|
On March 17 2008 21:55 Seelys wrote:
I don't play SC as this level (I don't play it anymore at all), I just watch games. And I can see how macro heavy they currently are, but this give me the feeling that all distracting/deceptive manoeuvers aren't worth it, in front of raw overwhelming production. This deters the player from showing the depth games could have, imho.
I didn't speak about the 50-50 ration between micro and macro, but of the 50-50 ration between cycling through production buildings and all other macro tasks. At least, it sounds this way to me since you foresee a huge shift toward micro with MBS.
I didn't speak about micro intensive features, but macro additions (I consider all task aiming at army production as macro), read again. Optimizing and securing ressource income, tweaking production, can't account for micro. This was the spirit of my propositions.
if you dont play the game why are you even arguing?
|
On March 17 2008 22:59 Unentschieden wrote:
There is some serious extraggation going on. MBS so influentional that it would turn the game essentially turn-based? Significant enough to demand it´s own ranking?
The small mechanic has been turned into a symbol for a completely different type of gameplay.
Maybe not on purpose but Black earlier essentially trivialized the depht of strategy in SC, as if there is somewhere a list on the Internet that lists "what counters what" for units/Build orders and therefore everyone is equally good at "thinking" because it is hardly more complex than "rock beats scissors".
"Because decision making doesn't have enough depth to it to support a competitive game."
Well, it should. He even used chess as example that strategy CAN be used to differinate players - hell SC2 might adapt the ELO ranking system from chess.
The issue is that he does not regard the mechanic itself is bad - but the inability of Blizzard to implent it and therefore turn the mechanical factor of gameplay insignificant. But since the strategy or "thinking part" is so shallow the game would end up bad.
IS strategy in SC THAT shallow?
Yes SC strategy is THAT shallow. Of course its that shallow. An RTS game sacrifices deep strategy for fast hectic gameplay. Gameplay that requires different skills. Such as being able to control crazy situations, playing under pressure, feeling short of time, having too many tasks to possibly complete.
Take chess and speed chess. In chess, a GM will be thinking 30 moves ahead, in speed chess, even the best would only be thinking about 5. The strategy in speed chess is thus, a LOT more shallow. However the time constraint and pressured thinking cause speed chess to be an awsome game.
RTS games by principle do not stand on strategy alone. In depth strategy is impossible with the time constraints that a RTS game places on the player. High APM's should be rewarded, and required to compete with the best in RTS. Because skill in RTS games includes being fast and coordinated.
|
A famous saying about chess made by many people is 'Chess is 99& tactics.'
Same goes for decision making in RTS games, mostly tactics.
Actually, you can't have a game that is grounded in strategy. Strategy is the metagame, the layer on top of the basic skills that are tested.
Ooh, and SC2 won't be a next gen game. It's basically a remake of SC with new unit and new graphics. It's trying to reimagine SC but this time with esports in mind.
I have nothing against making a next gen RTS, of course. I do have something against claiming to make an esports game and then dumbing down the game.
Let's admit it. They aren't adding MBS because it adds more strategy. They are adding MBS because newbie players demand it just because other games have it. Newbie players demand it because they want to be good at SC2 without having to practice/train. They think they are above average intelligence and that an RTS game should be some kind of 'strategic IQ' test.
|
if you dont play the game why are you even arguing?
anymore
So state precisely the level of play required to even argue.
I'm clearly stating witch contributor group I belong to. Pure honesty. Why do I feel legitimate to argue ? Because it's a game, I'll surely invest time into. Because I have taken time to see and ask about what BW has become nowadays, to understand what is at stake. Because I wish this could be another jump to a even more breathtaking RTS, with people enjoying its depth at several play levels. Because I don't want to argue on change on an existing game you love, only another game to come.
RTS games by principle do not stand on strategy alone. In depth strategy is impossible with the time constraints that a RTS game places on the player. High APM's should be rewarded, and required to compete with the best in RTS. Because skill in RTS games includes being fast and coordinated.
So we may argue on what the required high speed actions should be about.
|
Well yes of course it's not as strategically demanding as chess for example, or turn-based games in general. But the interesting question is: could it be designed so that strategy is at least slightly more valuable than it is right now? Imagine that ALL units and special abilities were useful, not just very few in each matchup. This would make the game more interesting.
Or imagine that macro isn't as dominant anymore as it is right now.
These are a few situations where micro and strategy will become more valuable, and from my viewpoint MBS will work towards that goal. SBS will not, it won't change any of SC1's "drawbacks".
SBS "forces" you to play in a way that the game will be relatively shallow, because that's the only way you can with SBS: it puts way too much pressure on you to do it any other way, you have to rely on the "easiest" solutions, if you try to get "fancy" you'll probably be punished by your opponent's superior numbers. That means macro being too important is a serious drawback and prevents the gameplay from becoming at least slightly deeper.
|
On March 17 2008 23:17 BlackStar wrote:
Let's admit it. They aren't adding MBS because it adds more strategy. They are adding MBS because newbie players demand it just because other games have it.
I´d say that is part of the reason and not even bad. No one should programm a game against the player. Would you like it if they removed the pause mechanic?
The importance of strategy in RTS came up in the first place because MBS was portrayed as removing the time critical part of the game entirely wich to me is a gross overextragation.
Strategy can and should be a integral part of RTS. "Strategic IQ" should , together with mechanical execution define gameplay.
Edit:
0xDEADBEEF made a good point: SBS is one (of many) reasons SC is shallow since "better" strategies are harder to execute but not stronger (enough) to justify the effort.
On March 17 2008 23:17 BlackStar wrote:
Newbie players demand it because they want to be good at SC2 without having to practice/train. They think they are above average intelligence and that an RTS game should be some kind of 'strategic IQ' test.
Do I even have to deconstruct that line of reasoning? You can do better than this. There have to be better arguments than "Only idiots want that, so there".
|
On March 17 2008 09:45 naventus wrote:
More units and more abilities does not mean there are more decisions to be made.
Look at any other RTS - most of them have more options than SC, but actually the metagame is extremely limited. Even WC3 is much more limited than SC (1-2 game trees per race per map). It is very doubtful and probably infeasible to expect SC2 to have too much more decision making than SC1.
But, for the sake of argument - consider there to be 25% more decisions to be made. Then say on a given matchup on a given map, you have basically 1 more possible game tree (maybe another opening, another midgame timing). Do you think this would compensate for the lack of mechanical demands? You don't think a pro would immediately know what to do? Maybe you might need the time to think through the decision process - but for anyone practiced enough - it's automatic and instant.
The only exemption here is something like chess where there are more game trees than the total processing power of the universe. Computer games are fundamentally not chess because there are in fact more restraints on game flow.
You have a good point, but I think you misunderstand the core of my argument. My point was that when you add new units/buildings/abilities you add more stuff for the player to do if they want to utilize these new abilities. Since SC already demands a lot from the player, if you don't change the execution you're very limited at what you can add to the game.
To use Dustin's quote, say the average player can perform 2 out of 5 actions they want to make at any given point in SC. Now, let's say we add new abilities while keeping the overall execution the same. Now the average player can perform 2 out of 8 actions. What's the point of adding new actions if the player never has the time to properly utilize them?
Either you have to make the new actions so easy to decide and execute that it doesn't make a significant impact on the player's multitasking load (which makes for boring actions), or you reduce the player's multitasking load to make room for the new actions, in MBS's case by reducing the physical execution requirements of unit production. Now, I'm not saying that MBS currently does this perfectly; in fact, it's pretty clear that there isn't enough attention-intensive stuff currently added to bring the multitasking load back up to par.
|
On March 17 2008 23:55 1esu wrote:
Either you have to make the new actions so easy to decide and execute that it doesn't make a significant impact on the player's multitasking load (which makes for boring actions), or you reduce the player's multitasking load to make room for the new actions, in MBS's case by reducing the physical execution requirements of unit production. Now, I'm not saying that MBS currently does this perfectly; in fact, it's pretty clear that there isn't enough attention-intensive stuff currently added to bring the multitasking load back up to par.
I couldn´t agree more, but the point adressed seems to be more that Blizzard CAN´T increase gameplay depht and therefore they shouldn´t attempt to.
Pro-MBS argumentation is based on the assumption that they can - indicated by their previous works, they SHOULD be able to do it.
And given that they can do it that there should be no reason why they should not do that.
It is often argued that there is no new stuff added - but look alone at static defenses. Terrans can salvage their bunkers giving them HUGE room to utilize them compared to the permanent version.
Protoss cannons are mobile and Pylons look more vulnerable.
Zerg get the Queen and loose the old colonies.
Each time it gets more involved compared to the previous game, demanding more attention from the player to be used at maximal effectivity.
|
On March 17 2008 23:43 Unentschieden wrote:
I´d say that is part of the reason and not even bad. No one should programm a game against the player. Would you like it if they removed the pause mechanic?
Pausing is already illegal in kespa games. And while paused you can't execute orders.
The importance of strategy in RTS came up in the first place because MBS was portrayed as removing the time critical part of the game entirely wich to me is a gross overextragation.
Strategy can and should be a integral part of RTS. "Strategic IQ" should , together with mechanical execution define gameplay.
I said 'strategical IQ test'. The nature of an IQ test is that you can't 'fake' your IQ with training or education.
Strategy can't be a foundation of an RTS game because of the nature of the genre. Don't be fooled by the 'S' in RTS. 'strategy games' as we know it are generally board games, and later also computer games, that are based in skill rather than luck. Some of them lack all forms of 'strategy' in the military sense of the word. No strategizing in some 'strategy games' at all. But most are mostly tactics with just a little strategy.
Chess is 99% tactics. There is very little actual strategy in chess. Chess is about calculation, which is superhumanly difficult. Strategy in chess is often the most simple part of the game. At least for humans.
There is such a thing as 'advanced chess'. Here you can use a computer to do the tactics for you. And you can do the strategy.
The term RTS in video games of course means it's real time and that yo gather resources, build bases and produce units.
Edit:
0xDEADBEEF made a good point: SBS is one (of many) reasons SC is shallow since "better" strategies are harder to execute but not stronger (enough) to justify the effort.
Example?
I find this actually quite pathetic. Early game everyone who uses hotkeys properly can macro quite near perfect. And there are tons of early strategies one could imagine that just don't work. Either units are bad, build timings are off, gas requirements too high, energy too low(or energy requirements too high), etc etc.
Do I even have to deconstruct that line of reasoning? You can do better than this. There have to be better arguments than "Only idiots want that, so there".
You think that newbies are idiots? WTH!?!
Anyway, this is what Rob Pardo said.
|
On March 18 2008 00:11 Unentschieden wrote:
I couldn´t agree more, but the point adressed seems to be more that Blizzard CAN´T increase gameplay depht and therefore they shouldn´t attempt to.
Pro-MBS argumentation is based on the assumption that they can - indicated by their previous works, they SHOULD be able to do it.
And given that they can do it that there should be no reason why they should not do that.
Because it requires a change in the fundamental way bases or the economy functions. You need to add an entire new gameplay mechanic. Not just a bunker you would salvage after there is no rush.
It needs to be something like having to build supply depots. This is one thing all Blizzard games have and many other RTS games lack. It's a strength of SC because it requires base management and multitasking as well as timing.
You need to add something like that. I joked in the past about adding sudoku puzzles to production buildings. It really has to be something like that! No matter how crazy and silly it sounds. But then of course in a way that makes sense in the context of the actual game.
It has to be something you have to think about, otherwise it won't improve over the base management MBS is to remove. And something you have to physically go back to your base for to do. It also has to be optimal.
But I really think the only reason people want MBS is because it's an attitute problem. I don't think most people want it because they want a next gen RTS game that is more based in decision making and less in execution.
When MBS is added and people realize how frustrating strategy/BO counters can be then I imagine them complaining about that. Because that requires more training that just using hotkeys to get 120/140 APM. And once you reach that level of mechanics you can beat people with better mechanics by outplaying them in decision making or tactics quite easily.
|
On March 18 2008 00:26 BlackStar wrote:
Pausing is already illegal in kespa games. And while paused you can't execute orders.
Thats why I used that example. Pause adds nothing to competative gaming, it actually detracts (and is therefore banned) but still a central part of the game for playability reasons.
On March 18 2008 00:26 BlackStar wrote:
I said 'strategical IQ test'. The nature of an IQ test is that you can't 'fake' your IQ with training or education.
Strategy can't be a foundation of an RTS game because of the nature of the genre. Don't be fooled by the 'S' in RTS. 'strategy games' as we know it are generally board games, and later also computer games, that are based in skill rather than luck. Some of them lack all forms of 'strategy' in the military sense of the word. No strategizing in some 'strategy games' at all. But most are mostly tactics with just a little strategy.
Chess is 99% tactics. There is very little actual strategy in chess. Chess is about calculation, which is superhumanly difficult. Strategy in chess is often the most simple part of the game. At least for humans.
There is such a thing as 'advanced chess'. Here you can use a computer to do the tactics for you. And you can do the strategy.
The term RTS in video games of course means it's real time and that yo gather resources, build bases and produce units.
Well it seems I have a completely screwed up view of RTS games and the nature of Strategy and Tactics. You convinced me on that
On March 18 2008 00:26 BlackStar wrote:
Example?
I find this actually quite pathetic. Early game everyone who uses hotkeys properly can macro quite near perfect. And there are tons of early strategies one could imagine that just don't work. Either units are bad, build timings are off, gas requirements too high, energy too low(or energy requirements too high), etc etc.
Thats why I wrote "one of many". Of course we want more viable strategies. You are suggesting that I argued that SBS was the only factor in the viability of strategies. I can´t and don´t want to argue that SBS on it´s own is responsible. It is a SMALL factor and there are other reasons I´m arguing for MBS, mainly playability.
On March 18 2008 00:26 BlackStar wrote:
Do I even have to deconstruct that line of reasoning? You can do better than this. There have to be better arguments than "Only idiots want that, so there".
You think that newbies are idiots? WTH!?!
Anyway, this is what Rob Pardo said.[/QUOTE]
That wasn´t what you said but what you meant. Please not that I split that argument into the, what I think, relevant part and the part that blames new players for a detremental influence on the game.
|
So we can acutely predict almost none of the new addition to the micro will be actually used unless tremendously rewarding, since the macro bearing will stay the same.
It's an attitude problem, since we're feeling SC2 will definitively be SC1.5 if all pro claims are validated by Blizzard. The real next generation RTS king may come out from nowhere in the years to come and SC fans won't have influence on it, because it won't be Blizzard's for sure. MBS is merely an excuse to express the bland misunderstanding between all the different expectations for this game. MBS is highly symbolic because it draws the line between balancing the game with UI constraint or relying solely on gameplay features.
I fear Blizzard has enormous issues thinking out of the box, but how could they, facing people shielded with ten years of extensive pratice ?
|
It's actually Blizzard's fault for not bringing in very strong SC players, telling them they want to make a next generation RTS a lot more heavy in strategy and decision making than SC but still just as difficult to master, asking them for their insights, ideas and opinions.
They didn't exploit the 10 years of extensive practice people had in SC. Only recently Blizzard realized they can't replace macro with micro.
They never wanted to innovate and they didn't bring in competitive RTS gaming expertise early on.
I really think Blizzard took competitive gaming too lightly.
|
On March 18 2008 00:36 BlackStar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2008 00:11 Unentschieden wrote:
I couldn´t agree more, but the point adressed seems to be more that Blizzard CAN´T increase gameplay depht and therefore they shouldn´t attempt to.
Pro-MBS argumentation is based on the assumption that they can - indicated by their previous works, they SHOULD be able to do it.
And given that they can do it that there should be no reason why they should not do that.
Because it requires a change in the fundamental way bases or the economy functions. You need to add an entire new gameplay mechanic. Not just a bunker you would salvage after there is no rush. It needs to be something like having to build supply depots. This is one thing all Blizzard games have and many other RTS games lack. It's a strength of SC because it requires base management and multitasking as well as timing. You need to add something like that. I joked in the past about adding sudoku puzzles to production buildings. It really has to be something like that! No matter how crazy and silly it sounds. But then of course in a way that makes sense in the context of the actual game. It has to be something you have to think about, otherwise it won't improve over the base management MBS is to remove. And something you have to physically go back to your base for to do. It also has to be optimal.
Not a bad reasoning and I would actually agree if along with MBS there were factors like:
removal of queue tax
removal of supply system
removal of 2 resource system
addition of basic AI setting
etc.
but I don´t see MBS as such a big "noobification".
Oh and I don´t get what you mean with " It also has to be optimal." please explain that.
On March 18 2008 00:36 BlackStar wrote:
But I really think the only reason people want MBS is because it's an attitute problem. I don't think most people want it because they want a next gen RTS game that is more based in decision making and less in execution.
When MBS is added and people realize how frustrating strategy/BO counters can be then I imagine them complaining about that. Because that requires more training that just using hotkeys to get 120/140 APM. And once you reach that level of mechanics you can beat people with better mechanics by outplaying them in decision making or tactics quite easily.
Please elaborate since such a assumption really kills a discussion. You are portraying your opposition as lazy and exploitive. You are completely dismissing ANY pro-MBS argument like that. It is kind of like as if I argue that pro-SBS only support SBS because they would hate change.
Maybe there are some people like that but we can´t evaluate arguments on that.
|
On March 18 2008 01:02 BlackStar wrote:
It's actually Blizzard's fault for not bringing in very strong SC players, telling them they want to make a next generation RTS a lot more heavy in strategy and decision making than SC but still just as difficult to master, asking them for their insights, ideas and opinions.
They didn't exploit the 10 years of extensive practice people had in SC. Only recently Blizzard realized they can't replace macro with micro.
They never wanted to innovate and they didn't bring in competitive RTS gaming expertise early on.
I really think Blizzard took competitive gaming too lightly.
What do you call too lightly ? Of course, Blizzard claims may just be that, claims, but they at least cater to to competitive players.
But they just can't listen exclusively to the highest level players : how could they handle anything different from what they like in SC, since they are precisely in the competitive scene because they like SC as a whole ? Of course you can't ask people used to heavy macro to accept a more micro oriented sequel : whose who find SC flawed have given up ages ago, and may have not found their pleasure elsewhere, since there is only one company so dedicated to polish , and other rts are mostly hampered by wacky balance or too different gameplay.
They need those people to make something different, because they express thoughts competitive players wouldn't even dare to play with.
|
Actually, I do care about making it difficult to execute, but I think the way it is done now (with SBS) isn't the best. I want micro to be hard. I want players to utilize advanced micro tasks and techniques to offset the fact that they have to spend less time with producing units.
At the same time, I also want the game to be slightly deeper. I perfectly understand that RTS will never be very deep but it wouldn't hurt to add a LITTLE bit more strategical and tactical depth.
These are the things I'd love to see as a spectator.
What some of you don't seem to realize is that if you make one thing (macro) "easier" it doesn't mean the other things stay as they are. Because then you can put more time, skill and effort into the other thing (micro). And you have to do that, because your opponents will.
Or in other words: the skill ceiling for micro increases when the skill ceiling for macro decreases (due to MBS).
|
On March 18 2008 01:04 Unentschieden wrote:
Not a bad reasoning and I would actually agree if along with MBS there were factors like:
removal of queue tax
removal of supply system
removal of 2 resource system
addition of basic AI setting
etc.
but I don´t see MBS as such a big "noobification".
Then our judgment of the effect of MBS on the way the game is played is different. But is seems people who played agree it's quite extensive.
It needs serious compensation in the macro/base management department. It's also of course not just MBS, also automining and building queues for workers.
Oh and I don´t get what you mean with " It also has to be optimal." please explain that.
I meant 'optional'. Sorry.
Please elaborate since such a assumption really kills a discussion. You are portraying your opposition as lazy and exploitive. You are completely dismissing ANY pro-MBS argument like that. It is kind of like as if I argue that pro-SBS only support SBS because they would hate change.
Sirlin decribes that Rob Pardo said at GDC as: "In the end, they decided to allow unlimited selection even though it goes against the "support skill differentiation" rule-of-thumb because players thought the restriction was arbitrary and felt like broken UI."
Same is probably true for MBS. They aren't adding that for some ideal about future RTS games. They are adding it because of how they think the player base thinks about it.
You must realize that you are not the average pro-MBS person. At least I assume you aren't.
Most people who are pro-MBS are people who have problems using hotkeys, get outmacroed in every 1v1 they play, get frustrated and never get to experience anything about SC tactics, strategy, etc.
I think this is the main issue of MBS; that in SC below 120 APM macro was so much more useful to know and so decisive in the actual game.
At the same time learning to play with 120 APM and proper hotkeys is one of the most straightforward things you can learn in SC. But yet so many people never did that. Why?
Therefore, I think it's an attitude problem, resulting in frustration. And not some intellectual ideal about the future of RTS games not having to have these 'primitive mundane action requirements'.
Maybe there are some people like that but we can´t evaluate arguments on that.
No. But as I said, Blizzard does, apparently. That's the point. Just go to a random public 3v3 BGH game. Then afterwards open the replay in BWchart and you will see people who use hotkeys very poorly or not at all. They also have low APM. Sometimes even below 55. Can you imagine their frustration in not being able to experience worker harass? BO counters? Positioning and maneuvering of armies?
Why don't you ask them why they don't use hotkeys? Why they don't take a little time to learn how to use them?
These are the people Pardo talks about when he said "arbitrary" and "UI perceived as broken".
You can't experience chess strategy if you are a lowly rated player, you will make a tactical blunder and hang a minor piece or two and lose. Same goes for Starcraft. I am not entirely sure if deep strategy is limited only to high level play in all games. This may actually be the case.
This is why people play BHG, FMP, UMS, etc. And Blizzard can think about fixing this without affecting the 1v1 normal games.
|
On March 17 2008 23:30 0xDEADBEEF wrote:
Well yes of course it's not as strategically demanding as chess for example, or turn-based games in general. But the interesting question is: could it be designed so that strategy is at least slightly more valuable than it is right now? Imagine that ALL units and special abilities were useful, not just very few in each matchup. This would make the game more interesting.
Or imagine that macro isn't as dominant anymore as it is right now.
These are a few situations where micro and strategy will become more valuable, and from my viewpoint MBS will work towards that goal. SBS will not, it won't change any of SC1's "drawbacks".
SBS "forces" you to play in a way that the game will be relatively shallow, because that's the only way you can with SBS: it puts way too much pressure on you to do it any other way, you have to rely on the "easiest" solutions, if you try to get "fancy" you'll probably be punished by your opponent's superior numbers. That means macro being too important is a serious drawback and prevents the gameplay from becoming at least slightly deeper.
No, this is why you will always be a scrub and a newb. A better strategy is not one that's some elaborate theorycraft with queen and ghost timings.
A better strategy is built on very fundamental and subtle foundations like timing and game control. That's strategy and something you obviously don't grasp. Like I said before, adding more units and abilities will not result in more strategy. There is nothing shallow about SC as it stands.
It's only the newb that thinks that somehow having X unit that does Y thing will suddenly open up the game. What they don't understand is a complete overview and WHY the game is being played as it is. And all you can do is theorycraft bullshit reasons and bullshit ways to fix it. I would recommend leaving Teamliquid and checking out Bnet forums.
|
On March 18 2008 00:57 Seelys wrote:
So we can acutely predict almost none of the new addition to the micro will be actually used unless tremendously rewarding, since the macro bearing will stay the same.
It's an attitude problem, since we're feeling SC2 will definitively be SC1.5 if all pro claims are validated by Blizzard. The real next generation RTS king may come out from nowhere in the years to come and SC fans won't have influence on it, because it won't be Blizzard's for sure. MBS is merely an excuse to express the bland misunderstanding between all the different expectations for this game. MBS is highly symbolic because it draws the line between balancing the game with UI constraint or relying solely on gameplay features.
I fear Blizzard has enormous issues thinking out of the box, but how could they, facing people shielded with ten years of extensive pratice ?
You are a fucking retard.
Here's your bullshit strawman argument: Hey, decent players don't want to see X change, but I do. Clearly decent players just want to keep their advantage in the game.
You know why this is bullshit? Because you fucking suck at this game and no amount of fixing it is going to prevent your 3v3 BGH ass from sucking.
Have you considered that better players may have some understanding of what make a good game? And why no RTS (do you know how many have come since SC? There's more than just WC3) have failed to live very long despite having all the sorts of bullshit that you fags argue for?
|
The trend in recent games has been to decrease macro. The only exception is SupCom, based on totally different mechanics than SC. Of course I'm speaking of a totally different genre, here, but they dont put emphasis on thoughless tasks, hence they have unlimited queues. What they give player to toy with is building placement, production boost, building upgrades, production shifting, etc.
So why not ask people with most insight with the game what they would want to have to do as macroer ? I can't believe they are happy with endlessly selecting their barracks, they do it because they must and they do it extremely fast because not being dedicated to it is not even remotely possible in the competitive scene.
Just answering "keep SBS and the hell with the casuals" is equally unlegitimate than saying "add MBS and the hell with the pro"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
