On October 29 2013 02:45 The_Red_Viper wrote: Well yeah i kinda agree that deathball play is less common. But deathballs arent gone and they are as boring as ever, thats my point.
They are never going to leave as long as all of our units can fit on one screen. There are no hitters in baseball and those are dull, but it's the way the game works.
bad analogy. no hitters are mega intense. stick to starcraft sir.
In your opinion, sir. I know plenty of baseball fans how loath them.
On October 29 2013 02:18 RampancyTW wrote: Oh look, more gems!
On October 29 2013 02:15 Moonsalt wrote:
On October 28 2013 16:16 flashimba wrote: The deathball is fine as it is. With skill levels rising, we are progressively seeing more and more dynamic gameplay. Look at any match from <insert top 10 player>.
How many years did it take for BW to evolve? 7 years for iloveoov macro, 8 years for Zerg to be revolutionized.
SC2 has only been out for 2 years, which is NOTHING compared to the evolution of BW. Alas, we are all impatient and dismiss any faults we see without giving the game a chance to evolve on its own.
Yep, but that doesn't mean in 5+ years everyone will stop utilizing deathballs. It is the way the game is designed and you can't do anything about it. People will never stop using deathballs because if they do they'll have a higher chance of losing... it's simple.. deathballs are too good to not be used.
... The pros have stopped using deathballs because they're too BAD to use.
They didnt use to stop deathballs, gosh why are you insisting on that point if its just not true.
On October 29 2013 02:17 RampancyTW wrote: Plansix, as much as these threads are obnoxious, all of the little gems that they squeeze out of the woodwork ALMOST make it all worth it.
On October 29 2013 02:13 HungrySC2 wrote: Defensive and delaying tactics were removed from SC2. I've said it before, but the huge decrease in time in which you can keep a scouting worker alive is horrible for the game.
The use of lurkers, while sniping observers/vessels gave zerg the opportunity to spread out and defend against multiple attacks or slow down a death ball.
Defilers worked the same way. Not only allowing zerg to defend expansions at critical moments, but also gave zerg the ability to be aggressive at a time in the game in which both terran and protoss would be impregnable if Defilers didn't exist.
Tanks very strong defensively in the early game in BW AND gave the terran the ability to be somewhat aggressive. Totally worthless in SC2 in both regards. Not only that but the repeated nerf to stim timings, blue flame hellions etc. have removed all aggressive openings for Terran. This has only been exacerbated by queen range and nexus cannon.
Currently each race relies so heavily at being successful at a specific point in the game. Because of this it is bound to be stale and unrewarding. Not only because it is impossible for terran to do anything to protoss early game, but because Terran HAS to do damage (or take economic risks) to protoss mid game. This is completely contradictory to creating a challenging, creative, and most importantly REWARDING game for players and spectators. Options need to exist. One example is... medivac boosters, I love them to death, but it only places more emphasis on Terran dominance in the mid game. On a specific timing window that Terran must find an advantage, not some games, not most games, but every bloodly game.
This philosophy has been core to the game since release and is the reason why I enjoyed playing random, and especially mirror match-ups more than any other (besides TvZ before that got stupid). In mirror the "timing window" doesn't exist because both races are theoretically identical in strengths and weaknesses at the same time, decision making over the course of the game is more important than being successful for only 3-5 minutes of it. Random simply because the monotony of "timing windows" didn't set in so quickly and because I was much less likely to hit the "optimal" timing window (due to less practice with each strategy) leading to much more interesting and fun games. Not only for me, but for my opponent.
The goal of the game isn't for it to be balanced, but for the option of unbalance to occur. If you can't do something that can catch the opponent off guard, then the game won't be fun for anyone, it will be a predictable monotony based more upon a single rock-paper-scissors decision per game rather than hundreds if not thousands of individual decisions and themes throughout a best of x series that determine the better player. I'm not saying that cheese specifically should be stronger. I'm saying that strategies outside the "optimal timing window" need to be viable enough so that the game continues to be fresh, strategies are able to develop, and for it to be enjoyable to both players and spectators.
So no.. The deathball isn't the problem. It's the symptom.
Where else can you find such a high concentration of people that clearly neither play nor watch the game?
If you think that this post was bad and it has no truth in it, then i think you dont watch the game^^ sc2 is an extremely timing heavy game, yeah he exaggerated a bit, but there is some truth in it..
The ones that are good enough to stop using them have stopped using them, because they're suboptimal.
"Deathball" is a general term used to describe an unstoppable game-ending army (which usually does form to close out games), but that's completely different from "deathball play," which is what threads like these and posters like the one I responded to are referring to. Deathball play is dying as players get better.
And SC2 is no more timing-dependent than BW was, but I don't hear anybody complaining about the timing-dependency of BW. Probably because it's not actually an issue, and lends a natural ebb and flow to games.
Well yeah i kinda agree that deathball play is less common. But deathballs arent gone and they are as boring as ever, thats my point.
That's 100% a player skill thing, though. The better a player gets, the less likely he is to fall back to deathball play.
Well no and thats exactly my point. It isnt even that there are deathballs, but how they play out is the stupid thing in sc2. Dear vs soulkey game two. Dear lost his 3rd several times but got his deathball rolling. He then won the game with one fight and that fight was just stupid and anticlimatic, thats the "problem". (btw i dont say he didnt deserve that win, he harrassed well etc!!).
On October 29 2013 02:51 Plansix wrote:
On October 29 2013 02:45 The_Red_Viper wrote: Well yeah i kinda agree that deathball play is less common. But deathballs arent gone and they are as boring as ever, thats my point.
They are never going to leave as long as all of our units can fit on one screen. There are no hitters in baseball and those are dull, but it's the way the game works.
yeah but thats not exactly my point. its ok to have "deathballs" as long as there is interesting interactions between them. That part mostly lacks for PvX matchups imo.
. You do know that every SC 2 game is going to end with a big fight and one at least one side having a big army? It's the way the game works. Death ball it a catch all term people who use for the army that winsz
Many people don't know what a death ball is. They do exist, but many people don't know what a true death ball is or where it originated from. It's okay though. Many people misuse a lot of the terms all the time including the casters, i.e. all-ins. Gretrop was guilty of that the other day. >_<
On October 29 2013 02:18 RampancyTW wrote: Oh look, more gems!
On October 29 2013 02:15 Moonsalt wrote:
On October 28 2013 16:16 flashimba wrote: The deathball is fine as it is. With skill levels rising, we are progressively seeing more and more dynamic gameplay. Look at any match from <insert top 10 player>.
How many years did it take for BW to evolve? 7 years for iloveoov macro, 8 years for Zerg to be revolutionized.
SC2 has only been out for 2 years, which is NOTHING compared to the evolution of BW. Alas, we are all impatient and dismiss any faults we see without giving the game a chance to evolve on its own.
Yep, but that doesn't mean in 5+ years everyone will stop utilizing deathballs. It is the way the game is designed and you can't do anything about it. People will never stop using deathballs because if they do they'll have a higher chance of losing... it's simple.. deathballs are too good to not be used.
... The pros have stopped using deathballs because they're too BAD to use.
They didnt use to stop deathballs, gosh why are you insisting on that point if its just not true.
On October 29 2013 02:17 RampancyTW wrote: Plansix, as much as these threads are obnoxious, all of the little gems that they squeeze out of the woodwork ALMOST make it all worth it.
On October 29 2013 02:13 HungrySC2 wrote: Defensive and delaying tactics were removed from SC2. I've said it before, but the huge decrease in time in which you can keep a scouting worker alive is horrible for the game.
The use of lurkers, while sniping observers/vessels gave zerg the opportunity to spread out and defend against multiple attacks or slow down a death ball.
Defilers worked the same way. Not only allowing zerg to defend expansions at critical moments, but also gave zerg the ability to be aggressive at a time in the game in which both terran and protoss would be impregnable if Defilers didn't exist.
Tanks very strong defensively in the early game in BW AND gave the terran the ability to be somewhat aggressive. Totally worthless in SC2 in both regards. Not only that but the repeated nerf to stim timings, blue flame hellions etc. have removed all aggressive openings for Terran. This has only been exacerbated by queen range and nexus cannon.
Currently each race relies so heavily at being successful at a specific point in the game. Because of this it is bound to be stale and unrewarding. Not only because it is impossible for terran to do anything to protoss early game, but because Terran HAS to do damage (or take economic risks) to protoss mid game. This is completely contradictory to creating a challenging, creative, and most importantly REWARDING game for players and spectators. Options need to exist. One example is... medivac boosters, I love them to death, but it only places more emphasis on Terran dominance in the mid game. On a specific timing window that Terran must find an advantage, not some games, not most games, but every bloodly game.
This philosophy has been core to the game since release and is the reason why I enjoyed playing random, and especially mirror match-ups more than any other (besides TvZ before that got stupid). In mirror the "timing window" doesn't exist because both races are theoretically identical in strengths and weaknesses at the same time, decision making over the course of the game is more important than being successful for only 3-5 minutes of it. Random simply because the monotony of "timing windows" didn't set in so quickly and because I was much less likely to hit the "optimal" timing window (due to less practice with each strategy) leading to much more interesting and fun games. Not only for me, but for my opponent.
The goal of the game isn't for it to be balanced, but for the option of unbalance to occur. If you can't do something that can catch the opponent off guard, then the game won't be fun for anyone, it will be a predictable monotony based more upon a single rock-paper-scissors decision per game rather than hundreds if not thousands of individual decisions and themes throughout a best of x series that determine the better player. I'm not saying that cheese specifically should be stronger. I'm saying that strategies outside the "optimal timing window" need to be viable enough so that the game continues to be fresh, strategies are able to develop, and for it to be enjoyable to both players and spectators.
So no.. The deathball isn't the problem. It's the symptom.
Where else can you find such a high concentration of people that clearly neither play nor watch the game?
If you think that this post was bad and it has no truth in it, then i think you dont watch the game^^ sc2 is an extremely timing heavy game, yeah he exaggerated a bit, but there is some truth in it..
The ones that are good enough to stop using them have stopped using them, because they're suboptimal.
"Deathball" is a general term used to describe an unstoppable game-ending army (which usually does form to close out games), but that's completely different from "deathball play," which is what threads like these and posters like the one I responded to are referring to. Deathball play is dying as players get better.
And SC2 is no more timing-dependent than BW was, but I don't hear anybody complaining about the timing-dependency of BW. Probably because it's not actually an issue, and lends a natural ebb and flow to games.
Well yeah i kinda agree that deathball play is less common. But deathballs arent gone and they are as boring as ever, thats my point.
That's 100% a player skill thing, though. The better a player gets, the less likely he is to fall back to deathball play.
Well no and thats exactly my point. It isnt even that there are deathballs, but how they play out is the stupid thing in sc2. Dear vs soulkey game two. Dear lost his 3rd several times but got his deathball rolling. He then won the game with one fight and that fight was just stupid and anticlimatic, thats the "problem". (btw i dont say he didnt deserve that win, he harrassed well etc!!).
Well, that's the thing. The deathball push as the end is just ceremony. It's an engagement that says "After all of this action throughout the game, I have amassed a sizeable enough of an advantage that I can end it right here." Or it's a response to a player spreading themselves out too thin/getting out of position in their attempts to abuse a less-mobile player.
Without the possibility for a deathball roll-over, the more mobile player would always win, because there would be no way to truly punish a similarly-skilled opponent with more mobility. If the engagements were super long and exciting with the far superior force being unable to beat the far inferior force with similar levels of play, then there would be a completely separate issue of glaring imbalance and/or unusable units.
So wonderful to see a lot of positive post acknowledging that it's actually not as bad as some people try to paint it! Delightful to read! :D
Lots of TL threads are just filled with negativity for negativity's own sake so this is a nice change of pace! Sometimes it even seems some posters only hang around for this aspect alone
A lot of negative comments in the past has over time shown to have been completely wrong, but these have all been forgotten as people move on to the new topic of the day to complain about.
On October 29 2013 02:18 RampancyTW wrote: Oh look, more gems!
On October 29 2013 02:15 Moonsalt wrote:
On October 28 2013 16:16 flashimba wrote: The deathball is fine as it is. With skill levels rising, we are progressively seeing more and more dynamic gameplay. Look at any match from <insert top 10 player>.
How many years did it take for BW to evolve? 7 years for iloveoov macro, 8 years for Zerg to be revolutionized.
SC2 has only been out for 2 years, which is NOTHING compared to the evolution of BW. Alas, we are all impatient and dismiss any faults we see without giving the game a chance to evolve on its own.
Yep, but that doesn't mean in 5+ years everyone will stop utilizing deathballs. It is the way the game is designed and you can't do anything about it. People will never stop using deathballs because if they do they'll have a higher chance of losing... it's simple.. deathballs are too good to not be used.
... The pros have stopped using deathballs because they're too BAD to use.
They didnt use to stop deathballs, gosh why are you insisting on that point if its just not true.
On October 29 2013 02:17 RampancyTW wrote: Plansix, as much as these threads are obnoxious, all of the little gems that they squeeze out of the woodwork ALMOST make it all worth it.
On October 29 2013 02:13 HungrySC2 wrote: Defensive and delaying tactics were removed from SC2. I've said it before, but the huge decrease in time in which you can keep a scouting worker alive is horrible for the game.
The use of lurkers, while sniping observers/vessels gave zerg the opportunity to spread out and defend against multiple attacks or slow down a death ball.
Defilers worked the same way. Not only allowing zerg to defend expansions at critical moments, but also gave zerg the ability to be aggressive at a time in the game in which both terran and protoss would be impregnable if Defilers didn't exist.
Tanks very strong defensively in the early game in BW AND gave the terran the ability to be somewhat aggressive. Totally worthless in SC2 in both regards. Not only that but the repeated nerf to stim timings, blue flame hellions etc. have removed all aggressive openings for Terran. This has only been exacerbated by queen range and nexus cannon.
Currently each race relies so heavily at being successful at a specific point in the game. Because of this it is bound to be stale and unrewarding. Not only because it is impossible for terran to do anything to protoss early game, but because Terran HAS to do damage (or take economic risks) to protoss mid game. This is completely contradictory to creating a challenging, creative, and most importantly REWARDING game for players and spectators. Options need to exist. One example is... medivac boosters, I love them to death, but it only places more emphasis on Terran dominance in the mid game. On a specific timing window that Terran must find an advantage, not some games, not most games, but every bloodly game.
This philosophy has been core to the game since release and is the reason why I enjoyed playing random, and especially mirror match-ups more than any other (besides TvZ before that got stupid). In mirror the "timing window" doesn't exist because both races are theoretically identical in strengths and weaknesses at the same time, decision making over the course of the game is more important than being successful for only 3-5 minutes of it. Random simply because the monotony of "timing windows" didn't set in so quickly and because I was much less likely to hit the "optimal" timing window (due to less practice with each strategy) leading to much more interesting and fun games. Not only for me, but for my opponent.
The goal of the game isn't for it to be balanced, but for the option of unbalance to occur. If you can't do something that can catch the opponent off guard, then the game won't be fun for anyone, it will be a predictable monotony based more upon a single rock-paper-scissors decision per game rather than hundreds if not thousands of individual decisions and themes throughout a best of x series that determine the better player. I'm not saying that cheese specifically should be stronger. I'm saying that strategies outside the "optimal timing window" need to be viable enough so that the game continues to be fresh, strategies are able to develop, and for it to be enjoyable to both players and spectators.
So no.. The deathball isn't the problem. It's the symptom.
Where else can you find such a high concentration of people that clearly neither play nor watch the game?
If you think that this post was bad and it has no truth in it, then i think you dont watch the game^^ sc2 is an extremely timing heavy game, yeah he exaggerated a bit, but there is some truth in it..
The ones that are good enough to stop using them have stopped using them, because they're suboptimal.
"Deathball" is a general term used to describe an unstoppable game-ending army (which usually does form to close out games), but that's completely different from "deathball play," which is what threads like these and posters like the one I responded to are referring to. Deathball play is dying as players get better.
And SC2 is no more timing-dependent than BW was, but I don't hear anybody complaining about the timing-dependency of BW. Probably because it's not actually an issue, and lends a natural ebb and flow to games.
Well yeah i kinda agree that deathball play is less common. But deathballs arent gone and they are as boring as ever, thats my point.
That's 100% a player skill thing, though. The better a player gets, the less likely he is to fall back to deathball play.
Well no and thats exactly my point. It isnt even that there are deathballs, but how they play out is the stupid thing in sc2. Dear vs soulkey game two. Dear lost his 3rd several times but got his deathball rolling. He then won the game with one fight and that fight was just stupid and anticlimatic, thats the "problem". (btw i dont say he didnt deserve that win, he harrassed well etc!!).
Well, that's the thing. The deathball push as the end is just ceremony. It's an engagement that says "After all of this action throughout the game, I have amassed a sizeable enough of an advantage that I can end it right here." Or it's a response to a player spreading themselves out too thin/getting out of position in their attempts to abuse a less-mobile player.
Without the possibility for a deathball roll-over, the more mobile player would always win, because there would be no way to truly punish a similarly-skilled opponent with more mobility. If the engagements were super long and exciting with the far superior force being unable to beat the far inferior force with similar levels of play, then there would be a completely separate issue of glaring imbalance and/or unusable units.
Thank you for saying this. Nada's tornado Terran was a vulture harass into deathball unsieged tank A-move. New game, same tricks.
On October 29 2013 03:05 The_Red_Viper wrote: Yes ofc, i didnt blame that fact for anything. I blame that the interaction between 2 blobs is mostly pretty boring. I dont get excited when i see a big toss ball vs a big bio ball most of the time. The game can be great before and i enjoy it then ofc, but the main fight that happens most of the times isnt that appealing. Is it appealing that the terran has enough vikings to snipe the colossi and then just walks over the gateway units? Is it appealing that the toss storms the terran to death cause he didnt get that one money emp off? That are the things i am arguing about, deathballs are fine, as long as the battle is interesting still.
When was the last time you actually saw a battle between high-level opponents play out like this?
Most of the TvP engagement I see usually last anywhere from 30 seconds to 2 minutes with constant probing and sparring and trying to get casters in favorable positions etc. If you only count the brief period of fully-committed fighting as the battle then yeah, of course it's not going to be interesting. But the total engagement is wayyyy more than that.
I wish more people would separate these absurdly long deathball posts with a paragraph break or two
Changing the unit pathing seems way to harsh for me, I think the newer maps are discouraging the turtle strategy, but let's face it, the game still has another expansion and you cannot say that Blizzard isn't trying to improve the game.
On October 29 2013 02:18 RampancyTW wrote: Oh look, more gems!
On October 29 2013 02:15 Moonsalt wrote:
On October 28 2013 16:16 flashimba wrote: The deathball is fine as it is. With skill levels rising, we are progressively seeing more and more dynamic gameplay. Look at any match from <insert top 10 player>.
How many years did it take for BW to evolve? 7 years for iloveoov macro, 8 years for Zerg to be revolutionized.
SC2 has only been out for 2 years, which is NOTHING compared to the evolution of BW. Alas, we are all impatient and dismiss any faults we see without giving the game a chance to evolve on its own.
Yep, but that doesn't mean in 5+ years everyone will stop utilizing deathballs. It is the way the game is designed and you can't do anything about it. People will never stop using deathballs because if they do they'll have a higher chance of losing... it's simple.. deathballs are too good to not be used.
... The pros have stopped using deathballs because they're too BAD to use.
They didnt use to stop deathballs, gosh why are you insisting on that point if its just not true.
On October 29 2013 02:17 RampancyTW wrote: Plansix, as much as these threads are obnoxious, all of the little gems that they squeeze out of the woodwork ALMOST make it all worth it.
On October 29 2013 02:13 HungrySC2 wrote: Defensive and delaying tactics were removed from SC2. I've said it before, but the huge decrease in time in which you can keep a scouting worker alive is horrible for the game.
The use of lurkers, while sniping observers/vessels gave zerg the opportunity to spread out and defend against multiple attacks or slow down a death ball.
Defilers worked the same way. Not only allowing zerg to defend expansions at critical moments, but also gave zerg the ability to be aggressive at a time in the game in which both terran and protoss would be impregnable if Defilers didn't exist.
Tanks very strong defensively in the early game in BW AND gave the terran the ability to be somewhat aggressive. Totally worthless in SC2 in both regards. Not only that but the repeated nerf to stim timings, blue flame hellions etc. have removed all aggressive openings for Terran. This has only been exacerbated by queen range and nexus cannon.
Currently each race relies so heavily at being successful at a specific point in the game. Because of this it is bound to be stale and unrewarding. Not only because it is impossible for terran to do anything to protoss early game, but because Terran HAS to do damage (or take economic risks) to protoss mid game. This is completely contradictory to creating a challenging, creative, and most importantly REWARDING game for players and spectators. Options need to exist. One example is... medivac boosters, I love them to death, but it only places more emphasis on Terran dominance in the mid game. On a specific timing window that Terran must find an advantage, not some games, not most games, but every bloodly game.
This philosophy has been core to the game since release and is the reason why I enjoyed playing random, and especially mirror match-ups more than any other (besides TvZ before that got stupid). In mirror the "timing window" doesn't exist because both races are theoretically identical in strengths and weaknesses at the same time, decision making over the course of the game is more important than being successful for only 3-5 minutes of it. Random simply because the monotony of "timing windows" didn't set in so quickly and because I was much less likely to hit the "optimal" timing window (due to less practice with each strategy) leading to much more interesting and fun games. Not only for me, but for my opponent.
The goal of the game isn't for it to be balanced, but for the option of unbalance to occur. If you can't do something that can catch the opponent off guard, then the game won't be fun for anyone, it will be a predictable monotony based more upon a single rock-paper-scissors decision per game rather than hundreds if not thousands of individual decisions and themes throughout a best of x series that determine the better player. I'm not saying that cheese specifically should be stronger. I'm saying that strategies outside the "optimal timing window" need to be viable enough so that the game continues to be fresh, strategies are able to develop, and for it to be enjoyable to both players and spectators.
So no.. The deathball isn't the problem. It's the symptom.
Where else can you find such a high concentration of people that clearly neither play nor watch the game?
If you think that this post was bad and it has no truth in it, then i think you dont watch the game^^ sc2 is an extremely timing heavy game, yeah he exaggerated a bit, but there is some truth in it..
The ones that are good enough to stop using them have stopped using them, because they're suboptimal.
"Deathball" is a general term used to describe an unstoppable game-ending army (which usually does form to close out games), but that's completely different from "deathball play," which is what threads like these and posters like the one I responded to are referring to. Deathball play is dying as players get better.
And SC2 is no more timing-dependent than BW was, but I don't hear anybody complaining about the timing-dependency of BW. Probably because it's not actually an issue, and lends a natural ebb and flow to games.
Well yeah i kinda agree that deathball play is less common. But deathballs arent gone and they are as boring as ever, thats my point.
That's 100% a player skill thing, though. The better a player gets, the less likely he is to fall back to deathball play.
Well no and thats exactly my point. It isnt even that there are deathballs, but how they play out is the stupid thing in sc2. Dear vs soulkey game two. Dear lost his 3rd several times but got his deathball rolling. He then won the game with one fight and that fight was just stupid and anticlimatic, thats the "problem". (btw i dont say he didnt deserve that win, he harrassed well etc!!).
Well, that's the thing. The deathball push as the end is just ceremony. It's an engagement that says "After all of this action throughout the game, I have amassed a sizeable enough of an advantage that I can end it right here." Or it's a response to a player spreading themselves out too thin/getting out of position in their attempts to abuse a less-mobile player.
Without the possibility for a deathball roll-over, the more mobile player would always win, because there would be no way to truly punish a similarly-skilled opponent with more mobility. If the engagements were super long and exciting with the far superior force being unable to beat the far inferior force with similar levels of play, then there would be a completely separate issue of glaring imbalance and/or unusable units.
i dont know man. I think its just anticlimatic and not exciting at all. I get what you are saying but if we pretend that they have 2 blobs that are actually quite equal in strenght, nothing changes, cause the fight is just so fast over and there is very little micro you CAN SEE (some would argue you can DO) during them. I really enjoy sc2 and i agree that the games got better over time, but this issue is pretty much the same as ever, except that the game that leads to it has changed in a good way
On October 29 2013 02:45 The_Red_Viper wrote: Well yeah i kinda agree that deathball play is less common. But deathballs arent gone and they are as boring as ever, thats my point.
They are never going to leave as long as all of our units can fit on one screen. There are no hitters in baseball and those are dull, but it's the way the game works.
bad analogy. no hitters are mega intense. stick to starcraft sir.
In your opinion, sir. I know plenty of baseball fans how loath them.
looks like everyone is having a good time.
the Larson perfect game is one of the most celebrated games in the history of the World Series.
the Dave Stieb no-hitter got a standing ovation even though it was in the opposition ball park. and his "near misses" of no-hitters were equally intense. it was in old cleveland municipal stadium.. and again.. everyone had a great time even though the "Blue Jays" are the worst road draw in Major League Baseball.. by a huge margin.
On October 29 2013 02:45 The_Red_Viper wrote: Well yeah i kinda agree that deathball play is less common. But deathballs arent gone and they are as boring as ever, thats my point.
They are never going to leave as long as all of our units can fit on one screen. There are no hitters in baseball and those are dull, but it's the way the game works.
bad analogy. no hitters are mega intense. stick to starcraft sir.
In your opinion, sir. I know plenty of baseball fans how loath them.
On October 29 2013 02:45 The_Red_Viper wrote: Well yeah i kinda agree that deathball play is less common. But deathballs arent gone and they are as boring as ever, thats my point.
They are never going to leave as long as all of our units can fit on one screen. There are no hitters in baseball and those are dull, but it's the way the game works.
bad analogy. no hitters are mega intense. stick to starcraft sir.
In your opinion, sir. I know plenty of baseball fans how loath them.
the Larson perfect game is one of the most celebrated games in the history of the World Series.
Yeah every no-hitter I've ever seen, everyone in the crowd is on the edges of their seats, and the announcers won't even mention that its in play for fear of jinxing it. No hitters are awesome for anyone who appreciates good pitching, and if you can't appreciate good pitching you probably don't like baseball.
On October 29 2013 02:18 RampancyTW wrote: Oh look, more gems!
On October 29 2013 02:15 Moonsalt wrote:
On October 28 2013 16:16 flashimba wrote: The deathball is fine as it is. With skill levels rising, we are progressively seeing more and more dynamic gameplay. Look at any match from <insert top 10 player>.
How many years did it take for BW to evolve? 7 years for iloveoov macro, 8 years for Zerg to be revolutionized.
SC2 has only been out for 2 years, which is NOTHING compared to the evolution of BW. Alas, we are all impatient and dismiss any faults we see without giving the game a chance to evolve on its own.
Yep, but that doesn't mean in 5+ years everyone will stop utilizing deathballs. It is the way the game is designed and you can't do anything about it. People will never stop using deathballs because if they do they'll have a higher chance of losing... it's simple.. deathballs are too good to not be used.
... The pros have stopped using deathballs because they're too BAD to use.
They didnt use to stop deathballs, gosh why are you insisting on that point if its just not true.
On October 29 2013 02:17 RampancyTW wrote: Plansix, as much as these threads are obnoxious, all of the little gems that they squeeze out of the woodwork ALMOST make it all worth it.
On October 29 2013 02:13 HungrySC2 wrote: Defensive and delaying tactics were removed from SC2. I've said it before, but the huge decrease in time in which you can keep a scouting worker alive is horrible for the game.
The use of lurkers, while sniping observers/vessels gave zerg the opportunity to spread out and defend against multiple attacks or slow down a death ball.
Defilers worked the same way. Not only allowing zerg to defend expansions at critical moments, but also gave zerg the ability to be aggressive at a time in the game in which both terran and protoss would be impregnable if Defilers didn't exist.
Tanks very strong defensively in the early game in BW AND gave the terran the ability to be somewhat aggressive. Totally worthless in SC2 in both regards. Not only that but the repeated nerf to stim timings, blue flame hellions etc. have removed all aggressive openings for Terran. This has only been exacerbated by queen range and nexus cannon.
Currently each race relies so heavily at being successful at a specific point in the game. Because of this it is bound to be stale and unrewarding. Not only because it is impossible for terran to do anything to protoss early game, but because Terran HAS to do damage (or take economic risks) to protoss mid game. This is completely contradictory to creating a challenging, creative, and most importantly REWARDING game for players and spectators. Options need to exist. One example is... medivac boosters, I love them to death, but it only places more emphasis on Terran dominance in the mid game. On a specific timing window that Terran must find an advantage, not some games, not most games, but every bloodly game.
This philosophy has been core to the game since release and is the reason why I enjoyed playing random, and especially mirror match-ups more than any other (besides TvZ before that got stupid). In mirror the "timing window" doesn't exist because both races are theoretically identical in strengths and weaknesses at the same time, decision making over the course of the game is more important than being successful for only 3-5 minutes of it. Random simply because the monotony of "timing windows" didn't set in so quickly and because I was much less likely to hit the "optimal" timing window (due to less practice with each strategy) leading to much more interesting and fun games. Not only for me, but for my opponent.
The goal of the game isn't for it to be balanced, but for the option of unbalance to occur. If you can't do something that can catch the opponent off guard, then the game won't be fun for anyone, it will be a predictable monotony based more upon a single rock-paper-scissors decision per game rather than hundreds if not thousands of individual decisions and themes throughout a best of x series that determine the better player. I'm not saying that cheese specifically should be stronger. I'm saying that strategies outside the "optimal timing window" need to be viable enough so that the game continues to be fresh, strategies are able to develop, and for it to be enjoyable to both players and spectators.
So no.. The deathball isn't the problem. It's the symptom.
Where else can you find such a high concentration of people that clearly neither play nor watch the game?
If you think that this post was bad and it has no truth in it, then i think you dont watch the game^^ sc2 is an extremely timing heavy game, yeah he exaggerated a bit, but there is some truth in it..
The ones that are good enough to stop using them have stopped using them, because they're suboptimal.
"Deathball" is a general term used to describe an unstoppable game-ending army (which usually does form to close out games), but that's completely different from "deathball play," which is what threads like these and posters like the one I responded to are referring to. Deathball play is dying as players get better.
And SC2 is no more timing-dependent than BW was, but I don't hear anybody complaining about the timing-dependency of BW. Probably because it's not actually an issue, and lends a natural ebb and flow to games.
Well yeah i kinda agree that deathball play is less common. But deathballs arent gone and they are as boring as ever, thats my point.
That's 100% a player skill thing, though. The better a player gets, the less likely he is to fall back to deathball play.
Well no and thats exactly my point. It isnt even that there are deathballs, but how they play out is the stupid thing in sc2. Dear vs soulkey game two. Dear lost his 3rd several times but got his deathball rolling. He then won the game with one fight and that fight was just stupid and anticlimatic, thats the "problem". (btw i dont say he didnt deserve that win, he harrassed well etc!!).
Well, that's the thing. The deathball push as the end is just ceremony. It's an engagement that says "After all of this action throughout the game, I have amassed a sizeable enough of an advantage that I can end it right here." Or it's a response to a player spreading themselves out too thin/getting out of position in their attempts to abuse a less-mobile player.
Without the possibility for a deathball roll-over, the more mobile player would always win, because there would be no way to truly punish a similarly-skilled opponent with more mobility. If the engagements were super long and exciting with the far superior force being unable to beat the far inferior force with similar levels of play, then there would be a completely separate issue of glaring imbalance and/or unusable units.
i dont know man. I think its just anticlimatic and not exciting at all. I get what you are saying but if we pretend that they have 2 blobs that are actually quite equal in strenght, nothing changes, cause the fight is just so fast over and there is very little micro you CAN SEE (some would argue you can DO) during them. I really enjoy sc2 and i agree that the games got better over time, but this issue is pretty much the same as ever, except that the game that leads to it has changed in a good way
I actually posted about this right above. The actual army engagements are more than just the fully-committed fighting that occurs. There's a lot of dancing and sparring that leads to that end few seconds of fighting, and even those few seconds of fighting can last a longgg time if both players are on top of their micro and positioning and reinforcing.
The real issue in tvp is that toss is forced to turtle, unless of course they do 1 of their 100 all ins at their disposal. Assuming they went for a macro game, toss best choice to win is to get a huge army 3/3 with a billion gateways to remax instantly. This was worse before, now with prism speed and buffs in general, toss can try more harras focus strategies. The question is why toss would risk to spend money on zlots instead of upgrades, Templar and collosi. In summary, if toss player deflect harassment, their best choice is to go for unbeatable collosi, Templar, archon, zlots army. On the other hand, we have Terran. This race can play the match up in basically two ways. First, we have Maru. Mmm the whole game, harras like a god, replace army keep harrasing, do enough damage to jeopardize toss so much, that they can't get the unbeatable army. Second, go for late game army, get Vikings, ghosts. With this style u can actually face to face fight a toss mighty army, and for the surprise of Terran players themselves, actually beat it. U heard correct, a 200/200 Terran army with ghost Viking mmm actually defeats a toss unbeatable army. The reason is easy to understand, Terran army would be almost two times more expensive than toss (u can see this on any test map). So the real question is which style is better. One would like to think the second, but that would be to easy. Maru played the only viable style to actually be able to defeat toss. The explanation to this is more complex and difficult to understand. The problem with fighting straight up toss is that u can be cost efficient, but u will lose an army that is harder to remake. after the fight finish Terran will have some ghost remaining with no energy, a hand full of Vikings, some marine and rauders. Toss will instantly warp 15 to 20 zlots, will morph their 10 Templars that storm ur whole army into the most fearful unit in the game that actually rape bio units, the archon. Terran will try to pump some bio units, some ghost and medivacs but toss will definetly overtake Terran production, and damage ur economy while expanding and getting map control. U can think it like this, Terran wins the battle but toss in 2 mine will have a remax with archons and 2 collosi a billion zlots. It would take like 5 mins for Terran to be able to fight again. So Maru was forced to mmm, cause it is the best style to play.
On October 29 2013 02:18 RampancyTW wrote: Oh look, more gems!
On October 29 2013 02:15 Moonsalt wrote:
On October 28 2013 16:16 flashimba wrote: The deathball is fine as it is. With skill levels rising, we are progressively seeing more and more dynamic gameplay. Look at any match from <insert top 10 player>.
How many years did it take for BW to evolve? 7 years for iloveoov macro, 8 years for Zerg to be revolutionized.
SC2 has only been out for 2 years, which is NOTHING compared to the evolution of BW. Alas, we are all impatient and dismiss any faults we see without giving the game a chance to evolve on its own.
Yep, but that doesn't mean in 5+ years everyone will stop utilizing deathballs. It is the way the game is designed and you can't do anything about it. People will never stop using deathballs because if they do they'll have a higher chance of losing... it's simple.. deathballs are too good to not be used.
... The pros have stopped using deathballs because they're too BAD to use.
They didnt use to stop deathballs, gosh why are you insisting on that point if its just not true.
On October 29 2013 02:17 RampancyTW wrote: Plansix, as much as these threads are obnoxious, all of the little gems that they squeeze out of the woodwork ALMOST make it all worth it.
On October 29 2013 02:13 HungrySC2 wrote: Defensive and delaying tactics were removed from SC2. I've said it before, but the huge decrease in time in which you can keep a scouting worker alive is horrible for the game.
The use of lurkers, while sniping observers/vessels gave zerg the opportunity to spread out and defend against multiple attacks or slow down a death ball.
Defilers worked the same way. Not only allowing zerg to defend expansions at critical moments, but also gave zerg the ability to be aggressive at a time in the game in which both terran and protoss would be impregnable if Defilers didn't exist.
Tanks very strong defensively in the early game in BW AND gave the terran the ability to be somewhat aggressive. Totally worthless in SC2 in both regards. Not only that but the repeated nerf to stim timings, blue flame hellions etc. have removed all aggressive openings for Terran. This has only been exacerbated by queen range and nexus cannon.
Currently each race relies so heavily at being successful at a specific point in the game. Because of this it is bound to be stale and unrewarding. Not only because it is impossible for terran to do anything to protoss early game, but because Terran HAS to do damage (or take economic risks) to protoss mid game. This is completely contradictory to creating a challenging, creative, and most importantly REWARDING game for players and spectators. Options need to exist. One example is... medivac boosters, I love them to death, but it only places more emphasis on Terran dominance in the mid game. On a specific timing window that Terran must find an advantage, not some games, not most games, but every bloodly game.
This philosophy has been core to the game since release and is the reason why I enjoyed playing random, and especially mirror match-ups more than any other (besides TvZ before that got stupid). In mirror the "timing window" doesn't exist because both races are theoretically identical in strengths and weaknesses at the same time, decision making over the course of the game is more important than being successful for only 3-5 minutes of it. Random simply because the monotony of "timing windows" didn't set in so quickly and because I was much less likely to hit the "optimal" timing window (due to less practice with each strategy) leading to much more interesting and fun games. Not only for me, but for my opponent.
The goal of the game isn't for it to be balanced, but for the option of unbalance to occur. If you can't do something that can catch the opponent off guard, then the game won't be fun for anyone, it will be a predictable monotony based more upon a single rock-paper-scissors decision per game rather than hundreds if not thousands of individual decisions and themes throughout a best of x series that determine the better player. I'm not saying that cheese specifically should be stronger. I'm saying that strategies outside the "optimal timing window" need to be viable enough so that the game continues to be fresh, strategies are able to develop, and for it to be enjoyable to both players and spectators.
So no.. The deathball isn't the problem. It's the symptom.
Where else can you find such a high concentration of people that clearly neither play nor watch the game?
If you think that this post was bad and it has no truth in it, then i think you dont watch the game^^ sc2 is an extremely timing heavy game, yeah he exaggerated a bit, but there is some truth in it..
The ones that are good enough to stop using them have stopped using them, because they're suboptimal.
"Deathball" is a general term used to describe an unstoppable game-ending army (which usually does form to close out games), but that's completely different from "deathball play," which is what threads like these and posters like the one I responded to are referring to. Deathball play is dying as players get better.
And SC2 is no more timing-dependent than BW was, but I don't hear anybody complaining about the timing-dependency of BW. Probably because it's not actually an issue, and lends a natural ebb and flow to games.
Well yeah i kinda agree that deathball play is less common. But deathballs arent gone and they are as boring as ever, thats my point.
That's 100% a player skill thing, though. The better a player gets, the less likely he is to fall back to deathball play.
Well no and thats exactly my point. It isnt even that there are deathballs, but how they play out is the stupid thing in sc2. Dear vs soulkey game two. Dear lost his 3rd several times but got his deathball rolling. He then won the game with one fight and that fight was just stupid and anticlimatic, thats the "problem". (btw i dont say he didnt deserve that win, he harrassed well etc!!).
Well, that's the thing. The deathball push as the end is just ceremony. It's an engagement that says "After all of this action throughout the game, I have amassed a sizeable enough of an advantage that I can end it right here." Or it's a response to a player spreading themselves out too thin/getting out of position in their attempts to abuse a less-mobile player.
Without the possibility for a deathball roll-over, the more mobile player would always win, because there would be no way to truly punish a similarly-skilled opponent with more mobility. If the engagements were super long and exciting with the far superior force being unable to beat the far inferior force with similar levels of play, then there would be a completely separate issue of glaring imbalance and/or unusable units.
i dont know man. I think its just anticlimatic and not exciting at all. I get what you are saying but if we pretend that they have 2 blobs that are actually quite equal in strenght, nothing changes, cause the fight is just so fast over and there is very little micro you CAN SEE (some would argue you can DO) during them. I really enjoy sc2 and i agree that the games got better over time, but this issue is pretty much the same as ever, except that the game that leads to it has changed in a good way
I'm a big fan of SC's, Bomber's, and Maru's terran deathballs in both TvZ and TvP
Sure it looks like a train of terran infantry streaming the length of 4-8 screens as they stutter step, split, do drops, and land emps/burrow micro mines/target fire tanks, but its the same thing as a deathball.
Mechanically speaking that is. Visually it looks very different and in the end I think most people's actual complaints about the deathball is not *how* it works but is instead *what* it looks like.
On October 29 2013 02:18 RampancyTW wrote: Oh look, more gems!
On October 29 2013 02:15 Moonsalt wrote: [quote]
Yep, but that doesn't mean in 5+ years everyone will stop utilizing deathballs. It is the way the game is designed and you can't do anything about it. People will never stop using deathballs because if they do they'll have a higher chance of losing... it's simple.. deathballs are too good to not be used.
... The pros have stopped using deathballs because they're too BAD to use.
They didnt use to stop deathballs, gosh why are you insisting on that point if its just not true.
On October 29 2013 02:17 RampancyTW wrote: Plansix, as much as these threads are obnoxious, all of the little gems that they squeeze out of the woodwork ALMOST make it all worth it.
[quote]
Where else can you find such a high concentration of people that clearly neither play nor watch the game?
If you think that this post was bad and it has no truth in it, then i think you dont watch the game^^ sc2 is an extremely timing heavy game, yeah he exaggerated a bit, but there is some truth in it..
The ones that are good enough to stop using them have stopped using them, because they're suboptimal.
"Deathball" is a general term used to describe an unstoppable game-ending army (which usually does form to close out games), but that's completely different from "deathball play," which is what threads like these and posters like the one I responded to are referring to. Deathball play is dying as players get better.
And SC2 is no more timing-dependent than BW was, but I don't hear anybody complaining about the timing-dependency of BW. Probably because it's not actually an issue, and lends a natural ebb and flow to games.
Well yeah i kinda agree that deathball play is less common. But deathballs arent gone and they are as boring as ever, thats my point.
That's 100% a player skill thing, though. The better a player gets, the less likely he is to fall back to deathball play.
Well no and thats exactly my point. It isnt even that there are deathballs, but how they play out is the stupid thing in sc2. Dear vs soulkey game two. Dear lost his 3rd several times but got his deathball rolling. He then won the game with one fight and that fight was just stupid and anticlimatic, thats the "problem". (btw i dont say he didnt deserve that win, he harrassed well etc!!).
Well, that's the thing. The deathball push as the end is just ceremony. It's an engagement that says "After all of this action throughout the game, I have amassed a sizeable enough of an advantage that I can end it right here." Or it's a response to a player spreading themselves out too thin/getting out of position in their attempts to abuse a less-mobile player.
Without the possibility for a deathball roll-over, the more mobile player would always win, because there would be no way to truly punish a similarly-skilled opponent with more mobility. If the engagements were super long and exciting with the far superior force being unable to beat the far inferior force with similar levels of play, then there would be a completely separate issue of glaring imbalance and/or unusable units.
i dont know man. I think its just anticlimatic and not exciting at all. I get what you are saying but if we pretend that they have 2 blobs that are actually quite equal in strenght, nothing changes, cause the fight is just so fast over and there is very little micro you CAN SEE (some would argue you can DO) during them. I really enjoy sc2 and i agree that the games got better over time, but this issue is pretty much the same as ever, except that the game that leads to it has changed in a good way
I actually posted about this right above. The actual army engagements are more than just the fully-committed fighting that occurs. There's a lot of dancing and sparring that leads to that end few seconds of fighting, and even those few seconds of fighting can last a longgg time if both players are on top of their micro and positioning and reinforcing.
Well i dont think i can add much more to my thoughts. I think it could still be better and more appealing to watch. I think a big reason why mobas are so successfull is that the teamfights are pretty cool to watch most of the time (and i am not even a big moba fan per se). I think sc2 lacks in these aspects in a lot of matchups. Its not "bad enough" for me to not watch it (i like sc2, i started with it and just now got into BW too), but i can acknowledge that it could be better i guess.
On October 29 2013 02:18 RampancyTW wrote: Oh look, more gems!
On October 29 2013 02:15 Moonsalt wrote: [quote]
Yep, but that doesn't mean in 5+ years everyone will stop utilizing deathballs. It is the way the game is designed and you can't do anything about it. People will never stop using deathballs because if they do they'll have a higher chance of losing... it's simple.. deathballs are too good to not be used.
... The pros have stopped using deathballs because they're too BAD to use.
They didnt use to stop deathballs, gosh why are you insisting on that point if its just not true.
On October 29 2013 02:17 RampancyTW wrote: Plansix, as much as these threads are obnoxious, all of the little gems that they squeeze out of the woodwork ALMOST make it all worth it.
[quote]
Where else can you find such a high concentration of people that clearly neither play nor watch the game?
If you think that this post was bad and it has no truth in it, then i think you dont watch the game^^ sc2 is an extremely timing heavy game, yeah he exaggerated a bit, but there is some truth in it..
The ones that are good enough to stop using them have stopped using them, because they're suboptimal.
"Deathball" is a general term used to describe an unstoppable game-ending army (which usually does form to close out games), but that's completely different from "deathball play," which is what threads like these and posters like the one I responded to are referring to. Deathball play is dying as players get better.
And SC2 is no more timing-dependent than BW was, but I don't hear anybody complaining about the timing-dependency of BW. Probably because it's not actually an issue, and lends a natural ebb and flow to games.
Well yeah i kinda agree that deathball play is less common. But deathballs arent gone and they are as boring as ever, thats my point.
That's 100% a player skill thing, though. The better a player gets, the less likely he is to fall back to deathball play.
Well no and thats exactly my point. It isnt even that there are deathballs, but how they play out is the stupid thing in sc2. Dear vs soulkey game two. Dear lost his 3rd several times but got his deathball rolling. He then won the game with one fight and that fight was just stupid and anticlimatic, thats the "problem". (btw i dont say he didnt deserve that win, he harrassed well etc!!).
Well, that's the thing. The deathball push as the end is just ceremony. It's an engagement that says "After all of this action throughout the game, I have amassed a sizeable enough of an advantage that I can end it right here." Or it's a response to a player spreading themselves out too thin/getting out of position in their attempts to abuse a less-mobile player.
Without the possibility for a deathball roll-over, the more mobile player would always win, because there would be no way to truly punish a similarly-skilled opponent with more mobility. If the engagements were super long and exciting with the far superior force being unable to beat the far inferior force with similar levels of play, then there would be a completely separate issue of glaring imbalance and/or unusable units.
i dont know man. I think its just anticlimatic and not exciting at all. I get what you are saying but if we pretend that they have 2 blobs that are actually quite equal in strenght, nothing changes, cause the fight is just so fast over and there is very little micro you CAN SEE (some would argue you can DO) during them. I really enjoy sc2 and i agree that the games got better over time, but this issue is pretty much the same as ever, except that the game that leads to it has changed in a good way
I'm a big fan of SC's, Bomber's, and Maru's terran deathballs in both TvZ and TvP
Sure it looks like a train of terran infantry streaming the length of 4-8 screens as they stutter step, split, do drops, and land emps/burrow micro mines/target fire tanks, but its the same thing as a deathball.
Mechanically speaking that is. Visually it looks very different and in the end I think most people's actual complaints about the deathball is not *how* it works but is instead *what* it looks like.
yeah kinda, but thats not the whole truth. tvz engagements are way way cooler, cause terran has to split vs banelings, drop, spread the mines out. Zerg has to split vs the mines, split the banelings too, if possible surround the terran, micro your mutas to pick up the mines etcpp. You could argue that it only looks better, but thats the whole point, it looks better cause the interaction is way better designed.
On October 29 2013 02:45 The_Red_Viper wrote: Well yeah i kinda agree that deathball play is less common. But deathballs arent gone and they are as boring as ever, thats my point.
They are never going to leave as long as all of our units can fit on one screen. There are no hitters in baseball and those are dull, but it's the way the game works.
bad analogy. no hitters are mega intense. stick to starcraft sir.
In your opinion, sir. I know plenty of baseball fans how loath them.
Quite the generalization there. And why are we talking about baseball?
to steer this back on topic,
i think the other guy is trying to claim that other games have "boring aspects to them". which is a reasonable claim. he should probably just say that.
every major league in North America has dull aspects to its play which is why these leagues are constantly amending the rules and adjusting the execution of "game day"... all these major sports are attempting to create the 'perfect entertainment experience'. and Blizzard is trying to do the same with SC2.
i dont see any other company attempting to make this happen with an RTS game. Blizzard.. take a bow.
On October 29 2013 02:45 The_Red_Viper wrote: Well yeah i kinda agree that deathball play is less common. But deathballs arent gone and they are as boring as ever, thats my point.
They are never going to leave as long as all of our units can fit on one screen. There are no hitters in baseball and those are dull, but it's the way the game works.
bad analogy. no hitters are mega intense. stick to starcraft sir.
In your opinion, sir. I know plenty of baseball fans how loath them.
Nothing about baseball could ever be intense, it's literally the worst "sport" lol I have trouble even calling it a sport, it's more of a hobby or activity tbh.
And I agree with what someone else here was saying. Deathballs are a NECESSITY. If deathballs didn't work, it would just be a "who's the best multitasker" game, not an overall game like starcraft is. Dear vs. Maru is perfect example, Dear's defense was absolutely amazing, and eventually he amazed an army big enough to "deathball" maru's mobile bio that had no way of dealing with it (ie: no ghosts).
On October 29 2013 02:45 The_Red_Viper wrote: Well yeah i kinda agree that deathball play is less common. But deathballs arent gone and they are as boring as ever, thats my point.
They are never going to leave as long as all of our units can fit on one screen. There are no hitters in baseball and those are dull, but it's the way the game works.
bad analogy. no hitters are mega intense. stick to starcraft sir.
In your opinion, sir. I know plenty of baseball fans how loath them.
the Larson perfect game is one of the most celebrated games in the history of the World Series.
the Dave Stieb no-hitter got a standing ovation even though it was in the opposition ball park. and his "near misses" of no-hitters were equally intense. it was in old cleveland municipal stadium.. and again.. everyone had a great time even though the "Blue Jays" are the worst road draw in Major League Baseball.. by a huge margin. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kreyr64V86M
this is way off topic though.
Opinions and personal taste are things that cannot be disproven. Your argument is both fruitless and proves very little.
On October 29 2013 02:51 Plansix wrote: There are no hitters in baseball and those are dull, but it's the way the game works.
that is not a statement of "personal taste" that is an incorrect over generalization. i,and millions of baseball fans love no hitters. and as u've already stated.. personal tastes can'tt be disproven. stick to starcraft, this is off topic.
EPT
