[AtlasMeCH]

Originally Posted by nirvAnA

Of course Starcraft 2 is asymmetrical, that is obvious and there is no point arguing that. You have to communicate your ideas better because focusing on that minute detail is making everyone frustrated when the topic of this thread that should really be

"Does the inherent asymmetry in Starcraft 2 make the game unplayable?"

And the answer is a resounding no. Look at all the GSLs &/ MLGs, the winners have all had their share of different races. These are the highest level players in the world, and even there there is a very delicate balance with the champions races constantly switching, well with perhaps Terran slightly over performing in the GSLs.

But the point is this, even at the highest levels there is no one dominating race. Needless to say for the rest of the world, i.e 99.99% of Starcraft 2 players, there is no imbalance which a more skilled player cannot overcome. Throw in Nestea in every SEA tournament and he will win every competition for the next 3 months. Same can be said for MC or MVP. The point is the slight "imbalances" present now will not affect your game to the point a much more skilled player fails to win and this holds true even all the way from the platinum leagues on NA to the Grandmaster Legues on SEA.

Zerg is harder to master but at the highest levels its incredibly strong. Protoss is the easiest race to learn but has the lowest skill ceiling. Terran requires alot more multi-tasking and unit management then the others. Each race is different and requires different skill sets and its this variety that makes the game fun. Learn to embrace the differences in the races and pick the one you which suits you style. Whining about imbalance instead of using that time to improve yourself is silly and that's why everyone hates "imbalance" whines, especially when they attribute "imbalance" as the reason they are not getting promoted instead of taking responsibility for their own skill levels.

It makes the game lack a balance of adaption in the sense that certain builds are going to dominate and be abused much more then others.

This promotes a lack of incentive for exploring other interesting styles of play that would be potentially viable... until then, players are always going to be funneled in to perfecting the same attack that simply wins games.

Personally, I think you need to give more attention to WHAT I'M providing as a reasonable possibility, rather then just pointing out what i'm not doing to meet your needs exclusively.