|
On October 30 2012 01:53 bokeevboke wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 00:10 Talin wrote:On October 29 2012 19:46 bokeevboke wrote:How about we stop arguing a bit and try to find solutions: I think one of the problems of poor gameplay is sc2 has too many hard counters. Rock-paper-scissors philosophy in nutshell. it forces us to use one composition. Usual scenario: -what if I build unit A,
-NO, they will build unit B and you'll die, you better stick with the Colossi/gateway army,
- ok  Instead of making hardcounters, why won't we diversify units, make them interactable, microable, soft counters. I would start from lowering damage of most units that do too much specified damage. Like, why marauder does +10 vs armored? Instead make it 8 base damage and +6 vs armored. Upgrades (+1/0). Increase their speed so that they could be microed better but don't do absurd damage. Cut in half damage of banelings, but increase explosion radius, so that opponent has more incentives to micro and spread his army. Make phoenixes do 7+7 base damage and no additional damage to light. And vuala, you can use them in fights, not only for scouting and killing workers, not utterly devastating but micro dependant. And many many more stuff should be tweaked. We're not asking to redesign units. Some tweaks would've make huge differences. Thoughts? Blizzard has made it pretty clear over the last couple of years as to what they're willing to change and what they won't change. They're happy to play around with balance tweaks all the time, but none of these tweaks has ever really changed how a race plays and feels like, only the optimal timings and compositions have changed. Doesn't change the fact that I'm dissapointed with the game. I'll keep throwing suggestions on how to make starcraft better. Maybe some will catch Blizzard's attention and maybe they'll find it a good idea? its much better than arguing ITG vs Destiny incident all day long.
I am with this guy. If we sent this much time debating about new maps, we would have....well....new maps for events.
|
My 2 cents on where Blizz went wrong with sc2.
1. They built it from the ground up to be a competitive esport. Fun and playability should always come first, esports potential second. If we look at LoL, the game is completely and utterly abysmal from an esport's point of view. The reason it's so popular is because people find it a lot of fun to play, that's it. It certainly isn't a game that takes a lot of skill or has nearly as much depth as Starcraft 1/2 (or dota 2). Again, it's only as big as it is because it's free to play, easy, and fun for casuals.
2. They held far too firm a grip on the game. The reason they didn't add lan is so they could have complete control over the game and the scene. It helps them monitor the metagame, "balance", who the top players are, control over all the tournaments that have a decent prize pool (of which Blizz gets a cut), the list goes on and on. The very same vice grip is also what has led to the constant changes to the game. All the feedback they get from pro players and fans has morphed this game into such a drasticly different game than what it was originally intended to be, that it's a complete mess at this point. With HoTS they need to just do their own thing.
Also, please make Warcraft 4.
|
The next command and conquer game is going to be free to play. If blizzard wants me to play HotS, it will have to be free to play and have a store where i can buy cosmetic stuff for my units like hats and stuff. A husky faced zealot would sell fo 100$ and a giant tophat with monocle for the thor would make over 9000,
|
LoL really gets that many viewers, huh? i think it's a painfully boring type of game to watch. easy to play for casuals, immediate gratification, i dunno why you'd ever watch it instead of just playing it, which is pretty much the opposite of starcraft 2, which is more tempting to watch than to play cos it's frustrating and requires a massive time investment to get any better at.
i mean, watching other people play video games for you is already a niche past-time. i'm surprised it's gotten as big as it has as quickly as it has.
|
On October 30 2012 02:08 PWN3R3D wrote:
The next command and conquer game is going to be free to play. If blizzard wants me to play HotS, it will have to be free to play and have a store where i can buy cosmetic stuff for my units like hats and stuff. A husky faced zealot would sell fo 100$ and a giant tophat with monocle for the thor would make over 9000,
the next C&C won't be competition to SC2 by any means.
|
On October 30 2012 02:37 Zergrusher wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 02:08 PWN3R3D wrote:
The next command and conquer game is going to be free to play. If blizzard wants me to play HotS, it will have to be free to play and have a store where i can buy cosmetic stuff for my units like hats and stuff. A husky faced zealot would sell fo 100$ and a giant tophat with monocle for the thor would make over 9000, the next C&C won't be competition to SC2 by any means.
The only traditional style rts that could ever give competition to a Blizzard rts.......is another Blizzard rts. (cough cough warcraft 4). C&C has always been awful in the multiplayer department, that goes for pratically all non-blizzard rts.
|
Not only do I completely support the OP's points, I want to add one thing that I haven't really ever seen discussed before that makes the game INCREDIBLY casual-unfriendly;
In SC2, it is too easy to win the game.
How does this make it casual-unfriendly? Clearly, winning is something that casuals enjoy (hence team games, co-op TDs, etc) and thus making it easy to do things and win games should make casuals happy. Right?
But what does "easy to win" mean in this case?
In SC2, it is very easy to overwhelm a disadvantaged opponent, because unit control is simple, timings are tight, defenses are relatively weak, and for the most part, if you know how to play the game you can make your army do what you want. The end result is that, if you think you are ahead, and you are ahead, you can probably win, even if you aren't very good. Furthermore, you will win quickly and efficiently, often in just 1 attack.
This means a slightly worse player will almost always get rolled by a better player. Not just beat - in SC2, when you are losing (especially at a casual level) there is no almost clawing back, there is no turtling up your final base and trying to hide a CC, there isn't even really playing hide-the-farm while your last 3 air units try to deal some damage. In SC2, when you start to lose, you typically lose outright - and there is nothing a casual player (or any player, really) hates more than getting completely stomped.
SC2 teaches a casual who loses that they stood no chance. It teaches casuals watching a game, in many cases, that the loser stood no chance because most games are pretty clearly decided by one engagement. Furthermore, it teaches a casual that they are playing wrong - you didn't make enough guys! Your didn't make the good guys! Even in War3 or BW, you could survive for a while with the "wrong" guys. You could sometimes even win! But this is nearly impossible in SC2 against a similarly skilled, or slightly better, opponent, because it is way too easy and fast for that opponent to win.
|
On October 30 2012 02:05 AnomalySC2 wrote:
My 2 cents on where Blizz went wrong with sc2.
1. They built it from the ground up to be a competitive esport. Fun and playability should always come first, esports potential second. If we look at LoL, the game is completely and utterly abysmal from an esport's point of view. The reason it's so popular is because people find it a lot of fun to play, that's it. It certainly isn't a game that takes a lot of skill or has nearly as much depth as Starcraft 1/2 (or dota 2). Again, it's only as big as it is because it's free to play, easy, and fun for casuals.
2. They held far too firm a grip on the game. The reason they didn't add lan is so they could have complete control over the game and the scene. It helps them monitor the metagame, "balance", who the top players are, control over all the tournaments that have a decent prize pool (of which Blizz gets a cut), the list goes on and on. The very same vice grip is also what has led to the constant changes to the game. All the feedback they get from pro players and fans has morphed this game into such a drasticly different game than what it was originally intended to be, that it's a complete mess at this point. With HoTS they need to just do their own thing.
Also, please make Warcraft 4.
If Diablo III is any indication of what they're development team has become, I'd prefer they stop making games. As it is I've completely lost interest in HotS. It SHOULD be released as a patch (because that's all it really is) and the campaign should be sold separately.
And LoL is very complex and challenging at high levels. Don't knock the game. It's not nearly as hard as SC2 but it certainly rewards good play and punishes bad play. The difference is that the community doesn't hate itself. If you're anything less than GM in SC2 you might as well uninstall the game and kill yourself. If you're bad at LoL...no one cares.
|
On October 30 2012 02:43 tedster wrote:
Not only do I completely support the OP's points, I want to add one thing that I haven't really ever seen discussed before that makes the game INCREDIBLY casual-unfriendly;
In SC2, it is too easy to win the game.
How does this make it casual-unfriendly? Clearly, winning is something that casuals enjoy (hence team games, co-op TDs, etc) and thus making it easy to do things and win games should make casuals happy. Right?
But what does "easy to win" mean in this case?
In SC2, it is very easy to overwhelm a disadvantaged opponent, because unit control is simple, timings are tight, defenses are relatively weak, and for the most part, if you know how to play the game you can make your army do what you want. The end result is that, if you think you are ahead, and you are ahead, you can probably win, even if you aren't very good. Furthermore, you will win quickly and efficiently, often in just 1 attack.
This means a slightly worse player will almost always get rolled by a better player. Not just beat - in SC2, when you are losing (especially at a casual level) there is no almost clawing back, there is no turtling up your final base and trying to hide a CC, there isn't even really playing hide-the-farm while your last 3 air units try to deal some damage. In SC2, when you start to lose, you typically lose outright - and there is nothing a casual player (or any player, really) hates more than getting completely stomped.
SC2 teaches a casual who loses that they stood no chance. It teaches casuals watching a game, in many cases, that the loser stood no chance because most games are pretty clearly decided by one engagement. Furthermore, it teaches a casual that they are playing wrong - you didn't make enough guys! Your didn't make the good guys! Even in War3 or BW, you could survive for a while with the "wrong" guys. You could sometimes even win! But this is nearly impossible in SC2 against a similarly skilled, or slightly better, opponent, because it is way too easy and fast for that opponent to win.
On the gameplay side of sc2, I completely agree that this is the biggest problem. This is what flash, JD etc said about sc2 as well when asked. It is too lopsided for the advantaged player, there are no come-backs, the game is not dynamic back and forth.
|
On October 30 2012 02:48 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 02:05 AnomalySC2 wrote:
My 2 cents on where Blizz went wrong with sc2.
1. They built it from the ground up to be a competitive esport. Fun and playability should always come first, esports potential second. If we look at LoL, the game is completely and utterly abysmal from an esport's point of view. The reason it's so popular is because people find it a lot of fun to play, that's it. It certainly isn't a game that takes a lot of skill or has nearly as much depth as Starcraft 1/2 (or dota 2). Again, it's only as big as it is because it's free to play, easy, and fun for casuals.
2. They held far too firm a grip on the game. The reason they didn't add lan is so they could have complete control over the game and the scene. It helps them monitor the metagame, "balance", who the top players are, control over all the tournaments that have a decent prize pool (of which Blizz gets a cut), the list goes on and on. The very same vice grip is also what has led to the constant changes to the game. All the feedback they get from pro players and fans has morphed this game into such a drasticly different game than what it was originally intended to be, that it's a complete mess at this point. With HoTS they need to just do their own thing.
Also, please make Warcraft 4. If Diablo III is any indication of what they're development team has become, I'd prefer they stop making games. As it is I've completely lost interest in HotS. It SHOULD be released as a patch (because that's all it really is) and the campaign should be sold separately. And LoL is very complex and challenging at high levels. Don't knock the game. It's not nearly as hard as SC2 but it certainly rewards good play and punishes bad play. The difference is that the community doesn't hate itself. If you're anything less than GM in SC2 you might as well uninstall the game and kill yourself. If you're bad at LoL...no one cares.
Oh come on, Diablo 3 is NOT as bad as people like to make it out to be. In fact, I consider it a true upgrade to the d2 formula, yes, upgrade. I believe if d3 was what it is right now on launch (after the inferno nerf and legendary buff patches) then the game wouldn't have received so much hate. People that believe d2 is a better game are either blinded by nostalgia, or actually never played d2 in the first place (or something). Seriously, go play d2 again, it's just not very good anymore.
Also, you may be right about HoTS multiplayer not being a big enough change to warrant an expansion pack price, but then again they also aren't even finished with it yet. They're still making sweeping changes to core unit design so yeah, that's not a fair statement to make just yet.
|
On October 30 2012 02:56 AnomalySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 02:48 Klondikebar wrote:On October 30 2012 02:05 AnomalySC2 wrote:
My 2 cents on where Blizz went wrong with sc2.
1. They built it from the ground up to be a competitive esport. Fun and playability should always come first, esports potential second. If we look at LoL, the game is completely and utterly abysmal from an esport's point of view. The reason it's so popular is because people find it a lot of fun to play, that's it. It certainly isn't a game that takes a lot of skill or has nearly as much depth as Starcraft 1/2 (or dota 2). Again, it's only as big as it is because it's free to play, easy, and fun for casuals.
2. They held far too firm a grip on the game. The reason they didn't add lan is so they could have complete control over the game and the scene. It helps them monitor the metagame, "balance", who the top players are, control over all the tournaments that have a decent prize pool (of which Blizz gets a cut), the list goes on and on. The very same vice grip is also what has led to the constant changes to the game. All the feedback they get from pro players and fans has morphed this game into such a drasticly different game than what it was originally intended to be, that it's a complete mess at this point. With HoTS they need to just do their own thing.
Also, please make Warcraft 4. If Diablo III is any indication of what they're development team has become, I'd prefer they stop making games. As it is I've completely lost interest in HotS. It SHOULD be released as a patch (because that's all it really is) and the campaign should be sold separately. And LoL is very complex and challenging at high levels. Don't knock the game. It's not nearly as hard as SC2 but it certainly rewards good play and punishes bad play. The difference is that the community doesn't hate itself. If you're anything less than GM in SC2 you might as well uninstall the game and kill yourself. If you're bad at LoL...no one cares. Oh come on, Diablo 3 is NOT as bad as people like to make it out to be. In fact, I consider it a true upgrade to the d2 formula, yes, upgrade. I believe if d3 was what it is right now on launch (after the inferno nerf and legendary buff patches) then the game wouldn't have received so much hate. People that believe d2 is a better game are either blinded by nostalgia, or actually never played d2 in the first place (or something). Seriously, go play d2 again, it's just not very good anymore. Also, you may be right about HoTS multiplayer not being a big enough change to warrant an expansion pack price, but then again they also aren't even finished with it yet. They're still making sweeping changes to core unit design so yeah, that's not a fair statement to make just yet.
Diablo 3 was not bad at all. It was only bad for people who to the end to get the fattest loot and show off their Internet-ego-justification. Frankly, that is a very very very small group of people who are very difficult to please. The rest of the world enjoyed D3 for what it was, a good game that you could play with friends and enjoy. It sold more copies than SC2 and reviewed well. I had a great time playing it with my girlfriend and buddies. We are considering back through again while we wait for borderlands 2 to drop in price.
|
On October 30 2012 02:56 AnomalySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 02:48 Klondikebar wrote:On October 30 2012 02:05 AnomalySC2 wrote:
My 2 cents on where Blizz went wrong with sc2.
1. They built it from the ground up to be a competitive esport. Fun and playability should always come first, esports potential second. If we look at LoL, the game is completely and utterly abysmal from an esport's point of view. The reason it's so popular is because people find it a lot of fun to play, that's it. It certainly isn't a game that takes a lot of skill or has nearly as much depth as Starcraft 1/2 (or dota 2). Again, it's only as big as it is because it's free to play, easy, and fun for casuals.
2. They held far too firm a grip on the game. The reason they didn't add lan is so they could have complete control over the game and the scene. It helps them monitor the metagame, "balance", who the top players are, control over all the tournaments that have a decent prize pool (of which Blizz gets a cut), the list goes on and on. The very same vice grip is also what has led to the constant changes to the game. All the feedback they get from pro players and fans has morphed this game into such a drasticly different game than what it was originally intended to be, that it's a complete mess at this point. With HoTS they need to just do their own thing.
Also, please make Warcraft 4. If Diablo III is any indication of what they're development team has become, I'd prefer they stop making games. As it is I've completely lost interest in HotS. It SHOULD be released as a patch (because that's all it really is) and the campaign should be sold separately. And LoL is very complex and challenging at high levels. Don't knock the game. It's not nearly as hard as SC2 but it certainly rewards good play and punishes bad play. The difference is that the community doesn't hate itself. If you're anything less than GM in SC2 you might as well uninstall the game and kill yourself. If you're bad at LoL...no one cares. Oh come on, Diablo 3 is NOT as bad as people like to make it out to be. In fact, I consider it a true upgrade to the d2 formula, yes, upgrade. I believe if d3 was what it is right now on launch (after the inferno nerf and legendary buff patches) then the game wouldn't have received so much hate. People that believe d2 is a better game are either blinded by nostalgia, or actually never played d2 in the first place (or something). Seriously, go play d2 again, it's just not very good anymore. Also, you may be right about HoTS multiplayer not being a big enough change to warrant an expansion pack price, but then again they also aren't even finished with it yet. They're still making sweeping changes to core unit design so yeah, that's not a fair statement to make just yet.
If by "sweeping changes" you mean "removing new units." Then sure. This entire development cycle they've only REDUCED the changes to gameplay. They removed burrow move banelings, removed warhounds, and every other change has been a lateral move. Yes, removing those things is good for gameplay but it is a reduction in added content. Unless at the 11th hour they're going to add entire tech tree branches, it's not going to be expansion price.
And to clarify, I am genuinely interested in the campaign. I enjoyed the WoL campaign for what it was and the story entertains me enough that I will come back for a second episode. But the Esports starcraft doesn't give a shit about the campaign, it just wants a balanced game. Esports isn't going to be saved or helped by a new campaign.
|
|
|
On October 30 2012 02:42 AnomalySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 02:37 Zergrusher wrote:On October 30 2012 02:08 PWN3R3D wrote:
The next command and conquer game is going to be free to play. If blizzard wants me to play HotS, it will have to be free to play and have a store where i can buy cosmetic stuff for my units like hats and stuff. A husky faced zealot would sell fo 100$ and a giant tophat with monocle for the thor would make over 9000, the next C&C won't be competition to SC2 by any means. The only traditional style rts that could ever give competition to a Blizzard rts.......is another Blizzard rts. (cough cough warcraft 4). C&C has always been awful in the multiplayer department, that goes for pratically all non-blizzard rts.
And yet blizzard took someone from C&C and made him lead designer for sc2, big surprise as to what is happening?
|
On October 30 2012 04:16 shivver wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 02:42 AnomalySC2 wrote:On October 30 2012 02:37 Zergrusher wrote:On October 30 2012 02:08 PWN3R3D wrote:
The next command and conquer game is going to be free to play. If blizzard wants me to play HotS, it will have to be free to play and have a store where i can buy cosmetic stuff for my units like hats and stuff. A husky faced zealot would sell fo 100$ and a giant tophat with monocle for the thor would make over 9000, the next C&C won't be competition to SC2 by any means. The only traditional style rts that could ever give competition to a Blizzard rts.......is another Blizzard rts. (cough cough warcraft 4). C&C has always been awful in the multiplayer department, that goes for pratically all non-blizzard rts. And yet blizzard took someone from C&C and made him lead designer for sc2, big surprise as to what is happening?
And yet it's basically david kim's game. At least when it comes to the stuff that matters, (unit balance, strategies, all that good stuff). Point taken though,  .
|
All the people that claim that LoL is a game with no depth: compared to SC2 you can play LoL just 4 fun without getting frustrated.
But if you play it on a serious basis it is not as easy as all the 0815 LoL haters state.
Apart from mikromanagement and multitasking (where SC2 is much harder I agree) it is a game that is more build around knowing the heros/items and having good teamwork.
Due to that LoL offers a much higher variety of builds and stuff. SC2 is very linear and predictable in that ways.
In LoL you can play (on the first view) stupid things and still be good with it - if you just play adequat and know what you can do and what you cant.
So i think SC2 is a harder to execute game but not harder to understand (i think if you play it seriously LoL is way more diverse and complex).
Yes i played both - didnt stick with SC2 too long though, just expected more from the successor of SC:BW. SC2 didnt fit my expectations.
|
On October 29 2012 16:40 blug wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 16:17 NoobSkills wrote:On October 29 2012 15:04 matiK23 wrote:
Did that guy just say he won't be gettIng HoTS because he's getting CoD? Wtfffffffffff my brain is filled with fuck. You missed the entire point, but with how well you wrote your response I can understand why, so I will simplify it. Call Of Duty is the same game every time no better no worse. The Activision-Blizzard games are always worse than the Blizzard titles. Now, if you're laughing at the fact that both games are in fact published by Activision, Trearch and IW seem to develop a similar quality game every time because Activision doesn't own them, they only publish them. I am not saying that COD takes more skill or is better, just that I know what I am getting when I open the package. On October 29 2012 15:11 blug wrote:
I don't like this "Accepting" argument that people are using. It's the argument that inControl/idra/some forums users are using, but why should we accept? Sure Blizzard haven't listened by the last 2 years, but it doesn't hurt to keep nagging them, otherwise we give Blizzard the freedom to do as they wish and the only thing that will happen is the degeneration of this game.
People are saying "It wasn't an issue until Destiny said something" but why should you nail Destiny's coffin just because he is saying something that would be productive for this game? It sickens me how a major contributor to this game and ESports in general gets shot down for voicing his opinion, and yes, I agree with most of it. If you disagree that's fine, but it seems people are disagreeing with the wrong thing.
You should be disagreeing with Destiny about the fact the game shouldn't be casualized, you shouldn't be arguing about the fact the Community is making a big deal about it... Because we should be! Fight against Destiny's argument, don't fight against his ability to speak out his opinion. Nagging them will not solve anything. They already have your $60. Your nagging might make them bump up the release date of HOTS, which by chance will have the features you want. Then you will have paid $100 for your copy of SC2 which by the way, still isn't complete, you have to wait 2 more years for that. He is right, but you need to remember they really don't give a shit, they're only trying to sell copies, not appease you now. Releasing anything that might make you buy an expansion, before that expansion releases wouldn't be good for their business model. You seem to forget that Blizzard are releasing a game pretty soon which they haven't got money for yet? When releasing a new game, they want people to buy copies... and people who most likely won't buy copies are people who are currently playing other games. However, maybe those other people might give sc2 a second chance if more features are implemented. Who else is better to listen to other than the community itself for suggestions? Blizzard do listen, I used to play WoW, and in fact, they listened to the extent where they changed WoW into something I disliked (I do accept overall it's not a bad thing because they are catering to the majority). Have you actually noticed that Blizzard have been listening a lot more lately? Forum posts have been made on the Blizzard site and Blizzard have been implementing people's ideas. You also don't seem to understand the financial potential of ESports in general as well, they have more money to earn from you than that 60 dollars... All that aside, it might not make a huge difference, but it doesn't hurt. \
I'm not going to make a big response because you obviously read my post, but didn't understand it. Forum posts does not mean Activision is listening, they're stalling. When the game is complete it will have a full online experience, but still a shit campaign, and any issues with the online experience won't be fixed because they want to sell LotV. The financial potential of eSports is NOTHING to a company like Activision. Worth Billions the chump change they get from letting an event take place it nothing compares to their game sales revenue. Also from what I remember (not 100%) WoW had more subscribers way back,before the most recent updates, they didn't listen, they made you crap, so that you would pay for another 12 month subscription.
|
On October 30 2012 04:12 monkybone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2012 10:12 eden-san wrote:On October 28 2012 09:25 monkybone wrote:On October 28 2012 09:11 Portvilla wrote:
Can't he just play LoL? Your phrasing resembles the elitist attitude Incontrol and Idra displayed to Destiny on Inside the Game. That does not work to solve the problem at all; it is just a low blow at a player for no particular reason When a person express himself as intensely negative about a certain activity, without being the slightest positive on the other hand, why is it out of line to ask why such a person is engaged in said activity? Wow, did you ever live in a relationship? People hate because they care. Otherwise they'd just do as you say, they'd just disappear. Destiny hates the game because he cares, people who can't see that are people who just don't have much experience in life IMO. Love can become a fertile ground for the emergence of hate. When the intensity and intimacy of love turns sour, hate may be generated. In these circumstances, hate serves as a channel of communication when other paths are blocked, and it functions to preserve the powerful closeness of the relationship, in which both connection and separation are impossible. Does this seem like a guy who cares about sc2? http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/12ab8m/it_seems_like_destiny_accepted_idras_itg_advice/
The funny thing is that in his long post explaining his current situation and future with sc2, he mentions he is considering switching away from the competitive side of sc2 to the entertainment side or switching games altogether. Um.....since when was he ever really considered a competitive pro gamer? He was mostly viewed as just an entertainer. Semi pro at best.
|
I'm completely done with HOTS. Seems like Blizzard is throwing darts on a board and seeing which one sticks. They started to remove units altogether for fear of community backlash - it shows they are completely confused with what to do.
David Kim will go down in history as the lead designer who killed SC E-sports. That's a good resume builder.
|
On October 30 2012 02:08 PWN3R3D wrote:
The next command and conquer game is going to be free to play. If blizzard wants me to play HotS, it will have to be free to play and have a store where i can buy cosmetic stuff for my units like hats and stuff. A husky faced zealot would sell fo 100$ and a giant tophat with monocle for the thor would make over 9000,
Is this is what casuals long for (assuming this is a facetious post)?
As long as I can turn this shit off on my end, I'm down with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
