Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiba
The only issue with patrikcs set is the fort aspect. As a set of stats on face value they are balanced. Intact there has been very little mentioned about changes, just the style of play they represent. But this leads more to my point that people have massive variations on opinion on a single set so how could 2 sets be open to public voting. People always want a personal advantage, so they will pick at things in stats to better themselves rather than thinking of the bigger picture
|
This is actually quite right. The balancing is decent, some small issues, but I guess they know about it. The fort aspect is what's bothering quite a lot of ppl.
Not sure if voteing would be the way to go, but maybe the #stats channel or get a bigger stats team from various alliances would be a better way to sort stats? This have been brought up before, just having one guy(+ Jintao checking them) isn't the best solution. Propose a set, get feedback from an "appointed" team, edit before releasing. The forum isn't really well suited for stats discuission.
This might not be 100% accurate, but from talks I had with ppl then P3N, Norse, CT, Ult (based on comments of possible tactics, they might be happy with the tactic) isn't particular happy with the stats. This is 4 out of top 5 from last round. Not sure Norse deserves to be mentioned with the rest as a serious alliance, but 3 out of 4 top alliances then.