|
On December 08 2014 15:31 Ignorant prodigy wrote:
I can't design a build for players in masters or GM because I am not masters or GM.. I was just stating.. like a broken record.. that according to my record.. and the examples ive shown.. it works at diamond level..
i'm not sure what you want me to say?
The point is that you post a build with flaws, people better than you comment on what makes it flawed, and as mentioned, you dig yourself a hole in the sand saying "la la la I disagree, and I have proof to show it works."
The reason I came off as more aggressive is because people come out of nowhere all the time, trying to name builds after themselves that quite frankly suck. It's not limited to you, but there's really no point in teaching other people to play in a way that is just so... bad.
|
whaaa.....?
what is a sound footnote exactly?
your opinion? is that it?.. ok lets go with that
|
lmao the build is called 'the ignorant build'.. and you're in here attacking the name and saying it's bad... there is a little irony there lol
The reason I came off as more aggressive is because people come out of nowhere all the time, trying to name builds after themselves that quite frankly suck. It's not limited to you, but there's really no point in teaching other people to play in a way that is just so... bad.
man you sound like an elitist ..
we should try and get TL to have a build committee.. you can be on it.. you can judge whether builds are bad or good regardless of win rates and vods/replays... just simply by your opinion... you dont even have to try them
and only those build you deem worthy will be allowed to be posted on here.
btw thanks.. I'm up to 5 pages woot
|
On December 08 2014 15:53 Ignorant prodigy wrote:
whaaa.....?
what is a sound footnote exactly?
your opinion? is that it?.. ok lets go with that
No, a sound a footnote is one that holds any water objectively.
I'm glad that you are able to conclude from 9 games that your build works, at "your level" whatever that even means, but quite frankly, I have doubts about that because I don't trust conclusions that players at "your level" can draw from having played 9 games.
That being said, I don't even need to mistrust your conclusions based on "your level" because I know for a fact that you're wrong. It's a build that's been used a lot before. I have used the build a lot myself even way after it has gone out of style and it certainly can yield an advantage against some poor response, but good responses crush it.
You end up arriving with your void-ray to your opponent's third and it gets defend by a couple of queens, because there's no way to hide the stargate (especially the way you placed it at the wall in the 1 game that I saw from your vod.)
And you realize you have no map presence.
Your stargate tech can't kill any drones because it's so late. You can't afford any sentries without being getting stuck on stargate (which will lose you the game to a fast lair hydraling attack like you've mentioned in the OP.)
Your warpgate is late and you only have 2 gateways so you can't put on any pressure to keep the zerg from droning on 3 bases.
If you decide to not get the sentries, there's a good chance your opponent will max on roaches super fast (ala Stephano in wings,) and you'll never be able to take your third and then you lose from there.
If you do get sentries and don't get crushed by hydras your AOE tech is super delayed and you probably don't have blink to deal with a muta switch from 3 bases (because after stargate you're practically forced to rush to colossus.)
At that point your best bet becomes some colossus-voidray all in with enough sentries just for guardian shield and a mix of zealot/stalker, which is a guaranteed loss against a muta base-trade and a very likely loss against a standard composition unless the zerg takes a ridiculously bad fight.
|
On December 08 2014 15:55 Ignorant prodigy wrote:
lmao the build is called 'the ignorant build'.. and you're in here attacking the name and saying it's bad... there is a little irony there lol
...I don't see the Irony at all, except for maybe the fact that you are ignorant to why people are disagreeing with you, your ID is ignorant, and the build is called ignorant.
And it is.
|
On December 08 2014 15:55 Ignorant prodigy wrote:lmao the build is called 'the ignorant build'.. and you're in here attacking the name and saying it's bad... there is a little irony there lol Show nested quote +The reason I came off as more aggressive is because people come out of nowhere all the time, trying to name builds after themselves that quite frankly suck. It's not limited to you, but there's really no point in teaching other people to play in a way that is just so... bad.
man you sound like an elitist .. we should try and get TL to have a build committee.. you can be on it.. you can judge whether builds are bad or good regardless of win rates and vods/replays... just simply by your opinion... you dont even have to try them and only those build you deem worthy will be allowed to be posted on here. btw thanks.. I'm up to 5 pages woot
If you're saying I don't think Diamonds should post their own builds stating "they work" (caveat, diamond only) without being receptive of feedback, then yes, you're correct.
Theorycrafting is another story, but that's clearly not what you're doing.
|
This build achieve nothing but crossing fingers and exepecting a bad reaction, any other early pressure build like for example a 4-Gate pressure will give you more micro potential and better follow-up. I'll not write more because everything has been discuss before, Moreover, it feels like you are not open to feedback.
I'll just add that being top 5 Diamond in your league doesn't mean you are top diamond level because point doesn't reflect your skill before master/GM but more like you activity IMO but that's something else and it is off topic.
|
i'm open to feedback, just having a spirited argument
the logic behind pooling the zealots is considered bad by a few here.
You may not like the build or the reasons why I made the decisions I made.. which is fine.. but it doesn't stop it from being fun and setting me up to win more than I lose. I can only play people that match up to me on ladder so I don't see why there's so many comments 'this wont work if you opponent is any good' etc.. if you feel that way that's ok but it's not a matter of me thinking it works.. it DOES work .. for me atleast... and I wanted to share so others could try it and see if it'd work for them
I pool the zealots for a couple reasons
1. when the 5th zealots finishes I can usually start my natural nexus as they leave.. it allows me to get it up w/o fear of lings delaying or denying it. If they chose to run by with lings (which happens a lot) I can split them up and defend and attack... I also build a 6th zealot sometimes judging on how many lings they have. Its takes a little while to kill 5 zealots which gives me time to get a cannon up. when they eventually die it's 2 base to 2 base and I have a stargate on the way. Most games I have a worker lead. If they chose few lings and queens then more often than not they don't have speed.. which means they can't pressure me at all and I can often take my 3rd relatively early
2. sending them in single file IMO makes it easier for zergs to kill them. Part of the build is a judgment when the zealots get there.. if they committed a lot to defense then saving them is often worth it. If you lose them early on by sending them 1 by 1 then you've effectively lost that option
It seems to be a common theme that it's relatively easy to stop the 5 zealots from doing damage and giving the zergs a lead. I don't know how to dispute that other than say I win with the build.. so that's why it may sound like i'm not open to feedback.. but if it were easy.. then why do so many have issues? by saying it's because they're diamond is a reason.. but when I started the build I said I win with this at diamond and low masters.. so that should be a given? I didn't claim it'd work mid-high masters, GM, or pro level...
I am also not denying there's a level of coin flippy-ness to it.. if they react well or rush hydra and muta this build has its issues.. but I stated that in the very first post
|
just a side note
I'm glad that you are able to conclude from 9 games that your build works, at "your level" whatever that even means, but quite frankly, I have doubts about that because I don't trust conclusions that players at "your level" can draw from having played 9 games.
I've used this build for almost a year now.. I've only had 9 games this season.... but I probably have about 50-60 games with this build. So the conclusion isn't after just 9 games.. it's far more than that
|
Italy12246 Posts
To be fair, there's a huge difference between a build that wins you games on ladder, and one that is actually good.
For the millionth time, i've had stupid amounts of success (as in losing 2-3 games out of dozens) with every sort of 4gate>dt pvz build you could possibly imagine, at a level that is much higher than diamond, over a period of over 2 years. It doesn't make those builds good per se, it's just that non standard gimmicky play on ladder (or in a clan war if you need to snipe a better player) is always going to be very succesful.
None in the world could open with this (or with the tasteless build) every game in a bo3/5/7 and win with it against an opponent of reasonably similar skill, so calling builds like this viable is a stretch at best. Ladder is a very different environment than pros playing in a tournament, and frankly, people tend to obsess over wether something is viable or not too much. On ladder you can win with pretty much anything.
At the end of the day, wierd styles that work on ladder are bad per se, and in fact they are extremely fun to play, but that doesn't make them legitimate/viable/whatever.
|
The 1 vod i saw of your play (the first game of one of the videos of your stream) your opponent literally built absolutely nothing before zealots got there.
One really safe way to defend this is to wait until the zealots move out and when they do start a single spine in range of both your nat hatch and your ramp and place both queens at ramp to block while making zerglings up to 10-14.
1 spine and 14 lings cost as much 5 zealots, but it defends this attack really safely, with no micro required.
In practice however, the spine isn't needed can be generally just replaced with a third queen which the zerg was gonna get anyways
But until the zealots move out, the zerg can make nothing but drones.
The reason we're telling you that pooling the zealots is bad is because if you wait with them in your base your opponent doesn't have to start reacting immediately, so they can just build drones.
If you were to move out with your first zealots then they would have start building lings or a spine or pull drones earlier, that way you start hurting their economy earlier. All you need to do is micro a bit and be conservative with your zealots until the last ones arrive, they will still arrive there at the same time as if you had left your base with all 5 at the same time. It's basically guaranteed to do extra economic damage at the cost of just a little micro.
However, even so if you DO rally your zealots right away a good response will still set you behind.
|
This argument is stupid.
Here's a guy saying "I am diamond and this is a thing I do on the ladder and I win with it" and everyone's in here with a stick up their ass calling the build bad/not viable/etc.
1) He is in Diamond. He's not advocating that PartinG should use this to win GSL. He's just mentioning that it works FOR HIM in Diamond and sharing it in case people want to copy it.
2) In Diamond, the build is viable. In StarCraft there is one objective: to win the game. This build achieves this objective at a high enough rate that Ignorant is satisfied with it. Saying that it's not viable is pretty much the dumbest thing you can say. It wins games at like a 70% rate at his MMR. It is viable. This is not for debate really.
3) Finally, it's completely out of the meta, and anything weird is likely to throw off the opponent. Anyone claiming "it's easy if you react properly" is wasting their breath. Anything is easily countered "if you react properly." That is the definition of reacting properly. Builds that are outside the meta make it harder to react properly because you're less used to reacting that particular way. This is science.
TLDR: In DIAMOND, Ignorant consistently wins games with this build and has fun doing so. So don't hate.
PS - A GM player we know also tried this in GM and won with it a few times. FYI.
|
On December 09 2014 05:12 Kiarip wrote:
The 1 vod i saw of your play (the first game of one of the videos of your stream) your opponent literally built absolutely nothing before zealots got there.
One really safe way to defend this is to wait until the zealots move out and when they do start a single spine in range of both your nat hatch and your ramp and place both queens at ramp to block while making zerglings up to 10-14.
1 spine and 14 lings cost as much 5 zealots, but it defends this attack really safely, with no micro required.
In practice however, the spine isn't needed can be generally just replaced with a third queen which the zerg was gonna get anyways
But until the zealots move out, the zerg can make nothing but drones.
The reason we're telling you that pooling the zealots is bad is because if you wait with them in your base your opponent doesn't have to start reacting immediately, so they can just build drones.
If you were to move out with your first zealots then they would have start building lings or a spine or pull drones earlier, that way you start hurting their economy earlier. All you need to do is micro a bit and be conservative with your zealots until the last ones arrive, they will still arrive there at the same time as if you had left your base with all 5 at the same time. It's basically guaranteed to do extra economic damage at the cost of just a little micro.
However, even so if you DO rally your zealots right away a good response will still set you behind.
i hear you.. i do.. but it's not a given the zergs are ahead. your reaction as a zerg is not the same as most zergs i face..
keep in mind you know exactly what the follow up is.. you also know im still making probes and you know there's only 2 gateways
the zergs on ladder don't know exactly what they're facing.. they're working on limited info.
I just checked sc2gears
I went back to May. I'm 32-17 doing this build (65%)
(keep in mind sc2gears only counts the first 6 structures)
zergs built 2 spines 8 times.. they're 4-4.. this response shares the best record for zerg at 50%
zergs built 1 spine 14 times.. they're 7-7.. sharing again the best record with 50%
zergs built 3 spines 5 times.. they're 2-3
zergs have gone banelings 2 times.. they're 1-1
zergs went fast roaches 20 times.. they only won 2 games.. they lost 18 times when going roach warren within the first 6 structures.. this is by far the most common response
zergs go some variant of 2 base lair 9 times..they're 4-5
zergs go pool first 19 times.. they're 8-11
zergs go gas first, then pool 10 times...they're 1-9
there's some overlap between stats there. for example sometimes they go a single spine and roach warren..etc
but these stuck out to me
I do want to point out that if you judge by win rate*..(which some disagree with) not one zerg build gives a significant advantage.. the best they've done is 50% according to sc2gears.. which doesn't provide units in the multi-replay analysis build screen
|
On December 09 2014 06:03 DinoMight wrote:
This argument is stupid.
Here's a guy saying "I am diamond and this is a thing I do on the ladder and I win with it" and everyone's in here with a stick up their ass calling the build bad/not viable/etc.
1) He is in Diamond. He's not advocating that PartinG should use this to win GSL. He's just mentioning that it works FOR HIM in Diamond and sharing it in case people want to copy it.
2) In Diamond, the build is viable. In StarCraft there is one objective: to win the game. This build achieves this objective at a high enough rate that Ignorant is satisfied with it. Saying that it's not viable is pretty much the dumbest thing you can say. It wins games at like a 70% rate at his MMR. It is viable. This is not for debate really.
3) Finally, it's completely out of the meta, and anything weird is likely to throw off the opponent. Anyone claiming "it's easy if you react properly" is wasting their breath. Anything is easily countered "if you react properly." That is the definition of reacting properly. Builds that are outside the meta make it harder to react properly because you're less used to reacting that particular way. This is science.
TLDR: In DIAMOND, Ignorant consistently wins games with this build and has fun doing so. So don't hate.
PS - A GM player we know also tried this in GM and won with it a few times. FYI.
perfectly stated
|
I mean its a flawed version of a good build. Players that lose to poorly designed builds that are aggressive, also lose to well designed builds that are aggressive. If you're happy in diamond, it frankly doesn't matter. It's not that the scoreboard gives you bonus points for how far ahead you were when you won.
On December 09 2014 00:23 Ignorant prodigy wrote:
i'm open to feedback, just having a spirited argument
the logic behind pooling the zealots is considered bad by a few here.
You may not like the build or the reasons why I made the decisions I made.. which is fine.. but it doesn't stop it from being fun and setting me up to win more than I lose. I can only play people that match up to me on ladder so I don't see why there's so many comments 'this wont work if you opponent is any good' etc.. if you feel that way that's ok but it's not a matter of me thinking it works.. it DOES work .. for me atleast... and I wanted to share so others could try it and see if it'd work for them
I pool the zealots for a couple reasons
1. when the 5th zealots finishes I can usually start my natural nexus as they leave.. it allows me to get it up w/o fear of lings delaying or denying it. If they chose to run by with lings (which happens a lot) I can split them up and defend and attack... I also build a 6th zealot sometimes judging on how many lings they have. Its takes a little while to kill 5 zealots which gives me time to get a cannon up. when they eventually die it's 2 base to 2 base and I have a stargate on the way. Most games I have a worker lead. If they chose few lings and queens then more often than not they don't have speed.. which means they can't pressure me at all and I can often take my 3rd relatively early
2. sending them in single file IMO makes it easier for zergs to kill them. Part of the build is a judgment when the zealots get there.. if they committed a lot to defense then saving them is often worth it. If you lose them early on by sending them 1 by 1 then you've effectively lost that option
It seems to be a common theme that it's relatively easy to stop the 5 zealots from doing damage and giving the zergs a lead. I don't know how to dispute that other than say I win with the build.. so that's why it may sound like i'm not open to feedback.. but if it were easy.. then why do so many have issues? by saying it's because they're diamond is a reason.. but when I started the build I said I win with this at diamond and low masters.. so that should be a given? I didn't claim it'd work mid-high masters, GM, or pro level...
I am also not denying there's a level of coin flippy-ness to it.. if they react well or rush hydra and muta this build has its issues.. but I stated that in the very first post
To be perfectly honest, it's fruitless to continue on the theorycrafting behind pooling 5 zealots since you've already admitted that its the worse way to play it. It will work with inferior pressure because you're playing diamonds and they're making mistakes against an unorthodox build. If you wanted to develop the build into something you could mix into higher leagues, I think you'd have let on by now. It does save us a lot of breath talking about why an earlier attack focusing on saving zealots is the better path, knowing that you're unable and unwilling to deviate from your preferred transition to expansion and expansion defense.
|
On December 09 2014 06:03 DinoMight wrote:
This argument is stupid.
Here's a guy saying "I am diamond and this is a thing I do on the ladder and I win with it" and everyone's in here with a stick up their ass calling the build bad/not viable/etc.
1) He is in Diamond. He's not advocating that PartinG should use this to win GSL. He's just mentioning that it works FOR HIM in Diamond and sharing it in case people want to copy it.
2) In Diamond, the build is viable. In StarCraft there is one objective: to win the game. This build achieves this objective at a high enough rate that Ignorant is satisfied with it. Saying that it's not viable is pretty much the dumbest thing you can say. It wins games at like a 70% rate at his MMR. It is viable. This is not for debate really.
3) Finally, it's completely out of the meta, and anything weird is likely to throw off the opponent. Anyone claiming "it's easy if you react properly" is wasting their breath. Anything is easily countered "if you react properly." That is the definition of reacting properly. Builds that are outside the meta make it harder to react properly because you're less used to reacting that particular way. This is science.
TLDR: In DIAMOND, Ignorant consistently wins games with this build and has fun doing so. So don't hate.
PS - A GM player we know also tried this in GM and won with it a few times. FYI.
This forum would be terrible if every other player posted a build that worked for them at their level but was quite clearly flawed otherwise.
Theorycrafting on its strengths and trying to improve it is one thing. Posting a build that works in a lower league, is completely reliant on a poor reaction (as in, you WILL lose if your opponent reacts properly, which makes it a gamble given they can completely scout you), and trying to defend it is another thing.
Everything isn't easily countered "if you react properly." That's why we have standard builds in the first place. The majority of builds require you to outplay your opponent to win, which is entirely different than reacting properly. Reacting "properly" to a 1rax reaper expand in ZvT doesn't guarantee a win whatsoever.
This PvZ opener on the other hand is a completely different matter - any proper reaction should result in nearly an instant loss for the user of the build, regardless of how they decide to play it, after the initial execution of the build. That is the point that is trying to be made.
Someone in Gold could also post that they have a cannon rush build where they start a pylon super far away from the opponent base and will creep like 5-6 cannons towards their main and catch their opponent off guard. It may work for them all the time in their PvX matchup. Doesn't mean it's not a terrible version of a cannon rush. Having a thread like that would quite simply be a waste of time.
|
OK I just watched the replay. You posted a replay of the build I was advocating! All you've done is prove the build I posted is viable (which I maintain it's not), not that your version is...
1) The build I said was better was 2gates before second pylon, which is what happens in the replay.
2) He builds both gateways at the natural, as I said. You even replied stating NOT to build your gateways at the natural.
3) Even more specifically, he attempts to do the 13gate/15gate that I specifically mention in my build, but due to chatting with his opponent, drops it at 16. Screen shot below.
4) As mentioned, he doesn't pool 5 zealots. He only pools 3, which in fact does not accomplish anything more than simply sending 1 by 1 as I would advocate.
5) The Zerg opens almost as suboptimally as possible with a gasless 14 pool. This is probably one of the worst openers a Zerg can even do, and the build you absolutely pray for if the Toss 2gates. Late enough pool you can't pressure the natural, but also not a hatch first. And he only does it because the Protoss GM tells him not to hatch first (the most ideal build vs this). So you're on even footing vs this Zerg opener but behind vs the vast majority of other ones.
6) The Zerg played terribly, continuing to build lings after you expanded and the Zealots died? He also was reacting to what the Protoss was telling him to do. It was nearly a setup situation for failure.
TL:DR - the Protoss GM in the match you posted used the build that I posted, not your build.
EDIT: In response to the below, where you ask "did you even read the build"
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Seqg5dr.jpg?1) http://i.imgur.com/Seqg5dr.jpg?1
On December 06 2014 08:46 Ignorant prodigy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2014 15:25 FabledIntegral wrote:
This is countered if the Zerg player builders 8 lings and ignores the zealots and just kills the reinforcing spawns.
I'm high masters and used to use a 2gate opening quite a bit, until the reinforcement cutoff strat really boned me over. Because slowlings are so much faster than zealots, they can chase away reinforcing zelaots until they group up. This buys the Zerg ample time to defend the initial zealots at it's hatch with 3 queens and a single spine. Then you're notably far behind due to very delayed expansion, while Zerg's is already up.
There's also little reason to build your second gateway so late - you can afford 13 gate and second gate at 15. Admittedly I don't probe scout, but I can't imagine it would make that much of a difference. I also built the gates at the nat in order to shorten the rush distance and start the wall early - if Zerg has early speed, he can delay any expo with mass ling if you build in the main. what reinforcing spawns? did you even read the build? there is no 'reinforcing'.. it's basically pool 5 zealots then go.. i don't send them as they spawn. also building the gate at the natural is a bad idea IMO.. if they early pool (with or w/o speed) you could get fucked by losing the pylon etc.. the distance to pull probe to protect it is very far and not worth it. This isn't a 'proxy' 2 gate in your natural.. your build sounds more like a zealot rush of some kind walling your main ramp is essential and saved me a few times from early pools.
|
On December 09 2014 06:03 DinoMight wrote:
This argument is stupid.
Here's a guy saying "I am diamond and this is a thing I do on the ladder and I win with it" and everyone's in here with a stick up their ass calling the build bad/not viable/etc.
1) He is in Diamond. He's not advocating that PartinG should use this to win GSL. He's just mentioning that it works FOR HIM in Diamond and sharing it in case people want to copy it.
2) In Diamond, the build is viable. In StarCraft there is one objective: to win the game. This build achieves this objective at a high enough rate that Ignorant is satisfied with it. Saying that it's not viable is pretty much the dumbest thing you can say. It wins games at like a 70% rate at his MMR. It is viable. This is not for debate really.
3) Finally, it's completely out of the meta, and anything weird is likely to throw off the opponent. Anyone claiming "it's easy if you react properly" is wasting their breath. Anything is easily countered "if you react properly." That is the definition of reacting properly. Builds that are outside the meta make it harder to react properly because you're less used to reacting that particular way. This is science.
TLDR: In DIAMOND, Ignorant consistently wins games with this build and has fun doing so. So don't hate.
PS - A GM player we know also tried this in GM and won with it a few times. FYI.
This is all good and true.
TeamLiquid has always been a place where people come for high level information. It is the way it has always been.
There are plenty of other places to discuss low level builds and strategies.
Does this mean you shouldn't post low level builds? Of course not, go ahead.
My point is though that the poster needs to be aware that when the words such as "viable" gets thrown around, on TeamLiquid it means for high level play. No matter how you try to qualify it (viable at diamond, viable at bronze, viable for people with three arms).
The responses will always be from people looking at it from high level and tournament level play. This is something you have to expect when posting on this glorious strategy forum. And that is a good thing, people discussing your builds looking at it from the highest of level of play.
Just imagine how much faster you can optimize and evolve a build with some help rather than doing it solely on your own.
Now, if the OP had been a little bit more open minded about the changes suggested I don't think he would have gotten so many angry words from other posters.
For example, if he tried some of the suggested changes out, added them to the OP as variations or suggestions.
Just stating that it works in diamond and the build is perfect for that reason, is a strange mindset to have.
It will get you a lot of frowns and steer the thread in a direction away from the strategy discussions, just like these posts.
Extracts from the Forum guidelines regarding guides:
Guides are complete, detailed, and comprehensive advice for a specific strategy or tactic that can be generally executed and is not situational. Guides are held up against the highest standards of quality in this forum. They are the most valuable resource for the average player. Writing a good guide may yield you wide appreciation and e-fame, but comes with a lot of work and responsibility.
A guide is always evolving as the game is being more and more understood and as people find counter strategies. As the author it is your job to keep the guide up to date. If other players find weaknesses or suggest changes to the build, it is your job to alter it accordingly. If you disagree, fall back to Rule No 1: Post a replay or some other form of proof that the criticism isn’t valid.
|
Italy12246 Posts
Calm down everyone. If you don't keep the conversation in this thread civil i'll have to close it.
|
Guys...
Diamond is the top 20% of StarCraft 2 players. This means that at least 80% of StarCraft 2 players can benefit from this guide.
Not everyone is interested in being a pro and/or playing like one. Obviously some people do. In that case - it's fine, they don't have to do this build. I think Ignorant has been very clear that this works for him and at his level.
There's an argument to be made that posting certain pro builds is pointless because they're actually bad for most players. PartinG's blink builds are USELESS TO ME because they require ungodly micro that even in Diamond (top 20% of StarCraft players) I don't come remotely close to. Pooling the Zealots may be bad at the pro level. But it makes the build easier to execute, and it potentially surprises them more if they scouted poorly. It makes sense at a Diamond level.
Sure I understand that there is a "correct" way to play the game at the pro level and a "standard" that is widely accepted... but I don't think that everyone cares about that to be honest.
The guys in Gold struggling with PvZ will look at this build and say "you know what, that sounds doable, let me try it."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
