"Also There's rarely cases to where 1 set of picks actually dominate the board is my biggest problem with Strategic 1v1. In Europe 3v3, there is a dominant set of picks. I think this may be a part of why many competitive players prefer Europe 3v3 to Strategic 1v1, and why being good at Strategic 1v1 does not always mean being good at 3v3 Europe."

Yeah, I will never consider that a benefit for a template. There shouldn't be a dominant set of picks. I'd rather the emphasis be on other skills than picking. Games shouldn't be decided turn 0 with the meat of the game a mere formality.

Purple Illusions is right. Player level does not equate to good play. I'm currently I a 5 vs 5 game, and the 58 and 59 level players have the lowest incomes of anyone on our team,


I always loooove it when someone brings the income argument. This almost makes me believe that those higher level players acutally know what they do.

I'd rather the emphasis be on other skills than picking. Games shouldn't be decided turn 0 with the meat of the game a mere formality.

100% agree. Picking is a valuable part of the game, but it's really the least enjoyable part in my opinion. If there were good strategic auto-dist templates I think I'd prefer them almost every time.

If there were good strategic auto-dist templates I think I'd prefer them almost every time.

Try chess

But more seriously, I prefer manual distribution over auto, because finding best picks is also important part of strategy. Besides, in most cases, there are couple of strategies for every set of warlords, and even best player won't tell you witch picks gives you ultimate victory.

I think this may be a part of why many competitive players prefer Europe 3v3 to Strategic 1v1

I don't know if I'm catching into competitive player definition, but I prefer Strat. 1v1 over Europe. And it's not because I don't know how to play Europe.

Edited 8/8/2015 06:49:00