC2 Progamers in anyway because they can't do that. Meaning that instead of looking at an issue in depth, it will simply be completely ignored. So what was the purpose of the interview in the first place? I believe this is part of the problem. If you look at the poll released by BattleNet, the majority found destructible rocks as "They're annoying. I'd rather focus on the battle than watch rocks, and I don't like losing games because of a map that changes". So then if Blizzard needs to cater to the casuals as well, why were destructible rocks put on Tal Darim? Catering to the casuals is also unnecessary. I have many friends that are extremely casual SC2 players. Will not play 1v1, will only do team mono-battles or starjeweled and left 2 die, to the one game a day semi-competitive players. Although your point addresses the thinking behind blizzard rather than what you actually desire. I know, these guys would not care if there were a change in maps, units, etc. If units got harder, they would just use different ones that were easy to use (e.g lots of zerglings/hydras like beginners in BW). The higher you go, the more changes have an effect. And when part of SC2's longevity is banking on televised games like BW, then I think this is quite important. | ||
happyness
United States2400 Posts
| ||
mrtomjones
Canada4020 Posts
| ||
bovineblitz
United States314 Posts
On June 13 2011 12:33 kochujang wrote: Show nested quote + On June 13 2011 12:30 bovineblitz wrote: On June 13 2011 12:26 kochujang wrote: On June 13 2011 12:22 bovineblitz wrote: Honestly the most disturbing thing to me is that Browder thinks a blink stalker can outmicro a marauder and win. Second most is that he seems to think pressing "c" to cloak a banshee is micro. Wtf is that? It IS micro. Pressing A to build a marine is macro. He stated the obvious, but now I'm not so sure how obvious it is. Cloak isn't micro, it's an ability. Micro would be kiting marines. Using abilities is micro. It is what you do with your units. Sieging up is micro, blink is micro, using PDD is micro, hell, even harvesting is micro. Harvesting is micro? What? Given the nature of the question Browder was answering, what he said came off as ignorant. If you're going to talk about how micro can change a matchup between two units, you should say "a banshee can kite marines and kill a whole group of them" not "banshees can cloak". You shouldn't say a stalker can beat a marauder, that's doesn't even make sense... you can't use blink to help you kill a marauder. Those are the two examples he brought up and they both show a lack of basic understanding. | ||
LuckyMacro
United States1482 Posts
Dustin REVOLUTIONIZING PvT??!/1 | ||
Jojo131
Brazil1631 Posts
On June 13 2011 12:33 kochujang wrote: Show nested quote + On June 13 2011 12:30 bovineblitz wrote: On June 13 2011 12:26 kochujang wrote: On June 13 2011 12:22 bovineblitz wrote: Honestly the most disturbing thing to me is that Browder thinks a blink stalker can outmicro a marauder and win. Second most is that he seems to think pressing "c" to cloak a banshee is micro. Wtf is that? It IS micro. Pressing A to build a marine is macro. He stated the obvious, but now I'm not so sure how obvious it is. Cloak isn't micro, it's an ability. Micro would be kiting marines. Using abilities is micro. It is what you do with your units. Sieging up is micro, blink is micro, using PDD is micro, hell, even harvesting is micro. What you've defined is the technical definition, which holds almost no significance over the coined and more used/accepted definition that does NOT include just "using abilities" such as siege and cloak. If I had to speak for most people, micro would be the movement of units in order to gain a better, positional advantage. The key difference is the ability's function to gain a positional advantage, which is what Blink does and siege/cloak/harvesting arguably do not. | ||
Kenpachi
United States9908 Posts
On June 13 2011 12:53 Jojo131 wrote: Show nested quote + On June 13 2011 12:33 kochujang wrote: On June 13 2011 12:30 bovineblitz wrote: On June 13 2011 12:26 kochujang wrote: On June 13 2011 12:22 bovineblitz wrote: Honestly the most disturbing thing to me is that Browder thinks a blink stalker can outmicro a marauder and win. Second most is that he seems to think pressing "c" to cloak a banshee is micro. Wtf is that? It IS micro. Pressing A to build a marine is macro. He stated the obvious, but now I'm not so sure how obvious it is. Cloak isn't micro, it's an ability. Micro would be kiting marines. Using abilities is micro. It is what you do with your units. Sieging up is micro, blink is micro, using PDD is micro, hell, even harvesting is micro. What you've defined is the technical definition, which holds almost no significance over the coined and more used/accepted definition that does NOT include just "using abilities" such as siege and cloak. If I had to speak for most people, micro would be the movement of units in order to gain a better, positional advantage. The key difference is the ability's function to gain a positional advantage, which is what Blink does and siege/cloak/harvesting arguably do not. correct. he was taking the definition of "Unit Management" too literal :l and can a blink stalker really outmicro a marauder on flatgrounds? o_o.. On June 13 2011 12:45 mrtomjones wrote: Whiner topic.... I think colossus are one of the cooler units and I like roaches and think they suit the zerg very well. I dont understand Roach hate but Colossi make TvP retarded beyond belief (Vikings.. r u 4 rela) ALSO, Browder saying SC2 counters are not as terrible as BW? ?????? ?????? what the fuck | ||
kochujang
Germany1226 Posts
On June 13 2011 12:53 Jojo131 wrote: Show nested quote + On June 13 2011 12:33 kochujang wrote: On June 13 2011 12:30 bovineblitz wrote: On June 13 2011 12:26 kochujang wrote: On June 13 2011 12:22 bovineblitz wrote: Honestly the most disturbing thing to me is that Browder thinks a blink stalker can outmicro a marauder and win. Second most is that he seems to think pressing "c" to cloak a banshee is micro. Wtf is that? It IS micro. Pressing A to build a marine is macro. He stated the obvious, but now I'm not so sure how obvious it is. Cloak isn't micro, it's an ability. Micro would be kiting marines. Using abilities is micro. It is what you do with your units. Sieging up is micro, blink is micro, using PDD is micro, hell, even harvesting is micro. What you've defined is the technical definition, which holds almost no significance over the coined and more used/accepted definition that does NOT include just "using abilities" such as siege and cloak. If I had to speak for most people, micro would be the movement of units in order to gain a better, positional advantage. The key difference is the ability's function to gain a positional advantage, which is what Blink does and siege/cloak/harvesting arguably do not. I did not say just "using abilities". I said using abilities is a part of micro. Anything you do with your units is micro. Moving units? Micro. Positioning your units, sieging up your tanks at a specific location? Micro. Banshee harrass including pressing the c button to cloak at the right moment, and uncloak when leaving? Micro. HuK's hero probe and mineral harrass? Micro. The harvesting part is perhaps not very difficult to perform, but ordering your probe to specific mineral patches so the patches closest to your nexus are harvested first with 2 probes (overriding the probe ai so it does not select a different patch which could be farther away) is micro. | ||
kochujang
Germany1226 Posts
On June 13 2011 13:01 Kenpachi wrote: Show nested quote + On June 13 2011 12:53 Jojo131 wrote: On June 13 2011 12:33 kochujang wrote: On June 13 2011 12:30 bovineblitz wrote: On June 13 2011 12:26 kochujang wrote: On June 13 2011 12:22 bovineblitz wrote: Honestly the most disturbing thing to me is that Browder thinks a blink stalker can outmicro a marauder and win. Second most is that he seems to think pressing "c" to cloak a banshee is micro. Wtf is that? It IS micro. Pressing A to build a marine is macro. He stated the obvious, but now I'm not so sure how obvious it is. Cloak isn't micro, it's an ability. Micro would be kiting marines. Using abilities is micro. It is what you do with your units. Sieging up is micro, blink is micro, using PDD is micro, hell, even harvesting is micro. What you've defined is the technical definition, which holds almost no significance over the coined and more used/accepted definition that does NOT include just "using abilities" such as siege and cloak. If I had to speak for most people, micro would be the movement of units in order to gain a better, positional advantage. The key difference is the ability's function to gain a positional advantage, which is what Blink does and siege/cloak/harvesting arguably do not. correct. he was taking the definition of "Unit Management" too literal :l No, I disagree. It is not too literal, every nuisance you can do with your unit is micro. It doesn't have to be hard, but remembering to actually cloak at specific moments and remembering to uncloak to save energy (which alot of people forget to do) is microing. | ||
Kenpachi
United States9908 Posts
On June 13 2011 13:06 kochujang wrote: Show nested quote + On June 13 2011 13:01 Kenpachi wrote: On June 13 2011 12:53 Jojo131 wrote: On June 13 2011 12:33 kochujang wrote: On June 13 2011 12:30 bovineblitz wrote: On June 13 2011 12:26 kochujang wrote: On June 13 2011 12:22 bovineblitz wrote: Honestly the most disturbing thing to me is that Browder thinks a blink stalker can outmicro a marauder and win. Second most is that he seems to think pressing "c" to cloak a banshee is micro. Wtf is that? It IS micro. Pressing A to build a marine is macro. He stated the obvious, but now I'm not so sure how obvious it is. Cloak isn't micro, it's an ability. Micro would be kiting marines. Using abilities is micro. It is what you do with your units. Sieging up is micro, blink is micro, using PDD is micro, hell, even harvesting is micro. What you've defined is the technical definition, which holds almost no significance over the coined and more used/accepted definition that does NOT include just "using abilities" such as siege and cloak. If I had to speak for most people, micro would be the movement of units in order to gain a better, positional advantage. The key difference is the ability's function to gain a positional advantage, which is what Blink does and siege/cloak/harvesting arguably do not. correct. he was taking the definition of "Unit Management" too literal :l No, I disagree. It is not too literal, every nuisance you can do with your unit is micro. It doesn't have to be hard, but remembering to actually cloak at specific moments and remembering to uncloak to save energy (which alot of people forget to do) is microing. yea i read your explanation and i changed my mind | ||
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On June 13 2011 13:03 kochujang wrote: Show nested quote + On June 13 2011 12:53 Jojo131 wrote: On June 13 2011 12:33 kochujang wrote: On June 13 2011 12:30 bovineblitz wrote: On June 13 2011 12:26 kochujang wrote: On June 13 2011 12:22 bovineblitz wrote: Honestly the most disturbing thing to me is that Browder thinks a blink stalker can outmicro a marauder and win. Second most is that he seems to think pressing "c" to cloak a banshee is micro. Wtf is that? It IS micro. Pressing A to build a marine is macro. He stated the obvious, but now I'm not so sure how obvious it is. Cloak isn't micro, it's an ability. Micro would be kiting marines. Using abilities is micro. It is what you do with your units. Sieging up is micro, blink is micro, using PDD is micro, hell, even harvesting is micro. What you've defined is the technical definition, which holds almost no significance over the coined and more used/accepted definition that does NOT include just "using abilities" such as siege and cloak. If I had to speak for most people, micro would be the movement of units in order to gain a better, positional advantage. The key difference is the ability's function to gain a positional advantage, which is what Blink does and siege/cloak/harvesting arguably do not. I did not say just "using abilities". I said using abilities is a part of micro. Anything you do with your units is micro. Moving units? Micro. Positioning your units, sieging up your tanks at a specific location? Micro. Banshee harrass including pressing the c button to cloak at the right moment, and uncloak when leaving? Micro. HuK's hero probe and mineral harrass? Micro. The harvesting part is perhaps not very difficult to perform, but ordering your probe to specific mineral patches so the patches closest to your nexus are harvested first with 2 probes (overriding the probe ai so it does not select a different patch which could be farther away) is micro. I don't think you understand. It was the fact he answered a question, by making up an answer, rather than saying something he actually knows. This is also a problem because in in-house development, you can't have some guy just making stuff up. Otherwise you will get patches like "Added blink to stalker to help make them more effective against Marauders". This is why understanding the game and listening to the community is so important. Its so they don't make mistakes like these. Edit: Updated the OP with the question instead. Even if Browder segwayed into talking about micro encounters, I hope this clears any confusion. | ||
Jayme
United States5866 Posts
On June 13 2011 07:24 BadgerBadger8264 wrote: People overidealise BW while completely failing to realise starcraft 1 had terrible balance when it was first released; think the beginning of starcraft 2 and multiply it by a 1000. The reason it turned into what BW is now is because of blizzards hard work and dedication over more than 10 years, yet the same people are so quick to dismiss the balance in starcraft 2 after less than a year and before any expansion has been released. Seriously, people, rome wasn't build in a day; SC:BW sure as hell wasn't balanced/super awesome at the start and neither is SC2, but if you think blizzard will suddenly give up on SC2 (like they've never done on any of their games, there is no reason at all to think that) you're just wrong. The main thing that sucks from the transition from SC1 to SC2 is the people; everyone has turned into whiny, demanding and over-entitled people. You are what's wrong with SC2. And you have no clue what you are talking about. BW is balanced primarily because of the maps the community made along with the interesting micro quirks the game engine provides. Do not give Blizzard credit it does not deserve, it does a horrible disservice to the hard work the community put into the game. This argument is also old as hell and has no real bearing. You learn things from balancing something for "over 10 years." As untrue as this actually is Blizzard should have a far more balanced game than it does now. Or maybe listen to the community some more because it's been proven the high tier gamers actually know how to fix the game better than the devs do most of the time. | ||
bovineblitz
United States314 Posts
Apart from balance, the situation where one unit counters another unit is quite serious. This makes it very hard to stage a comeback in games. In Starcraft 1, players could make comebacks through the use of various strategies or through some other means. However, it is very difficult to do make combacks in Starcraft 2. What do you think about this issue? Dustin : That is actually not the case. This situation where one unit counters another unit is not as serious as it was in Starcraft 1. Let's say we have a templar fighting a zergling, and the templar always loses. That's a situation where we really see one unit countering another unit. As of now, the balance between unit-counters and micro is better than in Starcraft 1. I've watched quite a number of tournaments. We have lots of situations where player A wins the first game, and player B comes back to win the second game. Within the games themselves, we also see the advantage keep swinging from one player to another. This shows that the state of Starcraft 2 is not that one sided. Perhaps, the situation in these tournaments are not completely accurate, but from what I see now in the top tournaments, unit counters are actually quite relative. (T/N : I have a feeling this paragraph was translated pretty badly, but I translated it to the best of my abilities. If anyone can do a better job with this question, please don't be shy to contribute.) For example, let's look at a situation where we have banelings fighting against marines. If they were to just clash against each other without any micro, the banelings will definitely kill off a lot of marines. However, if the marines have stim, I believe you can use micro to come out ahead in the engagement. Let's look at another situation, where we have banshees against marines. In a straight up fight, the marines will definitely win the fight. Yet, if the banshee has cloak, the situation would be different. Let's look at yet another situation, marauders against stalkers. If both sides a-move, clearly the marauder will win. However, if the stalker has blink, and uses blink well, the situation might turn out different as well. | ||
| ||
Next event in 2h 22m
[ Submit Event ] |
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games Organizations StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War
StarCraft 2 • Berry_CruncH190 StarCraft: Brood War• Hupsaiya 37 • practicex 19 • OhrlRock 17 • Migwel • aXEnki • Poblha • intothetv • Gussbus • Kozan • IndyKCrew • LaughNgamez Trovo • Laughngamez YouTube League of Legends |
ESL Open Cup
ESL Open Cup
ESL Open Cup
GSL Code S
Maru vs TY
Creator vs SHIN
ESL Pro Tour
ESL Pro Tour
ESL Pro Tour
ESL Pro Tour
Online Event
ESL Pro Tour
[ Show More ] Hatchery Cup
BSL
ESL Pro Tour
Sparkling Tuna Cup
ESL Pro Tour
BSL
ESL Pro Tour
|
|