|
On November 17 2006 14:30 infinity21 wrote:
haha I'm the one who made the General BW thread.
Ugh, I feel so far behind everyone who's been playing so much longer than me. #__<
I realize now from talking to a lot of TL members that I have so many things to work on. My main problem currently (I think) is dealing with pressure. Even if I'm a casual player, I'm sure I'll get better over time ^^;
of course you'll get better over time. just have to keep playing.
|
On November 16 2006 15:26 Hot_Bid wrote:
i think this was a good discussion and probably shouldn't have been closed because the thread creator said so.
i just think your expectations have to be adjusted to meet the growing skill level among the pros. the definition of "slow" and "fast" as well as "pro" and "amateur" has just changed. the base level of speed required to be “good” has increased.
compare it to basketball, for instance… a decade or two ago most guards were barely taller than six feet, then came magic johnson and now look, we have guys like lebron who is 6’8” and can play guard. its evolution as the field gets better. there are just more players that can play with 250-300+ apm.
"strategy" is simply a word that is overvalued by people incapable of having the technical skills. for instance, i can be a physics expert, know the perfect technique to kick a soccer ball, and the perfect strategies for soccer offense and defense, but i’ll never be able to play as good as pele without the actual ability.
yes some pros are stupid and make dumb decisions, but is it easier to teach them a new strategy or whatever or is it easier for you to suddenly have 300 apm? i think that’ll answer your question about which is truly more valuable.
the POS coach when TL interviewed him a while back said that progaming development now is about finding fast guys, not strategically sound guys because strategy can always be taught. you can’t teach speed. yes you can get faster slowly but there’s a cap for most people.
nowadays, the speed seems to be a prerequisite, and strategy, practice and intuition get you to become great.
edit: and if you don't have that baseline speed, you can't really be even "very good." yes i know there are a few exceptions but they are very, very few.
But the thing is though, unlike basketball, near perfect multitasking is achievable by nearly EVERYONE that was born with above 100 IQ. You can be 200 apm and have near perfect, pro level multitasking, or you can be 400 like nada and have pro multitasking. Every progamer has pretty much the same level of mechanics. But I can say many aren't born with the intelligence whether to be strategically dominant or hard working to compete at the highest level.
|
For example if Chojja was given the task to create a zvt build to counter oov's fe he would feel stupid because he wouldn't be able to do it. Whereas savior did the same thing and came up with the most perfect anti fe build there is down to every larva.
|
but if every pro has the same mechanics, then something else must be separating the top players from the rest? this contradicts with what you were saying earlier about players winning purely on mechanics.
|
On November 17 2006 14:41 zulu_nation8 wrote:
For example if Chojja was given the task to create a zvt build to counter oov's fe he would feel stupid because he wouldn't be able to do it. Whereas savior did the same thing and came up with the most perfect anti fe build there is down to every larva.
then thats a good thing isn't it? this is the same thing you were frustrated about earlier, saying that mechanics is outplaying strategy, but you're giving a good example of how smarter play wins.
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On November 17 2006 14:37 zulu_nation8 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2006 15:26 Hot_Bid wrote:
i think this was a good discussion and probably shouldn't have been closed because the thread creator said so.
i just think your expectations have to be adjusted to meet the growing skill level among the pros. the definition of "slow" and "fast" as well as "pro" and "amateur" has just changed. the base level of speed required to be “good” has increased.
compare it to basketball, for instance… a decade or two ago most guards were barely taller than six feet, then came magic johnson and now look, we have guys like lebron who is 6’8” and can play guard. its evolution as the field gets better. there are just more players that can play with 250-300+ apm.
"strategy" is simply a word that is overvalued by people incapable of having the technical skills. for instance, i can be a physics expert, know the perfect technique to kick a soccer ball, and the perfect strategies for soccer offense and defense, but i’ll never be able to play as good as pele without the actual ability.
yes some pros are stupid and make dumb decisions, but is it easier to teach them a new strategy or whatever or is it easier for you to suddenly have 300 apm? i think that’ll answer your question about which is truly more valuable.
the POS coach when TL interviewed him a while back said that progaming development now is about finding fast guys, not strategically sound guys because strategy can always be taught. you can’t teach speed. yes you can get faster slowly but there’s a cap for most people.
nowadays, the speed seems to be a prerequisite, and strategy, practice and intuition get you to become great.
edit: and if you don't have that baseline speed, you can't really be even "very good." yes i know there are a few exceptions but they are very, very few. But the thing is though, unlike basketball, near perfect multitasking is achievable by nearly EVERYONE that was born with above 100 IQ. You can be 200 apm and have near perfect, pro level multitasking, or you can be 400 like nada and have pro multitasking. Every progamer has pretty much the same level of mechanics. But I can say many aren't born with the intelligence whether to be strategically dominant or hard working to compete at the highest level.
I don't think your APM is your problem Zulu.. people like iloveoov have APM in the low 200s and he owned everyone with his hand speed. 170 should be sufficient for a casual gamer, imo. We see people with high APM losing to people with low APM all the time. NaDa, with his 400+ APM only wins about 65% of his games (not sure. can anyone confirm this?) and I'm sure some of those 35% had 200 APM.
Maybe you're just feeling depressed because you're in a slump or something. I'm sure you're a good player from reading some of your threads, so keep at it and good luck.
Though I also think that people should just use what they're exceptionally good at. For example, Xellos, with his 300+ APM, can attack 4 different Zerg expansions to make it really hard for the Zerg to defend everything. Some others may be content just making it a macro war. In the end, I think it really comes down to abusing personal strengths & other people's weaknesses.
|
Braavos36387 Posts
On November 17 2006 14:37 zulu_nation8 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2006 15:26 Hot_Bid wrote:
i think this was a good discussion and probably shouldn't have been closed because the thread creator said so.
i just think your expectations have to be adjusted to meet the growing skill level among the pros. the definition of "slow" and "fast" as well as "pro" and "amateur" has just changed. the base level of speed required to be “good” has increased.
compare it to basketball, for instance… a decade or two ago most guards were barely taller than six feet, then came magic johnson and now look, we have guys like lebron who is 6’8” and can play guard. its evolution as the field gets better. there are just more players that can play with 250-300+ apm.
"strategy" is simply a word that is overvalued by people incapable of having the technical skills. for instance, i can be a physics expert, know the perfect technique to kick a soccer ball, and the perfect strategies for soccer offense and defense, but i’ll never be able to play as good as pele without the actual ability.
yes some pros are stupid and make dumb decisions, but is it easier to teach them a new strategy or whatever or is it easier for you to suddenly have 300 apm? i think that’ll answer your question about which is truly more valuable.
the POS coach when TL interviewed him a while back said that progaming development now is about finding fast guys, not strategically sound guys because strategy can always be taught. you can’t teach speed. yes you can get faster slowly but there’s a cap for most people.
nowadays, the speed seems to be a prerequisite, and strategy, practice and intuition get you to become great.
edit: and if you don't have that baseline speed, you can't really be even "very good." yes i know there are a few exceptions but they are very, very few. But the thing is though, unlike basketball, near perfect multitasking is achievable by nearly EVERYONE that was born with above 100 IQ. You can be 200 apm and have near perfect, pro level multitasking, or you can be 400 like nada and have pro multitasking. Every progamer has pretty much the same level of mechanics. But I can say many aren't born with the intelligence whether to be strategically dominant or hard working to compete at the highest level.
this is not true. the game is evolving. basketball has been around what, a half century? while BW only a few years at true pro competition level?
after 50 years of game development and starleagues do you think everyone would be able to achieve pro level multitasking? esp if the progamers were being paid $10-15 million per year?
obviously this won't happen, but hypothetically the technical gap could be just as large, we just haven't seen it yet.
|
On November 17 2006 14:42 YoUr_KiLLeR wrote:
but if every pro has the same mechanics, then something else must be separating the top players from the rest? this contradicts with what you were saying earlier about players winning purely on mechanics.
I think they have nearly the same mechanics, but Chojja wins because he's a multitasking machine, he's very fluid even by pro standards. ZvZ it's whoever executes the best wins, so naturally he's godly at it. ZvP is easy so he doesn't suck at it. ZvT you have to adapt, react, use smart builds, and thus it is his worst matchup. I'm not a big stats guy but I'm sure if you look at chojja's record vs good, smart terrans its probably awful. I respect chojja because he's probably the only zerg who can pull off stuff like, late game dropping three places at once with defilers/lurkers and swarming, plaguing buildings, while attacking a fourth place when toss/terran has his hands full. But other than he stands for everything in bw i'm not.
|
On November 17 2006 14:57 Hot_Bid wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2006 14:37 zulu_nation8 wrote:On November 16 2006 15:26 Hot_Bid wrote:
i think this was a good discussion and probably shouldn't have been closed because the thread creator said so.
i just think your expectations have to be adjusted to meet the growing skill level among the pros. the definition of "slow" and "fast" as well as "pro" and "amateur" has just changed. the base level of speed required to be “good” has increased.
compare it to basketball, for instance… a decade or two ago most guards were barely taller than six feet, then came magic johnson and now look, we have guys like lebron who is 6’8” and can play guard. its evolution as the field gets better. there are just more players that can play with 250-300+ apm.
"strategy" is simply a word that is overvalued by people incapable of having the technical skills. for instance, i can be a physics expert, know the perfect technique to kick a soccer ball, and the perfect strategies for soccer offense and defense, but i’ll never be able to play as good as pele without the actual ability.
yes some pros are stupid and make dumb decisions, but is it easier to teach them a new strategy or whatever or is it easier for you to suddenly have 300 apm? i think that’ll answer your question about which is truly more valuable.
the POS coach when TL interviewed him a while back said that progaming development now is about finding fast guys, not strategically sound guys because strategy can always be taught. you can’t teach speed. yes you can get faster slowly but there’s a cap for most people.
nowadays, the speed seems to be a prerequisite, and strategy, practice and intuition get you to become great.
edit: and if you don't have that baseline speed, you can't really be even "very good." yes i know there are a few exceptions but they are very, very few. But the thing is though, unlike basketball, near perfect multitasking is achievable by nearly EVERYONE that was born with above 100 IQ. You can be 200 apm and have near perfect, pro level multitasking, or you can be 400 like nada and have pro multitasking. Every progamer has pretty much the same level of mechanics. But I can say many aren't born with the intelligence whether to be strategically dominant or hard working to compete at the highest level. this is not true. the game is evolving. basketball has been around what, a half century? while BW only a few years at true pro competition level? after 50 years of game development and starleagues do you think everyone would be able to achieve pro level multitasking? esp if the progamers were being paid $10-15 million per year? obviously this won't happen, but hypothetically the technical gap could be just as large, we just haven't seen it yet.
I think BW has achieved a level where big progress cannot be made anymore (on pro level of course). Take the preliminaries for example, rookies were beating established progamers everywhere, to quote Garimto, the gap between rookies and established pros is non-existant (of course this is an overstatement, but the gap _is_ very small).
Moreover, everyone's style is more or less the same now. If I was to give you a vod of the Terran top 20, I'm positive you wouldn't be able to tell me which player is playing which game. Zerg's the same, heck even Mingu had acceptable muta harass in his games against Xellos. Protoss is the only race where most players still have their distinctive style.
This is the reason why I believe BW is eventually going to die, the potential progress that can be made is too small.
|
Braavos36387 Posts
it was a hypothetical, assuming that bw is a professional sport with the appropriate skill depth
also, i think they can introduce new concepts, like randomly generated maps (pros would get like 10 minutes to look at it then they play) or other stuff like that
|
On November 17 2006 14:57 Hot_Bid wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2006 14:37 zulu_nation8 wrote:On November 16 2006 15:26 Hot_Bid wrote:
i think this was a good discussion and probably shouldn't have been closed because the thread creator said so.
i just think your expectations have to be adjusted to meet the growing skill level among the pros. the definition of "slow" and "fast" as well as "pro" and "amateur" has just changed. the base level of speed required to be “good” has increased.
compare it to basketball, for instance… a decade or two ago most guards were barely taller than six feet, then came magic johnson and now look, we have guys like lebron who is 6’8” and can play guard. its evolution as the field gets better. there are just more players that can play with 250-300+ apm.
"strategy" is simply a word that is overvalued by people incapable of having the technical skills. for instance, i can be a physics expert, know the perfect technique to kick a soccer ball, and the perfect strategies for soccer offense and defense, but i’ll never be able to play as good as pele without the actual ability.
yes some pros are stupid and make dumb decisions, but is it easier to teach them a new strategy or whatever or is it easier for you to suddenly have 300 apm? i think that’ll answer your question about which is truly more valuable.
the POS coach when TL interviewed him a while back said that progaming development now is about finding fast guys, not strategically sound guys because strategy can always be taught. you can’t teach speed. yes you can get faster slowly but there’s a cap for most people.
nowadays, the speed seems to be a prerequisite, and strategy, practice and intuition get you to become great.
edit: and if you don't have that baseline speed, you can't really be even "very good." yes i know there are a few exceptions but they are very, very few. But the thing is though, unlike basketball, near perfect multitasking is achievable by nearly EVERYONE that was born with above 100 IQ. You can be 200 apm and have near perfect, pro level multitasking, or you can be 400 like nada and have pro multitasking. Every progamer has pretty much the same level of mechanics. But I can say many aren't born with the intelligence whether to be strategically dominant or hard working to compete at the highest level. this is not true. the game is evolving. basketball has been around what, a half century? while BW only a few years at true pro competition level? after 50 years of game development and starleagues do you think everyone would be able to achieve pro level multitasking? esp if the progamers were being paid $10-15 million per year? obviously this won't happen, but hypothetically the technical gap could be just as large, we just haven't seen it yet.
In terms of american sports yea, every year athletes get stronger and faster. But is that truely what you want? More guys like preston wilson couple years back hitting .220 with 35 home runs while hitting into double plays every other at bat? Or guys like Nomar before wrist injury who are truly gifted hitters. At the pro level of starcraft it is very balanced as only the smartest/most talented players win while we get the occasional chojja. But at amateur levels which isn't really that amateur I think it's unfair cuz its koreans who are like say, stupid 7'2 bosnians who can only rebound and score on putbacks being better at basketball than 6'10 undersized centers who can shoot, pass, have court vision, but is too slow and unathletic. Although if the undersized centers take steroids or play 8 hours a day, he can become athletic too and dominate.
|
On November 17 2006 14:51 infinity21 wrote:
...In the end, I think it really comes down to abusing personal strengths & other people's weaknesses.
I agree entirely. at the pro level and at the higher amatuer levels, the weaknesses are less severe and not as easily exploited. the pros that have the least amount of weakness are the ones that are more dominant. oov is the best example because during his reign as being unstoppable, his gameplay was solid all around(he barely had weaknesses in his play).
|
basically to make it simpler, using soccer as an analogy. Brazil is better than england at soccer not because the people there play more, but because of their culture, the way they think, their teachings, their system, etc. Which is beautifully balanced and completely fair. But on the other hand, Korea is better than Poland at starcraft for the one and only reason that they're exposed to it more, they play the game more often.
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On November 17 2006 15:38 zulu_nation8 wrote:
basically to make it simpler, using soccer as an analogy. Brazil is better than england at soccer not because the people there play more, but because of their culture, the way they think, their teachings, their system, etc. Which is beautifully balanced and completely fair. But on the other hand, Korea is better than Poland at starcraft for the one and only reason that they're exposed to it more, they play the game more often.
I don't know, is that such a bad thing? When I created my infamous "General BW" thread, everyone at TL told me: play more games. You can't become a professional StarCraft player without playing thousands and thousands of games and spending countless hours studying strategies / creating your own strategy. Development of mechanics is a big part of the game. You're just being selfish by trying to take away from the people who literally spent thousands of hours into StarCraft and rewarding those who think more.
It may sounds harsh but, it's just the rule of life. What you get back is directly proportional to the amount of time you put into it. You seem "frustrated" as the thread states. Just relax and don't compare so much. Perhaps you're just thinking too much. Try to remember the time when you first started playing StarCraft and find the joy that you felt back then.
|
yes but my point is that you can get good by ONLY playing thousands and thousands of games but being a dumbass at the same time. In football, many lower division players have probably played the same amount of football in their lives compared to say the likes of Ryan Giggs, however they're not as good as he is because they're just naturally less talented.
|
On November 17 2006 14:51 infinity21 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2006 14:37 zulu_nation8 wrote:On November 16 2006 15:26 Hot_Bid wrote:
i think this was a good discussion and probably shouldn't have been closed because the thread creator said so.
i just think your expectations have to be adjusted to meet the growing skill level among the pros. the definition of "slow" and "fast" as well as "pro" and "amateur" has just changed. the base level of speed required to be “good” has increased.
compare it to basketball, for instance… a decade or two ago most guards were barely taller than six feet, then came magic johnson and now look, we have guys like lebron who is 6’8” and can play guard. its evolution as the field gets better. there are just more players that can play with 250-300+ apm.
"strategy" is simply a word that is overvalued by people incapable of having the technical skills. for instance, i can be a physics expert, know the perfect technique to kick a soccer ball, and the perfect strategies for soccer offense and defense, but i’ll never be able to play as good as pele without the actual ability.
yes some pros are stupid and make dumb decisions, but is it easier to teach them a new strategy or whatever or is it easier for you to suddenly have 300 apm? i think that’ll answer your question about which is truly more valuable.
the POS coach when TL interviewed him a while back said that progaming development now is about finding fast guys, not strategically sound guys because strategy can always be taught. you can’t teach speed. yes you can get faster slowly but there’s a cap for most people.
nowadays, the speed seems to be a prerequisite, and strategy, practice and intuition get you to become great.
edit: and if you don't have that baseline speed, you can't really be even "very good." yes i know there are a few exceptions but they are very, very few. But the thing is though, unlike basketball, near perfect multitasking is achievable by nearly EVERYONE that was born with above 100 IQ. You can be 200 apm and have near perfect, pro level multitasking, or you can be 400 like nada and have pro multitasking. Every progamer has pretty much the same level of mechanics. But I can say many aren't born with the intelligence whether to be strategically dominant or hard working to compete at the highest level. I don't think your APM is your problem Zulu.. people like iloveoov have APM in the low 200s and he owned everyone with his hand speed. 170 should be sufficient for a casual gamer, imo. We see people with high APM losing to people with low APM all the time. NaDa, with his 400+ APM only wins about 65% of his games (not sure. can anyone confirm this?) and I'm sure some of those 35% had 200 APM. Maybe you're just feeling depressed because you're in a slump or something. I'm sure you're a good player from reading some of your threads, so keep at it and good luck. Though I also think that people should just use what they're exceptionally good at. For example, Xellos, with his 300+ APM, can attack 4 different Zerg expansions to make it really hard for the Zerg to defend everything. Some others may be content just making it a macro war. In the end, I think it really comes down to abusing personal strengths & other people's weaknesses.
u dont need to be a 300+ apm but 170 is kinda low~ =(
i think that first u need to have a minimum apm (to not lose to a 500+ dumb player)
after that u can think about strategies..
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On November 17 2006 15:56 zulu_nation8 wrote:
yes but my point is that you can get good by ONLY playing thousands and thousands of games but being a dumbass at the same time.
Ok, now I see your point. And I do agree, what you say is completely true. But again, is that such a bad thing? I'll generalize BW into two categories: strategy and mechanics.
My understanding of StarCraft is limited, but this is what I think. You can be a good player with good strategy & acceptable mechanics. You can also be a good player with by-the-book strategies & great game mechanics. However, you will never become an elite player without being great at both.
I believe it was Garimto who said "Sense of Star". Without that instinct, that perfect understanding of the game-flow, you can never get to the top. I read in an article once that lots and lots of rookies are at the same level as experienced players. What separates NaDa and Boxer from your dumbass 300 APM amateur (sorry more like 500) is not game mechanics, but the "sense of star", their distinct game style that they excel at and makes them unique, and their experience.
Yes, some "dumbasses" may be really good at StarCraft, but that's because they practiced a lot, and frankly, it (i.e. game mechanics) is what they're good at. Perhaps they're just not naturally good with strategy. As I've said above, it's abusing your strengths. There is a reason why you still manage to win. You are superior to the opponent in something, most likely strategy.
To really simplify this, one might say:
StarCraft skills = strategy + mechanics
If you don't want to develop your mechanics, try to go for a better strategy that suits you best, or try to increase your understanding of the dynamic flow of the game.
edit: Well, at the amateur level, I really think 170 APM would be sufficient if you have near perfect efficiency (i.e. not clicking like 5 times, but clicking once and doing something else in that time)
|
I once tried not spamming a single time in the beginning, which my apm is usually around 450 if I do spam, and I restrained my spamming the whole 25 minute game and my overall high apm was 170. What this means is that your apm does not have to be 200, but you will have to be able to multitask like hell in midgame, going everywhere in the screen. So in one sense you need to be fast, you're right, but your apm doesn't have to be higher. Some spamming methods produce far higher apm than even the way NaDa does it. For example, I have very old reps of me where I had 450-500 apm in 20 minute games, but this is when I was entirely focused on spamming, and the way I was spamming it was 60% hotkeys and I would constantly keep hotkeying my hatcheries holding down the control button often and doing 565656. Now, mine is 300 flat.
What I'm saying is that if you want to increase APM you can do it if you want to sacrifice your brain to just focus on moving your hands and macroing constantly. Koreans have always been doing this, yet Savior in my eyes actually uses his brain in zvt and zvp to a point where you go like "wow this guy's perfect." You have to focus on 1 thing only and then combine both your brain and your apm to improve your game. It's like practicing the violin or music, you don't just throw everything together.
There was a point where when people saw me in bwchart they would always wonder about my apm highness, but I wasn't confident in my game until Savior showed me how important it is to play mind tricks on the opponent and justify the production of your larva and even managing your economy and predicting proxies. By the way I'm korean but I was born in America so trust me I really dont' think I inherintly got high apm. After all, I was a huge UMSer and a CSer and a big game hunters person before lost temple. I didn't even hotkey in sc for like 3 years.
|
On November 17 2006 14:41 zulu_nation8 wrote:
For example if Chojja was given the task to create a zvt build to counter oov's fe he would feel stupid because he wouldn't be able to do it. Whereas savior did the same thing and came up with the most perfect anti fe build there is down to every larva.
Actually... you're wrong and thinking in short trends. Chojja DID come up with an anti-oov build. KTF started using fast hive/defiler. Think of how much the game has evolved in 1 years time... 2005 Oov was still dominating with his FE builds... And no SL Champ is stupid. Chojja figured out RH3 like the back of his hand and owned it.
You wanna see stupid? Watch Mumyung vs Soul Toss in recent STX vs SKT1. You underestimate the strategic superiority of pros, sure it's mechanical to a certain aspect but everything is "mechanical"... just because you don't see queen rushes or stupid rushes like that doesn't mean the games strategy is gone.
I think you should watch more VODs... because I still don't understand where you are coming from. Everyone has SICK macro and SICK micro nowadays but if you want some examples of smart and unique play etc..
check out...
Casy vs Never_V_ - Casy still has the sickest TvT around, it's aggresive and ends games at 20 minutes unless you are top 5 TvT's in existance. His timing and build, and his read on his opponant is gross. He knows the consequences of every build and knows how to attack and when. Does this make him mechanical? No... it makes him superior to you in terms of SC understanding. Just because they know a counter and do it doesn't make them mech like.
LuxuryGsP vs Canata - Canata plays a very cool game on Arcadia reading Luxury's main gameplan like a book, but Luxury goes about outplaying Canata for another 20 minutes to snatch a win. Unorthodox play until the late game, where Luxury chooses better options and wins.
Etc etc... To say the game has become mechanical is to say the Pro's macro has become near perfect, which is pretty true. Not a huge macro gap nowadays, but timing attacks execution is still skill and strategy.
To say the game has stopped evolving because Savior has created a monster build order is... to me. short sighted.
People were saying the same stupid Nonsense when Oov was dominating everyone with "The Age of Micro has Ended" but... excuse me... Define Anytime and Casy for me... they are great Micro heavy users. Then with Nada's age, it was the same nonsense.... but I just can't be convinced. What seems perfect now will become yesterday's story sooner or later.
Think of how much Nada himself has evolved while keeping his own unique style.
Or how someone like TT actually does ok in SL... or Rainbow?
Even people like Iris and GF have shown innovation and non mechanical play quite often, especailly nowadays.
Pros themselves say nowadays you can't play mechanical and win. Savior is just sublime on an unfathomable level but he does his build order because terrans always try the same shit vs him. It took progamers a year to figure out how to stop Oov's build. Now it's Savior's turn.
|
Your knowledge of the game is the limit of your skills, but to get to that limit you must improve your speed/multitasking..
I always losed to a guy who had less strategy than me and less vision of the game flow, but nevertheless he won everytime we played because he was able to pull things better.
Time passed and now i beat him. Why? because i watched more reps and studied the game more, therefore i could aim higher.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
