Quote (dwalk1989 @ Sep 4 2013 07:27am)
i said symmetrical balance meant there was one race because symmetrical means both sides are exactly the same (and obviously balanced)
whereas asymmetrical would mean each side is arranged differently (like how zerg, protoss, and terran are fundamentally different but are balanced to make the game fair, thus asymmetrical balance).
thats how interpret it anyway...
I think you misunderstood my post.
Blizzard (aka david kim) has always used the term "asymmetrical balance" to describe a situation where Terran can be imba for the first 15 minutes in the game, then protoss imba for the rest of the game
symmetrical is not the same as equivalent
I don't agree with Blizzard, because I do not think that having one race dominate the early/mid game then another race dominate the late game makes for very interesting matches, for both the players and the e-sports spectators
I think having all races being relatively balanced, having strong options in both early, mid and late allows for many more strategies and play-styles, something that sc2 desperately needs
Think TvP (kill the toss before he becomes invincible!) against ZvP (both races are viable late game)