The_Dragonstar toxic behaviour

[_PaternaAoE_]

BigScoob vs. Matador

scoobie vs the world is more appropriate I think

Edit: Actually, Scoob and Matador vs the world sounds way better

 

[oozkan]

It might be fun and challenging the first 3 times when you face FC Mongol lame push but it becomes irritating when you face it each and every time

I am sure Klopp and Mou feels the same against possesion football of Pep
or anyone who faced triangle offense of Phil Jackson
or Federer who had to deal with topspins of Nadal in Roland Garros

I don't understand this kind of backlash, if he plays same strat always, it makes scouting opponent easier.

 

[felix.feroc]

This opinion isn't (even close to) universal, and is contradictory.
There are no rules as to what you can and can't do, and for good reason:

I don't expect my opponent to not kill a vil sent walling before loom with their forward scout.
I don't expect my opponent to give sheep back that I failed to scout.
I don't expect an opponent to not harass forward berries or to not use m@a with Bulgarians because of the guaranteed damage it will do.

It's insulting that my opponent would not do any and everything within the confines of the game they could to defeat me in battle, imo.

Viper himself famously would not lame -- unless he knew his opponent was pushing deer, thus greedy and deserving to be lamed. IMO that courtesy not even need apply.

Clowns prefer closed maps, while Arabia plebs prefer making their own palisade arena's and turning open maps into closed maps.

I find Drushing extremely boring and insulting to the concept of the game, dancing with 2-3 militia and a scout around an opponents res in Dark age and people considering it peak intellectual strategy is probably the dumbest thing I have watched on pro streams. Dancing with archers to manipulate accuracy has been a deciding factor in most pro tournament games. (Team games often boil down to arbs vs. dancing knights/cavalier/paladin.)

If we started banning every aspect of the game individuals felt gimmicky there would be no nuance.


Then the supposition that "no one learns/gains anything," would actually be true.

How boring.

--

Conversely, if one truly believes in a "loving and warm community," there should be some aspect of "two wrongs don't make a right." I think many would take issue with unpausing who may not necessarily have the same opinion as you on laming. Much to the chagrin of many tearful players, laming has been accepted by a great majority as part of the game, regardless of they prefer and/or enjoy its employment. It's hard to take seriously the supposition that there is a superior way to play the game and then on the other hand excuse other behavior.

One can not play Jesus and the Romans simultaneously.


People looking for casual games have an option other than the ranked ladder in the way of the lobby or "casual game," feature... But even then there are no rules.

Straw man much?

I said many players, but am accused of insisting that what I articulated is a universal belief. I said the way Hoang plays, and I am somehow against laming, as if that were the primary attribute of Hoang's style. I say sympathy mostly sides with The Dragonstar, and I am accused of excusing his behavior.

You use the word "nuance" in your post. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

 

[IYIyTh]

Straw man much?

I said many players, but am accused of insisting that what I articulated is a universal belief. I said the way Hoang plays, and I am somehow against laming, as if that were the primary attribute of Hoang's style. I say sympathy mostly sides with The Dragonstar, and I am accused of excusing his behavior.

You use the word "nuance" in your post. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Dragonstar cites the reason he was upset because of civpick lame, so forgive me if I assumed that is what you meant when you said "Hoang's style," in the context of this conversation.

I also alluded to laming as there were/indeed others focusing on that particular point and it's tedious to multi-quote.

 

[Progeusz]

@Jordan_23 did a poll on his chat recently asking viewers if mongol fast feudal Market strat that hoang does is cancer or not, and 83% said it isnt. So the community in general is fine with it. Only the players facing this get pissed.
So Hoang is NOT A CANCER to aoe2.

LMAO that's worthless.
Of course Jordan's community wouldn't say anything bad about anything unless Jordan does it first. Twitch chats in general are filled with yes-men with rare exceptions. Not to mention Jordan's chat is in no way reflective of entire community, it only makes up a tiny portion of it.

Furthermore proper context is necessary - what was the exact wording of the poll? How was it prefaced by Jordan? Your retelling of the event isn't very convincing as you skipped constant civ picking and boar laming in your description and those two aspects seem to be much bigger issue than market usage, based on this thread.

 

[felix.feroc]

Dragonstar cites the reason he was upset because of civpick lame, so forgive me if I assumed that is what you meant when you said "Hoang's style," in the context of this conversation.

I also alluded to laming as there were/indeed others focusing on that particular point and it's tedious to multi-quote.

Fair enough. I read, possibly incorrectly, that he was aggravated at getting Hoang at all.

 

[deadmeatnoob]

LMAO that's worthless.
Of course Jordan's community wouldn't say anything bad about anything unless Jordan does it first. Twitch chats in general are filled with yes-men with rare exceptions. Not to mention Jordan's chat is in no way reflective of entire community, it only makes up a tiny portion of it.

Furthermore proper context is necessary - what was the exact wording of the poll? How was it prefaced by Jordan? Your retelling of the event isn't very convincing as you skipped constant civ picking and boar laming in your description and those two aspects seem to be much bigger issue than market usage, based on this thread.

Jordan just played hoang on mega random. Hoang picked mongol. Hoang tried to lame but failed.
Jordan lost the game. He was slightly pissed on the castle age timing with market abuse. He mentioned how mongol can do this better than most civs.
Jordan worded the POLL himself something along the line of "is Hoang sytle cancer" after the game. And he was surprised when the poll came back with 83% said it isnt.
Chat asked jordan why he felt this was cancer, but jordan didnt answer the question. Probably trying to be tactful.


It was just a reflection of what most pros feel vs what viewers feel. The twitch chat were not yes men in this case.
Sorry i am a touch too lazy to go and edit the original post with these details.

 

[Xellos]

LMAO that's worthless.
Of course Jordan's community wouldn't say anything bad about anything unless Jordan does it first. Twitch chats in general are filled with yes-men with rare exceptions. Not to mention Jordan's chat is in no way reflective of entire community, it only makes up a tiny portion of it.

Furthermore proper context is necessary - what was the exact wording of the poll? How was it prefaced by Jordan? Your retelling of the event isn't very convincing as you skipped constant civ picking and boar laming in your description and those two aspects seem to be much bigger issue than market usage, based on this thread.

I remember that one, Jordan was complaining about hoang but also market usage being overpowered and not the way the game should be played. Makes sense to mention that. When you doubt his retelling of the event, that's just reality conflicting with your imagination of something you didn't know at all.

Not to mention Aoezone's in no way reflective of entire community, it only makes up a tiny portion of it.

 

[siestes]

Nah, current system is perfectly fine. The suggested change would only lead to additional griefing when players are in a lost position. There should be no codified/mandated pause.

i don't get your argument, what additional griefing? You can have a 1 minute pause, it's not like it's gonna change much for sore losers and it would improve qol for everyone else

 

[Progeusz]

Jordan just played hoang on mega random. Hoang picked mongol. Hoang tried to lame but failed.
Jordan lost the game. He was slightly pissed on the castle age timing with market abuse. He mentioned how mongol can do this better than most civs.
Jordan worded the POLL himself something along the list of "is Hoang sytle cancer" after the game. And he was surprised when the poll came back with 83% said it isnt.
Chat asked jordan why he felt this was cancer, but jordan didnt answer the question. Probably trying to be tactful.


It was just a reflection of what most pros feel vs what viewers feel. The twitch chat were not yes men in this case.
Sorry i am a touch too lazy to go and edit the original post with these details.

Thanks for providing all the details. Now that poll sounds a lot more relevant to what is discussed in this thread than it initially appeared. Cool to see chat not agreeing with a streamer for once, that's a rare surprise. I guess if even Jordan's community disagrees with him on this, that's a pretty strong argument for other people potentially thinking alike as well. Not conclusive yet but definitely worth considering.

 

[Progeusz]

When you doubt his retelling of the event, that's just reality conflicting with your imagination of something you didn't know at all.

Seems like your feelings got hurt a lot if you choose to ignore what was stated in message you quoted and instead go with personal attack that makes zero sense because it is contradictory with my words. My view here is irrelevant, i never talked about that. The retelling was conflicting with this thread and that was the reason why I questioned it. Now it turns out it only conflicted with the thread because it was incomplete and after further details were provided, I no longer have an issue with it.
I'm sorry you aren't mentally capable of talking about subjects in a vacuum and always think people only post when they are personally invested in the subject but that isn't the case for everyone, you should remember that for the future.

Not to mention Aoezone's in no way reflective of entire community, it only makes up a tiny portion of it.

Contrary to what you might naively believe, repeating other's words this way isn't a clever retort, you're just a shallow ass who can't make up something of his own.

 

[IYIyTh]

i don't get your argument, what additional griefing? You can have a 1 minute pause, it's not like it's gonna change much for sore losers and it would improve qol for everyone else

It wouldn't improve anything necessarily. You aren't owed a pause, and I guarantee it would be used by salty people every time. People already attempt to run through all of their pauses now -- without the additional mandatory 1 minute. Just what I want is some guy who started the game laming/trolling/flaming to get a free 1 min pause while I'm destroying them to toss more insults and/or waste more time.

 

[Lokalo]

Thanks for providing all the details. Now that poll sounds a lot more relevant to what is discussed in this thread than it initially appeared. Cool to see chat not agreeing with a streamer for once, that's a rare surprise. I guess if even Jordan's community disagrees with him on this, that's a pretty strong argument for other people potentially thinking alike as well. Not conclusive yet but definitely worth considering.

well again, I will repeat myself. Such voting means nothing, being entertained by pros being tilted doesn't even matter if it's hoang or anything else is always nice for viewers. Playing against same strat/guy would be complete different thing and topic. Probably at least 30% of viewers barely or not even playing themself anymore, then add like 20% of trolls to vote the opposite that streamer wants to. Most people voting for this won't think what it would be like to play against hoang and so on, they just voting according if they like watching games against him. I bet even pros would enjoy to watch some games how other pros tilt playing against hoang, that's two completely different things.

Is like watching on youtube some idiots harass other people, it often seems fun, however most would not want those people do same thing to them.

 

[Progeusz]

Such voting means nothing

For how it feels to play Hoang, yeah, it means nothing. However it means a lot for how it is perceived by the community. We could make an argument that there is value in playing Hoang because even if the pro player doesn't improve whatsoever from such game, the community engagement improves and their stream grows, if the viewers really like seeing pros suffer vs Hoang so much. Obviously, that isn't the case for pros who aren't streaming their games and in their case it's purely a waste of time.

 

[Nicov]

For how it feels to play Hoang, yeah, it means nothing. However it means a lot for how it is perceived by the community. We could make an argument that there is value in playing Hoang because even if the pro player doesn't improve whatsoever from such game, the community engagement improves and their stream grows, if the viewers really like seeing pros suffer vs Hoang so much. Obviously, that isn't the case for pros who aren't streaming their games and in their case it's purely a waste of time.

I don't see how the community engagement improves when it's all about enjoying how the streamer tilts and wastes his time.

 

[Progeusz]

I don't see how the community engagement improves when it's all about enjoying how the streamer tilts and wastes his time.

Well, Hoang videos are definitely more popular than most on Viper's channel. Tried checking Hera's but he only mentions Hoang once in the title in last x months and it has normal viewership. DauT also benefits from Hoang vids.
I don't watch streams often so I can't say it conclusively but I get the impression chat does get quite active whenever the player is matched vs Hoang.

 

[IYIyTh]

For how it feels to play Hoang, yeah, it means nothing. However it means a lot for how it is perceived by the community. We could make an argument that there is value in playing Hoang because even if the pro player doesn't improve whatsoever from such game, the community engagement improves and their stream grows, if the viewers really like seeing pros suffer vs Hoang so much. Obviously, that isn't the case for pros who aren't streaming their games and in their case it's purely a waste of time.

The "didn't improve," trope regarding alternative playstyles from the dark age / feudal rush meta needs blown into a fire. Pro players advocating others play to their strengths doesn't mean others can't employ alternative strategies. If I don't want to play the meta, conversely, I don't just disregard whatever my opponent is doing as "a waste of time," if they play the most boring of drush/m@a/archers meta.

The point of a ranked game is to win, not to play in a manner which promotes the most "enjoyable," experience for your opponent. It's laughable that there is a mindset in aoe2 where certain pro's suggest there is a correct way to play, when all that matters is whether you defeated your opponent -- not how.

It's a laughably elitist view, especially when regurgitated by the 800-900 ELO masses.

 

[SotallyTober123]

The "didn't improve," trope regarding alternative playstyles from the dark age / feudal rush meta needs blown into a fire. Pro players advocating others play to their strengths doesn't mean others can't employ alternative strategies. If I don't want to play the meta, conversely, I don't just disregard whatever my opponent is doing as "a waste of time," if they play the most boring of drush/m@a/archers meta.

The point of a ranked game is to win, not to play in a manner which promotes the most "enjoyable," experience for your opponent. It's laughable that there is a mindset in aoe2 where certain pro's suggest there is a correct way to play, when all that matters is whether you defeated your opponent -- not how.

It's a laughably elitist view, especially when regurgitated by the 800-900 ELO masses.

Alternative playstyles? Plural? Dude, there's just one playstyle we are talking about. Saying pros are against alternative playstyles is misleading at best.

Also, why should opinions of players who *actually* play against Hoang and say "there's nothing to learn" be dismissed as "laughable" and our opinion who never have and probably never will face him be considered sacrosanct? Wouldn't the players be in the best position to gauge the "usefulness" better? And if they feel it's a waste of time and call it out, they become the villains and are termed as "elitist", "sore losers" and "cribbers".

The audience feels Hoang is the gentle underdog bringing the mighty pros to their knees, who needs to be protected at all costs. But for the pros, he is just a bully with one blunt weapon up his sleeve.

Finally, even if Hoang were to win 100% of his games in the ranked ladder, it's still a cheese strategy easily countered by a couple of bans in a tournament. Don't you think it would have been copied extensively in tournaments (where only winning matters) if it was so OP?

There are Hoangs at every ELO level. At 1200s, there might be someone who has been playing only Franks for the last 1000 games. At 1600s, there might be someone who has only ever done Aztec Eagle rush. Hoang is just one of them but at a higher level. He is ofcourse incredibly skilled and has perfected what he does. A lesser player with worse micro or worse game sense wouldn't be able to pull off what he does. He is also perhaps the most entertaining player in AoE2 right now and his popularity is definitely helped by streamers, who have propped him into "Legend" status.

Nevertheless, are the other pros wrong in feeling annoyed at the waste of time and voicing it out? I don't so. It does not make them elitist, it makes them sensible. Probably, we would have said the same thing if we played him as well.

 

[IYIyTh]

Alternative playstyles? Plural? Dude, there's just one playstyle we are talking about. Saying pros are against alternative playstyles is misleading at best.

Also, why should opinions of players who *actually* play against Hoang and say "there's nothing to learn" be dismissed as "laughable" and our opinion who never have and probably never will face him be considered sacrosanct? Wouldn't the players be in the best position to gauge the "usefulness" better? And if they feel it's a waste of time and call it out, they become the villains and are termed as "elitist", "sore losers" and "cribbers".

The audience feels Hoang is the gentle underdog bringing the mighty pros to their knees, who needs to be protected at all costs. But for the pros, he is just a bully with one blunt weapon up his sleeve. Hoang was pissed off that players (Mihai for example) were picking Mongols against him when he played with Celts and said he won't gg them. I mean, the hypocrisy here is astounding.

Finally, even if Hoang were to win 100% of his games in the ranked ladder, it's still a cheese strategy easily countered by a couple of bans in a tournament. Don't you think it would have been copied extensively in tournaments (where only winning matters) if it was so OP?

There are Hoangs at every ELO level. At 1200s, there might be someone who has been playing only Franks for the last 1000 games. At 1600s, there might be someone who has only ever done Aztec Eagle rush. Hoang is just one of them but at a higher level. He is ofcourse incredibly skilled and has perfected what he does. A lesser player with worse micro or worse game sense wouldn't be able to pull off what he does. He is also perhaps the most entertaining player in AoE2 right now and his popularity is definitely helped by streamers, who have propped him into "Legend" status.

Nevertheless, are the other pros wrong in feeling annoyed at the waste of time and voicing it out? I don't so. It does not make them elitist, it makes them sensible. Probably, we would have said the same thing if we played him as well.

Plenty of people hate on all kinds of playstyles.

Walling, FC all in while using the market, typically with forward kt/siege (Hoang,), douching, laming, towers...m@a towers...for some special people Franks scouts...briton archers...cuman 2 tc boom, saracen market play...

No, I don't consider those who have most to gain from banning/diminishing unconventional playstyles because of their superior play with conventional playstyles as the authority on what should be considered acceptable play. I don't really know why I need to care about an audience to have this viewpoint. Whether they find it entertaining or not (spoiler: they find it entertaining,) to watch Hoang is immaterial to the point at hand.

I don't really have any opinion on a melodrama of whether a player said gg or not.

I don't really care about pro's being annoyed because someone has a preferred playstyle that differs from theirs. I don't understand why I need to care, either. Trying to claim superiority and diminishing an opponent simply because they decided to use a different playstyle than what is currently blessed in the meta should be scoffed at relentlessly.

If you get beat you get beat. No need to cry/whine about it and exclaim that your opponent is lesser skilled.

 

[NuclearPasta]

it's still a cheese strategy

What makes it a cheese strategy? Hoang isn't actively breaking the game to achieve a win, he's using units and game mechanics in their intended function. There's nothing cheese about it, not anymore than Saracen market abuse, 1 TC 2 Castle unique unit plays, or out spamming your opponent as Goths.

A one-note or gimmicky strategy isn't the same as a cheese strategy.

 

[ManchildTV]

Also, why should opinions of players who *actually* play against Hoang and say "there's nothing to learn" be dismissed as "laughable" and our opinion who never have and probably never will face him be considered sacrosanct? Wouldn't the players be in the best position to gauge the "usefulness" better? And if they feel it's a waste of time and call it out, they become the villains and are termed as "elitist", "sore losers" and "cribbers".

If we're collecting pro opinions, Yo browsed this thread on stream and said Hoang is 100% right in this case. He further says it's ridiculous that people are defending Dragonstar's behavior simply because they don't like Hoang's playstyle.

 

[kalpit00]

If we're collecting pro opinions, Yo browsed this thread on stream and said Hoang is 100% right in this case. He further says it's ridiculous that people are defending Dragonstar's behavior simply because they don't like Hoang's playstyle.

Not to call out Yo as I consider him a master of utilizing cavalry in the most effective way (time and time again I have noticed Yo will use just enough knights to chase away enemy ranged units with minimal micro while outmacroing behind, and more importantly its the map position he gains by doing this allowing him to make fwd siege shops and put pressure. he somehow macros his way to a competitive imp timing and +4 with a fwd castle and trebs and literally snuffs out a cav vs ranged matchup).

Anyway back to the point, defending against such playstyle is so much harder because you are 1 mangonel shot away from losing your ball of xbow or there is the possibility that your eco will get spreaded as you expand sideways to get more wood/gold, and cavalry becomes more and more useful in making your opponent think/care about defending multiple regions. Hoang push is sort of a extreme and fast hitting version of this, where you have to worry about him sending 1 or 2 kts to your gold or woodline, worry about his siege eating your TC or your army, monks converting your units at the same time, its just like too overwhelming for feudal army to deal with.

And I don't hate the classical siege push with eco behind playstyle with proper eco management. I think the market abuse play where you can put 30 vils on gold, stop making anymore vils, 1 farm and get away with a victory because of RNG or resource spawns is what I think is cancer. God forbid if you have fwd golds or a hilly map vs Hoang. It is not really skill, what Hoang does with Celts all the time. He only looks at 1 screen, and constantly uses market to buy/sell what he needs in the exact moment. He plays it like a turn based game, instead of RTS where you have to think about developing a proper economy and think of the entire map and civ matchup holistically

 

[SotallyTober123]

What makes it a cheese strategy? Hoang isn't actively breaking the game to achieve a win, he's using units and game mechanics in their intended function. There's nothing cheese about it, not anymore than Saracen market abuse, 1 TC 2 Castle unique unit plays, or out spamming your opponent as Goths.

A one-note or gimmicky strategy isn't the same as a cheese strategy.

Sorry, my misunderstanding of the word cheese then. I meant one-trick as you said.

If we're collecting pro opinions, Yo browsed this thread on stream and said Hoang is 100% right in this case. He further says it's ridiculous that people are defending Dragonstar's behavior simply because they don't like Hoang's playstyle.

I think even Dragonstar said on his stream that he was tilted and unpaused. They have played hundreds of games before ( Memb even casted one). Still a **** move according to me but if it's a one off incident in a moment of anger, personally, I have moved on from the "incident" itself.

It's also interesting Hoang creates such polarizing views, even amongst pros. As I have said before, I personally like Hoang as a player and enjoy watching him but I wanted to say that I also understand the perspective of anyone who doesn't like *playing* against him. Probably, didn't communicate it well.

 

[IYIyTh]

All of these crybabies and their arabia scripted build orders getting rekt by a modified smosh deserve a ride in the whaambulance.

 

[Influenza]

for something to be considered a "cheese strategy" it does not necessarily have to a bug or exploit, lol. It just has to be a strong strategy that requires little skill. You can decide whether or not hoang's playstyle applies there