I find this video very relevant to think about in this game and games like it:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e31OSVZF77w
Basically it explains that games like Chess are considered almost 100%, as balanced as can be. However there are certain disadvantages to this balance, namely that very specific strategies for all situations will appear eventually, and that some people only need to learn and memorise these strategies to win.
However a game with slight imbalance can have an advantage, if done correctly. This is best explained with an example, as given in the video:Unit/Strategy/Hero A
is found to be slightly above average. Players find this and a lot of them adopt this. This then
leads to other players looking for weaknesses, or holes in the unit/strategy. Players then find Unit/Strategy/Hero A
countered with Unit/Strategy/Hero B
. But then the process is repeated, and Unit/Strategy/Hero C
is able to counter Unit/Strategy/Hero B
This is a good thing to think about especially with these games, and why it's awesome
that special units like commanders are being added, because it may allow for this type of scenario. However this will only be the case if more special units are added, and mainly, whether other special units will require a membership to include in games. If it does, there most likely will be quite a few players not experiencing the strategy this allows without having membership players host games for them, and that could be very inconvenient for a lot of 1v1s.
And I know that there are very few strategies that work against most players, including elites, and with no luck it boils down to the best calculations.
That's just my opinion on the subject, and hopefully Fizzer notices and takes note of this or similiar. I'm not making a uservoice or messaging him directly because this is something for the community to discuss.
Edited 1/16/2016 13:25:38