Top 2vs2 vs Sully and Stark
- [00:00:06] Sully:
- [00:00:08] SoE-Sturmpanther-:
- [00:00:10] Stark:
- [00:23:04] Sully:
- [00:23:07] SoE-Sturmpanther-:
- [00:23:09] Dr.Dirlewanger:
Posts: 5441 | Subs: 36
Sully and Stark are rank 7 axis.
Posts: 7
thx for the hard game guys
Posts: 452 | Subs: 1
Posts: 959
Posts: 658
Posts: 626 | Subs: 1
Posts: 5441 | Subs: 36
gg, casted. will be up later today.
Sounds great
Posts: 7
Waiting for a revange
This game was my revenge^^..i think u can remember the games before with other mates
...revenge match sounds good to me^^ It`s always nice to play against high level players.
thx guys
Posts: 509 | Subs: 1
Posts: 1701
Stinks a bit to pridepost here. 20min game not worth to post, honestly.
And what If it is a pridepost? people usually upload replays where they win against top level players, open your eyes already lolz
Posts: 558 | Subs: 2
Posts: 509 | Subs: 1
And what If it is a pridepost? people usually upload replays where they win against top level players, open your eyes already lolz
So what? Prideposting is a noobish attitude. Open your eyes, if you pridepost most likely you're a noob
Posting a game where you win against top players if it's a top game or an interesting one, makes sense. Posting just to let people know you won (one game from multiple loses) against good players it's kinda pathetic, specially if it lasted less than 40 min.
Posts: 9
Stinks a bit to pridepost here. 20min game not worth to post, honestly.
lol men just do it better...
all this guys with no skill and just talking bullshit to others .....
Posts: 452 | Subs: 1
Stinks a bit to pridepost here. 20min game not worth to post, honestly.because its only 23 minute game is a pride post and not good? define how long exactly a game needs to be before its a "good" game.
Posts: 452 | Subs: 1
Posts: 5441 | Subs: 36
Stinks a bit to pridepost here. 20min game not worth to post, honestly.
Allright or not. I saw a game between noobs. It took over 1 hour. But just because all players played bad.
So 20 min is not worse or better vs 60 min game!
Posts: 509 | Subs: 1
Allright or not. I saw a game between noobs. It took over 1 hour. But just because all players played bad.
So 20 min is not worse or better vs 60 min game!
You already answered youself, It was a game between noobs. But a match with good players involved if it lasts less than 20 min (in 2vs2 mode) most likely will not be worth to watch (whoever wins). Stark/Sully did not play his best game (we all have good days and bad days) so it lacks purpose to watch the game (imo). That's why its called prideposting, because the only remarcable thing is selfpride -nothing else-.
Heh, but freedom to post whatever you want but let's be honest on the purpose of the post. Is it about showing a good game or just saying ''hey, I won against good players''? Because if it's the first case It's not something I'm terribly interested in. I'd rather watch a lose against good players of 50min than a win against them of 20 min. And I think all ''espectators'' would agree with me on that.
Just my two cents.
Posts: 390 | Subs: 2
Posts: 626 | Subs: 1
Posts: 5441 | Subs: 36
Livestreams
181 | |||||
19 | |||||
6 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.613220.736+7
- 3.35057.860+15
- 4.1110614.644+11
- 5.276108.719+27
- 6.306114.729+2
- 7.918405.694+2
- 8.262137.657+3
- 9.722440.621+4
- 10.1041674.607-2
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
donofsandiego
5 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, Xclusive
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM