|
On July 09 2014 17:20 endy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2014 16:54 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 14:35 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Let's try again: A club has an infinite skill ceiling. A gun has an infinite skill ceiling. The club is easier to operate than the gun.
Get the picture? And a gun is overpowered compared to a club? Your example only serves to aid to my point that easier and more powerful are the same thing. No, he just showed the club is easier ([to manipulate) yet the gun is more powerful. Just like the race that is the easiest to use is not necessarily the one that will get the better results. That's nonsense then and I misread. Even a retard with a gun given sufficient distance should beat someone with a club. You'd have to throw the club and aim well to hit. The guy with the gun can just shoot.
So you will say that it's easier to kill someone with a gun Yeh.
so I will point you to my post above about the definition of "easy", because clearly that's the source of disagreement here.
To ZERG_RUSSIAN, easy = easy to manipulate/use/choose applicable verb for Gun/Starcraft race/Tricycle/ ...
To you, easy = easy to win a game/kill/ whatever is the final goal. Of course, like I said, if a race is just easy to manipulate, that means you have more time to do other things.
Let's say for sake of argument that Protoss would indeed just be "amove" and you'd win, tha s easy right? Great, so that means that when I play protoss I'm not even going to watch the battle, while I amove and Terran/Zerg micro like mofos I'm multitasking all over the place, zealot runby hero, oracle killing workers there, dts in your base, void rays killing your add ons there all while not missing any macro because my army is super easy, I can just amove.
And what would happen then is that I would always win of course, easy -> more powerful.
In the event that despite all that, it would still be 50/50, in that case Protoss would require via assymetric balance to do that for whatever hypothetical reason. And then the game is both balanced, and both races are as easy as the other.
The skill ceiling of a gun and club isn't infinite by the way, because unlike StarCraft, there isn't always something extra you could do.
|
EVEN IF we take the ridiculous assumption that there is an infinite ceiling for skill, there's still problems with your argument. It's not hard to imagine a race that is extremely complicated to play but is overwhelmingly stronger than another race when played at a sufficiently high level.
We'll use Starcraft as an example.
Imagine that only with perfect micro, at a certain saturation of marines, it becomes impossible for a Zerg player to win a trade given equal resources (time, minerals, gas, etc.). Now, this would be very hard or impossible to pull off for a human. A computer, however, would be able to accomplish this because it can react instantaneously. Even with perfect zergling play, the Zerg player would be overwhelmingly crushed.
The Terran player has a higher skill threshold needed, but is in the end more powerful after that point has been reached. It is "harder" for the Terran to win by our standards, but they are more powerful when played above a certain skill level which must be reached given your ridiculous conditions. I would say that Zerg is "easier" to play because the skill involved doesn't make as much of a difference, but that Terran is "stronger".
Basically, the problem with your entire argument comes down to:
1) There isn't an infinite skill ceiling.
and
2) Even if there was, the likelihood of this game being balanced at an extreme level is ridiculous.
|
On July 09 2014 17:42 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Of course, like I said, if a race is just easy to manipulate, that means you have more time to do other things.
But at some level doing more things simply has no effect on the game. That's why your idea that "there is always a theoretical player who can beat someone using another race" is flawed.
Let's say for sake of argument that Protoss would indeed just be "amove" and you'd win, tha s easy right? Great, so that means that when I play protoss I'm not even going to watch the battle, while I amove and Terran/Zerg micro like mofos I'm multitasking all over the place, zealot runby hero, oracle killing workers there, dts in your base, void rays killing your add ons there all while not missing any macro because my army is super easy, I can just amove.
And what would happen then is that I would always win of course, easy -> more powerful.
The problem here is that you're assuming that the less inputs you have to make, the more likely it is that you will win a fight. That's wrong. For example, it's possible for a single marine to beat a Lurker 1v1 in Brood War. That shit is HARD, but a perfect player who's able to do that while maintaining perfect macro and microing other units would be able to do it.
In the event that despite all that, it would still be 50/50, in that case Protoss would require via assymetric balance to do that for whatever hypothetical reason. And then the game is both balanced, and both races are as easy as the other.
What happens when the chances are NOT 50/50 and you happen to actually lose because Zealots simply die to a sufficient amount of Marines?
The skill ceiling of a gun and club isn't infinite by the way, because unlike StarCraft, there isn't always something extra you could do.
There isn't ALWAYS something more you can do in Starcraft. For example, let's say it takes 1000 apm to split perfectly and instantly queue up a peon. Would having 10000000000000 APM change anything about that?
No, it wouldn't.
|
On July 09 2014 17:42 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2014 17:20 endy wrote:On July 09 2014 16:54 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 14:35 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Let's try again: A club has an infinite skill ceiling. A gun has an infinite skill ceiling. The club is easier to operate than the gun.
Get the picture? And a gun is overpowered compared to a club? Your example only serves to aid to my point that easier and more powerful are the same thing. No, he just showed the club is easier ([to manipulate) yet the gun is more powerful. Just like the race that is the easiest to use is not necessarily the one that will get the better results. That's nonsense then and I misread. Even a retard with a gun given sufficient distance should beat someone with a club. You'd have to throw the club and aim well to hit. The guy with the gun can just shoot. Yeh. Show nested quote +so I will point you to my post above about the definition of "easy", because clearly that's the source of disagreement here.
To ZERG_RUSSIAN, easy = easy to manipulate/use/choose applicable verb for Gun/Starcraft race/Tricycle/ ...
To you, easy = easy to win a game/kill/ whatever is the final goal. Of course, like I said, if a race is just easy to manipulate, that means you have more time to do other things. Let's say for sake of argument that Protoss would indeed just be "amove" and you'd win, tha s easy right? Great, so that means that when I play protoss I'm not even going to watch the battle, while I amove and Terran/Zerg micro like mofos I'm multitasking all over the place, zealot runby hero, oracle killing workers there, dts in your base, void rays killing your add ons there all while not missing any macro because my army is super easy, I can just amove. And what would happen then is that I would always win of course, easy -> more powerful.
That's just a single example where easy => more powerful. A example is not enough to prove something, but a counter-example is enough to disprove it.
So instead of using guns or motorcycles analogies, how about having a hypothetical race that is a copy of Protoss, but has automatic perfect micro, and tons of macro assistance. However, each unit has its DPS halved. This race is easier to play, but less powerful. So if we follow ZERG_RUSSIAN's definition of easy = easy to manipulate, then easy does not mean powerful.
|
On July 09 2014 18:10 endy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2014 17:42 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 17:20 endy wrote:On July 09 2014 16:54 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 14:35 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Let's try again: A club has an infinite skill ceiling. A gun has an infinite skill ceiling. The club is easier to operate than the gun.
Get the picture? And a gun is overpowered compared to a club? Your example only serves to aid to my point that easier and more powerful are the same thing. No, he just showed the club is easier ([to manipulate) yet the gun is more powerful. Just like the race that is the easiest to use is not necessarily the one that will get the better results. That's nonsense then and I misread. Even a retard with a gun given sufficient distance should beat someone with a club. You'd have to throw the club and aim well to hit. The guy with the gun can just shoot. So you will say that it's easier to kill someone with a gun Yeh. so I will point you to my post above about the definition of "easy", because clearly that's the source of disagreement here.
To ZERG_RUSSIAN, easy = easy to manipulate/use/choose applicable verb for Gun/Starcraft race/Tricycle/ ...
To you, easy = easy to win a game/kill/ whatever is the final goal. Of course, like I said, if a race is just easy to manipulate, that means you have more time to do other things. Let's say for sake of argument that Protoss would indeed just be "amove" and you'd win, tha s easy right? Great, so that means that when I play protoss I'm not even going to watch the battle, while I amove and Terran/Zerg micro like mofos I'm multitasking all over the place, zealot runby hero, oracle killing workers there, dts in your base, void rays killing your add ons there all while not missing any macro because my army is super easy, I can just amove. And what would happen then is that I would always win of course, easy -> more powerful. That's just a single example where easy => more powerful. A example is not enough to prove something, but a counter-example is enough to disprove it. So instead of using guns or motorcycles analogies, how about having a hypothetical race that is a copy of Protoss, but has automatic perfect micro, and tons of macro assistance. However, each unit has its DPS halved. This race is easier to play, but less powerful. So if we follow ZERG_RUSSIAN's definition of easy = easy to manipulate, then easy does not mean powerful. How is this hypothetical protoss easier to play? You now have to work your arse of with multitasking to even stand a chance. This race hypothetical protoss is super hard to still win with. Automated macro doesn't nearly compensate enough for half dps, you have to be at a thousand places at once with your new freed up apm to still stand a chance. You have to work super hard.
|
On July 09 2014 18:44 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2014 18:10 endy wrote:On July 09 2014 17:42 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 17:20 endy wrote:On July 09 2014 16:54 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 14:35 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Let's try again: A club has an infinite skill ceiling. A gun has an infinite skill ceiling. The club is easier to operate than the gun.
Get the picture? And a gun is overpowered compared to a club? Your example only serves to aid to my point that easier and more powerful are the same thing. No, he just showed the club is easier ([to manipulate) yet the gun is more powerful. Just like the race that is the easiest to use is not necessarily the one that will get the better results. That's nonsense then and I misread. Even a retard with a gun given sufficient distance should beat someone with a club. You'd have to throw the club and aim well to hit. The guy with the gun can just shoot. So you will say that it's easier to kill someone with a gun Yeh. so I will point you to my post above about the definition of "easy", because clearly that's the source of disagreement here.
To ZERG_RUSSIAN, easy = easy to manipulate/use/choose applicable verb for Gun/Starcraft race/Tricycle/ ...
To you, easy = easy to win a game/kill/ whatever is the final goal. Of course, like I said, if a race is just easy to manipulate, that means you have more time to do other things. Let's say for sake of argument that Protoss would indeed just be "amove" and you'd win, tha s easy right? Great, so that means that when I play protoss I'm not even going to watch the battle, while I amove and Terran/Zerg micro like mofos I'm multitasking all over the place, zealot runby hero, oracle killing workers there, dts in your base, void rays killing your add ons there all while not missing any macro because my army is super easy, I can just amove. And what would happen then is that I would always win of course, easy -> more powerful. That's just a single example where easy => more powerful. A example is not enough to prove something, but a counter-example is enough to disprove it. So instead of using guns or motorcycles analogies, how about having a hypothetical race that is a copy of Protoss, but has automatic perfect micro, and tons of macro assistance. However, each unit has its DPS halved. This race is easier to play, but less powerful. So if we follow ZERG_RUSSIAN's definition of easy = easy to manipulate, then easy does not mean powerful. How is this hypothetical protoss easier to play? You now have to work your arse of with multitasking to even stand a chance. This race hypothetical protoss is super hard to still win with. Automated macro doesn't nearly compensate enough for half dps, you have to be at a thousand places at once with your new freed up apm to still stand a chance. You have to work super hard.
This hypothetical Protoss is much easier to play as you can macro like a pro with no effort, have a perfect micro with no effort as it's automated. And of course, as you rightfully said, those advantages do not compensate for the halved DPS, which is the very reason the race less powerful that the real Protoss. Hence I just showed that easier does not mean more powerful.
So once again, you are just using a different definition of "easy", yours being "easy to win" while mine is "easy to use".
I think that the basis for a proper debate is to clearly define each term used. Instead you just called out people for using a fallacy while all that happened is that they were using a different definition of easy from yours.
Also if your definition of a powerful race is a race that is easy to win with, and your definition of easy is easy to win with, which is basically the same as your definition of powerful, then I don't think a discussion even needs to take place ^^
|
On July 09 2014 19:05 endy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2014 18:44 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 18:10 endy wrote:On July 09 2014 17:42 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 17:20 endy wrote:On July 09 2014 16:54 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 14:35 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Let's try again: A club has an infinite skill ceiling. A gun has an infinite skill ceiling. The club is easier to operate than the gun.
Get the picture? And a gun is overpowered compared to a club? Your example only serves to aid to my point that easier and more powerful are the same thing. No, he just showed the club is easier ([to manipulate) yet the gun is more powerful. Just like the race that is the easiest to use is not necessarily the one that will get the better results. That's nonsense then and I misread. Even a retard with a gun given sufficient distance should beat someone with a club. You'd have to throw the club and aim well to hit. The guy with the gun can just shoot. So you will say that it's easier to kill someone with a gun Yeh. so I will point you to my post above about the definition of "easy", because clearly that's the source of disagreement here.
To ZERG_RUSSIAN, easy = easy to manipulate/use/choose applicable verb for Gun/Starcraft race/Tricycle/ ...
To you, easy = easy to win a game/kill/ whatever is the final goal. Of course, like I said, if a race is just easy to manipulate, that means you have more time to do other things. Let's say for sake of argument that Protoss would indeed just be "amove" and you'd win, tha s easy right? Great, so that means that when I play protoss I'm not even going to watch the battle, while I amove and Terran/Zerg micro like mofos I'm multitasking all over the place, zealot runby hero, oracle killing workers there, dts in your base, void rays killing your add ons there all while not missing any macro because my army is super easy, I can just amove. And what would happen then is that I would always win of course, easy -> more powerful. That's just a single example where easy => more powerful. A example is not enough to prove something, but a counter-example is enough to disprove it. So instead of using guns or motorcycles analogies, how about having a hypothetical race that is a copy of Protoss, but has automatic perfect micro, and tons of macro assistance. However, each unit has its DPS halved. This race is easier to play, but less powerful. So if we follow ZERG_RUSSIAN's definition of easy = easy to manipulate, then easy does not mean powerful. How is this hypothetical protoss easier to play? You now have to work your arse of with multitasking to even stand a chance. This race hypothetical protoss is super hard to still win with. Automated macro doesn't nearly compensate enough for half dps, you have to be at a thousand places at once with your new freed up apm to still stand a chance. You have to work super hard. This hypothetical Protoss is much easier to play as you can macro like a pro with no effort, have a perfect micro with no effort as it's automated. The objectiv eof the game is not to have perfect micro or perfect macro, the objective of the game is to win. This is like the quintessential IdrA fallacy. Believing "Oh, I lost, but I stilled played better because I had a larger army and my opponent won only because he or she did not play in the True One Way this game is supposed to be played."
I think that the basis for a proper debate is to clearly define each term used. Instead you just called out people for using a fallacy while all that happened is that they were using a different definition of easy from yours.
I concur actually, you made me realize that quite possibly the people who disagree when they say "easy to play" they indeed mean such medial goals as "building a large army" or whatever. I thought we moved past that mentality since the WoL beta when some people were still repping it, I was pretty sure that everyone now agreed that a win is a win and IdrA was the last person still believing in this nonsense of "You only won because you played badly."
I mean, otherwise you can set yourself all sorts of fictive goals. Like I said "Terran is easy because it's the easiest race to lift buildings with, Protoss and Zerg can't lift buildings, it's so hard with them!", this is the essence of an assymetrically balanced game. Zerg does have an easier time indeed to make a larger army than Terran, but the objective of the game is not to have a larger army. It's to destroy all your opponent's buildings.
Let's put it like this, as a random player, my own experience is that it's the easiest to keep your money low with T, and with Z/P some-what even, this seems to reflect pro games where P and Z are often floating large amounts of minerals. Z obviously produces in waves so it's often okay to do so. And the practice is supported by the obvious theory that Terran does not have to look away to produce. I find it considerably more difficult to macro during a battle with Protoss than with Terran which is obvious because Protoss needs to look away. Does this make Protoss harder than Terran? Absolutely not. Because I also find that since David Kim has at least decently kept the game around 50-50 that I can still win with 900 minerals floating during various points of the game in PvT, but if I do that in TvP I will almost always die. Obviously this dates back to the WoL beta when Terran was really good, probably due to this because they were easier to macro, and therefore more powerful. So, Blizzard stepped in and nerfed a lot of raw attack values of Terran, buffed some Protoss and Zerg structures and the winrate got 50/50 again. And to this day, we're still in a situation that it is easier with Terran to keep your money low, but not easier to win. If all three races gained automated macro that is airtight, this would be a huge nerf to Terran I feel. This would make all three races easier, but Z/P more easier than T. Thereby essentially nerfing Terran. If both players keep their money very low, I feel P/Z should in theory beat Terran because I guess Terran units are worse a little bit. But it's harder to keep your money low with those races, so it's balanced out.
|
On July 09 2014 18:44 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2014 18:10 endy wrote:On July 09 2014 17:42 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 17:20 endy wrote:On July 09 2014 16:54 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 14:35 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Let's try again: A club has an infinite skill ceiling. A gun has an infinite skill ceiling. The club is easier to operate than the gun.
Get the picture? And a gun is overpowered compared to a club? Your example only serves to aid to my point that easier and more powerful are the same thing. No, he just showed the club is easier ([to manipulate) yet the gun is more powerful. Just like the race that is the easiest to use is not necessarily the one that will get the better results. That's nonsense then and I misread. Even a retard with a gun given sufficient distance should beat someone with a club. You'd have to throw the club and aim well to hit. The guy with the gun can just shoot. So you will say that it's easier to kill someone with a gun Yeh. so I will point you to my post above about the definition of "easy", because clearly that's the source of disagreement here.
To ZERG_RUSSIAN, easy = easy to manipulate/use/choose applicable verb for Gun/Starcraft race/Tricycle/ ...
To you, easy = easy to win a game/kill/ whatever is the final goal. Of course, like I said, if a race is just easy to manipulate, that means you have more time to do other things. Let's say for sake of argument that Protoss would indeed just be "amove" and you'd win, tha s easy right? Great, so that means that when I play protoss I'm not even going to watch the battle, while I amove and Terran/Zerg micro like mofos I'm multitasking all over the place, zealot runby hero, oracle killing workers there, dts in your base, void rays killing your add ons there all while not missing any macro because my army is super easy, I can just amove. And what would happen then is that I would always win of course, easy -> more powerful. That's just a single example where easy => more powerful. A example is not enough to prove something, but a counter-example is enough to disprove it. So instead of using guns or motorcycles analogies, how about having a hypothetical race that is a copy of Protoss, but has automatic perfect micro, and tons of macro assistance. However, each unit has its DPS halved. This race is easier to play, but less powerful. So if we follow ZERG_RUSSIAN's definition of easy = easy to manipulate, then easy does not mean powerful. How is this hypothetical protoss easier to play? You now have to work your arse of with multitasking to even stand a chance. This race hypothetical protoss is super hard to still win with. Automated macro doesn't nearly compensate enough for half dps, you have to be at a thousand places at once with your new freed up apm to still stand a chance. You have to work super hard.
My, are you bad at reading. He said you have automatic perfect micro and macro. Like, to take it to an extreme, let's say that you didn't have to do ANYTHING and the hypothetical protoss would play itself perfectly for you, but its units still did half damage. You are literally expending no energy and making no effort and it plays perfectly. But it still loses because it does half damage.
I don't know how you can make the argument that it's stronger because it's easier to play in this situation. Your entire argument is retarded and I'm beginning to suspect that you're just not smart enough to grasp the examples we're giving you, because my 8 year old autistic cousin can probably understand this and you're struggling heavily with it.
|
On July 09 2014 19:21 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2014 18:44 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 18:10 endy wrote:On July 09 2014 17:42 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 17:20 endy wrote:On July 09 2014 16:54 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 14:35 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Let's try again: A club has an infinite skill ceiling. A gun has an infinite skill ceiling. The club is easier to operate than the gun.
Get the picture? And a gun is overpowered compared to a club? Your example only serves to aid to my point that easier and more powerful are the same thing. No, he just showed the club is easier ([to manipulate) yet the gun is more powerful. Just like the race that is the easiest to use is not necessarily the one that will get the better results. That's nonsense then and I misread. Even a retard with a gun given sufficient distance should beat someone with a club. You'd have to throw the club and aim well to hit. The guy with the gun can just shoot. So you will say that it's easier to kill someone with a gun Yeh. so I will point you to my post above about the definition of "easy", because clearly that's the source of disagreement here.
To ZERG_RUSSIAN, easy = easy to manipulate/use/choose applicable verb for Gun/Starcraft race/Tricycle/ ...
To you, easy = easy to win a game/kill/ whatever is the final goal. Of course, like I said, if a race is just easy to manipulate, that means you have more time to do other things. Let's say for sake of argument that Protoss would indeed just be "amove" and you'd win, tha s easy right? Great, so that means that when I play protoss I'm not even going to watch the battle, while I amove and Terran/Zerg micro like mofos I'm multitasking all over the place, zealot runby hero, oracle killing workers there, dts in your base, void rays killing your add ons there all while not missing any macro because my army is super easy, I can just amove. And what would happen then is that I would always win of course, easy -> more powerful. That's just a single example where easy => more powerful. A example is not enough to prove something, but a counter-example is enough to disprove it. So instead of using guns or motorcycles analogies, how about having a hypothetical race that is a copy of Protoss, but has automatic perfect micro, and tons of macro assistance. However, each unit has its DPS halved. This race is easier to play, but less powerful. So if we follow ZERG_RUSSIAN's definition of easy = easy to manipulate, then easy does not mean powerful. How is this hypothetical protoss easier to play? You now have to work your arse of with multitasking to even stand a chance. This race hypothetical protoss is super hard to still win with. Automated macro doesn't nearly compensate enough for half dps, you have to be at a thousand places at once with your new freed up apm to still stand a chance. You have to work super hard. My, are you bad at reading. He said you have automatic perfect micro and macro. Like, to take it to an extreme, let's say that you didn't have to do ANYTHING and the hypothetical protoss would play itself perfectly for you, but its units still did half damage. You are literally expending no energy and making no effort and it plays perfectly. But it still loses because it does half damage. I don't know how you can make the argument that it's stronger because it's easier to play in this situation. Your entire argument is retarded and I'm beginning to suspect that you're just not smart enough to grasp the examples we're giving you, because my 8 year old autistic cousin can probably understand this and you're struggling heavily with it.
Then how is this a counterexample?
The premises are
-) balanced game
-) infinite skill ceiling
wow, he constructed an instance in which you are automatically at the skill ceiling and automatically worse than an average player. Which is not a counterexample for the theory, since it doesn't follow its premises...
|
On July 09 2014 19:20 SiskosGoatee wrote:
I concur actually, you made me realize that quite possibly the people who disagree when they say "easy to play" they indeed mean such medial goals as "building a large army" or whatever. I thought we moved past that mentality since the WoL beta when some people were still repping it, I was pretty sure that everyone now agreed that a win is a win and IdrA was the last person still believing in this nonsense of "You only won because you played badly."
I mean, otherwise you can set yourself all sorts of fictive goals. Like I said "Terran is easy because it's the easiest race to lift buildings with, Protoss and Zerg can't lift buildings, it's so hard with them!", this is the essence of an assymetrically balanced game. Zerg does have an easier time indeed to make a larger army than Terran, but the objective of the game is not to have a larger army. It's to destroy all your opponent's buildings.
So, you wrote this entire blog to say that you define strength as ease? As in the races that are better at winning games are stronger, and that makes them by definition easier?
Wow, that's retarded.
|
On July 09 2014 19:24 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2014 19:21 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On July 09 2014 18:44 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 18:10 endy wrote:On July 09 2014 17:42 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 17:20 endy wrote:On July 09 2014 16:54 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 14:35 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Let's try again: A club has an infinite skill ceiling. A gun has an infinite skill ceiling. The club is easier to operate than the gun.
Get the picture? And a gun is overpowered compared to a club? Your example only serves to aid to my point that easier and more powerful are the same thing. No, he just showed the club is easier ([to manipulate) yet the gun is more powerful. Just like the race that is the easiest to use is not necessarily the one that will get the better results. That's nonsense then and I misread. Even a retard with a gun given sufficient distance should beat someone with a club. You'd have to throw the club and aim well to hit. The guy with the gun can just shoot. So you will say that it's easier to kill someone with a gun Yeh. so I will point you to my post above about the definition of "easy", because clearly that's the source of disagreement here.
To ZERG_RUSSIAN, easy = easy to manipulate/use/choose applicable verb for Gun/Starcraft race/Tricycle/ ...
To you, easy = easy to win a game/kill/ whatever is the final goal. Of course, like I said, if a race is just easy to manipulate, that means you have more time to do other things. Let's say for sake of argument that Protoss would indeed just be "amove" and you'd win, tha s easy right? Great, so that means that when I play protoss I'm not even going to watch the battle, while I amove and Terran/Zerg micro like mofos I'm multitasking all over the place, zealot runby hero, oracle killing workers there, dts in your base, void rays killing your add ons there all while not missing any macro because my army is super easy, I can just amove. And what would happen then is that I would always win of course, easy -> more powerful. That's just a single example where easy => more powerful. A example is not enough to prove something, but a counter-example is enough to disprove it. So instead of using guns or motorcycles analogies, how about having a hypothetical race that is a copy of Protoss, but has automatic perfect micro, and tons of macro assistance. However, each unit has its DPS halved. This race is easier to play, but less powerful. So if we follow ZERG_RUSSIAN's definition of easy = easy to manipulate, then easy does not mean powerful. How is this hypothetical protoss easier to play? You now have to work your arse of with multitasking to even stand a chance. This race hypothetical protoss is super hard to still win with. Automated macro doesn't nearly compensate enough for half dps, you have to be at a thousand places at once with your new freed up apm to still stand a chance. You have to work super hard. My, are you bad at reading. He said you have automatic perfect micro and macro. Like, to take it to an extreme, let's say that you didn't have to do ANYTHING and the hypothetical protoss would play itself perfectly for you, but its units still did half damage. You are literally expending no energy and making no effort and it plays perfectly. But it still loses because it does half damage. I don't know how you can make the argument that it's stronger because it's easier to play in this situation. Your entire argument is retarded and I'm beginning to suspect that you're just not smart enough to grasp the examples we're giving you, because my 8 year old autistic cousin can probably understand this and you're struggling heavily with it. Then how is this a counterexample? The premises are -) balanced game -) infinite skill ceiling wow, he constructed an instance in which you are automatically at the skill ceiling and automatically worse than an average player. Which is not a counterexample for the theory, since it doesn't follow its premises...
THE GAME IS NOT BALANCED AND THE SKILL CEILING IS NOT INFINITE
THAT'S THE POINT
|
On July 09 2014 19:25 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2014 19:24 Big J wrote:On July 09 2014 19:21 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On July 09 2014 18:44 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 18:10 endy wrote:On July 09 2014 17:42 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 17:20 endy wrote:On July 09 2014 16:54 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 14:35 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Let's try again: A club has an infinite skill ceiling. A gun has an infinite skill ceiling. The club is easier to operate than the gun.
Get the picture? And a gun is overpowered compared to a club? Your example only serves to aid to my point that easier and more powerful are the same thing. No, he just showed the club is easier ([to manipulate) yet the gun is more powerful. Just like the race that is the easiest to use is not necessarily the one that will get the better results. That's nonsense then and I misread. Even a retard with a gun given sufficient distance should beat someone with a club. You'd have to throw the club and aim well to hit. The guy with the gun can just shoot. So you will say that it's easier to kill someone with a gun Yeh. so I will point you to my post above about the definition of "easy", because clearly that's the source of disagreement here.
To ZERG_RUSSIAN, easy = easy to manipulate/use/choose applicable verb for Gun/Starcraft race/Tricycle/ ...
To you, easy = easy to win a game/kill/ whatever is the final goal. Of course, like I said, if a race is just easy to manipulate, that means you have more time to do other things. Let's say for sake of argument that Protoss would indeed just be "amove" and you'd win, tha s easy right? Great, so that means that when I play protoss I'm not even going to watch the battle, while I amove and Terran/Zerg micro like mofos I'm multitasking all over the place, zealot runby hero, oracle killing workers there, dts in your base, void rays killing your add ons there all while not missing any macro because my army is super easy, I can just amove. And what would happen then is that I would always win of course, easy -> more powerful. That's just a single example where easy => more powerful. A example is not enough to prove something, but a counter-example is enough to disprove it. So instead of using guns or motorcycles analogies, how about having a hypothetical race that is a copy of Protoss, but has automatic perfect micro, and tons of macro assistance. However, each unit has its DPS halved. This race is easier to play, but less powerful. So if we follow ZERG_RUSSIAN's definition of easy = easy to manipulate, then easy does not mean powerful. How is this hypothetical protoss easier to play? You now have to work your arse of with multitasking to even stand a chance. This race hypothetical protoss is super hard to still win with. Automated macro doesn't nearly compensate enough for half dps, you have to be at a thousand places at once with your new freed up apm to still stand a chance. You have to work super hard. My, are you bad at reading. He said you have automatic perfect micro and macro. Like, to take it to an extreme, let's say that you didn't have to do ANYTHING and the hypothetical protoss would play itself perfectly for you, but its units still did half damage. You are literally expending no energy and making no effort and it plays perfectly. But it still loses because it does half damage. I don't know how you can make the argument that it's stronger because it's easier to play in this situation. Your entire argument is retarded and I'm beginning to suspect that you're just not smart enough to grasp the examples we're giving you, because my 8 year old autistic cousin can probably understand this and you're struggling heavily with it. Then how is this a counterexample? The premises are -) balanced game -) infinite skill ceiling wow, he constructed an instance in which you are automatically at the skill ceiling and automatically worse than an average player. Which is not a counterexample for the theory, since it doesn't follow its premises... THE GAME IS NOT BALANCED AND THE SKILL CEILING IS NOT INFINITE THAT'S THE POINT
No it's plainly not what he wanted to say, given how he understands what it means to disprove a theory with a counterexample following its premises.
|
On July 09 2014 19:24 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2014 19:20 SiskosGoatee wrote:
I concur actually, you made me realize that quite possibly the people who disagree when they say "easy to play" they indeed mean such medial goals as "building a large army" or whatever. I thought we moved past that mentality since the WoL beta when some people were still repping it, I was pretty sure that everyone now agreed that a win is a win and IdrA was the last person still believing in this nonsense of "You only won because you played badly."
I mean, otherwise you can set yourself all sorts of fictive goals. Like I said "Terran is easy because it's the easiest race to lift buildings with, Protoss and Zerg can't lift buildings, it's so hard with them!", this is the essence of an assymetrically balanced game. Zerg does have an easier time indeed to make a larger army than Terran, but the objective of the game is not to have a larger army. It's to destroy all your opponent's buildings. So, you wrote this entire blog to say that you define strength as ease? As in the races that are better at winning games are stronger, and that makes them by definition easier? Wow, that's retarded. Oh, so you are indeed one of those people who actually believes that there are some magical "sub goals" to this game like "getting a large army" or "microing perfectly"?
|
On July 09 2014 19:30 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2014 19:25 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On July 09 2014 19:24 Big J wrote:On July 09 2014 19:21 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On July 09 2014 18:44 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 18:10 endy wrote:On July 09 2014 17:42 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 17:20 endy wrote:On July 09 2014 16:54 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 14:35 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Let's try again: A club has an infinite skill ceiling. A gun has an infinite skill ceiling. The club is easier to operate than the gun.
Get the picture? And a gun is overpowered compared to a club? Your example only serves to aid to my point that easier and more powerful are the same thing. No, he just showed the club is easier ([to manipulate) yet the gun is more powerful. Just like the race that is the easiest to use is not necessarily the one that will get the better results. That's nonsense then and I misread. Even a retard with a gun given sufficient distance should beat someone with a club. You'd have to throw the club and aim well to hit. The guy with the gun can just shoot. So you will say that it's easier to kill someone with a gun Yeh. so I will point you to my post above about the definition of "easy", because clearly that's the source of disagreement here.
To ZERG_RUSSIAN, easy = easy to manipulate/use/choose applicable verb for Gun/Starcraft race/Tricycle/ ...
To you, easy = easy to win a game/kill/ whatever is the final goal. Of course, like I said, if a race is just easy to manipulate, that means you have more time to do other things. Let's say for sake of argument that Protoss would indeed just be "amove" and you'd win, tha s easy right? Great, so that means that when I play protoss I'm not even going to watch the battle, while I amove and Terran/Zerg micro like mofos I'm multitasking all over the place, zealot runby hero, oracle killing workers there, dts in your base, void rays killing your add ons there all while not missing any macro because my army is super easy, I can just amove. And what would happen then is that I would always win of course, easy -> more powerful. That's just a single example where easy => more powerful. A example is not enough to prove something, but a counter-example is enough to disprove it. So instead of using guns or motorcycles analogies, how about having a hypothetical race that is a copy of Protoss, but has automatic perfect micro, and tons of macro assistance. However, each unit has its DPS halved. This race is easier to play, but less powerful. So if we follow ZERG_RUSSIAN's definition of easy = easy to manipulate, then easy does not mean powerful. How is this hypothetical protoss easier to play? You now have to work your arse of with multitasking to even stand a chance. This race hypothetical protoss is super hard to still win with. Automated macro doesn't nearly compensate enough for half dps, you have to be at a thousand places at once with your new freed up apm to still stand a chance. You have to work super hard. My, are you bad at reading. He said you have automatic perfect micro and macro. Like, to take it to an extreme, let's say that you didn't have to do ANYTHING and the hypothetical protoss would play itself perfectly for you, but its units still did half damage. You are literally expending no energy and making no effort and it plays perfectly. But it still loses because it does half damage. I don't know how you can make the argument that it's stronger because it's easier to play in this situation. Your entire argument is retarded and I'm beginning to suspect that you're just not smart enough to grasp the examples we're giving you, because my 8 year old autistic cousin can probably understand this and you're struggling heavily with it. Then how is this a counterexample? The premises are -) balanced game -) infinite skill ceiling wow, he constructed an instance in which you are automatically at the skill ceiling and automatically worse than an average player. Which is not a counterexample for the theory, since it doesn't follow its premises... THE GAME IS NOT BALANCED AND THE SKILL CEILING IS NOT INFINITE THAT'S THE POINT No it's plainly not what he wanted to say, given how he understands what it means to disprove a theory with a counterexample following its premises.
I didn't actually assume a balanced game by th eway, I in fact said I never claimed it is. I'm just saying that easy and more powerful are the same thing.
Even if the skill ceiling is not infinite, it doesn't matter, since no one is closer to it anyway. For practical purposes it is.
|
On July 09 2014 19:52 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2014 19:30 Big J wrote:On July 09 2014 19:25 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On July 09 2014 19:24 Big J wrote:On July 09 2014 19:21 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On July 09 2014 18:44 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 18:10 endy wrote:On July 09 2014 17:42 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 17:20 endy wrote:On July 09 2014 16:54 SiskosGoatee wrote:
[quote]
And a gun is overpowered compared to a club? Your example only serves to aid to my point that easier and more powerful are the same thing. No, he just showed the club is easier ([to manipulate) yet the gun is more powerful. Just like the race that is the easiest to use is not necessarily the one that will get the better results. That's nonsense then and I misread. Even a retard with a gun given sufficient distance should beat someone with a club. You'd have to throw the club and aim well to hit. The guy with the gun can just shoot. So you will say that it's easier to kill someone with a gun Yeh. so I will point you to my post above about the definition of "easy", because clearly that's the source of disagreement here.
To ZERG_RUSSIAN, easy = easy to manipulate/use/choose applicable verb for Gun/Starcraft race/Tricycle/ ...
To you, easy = easy to win a game/kill/ whatever is the final goal. Of course, like I said, if a race is just easy to manipulate, that means you have more time to do other things. Let's say for sake of argument that Protoss would indeed just be "amove" and you'd win, tha s easy right? Great, so that means that when I play protoss I'm not even going to watch the battle, while I amove and Terran/Zerg micro like mofos I'm multitasking all over the place, zealot runby hero, oracle killing workers there, dts in your base, void rays killing your add ons there all while not missing any macro because my army is super easy, I can just amove. And what would happen then is that I would always win of course, easy -> more powerful. That's just a single example where easy => more powerful. A example is not enough to prove something, but a counter-example is enough to disprove it. So instead of using guns or motorcycles analogies, how about having a hypothetical race that is a copy of Protoss, but has automatic perfect micro, and tons of macro assistance. However, each unit has its DPS halved. This race is easier to play, but less powerful. So if we follow ZERG_RUSSIAN's definition of easy = easy to manipulate, then easy does not mean powerful. How is this hypothetical protoss easier to play? You now have to work your arse of with multitasking to even stand a chance. This race hypothetical protoss is super hard to still win with. Automated macro doesn't nearly compensate enough for half dps, you have to be at a thousand places at once with your new freed up apm to still stand a chance. You have to work super hard. My, are you bad at reading. He said you have automatic perfect micro and macro. Like, to take it to an extreme, let's say that you didn't have to do ANYTHING and the hypothetical protoss would play itself perfectly for you, but its units still did half damage. You are literally expending no energy and making no effort and it plays perfectly. But it still loses because it does half damage. I don't know how you can make the argument that it's stronger because it's easier to play in this situation. Your entire argument is retarded and I'm beginning to suspect that you're just not smart enough to grasp the examples we're giving you, because my 8 year old autistic cousin can probably understand this and you're struggling heavily with it. Then how is this a counterexample? The premises are -) balanced game -) infinite skill ceiling wow, he constructed an instance in which you are automatically at the skill ceiling and automatically worse than an average player. Which is not a counterexample for the theory, since it doesn't follow its premises... THE GAME IS NOT BALANCED AND THE SKILL CEILING IS NOT INFINITE THAT'S THE POINT No it's plainly not what he wanted to say, given how he understands what it means to disprove a theory with a counterexample following its premises. I didn't actually assume a balanced game by th eway, I in fact said I never claimed it is. I'm just saying that easy and more powerful are the same thing. Even if the skill ceiling is not infinite, it doesn't matter, since no one is closer to it anyway. For practical purposes it is.
I think you kind of have and have to for this theory to work
I'm not claiming that a race can't be overpowered. I'm just saying that the concept of not being overpowered, but being easy does not make sense. If a race is easy it is more powerful. On the assumption that the game is balanced (I am not saying that assumption is true) every race is as easy as every other race. Everyone will have to be stretched to the limits to the compete.
If the game isn't balanced, it is indeed "easier" to win with a certain race. An equally skilled person has to work less to match a player of an underpowered race, which I think is what we should imply as the definition of "easy" here.
|
On July 09 2014 19:59 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2014 19:52 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 19:30 Big J wrote:On July 09 2014 19:25 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On July 09 2014 19:24 Big J wrote:On July 09 2014 19:21 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On July 09 2014 18:44 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 18:10 endy wrote:On July 09 2014 17:42 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 17:20 endy wrote:
[quote]
No, he just showed the club is easier ([to manipulate) yet the gun is more powerful. Just like the race that is the easiest to use is not necessarily the one that will get the better results. That's nonsense then and I misread. Even a retard with a gun given sufficient distance should beat someone with a club. You'd have to throw the club and aim well to hit. The guy with the gun can just shoot. So you will say that it's easier to kill someone with a gun Yeh. so I will point you to my post above about the definition of "easy", because clearly that's the source of disagreement here.
To ZERG_RUSSIAN, easy = easy to manipulate/use/choose applicable verb for Gun/Starcraft race/Tricycle/ ...
To you, easy = easy to win a game/kill/ whatever is the final goal. Of course, like I said, if a race is just easy to manipulate, that means you have more time to do other things. Let's say for sake of argument that Protoss would indeed just be "amove" and you'd win, tha s easy right? Great, so that means that when I play protoss I'm not even going to watch the battle, while I amove and Terran/Zerg micro like mofos I'm multitasking all over the place, zealot runby hero, oracle killing workers there, dts in your base, void rays killing your add ons there all while not missing any macro because my army is super easy, I can just amove. And what would happen then is that I would always win of course, easy -> more powerful. That's just a single example where easy => more powerful. A example is not enough to prove something, but a counter-example is enough to disprove it. So instead of using guns or motorcycles analogies, how about having a hypothetical race that is a copy of Protoss, but has automatic perfect micro, and tons of macro assistance. However, each unit has its DPS halved. This race is easier to play, but less powerful. So if we follow ZERG_RUSSIAN's definition of easy = easy to manipulate, then easy does not mean powerful. How is this hypothetical protoss easier to play? You now have to work your arse of with multitasking to even stand a chance. This race hypothetical protoss is super hard to still win with. Automated macro doesn't nearly compensate enough for half dps, you have to be at a thousand places at once with your new freed up apm to still stand a chance. You have to work super hard. My, are you bad at reading. He said you have automatic perfect micro and macro. Like, to take it to an extreme, let's say that you didn't have to do ANYTHING and the hypothetical protoss would play itself perfectly for you, but its units still did half damage. You are literally expending no energy and making no effort and it plays perfectly. But it still loses because it does half damage. I don't know how you can make the argument that it's stronger because it's easier to play in this situation. Your entire argument is retarded and I'm beginning to suspect that you're just not smart enough to grasp the examples we're giving you, because my 8 year old autistic cousin can probably understand this and you're struggling heavily with it. Then how is this a counterexample? The premises are -) balanced game -) infinite skill ceiling wow, he constructed an instance in which you are automatically at the skill ceiling and automatically worse than an average player. Which is not a counterexample for the theory, since it doesn't follow its premises... THE GAME IS NOT BALANCED AND THE SKILL CEILING IS NOT INFINITE THAT'S THE POINT No it's plainly not what he wanted to say, given how he understands what it means to disprove a theory with a counterexample following its premises. I didn't actually assume a balanced game by th eway, I in fact said I never claimed it is. I'm just saying that easy and more powerful are the same thing. Even if the skill ceiling is not infinite, it doesn't matter, since no one is closer to it anyway. For practical purposes it is. I think you kind of have and have to for this theory to work Show nested quote +I'm not claiming that a race can't be overpowered. I'm just saying that the concept of not being overpowered, but being easy does not make sense. If a race is easy it is more powerful. On the assumption that the game is balanced (I am not saying that assumption is true) every race is as easy as every other race. Everyone will have to be stretched to the limits to the compete. If the game isn't balanced, it is indeed "easier" to win with a certain race. An equally skilled person has to work less to match a player of an underpowered race, which I think is what we should imply as the definition of "easy" here. Yeah, but my point isn't that a race can't be easy, my point is that easy and overpowered are one and the same.
THat a race can't be "easy" but "less powerful"
unless of course you're IdrA and you believe the objective of the game is to build a large army and play it in the One True Way rather than winning.
|
On July 09 2014 20:08 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2014 19:59 Big J wrote:On July 09 2014 19:52 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 19:30 Big J wrote:On July 09 2014 19:25 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On July 09 2014 19:24 Big J wrote:On July 09 2014 19:21 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On July 09 2014 18:44 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 18:10 endy wrote:On July 09 2014 17:42 SiskosGoatee wrote:
[quote]That's nonsense then and I misread. Even a retard with a gun given sufficient distance should beat someone with a club. You'd have to throw the club and aim well to hit. The guy with the gun can just shoot.
[quote]Yeh.
[quote]Of course, like I said, if a race is just easy to manipulate, that means you have more time to do other things.
Let's say for sake of argument that Protoss would indeed just be "amove" and you'd win, tha s easy right? Great, so that means that when I play protoss I'm not even going to watch the battle, while I amove and Terran/Zerg micro like mofos I'm multitasking all over the place, zealot runby hero, oracle killing workers there, dts in your base, void rays killing your add ons there all while not missing any macro because my army is super easy, I can just amove.
And what would happen then is that I would always win of course, easy -> more powerful.
That's just a single example where easy => more powerful. A example is not enough to prove something, but a counter-example is enough to disprove it. So instead of using guns or motorcycles analogies, how about having a hypothetical race that is a copy of Protoss, but has automatic perfect micro, and tons of macro assistance. However, each unit has its DPS halved. This race is easier to play, but less powerful. So if we follow ZERG_RUSSIAN's definition of easy = easy to manipulate, then easy does not mean powerful. How is this hypothetical protoss easier to play? You now have to work your arse of with multitasking to even stand a chance. This race hypothetical protoss is super hard to still win with. Automated macro doesn't nearly compensate enough for half dps, you have to be at a thousand places at once with your new freed up apm to still stand a chance. You have to work super hard. My, are you bad at reading. He said you have automatic perfect micro and macro. Like, to take it to an extreme, let's say that you didn't have to do ANYTHING and the hypothetical protoss would play itself perfectly for you, but its units still did half damage. You are literally expending no energy and making no effort and it plays perfectly. But it still loses because it does half damage. I don't know how you can make the argument that it's stronger because it's easier to play in this situation. Your entire argument is retarded and I'm beginning to suspect that you're just not smart enough to grasp the examples we're giving you, because my 8 year old autistic cousin can probably understand this and you're struggling heavily with it. Then how is this a counterexample? The premises are -) balanced game -) infinite skill ceiling wow, he constructed an instance in which you are automatically at the skill ceiling and automatically worse than an average player. Which is not a counterexample for the theory, since it doesn't follow its premises... THE GAME IS NOT BALANCED AND THE SKILL CEILING IS NOT INFINITE THAT'S THE POINT No it's plainly not what he wanted to say, given how he understands what it means to disprove a theory with a counterexample following its premises. I didn't actually assume a balanced game by th eway, I in fact said I never claimed it is. I'm just saying that easy and more powerful are the same thing. Even if the skill ceiling is not infinite, it doesn't matter, since no one is closer to it anyway. For practical purposes it is. I think you kind of have and have to for this theory to work I'm not claiming that a race can't be overpowered. I'm just saying that the concept of not being overpowered, but being easy does not make sense. If a race is easy it is more powerful. On the assumption that the game is balanced (I am not saying that assumption is true) every race is as easy as every other race. Everyone will have to be stretched to the limits to the compete. If the game isn't balanced, it is indeed "easier" to win with a certain race. An equally skilled person has to work less to match a player of an underpowered race, which I think is what we should imply as the definition of "easy" here. Yeah, but my point isn't that a race can't be easy, my point is that easy and overpowered are one and the same. THat a race can't be "easy" but "less powerful" unless of course you're IdrA and you believe the objective of the game is to build a large army and play it in the One True Way rather than winning.
yup, I get that. 
|
cute how you're agreeing with each other and ignoring the opposing side. A true debate.
|
Can't we agree on something like:
- Strong: easy to win with
- Easy: easy to learn to play, easy to master
Most people use it like that, and it makes sense.
|
On July 09 2014 23:40 sAsImre wrote:
cute how you're agreeing with each other and ignoring the opposing side. A true debate.
Which argument did I ignore?
On July 10 2014 00:02 Nebuchad wrote:
Can't we agree on something like:
- Strong: easy to win with
- Easy: easy to learn to play, easy to master
Most people use it like that, and it makes sense.
Define play and master.
Because I think you will inevitably have to define them - or the follow up words you describe them with - through something like:
- play: you can use the tool in a way that makes sense*
- master: you can use it in a way that significantly increases your chance to win with it
*making sense: helps you achieving the games' goals*
*the games goals: winning
At the end of the day you have to describe it through what you need to achieve with it.
E.g.: There is absolutly no benefit in being able to be the fastests overlord dancer in the game, regardless of being incredibly hard mechanically. So despite being able to master this discipline, it does not help you with achieving your goals, so it does not make Zerg harder to play.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
