|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
The All In Manifesto
I suppose, in a way, everyone wants this. I mean, not everyone wants to all-in-- but if you're playing Sc2 regularly, even if you're not actively trying to move up the ladder, if you're not in GM league, you certainly wouldn't mind being promoted. This is the case for me now, and has been the case since I've been in Gold League. I always wanted to get better, and to get promoted. I wanted that Eagle, that Diamond, that Star emblem. And if you want to get promoted... well, there's basically two ways to go about it. You can get better or you can all-in.
I guess it's worth distinguishing getting better from getting promoted, then, because they certainly aren't the same thing. Yes, they're related, and in theory they're the same, but we tend to have a very specific definition of "better", more specific than "winning games". After all, even if you lose to a 1 base allin that you failed to scout or hold, you won't definitively say your opponent was better- he may have just used a coinflippy build, after all. But really, it doesn't matter who's better when you meet on the ladder. the only thing that matters is who gains points at the end of the match.
So what do we mean when we say that someone is "better"? Well, typically, we mean that they have a good combination of Sc2-related skills including mechanics, build orders, game sense, macro and micro skills, scouting, etc that let him win games. Playing a single game against someone and winning doesn't necessarily make you a better player overall-- it just means you beat him in one game. In fact, even beating a player consistently doesn't necessarily mean you're better overall. Perhaps ZvP is simply his weakest matchup by a decent amount and PvZ happens to be your strongest matchup by a decent amount. You're certainly better at PvZ than he is at ZvP, but it's still unclear who's a better player. That being said, you and your adversary could play in a round robin with players of similar skills, playing Bo5s, and see who gets the most wins overall across several MUs. That would pretty conclusively and decisively demonstrate who is the better player.
This isn't the same as being in a higher league, though. To understand what that takes, we have to examine how the ladder works. You don't play a round robin with your opponent with Bo5s. In fact, barring certain specific MMR reaches, or perhaps certain times of day, you'll rarely play the same player twice. Your game will be a Bo1. This means that you really only need one build, and you can have a weak matchup and still be successful. All you need to do is win a single game. One game, against one faceless opponent, and you'll probably never see him again.
Winning a single Bo1 against an opponent who has never seen you before and will likely never see you again is very different than being "better" than said opponent. All you need to do is outplay his response to your play. Whereas being "better" than an opponent requires a broad cross-section of skills, or at the very least, a large variety of well-practiced all-ins, beating someone once requires only one skillset, if you really want to do it in the easiest way possible. You can take him down with 1-base or perhaps 2-base play.
Your opponent, you see, likely spends his time broadening his skillset, learning how to use all his units, how to scout, how to macro off 4 bases, whatever. If you engage him in a macro game, you'll need to be able to overcome him in enough of these fields (macro, micro, decisionmaking, expanding, composition, etc) in an overwhelming enough fashion to beat him. It'll be an engagement of your Sc2 command toolboxes, so to speak.
However, with the same amount of effort it takes to beat the average opponent (below high Master), you can instead focus on certain core aspects of your play: 1 base macro, the build order for your all-in, and unit control. Someone with a lesser skill level can still execute a substantially stronger 4-warpgate attack or 1-1-1 all-in because of the reduced APM and learning required for a 1-base build. It'll still take lots of work, mind you-- but you'll have focused all your experience into this one kind of scenario, whereas your opponent has only spent some of his time learning to defend an all-in. You will be a specialist fighting a generalist.
You're beginning to understand it now (if you didn't already)-- as a specialist, you're much stronger and more experienced in the all-in situation than your adversary is defending it. Since you're not at the top of the ladder, he WILL have holes in his play. More often than not, he will fail to defend your all-in. Sure, some players will have the skills to deflect your all-in, but most will crumble before you.
And you'll still improve, too, you know. Your 1-base and 2-base macro will become crisp and perfect. The timings for your build will become part of you. You'll understand your all-in far better than your opponent will understand his defense.This happened to me as I played over a hundred Thorship games. The build became so basic to me that my micro improved. My opponents were lost, flailing in the dark, compared to my slick understanding and control of the situation.
Maybe your 3 Gate VR all-in is a cheese. Maybe that baneling bust is an abomination against mankind. Maybe that proxy thor would make your grandmother cry.
They'll be mad, too. Some of them, at least. You could laugh at them. But that's not what we're here for. You're not a BMer.
At the same time, do not apologize for what you are. You will pull no punches.
You, and I, we are brothers. We are
All In
...proudly.
 
|
I cannot support this.
Where is the fun in beating the same old build into the ground over and over just so you can squeeze out more wins than you're actually worth?
Maybe that's for some people, but not for me.
|
5/5. Because while it doesn't make you a technically better player, or improve you, as someone I look up to said "In tournaments it doesn't matter how you win, so long as you do. If that takes an all-in, so be it."
|
A win is a win is a win. If a "better" player doesn't scout my all in, what's to say he's better? There is NO strategy in starcraft 2 which is unbeatable; you win games because you played that game better than your opponent. So what if your game plan ends earlier on than his? Your game is yours, and his points too.
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
On March 24 2012 03:52 ClysmiC wrote:
I cannot support this.
Where is the fun in beating the same old build into the ground over and over just so you can squeeze out more wins than you're actually worth?
Maybe that's for some people, but not for me.
1) All-inning is not only fun, it is HILARIOUS.
2) If I earn the wins, I am "worth" them. A win doesn't care how you got it; a win is a win.
3) There is no three, but a list that's two entries long is kinda lame.
|
I'd rather just get better.
|
On March 24 2012 04:04 Cycle wrote:
A win is a win is a win. If a "better" player doesn't scout my all in, what's to say he's better? There is NO strategy in starcraft 2 which is unbeatable; you win games because you played that game better than your opponent. So what if your game plan ends earlier on than his? Your game is yours, and his points too.
What he said.
|
I love aggressive openings that must do damage for the game to continue.
If you can expect to do at least some of that damage, though, it's not really an all-in!
|
On March 24 2012 04:04 Cycle wrote:
A win is a win is a win. If a "better" player doesn't scout my all in, what's to say he's better? There is NO strategy in starcraft 2 which is unbeatable; you win games because you played that game better than your opponent. So what if your game plan ends earlier on than his? Your game is yours, and his points too.
He's still gonna be better than you in the long run. Lets say you had to play that player a total of 10 times, and your allin works the first game like expected, and then proceeds to lose the next 9 in a row because he expects and scouts it perfectly every game after the 1st, do you still consider yourself on par with that player because you managed to trick him 1 time only?
On March 24 2012 04:05 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 03:52 ClysmiC wrote:
I cannot support this.
Where is the fun in beating the same old build into the ground over and over just so you can squeeze out more wins than you're actually worth?
Maybe that's for some people, but not for me. 1) All-inning is not only fun, it is HILARIOUS. 2) If I earn the wins, I am "worth" them. A win doesn't care how you got it; a win is a win. 3) There is no three, but a list that's two entries long is kinda lame.
If your opponent wasnt able to scout your build, then I wouldnt say thats earning a win moreso than it is getting lucky. What did you earn if it only relies on being scouted or not? A win may be a win, but it definitely is not always "earned"
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
On March 24 2012 04:05 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 03:52 ClysmiC wrote:
I cannot support this.
Where is the fun in beating the same old build into the ground over and over just so you can squeeze out more wins than you're actually worth?
Maybe that's for some people, but not for me. 1) All-inning is not only fun, it is HILARIOUS. 2) If I earn the wins, I am "worth" them. A win doesn't care how you got it; a win is a win. 3) There is no three, but a list that's two entries long is kinda lame.
Okay, I've got a new answer for #3.
+ Show Spoiler +
As you can see, all my all-in wins have a nearly undetectable "taint" on them. This taint cannot be removed and will stain me, and my laddering career, forever.
I have to bear this burden alone. I shall retire for some time-- carry on, gentlemen.
|
I've got your back bro. If I'm not enjoying the game, I go Thor rush people and giggle for a couple hours straight.
|
On March 24 2012 04:24 eXigent. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 04:04 Cycle wrote:
A win is a win is a win. If a "better" player doesn't scout my all in, what's to say he's better? There is NO strategy in starcraft 2 which is unbeatable; you win games because you played that game better than your opponent. So what if your game plan ends earlier on than his? Your game is yours, and his points too. He's still gonna be better than you in the long run. Lets say you had to play that player a total of 10 times, and your allin works the first game like expected, and then proceeds to lose the next 9 in a row because he expects and scouts it perfectly every game after the 1st, do you still consider yourself on par with that player because you managed to trick him 1 time only? Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 04:05 Blazinghand wrote:On March 24 2012 03:52 ClysmiC wrote:
I cannot support this.
Where is the fun in beating the same old build into the ground over and over just so you can squeeze out more wins than you're actually worth?
Maybe that's for some people, but not for me. 1) All-inning is not only fun, it is HILARIOUS. 2) If I earn the wins, I am "worth" them. A win doesn't care how you got it; a win is a win. 3) There is no three, but a list that's two entries long is kinda lame. If your opponent wasnt able to scout your build, then I wouldnt say thats earning a win moreso than it is getting lucky. What did you earn if it only relies on being scouted or not? A win may be a win, but it definitely is not always "earned"
I do believe OP was talking about playing on the ladder. So unless you meet him 10 times in a row on the ladder...
The fact was also conceded that you will play people who can defend and something along the lines of kudos was given to them. (I think)
|
On March 24 2012 04:33 MaximusT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 04:24 eXigent. wrote:On March 24 2012 04:04 Cycle wrote:
A win is a win is a win. If a "better" player doesn't scout my all in, what's to say he's better? There is NO strategy in starcraft 2 which is unbeatable; you win games because you played that game better than your opponent. So what if your game plan ends earlier on than his? Your game is yours, and his points too. He's still gonna be better than you in the long run. Lets say you had to play that player a total of 10 times, and your allin works the first game like expected, and then proceeds to lose the next 9 in a row because he expects and scouts it perfectly every game after the 1st, do you still consider yourself on par with that player because you managed to trick him 1 time only? On March 24 2012 04:05 Blazinghand wrote:On March 24 2012 03:52 ClysmiC wrote:
I cannot support this.
Where is the fun in beating the same old build into the ground over and over just so you can squeeze out more wins than you're actually worth?
Maybe that's for some people, but not for me. 1) All-inning is not only fun, it is HILARIOUS. 2) If I earn the wins, I am "worth" them. A win doesn't care how you got it; a win is a win. 3) There is no three, but a list that's two entries long is kinda lame. If your opponent wasnt able to scout your build, then I wouldnt say thats earning a win moreso than it is getting lucky. What did you earn if it only relies on being scouted or not? A win may be a win, but it definitely is not always "earned" I do believe OP was talking about playing on the ladder. So unless you meet him 10 times in a row on the ladder... The fact was also conceded that you will play people who can defend and something along the lines of kudos was given to them. (I think)
I wasnt quoting the OP when I stated playing someone 10 times, I was addressing Cycle when he stated a better player losing to an allin might not be a better player. I only quoted Blazinghand regarding him earning wins with an allin , and that I feel if someone lost because they failed to scout an allin, its not really an "earned" win.
|
All-in occurs in real sports too. You converse energy to a point where you access the situation and if you think the odds are in favorite at that point in time you usually commit 100%.
Or am I wrong?
|
On March 24 2012 04:24 eXigent. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 04:04 Cycle wrote:
A win is a win is a win. If a "better" player doesn't scout my all in, what's to say he's better? There is NO strategy in starcraft 2 which is unbeatable; you win games because you played that game better than your opponent. So what if your game plan ends earlier on than his? Your game is yours, and his points too. He's still gonna be better than you in the long run. Lets say you had to play that player a total of 10 times, and your allin works the first game like expected, and then proceeds to lose the next 9 in a row because he expects and scouts it perfectly every game after the 1st, do you still consider yourself on par with that player because you managed to trick him 1 time only?
I wouldn't say it's a "trick". A trick would be like, making a CC first, letting him see it, and when the probe leaves cancel and make 7 rax. Most all ins are just a plan made ahead of time, and just work even better if the opponent is lazy and didn't scout.
Also, just because a player does an all in doesn't mean they're bad, nor does it mean that players who macro are better than players who all in. All inning doens't mean you don't know how to play a macro game either.
|
France12761 Posts
On March 24 2012 04:24 eXigent. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 04:04 Cycle wrote:
A win is a win is a win. If a "better" player doesn't scout my all in, what's to say he's better? There is NO strategy in starcraft 2 which is unbeatable; you win games because you played that game better than your opponent. So what if your game plan ends earlier on than his? Your game is yours, and his points too. He's still gonna be better than you in the long run. Lets say you had to play that player a total of 10 times, and your allin works the first game like expected, and then proceeds to lose the next 9 in a row because he expects and scouts it perfectly every game after the 1st, do you still consider yourself on par with that player because you managed to trick him 1 time only? Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 04:05 Blazinghand wrote:On March 24 2012 03:52 ClysmiC wrote:
I cannot support this.
Where is the fun in beating the same old build into the ground over and over just so you can squeeze out more wins than you're actually worth?
Maybe that's for some people, but not for me. 1) All-inning is not only fun, it is HILARIOUS. 2) If I earn the wins, I am "worth" them. A win doesn't care how you got it; a win is a win. 3) There is no three, but a list that's two entries long is kinda lame. If your opponent wasnt able to scout your build, then I wouldnt say thats earning a win moreso than it is getting lucky. What did you earn if it only relies on being scouted or not? A win may be a win, but it definitely is not always "earned"
I allinned quite a lot in the lower leagues and I've become much better than almost every guy I allinned.
All-in working or not doesn't depend of being scouted or not, that's cheese.
|
On March 24 2012 03:52 ClysmiC wrote:
I cannot support this.
Where is the fun in beating the same old build into the ground over and over just so you can squeeze out more wins than you're actually worth?
Maybe that's for some people, but not for me.
While you cannot support this, I sure can. Let me show you how I know this to be fact.
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/rgBj4.jpg)
As some of you might know, there are a few things going on in this picture. I will break it down for you because I am not only good looking, but exceptionally skilled at powers of logic and deduction. Trust me, I play Mafia, so I know what i'm talking about.
The first, and most forward observation one can make is the fact that I, Jitsu, am holding the All In above my head. You, Clysmic, are not holding it above you're head. Thus, we can deduce that I can support it, and you cannot.
Second, you are frowning, proving my theory that you are upset in you're lack of supporting ability. I would be smiling, but the All In is blocking my face (because I can support it, and because if it wasn't blocking my face, everyone looking at me would run around in a sheer panic at my alarmingly good looks).
Lastly, I can easily justify me squeezing more wins then you. Compare our forearms. I can guarantee I have a stronger squeeze. It doesn't matter if it's wins...oranges...a towel after getting out of the shower. In simple mathematical terms...
Jitsu Squeeze > ClysmiC Squeeze.
If anyone would like to challenge me to a support competition, so be it. Just be aware, that when it comes to my ability to support, I am the jock strap to your pantyhose.
Bring it on.
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
My drawing skills are substantially funnier and more informative.
|
Drawing? What are you talking about? That's security camera footage.
|
As someone who has been on both sides of this, it really comes down to what you want out of the game. I used to consider myself a "macro" player. I would try to get to 3 base minimum, or even 4 in every matchup but pvp. I felt like trying to get most of the tech, have good drop plays, while building a ball of doom was fun and the "skilled" way to go.
However, I started to realize protoss was a race designed around timing attacks. Whether this was intentional or not, it is how the race works best. I started focusing on timing attacks, particularly against zerg. I was 2 base all-ining zerg basicallly every time. My winrate went up against them, and even when I lost, I would tell myself you couldn't win in a macro game against zerg on X map. And maybe it is true.
This got old, though. It stopped being fun. I've been in the top league (except GM) since the game came out. I learned long ago that you don't "get anything" for reaching the top, accumulating ladder points, or having a good win rate. No one gives a shit. Seriously, they don't. So just "winning for the sake of winning" stopped being fun (if it ever was fun). I know there are some people that for them this will never be true. They would cannon rush every single game if it meant they would win. I don't really know what to say to those people, but if they are really having fun, who cares.
I've had the most fun with the game doing a mix of both timing attacks and "long term" plays. I try new builds. In every match-up. I stopped caring if I won or lost, and started caring whether I was having fun with the way I was actually playing. Sure, winning makes things more fun (generally), but you don't get anything. Ladder points are meaningless. So if you only "all-in because winning is all that matters" you might want to re-evaluate why you play this game.
|
This is exactly why having lots of ladder points doesn't make you a better player. This is also exactly why a lesser player can take games off a better player (even at a pro level).
Ladder is a tool to be used to improved, but if you feel bad about losing too many games you can all-in/cheese and get some wins again. Sad but true.
|
This was the key to CombatEX's success. He mastered his cheesy builds and therefore could take games off more skilled players that practiced much more.
I would have to agree that this could work towards augmenting your rank / league!
|
On March 24 2012 04:58 Jitsu wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 24 2012 03:52 ClysmiC wrote:
I cannot support this.
Where is the fun in beating the same old build into the ground over and over just so you can squeeze out more wins than you're actually worth?
Maybe that's for some people, but not for me. While you cannot support this, I sure can. Let me show you how I know this to be fact. As some of you might know, there are a few things going on in this picture. I will break it down for you because I am not only good looking, but exceptionally skilled at powers of logic and deduction. Trust me, I play Mafia, so I know what i'm talking about. The first, and most forward observation one can make is the fact that I, Jitsu, am holding the All In above my head. You, Clysmic, are not holding it above you're head. Thus, we can deduce that I can support it, and you cannot. Second, you are frowning, proving my theory that you are upset in you're lack of supporting ability. I would be smiling, but the All In is blocking my face (because I can support it, and because if it wasn't blocking my face, everyone looking at me would run around in a sheer panic at my alarmingly good looks). Lastly, I can easily justify me squeezing more wins then you. Compare our forearms. I can guarantee I have a stronger squeeze. It doesn't matter if it's wins...oranges...a towel after getting out of the shower. In simple mathematical terms... Jitsu Squeeze > ClysmiC Squeeze. If anyone would like to challenge me to a support competition, so be it. Just be aware, that when it comes to my ability to support, I am the jock strap to your pantyhose. Bring it on.
Lol, not gonna lie, that made me laugh :D
|
Canada15 Posts
To the OP : bravo ! Sometimes I've faced all-inners who were visibly ashamed of their act. They gave me excuses for playing the way they did, which seemed really bizarre.
We're playing a competitive game. If you have a strategy that you think will allow you to beat me, then hit me with it ! I don't want to win merely because you decided a strategy perfectly within the rules would be "unfair" to use. I don't want you to apologize or feel bad if you beat me by finding a hole in my play.
(Note that I do realize ladder isn't the same as a tournament. I don't play in tournaments though, so in terms of competitive play, this is it for me. Can't speak for everyone, obviously).
|
Macro is the same shyt as doing allins. Most macro builds end up with the same stuff in most games. Almost all zergs from nooblet to GM go for Infestor/Broodlords and Protosses go for zealot/stalker/archon/templar/colossi. It's actually the cheesy stuff that makes the game fun such as cool timing attacks with different compositions. I almost always try to cheese, and if it does good damage or simply fails, I'll transition to the much more boring macro-game. I'd rather just successfully cheese every game, much more exciting and less time consuming.
|
|
|
Hell yeah. I'd rather have loads of fun all-inning than play "super serious" and only for improvement. It really seems like a lot of the SC2 player base (at least those expressing themselves online) considers themselves morally superior to the dirty "all inners". They would never lower themselves to playing a cheesy game. I just don't understand why this "NoRush 20 minute " sentiment has been so ingrained into the SC2 players.
Perhaps it makes them feel elite.
|
No, it's just that we don't want to "screw" our opponent. We enjoy the game, and don't care that much about the wins.
|
On March 24 2012 06:10 TORTOISE wrote:
Hell yeah. I'd rather have loads of fun all-inning than play "super serious" and only for improvement. It really seems like a lot of the SC2 player base (at least those expressing themselves online) considers themselves morally superior to the dirty "all inners". They would never lower themselves to playing a cheesy game. I just don't understand why this "NoRush 20 minute " sentiment has been so ingrained into the SC2 players.
Perhaps it makes them feel elite.
What's this idea that people who play macro games don't attack? I play a super agressive style, trying to get advantages at any point I can, yet I don't try to max out my production off of a certain amount of bases and pull all my SCV's at an arbitrary timing to go kill him no matter what.
I can respect an "all-in" that has a reasoning behind it where the player is almost guaranteed a win. Most all-iners aren't that smart though, they're actually just doing dumb coin flips where a player has decided before hand to go all-in regardless of what his opponent is doing.
If you do a shit load of damage with harass and have the unit composition to beat your opponent, by all means add on production and kill him a bit later when his economy starts to hurt his unit count. If he's double expanding without having a significant advantage which allows him to do so, sure, pull some SCV's to guarantee terrible terrible damage.
Don't however do a blind proxy Thor all-in and pretend you won the game because you did something right (talking about ladder, it might be a good counter to a greedy build someone keeps doing in a BoX).
|
Does the end justify the means?
Uh... no. This is a video game. It's meant to have fun.
If winning is all you care about, why not go download some maphacks? I mean the end justifies the means, right?
I continue to rise on the ladder. I know two people who cheese all the time who have been demoted over the seasons. Standard players improve more over time.
|
I'd sign up to this, how often do you see the best players in the world all in in tournaments? I see it all the time.
MC is the master of it, if the opponent has a weakness then you should exploit it as hard as you can.
|
Finally some all-inners have spoken up against some false idea that if everyone on ladder agreed to playing 30min nr games we'd all be mysteriously "better" players and help Foreigner pros win the GSL!
Also, as if anybody cares what your rank is on ladder except for yourself.
|
On March 24 2012 11:06 Mobius_1 wrote:
Finally some all-inners have spoken up against some false idea that if everyone on ladder agreed to playing 30min nr games we'd all be mysteriously "better" players and help Foreigner pros win the GSL!
Also, as if anybody cares what your rank is on ladder except for yourself.
Hmm I wonder if there's some correlation between a filthy cheeser and not giving a shit about ladder ranking. 
I know whenever someone asks me my ranking and I tell them I genuinely don't know, they usually seem pretty confused. And admittedly, I've never been one to object to cheese ! Kinda seems like you're the same. ^^
|
Blazing, I thought this would be a post a about how you played Manifesto7 and he all-ined you. I am disappointed. Showmatch?
On topic, I don't get the idea that someone who all-ins is a worse player than their opponent, or even that they "got lucky". The other player not being able to hold the all-in, or not scouting it far enough ahead of time to stop it is their own fault. As well, unless both players are playing perfectly (which is impossible), the game can be seen as gaining advantages from the opponent's mistakes. If the opponent making a mistake and you taking advantage of it is luck, then the entire game can be seen as luck, in a way.
|
On March 24 2012 11:20 Bibbit wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 11:06 Mobius_1 wrote:
Finally some all-inners have spoken up against some false idea that if everyone on ladder agreed to playing 30min nr games we'd all be mysteriously "better" players and help Foreigner pros win the GSL!
Also, as if anybody cares what your rank is on ladder except for yourself. Hmm I wonder if there's some correlation between a filthy cheeser and not giving a shit about ladder ranking. I know whenever someone asks me my ranking and I tell them I genuinely don't know, they usually seem pretty confused. And admittedly, I've never been one to object to cheese ! Kinda seems like you're the same. ^^
Filthy cheeser who doesn't give a damn about ladder and proud!
But wiggles has a good point, this thread needs more manifesto7.
|
United Kingdom14464 Posts
Not sure what Lupe Fiasco is doing in there, but do love that song.
|
Lame, i thought this was going to be a gallery of Mani cheesing noobs
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
On March 24 2012 20:41 MCDayC wrote:
Not sure what Lupe Fiasco is doing in there, but do love that song.
Whenever I feel like my "Old Man Blazinghand is here to lecture you" style blog posts are getting too long I drop some music in the middle of it to lighten things up.
On March 24 2012 11:30 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
Blazing, I thought this would be a post a about how you played Manifesto7 and he all-ined you. I am disappointed. Showmatch?
On March 24 2012 15:18 Mobius_1 wrote:
But wiggles has a good point, this thread needs more manifesto7.
On March 24 2012 22:38 See.Blue wrote:
Lame, i thought this was going to be a gallery of Mani cheesing noobs
Three requests for Mani? I certainly can't let this pass by. Manifesto7, if you're around, I'd like to challenge you to an awesome Bo7 (or equivalent) showmatch in the streamable game of his choice. If you don't have Sc2, I have BW, but it might be fairer if you off-race ;_;
"But wait," you say, "Manifesto7 is a well-known professional and doesn't have time to play a showmatch with you, Blazinghand. what could you possibly do that could make it worth his while? What's the wager that will bring Mani out of his cave of meditation on top of the tall mountain to take up his sword and do battle once more?"
Thanks for asking! I am not a man of great fiscal means, so I can't really put up much money. I am, however, both an amateur author and an amateur streamer, so I will use that to balance my side of the wager.
Should Manifesto7 win the wager, I will either write a series of short fiction articles featuring him in the situation or plot of his choice, or I will do some hilarious sexy dances in his honor on my stream to the choreography and music of his choice.
The real question is if he is... Mani enough to take up the challenge?
![[image loading]](http://i.minus.com/iUBP2UtMo1zk2.gif)
|
On March 24 2012 11:30 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
Blazing, I thought this would be a post a about how you played Manifesto7 and he all-ined you. I am disappointed. Showmatch?.
Yeah wtf I was sorely disappoint when I opened this thread! I demand a refund of my time.
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
On March 25 2012 06:29 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 11:30 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
Blazing, I thought this would be a post a about how you played Manifesto7 and he all-ined you. I am disappointed. Showmatch?. Yeah wtf I was sorely disappoint when I opened this thread! I demand a refund of my time.
Given that you and I are literally the same person you should not have been dissapointed at all! Don't worry though I have issues a challenge to Mani so we will see if he notices/responds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RSdY6.jpg?1)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aQ4vV.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9wGSZ.png)
