Congrats, you quoted what was perhaps among the nicest things you said that whole thread. Here are some of the rest:
0. Simple curiosity that voobly has messages in their channel stating that they have no funds left, encouraging people to donate and subscribe, and when they do receive funding they invest it into something which no one has show any interest in playing. Something didn't seem right, so I was trying to understand the thought process/logic behind that decision.
Since the TAC tournament, how many games have been played on the balance patch? Now, as a percentage of total games played on the RM 1v1 and RM TG ladders, what % were played on the balance patch?
We know roughly the answer, I would just like to know how many 0s to use. 0.01%? 0.001%?
And if you are going to invest time and resources into something, does it not make sense to check first if that investment will pay off?
I think that with regards to game balance, ES made by orders of magnitude the best possible change status. The imbalances of today are the result of 15 years of optimization. That the game is as balanced as it is after this period is beyond remarkable. I think that your balance patch, after 15 years of optimization, wouldn't hold a candle to what ES did.