|
On November 11 2013 09:57 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2013 09:29 Gahlo wrote:On November 11 2013 09:25 TheRabidDeer wrote:On November 11 2013 09:24 Gahlo wrote:
So, if riot does the rune restructuring the way I think they will, I'm looking at a 35.5k IP refund. =D What? What rune restructuring? They finally reducing the prices on them? Their intention: Marks will be offensive, seals defensive, and glyphs utility. Quints will be a grab bag. Presumably, all the runes that don't match, i.e. ad glyphs, will be removed from the game an refunded. Interesting. Aren't people typically doing this as it is though? Also, in other news.... tried vs bots again and you guys are right they are pretty easy. I dont know why I did so poorly the other day. I did the flash/ignite Q dive vs ryze and it definitely did not work though lol. I got away but he had too much health left. I mightve missed an auto or two or something. Not really too sure tbh.
For the most part, outside of MR glyphs.
|
On November 11 2013 09:29 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2013 09:25 TheRabidDeer wrote:On November 11 2013 09:24 Gahlo wrote:
So, if riot does the rune restructuring the way I think they will, I'm looking at a 35.5k IP refund. =D What? What rune restructuring? They finally reducing the prices on them? Their intention: Marks will be offensive, seals defensive, and glyphs utility. Quints will be a grab bag. Presumably, all the runes that don't match, i.e. ad glyphs, will be removed from the game an refunded.
Always looked to me like, Reds were AD based, yellows tank based(armor tho) blues mage/anti mage stuff, and quints were really your choice
|
On November 11 2013 09:39 WaveofShadow wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2013 09:24 Gahlo wrote:
So, if riot does the rune restructuring the way I think they will, I'm looking at a 35.5k IP refund. =D Yeah I don't see that happening at all.
&
On November 11 2013 09:41 iCanada wrote:
How are they restructuring runes>?
link?
http://www.reignofgaming.net/news/26299-community-q-a-roundup-preseason-game-flow-jungle
+ Show Spoiler +Runes
Q: If you change a rune completely or delete it, what happens to the rune? [FireStorm921]
A: You won't lose everything! If we delete any runes, well first use refunds for them. If we change a rune (like change a seal into a glyph), then the most likely follow-up would be to refund / delete the old version, then create a new version at the same price. We don't fully know exactly what we'll do here, but we'll talk about our plans once we have everything laid out.
Q: Quintessences will have no focus on offense / defense / utility, right? [TinoLP]
A: Correct! They get to be anything and ideally would be equally good across all categories so that you have a real choice in what you want for your champion / build / playstyle.
Q: How will Quintessences match up to normal runes? [vantharion]
A: Unless we have a reason to do otherwise, we'd like to move Quintessences to more of a "3 quints = 9 non-quints" system so that players don't have to math out whether it's better to take a certain number of marks and quints versus a different set of quints and marks to maximize their gains.
Q: Are you worried that changing flat armor / magic resistance (the biggest culprits) will lead to more early game all-ins to take advantage of defensive weaknesses? [Gogglor]
A: The current plan is to readjust champion base armor / magic resistance to account for this. Part of the reason why armor seals are required right now is because champions are just too frail at level 1 (most notably in competitive play). We're very aware of this concern!
Q: Will any rune changes also affect the old seasonal runes (Halloween, etc)? [Kuri001]
A: If the standard version of the rune is changed, then the seasonal rune will share the same fate.
|
On November 11 2013 08:53 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2013 08:33 GhandiEAGLE wrote:On November 11 2013 08:26 TheRabidDeer wrote:On November 11 2013 08:04 Amui wrote:On November 11 2013 07:59 TheEmulator wrote:How is league progression in LoL anyways? Is it like super hard to get from league to league? Like let's say you just got to level 30 and started to play ranked, would it take forever to get diamond? Assuming that you're diamond material, obviously you won't get to diamond if you suck, lol  You can probably maintain 80+% winrate until you hit somewhere around mid plat, at which point it'll drop down to ~55-60%(Assuming D4 or so in skill). Some games you simply won't win(stuff like jungle tryn getting 4 kills by 5 minutes for example). Probably around 100-200 games to get to diamond though unless you're really, really fucking good. On November 11 2013 07:16 TheRabidDeer wrote:
How good of practice is intermediate co-op vs bots? Do they play on like bronze level? Depends on the bot. Something like annie/fiddle bot will be a challenge for the majority of bronze league, but for the most part, they're pretty fucking bad. Good for learning/practicing a new hero, not good for much else. Ah, I see. I have been trying to learn riven (mechanically and all) and decided to go against bots rather than torture people. So I went riven mid and have gone against annie, fiddle and ryze. Annie and fiddle werent too bad (well, fiddle started to shit on me late game since they also had chogath so I was like perma silenced/knocked up/feared) but ryze I was kind of struggling against. The one thing I kind of have an issue with is actually killing them early. I poke and get them a little low, but they go back to base so often it is hard to finish the job. EDIT: We still won of course, but I was at like 10-10-14 by the end or something like that (vs ryze) Go to 1:50 on this video, thats how you beat Ryze as Riven + Show Spoiler + lol Unfortunately I don't have the runes to be able to do that yet. He has 10 more AD than me at level 1. Ryze seemed to be stunned though, usually it is just a knockup, isnt it?
The Ryze stopped trying at some point.
|
On November 11 2013 10:09 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2013 09:39 WaveofShadow wrote:On November 11 2013 09:24 Gahlo wrote:
So, if riot does the rune restructuring the way I think they will, I'm looking at a 35.5k IP refund. =D Yeah I don't see that happening at all. & Show nested quote +On November 11 2013 09:41 iCanada wrote:
How are they restructuring runes>?
link? http://www.reignofgaming.net/news/26299-community-q-a-roundup-preseason-game-flow-jungle+ Show Spoiler +Runes
Q: If you change a rune completely or delete it, what happens to the rune? [FireStorm921]
A: You won't lose everything! If we delete any runes, well first use refunds for them. If we change a rune (like change a seal into a glyph), then the most likely follow-up would be to refund / delete the old version, then create a new version at the same price. We don't fully know exactly what we'll do here, but we'll talk about our plans once we have everything laid out.
Q: Quintessences will have no focus on offense / defense / utility, right? [TinoLP]
A: Correct! They get to be anything and ideally would be equally good across all categories so that you have a real choice in what you want for your champion / build / playstyle.
Q: How will Quintessences match up to normal runes? [vantharion]
A: Unless we have a reason to do otherwise, we'd like to move Quintessences to more of a "3 quints = 9 non-quints" system so that players don't have to math out whether it's better to take a certain number of marks and quints versus a different set of quints and marks to maximize their gains.
Q: Are you worried that changing flat armor / magic resistance (the biggest culprits) will lead to more early game all-ins to take advantage of defensive weaknesses? [Gogglor]
A: The current plan is to readjust champion base armor / magic resistance to account for this. Part of the reason why armor seals are required right now is because champions are just too frail at level 1 (most notably in competitive play). We're very aware of this concern!
Q: Will any rune changes also affect the old seasonal runes (Halloween, etc)? [Kuri001]
A: If the standard version of the rune is changed, then the seasonal rune will share the same fate.
There is no way they will be deleting enough runes completely and having the new ones be so different from the old ones that they'll basically be refunding everybody thousands of IP. Even IF this is done somehow, they'd just be refunding it to you so you'd have to buy the new version for the same price anyway.
|
On November 11 2013 10:19 WaveofShadow wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2013 10:09 Gahlo wrote:On November 11 2013 09:39 WaveofShadow wrote:On November 11 2013 09:24 Gahlo wrote:
So, if riot does the rune restructuring the way I think they will, I'm looking at a 35.5k IP refund. =D Yeah I don't see that happening at all. & On November 11 2013 09:41 iCanada wrote:
How are they restructuring runes>?
link? http://www.reignofgaming.net/news/26299-community-q-a-roundup-preseason-game-flow-jungle+ Show Spoiler +Runes
Q: If you change a rune completely or delete it, what happens to the rune? [FireStorm921]
A: You won't lose everything! If we delete any runes, well first use refunds for them. If we change a rune (like change a seal into a glyph), then the most likely follow-up would be to refund / delete the old version, then create a new version at the same price. We don't fully know exactly what we'll do here, but we'll talk about our plans once we have everything laid out.
Q: Quintessences will have no focus on offense / defense / utility, right? [TinoLP]
A: Correct! They get to be anything and ideally would be equally good across all categories so that you have a real choice in what you want for your champion / build / playstyle.
Q: How will Quintessences match up to normal runes? [vantharion]
A: Unless we have a reason to do otherwise, we'd like to move Quintessences to more of a "3 quints = 9 non-quints" system so that players don't have to math out whether it's better to take a certain number of marks and quints versus a different set of quints and marks to maximize their gains.
Q: Are you worried that changing flat armor / magic resistance (the biggest culprits) will lead to more early game all-ins to take advantage of defensive weaknesses? [Gogglor]
A: The current plan is to readjust champion base armor / magic resistance to account for this. Part of the reason why armor seals are required right now is because champions are just too frail at level 1 (most notably in competitive play). We're very aware of this concern!
Q: Will any rune changes also affect the old seasonal runes (Halloween, etc)? [Kuri001]
A: If the standard version of the rune is changed, then the seasonal rune will share the same fate. There is no way they will be deleting enough runes completely and having the new ones be so different from the old ones that they'll basically be refunding everybody thousands of IP. Even IF this is done somehow, they'd just be refunding it to you so you'd have to buy the new version for the same price anyway.
Most, if not all, of the ones that they'd be deleting I already have in the other slots. I have a ton of runes I wouldn't normally have because I got bored with IP and decided to play the rune combiner lottery. Things I'm getting refunds on are runes like armor marks and scaling ad glyphs.
|
Game Start Time Reduction
Q: If you shorten the time between minions spawning and the start of the game, doesn't that reduce the amount of level 1 strategies teams can use?
A: Not particularly! With these changes, every level 1 strategy should work just fine - the goal of this change was to reduce the amount of down time a lot of teams had, even after they got into position. We want to leave options open for level 1 strategies, but not give so much time that teams can accommodate for and change their strategies a number of times before the game even starts.
Wow....
Yes, lets make level 1 totally RPS. Derp. Teams shouldn't be able to scout and make smart choices, just make risks.
|
Its only a minute and a half Oo and often enough 1-2 people on your team are afk for the first half of that, no plz dont lower it ><
|
On November 11 2013 10:32 iCanada wrote:Show nested quote +Game Start Time Reduction
Q: If you shorten the time between minions spawning and the start of the game, doesn't that reduce the amount of level 1 strategies teams can use?
A: Not particularly! With these changes, every level 1 strategy should work just fine - the goal of this change was to reduce the amount of down time a lot of teams had, even after they got into position. We want to leave options open for level 1 strategies, but not give so much time that teams can accommodate for and change their strategies a number of times before the game even starts. Wow.... Yes, lets make level 1 totally RPS. Derp. Teams shouldn't be able to scout and make smart choices, just make risks.
I have no idea what you're actually espousing here, you could be coming from any of a dozen different angles.
|
I actually think the LVL 1 changes are intended to reduce lvl 1 strats(they are just playing coy), and I think that is a good thing because even now invades/etc generate a lot of randomness.
For instance, C9 lost 3 games in summer split. 2 of them they basically lost at lvl 1.
|
On November 11 2013 10:37 cLutZ wrote:
I actually think the LVL 1 changes are intended to reduce lvl 1 strats(they are just playing coy), and I think that is a good thing because even now invades/etc generate a lot of randomness.
For instance, C9 lost 3 games in summer split. 2 of them they basically lost at lvl 1.
So instead of letting teams learn how to deal with lvl 1 strats lets remove them instead?
There is nothing more RNG about lvl 1 stuff then at any other point.
|
On November 11 2013 10:35 UniversalSnip wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2013 10:32 iCanada wrote:Game Start Time Reduction
Q: If you shorten the time between minions spawning and the start of the game, doesn't that reduce the amount of level 1 strategies teams can use?
A: Not particularly! With these changes, every level 1 strategy should work just fine - the goal of this change was to reduce the amount of down time a lot of teams had, even after they got into position. We want to leave options open for level 1 strategies, but not give so much time that teams can accommodate for and change their strategies a number of times before the game even starts. Wow.... Yes, lets make level 1 totally RPS. Derp. Teams shouldn't be able to scout and make smart choices, just make risks. I have no idea what you're actually espousing here, you could be coming from any of a dozen different angles.
I just dont get it. They say they want level 1 interaction, but then they say that teams should only be able to have 1 strategy. That just seems silly.
They spend all this time removing cool features and changing and nerfing things to create more room for counterplay, then they eliminate the ability to scout and counterplay at level 1.
I could just be crazy and overly pessimistic at the moment, I just stressed out and used to expecting the worst right now. Ask Steve, its hard to be an Oilers fan.
|
On November 11 2013 10:14 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2013 08:53 TheRabidDeer wrote:On November 11 2013 08:33 GhandiEAGLE wrote:On November 11 2013 08:26 TheRabidDeer wrote:On November 11 2013 08:04 Amui wrote:On November 11 2013 07:59 TheEmulator wrote:How is league progression in LoL anyways? Is it like super hard to get from league to league? Like let's say you just got to level 30 and started to play ranked, would it take forever to get diamond? Assuming that you're diamond material, obviously you won't get to diamond if you suck, lol You can probably maintain 80+% winrate until you hit somewhere around mid plat, at which point it'll drop down to ~55-60%(Assuming D4 or so in skill). Some games you simply won't win(stuff like jungle tryn getting 4 kills by 5 minutes for example). Probably around 100-200 games to get to diamond though unless you're really, really fucking good. On November 11 2013 07:16 TheRabidDeer wrote:
How good of practice is intermediate co-op vs bots? Do they play on like bronze level? Depends on the bot. Something like annie/fiddle bot will be a challenge for the majority of bronze league, but for the most part, they're pretty fucking bad. Good for learning/practicing a new hero, not good for much else. Ah, I see. I have been trying to learn riven (mechanically and all) and decided to go against bots rather than torture people. So I went riven mid and have gone against annie, fiddle and ryze. Annie and fiddle werent too bad (well, fiddle started to shit on me late game since they also had chogath so I was like perma silenced/knocked up/feared) but ryze I was kind of struggling against. The one thing I kind of have an issue with is actually killing them early. I poke and get them a little low, but they go back to base so often it is hard to finish the job. EDIT: We still won of course, but I was at like 10-10-14 by the end or something like that (vs ryze) Go to 1:50 on this video, thats how you beat Ryze as Riven + Show Spoiler + lol Unfortunately I don't have the runes to be able to do that yet. He has 10 more AD than me at level 1. Ryze seemed to be stunned though, usually it is just a knockup, isnt it? The Ryze stopped trying at some point.
Faker was only able to do that because Ryze had to burn flash before minions spawned. If they both had flash it would have looked completely different. I think Ambition was cocky or just didn't understand how much damage Riven dishes out lvl 1 though. I would never open with a sapphire crystal against Riven.
|
On November 11 2013 10:39 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2013 10:37 cLutZ wrote:
I actually think the LVL 1 changes are intended to reduce lvl 1 strats(they are just playing coy), and I think that is a good thing because even now invades/etc generate a lot of randomness.
For instance, C9 lost 3 games in summer split. 2 of them they basically lost at lvl 1. So instead of letting teams learn how to deal with lvl 1 strats lets remove them instead? There is nothing more RNG about lvl 1 stuff then at any other point.
Except there is because of the opportunity cost of everything going on. Each team basically has 5 wards, which they want to use the least of before they go to lane; if a fight ends up happening players will typically need to level a different skill than normal; you can be standing on some random ward without being able to see approaches to it; time spent traveling to lane; etc.
Just watch the CLG beating C9 game vs. the other 3. Maybe CLG prepared some sick lvl 1 "ward the redbush" strat, or they got lucky, and C9 played too standard.
I mean, I am all in for lvl 1 Blitzcrank + Nunu cheese, but in the current game the better team seems to win more often when lvl 1 is done in a "safe" way.
|
On November 11 2013 11:23 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2013 10:39 Gorsameth wrote:On November 11 2013 10:37 cLutZ wrote:
I actually think the LVL 1 changes are intended to reduce lvl 1 strats(they are just playing coy), and I think that is a good thing because even now invades/etc generate a lot of randomness.
For instance, C9 lost 3 games in summer split. 2 of them they basically lost at lvl 1. So instead of letting teams learn how to deal with lvl 1 strats lets remove them instead? There is nothing more RNG about lvl 1 stuff then at any other point. Except there is because of the opportunity cost of everything going on. Each team basically has 5 wards, which they want to use the least of before they go to lane; if a fight ends up happening players will typically need to level a different skill than normal; you can be standing on some random ward without being able to see approaches to it; time spent traveling to lane; etc. Just watch the CLG beating C9 game vs. the other 3. Maybe CLG prepared some sick lvl 1 "ward the redbush" strat, or they got lucky, and C9 played too standard. I mean, I am all in for lvl 1 Blitzcrank + Nunu cheese, but in the current game the better team seems to win more often when lvl 1 is done in a "safe" way.
Couldn't you make the argument that it's adding RNG in the sense that you're now going to basically guess whether they're going to 1v2 swap or not. Several teams have had strats involving going together to place a ward to check for that, and if they no longer have time then it's pure luck whether you get the lanes you want or not.
|
funny how the reddit guy accusing 408's crew of selling challenger 3s teams actually has the courtesy of crossing their names out. Guess some people are gonna get banned soon. He did make a LOT of money doing this last season though.
|
On November 11 2013 12:23 killerdog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2013 11:23 cLutZ wrote:On November 11 2013 10:39 Gorsameth wrote:On November 11 2013 10:37 cLutZ wrote:
I actually think the LVL 1 changes are intended to reduce lvl 1 strats(they are just playing coy), and I think that is a good thing because even now invades/etc generate a lot of randomness.
For instance, C9 lost 3 games in summer split. 2 of them they basically lost at lvl 1. So instead of letting teams learn how to deal with lvl 1 strats lets remove them instead? There is nothing more RNG about lvl 1 stuff then at any other point. Except there is because of the opportunity cost of everything going on. Each team basically has 5 wards, which they want to use the least of before they go to lane; if a fight ends up happening players will typically need to level a different skill than normal; you can be standing on some random ward without being able to see approaches to it; time spent traveling to lane; etc. Just watch the CLG beating C9 game vs. the other 3. Maybe CLG prepared some sick lvl 1 "ward the redbush" strat, or they got lucky, and C9 played too standard. I mean, I am all in for lvl 1 Blitzcrank + Nunu cheese, but in the current game the better team seems to win more often when lvl 1 is done in a "safe" way. Couldn't you make the argument that it's adding RNG in the sense that you're now going to basically guess whether they're going to 1v2 swap or not. Several teams have had strats involving going together to place a ward to check for that, and if they no longer have time then it's pure luck whether you get the lanes you want or not.
Yea, but lvl 1 fog of war being the rule probably will just shrink the champion pools of solo lanes instead. I guess if you want a 2v1 you could take the new clairvoyance trinket.
On November 11 2013 12:58 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2013 11:23 cLutZ wrote:On November 11 2013 10:39 Gorsameth wrote:On November 11 2013 10:37 cLutZ wrote:
I actually think the LVL 1 changes are intended to reduce lvl 1 strats(they are just playing coy), and I think that is a good thing because even now invades/etc generate a lot of randomness.
For instance, C9 lost 3 games in summer split. 2 of them they basically lost at lvl 1. So instead of letting teams learn how to deal with lvl 1 strats lets remove them instead? There is nothing more RNG about lvl 1 stuff then at any other point. Except there is because of the opportunity cost of everything going on. Each team basically has 5 wards, which they want to use the least of before they go to lane; if a fight ends up happening players will typically need to level a different skill than normal; you can be standing on some random ward without being able to see approaches to it; time spent traveling to lane; etc. Just watch the CLG beating C9 game vs. the other 3. Maybe CLG prepared some sick lvl 1 "ward the redbush" strat, or they got lucky, and C9 played too standard. I mean, I am all in for lvl 1 Blitzcrank + Nunu cheese, but in the current game the better team seems to win more often when lvl 1 is done in a "safe" way. The thing you are neglecting is the metagame aspect of this. It's not RNG because teams don't do things "randomly" at level 1. Even if you don't have information about what a team is doing in a particular game, every team has certain styles and patterns which they fall into. A team likes to ward specific places, move certain ways when scouting the map level 1, tries to be greedy by not having a ward here, etc. These are things for other teams to notice in replay analysis and exploit when they get into a real game.
I get the research part. I'm not intentionally ignoring it. What I find quite compelling, however, is that at Worlds, when teams were fairly equally matched they shied away from lvl 1 engagements in favor of simply getting safe information.
|
United States47024 Posts
On November 11 2013 11:23 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2013 10:39 Gorsameth wrote:On November 11 2013 10:37 cLutZ wrote:
I actually think the LVL 1 changes are intended to reduce lvl 1 strats(they are just playing coy), and I think that is a good thing because even now invades/etc generate a lot of randomness.
For instance, C9 lost 3 games in summer split. 2 of them they basically lost at lvl 1. So instead of letting teams learn how to deal with lvl 1 strats lets remove them instead? There is nothing more RNG about lvl 1 stuff then at any other point. Except there is because of the opportunity cost of everything going on. Each team basically has 5 wards, which they want to use the least of before they go to lane; if a fight ends up happening players will typically need to level a different skill than normal; you can be standing on some random ward without being able to see approaches to it; time spent traveling to lane; etc. Just watch the CLG beating C9 game vs. the other 3. Maybe CLG prepared some sick lvl 1 "ward the redbush" strat, or they got lucky, and C9 played too standard. I mean, I am all in for lvl 1 Blitzcrank + Nunu cheese, but in the current game the better team seems to win more often when lvl 1 is done in a "safe" way.
The thing you are neglecting is the metagame aspect of this.
It's not RNG because teams don't do things "randomly" at level 1. Even if you don't have information about what a team is doing in a particular game, every team has certain styles and patterns which they fall into. A team likes to ward specific places, move certain ways when scouting the map level 1, tries to be greedy by not having a ward here, etc. These are things for other teams to notice in replay analysis and exploit when they get into a real game.
|
in league it is also possible to have 100% entrance coverage through wards and player positioning (for counterinvade / knowing where they are going to move) and to have the rest of your team react accordingly due to that vision
for teams with weaker level 1s, this allows for fluid counterjungling should the enemy steal an objective as 4/5
for equivalent or stronger level 1s, this allows you the opportunity to fight with vision advantage if you play it out smartly
so if you have knowledge of the enemy team's quirks and preferences, you can come to a game with a fairly comprehensive plan
(obv is on other team to vary their strats and to incorporate new tech accordingly, but this is a rarity really)
|
On November 11 2013 12:58 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2013 11:23 cLutZ wrote:On November 11 2013 10:39 Gorsameth wrote:On November 11 2013 10:37 cLutZ wrote:
I actually think the LVL 1 changes are intended to reduce lvl 1 strats(they are just playing coy), and I think that is a good thing because even now invades/etc generate a lot of randomness.
For instance, C9 lost 3 games in summer split. 2 of them they basically lost at lvl 1. So instead of letting teams learn how to deal with lvl 1 strats lets remove them instead? There is nothing more RNG about lvl 1 stuff then at any other point. Except there is because of the opportunity cost of everything going on. Each team basically has 5 wards, which they want to use the least of before they go to lane; if a fight ends up happening players will typically need to level a different skill than normal; you can be standing on some random ward without being able to see approaches to it; time spent traveling to lane; etc. Just watch the CLG beating C9 game vs. the other 3. Maybe CLG prepared some sick lvl 1 "ward the redbush" strat, or they got lucky, and C9 played too standard. I mean, I am all in for lvl 1 Blitzcrank + Nunu cheese, but in the current game the better team seems to win more often when lvl 1 is done in a "safe" way. The thing you are neglecting is the metagame aspect of this. It's not RNG because teams don't do things "randomly" at level 1. Even if you don't have information about what a team is doing in a particular game, every team has certain styles and patterns which they fall into. A team likes to ward specific places, move certain ways when scouting the map level 1, tries to be greedy by not having a ward here, etc. These are things for other teams to notice in replay analysis and exploit when they get into a real game.
But as a spectator, nothing ruins a game faster than seeing a team botch a level 1 fight. You know that unless some major throws happen the game is basically over, you just have to sit through 20-25 minutes of a decided game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
