Rush = Poison . Innapropriate in a strategic game


#1

Hello,

To start with, I adore this game. Finally, when there is competition …
Indeed, decks rushes are inappropriate in this game. Have we already seen a game rush in the chess game. Your game less deep than the chess game?
Decks rushes are annoying. Even the big players say it stream via twitch there. It is the poison, that is frustrating for many players.
Hearhtstone can allow himself that because he has millions of players, you not!!!
You should have your own community, your gameplay, your strategy.
You said that you had begun this wanting game to amuse you.
I am going to say to it to you: YOUR GAME IS BAD IF YOU ADMIT THE RUSH DECK TO BE COMPETITIVE!!
The parts, classified or not, overflow it …
The game must be put, developed finely. Not these neutral grounds express.


Please Develop Away from "Rush" Decks
#2

Hmmm, of course Faeria is less deep than chess. The only game with a higher depth might be “Go”.
You can’t really compare Faeria and chess because of many reasons, but I won’t go deeper into that.
Only thing I want to say is, that even in chess you can play more or less aggressive, but of course an aggressive style can’t be compared with a rush deck in a card game.

No! simply no!
Rush should be a viable strategy and has to be competitive, to give the game more depth.
The problem is that rush decks are too strong at the moment (arguments can be found in various topics).

AND: The viable strategies has nothing to do with the amount of players! :wink:


#3

I agree with you. I one was had severe under the blow of the nervousness. I just meant that decks rushes are much less strategic, it is of face boorishly, and there is nothing more irritating for me, and certainly many players, to play against that. Furthermore, to counter these decks, we are to restrain in the creativity of much fun decks, what is really it’s a pity.
Here we are, it is this kind of decks which made me Hearthstone stop, and I am afraid that that does the same thing with Faeria, what I regret because this game has an enormous potential.
Cordially.


#4

I disagree, some decks lack strafegy and deep-thinking, but that’s not related to rush. Some rushes need more thinking than others, just like some decks need more thinking than others. That’s especially true in Faeria, where there is no concept of “playing on curve”, which makes rush decks boring in other games (like HS). And rush is a necessity to avoid people playing always greedier decks which could be even more boring gameplays. But rush is currently in a position I personnally don’t like to see it in (for various reason I’ve extendly explained in other posts).

Well, tl;dr : Don’t blame rush in general, it can be interesting to play/play against/watch as well as any other deck, blame the current rush archetypes :wink:


#5

[quote=“Hagen, post:3, topic:795, full:true”]
I just meant that decks rushes are much less strategic.[/quote]
Which just isn’t true. I heard this a thousand times before at other games, but actually it often is the opposite. As a rush player you need to be VERY cautious about what you do and when to do it, as every single mistake can cost you the game. Slower decks don’t have that pressure at all (unless playing against rush).

One could argue that rush makes the game much more diverse and interesting and I would completely agree, as it opens many more different strategies we wouldn’t have / need without rush.

This again just isn’t true, instead, it opens many ways you need to think of, thus it creates even more creativity.

However, away from that, if you are looking for fun decks, you should stay away from any leagues and / or rankings, as there’s no place for fun decks, unless you don’t mind to lose most games.


#6

I’ll pitch in my 2 cents about rush decks and why they are currently a big problem in Faeria.

#1 : Hard to stop them from reaching a favorable position next to your orb

Rush deck wants to put a land in the “assault” position, one tile above your orb and one to the left or right. From that position, a haste creature has 2 way to attack your orb. As a result, rush decks will often use plains to reach you extremly fast. Mid-Range and Control decks needs to have colored tiles in order to play their combos and strategies.

Here is the problem … You can’t stop the rush deck from getting into assault position with colored tiles and you can’t build a defense without colored tiles. As a result, it’s impossible to stop the rush deck to get into position … even with earthcraft … UNLESS, as said by someone else above, you limit your deck creativity because you need to include some tech cards in your deck in order to play around the meta … which is fine … unless you need to dedicade so much of your deck to it AND your land placement at the beginning of the game that making an original and fun deck becomes super hard due to “auto-include” must have cards.

#2 : Doesn’t get out of steam at all

What’s a rush deck weakness in 99% of card games ?? At some point, they either generate less ressource or they get out of cards to play. Not in faeria … A rush deck will often force the opponent into a turtle position next to his orb and will be able to spawn his creatures next to the enemy fearia wells, thus gaining the ressource advantage. Also, since Faeria lets you draw 2 cards per turn if you want to, rush decks always have enough steam to go on and on.

So again, where’s the downside of rushing in Faeria ??

#3 : “Attacker Bonus”

There are many creatures that get a bonus when they are summoned next to the enemy faeria well or when you gather faeria from an enemy faeria well. Why isn’t there such bonuses for defending creatures. Bonuses for a more “turtle” strategy ??

I would love to see more creatures with great power for their cost, but that can only be summoned next to your orb (and thus, can’t be used offensively as a drawback).

#4 : The Meta incentive to play rush

In a usual card game Meta, the rush archetype usualy counters control and combo decks. Also, you are “even” against other rush decks. The only thing giving you trouble is a deck that will tailor their deck specifically to counter aggro and those are usually quite weak against combo, midrange and control and thus, isn’t viable.

In other words, give rush decks enough strength and it will become a cancer because they counter or go even against such a wide range of the meta.

#5 : Faeria’s identity

Obviously, out of all the cards game out there currently, I find Faeria to be the most complex with the terrain positionning and requirements on cards. Thus, it would be a GREAT OPPORTUNITY for combo and control decks to shine.

So whyyyyy are rush deck again so dominent in this game baffles me and turns me off from ranked contrusted play.

Games should never, NEVER be decided because the control deck didn’t get lucky enough to draw an answer to the FIRST big treath a rush player gets out (Shaytan Vampire or Horadrim Crusader growing completly out of control). At the moment, there isn’t enough breathing room to waste 1 or 2 turn in order to “fish for an answer”. Letting a 6-7 attack creature prematurely strike your orb because you couldn’t get an answer right away will cost you the game at the moment against a rush deck … because at that point, whenever you kill the creature next to your orb, another one that spawned behind it will take its place and attack your orb, creating a non stop streak of orb damage. Getting back from that (against rush decks) is pretty hard and again, is the reason why so many players play rush decks.

In a game like Go or Chess, you might lose a part of the board or get into an unfavorable position … but that wont decide the outcome of the game. You can create a favorable position elsewhere and eventually come back. In Faeria however, your orb position is so important is creates a shadow on all other position and once you lose it, you lose. That’s why I believe it shouldn’t be possible to rush for orb position from the start. You need to give players a position to fall back on in order to come back in the game. If orb position can be the first to get contested, then there is no coming back.


#7

First off, I do agree that the game needs to be balanced at this point, but that’s not a problem caused be the archetype itself.

If the control player doesn’t need to draw an answer, how should rush ever win then? Rush has only ONE advantage in being able to put as much pressure on you, as possible. If you can answer all threats with ease, it would be pointless. The control player has to overcome that first wave and stabilze from there on. Normally the rush player has lost once control got the upper hand (unless the first wave already did a huge amount of damage).

For this game that would mean to get rid of the small creatures, especially as your mentioned ones (Vampire and Crusader) are not that fast. The Crusader doesn’t do anything if the first wave didn’t come through.

btw: you can’t compare Chess or Go to this for a good amount of reasons.


#8

Notice the caps on the word “FIRST”. I am perfectly fine in rush deck putting pressure on control decks. Where I am not fine, the following :

Since rush deck does not get out of steam, control should not automatically lose to bad rng draw if he doesn’t get an answer against the FIRST big treath the rush player gets out.

Normally the rush player has lost once control got the upper hand (unless the first wave already did a huge amount of damage).

You said it yourself, “normally” the rush player loses when control stabilise the board after the first wave. The problem in Faeria is the ability for the rush player to draw 2 cards per turn and thus, he can get out a second wave, then a third wave, then a fourth wave, etc.

Hence why the control player should be a lot less penalise if he can’t deal with the first wave adequatly.

Dont go into absolute. I never said the control player should have answers for everything or that he doesn’t need to draw an answer for the first wave. I’m saying he shouldn’t be as much penalized if that answer doesn’t come right away. People in Hearthstone are complaining about Shaman’s 7/7 that comes out on turn 4 when players have 30 life total. How do you think I feel about a 7 attack Shaytan Vampire that comes out turn 3-4 when players have 20 life total ?? Not to mention there a lot more “haste” creatures in Faeria than in Hearthstone. Some of the reasons why I think Rush decks are over the top at the moment in Faeria and the game becomes a “race” with no real strategy other than rushing and dealing more damage, faster. You get the occasionnal good game where thinking and strategy matters, but the ladder has currently way more rushers and it becomes very, very boring.

I’m fine with both archetype, rush and control. Both have meaning and are part of a hearlthy meta. I’m just saying given the nature of Faeria with a board, terrains and all, games should not be decided after 4-5 turns. Rush can still put pressure onto control decks well into late game, so lets make games a little longer.


#9

Yup, I was very aware of it, but again, if the vampire is the problem, then green should be much more troublesome.

My point is, that the FIRST big threat is not the problem, it’s the small stuff that comes with the first wave. If you manage the first few haste creatures, you are in a good position. If you don’t, you are in big trouble and I agree that THIS needs some balancing.

Yellow rush with those small haste creatures is a bit too much. Without them even the Crusader wouldn’t be a problem.

Furthermore, I dont think that raising their cost by 1 Faeria or reducing their damage to just 1 will change much. Changing the haste abilty however, could fix it. Just don’t allow them to move, but attack the turn they come into play.
This however would nerf Wind Soldier alot, but that in comparison could be fixed easily.


#10

Furthermore, I dont think that raising their cost by 1 Faeria or reducing their damage to just 1 will change much. Changing the haste abilty however, could fix it. Just don’t allow them to move, but attack the turn they come into play.
This however would nerf Wind Soldier alot, but that in comparison could be fixed easily.

Then what about splitting the current “haste” keyword into two parts? You can make a keyword for “being able to move the turn summoned” and a keyword for “being able to attack the turn summoned”. Wind Soldier is fine the way it is I think (maybe a little bit over the top, so charge 2 or only 2 attack would suffice). So if you split haste into two keywords, you could give both of them to Wind Soldier, while giving only 1 to other creatures.
This way there also won’t be that big of a problem to add some more part-haste cards.

The actual problem I see with haste creatures, is the fact that you can put each haste creature 3 times into your deck while haste being such a powerful keyword. Giving the player access to 4 or 5 different haste cards will enable him to fill half of his deck with it. If you split it into said two words, it will be much easier to balance and to add future cards with one of said effects, without risking a deck with like 20-30 haste cards. :slight_smile:


#11

I actually dont mind that much haste creatures in games. They usually suffer from a huge value hit they have to pay for having haste. It’s the pace of games I dont like, the fact some games pass the “tipping point” of no return after only 3-4 turns. When I think about why this is, it always come down to the fact orb position being the first thing getting challenged is possible and the defender has nothing to fall back to. That’s always the biggest problem.

Let me give you an exemple of a better way to deal with this :


CURRENT SCENARIO :

Lets say we dont change a thing. It is very easy for the opponent to place a terrain in the “assault” position and then, he starts rushing. Right now, the only move the defending player has (if he gets bad rng with draw) is to turtle on his orb and avoid as much damage as possible until he finds the answers he’s looking for

This is a huge problem for two reasons. First, due to rng, the defending player has an unfavorable position far from Faeria wells and thus, will have a very hard time coming back into the game. Second, due to rng again, he gets behind on board control and his only move is to turtle on his orb and stop as much damage as he can before he finally draws his answers … at which point he’s also behind on ressource anyway and will probably still lose.

In this scenario, draw RNG had a huge impact on the game outcome and the defending player had no real choice in how he could play that game. Decisions were kindda made for him by his opponent.


NEW SCENARIO : Life total becomes 50 (for the sake of discussion, entertain me)

As before, the opponent places a terrain in the “assault” position and then, he starts rushing. The defending player was unlucky with draw RNG and doesn’t have the appropriate answers. As a result, the Rusher establish board control and a strong presence close to your orb.

Now, the Defender with 50 hp still has some breathing room and can choose from two options :

Option #1 : The Defender turtles on his orb in order to avoid taking too much damage. By doing so, he let his opponent control his Faeria wells and gather more ressources, but he will slow down the damage he takes and thus, the defender will have more time to fish for AOE events that will gain more and more value as he gets behind on board dominance.

Option #2 : The Defender lets his opponent control his orb and he spawn creatures behind the enemy’s creature, next to his Faeria wells. By doing so, he will take a lot more damage, but he will have more ressource than his opponent. As a result, he can hope to play bigger creatures and retake control of the terrains in front of his orb, especially if the Defender’s creature move on enemy terrain in order to trade (thus denying the enemy from spawning another creature on that terrain).

Of course, if life total increase, so has the ability for the rush deck to keep the pressure on for many turns with more cards having an additionnal effect when orb damage is dealt. The key is not to make rush faster, but to make it so the pressure is hard to take off by the control player in just a few turns.


I dont know about you, but I find the second scenario way more interactive and fun because the defending player had a choice and because he can also choose to tailor his deck in a way where a choice might be more attractive than the other. Thus, if he gets pressured early on, he will know which strategy to fall back to, he actually planned for it … and even there, maybe at the time he gets pressured, the cards he has in his hand actually favors the other option.

Now, I’m not saying life total need to increase. But I am saying the direction the game developpers should always take is the one in favor of giving both players as many relevant options to choose from in different situations.

That’s what I’m trying to do. I’m trying to make it so games are not decided within the first few turns by random factors. I want players to be able to tailor their deck adequatly the way they want it to be without needing to auto-include too many anti-meta cards. I also want players to be most important deciding factor in a match so they feel even better about winning and can actually learn something from their losses instead of just blaming the loss on RNG and moving on.


#12

Actually, that’s exactly what I had in mind, but I wasn’t sure if I wanted more keywords, but yeah, you just named the advantages of that change and I agree, haste is so powerful in this game, that it will always be hard to balance a card with haste.

.

@ WeTheNorth

I get your point (and agree mostly), but without all those haste creatures, it would be more easy to obtain control. Do not forget that you can overtake enemy lands that are close to your orb.

More life isn’t an option for a few reasons, one of them would be that it kills a whole archetype in burn.

I think to fit it the way you are looking for, you need fundamental changes like a bigger map or only placing 1 neutral land (but +1 Faeria) or something like that.


#13

Actually, merging 1x Neutral Plain with +1 Faeria would be a fantastic idea. The 2x Neutral Plains ability rushes way too fast.


#14

Interesting idea. So basically, you make the placement of colored lands cheaper, compared to 2x praerie. I’m not so sure this would actually achieve your goal. :confused:

In a rush vs control scenario, this is what probably would happen:
The rush deck will still use 2x praerie twice or thrice to obtain the key assault positions in the first few turns, basically cutting 2-3 Faeria off of them.
Now look at the control player: Does it solve anything for him? I’d dare say no, because he’d probably act this way:

OPTION #1: He places more colored lands in the beginning. Therefore, he still loses most of the key aussault positions to the rush player. Compared to what it’s like now, by “sacrificing” these positions he basically gained a 2 or 3 Faeria advantage, as long as he doesn’t use the 2x praerie ability himself.
Question: Are 2-3 Faeria at the start already how close games are for the rush? If so, why don’t you just nerf some of their starting key cards cost by 1 Faeria? Wouldn’t this already solve the issue without such fundamental changes?

OPTION #2: He as well places some 2x praeries in the first few turns, to block most of the assault positions. Therefore, compared to now, he didn’t achieve anything, because both players lost 2-3 Faeria for 2x praerie.
The only change is that both players have less starting Faeria.
Question: Qui bono? Who is actually short of Faeria in the first few turns? The rush player or the control player? Usually, the control player would have the higher Faeria cost on his deck on average. The key cards he mulligans for to counter early aggression, are not cheaper than the starting cards of the rush player, are they? Maybe I get something wrong here, but in the end, the rush player seems to benefit even more of this proposed change than his opponent. :confused:


On another note: Does it really adress the acutal problem we have with rush decks right now? This change would hit those decks the hardest that use the 2x praerie ability the most. At first glance, this would probably NEUTRAL rush. But even then, how many lands does neutral rush actually place? Does he use the 2x praerie more often than his opponent to block off the key tiles? I mean, let’s face it, the rush decks usually ignore their own faeria wells. Therefore they only need to places lands 3 or 4 times (for their key position). Land placement later in the game doesn’t seem that important as long as the actual aggression lasts, right?

Obviously, the change doesn’t hit colored rush decks as hard as the neutral rush, since colored rush decks need to place some colored lands for themselves.

Do we really have a problem with every kind of rush deck? I mean, sure, it always feels nasty to play against the constant pressure. On the other hand, this creates some different play behaviour than a control vs control scenario, thus keeping the game fresh.
To me, the actual problem I experienced so far, are yellow rush decks and, to an extent, yellow/red rush decks. Don’t nerf all of them across the board, the neutral ones even harder, if they are not the problem in general.

Here’s another “side” effect that occures with this change: The fewer neutral lands you need to place, the better this change is for you. Essentially, this means a serious buff to any kind of multi colored deck, let them be control, rush, mid-ranged or burn, who naturally don’t place many neutral lands, if some at all (three wishes comes to mind). Actually, this is probably the biggest impact, the change would have.


#15

I’ll just stop here as it seems that you misunderstood the idea. The idea was that you can only play 1 praerie per turn, so the rush player would need 2 more turns to reach your orb. As a bonus for playing a praerie, you get 1 Faeria. A side effect would be, that everyone would add praeries instead of taking Faeria aslong as there are free spaces (which I wouldn’t like).

Anyway, that was just a very short example of how a fundamental change could work the way WeTheNorth would like it. I would just balance the cards to achieve that goal.


#16

Okay, I completely missed the point there. :sweat_smile:

But you name it, the “gain 1 Faeria” would be quite useless, so you have to either cut the option (until there are no more free tiles) or buff it to +2 Faeria. This, on the other hand would buff rush again.

Being unable to place 2 praeries at all would lead to something different though:
I think it would completely kill the viability of mono neutral decks, because (the mix of different options for a mono color aside) the tempo of placing two praeries each turn is basically all they have. :confused: Also, take into account that the colored fractions have at least 1 card, the elemental, to grow even more than one colored land/turn; in case of green, much more options.

That aside, I think it would render rush decks almost completely impossible, while I still only see much of an issue in yellow rush right now. I mean, I’m still new to this and I didn’t face much other rush decks. But the ones except yellow and yellow/red I faced seemed much more managable to me, especially if you focused on countering early aggression already.
Being unable to create more than one land per turn (elementals aside) would also kill the pacing of the game, don’t you think so? Without elementals (and maybe some sneaky flying charge creatures), you won’t be able to get your land placement past the middle line of the board, if your opponent doesn’t want you to. Period. For each land you place towards your opponents base, the opponent can block the tile that would be next afterwards, hence creating a middle line front that is very tricky to surpass.


#17

If you are asking me, then yes, I wouldn’t like that change. As I said, it was just an example for WeTheNorth. You just wrote down some reasons to not change it that way.

I’m still at the point of changing haste, as that ability will always cause problems.

Who knows which path this game will take. Maybe we will get enchantments (effects that endure forever or until something happens) with the next expansion…


#18

I’m running into the same crap, Game after Game in Pandora. And it’s worse in Pandora because the way the Pandora Shards seem to all appear in the first 5-7 turns encourages this behavior. I came to Faeria wanting something that was NOT the Hearthstone experience, an RNG fest of rush decks. That’s exactly what I’m seeing now. Prior to the Pandora changes, games were a 20-30 minute thought out strategy game. Now what I see is… Push down middle. Ignore Faeria wells. Put biggest creature you have in opponents face turn 3. And I’m seeing this from all rank players. I hover around 14-15 so I see anywhere from rank 20 to rank 8 players. This sort of thing is toxic to Faeria.

Suggestions to improve:

  1. Increase the life totals. A higher life total discourages “I’m going to shove my 7/7 in the opponent’s face and hit them 3 times to win”.

  2. Lower the Faeria given each turn to 2. This means that it takes 3 turns of ignoring the wells to get a 6 mana creature out instead of 2, and since even most small creatures cost 3 or more, it also means players can’t just drop hordes of small creatures.

  3. Space out the Faeria shards appearance more. Again on the average game, I’m seeing Faeria shards complete in 10 draws often 2-3 appearing back to back if someone uses a draw mechanic. Which again makes the wells worthless because there’s no incentive to collect for just 2-3 turns. I would say start at a 10% or 20% chance for a shard to appear to start, then increase by 10% each turn. (Maybe a little higher initially, I’m spit-balling here). Then once a shard does appear, reset the counter and begin again. Also make it so that only one Shard can appear on any given players turn (see aforementioned draw mechanics).

  4. Dear Sweet Gaia fix Meteor. We do NOT need land destruction in this game on that scale. Especially when it becomes: Destroy 7 lands and all creatures without Aquatic on those lands, for 11 Faeria. That is WAY overpowered when you consider: Last Nightmare costs 6 Faeria to destroy 1 creature, Firestorm is 6 Mana to deal 3 to all enemy creatures, and even the Dragon that has a firestorm effect attached to it is 10 Faeria. Meteor is broken as all heck right now.

Recommended: Destroy 1 land. (Maybe even a small AoE attached). So it’s not an 11 Faeria, your opponent loses the game. (Since it can be cast at their base, destroying all the lands near their base, and allowing the opponent to grab those crucial slots before a player can react)


#19

First, Meteor costs 12, which is quite hard to get in this game
Second, Meteor needs 5 mountains to be played.
Third, Meteor rarely see any play and is certainly not overpowered for the two reasons I mentioned above.
Fourth, Meteor destroys all creatures, structures and lands, aquatic or not
Fifth, this topic is about rush, and I don’t think meteor fits in a rush deck (even in a Red rush one) :wink:

The greatest achievement of meteor would be to erase all your colored lands if you’ve clustered them, effectively destroying your land requirements in the process (and maybe kill one or 2 creatures). But if it destroys more than 3 lands this way, then your land positioning was not very good anyway (excet if you play a 3 Wishes deck of course)
If you have trouble against Meteor, pay attention when your opponent gets to 4 mountains and a lot of stored faeria, and spread your creatures positioning (away from your colored lands if possible). That can be a bit difficult to spot in a cost reduction deck (Bold Bargainer, Ogre Dance …) as Meteor may not cost 12, but otherwise, it’s not that difficult to anticipate (and keep in mind that Meteor can be efficient because it’s rarely played, so players don’t expect it coming, therefore it can’t be considered as broken at all. Garudan is much worse because even if you see it coming, you can’t do much against it)


#20

Hello,

To start with, I specify that all which follows is my opinion staff.

And to return on my first comment, I am going to take for example this morning, when I played it ranked.
As usual, 3 matches on 4 are against rush deck.
Creation of neutral grounds until closeness of my orb. Obliged to call in turtle to protect me of the first attacks. Unfortunately, they always. With vampire shaytan, of dean of forges, teleportation for a cost 0, load where they pitch of the faeria in the passage, and that draws for 0, and that calls upon creatures in the chain … You know all the plan …
Then yes, it is very effective …
Then yes, many players play these decks …
But I think that their success comes only because it allow to win easily and fast. It is not for the pleasure to play them finally.

Developers look in for one first stages to attract players’ maximums, and they are right on the short time. But on the long time, this type of deck will finish, on one hand to disgust the players control, and on the other hand to bring the tiredness of the players rush.
As everybody, I have an experience in the video game, and knowing me well, I know if a game is going to captivate me 1 week, 1 month or several years. For my part, if the game stays in 70 % of the cases of the fights against rush, I shall not stay there for a long time. And I think that this mechanics cannot simply captivate on the long time. A mechanics which always repeats in the same way, associated with the frustration of the opponents not to be able to defend itself in case of aggression, cannot bring some pleasure to play on the long term, that we are the aggressor or the assaulted. Then, I am can be not as most of the players, can be that this game is not made for me and that it will find his public, but it is my felt.

As for the creation, if we want to estimate a little all this, even if figures are not exact, that gives a global idea. I see regularly always 2 or 3 different deck rush, by neglecting the little significant variants. Opposite, to counter this type of deck, it obliges to invest between 5 and 10 cards, is approximately a third of the complete deck. Of course, it is very approximate, because a deck is uniform, it is not easy to estimate. But roughly, we sacrifice a third of the deck, what represents an enormous really funny quantity of combinations and possibilities, to counter only 2 or 3 deck… To summarize, we sacrifice many of funny to have of the not funny. It is not good in my opinion.

As for the esport, to win deck rush and thanks to a good one taken out of cards, that makes not serious … Even if Hearthstone makes him all the time, with decks inescapable as zoo, face hunter, Shaman cancer, etc… Personally, that makes for a long time that I do not look anymore at the esport of Hearthstone. Roughly, the funny only one whom we see in these championships, they are the top decks. It is can be funny 5 minutes, but it is not what I call of the fascinating esport.

Finally here we are, I think that you understood well my thought. I repeat that it is my opinion, and that each can not agree, I understand him completely.

Thank you for having read me.