I don;t know why you think I need to play perfectly to point out others aren’t doing a great job and that’s ultimately why they’re whinging about; say losing a free scouting pillar that isn’t technically needed.
Or how Terrans mostly refuse to get a few Blue Flame Hellbats when they scout a metric ton of Chargelots coming their way.
It’s astoundingly silly, like, why not think about the game objectively? What possible reason is there to push against concepts that are factually correct and can easily be tested to ensure they’re factually correct?
If you lost your 1st Overlord to a marine, there’s extenuating circumstance. Did they open 12 depot 13 rax? Did you get caugh with your Overlord, not make 2 lings and save it? Because 2 lings can get there fast enough to save it from 1 Marine…
Did you use a ledge to break the attack range when caught?
It’s astoundingly hard to actually lose that 1st Overlord…
you misunderstood me the topic pillar.
I just don’t care. And just has to be tested. In the end I’d have to adapt to it.
But why would I write with someone whose argument is that you don’t play well?
In the end it’s the writing style that makes me not want to follow your argumentation.