Proudfeet

Members
  • Content count

    282
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Proudfeet

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Recent Profile Visitors

3,375 profile views
  1. That's not the issue here though is it? It's the perception that the ninth and tenth team in the West are more deserving than the seventh and eighth team in the East. Or how the second to fourth seeds in the West are better than the second seed in the East. If you are going by history, how many of those titles were won by LeBron? How many were lost by him? He has contested every final since his move to Miami. And more often than not, swept his way there. That may be due to the strength of his teams, but is surely exacerbated by the lack of competitiveness in the East. I don't quite get the intention of the play-in tournament. I guess there is incentive to be the sixth seed to avoid missing out and the seventh and eighth seeds to get two tries, but the gap in wins get so much more pronounced when you reach the ninth, tenth and eleventh teams that they are basically assured of a play-in spot even if they don't make the eighth seed. ETA Actually historical strength shouldn't be an issue. So what if it balances out? Two wrongs doesn't make a right. Besides, if we really want to take in geographical/scheduling considerations, why not do playoffs by division and have wins be the tie breaker instead?
  2. Curry has two MVPs as opposed to Durant's one MVP. The point I was trying to make though was that if Curry's level of defense is acceptable to voters why shouldn't Harden's be as well? Besides, the MVP is a popularity contest. Flash is more important than substance. Generating highlights and stuffing the box score is the way to go. Defensive highlights and box scores are hard to come by, especially at his position.
  3. Like Curry?
  4. The US edition does. The UK edition doesn't.
  5. I considered buying it just for the illustrations, but the copy I was browsing at the bookstore didn't have any. It had a map but that was it.
  6. Interesting. EA could actually be changing. I probably still won't play their games, but I might give them at least a look now.
  7. Simple? No. Is it still substantially the same game? Seems like it. I don't buy EA games anymore. The last game I played was Battlefield 3.
  8. No season pass this time then? Anyway, I didn't think they would care about fracturing the player base seeing as this is what they did for their Battlefield games as well. They just reskin and release a new game to repopulate their the player base. Rinse and repeat.
  9. They will just make "expansions" instead. You can't complain if the expansion is required to play in the first place and they just need to maintain the playerbase until they release their next rehash.
  10. Repeating my post from before. As far as lootboxes go, I think the way Blizzard does it with Overwatch is great actually. 1. Its just cosmetic. 2. Its possible to use in game means to obtain it. You don't need to pay. 3. Its not completely RNG. You can use ingame gold to purchase if you can't get it through boxes. 4. They aren't releasing it as DLC, although I am also supportive of cosmetic DLC. 5. They are still updating the base game with content. This is in contrast to say, Rocket League, where you need to pay for a key to open RNG crates for cosmetics and they also have DLC that aren't purely cosmetic. I think its fair still, just annoying. Dirty Bomb might be F2P, but I'd much rather they went the Overwatch route than that shit system.
  11. Shrug. Jordan can be the benchmark. I just need a frame of reference. My point being, not as good as Jordan overrated reads differently from plain overrated. It can mean many other things basically.
  12. Yes, but lacking a benchmark to compare to. Something tangible. I'm probably a minority in this, but I like to have a common reference point when making a comparison. This isn't the first time that I've complained about this kind of stuff, never got much of a response.
  13. As far as lootboxes go, I think the way Blizzard does it with Overwatch is great actually. 1. Its just cosmetic. 2. Its possible to use in game means to obtain it. You don't need to pay. 3. Its not completely RNG. You can use ingame gold to purchase if you can't get it through boxes. 4. They aren't releasing it as DLC, although I am also supportive of cosmetic DLC. 5. They are still updating the base game with content. This is in contrast to say, Rocket League, where you need to pay for a key to open RNG crates for cosmetics and they also have DLC that aren't purely cosmetic. I think its fair still, just annoying. Besides, its EA. They are already releasing the same games every year with minor changes. I don't know what anyone expects of them.
  14. I'm sorry. I was under the impression because you were saying Curry's defense put him over LeBron as the most skilled player or something to that effect so I made the assumption. Its been some time since so I don't remember details. Anyway, that's just it. I'd like to repeat that simply saying someone is over/under rated is not productive. We really need to add a benchmark when using it or it will lead to confusion. E.g. Maybe LeBron isn't a consensus best active player, but can we all agree that he is still top five?
  15. I don't think many people will argue that he isn't the best player currently, even if some might quibble over the definition of "best" and/or his effort level in regular season games, but being over/under rated is relative and is very easy to talk pass each other. Anyway, I don't think anyone on this board thinks he isn't a great player other than MC, so I'm not sure what you're on about.