Stop Calling AOE2 Strategies "Cancer."

[K1_]

you do realize that when we call a strategy "cancer" we don't mean I HOPE YOU AND YOUR FAMILY DIE FROM CANCER, right? it's just a slang, cancer in most cases can't be cured, so when we call a strategy cancer we mean there's no cure to it, there's no counter play to it, ofc it's exaggerated in some cases out of rage

but for example getting tower rushed by Teutons or Incas has little to no counter play to it if you're not above 1700/1800 and if you don't have safe resources. so what's wrong with calling out a strategy as "cancer" or "toxic" when there's no clear counter play to it implemented in the game and some players who we count as "toxic" are abusing it to gain elo, just like the momentary Goths OP milita spam in dark age a few months back, and Cumans broken bonuses and steppe lancer bug at the start of DE

you might say "well why don't you pick the same civ and do the same strategy, it's in the game and it's available to you too", to that i would say if it was for you guys, we would still have that OP Cumans at the start of DE in the game to this day and the logic would be "well you can do the same"


the point is somethings in the game kills the joy for the player who is in the receiving end of a "strategy" and it makes them feel like they can't do anything about it because there's no effective counter play to it implemented in the game, and when you're abusing it to get victories over your opponents you shouldn't be surprised if you get called out for it


people who insult you in a personal level or your family because of a video game are either teenagers with 0 self awareness, or they're just sick. you can't put them in the same group of the people who just refer to a strategy as cancer or toxic in the community

 

[IYIyTh]

A couple of thoughts:

1. If I want to share my opinion of a strategy with you by after the game, either by calling it toxic or cancerous, or by admiring it and possibly using it in a game myself, why can't I? And this goes for any strategy, even a simple scout rush which may be the most common strategy in the game...if I want to say "that was a cancer strat" after being scout rushed, I'm allowed to. Are other people gonna agree with my opinion that a scout rush is cancer? Of course not, but that doesn't mean I can't share my opinion.

Sharing an opinion is not the same as insulting someone.

Sharing your opinion about a strategy = okay, insulting them for using a certain strategy = not okay

What your opponent said about your strategy = opinion, what they said about "wishing cancer on your family" = insult

2. Now if you wish to argue about the specific words people use, then maybe people should use "dumb" or "annoying" to describe strategies they dislike instead of "cancerous" or "toxic" but the truth is, describing something as cancerous or toxic is pretty common internet slang and the aoe2 community isn't gonna change that. Do I think that particular word choice is best? Not really, no, but once again that's an opinion about something, I am not insulting the people that use "cancerous" or "toxic" to describe a strategy or playstyle.


This kind of goes back to my first point, but I'm not sure how you're defining the word "impress". If impress means "force them to change the way they play cuz I don't like it", then absolutely you don't have that right. But if "impress" means "tell you that I didn't like that strategy you just used or I thought it was dumb or annoying or cancer or toxic or whatever we want to call it", then...ummmm...I absolutely disagree. Why can't I share my opinion that I don't like your strategy just like you're sharing your opinion by making this thread?

While not your responsibility directly, I think our primary disagreement there is whether it would indirectly help assist someone being more willing to go off on that end.

I believe it's similar to the process of dehumanization of groups of peoples occurs in various Psychological experiments. If you think of someone as less human, or less of a competitor, it is much easier to hurl insults their way.

There is a difference between "I hate Scrushing," and "**** you you ****ing Scrushing/toxic player," or being a poor sport and attributing your loss to Scrushing as opposed to your lack of ability to defeat it.

An environment where insults of strategy choice are acceptable I think simply makes it much more easier for someone to take it that next step further.

For some people, claiming your opponent is using a cancer strategy, degenerate strategy, toxic strategy, etc. is completely acceptable. I find this to be in completely poor taste -- and examples of poor sportsmanship that creates an environment where directly insulting your opponent is more or less the same as criticizing their strategy choice. No one is saying you have to like every strategy you play against -- however, that does not mean one should bastardize strategy choices or players who use them.

Especially considering no one here can describe why using Franks eco/Scout/Knight HP bonus is superior to utilizing any other civilization bonus.

I have found supporting such rhetoric creates an environment which quickly leads to the indirect insult towards the opponent (implying they are a lesser player because they choose to Scrush, for example) becoming a direct insult to the opponent, the viewpoint having been reinforced and recycled in an echo chamber.

Criticizing effective strategies (like a Scrush,) because one thinks one strategy is superior to another is complete and utter nonsense, and usually just a childish reaction to getting beaten by superior individual game play.

People who don't agree will of course not, and I can categorically rebut each counter-argument until I get carpel tunnel. If the topic helps even one streamer reconsider their actions the next time they get clapped by superior play it's a success.

 

[IYIyTh]

you do realize that when we call a strategy "cancer" we don't mean I HOPE YOU AND YOUR FAMILY DIE FROM CANCER, right? it's just a slang, cancer in most cases can't be cured, so when we call a strategy cancer we mean there's no cure to it, there's no counter play to it, ofc it's exaggerated in some cases out of rage

but for example getting tower rushed by Teutons or Incas has little to no counter play to it if you're not above 1700/1800 and if you don't have safe resources. so what's wrong with calling out a strategy as "cancer" or "toxic" when there's no clear counter play to it implemented in the game and some players who we count as "toxic" are abusing it to gain elo, just like the momentary Goths OP milita spam in dark age a few months back, and Cumans broken bonuses and steppe lancer bug at the start of DE

you might say "well why don't you pick the same civ and do the same strategy, it's in the game and it's available to you too", to that i would say if it was for you guys, we would still have that OP Cumans at the start of DE in the game to this day and the logic would be "well you can do the same"


the point is somethings in the game kills the joy for the player who is in the receiving end of a "strategy" and it makes them feel like they can't do anything about it because there's no effective counter play to it implemented in the game, and when you're abusing it to get victories over your opponents you shouldn't be surprised if you get called out for it


people who insult you in a personal level or your family because of a video game are either teenagers with 0 self awareness, or they're just sick. you can't put them in the same group of the people who just refer to a strategy as cancer or toxic in the community

There is counter play to getting tower rushed by Teutons or Incas, regardless of where your res are. I'm not sure where the idea that it's some unbeatable panacea came from. You need to be able to adapt. Your opponents economy is so weak when sending 10 villagers across the map to perform a Teuton trush. Similarly with 8 vils with Inca's. Being able to anticipate, scout, and identify mitigation is an essential skill in AOE2. I'm not sure why it stops at Inca's or Teutons or whichever civ someone feels is "too strong," but getting rekt by Frank or Magyar Scouts or some other rush is perfectly acceptable/as enjoyable. What someone enjoys in the game is completely subjective. That one prefers to die by a Drush or M@A archer play as opposed to any other utilization of civ bonuses, inherently limiting options to defeat you that you find acceptable is just a terribly odd thing to expect from an opponent.

Totally agreed on the last part -- the point is that by saying there are right/wrong strategies to employ one inherently encourages the last paragraph. Especially as you see in this thread -- several people disagree and believe it's completely acceptable to insult your opponents based on strategy choice. I am not and have not been putting them in the same group. I am certainly saying they're enabling that group -- because they are whether they intend to or not.

I wasn't planning to, but I am gonna include add my opinion to this discussion, however unpopular it may be.

I see many users here calling this topic stupid, but I see a lot of problems with acceptance of other playstyles. Therefore I approve any healthy discussion about this.

I am relatively new to the aoe2 scene, starting at around the end of 2019 with multiplayer. So I had a lot to learn. I like good variety, which meant I wanted to learn all the strategies, including ones with towers, laming, and etc. To get a general feel of how strong certain things are. Even though I am very far from a 'one-trick pony', I still got the same harsh remarks when trying the less popular openings (I'll discuss the 'one-tricking' issue in a later paragraph). There is such a huge stigma associated with some strats, that I constantly felt like walking on egg-shells , even though I was literally just trying to learn the game.

Not surprisingly, I have been quite demotivated from playing this game when I got these labels put on me. And yes, there are a lot of trolls that will insult you, no matter what. But that's the thing, I've been painted as the bad guy by 'normal' players as well. And when that happens on someone's stream, I am made look bad in front of potentially hundreds / thousands of viewers, with no means to respond or defend myself.

Some people mentioned the fact that using such cheese strats forces a one-dimensional game, because while they are counterable, they need a very specific counterplay. And I agree, facing the same thing over and over without having other strategies open is not fun. But I would say this is a game design problem. These strats take the game to such extremes, that there are usually 1 or max 2 viable defenses against it. In a well-balanced game, you should not be able to take complete map control, with zero actual military. You should also not be able to skip 2 ages with zero military and come out completely dominant. But this is an entirely different discussion, I won't go deeper into it. The point is, asking the game to be better balanced would be closer to an actual solution, than castigating players which accomplishes nothing but a less welcoming community. I would not be surprised to find out that some players stopped playing when they realized they "don't deserve as much respect, and rightly so".

There is no universally accepted gentlemen's agreement on what's fair and what's not. Some people accept laming, some don't. Some enjoy trushing, some don't. And so on. Satisfying everyone's expectations on how they want the opponent to play is an impossible task, and I'm not surprised to see that so many players don't even try.

So even though I don't agree with doing the same strat over and over & I don't enjoy facing it, my respect goes out to all you one-trickers, because receiving all the backlash must not be easy. And I don't respect you any less than variety players.

#UsingWhatTheGameGivesYouIsNotToxic

 

[crashDismounted]

There is counter play to getting tower rushed by Teutons or Incas, regardless of where your res are

The counterplay is making your own towers, which dumbs down the game into just both players making towers. Which is considered unfun and "cancer". Counterplay to other strategies, like scout rush, usually involves making other units, like men-at-arms, spearmen, massing archers etc. You can scout rush yourself, but that's not counterplay, that's just mirroring strats.

 

[IYIyTh]

Is that so different than playing Franks, the most picked civ on DE -- including by several pro's overwhelmingly?
I wonder what they're going to make.

Say you're Magyars-- another most-picked meta civ -- and you're playing Franks. You have an identical goal. You're both going to go scouts and possibly making a few spears along the way. There might be some minor variation, but it's the exact same. How is this any less "unfun and cancer," than the scenario you describe?

If I'm not good against Drush or M@A, should I openly advocate for some moralistic viewpoint that despite being available to the opponent to utililze I find the strategy completely "unfun and cancer?" Thus, I can simply just brush aside that my failure to defend against Drush or M@A (like towers,) which are widely utilized even by pro's in the highest of stakes tournaments -- simply because I don't like it? Send off the opponent with a "cancer strat" before rage-resigning instead of giving the gg?

I argue that would simply be poor sportsmanship. If you best me in a game 1v1, you best me in that particular game. GG, GL next. Your strat beat mine. Pre mill drush into FC, DonkMonks, Tengui TC, whatever meme you like -- if you win -- great job! You did it!


Is it possible you're just not as familiar with how to properly defend against a Trush?

Spoiler

Additionally -- defensive towers alone are a sure fire to lose in a trush against 10 vil Teutons.
You aren't stopping Inca Trush by simply playing defensive at home -- you either need to make army at home to pick off vills/garrison so your enemy is idling vils while you idle military or send it forward to disrupt their already fragile eco.

You'll note that this is the same goal as every other rush. Do more damage/take more map than the cost of what you invest.

 

[HungryHungryHussars]

The counterplay is making your own towers, which dumbs down the game into just both players making towers.

Or rushing it down with vills and M@A.
Or defending with archers.
Or walling and trying FC.
Or walling and countering.
Or scouting neutral res and dispersing eco.

Think outside the arena.

 

[crashDismounted]

Or rushing it down with vills and M@A.
Or defending with archers.
Or walling and trying FC.
Or walling and countering.
Or scouting neutral res and dispersing eco.

Think outside the arena.

These are additions, you still have to make at least one of your own countertowers almost every time

 

[IYIyTh]

Sounds awfully similar to complaining one has to make feudal army to fight feudal army to me.

 

[crashDismounted]

Sounds awfully similar to complaining one has to make feudal army to fight feudal army to me.

There are multiple types of military units. There's only one type of tower. It'd be the equivalent of just having to make scouts to fight opposing scouts, rather than having access to spearmen.

 

[IYIyTh]

There are multiple types of military units. There's only one type of tower. It'd be the equivalent of just having to make scouts to fight opposing scouts, rather than having access to spearmen.

Towers are just as susceptible to getting killed by villagers as scouts.

But I'll play along.

Do you call the opponents strategy "unfun and cancer," when your two Drush's zoom on past each other on the way to the other's base?

 

[AkeNo]

After this thread I hate the words Franks and Scouts, thanks Myth

 

[IYIyTh]

After this thread I hate the words Franks and Scouts, thanks Myth

You're welcome.

Hopefully you don't toss your keyboard after your next matchup against them and call them "unfun , boring, or cancer," -- since it is the most likely "strategy," you're to encounter based on civs played.

 

[crashDismounted]

Do you call the opponents strategy "unfun and cancer," when your two Drush's zoom on past each other on the way to the other's base?

No but I really hate that scenario. Turns the game way messier than I would like.

 

[im the cookie]

No but I really hate that scenario. Turns the game way messier than I would like.

It is all about keeping the opponent on edge, I guess.

I mean, I get you. I really do. But when did a MP online match became about making the opponent feel comfortable?

I know the term 'it has no counter' has been thrown here and there, but I don't think it has no counter. It may be we are too lazy to get out of our comfort zone to actually try to do something about it: get our own towers up, don't fight mano a mano with incas vills, or whatever.

I got douched sometime last year in a Gold Rush game. It felt gaddamn awful and I even got walled in. T90 made a video about the dude that douched and walled in his opponent. I got away with 1 vill and managed to actually win I don't know how. He missed my run away villager by pure luck.

It was annoying as F. I didn't expect the wall in either. Who does this dude think he is? I was amused and annnoyed, but decided to try. However, no matter how annoyed I was, I did not type. Maybe sighed in annoyance while looking my only vill rebuilding the Aztec empire by scratch, but that was it.

Someone said earlier that calling 'toxic' or 'cancer' a strategy is an opinion. It is using and adjective to describe something, but it is barely an opinion. And it does not take into account our own shortcommings in said match.

I mean, the counter to Sicilians scout is another freaking scout because of the Sicilian bonus. You can make more spears to counter them, but it is still annoying and I am far from liking it.

Anyways, it was just a thought and an opportunity to share that delicious win against that persian wall in douche.

 

[crashDismounted]

It is all about keeping the opponent on edge, I guess.

I mean, I get you. I really do. But when did a MP online match became about making the opponent feel comfortable?

To be clear, I absolutely agree. I am not saying that drushes missing each other is somehow bad for the game. I am horrendous at dealing with that situation myself though, personally. But I enjoy watching that kind of stuff in pro games.

I do not enjoy watching Inca trush in pro games though. It hardly even works at the 2k4+ level (is basically just a way to throw the game), but even when it does work, it's sad and painful to watch.

 

[im the cookie]

To be clear, I absolutely agree. I am not saying that drushes missing each other is somehow bad for the game. I am horrendous at dealing with that situation myself though, personally. But I enjoy watching that kind of stuff in pro games.

I do not enjoy watching Inca trush in pro games though. It hardly even works at the 2k4+ level (is basically just a way to throw the game), but even when it does work, it's sad and painful to watch.

Yeah, I know. It has a somewhat numbness to it.

 

[General Ike]

So, as has been the trend -- I've heard many in the greater AOE2 community call certain builds (especially ones they lose to,) "cancer." I've also heard people label playstyles as "toxic." Whether it's a Hoang push, Inca Trush, laming, or god knows what -- if they aren't using a Scrush, feudal archer/skirm army, or god forbid they use walls -- you get a modified version of the encounter below. Unfortunately, over time this has been normalized within the community as acceptable, especially as pro players have at times borrowed the language. Besides, if my favorite AOE2 player says it, I have no problem insulting my 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 00 + opponent for using such a strategy.

Now, I don't really have an issue with such immature behavior -- I usually just toy with the person because they're salty -- after their insults I thanked the individual for their gracious point donation after failing to wall their base before a trush. The problem lies in that some do have an issue with such behavior. Each person that gets turned off from AOE2/DE is one less person that helps keep the game we've all loved and played since before some pro players were even born going. Engaging in such behavior is a lack of self-awareness. Some will excuse it as rage in the heat of the moment, but it can have impacts throughout the community.

One might argue, "Why, IYIyTh, wouldn't these certain playstyles cause people not want to play? They're not fun to play against! Advocating for them is hypocrisy!!"

To that I would point to the fact that all strategies are viable, and what is fun to play against is subjective. If we start ridiculing or insulting people for playing Frank Scouts, or Ethiopian Archers -- what is the difference? If the game allows the individual to partake in an effective strategy that works -- there is absolutely no reason to wish cancer upon them or their family, or call them "toxic." They are simply using the same tools available to you to win the game.

You have the right to not prefer to play against Franks -- to detest the strategy of making Frank scouts so much you even refuse to play that civilization. You also have the right to feel like laming isn't fun, cheap, and ruins the experience -- and not wish to partake in it yourself -- but you don't have the right to impress your strategy preferences on your opponent -- and certainly have no right to denigrate them because of it.

Okay, I'm done procrastinating work now.

View attachment 191042
View attachment 191043

I remembered me and a buddy of mine both trushed in a 2v2 and at one point I had to step away because someone was at my door. I paused and said sec and when I got back the game was happening again and my teammate was out of pauses because the other guy said “bullshit trushers don’t get pauses” or something like that. Never get why people get so tilted, especially at the amateur level.

 

[Johnny Walrus]

The ones that make me lose are definitely cancer

 

[Helichaos]

I think we all agree that typing to an opponent that the strategy they are using is "cancer/annoying/toxic" is bm. Accept the loss type gg and move on.

But are you trying to police people calling strategies cancer/annoying/toxic while discussing them with their friends/streaming?

I regularly run into a guy who literally only picks mayans (15-1600), and he beats me more than I beat him. If I lose I'm not going to abuse him, but I think it's stupid that he only plays one civ (which is top tier) and does drush/m@a archers almost every game, and if I'm streaming while playing I'll say what I think.

Shouldn't we feel free to have our opinions about the game, and how it should be played, without being abusive towards other people?

What's the kerfuffle about?

 

[IYIyTh]

Because some believe it's perfectly acceptable to insult your opponent based on strategies they utilize. This leads to scenarios described in the OP and here.

Even what you deem as harmless "opinion sharing," contributes to an environment where their is a false construct of acceptable and unacceptable strategies (Drush FC good, Trush bad! Using Aztec or Frank civ bonus good, Teuton or Inca civ bonus bad!), knowingly or not directly contributes to an environment where people are more willing to insult their opponent based on their strategy preferences -- when it's unwarranted, or at the very least unnecessary.

By labelling a strategy you lose to as "cancer, toxic, or unfun," one is not really submitting an opinion, but in most instances just a reaction to losing and/or being unfamiliar with how to best it. People pick up on it and think it's fine/use it as an excuse to exhibit poor sportsmanship. I think it's mostly a lack of awareness tbh.

 

[Jarvin]

Because some believe it's perfectly acceptable to insult your opponent based on strategies they utilize. This leads to scenarios described in the OP and here.

Even what you deem as harmless "opinion sharing," contributes to an environment where their is a false construct of acceptable and unacceptable strategies (Drush FC good, Trush bad! Using Aztec or Frank civ bonus good, Teuton or Inca civ bonus bad!), knowingly or not directly contributes to an environment where people are more willing to insult their opponent based on their strategy preferences -- when it's unwarranted, or at the very least unnecessary.

By labelling a strategy you lose to as "cancer, toxic, or unfun," one is not really submitting an opinion, but in most instances just a reaction to losing and/or being unfamiliar with how to best it. People pick up on it and think it's fine/use it as an excuse to exhibit poor sportsmanship. I think it's mostly a lack of awareness tbh.

By labeling calling strategies "cancer" bad you contribute to an environment where nobody is willing to speak out against things they disapprove of, therefore nothing ever changes.

Extremes like people insulting their opponents for using a wacky strategy are bad. Extremes being bad should not and does not mean that everything that is closer to the equilibrium/"normalcy" are bad too.

Focus on discouraging and penalizing people who ever, for whatever reason, take video games for a sufficient ground for insulting a different person.
Don't say that the fact that some people insult others should mean that everyone else shouldn't voice their opinion in a candid & polite manner because that's just ridiculous.


Likewise, if you are of opinion that in ladder games "everything goes" because "war is war" or whatever, you should also respect that sometimes you'll find some people who will decide that they'd rather lose ELO and go find a different game than face some of those strategies and that they are free to give whatever reason for it they want - as long as they are not straight up disrespectful on a personal level.

I think the goal of AoE2 and any videogame pretty much, should be to create an environment where in an average game between average players(because again, extreme cases are always going to exist) there is an environment that allows both parties to enjoy themselves regardless of who comes out as the winner. If the game for whatever reason isn't quite there yet, we should make sure that there's an environment where the players can freely discuss their opinion on certain mechanics so that the game's balance and features can be adjusted that that "environment for having fun" exists.
"This strategy is not disalllowed and it exists in the game therefore discussing it is bad" is such a weird approach

 

[IYIyTh]

What balance is being discussed when someone categorizes a strategy as "cancer, degenerate, toxic," et al. ? What is polite about that?

In most cases it's just poor sportsmanship, a reaction to being bested in a given game and being frustrated by the mechanics by which they lost. That some prefer to lose one way over another should not concern an opponent.

I am completely fine with an opponent resigning because they don't want to play a certain civ. That's their prerogative. I think it's wrong, but to each their own. That's the point after all.

Not everyone agrees with what is acceptable and what is not.
You might have a problem with animals being killed and refuse to take sheep or hunt. I might have a problem with getting DRushed. Someone might hate playing Franks. I might hate playing Bulgarians.
You can't make everyone happy -- and you shouldn't try, because it's impossible.

Discussion of balance is perfectly acceptable -- but that's not what's happening. Labelling strategies "Cancer, degenerate, toxic," et al. creates an environment where it's acceptable to disrespect your opponent. Even if it's just broadcasting your "opinion," it gets broadcast that it's fine to dismiss your opponent simply based on their strategy pick and signals that you -- a streamer with arguably (separate topic,) an elevated responsibility -- believe it's not your fault for failing to scout properly, or knowing how to anticipate follow-up or counter your opponent -- your opponent is at fault for simply using an alternative strategy. For just using their civ bonus better than you used yours.

No discussion there.

Also hello Jarvin. 19

 

[Hunyadi_]

This thread:

 

[Liamsmalley7]

The whole idea behind this thread is a bit pointless anyways. As others have mentioned, the term 'cancer' has become extremely common internet slang over the past few years and, in practice, is pretty much just a substitute for 'annoying'. It certainly isn't going away any time soon.

In my opinion, my opponent would be totally within his right to call my strategy 'annoying', or some variation of the term. Why not? I wouldn't say that he is personally insulting me if that were the case. All it is, is that the series of decisions I've made in the game have contributed to, for him, an unfun gameplay environment.

All that being said, your opponent in the first picture obviously went overboard and wished death upon your family. Personally I would probably laugh my ass off if somebody said something so ridiculous to me after an AoE game, but I can totally see how somebody could be genuinely hurt by a comment like that. There's an obvious difference though between what the guy in the screenshot did, and just simply calling a strategy 'cancer' and being done with it.

 

[Hunyadi_]

The whole idea behind this thread is a bit pointless anyways. As others have mentioned, the term 'cancer' has become extremely common internet slang over the past few years and, in practice, is pretty much just a substitute for 'annoying'. It certainly isn't going away any time soon.

In my opinion, my opponent would be totally within his right to call my strategy 'annoying', or some variation of the term. Why not? I wouldn't say that he is personally insulting me if that were the case. All it is, is that the series of decisions I've made in the game have contributed to, for him, an unfun gameplay environment.

All that being said, your opponent in the first picture obviously went overboard and wished death upon your family. Personally I would probably laugh my ass off if somebody said something so ridiculous to me after an AoE game, but I can totally see how somebody could be genuinely hurt by a comment like that. There's an obvious difference though between what the guy in the screenshot did, and just simply calling a strategy 'cancer' and being done with it.

Yeah same. Happened to me a couple of times. But what could I do except move on and hope that person gets the help they need. I honestly feel bad for them if losing a game affects them that much.

If anything this thread should be about that. How can certain people access mental health help if they need it. Maybe links should be embedded in the game after a loss or in the main menu.