The_Dragonstar toxic behaviour

[Progeusz]

Pro players advocating others play to their strengths doesn't mean others can't employ alternative strategies.

It would be easier to talk with you if you weren't so prone to overblow everything in, out and sideways almost every single time. I'd prefer if you responded to what i said when you reply to me and not some narrative you made up in your head and now try to force into my mouth. I'm all for discussion but your mental gymnastics are way too tiring, sorry.

 

[SotallyTober123]

I honestly don't believe anyone (including the pros) hates non meta play. Some of the most interesting games are by players like Vivi, lyx etc who are just so unpredictable with their style. I have never seen hate against them.

It's also ironic that Dragonstar is on the opposite side of the fence here as I remember after World Rumble, he was hailed as somebody who used non meta strats to disrupt meta players. I find it funny that he's being accused of "trying to claim superiority and diminishing an opponent simply because they decided to use a different playstyle".

 

[IYIyTh]

It would be easier to talk with you if you weren't so prone to overblow everything in, out and sideways almost every single time. I'd prefer if you responded to what i said when you reply to me and not some narrative you made up in your head and now try to force into my mouth. I'm all for discussion but your mental gymnastics are way too tiring, sorry.

Oh I did, you just decided to quote one sentence from the post that three other people happened to make similar points agreeing with afterwards because it was easier than admitting you might be mistaken on the universality of your beliefs.

 

[IYIyTh]

Some of the most interesting games are by players like Vivi, lyx etc who are just so unpredictable with their style. I have never seen hate against them.

Okay, you clearly have to be trolling now.

 

[Lokalo]

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.

Seems you still don't even understand what we are talking about. As we are discussing exact the opposite thing, meaning there obviously are people like you, who gives no fk about fairness and anything, cares only about winning. And there are many people like me, who NEVER EVER lames boar and I don't even look for any opportunities, because I don't feel good winning having advantage from early on, I want to win, cuz I outplayed him. Laming a boar is not outplaying which you can disagree with, that won't change my mind.

And about "ohh we are forcing people to play meta" and all that BS you just said, no one forcing anyone to play anything. But if every game I would play I would get douched, hoanged or berber vill rushed, I would stop playing aoe2 after a week tops.

Honestly is bit similar as Incas villagers, just hoang's push is way harder to pull off, as you still need to micro and do it properly and with inca vills you just had way better vills which was super dumb and yet, many still complain why devs removed that nonsense.

 

[NuclearPasta]

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

You're right actually, my mistake. Definition of cheese depends on the community I suppose, I've seen it used to only refer to bugs/exploits in other game communities.

 

[felix.feroc]

It would be easier to talk with you if you weren't so prone to overblow everything in, out and sideways almost every single time. I'd prefer if you responded to what i said when you reply to me and not some narrative you made up in your head and now try to force into my mouth. I'm all for discussion but your mental gymnastics are way too tiring, sorry.

Dude, the straw man argument is Myth's basic strategy. In fact, in some ways he is the Hoang of aoezone. His strategy is annoying and hard to counter, and learning to counter it doesn't help in civilized debate, but it is galling to just say gg and move on.

 

[IYIyTh]

You're right actually, my mistake. Definition of cheese depends on the community I suppose, I've seen it used to only refer to bugs/exploits in other game communities.

If it were both strong and easy everyone would do it.

 

[IYIyTh]

Seems you still don't even understand what we are talking about. As we are discussing exact the opposite thing, meaning there obviously are people like you, who gives no fk about fairness and anything, cares only about winning. And there are many people like me, who NEVER EVER lames boar and I don't even look for any opportunities, because I don't feel good winning having advantage from early on, I want to win, cuz I outplayed him. Laming a boar is not outplaying which you can disagree with, that won't change my mind.

And about "ohh we are forcing people to play meta" and all that BS you just said, no one forcing anyone to play anything. But if every game I would play I would get douched, hoanged or berber vill rushed, I would stop playing aoe2 after a week tops.

Honestly is bit similar as Incas villagers, just hoang's push is way harder to pull off, as you still need to micro and do it properly and with inca vills you just had way better vills which was super dumb and yet, many still complain why devs removed that nonsense.

No one is able to dictate what another individual finds fun, and no one owes their opponent to play in a manner that is enjoyable to them. Debasing your opponent based on an allowable playstyle (within the confines of the game,) is the epitome of poor sportsmanship, the direct ideal you wish to question.

No one owes you an explanation as to why laming, Trushing, M@a Archers, Scrushing, FC, Drush FC, monks, et al is or isn't outplaying you (though your belief you are entitled to all gaia animals at a time of your choosing is subject to debate.) It simply doesn't matter how you feel about whether you lost or won.

The devs sinking the Incan civilization (bottom tier play rate,) was a mistake, and that it emboldens an entitlement attitude when it comes to playing 1v1 ranked is lamentable.

Just move on to the next game. No need to complain that you would've won if not for your opponents superior strategy choice and decision making leading to your defeat. No need to passive-aggressively promote the idea that a choice you make to limit your gameplay options is a quality of superior play rather than a personal choice.

That balance changes are influenced by this mentality is maddening.

 

[Progeusz]

Dude, the straw man argument is Myth's basic strategy. In fact, in some ways he is the Hoang of aoezone. His strategy is annoying and hard to counter, and learning to counter it doesn't help in civilized debate, but it is galling to just say gg and move on.

That's a beautiful analogy.

 

[IYIyTh]

The irony in that post is the beautiful part.

 

[felix.feroc]

The irony in that post is the beautiful part.

I thought you'd be flattered.

 

[Lokalo]

No one owes you an explanation as to why laming, Trushing, M@a Archers, Scrushing, FC, Drush FC, monks, et al is or isn't outplaying you (though your belief you are entitled to all gaia animals at a time of your choosing is subject to debate.) It simply doesn't matter how you feel about whether you lost or won.T

Where did I say anyone owes me anything? Exactly it doesn't matter what you think or I do, however there are 2 sides and most people do not lame, so I don't get what you keep arguing about. Entitled to gaia? what are you even talking about lol.

No one is able to dictate what another individual finds fun, and no one owes their opponent to play in a manner that is enjoyable to them. Debasing your opponent based on an allowable playstyle (within the confines of the game,) is the epitome of poor sportsmanship, the direct ideal you wish to question.

Good sportmanship is when you don't need to do silly things. For example in basketball or football you can get away with some elbow hits or pushing opponent and often to not get punished or doing some dumb stuff "according" rules can be tolerated, but saying it's good sportmanship? Every team like such players to have, but everyone hates to play against them, so you can say they do good and tryhard and so on, but that's oposite of good sportmanship.

The devs sinking the Incan civilization (bottom tier play rate,) was a mistake, and that it emboldens an entitlement attitude when it comes to playing 1v1 ranked is lamentable.

Lamentable is that instead of giving something to to Incas to increase their pick rate you think they should have kept that nonsense tower rush.

Just move on to the next game. No need to complain that you would've won if not for your opponents superior strategy choice and decision making leading to your defeat. No need to passive-aggressively promote the idea that a choice you make to limit your gameplay options is a quality of superior play rather than a personal choice.

That balance changes are influenced by this mentality is maddening.

Of course it is a quality, firstly I don't relly on laming, so I do pretty even every game. Secondly, I find more people to play outside ranked, because of my playstyle, to talk to and stuff. I'm pretty sure if I would lame a lot many wouldn't want to play with me. And as you said, it doesn't matter if you think if it is how it is supposed to be or not, but that's how it is.

 

[HongeyKong]

Oh boi, here we go again......

 

[kalpit00]

How do I ignore someone so I do not get their posts/replies in my feed? Asking for a friend

 

[IYIyTh]

Claiming that an opponents strategy is "silly," that the game is "not something I learned anything from," because it bested you is just poor sportsmanship. Further, it implies that every player intends to learn when they play. I would presume people on the ladder who have fluctuated maybe 1-300 ELO in a few years are simply trying to win. The idea that every player on the ladder is some sort of student and being held back from 2k6 elo because they ran into a douche, lame, trush, pre-mill drush, FC, or whatever non-meta strategy that is maligned for the day is absurd.

If they can't learn from a strategy that bested them and understand how to prevent it -- perhaps they might spend less time complaining and more time learning. 9/10 times when things like the above are said it's because a player lost due to inferior play on a given day on a given map. Instead of resigning oneself to do and be better, a few folks cling to certain pro players who tilt at the slightest breeze -- and in turn have no problem denigrating fellow competitors for besting them. They believe that their opponent is less deserving of a victory purely because they had the audacity to think and play differently.

Good sportsmanship is doing everything you can do within the confines of the rules of the game to win.

Not employing your best possible strategy, calculating your best possible way to maximize your advantage -- is a disservice to oneself and your opponent.

There is no reason to label trushing inferior gameplay compared to a Scrush. There is no reason to consider how much you could have learned performing boring archer-skirm micro if your opponent was a good sport and matched your anemic, boring play,~the pinnacle of strategy~. There is no reason to lament walls on arena, even as one walls themself completely on arabia before clicking up.

Any attempt to suggest the behavior on display was justified is hogwash and a symptom of a greater disease within the community as it pertains to alternative playstyle acceptance.

Folks like Hoang, Lyx, Vivi TheMax, Rubenstock, Tatitoh, Jupe et al should be praised for daring to venture out of the same, boring, stale meta. Curiously enough, no one writes that they "didn't learn anything," from the same boring ass Scrush , pre mill drush or M@A archer build.

In fact -- players like Nicov and shades in this thread suggest dodging opponents simply because of their playstyles using the aoe2dashboard, which is an overt form of ladder rating manipulation. This is an actual form of poor sportsmanship. Yet people cheer it on -- and eat it up.

I enjoy every tear that is shed because of their playstyles.

 

[Nicov]

Claiming that an opponents strategy is "silly," that the game is "not something I learned anything from," because it bested you is just poor sportsmanship. Further, it implies that every player intends to learn when they play. I would presume people on the ladder who have fluctuated maybe 1-300 ELO in a few years are simply trying to win. The idea that every player on the ladder is some sort of student and being held back from 2k6 elo because they ran into a douche, lame, trush, pre-mill drush, FC, or whatever non-meta strategy that is maligned for the day is absurd.

If they can't learn from a strategy that bested them and understand how to prevent it -- perhaps they might spend less time complaining and more time learning. 9/10 times when things like the above are said it's because a player lost due to inferior play on a given day on a given map. Instead of resigning oneself to do and be better, a few folks cling to certain pro players who tilt at the slightest breeze -- and in turn have no problem denigrating fellow competitors for besting them. They believe that their opponent is less deserving of a victory purely because they had the audacity to think and play differently.

Good sportsmanship is doing everything you can do within the confines of the rules of the game to win.

Not employing your best possible strategy, calculating your best possible way to maximize your advantage -- is a disservice to oneself and your opponent.

There is no reason to label trushing inferior gameplay compared to a Scrush. There is no reason to consider how much you could have learned performing boring archer-skirm micro if your opponent was a good sport and matched your anemic, boring play,~the pinnacle of strategy~. There is no reason to lament walls on arena, even as one walls themself completely on arabia before clicking up.

Any attempt to suggest the behavior on display was justified is hogwash and a symptom of a greater disease within the community as it pertains to alternative playstyle acceptance.

Folks like Hoang, Lyx, Vivi TheMax, Rubenstock, Tatitoh, Jupe et al should be praised for daring to venture out of the same, boring, stale meta. Curiously enough, no one writes that they "didn't learn anything," from the same boring ass Scrush , pre mill drush or M@A archer build.

In fact -- players like Nicov and shades in this thread suggest dodging opponents simply because of their playstyles using the aoe2dashboard, which is an overt form of ladder rating manipulation. This is an actual form of poor sportsmanship. Yet people cheer it on -- and eat it up.

I enjoy every tear that is shed because of their playstyles.

I haven't gone through one of your mega-repetitive, full of strawman walls of text in a long time. I used to skip those until they became so spammy that I had to hit the ignore button. But since you tagged me so furiously I'll make an exception this time.

I have and I have always had tons of fun playing 1v1 vs Rubenstock/lyx/biry/tatoh/the max, etc. Crazy anti meta players who like to think out of the box and push opponents off the comfort zone turning games into chaos. Hoang, instead, is all about exploiting a weakness in aoe in terms of balance: market abuse being far more efficient short term than actually making farms. Then idling the entire vil production to win or die in the next few mins by spamming some lame army comp. Day and night. Everyday. No thanks.

You clearly have never experienced such routine when you want to play actual age of empires for many games in a row and multiple times because at your level you have far more opponents available at anytime. But judging by your million, neverending posts, you would probably keep arguing the same even if you did play hoang 50 times. Just because you love going against the flow.

So, no, I have no interest in playing vs hoang because it doesn't help me improve at all regardless of the victory or defeat that comes with it. Let alone if im playing on stream.

Hopefully one day devs will nerf the feudal age exchange ratio from the market. Just like they eventually removed the dull Inca vil rush after many years. Then I might have fun playing vs hoang!

 

[kalpit00]

This is why we have the ignore feature Mr Nicov xD

Also completely agree 100%

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

 

[deadmeatnoob]

Hopefully one day devs will nerf the feudal age exchange ratio from the market. Just like they eventually removed the dull Inca vil rush after many years. Then I might have fun playing vs hoang

Hoang has changed. If his push fails he understand that the endless market abuse isnt great and starts adding farms etc etc. There is no way he can hit 2300 with just 1 civ+strat. So he uses different civs too.
I would say you should give it a try next time you see him in queue and beat him.

And I agree, Its very irritating playing the same player with the same strat again and again regardless of outcome. As there are very few pro players, choosing not to play feels like the last option. Instead beating him and teaching everyone how to beat him might be the best way to dodge.

But I completely respect your choice to queue dodge too.
What is not respectable is calling players dogs or unpausing without giving time.

 

[deadmeatnoob]

Hoang has changed. If his push fails he understand that the endless market abuse isnt great and starts adding farms etc etc. There is no way he can hit 2300 with just 1 civ+strat. So he uses different civs too.
I would say you should give it a try next time you see him in queue and beat him.

And I agree, Its very irritating playing the same player with the same strat again and again regardless of outcome. As there are very few pro players, choosing not to play feels like the last option. Instead beating him and teaching everyone how to beat him might be the best way to dodge.

But I completely respect your choice to queue dodge too.
What is not respectable is calling players dogs or unpausing without giving time.

YEAH that was post #1'69' !!!
look how far this stupid drama has come.

 

[amazing_knight]

In fact -- players like Nicov and shades in this thread suggest dodging opponents simply because of their playstyles using the aoe2dashboard, which is an overt form of ladder rating manipulation. This is an actual form of poor sportsmanship.

Completely disagree. And utterly illogical take in my opinion.

If I find a player particularly annoying to play against, I should have the choice to ban/ignore/avoid matching against them, if possible. And this applies at all levels.

Players play the game for their fun/learning/improvement. They don't play to give you a sense of ladder being accurate or to satisfy your definition of sportsmanship.

 

[King_Boo]

Hoang has changed. If his push fails he understand that the endless market abuse isnt great and starts adding farms etc etc. There is no way he can hit 2300 with just 1 civ+strat. So he uses different civs too.
I would say you should give it a try next time you see him in queue and beat him.

And I agree, Its very irritating playing the same player with the same strat again and again regardless of outcome. As there are very few pro players, choosing not to play feels like the last option. Instead beating him and teaching everyone how to beat him might be the best way to dodge.

But I completely respect your choice to queue dodge too.
What is not respectable is calling players dogs or unpausing without giving time.

Dodgers are the worst (unless dodging cheaters like Ertug, keno or badboy, then it’s fine because they shouldn’t be playing in the first place)

 

[Xellos]

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.


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.

Seems like you're the one whose feelings got hurt a lot.

 

[IYIyTh]

Here come the hoards of people to defend que dodging because Nicov said it's fine. It's blatant rating manipulation. Hoang uses more than one civ and is quite capable of beating plenty of players with other than what he is primarily best at. He simply is not gifted with 2k6 meta abilities, but he is very good at playing within the confines of the game and making his opponents uncomfortable using his civilizations strengths. He plays well with many other civs than Celts, and the idea that he ONLY plays Celts is inaccurate. Besides, Nicov himself favors Mongols I believe on his main account. Tangentially related, Dragonstar also primarily picks his own certain civ (Huns.) This is not uncommon for high ELO players -- but frankly these two players pick civ to an extent it's fair to challenge they play those civs "to learn," and not "to win."

Apparently some would rather "learn and get better," by playing the same stale archer skirm drush meta -- or picking their own favorite civ to play with. This is just a poor excuse of saying they don't want to play a given player because it's not easy and/or uncomfortable.

The claim that some play the ladder for an accurate rating (when they have multiple smurfs, or warm up aka's) and then abuse a tool to specifically not play someone they are uncomfortable against -- their rating is no longer accurate and I presume would be violating plenty of tournaments rating manipulation rules.

If some prefer not to play Hoang, perhaps some might not prefer to play Viper or Hera for fear their ELO might suffer. Some might prefer to dodge a certain map. You can not justify one instance over another.

 

[IYIyTh]

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

This is an interesting point to make, because it's subjective.

What definitively makes a strategy low-skill? Who gets to decide? Is it some sort of council of whatever 800 ELO pleb is in charge of balance changes for DE, who frequently bases their opinions on the highest of ELO, or famous streaming twitch players? Certainly, plenty of folks claim Hoang's most famous civ (Celts) playstyle is "low-skill," but all in all it's just a different prioritization of vil gathering and hotkeys. Further, very few can replicate the success he does. I would say Hera has probably top 200 monk micro. Not bad, but no where near his meta, preferred playstyle. What makes spamming scouts in Feudal, or queuing hussar in late game "high skill?"

Another example would be Vinchester's Trush on Arena. It requires a significant amount of timing and macro adjustment to remain viable, but is exceedingly difficult to defend appropriately -- to the extent that the Arena clowns have started making their stone walls have MORE HP during tournaments due to copycat (though I dare say far less effective than Vinchester himself playing it,) prevalence.

Vil fighting is another example some have claimed is "low-skill," but vil fighting micro is quite intensive and can be quite costly as it pertains to an idle eco and the potential for lost villagers.

Why is it not fair to question how low-skill dancing around someone's woodline or berries with militia is, but suddenly someone perfects a build order to maximize the market and one's macro capabilities to perform an even more all-in attempt that quickly dies to almost any counter -- and it's verboten? What makes dancing around with archers to avoid shots "high-skill," and not just a "cheese strategy?"

In this aoe2 subcommunity, one can almost substitute "low-skill," as merely a different way of what they truly intend to say - "a strategy I prefer not to be employed against me."

It's all a silly game a few people play to justify their own preferred playstyles and to nerf alternatives, and is a toxic mindset that should be nuked from orbit.