|
[B]If Terran misses a single High Templar with EMP (which can be reliably accomplished if the P has better control than the Terran) and the Protoss lands one of two good storms, it can completely cost the Terran the battle. Storm is much more devastating to a Terran army even if you only land one of two good storms on the bulk of their army.
Well, I'd like to feel like storm was actually a part of the game, by getting one off now and then. It is a spell that is SUPPOSED to destroy your army and given the weakness of toss gateway armies (especially against stim kiting), I need to use some type of AOE.
There was a sweet period, right after the archon range buff, where Terran weren't making mass ghosts. Not only was chargelot-archon fun to play, but I would research storm and use it with some success. Now, I've gone back to colossus because of mass ghosts and blanket EMPs. Storm is such a risky investment in PvT. It's a shame because I like it so much more than colossus-death-ray.
|
On October 28 2011 02:00 skatbone wrote:Show nested quote +[B]If Terran misses a single High Templar with EMP (which can be reliably accomplished if the P has better control than the Terran) and the Protoss lands one of two good storms, it can completely cost the Terran the battle. Storm is much more devastating to a Terran army even if you only land one of two good storms on the bulk of their army. Well, I'd like to feel like storm was actually a part of the game, by getting one off now and then. It is a spell that is SUPPOSED to destroy your army and given the weakness of toss gateway armies (especially against stim kiting), I need to use some type of AOE. There was a sweet period, right after the archon range buff, where Terran weren't making mass ghosts. Not only was chargelot-archon fun to play, but I would research storm and use it with some success. Now, I've gone back to colossus because of mass ghosts and blanket EMPs. Storm is such a risky investment in PvT. It's a shame because I like it so much more than colossus-death-ray.
I completely disagree, almost no one goes collosi vs me and with great success. If you can spread out your HT before a fight, you won't get emps off before storms go off and like was already said 1-2 storms on your army and its totally over, not to mention you can feedback the ghosts. (still not done enough).
|
every single comment is about gateway units being weak, and cheaper upgrades being absolutely necessary in PvT because their the bane of protoss
are you sure we're playing the same game TL community?
emp i can get onboard with, they can still be plenty effective with 1.5 range with half decent aiming, just implys we need a little more skill to use it
but why the cheaper upgrades?
i haven't seen any evidence to suggest that a protoss army is inherently weaker than a zerg or terran army before you implement ghosts or infestors, and how exactly are upgrades supposed to help defend against those?
|
On October 28 2011 02:29 schnizzle wrote:
every single comment is about gateway units being weak, and cheaper upgrades being absolutely necessary in PvT because their the bane of protoss
are you sure we're playing the same game TL community?
emp i can get onboard with, they can still be plenty effective with 1.5 range with half decent aiming, just implys we need a little more skill to use it
but why the cheaper upgrades?
i haven't seen any evidence to suggest that a protoss army is inherently weaker than a zerg or terran army before you implement ghosts or infestors, and how exactly are upgrades supposed to help defend against those?
your obviously ignorant of the game. It is commonly accepted that pure gateway army is not very strong as tech goes up. It requires charge/blink, a good sentry count, and archons/HT to be viable. Storms are what make gateway army work.
|
On October 28 2011 00:43 Grndr101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 00:17 Dommk wrote:On October 27 2011 23:39 GurZtly wrote:The thing I hate about all those terran nerfing is first the psychological of feeling bad for playing an op race and second that many other players when they lose against me say... olol terran op i would have won after patch olololol.... But the point is that: Playing terran is fucking hard! MVP, Bomber, MKP, Sc and 20 other terrans are OP... But 10000 others get punished for that  But at Blizzcon they said the stats for all match ups were around 50%~ up till Korean-GM--where TvP favors Terran by around 10%. Meaning, given your skill level you are still capable of beating people your level 50% of the time as Terran, regardless of how difficult you perceive your race to be. Well actually, the 50% win rate is artificial. It's how ladder works, if you win you'll meet better players, if you lose you'll meet worse players. And as for Korean GM, well we all know the state of TvP in Korea... The point being that you can't judge skill by just ladder ranking. Your APM might be double that of your opponents, but if you lose 80% of one matchup, your league won't reflect your skill level. TvP is extremely hard as it is, mainly because you need to scout much better to be successful. At the top level of play Terran is very potent and the roles are reversed, but at gold/plat/diamond it is a nightmare.
This whole situation happens due to poor design by Blizzard. The Protoss race was designed to benefit the least from great micro. So even though things are well balanced in lower leagues (plat-master), at professional level Protoss players are struggling. So they need to nerf T and/or buff P, making the situation at lower leagues pretty bad for T.
Regarding skill level. I find skill level a really broad and vague concept. I think APM correlates directly to it, but I know there are more variables that should be taken into consideration. But let's imagine this scenario. We have a diamond T that plays around 160 apm (with around 112 effective apm - 30% redundancy) and a diamond P that plays around 120 apm (with 96 effective apm - 20% redundancy). They can each other anytime. So who is the better player? Who has a higher skill level? How can someone objectively judge if one is better or is actually doing better because of the race?
I know some P players like to think that T is completely OP (at plat-master level) and all they have to do is 1a, t and emp everywhere (because ghost has a bigger range and is faster then hts) while they can't do anything. I wonder if they stop to think for a little bit if that T player is just mechanically better. I honestly rarely see a mechanically better P lose to a T (of course I'm talking about a standard game, not a 1-1-1 or another cheese), while the opposite happens more frequently.
|
The Protoss race was designed to benefit the least from great micro.
![[image loading]](http://media.skateboard.com.au/forum/images/207_not_sure_if_serious.jpg)
User was warned for this post
|
On October 28 2011 02:57 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 00:43 Grndr101 wrote:On October 28 2011 00:17 Dommk wrote:On October 27 2011 23:39 GurZtly wrote:The thing I hate about all those terran nerfing is first the psychological of feeling bad for playing an op race and second that many other players when they lose against me say... olol terran op i would have won after patch olololol.... But the point is that: Playing terran is fucking hard! MVP, Bomber, MKP, Sc and 20 other terrans are OP... But 10000 others get punished for that But at Blizzcon they said the stats for all match ups were around 50%~ up till Korean-GM--where TvP favors Terran by around 10%. Meaning, given your skill level you are still capable of beating people your level 50% of the time as Terran, regardless of how difficult you perceive your race to be. Well actually, the 50% win rate is artificial. It's how ladder works, if you win you'll meet better players, if you lose you'll meet worse players. And as for Korean GM, well we all know the state of TvP in Korea... The point being that you can't judge skill by just ladder ranking. Your APM might be double that of your opponents, but if you lose 80% of one matchup, your league won't reflect your skill level. TvP is extremely hard as it is, mainly because you need to scout much better to be successful. At the top level of play Terran is very potent and the roles are reversed, but at gold/plat/diamond it is a nightmare. This whole situation happens due to poor design by Blizzard. The Protoss race was designed to benefit the least from great micro. So even though things are well balanced in lower leagues (plat-master), at professional level Protoss players are struggling. So they need to nerf T and/or buff P, making the situation at lower leagues pretty bad for T. Regarding skill level. I find skill level a really broad and vague concept. I think APM correlates directly to it, but I know there are more variables that should be taken into consideration. But let's imagine this scenario. We have a diamond T that plays around 160 apm (with around 112 effective apm - 30% redundancy) and a diamond P that plays around 120 apm (with 96 effective apm - 20% redundancy). They can each other anytime. So who is the better player? Who has a higher skill level? How can someone objectively judge if one is better or is actually doing better because of the race? I know some P players like to think that T is completely OP (at plat-master level) and all they have to do is 1a, t and emp everywhere (because ghost has a bigger range and is faster then hts) while they can't do anything. I wonder if they stop to think for a little bit if that T player is just mechanically better. I honestly rarely see a mechanically better P lose to a T (of course I'm talking about a standard game, not a 1-1-1 or another cheese), while the opposite happens more frequently.
firstly never claim "protoss benefits least from micro", you know its not true, everyone knows its not true. secondly, never ever equate apm to skill. picking out the better player is those with better macro and micro. decision making and game sense is a different aspect and it really doesnt matter when a player decides to stick with one thing throughout the game.
|
On October 28 2011 00:17 Dommk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 23:39 GurZtly wrote:The thing I hate about all those terran nerfing is first the psychological of feeling bad for playing an op race and second that many other players when they lose against me say... olol terran op i would have won after patch olololol.... But the point is that: Playing terran is fucking hard! MVP, Bomber, MKP, Sc and 20 other terrans are OP... But 10000 others get punished for that But at Blizzcon they said the stats for all match ups were around 50%~ up till Korean-GM--where TvP favors Terran by around 10%. Meaning, given your skill level you are still capable of beating people your level 50% of the time as Terran, regardless of how difficult you perceive your race to be.
That was Korean Masters.
Also, he said that overall, the ladder is 50%. This isn't an expression of balance, but rather one of MMR working correctly, as the ladder is meant to function. So when there's a 10% gap somewhere, that means that the race is really abusing superior strength over another race.
|
On October 27 2011 11:39 tomatriedes wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 10:53 The Final Boss wrote:On October 27 2011 07:48 iamke55 wrote:On October 27 2011 07:39 Xenogears wrote:
Now Grand Master TvP might be balanced, but anything below Grand Master will suffer because P is such an easy race, and T has 100000 times more things to do.
Wish P could have learnt to spread their units but I guess you can't ask P to do anything more than mass units and build death balls to 1a their way to victory.
Thank you. Sorry the game is so hard for you. Maybe you should've learn how to play properly instead of bringing SCVs with your attacks every game? I don't agree with what Xenogears wrote (I'm a Terran player, I've been arguing with all you Ps, and frankly I think that the game was balanced before all these nerfs and buffs hurting Terran and even now it's fairly balanced), but you can't say that Protoss players don't cheese a lot. My friend went from Silver league Protoss to high Platinum only 4 Gating--and unlike that 3 Rax Supply Drop build which boosted people's ladder ranks because it was so unknown, 4 Gate is an all-in that has been around forever and it's pretty clear as far as how to hold it. Now 3 Rax will probably get you about as high up as 4 Gate, so it's really unfair to say that Terrans are the only ones who cheese like you're implying. But to be honest, Terran definitely is strong in the match-up, but their army is a lot more fragile even with good control, where as if the Protoss keeps their Colossi and High Templar relatively safe and stays with or surpasses the Terran in upgrades, then they will win. Hopefully in HotS they'll make TvP a more fun match-up on both sides, instead of a grueling war of all-ins. I want more emphasis on the Factory and Starport in a long game, but Tanks get overrun by Zealots, Hellions are only good until the Protoss gets Colossi, and Thors get feedbacked. Actually 3 rax plus SCVs will get you to masters. (See Geiko's thread)
You missed the point I was saying. When it first came out, it was thought of as unstoppable. Now I think that everyone knows how to beat it (or at least people in Diamond and up know how to beat it reliably). Same thing with 4 Gate. Back in beta, it could get you to the top, but now you won't get far only 4 Gating.
|
On October 28 2011 03:13 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 02:57 petro1987 wrote:On October 28 2011 00:43 Grndr101 wrote:On October 28 2011 00:17 Dommk wrote:On October 27 2011 23:39 GurZtly wrote:The thing I hate about all those terran nerfing is first the psychological of feeling bad for playing an op race and second that many other players when they lose against me say... olol terran op i would have won after patch olololol.... But the point is that: Playing terran is fucking hard! MVP, Bomber, MKP, Sc and 20 other terrans are OP... But 10000 others get punished for that But at Blizzcon they said the stats for all match ups were around 50%~ up till Korean-GM--where TvP favors Terran by around 10%. Meaning, given your skill level you are still capable of beating people your level 50% of the time as Terran, regardless of how difficult you perceive your race to be. Well actually, the 50% win rate is artificial. It's how ladder works, if you win you'll meet better players, if you lose you'll meet worse players. And as for Korean GM, well we all know the state of TvP in Korea... The point being that you can't judge skill by just ladder ranking. Your APM might be double that of your opponents, but if you lose 80% of one matchup, your league won't reflect your skill level. TvP is extremely hard as it is, mainly because you need to scout much better to be successful. At the top level of play Terran is very potent and the roles are reversed, but at gold/plat/diamond it is a nightmare. This whole situation happens due to poor design by Blizzard. The Protoss race was designed to benefit the least from great micro. So even though things are well balanced in lower leagues (plat-master), at professional level Protoss players are struggling. So they need to nerf T and/or buff P, making the situation at lower leagues pretty bad for T. Regarding skill level. I find skill level a really broad and vague concept. I think APM correlates directly to it, but I know there are more variables that should be taken into consideration. But let's imagine this scenario. We have a diamond T that plays around 160 apm (with around 112 effective apm - 30% redundancy) and a diamond P that plays around 120 apm (with 96 effective apm - 20% redundancy). They can each other anytime. So who is the better player? Who has a higher skill level? How can someone objectively judge if one is better or is actually doing better because of the race? I know some P players like to think that T is completely OP (at plat-master level) and all they have to do is 1a, t and emp everywhere (because ghost has a bigger range and is faster then hts) while they can't do anything. I wonder if they stop to think for a little bit if that T player is just mechanically better. I honestly rarely see a mechanically better P lose to a T (of course I'm talking about a standard game, not a 1-1-1 or another cheese), while the opposite happens more frequently. firstly never claim "protoss benefits least from micro", you know its not true, everyone knows its not true. secondly, never ever equate apm to skill. picking out the better player is those with better macro and micro. decision making and game sense is a different aspect and it really doesnt matter when a player decides to stick with one thing throughout the game.
Firstly, you should read the whole post before writing your own. I never said "equate" I said CORRELATE which is a completely different notion. And when I said "protoss benefits least from micro" I meant in a 200 vs 200 fight. They have less options to micro their units to a great effect. Are archons micrable? Chargelots? Colossus (except to dodge vikings sniping)? What is actually microable are stalkers, hts (mainly splitting them to avoid emp blanket) and sentries.
|
I feel like if EMP is getting nerfed, than snipe needs some kind of buff... 45 damage per shot is really apm intensive in order to use effectivly, i'm high gold / low plat terran and i can't use Snipe worth shit if i want to keep my army alive with traditional terran micro  (... i almost wish snipe was double energy, double damage... something like 50 energy for 105 damage or so...
Also, yamato cannon is 33% more efficient than snipe, however snipe can be used on less targets, and takes more actions to output similar damage... consider that yamato takes 3 seconds to charge, and yet the cooldown between "snipes" makes it nearly 3 seconds worth of micro and clicking to deal less than half the damage... TT
(and yet yamato cannon does not stop the battle cruiser from being one of the more underpowered / underused units in the game, but blizzard is happy to see colossus in every game but wants to make sure that the battle cruiser is not used in similar frequency... anyone else remember when the kim/browder dark archon said that when they increased BC move speed to match carriers?)
Ah well, i knew that protoss shields needed a buff because it wasn't always worth it, i don't know if late game protoss damage needed a buff though, maybe to protoss air weapons / air armor, but i dont think colossus thermal lances should scale cheaper ;( TT
(tbh, i almost never used ghosts in TvP, because they seemed very wasteful of precious resources, after all, dealing 100 damage sounds great on paper, but when the damage caps at 50 vs zealots, 80 vs stalkers, and 100 for colossus, it seemed like it was easy to "miss" shielded units and become inefficient...
However, it is still very surprising to me... are ghosts "that" amazing in TvZ to warrant such a nerf?
Ah well, i can live with this much happier than HotS changes  must enjoy while it lasts!
|
I am actually coming back to play sc2 yes!
|
i thought snipe didn't have a cool down.. I do however like the idea of not needing 3 hits to kill an infestor..
Regarding snipe vs zerg t3... Transfuse is obvioisly ment to be the counter. It heals more per energy than snipe deals damage and besides buildings and other queens it's hardly useful before t3. (Of course this just brings on another caster war but if it keeps ghost energy down..)
|
I would have preferred buffing the feedback range. This makes mass infest needlessly strong. Still, better than nothing.
|
On October 28 2011 03:26 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 03:13 jinorazi wrote:On October 28 2011 02:57 petro1987 wrote:On October 28 2011 00:43 Grndr101 wrote:On October 28 2011 00:17 Dommk wrote:On October 27 2011 23:39 GurZtly wrote:The thing I hate about all those terran nerfing is first the psychological of feeling bad for playing an op race and second that many other players when they lose against me say... olol terran op i would have won after patch olololol.... But the point is that: Playing terran is fucking hard! MVP, Bomber, MKP, Sc and 20 other terrans are OP... But 10000 others get punished for that But at Blizzcon they said the stats for all match ups were around 50%~ up till Korean-GM--where TvP favors Terran by around 10%. Meaning, given your skill level you are still capable of beating people your level 50% of the time as Terran, regardless of how difficult you perceive your race to be. Well actually, the 50% win rate is artificial. It's how ladder works, if you win you'll meet better players, if you lose you'll meet worse players. And as for Korean GM, well we all know the state of TvP in Korea... The point being that you can't judge skill by just ladder ranking. Your APM might be double that of your opponents, but if you lose 80% of one matchup, your league won't reflect your skill level. TvP is extremely hard as it is, mainly because you need to scout much better to be successful. At the top level of play Terran is very potent and the roles are reversed, but at gold/plat/diamond it is a nightmare. This whole situation happens due to poor design by Blizzard. The Protoss race was designed to benefit the least from great micro. So even though things are well balanced in lower leagues (plat-master), at professional level Protoss players are struggling. So they need to nerf T and/or buff P, making the situation at lower leagues pretty bad for T. Regarding skill level. I find skill level a really broad and vague concept. I think APM correlates directly to it, but I know there are more variables that should be taken into consideration. But let's imagine this scenario. We have a diamond T that plays around 160 apm (with around 112 effective apm - 30% redundancy) and a diamond P that plays around 120 apm (with 96 effective apm - 20% redundancy). They can each other anytime. So who is the better player? Who has a higher skill level? How can someone objectively judge if one is better or is actually doing better because of the race? I know some P players like to think that T is completely OP (at plat-master level) and all they have to do is 1a, t and emp everywhere (because ghost has a bigger range and is faster then hts) while they can't do anything. I wonder if they stop to think for a little bit if that T player is just mechanically better. I honestly rarely see a mechanically better P lose to a T (of course I'm talking about a standard game, not a 1-1-1 or another cheese), while the opposite happens more frequently. firstly never claim "protoss benefits least from micro", you know its not true, everyone knows its not true. secondly, never ever equate apm to skill. picking out the better player is those with better macro and micro. decision making and game sense is a different aspect and it really doesnt matter when a player decides to stick with one thing throughout the game. Firstly, you should read the whole post before writing your own. I never said "equate" I said CORRELATE which is a completely different notion. And when I said "protoss benefits least from micro" I meant in a 200 vs 200 fight. They have less options to micro their units to a great effect. Are archons micrable? Chargelots? Colossus (except to dodge vikings sniping)? What is actually microable are stalkers, hts (mainly splitting them to avoid emp blanket) and sentries.
as long as a person has enough apm to do whatever it is they need to do, it makes no difference. 40 to apm 100, yes, it matters but from 100 and up, it makes very little difference, ESPECIALLY when people are spamming to increase their apm, which are the majority i feel.
200 vs 200 battle? do we really need to start nitpicking on each micro? because i can list plenty for any race and their corresponding unit compositions. its the player's decision to micro best to their knowledge or not, just because zealot/archon/stalker can be "a-moved" it is not, by any means, efficient.
|
I agree with the protoss upgrade changes - it makes sense because in the lore the protoss are the most tech advanced race and so things like that should be cheaper for them since it comes naturally.
Ghost change is kind of strange - you would think that ghost EMP technology would get better over time, not worse..
|
On October 28 2011 03:56 treekiller wrote:
I would have preferred buffing the feedback range. This makes mass infest needlessly strong. Still, better than nothing.
I think a more accurate statement would be that this WOULD have made infestors needlessly strong (in ZvT) IF neural parasite and fungal growth were not nerfed in 1.4.0.
I felt that infestors were generally balanced with the 1.4.0 changes in TvZ, but that once the ghosts came out there wasn't really a counter in the zerg arsenal. See the stalemate at the end of Darkforce vs. MMA in the GSPA to get an idea of what I am talking about (MvP is no longer mining minerals, at ~ 100 supply, and holds out at the top of a ramp with floating buildings ghosts and medivacs while darkforce mines out the map and can't break the position for ~ 20 minutes with wave after wave max army with T3 untis and infestors).
With patch 1.4.2. I feel like zerg has a chance to deal with ghosts now with a combination of infestor micro and ling/bling.
|
Don't really get the upgrade cost change.. Guess it's good.. I like the EMP change, because I don't want protoss and zerg to QQ when I use Ghosts... Ever since the HotS announces I find it really hard to be as into patch changes... but these are good.
|
I'm just going to go ahead and throw it out there that Huk just won MLG Orlando. I was there live, and from being there watching him I can say he so completely outplayed his opponents, it looked in most cases like he was playing against a diamond level player. Unbelievable unit control and an excellent game sense.
Not saying these change aren't justified to some extent, but I think in general many P's just need to play harder and stop moving their units around the map in 1 giant clump just to get upset when their whole army gets emp'd. It's pretty well known imo that Terran offers the highest skill reward, but I think there's tons of potential for P and Z to improve. I'm going to crap my pants the day zergs finally realize they can use Nydus networks not just for back dooring their opponents, and Protoss figures out how to use Warp Prisms to surround and/or cut-off their opponents.
I don't mean this as a troll, but for every Terran nerf that's come along, and after all the Zerg and Protoss buffs since release, I have to say Terran seems by far the most willing and able to adapt, I think Protoss and Zerg could learning something from it.
|
On October 27 2011 12:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 10:53 The Final Boss wrote:On October 27 2011 07:48 iamke55 wrote:On October 27 2011 07:39 Xenogears wrote:
Now Grand Master TvP might be balanced, but anything below Grand Master will suffer because P is such an easy race, and T has 100000 times more things to do.
Wish P could have learnt to spread their units but I guess you can't ask P to do anything more than mass units and build death balls to 1a their way to victory.
Thank you. Sorry the game is so hard for you. Maybe you should've learn how to play properly instead of bringing SCVs with your attacks every game? I don't agree with what Xenogears wrote (I'm a Terran player, I've been arguing with all you Ps, and frankly I think that the game was balanced before all these nerfs and buffs hurting Terran and even now it's fairly balanced), but you can't say that Protoss players don't cheese a lot. My friend went from Silver league Protoss to high Platinum only 4 Gating--and unlike that 3 Rax Supply Drop build which boosted people's ladder ranks because it was so unknown, 4 Gate is an all-in that has been around forever and it's pretty clear as far as how to hold it. Now 3 Rax will probably get you about as high up as 4 Gate, so it's really unfair to say that Terrans are the only ones who cheese like you're implying. But to be honest, Terran definitely is strong in the match-up, but their army is a lot more fragile even with good control, where as if the Protoss keeps their Colossi and High Templar relatively safe and stays with or surpasses the Terran in upgrades, then they will win. Hopefully in HotS they'll make TvP a more fun match-up on both sides, instead of a grueling war of all-ins. I want more emphasis on the Factory and Starport in a long game, but Tanks get overrun by Zealots, Hellions are only good until the Protoss gets Colossi, and Thors get feedbacked. 1. The game isn't far off balance across the board, but we still see at the top level a large TvP imbalance. A month or two ago, TvP was 70% win ratio. Code S is mostly Terrans and almost no Protosses. 2. Cheese is part of the game. That's fine. Standard is fine too. I've seen Terrans do cheese just as often as Protoss. But then again, you think that 4gate is cheese (it's definitely not).
If 4 Gate isn't cheese, does that mean that 1-1-1 isn't cheese? 4 Gate most certainly is cheese, as if the Terran player scouts it, they'll most likely hold it off, and then the Protoss will be so far behind that there is no way for them to win. What about 6 pool or Baneling Bust? Just because 4 Gate doesn't involve pulling all your Probes doesn't mean that it isn't cheese (also, just out of curiosity, what do you consider cheese?).
And I'm assuming that when you say that TvP had a 70% win rate you're only referring to GSL, maybe only Code S? Outside of Code S Protoss is dominating: look at Code A qualifiers, ESV TV Weekly, and most of the foreign tournaments that aren't won by Koreans. It's pretty remarkable how well Protoss has been doing, they're losing in Code S because they're playing badly, not because of imbalance. The proper fix is not to "balance" the game, it's to just give it time.
And also I was just sort of retorting some statement about a Terran player only knowing how to cheese or something like that. I just hate TvP and I know I'm not alone. It's not fun, so it really defeats the purpose of me playing it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
