He seems like the type who's only exposure to the community is Viper's stream.
Or he can be the main dev of UP that is talking sarcastically.
He seems like the type who's only exposure to the community is Viper's stream.
The thing about Viper is that he doesn't really "throws" games, doesn't play "hard enough", or is just doing "fantasy plays" when he loses... Be it at tournaments or rated games. He's always looking into new strategies and see how they work, sometimes setting up the meta by accident.
Two years ago everybody hated Koreans, and everyone trashed the civ and nobody picked it. Then comes Viper while he himself hating the civ, gets it at random picks plays on anyways and ends up setting up his MasterPizzeria, delivering masterpieces left and right and all off the sudden "Koreans are OP".
Then the same happened with Harambai and Gbetos. Now it's happening with turtle ships, heavy scorpions and Organ guns. Those were units people considered trash, and people rarely played them because it didn't fit the meta. Viper plays them for "fun" but ends up discovering their full potential and ends up using that strategy effectively in tournaments (see his Khmer play vs Daut, or his portuguese game vs Liereyy in NAC2).
This is to me what makes Viper so successful overall. He seems to get better when he loses, because he learns more from the defeats and then turns them into massive victories.
Or he can be the main dev of UP that is talking sarcastically.
Actually no, I usually follow T90s and Nili's streams, and in the examples I gave it's pretty accurate how it evolved, there are other cases (slav farms as an example) that didn't came from Viper streams, but where you can clearly see where Viper's game play influenced the meta, you can think whatever you want but there's a reason he has been dominating the 1v1 scene for years, and it doesn't give a **** about your opinion.
Your sentence perfectly sums up why people don't like fanboys. What you're saying is incredibly disrespectful to Tatoh, who played a great final as well as a great tourney.I think in a few games of the finals you could again see Viper not going full try hard. Which probably makes sense, when you're up 6-1 against your team mate and the viewer count at that point is „only“ at 7k.
Viper lost that game in the civ pick period. Implying he didn't play that game optimally on purpose shows both a fanboism and extreme lack of aoe2 balance knowledge.I think in a few games of the finals you could again see Viper not going full try hard. Which probably makes sense, when you're up 6-1 against your team mate and the viewer count at that point is „only“ at 7k.
E.g. in the Goths game: yes, Viper was outpicked, but Goth spam with huscarls was never going to work on regicide fortress against Vikings. Berserks hard counter huscarls, Vikings would probably win 9/10 against that. „Surprise effect“ doesnt or shouldnt make a difference with scanning etc.
Viper could easily have gone for map control, relics, boom, Imp and husc/habd cannon depending on composition. He might still have lost, but would have had a better chance.
Well this alone removes all credit to your message as it is obviously banter between two teammates.As I said multiple times already, even Nicov told MbL that Viper wasn't playing seriously against him.
As I said multiple times already, even Nicov told MbL that Viper wasn't playing seriously against him.
Really? Have you followed the forums and Twitch chats and Youtube comments?
Why does it seem so unfathomable to you that Viper would not try his hardest in some games?
I'm pretty sure that whenever Viper is up a few games in tournament finals, he often takes it a bit easier. Not sure of how much of that is on purpose or him just not getting motivated to try hard 100%, but still.
The important point you guys are overlooking is this: Viper wins basically every single big 1v1 tournament and has done so for many years. He has won essentially every tournament on every setting: Arena, Hidden Cup, KotD1, 2 NAC1, 2. He is even a top expert in DM (when he plays it).
If the gap between Viper and the others was really that small, shouldn't - just due to luck, better map generations, civ advantage and such - one of them have beaten him in one of these major tournaments in a knock out round?
You are just saying, "oh, it's impossible" or "Viper wouldn't do it". But why not talk about the facts?
- there is a big motivation to do it (as I said: people are already tired of him winning, that would be worse with a no contest)
- he has shown that he is good enough to completely dominate people without a "show"
- Viper has trolled and not played seriously often in the past
But most importantly: just look at the games. Look at Viper's playstyle. Not the mistakes (that he has made against Liereyy as well, when he played well), but the overall approach to the games.
- Compare e.g. the games against Liereyy and MbL on coastal mountain, NAC group stage. He lost both, but in the game against Liereyy he played like crazy, raided his base, pushed hard, tried everything (in his own words: "playing his heart out"). In the game against MbL, he seemed unconcerned with pushing or winning. MbL had like 2 monks, Viper killed them, MbL is booming and conqs couldve gone in through the palisade, oh well let's raid the docks instead (altho MbL has 3 fishing ships, which Viper knows, because he already has water supremacy).
- Or game1 against MbL: why not wall when he walled basically every game against Liereyy in KotD1?
- Or the magyars game against Tatoh - full map control, Tatoh is walled. Why not get all the relics when Viper does it in every other game (even on normal relic maps)?
Does it really make sense that his play style differs so much between "when it matters" and "when it doesn't matter as much" just because he coincidentally only makes "mistakes" (as in massive strategic blunders) when the result isn't as important?
To sum it up: does it make sense to you that Viper always tends to play much worse/lose/make big mistakes when it doesn't matter as much and/or he has a big motivation to do so, whereas when it really counts he plays almost flawlessly?
To sum it up: does it make sense to you that Viper always tends to play much worse/lose/make big mistakes when it doesn't matter as much and/or he has a big motivation to do so, whereas when it really counts he plays almost flawlessly?
To sum it up: does it make sense to you that Viper always tends to play much worse/lose/make big mistakes when it doesn't matter as much and/or he has a big motivation to do so, whereas when it really counts he plays almost flawlessly?