WCS has, for the most part, given us champions we are proud to call the best in the world.
sOs is the only person to claim the game’s highest honor twice. He will always be remembered for his strategic brilliance and clutch performances. Despite occasional struggles with inconsistency, he’s held a spot at the top of the scene ever since making the switch to StarCraft II. People have been doubting sOs’ skill and criticizing his play ever since he won his second BlizzCon way back in HotS. However, all he’s done since then is quietly reach a pair of GSL finals. Some might contend that LotV derailed sOs’ career, but in reality, he’s going as strong as ever.
Life may be StarCraft II’s truest villain, but he may have had the most pure talent of anyone to ever play the game. His starsense—the ability to exploit his opponent’s vulnerabilities by finding the tiniest crack in their defenses, as well as forcing the game to be played at his pace—will forever go unrivaled. Along with Mvp’s unfailing resilience, Maru’s micro, and soO’s mechanics, it will go down as one of the most legendary traits in StarCraft II history. His ability to unlock his talents at will made him one of the most dangerous competitors ever to play the game. Had he not ended his career by matchfixing, it’s likely he’d be the one surrounded by the “greatest of all time” discussion instead of INnoVation.
Then there’s PartinG, who never fully delivered on his potential, but was undoubtedly an otherworldly talent. Crowned as the first WCS champion in 2012, he managed to make a GSL final in 2015 and could have won it not for a lucky roll of the dice by his opponent on the final map. The fact that people still theorize about what PartinG might have achieved if he had applied his gifts differently speaks to how tremendous a player he was. He accomplished so much and yet we expected more. PartinG failed to become the legend he seemed destined to be when he won BWC 2012, but his personality and spirit made him unforgettable in his own way.
ByuN returned from self imposed exile to deny Dark what should have been the crown jewel of his 2016 campaign. ByuN inscribed his name on the Gosu trophy, riding a wave of public adulation unlike any previous champion. He was the everyman—tweeting pictures of his puppy and memeing on Korean forums—who microed reapers all the way to the greatest glory in StarCraft II. He became the first Terran to emerge victorious at BlizzCon, a feat INnoVation, TaeJa and other luminaries had failed to achieve.
• • •
Our newest champion Rogue has earned his place alongside sOs, Life, Parting and ByuN. But, while we have a clear picture of where those players lie in the hierarchy of champions, we’re only just getting a sense of what Rogue’s place might be.
Could Rogue become an all-time-great like sOs or Life? It seems unlikely. He may have won three tournaments in the latter half of 2017, but no one has been able to maintain that level of excellence for very long. It would truly be a one of a kind achievement if he could continue his winning ways in a Korean scene that, while considerably lacking in depth, is still brutally competitive at the top. Reason says he can’t battle through INnoVation, soO, herO and Dark every tournament until the end of time with any regularity, but then again, he’s gotten to this point by proving us wrong at every turn.
What about PartinG, an immensely skilled player who didn’t fully live up to expectations? Rogue won’t become PartinG’s understudy simply because his career arc is completely different. PartinG was a world champion early in his career, and the narrative basically wrote itself when he failed to reach that level of play again. Rogue didn’t win anything until the summer of 2017 despite making the swap to StarCraft II in 2013 with the other KeSPA players. We never saw him as having enough potential to even squander.
That leaves us with ByuN. The man who rode 3 rax reaper, the 2/1/1 and tankivacs (but mostly 3 rax reaper) all the way to Anaheim before flying home $200,000 richer. It wouldn’t be unfair to say he hasn’t done anything since then. ByuN’s difficulties with multitasking were hidden by the fact that he was constantly the aggressor. As time went on and his signature builds became more and more common, Zergs started to figure them out. The 2/1/1 went from unstoppable to solved in a scant few months. The 3 rax reaper went the way of the dodo. ByuN was suddenly looking at a very different reality from the one in which the same builds he used to bully lower tier players in online cups also worked against Code S champions. Heading in 2018, ByuN can no longer be regarded in the same vein as INnoVation or TY, players he surpassed two years ago. He has fallen back into the rest of the pack. After evading KeSPA for years, ByuN was forced to start over. He began as a mere challenger, became a champion, but seems poised to end up where he started all over again.
• • •
Looking back on Rogue’s 2017 in hindsight, the narrative seems so obvious. Rogue improved his skills and shot up the ladder, while still struggling to turn that into tournament success. His macro was better than ever. His decision-making experienced a similar uptick. Still excellent in the late game, he had improved nearly every aspect of his game. It was only a matter of time until he converted his abilities into real results. Rogue's surge to BlizzCon was like a roaring river released from behind a broken damn. He became a living legend of sorts—a man who had been reincarnated to show us the way. He became the best player in the world. Of course that’s how it happened.
Why did Rogue fall short in the past? It’s a well-known fact that he struggled to match more mechanically gifted players in macro games, particularly in the ling/bane/muta tug of wars against bio. Rogue was less than stellar when playing straight-up games against Protoss as well. He relied too heavily on gimmicks like double proxy hatch he pulled out against Classic. There were games where he caught a player of herO’s caliber unaware with swarm hosts or banelings, but it was more familiar to see him get run over after a cheese fell flat, as in his series-losing game against sOs at BlizzCon. One can’t overlook that Rogue was the opposite of clutch during what was once considered his peak. He pulled ahead 2-1 vs herO in GSL Season 1 only to lose and was swept by Curious in Season 2. Rogue was not just deficient from an in-game perspective, he didn’t have the mentality of a champion.
What was different for Rogue in 2017? A new expansion and design patch that fit his skills better? Sure. No other KeSPA teams to compete with Jin Air? That probably helped. Hydralisks? Yeah, that.
Rogue’s rise to power coincided with the balance patch in March of 2017 which increased hydralisk health from 80 to 90 HP. Hydralisk based compositions became an epidemic in ZvP and ZvT. Suddenly Zergs had an answer for bio and mech, as well as ground and air-based Protoss compositions. The 3.11.0 patch made the hydralisk undeniably powerful, and patched over the most glaring holes in Rogue’s game.
It’s hard to pin down where Rogue’s previous difficulties with macro stemmed from, but it’s clear they were exacerbated by the old larva inject mechanic. Back in HotS, when an inject produced four larva, an elite macro Zerg like soO could produce far more units than his contemporaries due to his superior ability to hit injects in a timely fashion. soO played with the benefit of a larger-than-usual army at every point in time, whereas Rogue struggled to keep up with his opponent’s production in prolonged engagements. LotV reduced the yield on each inject to three, thereby diminishing their importance. The altered dynamics of ZvT gave macro-challenged Zergs some additional help, allowing them to transition to ultralisk-based late game armies which demanded less larva than hordes of zerglings, banelings and mutalisks.
You still had to get to the late game, though, which was something Rogue had had never shown any aptitude for in 2016. The new and improved hydralisk was the missing link that aided the transition to hive tech while solving all of Rogue’s problems. Instead of investing into ling/bane, which only amounted to a delaying tactic, hydralisks provided a backbone to Zerg’s armies that gave them better economic footing heading into the late game. Rogue’s greatest strength had always been creating unit compositions perfectly tailored to any situation, as opposed to reaching a critical mass of units to overwhelm a thinly spread opponent. To such a player, the hydralisk buff opened the floodgates.
Rogue didn’t need to resort to gimmicks against Protoss anymore. He always had a very good sense for identifying routes to victory, like the underhanded basetrade that snatched victory from the jaws of defeat against Shine in Proleague. Back in HotS he didn’t have the macro-muscle to control the pace of a standard game. He often relied on prepared cheeses and unusual strategies to disrupt opponents who might have otherwise overpowered him. Hydralisks gave him the ability to go toe to toe with the blink stalkers and bio/mine he had once struggled to keep up with. Even his creative builds—such as the lurker nydus contain he employed in GSL and at BlizzCon—were enhanced. Cheese was no longer a predictable crutch; instead, it became a dangerous curveball from a player with a solid foundation.
Rogue even got some help from Protoss players. Skytoss made ZvP hell for almost every other Zerg, but for Rogue, it created the late-game scenarios he had excelled in since 2015. Back then, despite his difficulties elsewhere, Rogue was one of the best vs mech Zergs in the world. Zergs of that era were forced to accrue large banks in preparation for the inevitable tech switch while defending harassments. In 2017, zealots replaced hellions while carriers stood in for battlecruisers, but the dynamics were the same. And this time around, Rogue had a better weapon in the mid-game than the roaches he was forced to resort to in 2015. He could win late with superior army control or simply deal critical damage before the situation got out of control with hydralisks.
Balance may have played a part in Rogue's triumphs, but the fact remained that he succeeded where other Zergs could not. Rogue must be given credit for the improvements he made outside the game. Once a choke artist, the 2017 incarnation of Rogue basically had bulls*** wins flying out of his butt. We can only guess as to what brought about this change in mentality, but it’s more impressive than the improvements Rogue made to his gameplay. Anyone can luck out and have a patch work out perfectly in their favor, but few players have ever strengthened their raw, mental toughness.
It falls to us, the fans of StarCraft, to decide how we should interpret these mitigating circumstances. In winning BlizzCon, Rogue presented a powerful case that he is a worthy, historic World Champion. Besides a single slip up against Neeb, he looked every bit the best player at the tournament. His performance was nearly flawless. There was no doubt that he deserved to lift that trophy at that particular moment.
Winning BlizzCon is the highest of highs and it’s reasonable to expect a dip in performance after such an enormous triumph. Rogue’s level of play has fallen off considerably since beating soO in Anaheim, something that did not happen after he won IEM Shanghai and the second Super Tournament. Terran remains much the same after the major balance patch, giving Rogue little to worry about on that front. Protoss, meanwhile, received a major overhaul and Rogue’s win percentage in that matchup has dipped.
For Rogue to be considered on the level of PartinG, sOs and Life he will have to demonstrate excellence over a prolonged period of time. To do so, Rogue must prove that he possesses the same flexibility, resilience and ingenuity of his predecessors. It's the only way to adapt to changing metas, maps, and head balance designers.
Rogue has yet show us where he belongs. He has only won in an era in which Zerg’s dominant playstyle benefited him enormously. It’s telling that for all of Rogue’s improvement in 2017, he wavered slightly when it came to ZvZ. Back in 2016, during the final season of Proleague, Rogue was a perfect 7-0 in Zerg mirrors. He regressed in 2017, going 8-4 in offline matches over the course of the year. Rogue even found a way to lose to soO in the GSL quarterfinals, his first true test of the year, despite having dominated him for most of his career.
Rogue’s 2017 summer mirrored that of Dear, almost a half decade prior. Dear, too, was the undisputed best player in the world for a moment in time. The manner in which he breezed through a pair of prestigious tournaments left us believing he was head and shoulders above the competition. Years later we look at Dear as a tragic, cautionary tale about the capricious nature of success. He was never able to recreate the magic of 2013 long enough to take down another tournament. Imagine if Dear had gone on to win BlizzCon in 2013. What would we think of his career now? One glorious run, powered by the right patch, right meta-game, right maps and a momentary brilliance. Rogue is in danger of suffering that fate.
It’s almost certain that Rogue won’t match sOs, a player who had over five plus years to build his legendary career. There’s no way Rogue will have that much time to craft his own legacy, unless fortune goes out of its way to favor both him and StarCraft II. Faced with grim reality, it seems far more likely that he will go follow ByuN’s path as opposed to ascending to a spot in the StarCraft II pantheon.
And if he’s Byun, then that’s fine. Byun inspired countless fans around the world, earned their love, and took them on an incredible journey to the top of the world. That’s more than anyone could reasonably ask for from a StarCraft II progamer. But make no mistake: Byun is no sOs. He was a shooting star streaking across the night sky—astonishing and brilliant, but no less ephemeral. We thought we knew who he was, but we only found out months later when his favored weapons were neutered. That may be Rogue’s fate as well. As long as the hydralisk reigns, we will never know who Rogue really is. We’ll never quite know what we’re supposed to call him.
The second ever Zerg World Champion?
The best player in the world?
A shrewd opportunist?
There is one option that fits better than the rest.
Rogue's skill improved dramatically last year. That's something he can still rely on. But even as someone who's been his fan since the start of HoTS, there's no denying he had a lot of luck last year. Zerg was heavily favoured (he said this himself) during that period. And each event he won seemed to be down to Inno or TY (or both) choking harder than anyone else.
edit: it's funny to see Rogue becoming more of a villain character after beating soO. If Dark had won blizzcon against ByuN he'd probably be in a similar position
Rogue is the zerg of zergs. Somehow he makes those "gimmicky" strategies work against the best players in the world (when you compare him to sOs the king of gimmicks?).
Rogue is reactionary and willing to go against the meta. His style is unparalleled and finally came to light. Add on his mastery of late game compositions and control and he's the best zerg in town.
Calling him a patchzerg is such a discredit to how impressive his run was. Rogue is a player who has shown lots of potential since 2015 at least, and all it took was a tweek in the matchup to let him finally find his groove. Patchzerg to me has always been a player who's success is primarily derived from the imbalance of the game, like BL/Infestor back in the day, and Rogue isn't that to me.
Why can't we report this as "player bashing", i've never seen something more insulting toward a player, even on battle.net where there is no moderation, people blame balance, rage but at least respect progamers.
For 1 year, only 2 zerg performed on korea : soO and Rogue, and Rogue is the best, while in the meantime Byun, Innovation, TY, Gumiho, herO, Stats, Zest performed on the kor scene.
But last post of the OP was "Maru and Innovation, the last savior of the weak terran race", and now : "Rogue the bigpatchzerg".
I've been rooting for Rogue since I first saw him play in ProLeague because he really does have some great ideas when it comes to strategy and tactics, and he always had a unique style. I don't think it's really fair to call him a patchzerg even after admitting that his mindset change has helped him more than any balance adjustment ever did.
To anyone saying that Rogue is the best Zerg atm, I'm willing to bet you money that Dark will make it further in GSL this season. PM me for the stakes.
Wow. What an absolutely awful misuse your recognition on this site for the purpose of player-bashing someone who showed incredible form. Calling someone "Patch-Race" is the strongest way to disregard and downplay someone's achievements in this game, and should only be done under circumstances it is very clear that their race's strength was the crutch that allowed them their victories. That is certainly not the case for Rogue, a player who has always had unique insight into the game and showed amazing play throughout his end-of-2017 run.
Rogue showcased impressive play against everything the best opponents of all 3 races could throw at him, and three tournaments in a row he overcame that.
Seriously, using such an article to crap all over a player who has worked for years to this success (the only KR Zerg to win any premier tournament in 2017), and showcased amazing play to do so, is low.
On January 12 2018 04:04 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: Calling him a patchzerg is such a discredit to how impressive his run was.
That entirely depends on his results going onward. If he follows in the steps of ByuN after his blizzcon win, then patchzerg is definitely appropriate. If he follows in the steps of Life after his blizzcon, then I don't think anyone can claim that
On January 12 2018 04:49 The_Red_Viper wrote: People really should read more than just the last line, are you guys serious now?
And you should learn to read between lines.
On January 12 2018 04:10 Tyrhanius wrote: Seriously ?
Why can't we report this as "player bashing", i've never seen something more insulting toward a player, even on battle.net where there is no moderation, people blame balance, rage but at least respect progamers.
For 1 year, only 2 zerg performed on korea : soO and Rogue, and Rogue is the best, while in the meantime Byun, Innovation, TY, Gumiho, herO, Stats, Zest performed on the kor scene.
But last post of the OP was "Maru and Innovation, the last savior of the weak terran race", and now : "Rogue the bigpatchzerg".
It's pure whine, rather post this on battle net.
Worst, it's close to public defamation.
So you "read between the lines" and came up with this interpretation? Not bad! I don't wanna make this a poster A bashes poster B thread though so i won't bother after this post but yours is the most stupid thing i have seen in a while, gz
I like this article as it made me think differently about the topic. I hadn't really questioned the reasons behind Rogue's sudden rise, other than his obvious increase in skill.
I wanted to address some of the comments which assume I wrote this article with the intent of slandering Rogue. As a fan of Rogue's, I hope he goes on to have a fruitful career and proves that he is a player worthy of his 2017 results. But there's no guarantees that he will or that any player, for that matter, will see long term success because of a brief period of prosperity.
I think this was an interesting point to raise and, despite it being an unpopular opinion, I think these sort of things are worth talking about, particularly because it's the community, not the players that assign the players their place in history and labels them with terms like "goat" or "patchzerg".
meh, If Zerg was strong in Korea in 2017 we would have seen more zergs during that time besides rogue achieving championships or at least reaching the final rounds of the tournament but in reality we only saw one zerg champ in korea in 2017: Rogue and the typical soO second place of the year.
On January 12 2018 05:34 Mizenhauer wrote: I wanted to address some of the comments which assume I wrote this article with the intent of slandering Rogue. As a fan of Rogue's, I hope he goes on to have a fruitful career and proves that he is a player worthy of his 2017 results. But there's no guarantees that he will or that any player, for that matter, will see long term success because of a brief period of prosperity.
I think this was an interesting point to raise and, despite it being an unpopular opinion, I think these sort of things are worth talking about, particularly because it's the community, not the players that assign the players their place in history and labels them with terms like "goat" or "patchzerg".
While I don't exactly agree that Rogue is a patchzerg, I definitely appreciate the quality of this article and the thought-provoking conclusion. Of course there are fools getting triggered because they can only remember the last word. Context matters, something which many readers seem to have forgotten in favor of mindless hate.
It's a well-written article, and I daresay that if you changed the last word to "Rich," this exact same article would be unanimously praised for its depth, insight, and wit.
On January 12 2018 05:34 Mizenhauer wrote: I wanted to address some of the comments which assume I wrote this article with the intent of slandering Rogue. As a fan of Rogue's, I hope he goes on to have a fruitful career and proves that he is a player worthy of his 2017 results. But there's no guarantees that he will or that any player, for that matter, will see long term success because of a brief period of prosperity.
I think this was an interesting point to raise and, despite it being an unpopular opinion, I think these sort of things are worth talking about, particularly because it's the community, not the players that assign the players their place in history and labels them with terms like "goat" or "patchzerg".
While I don't exactly agree that Rogue is a patchzerg, I definitely appreciate the quality of this article and the thought-provoking conclusion. Of course there are fools getting triggered because they can only remember the last word. Context matters, something which many readers seem to have forgotten in favor of mindless hate.
It's a well-written article, and I daresay that if you changed the last word to "Rich," this exact same article would be unanimously praised for its depth, insight, and wit.
With the word 'rich' it wouldn't generate as much discussion though.
On January 12 2018 05:34 Mizenhauer wrote: I wanted to address some of the comments which assume I wrote this article with the intent of slandering Rogue. As a fan of Rogue's, I hope he goes on to have a fruitful career and proves that he is a player worthy of his 2017 results. But there's no guarantees that he will or that any player, for that matter, will see long term success because of a brief period of prosperity.
I think this was an interesting point to raise and, despite it being an unpopular opinion, I think these sort of things are worth talking about, particularly because it's the community, not the players that assign the players their place in history and labels them with terms like "goat" or "patchzerg".
While I don't exactly agree that Rogue is a patchzerg, I definitely appreciate the quality of this article and the thought-provoking conclusion. Of course there are fools getting triggered because they can only remember the last word. Context matters, something which many readers seem to have forgotten in favor of mindless hate.
It's a well-written article, and I daresay that if you changed the last word to "Rich," this exact same article would be unanimously praised for its depth, insight, and wit.
With the word 'rich' it wouldn't generate as much discussion though.
True enough, controversy generates discussion.
I can't deny I'm enjoying all the kneejerk rage about literally one single word out of the entire article, but idiocy gets tiresome rather quickly.
Props to Mizenhauer though, he doesn't shy away from controversy.
On January 12 2018 05:35 Argonauta wrote: meh, If Zerg was strong in Korea in 2017 we would have seen more zergs during that time besides rogue achieving championships or at least reaching the final rounds of the tournament but in reality we only saw one zerg champ in korea in 2017: Rogue and the typical soO second place of the year.
Of the last 5 major korean tournaments (Shangai, ST2, GSL S3, SSL S2, blizzcon), zerg won three, had two second places, and a very close ro4 finsh.
It's safe to say zerg was very strong in korea last year.
On January 12 2018 05:35 Argonauta wrote: meh, If Zerg was strong in Korea in 2017 we would have seen more zergs during that time besides rogue achieving championships or at least reaching the final rounds of the tournament but in reality we only saw one zerg champ in korea in 2017: Rogue and the typical soO second place of the year.
Of the last 5 major korean tournaments (Shangai, ST2, GSL S3, SSL S2, blizzcon), zerg won three, had two second places, and a very close ro4 finsh.
It's safe to say zerg was very strong in korea last year.
Rogue won all three of those tournaments. The last time a Zerg that wasn't Rogue won a tournament in Korea was in September 2016.
On January 12 2018 05:35 Argonauta wrote: meh, If Zerg was strong in Korea in 2017 we would have seen more zergs during that time besides rogue achieving championships or at least reaching the final rounds of the tournament but in reality we only saw one zerg champ in korea in 2017: Rogue and the typical soO second place of the year.
Of the last 5 major korean tournaments (Shangai, ST2, GSL S3, SSL S2, blizzcon), zerg won three, had two second places, and a very close ro4 finsh.
It's safe to say zerg was very strong in korea last year.
Rogue won all three of those tournaments. The last time a Zerg that wasn't Rogue won a tournament in Korea was in September 2016.
I didn't say Rogue wasn't the best zerg. Just that zerg overall was very strong. Before blizzcon Rogue himself said ZvT was easy and that he didn't need to practice for it
On January 12 2018 05:35 Argonauta wrote: meh, If Zerg was strong in Korea in 2017 we would have seen more zergs during that time besides rogue achieving championships or at least reaching the final rounds of the tournament but in reality we only saw one zerg champ in korea in 2017: Rogue and the typical soO second place of the year.
Of the last 5 major korean tournaments (Shangai, ST2, GSL S3, SSL S2, blizzcon), zerg won three, had two second places, and a very close ro4 finsh.
It's safe to say zerg was very strong in korea last year.
Rogue won all three of those tournaments. The last time a Zerg that wasn't Rogue won a tournament in Korea was in September 2016.
I didn't say Rogue wasn't the best zerg. Just that zerg overall was very strong. Before blizzcon Rogue himself said ZvT was easy and that he didn't need to practice for it
He would've lost in the semis (the only ZvT he played) if TY didn't fuck up really badly though.
On January 12 2018 04:49 The_Red_Viper wrote: People really should read more than just the last line, are you guys serious now?
The last part of an article is a conclusion. The implication is so obvious that it can't not be intentional. That said, this is the author who openly complained and bashed the TL userbase because they didn't like his last article. He's not exactly the picture of a professional, we shouldn't be surprised.
On January 12 2018 04:10 Tyrhanius wrote: Seriously ?
Why can't we report this as "player bashing", i've never seen something more insulting toward a player, even on battle.net where there is no moderation, people blame balance, rage but at least respect progamers.
For 1 year, only 2 zerg performed on korea : soO and Rogue, and Rogue is the best, while in the meantime Byun, Innovation, TY, Gumiho, herO, Stats, Zest performed on the kor scene.
But last post of the OP was "Maru and Innovation, the last savior of the weak terran race", and now : "Rogue the bigpatchzerg".
It's pure whine, rather post this on battle net.
Worst, it's close to public defamation.
So you "read between the lines" and came up with this interpretation? Not bad! I don't wanna make this a poster A bashes poster B thread though so i won't bother after this post but yours is the most stupid thing i have seen in a while, gz
It's all about his personnal view presented as facts, hidden behind some ambiguous text, and at the end he confess what he really wants to tell. He twitts that as "Having unpopular opinions is fun".
Of course, as you apparently share this view, it's ok...And yeah, if I disagree, my post is the most thing stupid thing...
Your post is exactly like OP post :
Say you don't want to bash me, like he said it's discussion/analysis of the game post, while you insult me at the end, like he finally said Rogue is a patchzerg.
All it matters is what you do at the end, i'm not tricked because you pretend you don't act like you actually do.
On January 12 2018 05:35 Argonauta wrote: meh, If Zerg was strong in Korea in 2017 we would have seen more zergs during that time besides rogue achieving championships or at least reaching the final rounds of the tournament but in reality we only saw one zerg champ in korea in 2017: Rogue and the typical soO second place of the year.
Of the last 5 major korean tournaments (Shangai, ST2, GSL S3, SSL S2, blizzcon), zerg won three, had two second places, and a very close ro4 finsh.
It's safe to say zerg was very strong in korea last year.
Rogue won all three of those tournaments. The last time a Zerg that wasn't Rogue won a tournament in Korea was in September 2016.
I didn't say Rogue wasn't the best zerg. Just that zerg overall was very strong. Before blizzcon Rogue himself said ZvT was easy and that he didn't need to practice for it
He would've lost in the semis (the only ZvT he played) if TY didn't fuck up really badly though.
He would have lost in the semis of ST2 if Inno didn't as well
On January 12 2018 04:49 The_Red_Viper wrote: People really should read more than just the last line, are you guys serious now?
And you should learn to read between lines.
On January 12 2018 04:10 Tyrhanius wrote: Seriously ?
Why can't we report this as "player bashing", i've never seen something more insulting toward a player, even on battle.net where there is no moderation, people blame balance, rage but at least respect progamers.
For 1 year, only 2 zerg performed on korea : soO and Rogue, and Rogue is the best, while in the meantime Byun, Innovation, TY, Gumiho, herO, Stats, Zest performed on the kor scene.
But last post of the OP was "Maru and Innovation, the last savior of the weak terran race", and now : "Rogue the bigpatchzerg".
It's pure whine, rather post this on battle net.
Worst, it's close to public defamation.
So you "read between the lines" and came up with this interpretation? Not bad! I don't wanna make this a poster A bashes poster B thread though so i won't bother after this post but yours is the most stupid thing i have seen in a while, gz
It's all about his personnal view presented as facts, hidden behind some ambiguous text, and at the end he confess what he really wants to tell. He twitts that as "Having unpopular opinions is fun".
Of course, as you apparently share this view, it's ok...And yeah, if I disagree, my post is the most thing stupid thing...
Your post is exactly like OP post :
Say you don't want to bash me, like he said it's discussion/analysis of the game post, while you insult me at the end, like he finally said Rogue is a patchzerg.
All it matters is what you do at the end, i'm not tricked because you pretend you don't act like you actually do.
What?
......
.......What?
First of all, even though I believe Rogue is NOT a patchzerg, I'm capable of recognizing this article's strengths instead of raging. Imagine that, appreciating something that you disagree with. Mindblowing.
Second of all, The_Red_Viper is very clearly in the right here. By extension, so is Mizenhauer.
And most importantly, that last line you wrote: "i'm not tricked because you pretend you don't act like you actually do"
What are you even saying!?
But that's still leagues more intelligent than what you said right before that: "All it matters is what you do at the end."
Hmm, let's test that.
Rogue is a patchzerg. Rogue is a patchzerg. Rogue is a patchzerg. Rogue is a patchzerg. Rogue is a patchzerg. Rogue is a patchzerg.
Rogue is the most skilled player to ever touch SC2, a bonjwa by any definition of the word, and the greatest of all time.
Whether or not Rogue is a patchzerg, I think the comparison to ByuN is unfair. 3 rax reaper is an early game cheese and the mere possibility of it put ByuN ahead from the start of games, even if he didn't use it. Part of that is that it was so hard to scout proxies because maps often had dozens of locations and there was no reasonable way to scout them all. Hydras are a mid-game unit and transitions to them are reasonably scoutable. Yes, their strength impacted the meta and possibly crossed off potential compositions and timings which benefited Rogue even in games that ended before them, but that's not nearly the same.
Rogue doesn't need to prove shit, he did that by repeating a win and he even toppled that with a Blizzcon win all the whilst dominating the ladder. It might be the biggest peak we've ever seen.
On January 12 2018 08:13 Boggyb wrote: Whether or not Rogue is a patchzerg, I think the comparison to ByuN is unfair. 3 rax reaper is an early game cheese and the mere possibility of it put ByuN ahead from the start of games, even if he didn't use it. Part of that is that it was so hard to scout proxies because maps often had dozens of locations and there was no reasonable way to scout them all. Hydras are a mid-game unit and transitions to them are reasonably scoutable. Yes, their strength impacted the meta and possibly crossed off potential compositions and timings which benefited Rogue even in games that ended before them, but that's not nearly the same.
The comparison with ByuN is unfair in the other direction too. To his credit ByuN stood out as being exceptional at 'exploiting' reapers, whereas every Zerg out there 'exploits' hydralisks.
On January 12 2018 08:13 Boggyb wrote: Whether or not Rogue is a patchzerg, I think the comparison to ByuN is unfair. 3 rax reaper is an early game cheese and the mere possibility of it put ByuN ahead from the start of games, even if he didn't use it. Part of that is that it was so hard to scout proxies because maps often had dozens of locations and there was no reasonable way to scout them all. Hydras are a mid-game unit and transitions to them are reasonably scoutable. Yes, their strength impacted the meta and possibly crossed off potential compositions and timings which benefited Rogue even in games that ended before them, but that's not nearly the same.
The comparison with ByuN is unfair in the other direction too. To his credit ByuN stood out as being exceptional at 'exploiting' reapers, whereas every Zerg out there 'exploits' hydralisks.
How many other Zergs were consistently beating the Golden Armada?
edit: It is worth noting that uThermal also used reapers to great success in his IEM championship though obviously the skill level of his competition was much lower.
I think it's disgusting that you compare someone like Rogue to the greatest micro player of all time. Especially when he won in the highest skilled era, unlike Rogue.
the funny thing is that if Rogue is a patchzerg that won those tournaments because the zerg race was OP... Where are the other Zergs? Did Dark played a different version of the game? Did solar? soO? Impact? If those 3 couldn't even won a championship during that time.. Are they mere amateurs? Its hard to call him patchzerg when he is the only zerg shining in 2017.
On January 12 2018 08:41 Phredxor wrote: I think it's disgusting that you compare someone like Rogue to the greatest micro player of all time. Especially when he won in the highest skilled era, unlike Rogue.
Denying that the hydra buff helped Rogue (or any Zerg) is pure idiocy. But I wouldn't go so far as to call him a patchzerg either, though it's fair to say that Rogue received disproportionate benefits from the hydra buff due to his playstyle.
As far as his legacy goes, Rogue will lose to time. The nature of SC2 is such that no player has ever managed to dominate the professional scene for very long. Peaks and slumps are inevitable. Only players with both long careers and sufficient skill can experience multiple peaks and eventually build an enduring legacy.
Rogue is not one of those players. The end of 2017 was his first peak and there simply isn't enough time left to catch up to players with more storied legacies. Of the remaining pros, only Zest and Inno can claim something akin to that and even both of them still have a ways to go.
I disagree about one statement "Soo will be regarderded as the best mechanical player of all time" tbh I think people will just think about all these Seconde places when it comes to soO.... and "mechanical" --> it's for INno
I can't believe Mizenhauer would go to all this effort to obfuscate with complicated Rogue nonsense in order to bash ByuN
But seriously, even if I don't agree with his overall conclusions, I thought he brought up some interesting points about Rogue, and how we consider past champions in general.
On January 12 2018 08:13 Boggyb wrote: Whether or not Rogue is a patchzerg, I think the comparison to ByuN is unfair. 3 rax reaper is an early game cheese and the mere possibility of it put ByuN ahead from the start of games, even if he didn't use it. Part of that is that it was so hard to scout proxies because maps often had dozens of locations and there was no reasonable way to scout them all. Hydras are a mid-game unit and transitions to them are reasonably scoutable. Yes, their strength impacted the meta and possibly crossed off potential compositions and timings which benefited Rogue even in games that ended before them, but that's not nearly the same.
The comparison with ByuN is unfair in the other direction too. To his credit ByuN stood out as being exceptional at 'exploiting' reapers, whereas every Zerg out there 'exploits' hydralisks.
How many other Zergs were consistently beating the Golden Armada?
edit: It is worth noting that uThermal also used reapers to great success in his IEM championship though obviously the skill level of his competition was much lower.
Rogue didn't consistantly beat the Golden Armada. That was just something Artosis said to hype him up. Even though he won impressive series against Dear/Neeb/herO during that time, iirc he was actually losing most of the skytoss games
It's unfair to call him patchzerg even if the patch did play into his hands. If you compare the hydralisk buff to e.g. Reapers in or Tankivacs in 2016 the Hydralisk buff is much more subtle. As the article points out Rogue still had to have his strength in the late game etc which do not solely stem from the new patch.
Although people talk about Byun as if we were utter crap. He still could beat any player any time. I would still put him on the same lvl as a GSL champion (i.e. Gumiho) and he can still beat any player, just not consistently.
To be fair most tournament champions benefit from their opponents choking. When I watch Stats I feel like 50% of his games is his opponents choking. He does nothing and the other guy throws away his army/probes whatever. Personally, I suspect that this is not luck, but maybe part of his playstyle that forces mistakes from opponents?
The article didn't really call Rogue a patchzerg, rather it asked the question and then invited discussion on it. I think Rogue won because he was the best player at that tournament.
On January 12 2018 08:13 Boggyb wrote: Whether or not Rogue is a patchzerg, I think the comparison to ByuN is unfair. 3 rax reaper is an early game cheese and the mere possibility of it put ByuN ahead from the start of games, even if he didn't use it. Part of that is that it was so hard to scout proxies because maps often had dozens of locations and there was no reasonable way to scout them all. Hydras are a mid-game unit and transitions to them are reasonably scoutable. Yes, their strength impacted the meta and possibly crossed off potential compositions and timings which benefited Rogue even in games that ended before them, but that's not nearly the same.
The comparison with ByuN is unfair in the other direction too. To his credit ByuN stood out as being exceptional at 'exploiting' reapers, whereas every Zerg out there 'exploits' hydralisks.
How many other Zergs were consistently beating the Golden Armada?
edit: It is worth noting that uThermal also used reapers to great success in his IEM championship though obviously the skill level of his competition was much lower.
Rogue didn't consistantly beat the Golden Armada. That was just something Artosis said to hype him up. Even though he won impressive series against Dear/Neeb/herO during that time, iirc he was actually losing most of the skytoss games
Maybe I missed a lot of his losses since I didn't watch all the small tournaments, but from those I saw, I'd say his win rate was 50% minimum and I'm more inclined to put it around 55-60%. Even if it was lower, it was significantly higher than anyone else's. Artosis was acting like his win rate was almost 100% which was nonsense.
On January 12 2018 09:55 scoo2r wrote: The article didn't really call Rogue a patchzerg, rather it asked the question and then invited discussion on it. I think Rogue won because he was the best player at that tournament.
There is one option that fits better than the rest.
Is is unconscionable that This website allows articles like this to be displayed prominently. The writer is a lunatic Biased Terran, who is unable to recognize Byun's abuse of broken mass reaper as far below what Rogue has done in recent months. I have never seen a zerg player handle the lategame against stronger Terran and Protoss races like Rogue. this writer states blatantly untrue things and whines that zerg is imba which is completely false. Take this article down and set some standards for unbiased writing, this is absolutely ridiculous and filled with both indirect insults and direct ones. So I have a direct insult for this writer: Go write articles for the President of the United States, there your talents for truth distortion will be much better received.
On January 12 2018 11:39 baabaa wrote: Is is unconscionable that This website allows articles like this to be displayed prominently. The writer is a lunatic Biased Terran, who is unable to recognize Byun's abuse of broken mass reaper as far below what Rogue has done in recent months. I have never seen a zerg player handle the lategame against stronger Terran and Protoss races like Rogue. this writer states blatantly untrue things and whines that zerg is imba which is completely false. Take this article down and set some standards for unbiased writing, this is absolutely ridiculous and filled with both indirect insults and direct ones. So I have a direct insult for this writer: Go write articles for the President of the United States, there your talents for truth distortion will be much better received.
You can't spell patchzerg with some of the letters that make up rogue like the r and the g and the e
--- Shellshock, moderator
First of all this is clearly intended to insult the current top player. second of all it is a grammatically wrongly worded insult, so learn some english. third of all if moderators of this forum have the freedom to post insulting comments like this, that is a clear sign of corruption. I have lost a huge amount of respect for those who run this site due to biased anti-zerg articles and posts On another note, you can't spell idiot without some of the letters in shellshock, like "o".
On January 12 2018 08:13 Boggyb wrote: Whether or not Rogue is a patchzerg, I think the comparison to ByuN is unfair. 3 rax reaper is an early game cheese and the mere possibility of it put ByuN ahead from the start of games, even if he didn't use it. Part of that is that it was so hard to scout proxies because maps often had dozens of locations and there was no reasonable way to scout them all. Hydras are a mid-game unit and transitions to them are reasonably scoutable. Yes, their strength impacted the meta and possibly crossed off potential compositions and timings which benefited Rogue even in games that ended before them, but that's not nearly the same.
The comparison with ByuN is unfair in the other direction too. To his credit ByuN stood out as being exceptional at 'exploiting' reapers, whereas every Zerg out there 'exploits' hydralisks.
How many other Zergs were consistently beating the Golden Armada?
edit: It is worth noting that uThermal also used reapers to great success in his IEM championship though obviously the skill level of his competition was much lower.
Rogue didn't consistantly beat the Golden Armada. That was just something Artosis said to hype him up. Even though he won impressive series against Dear/Neeb/herO during that time, iirc he was actually losing most of the skytoss games
Maybe I missed a lot of his losses since I didn't watch all the small tournaments, but from those I saw, I'd say his win rate was 50% minimum and I'm more inclined to put it around 55-60%. Even if it was lower, it was significantly higher than anyone else's. Artosis was acting like his win rate was almost 100% which was nonsense.
As far as premier tournaments go, Rogue went 18-10 against protoss in the run up to his blizzcon win. Out of those, he went 1-3 against mass skytoss. All of the Artosis hype was because of the single map he won against Stats in GSL.
Rogue was however amazing at doing hydra allins and attacks before toss reached the golden armada.
On January 12 2018 11:39 baabaa wrote: Is is unconscionable that This website allows articles like this to be displayed prominently. The writer is a lunatic Biased Terran, who is unable to recognize Byun's abuse of broken mass reaper as far below what Rogue has done in recent months. I have never seen a zerg player handle the lategame against stronger Terran and Protoss races like Rogue. this writer states blatantly untrue things and whines that zerg is imba which is completely false. Take this article down and set some standards for unbiased writing, this is absolutely ridiculous and filled with both indirect insults and direct ones. So I have a direct insult for this writer: Go write articles for the President of the United States, there your talents for truth distortion will be much better received.
On January 12 2018 11:49 baabaa wrote: You can't spell patchzerg with some of the letters that make up rogue like the r and the g and the e
--- Shellshock, moderator
First of all this is clearly intended to insult the current top player. second of all it is a grammatically wrongly worded insult, so learn some english. third of all if moderators of this forum have the freedom to post insulting comments like this, that is a clear sign of corruption. I have lost a huge amount of respect for those who run this site due to biased anti-zerg articles and posts On another note, you can't spell idiot without some of the letters in shellshock, like "o".
I considered calling you an idiot but you are already doing a better job of showing that than I ever could.
On January 12 2018 11:49 baabaa wrote: You can't spell patchzerg with some of the letters that make up rogue like the r and the g and the e
--- Shellshock, moderator
First of all this is clearly intended to insult the current top player. second of all it is a grammatically wrongly worded insult, so learn some english. third of all if moderators of this forum have the freedom to post insulting comments like this, that is a clear sign of corruption. I have lost a huge amount of respect for those who run this site due to biased anti-zerg articles and posts On another note, you can't spell idiot without some of the letters in shellshock, like "o".
On January 12 2018 09:55 scoo2r wrote: The article didn't really call Rogue a patchzerg, rather it asked the question and then invited discussion on it. I think Rogue won because he was the best player at that tournament.
There is one option that fits better than the rest.
It’s ‘Patchzerg.’
That just suggests that it is easy to call him a patchzerg. Rest of the article does a really good job at setting out why this could happen, how the patch helped shore up rogues weaknesses as a player and comparing him to other one patch wonders [byun].
On January 12 2018 08:13 Boggyb wrote: Whether or not Rogue is a patchzerg, I think the comparison to ByuN is unfair. 3 rax reaper is an early game cheese and the mere possibility of it put ByuN ahead from the start of games, even if he didn't use it. Part of that is that it was so hard to scout proxies because maps often had dozens of locations and there was no reasonable way to scout them all. Hydras are a mid-game unit and transitions to them are reasonably scoutable. Yes, their strength impacted the meta and possibly crossed off potential compositions and timings which benefited Rogue even in games that ended before them, but that's not nearly the same.
The comparison with ByuN is unfair in the other direction too. To his credit ByuN stood out as being exceptional at 'exploiting' reapers, whereas every Zerg out there 'exploits' hydralisks.
How many other Zergs were consistently beating the Golden Armada?
edit: It is worth noting that uThermal also used reapers to great success in his IEM championship though obviously the skill level of his competition was much lower.
Rogue didn't consistantly beat the Golden Armada. That was just something Artosis said to hype him up. Even though he won impressive series against Dear/Neeb/herO during that time, iirc he was actually losing most of the skytoss games
Maybe I missed a lot of his losses since I didn't watch all the small tournaments, but from those I saw, I'd say his win rate was 50% minimum and I'm more inclined to put it around 55-60%. Even if it was lower, it was significantly higher than anyone else's. Artosis was acting like his win rate was almost 100% which was nonsense.
As far as premier tournaments go, Rogue went 18-10 against protoss in the run up to his blizzcon win. Out of those, he went 1-3 against mass skytoss. All of the Artosis hype was because of the single map he won against Stats in GSL.
Rogue was however amazing at doing hydra allins and attacks before toss reached the golden armada.
Premier tournaments might be all that matter in the greater scheme of things, but I know I saw him win quite a few games against good players using Skytoss in smaller, online tournaments.
On January 12 2018 14:44 Scarlett` wrote: featured articles like this make pros lose any respect they had for the site
C'mon, using your pro status to try to suppress opinions is pretty low. It might even cause some readers to lose any respect they had for you.
You have a pretty low bar for "suppressing opinions"... "Expressing disapproval as to the website endorsing these opinions" would be a more accurate description.
Though there have been way worse articles in the past. Such as "Welcome to ZParcraft II" which despite all the solid research and the statistics turned into a giant heap of balance whining due to being written in the most insufferable tone ever.
i dont think rogue is an S class player (as opposed to soo, dark) but this writer and article are awful. i don't think i've read anything that was not nonsense and fake news from this particular staff writer.
On January 12 2018 16:57 shadymmj wrote: i dont think rogue is an S class player (as opposed to soo, dark) but this writer and article are awful. i don't think i've read anything that was not nonsense and fake news from this particular staff writer.
You're gonna have to deal with it, otherwise you won't get any articles seeing as he's the only active writer.
On January 12 2018 14:44 Scarlett` wrote: featured articles like this make pros lose any respect they had for the site
C'mon, using your pro status to try to suppress opinions is pretty low. It might even cause some readers to lose any respect they had for you.
And you're trying to suppress his opinions too.
How good is this kind of article for the game ? it's not like there are some many people playing SC2.
TL was like a reference on SC2, not just a random website, mostly because they used to be neutral/not biased and moderate some rage/balance whine behavior.
But recently, they start supporting more and more the "Terran whine", releasing pro-terran articles after pro-terran articles.
It's not fine because on the other side, the view of P and Zerg are not expressed, they stop neutrality for "pro-terran support".
Now they start non-terran progamer bashing ? Really ?
It's the view of one poster, but if you highligh it on the website you say you support it.
He, you can do whatever you want, but well we can stop considering TL to be something different and more respectable than a random SC2 website.
Now it's just TL website, the "Terran lobbying website" and it has no right to claim to represent more than that on the SC2 scene.
I wholeheartedly disagree with the article. I think this is the brilliance of Rogue who grows out off being a cheesy player, then falls behind in 2016, starts consistently play ladder and succeeds in the end. We witness the evolution of a player in him - he is the Life's heir - the best Zerg in the world
On January 12 2018 16:57 shadymmj wrote: i dont think rogue is an S class player (as opposed to soo, dark) but this writer and article are awful. i don't think i've read anything that was not nonsense and fake news from this particular staff writer.
Fake news mentioned on TL article. What did i do to deserve seeing this.
On January 12 2018 14:44 Scarlett` wrote: featured articles like this make pros lose any respect they had for the site
C'mon, using your pro status to try to suppress opinions is pretty low. It might even cause some readers to lose any respect they had for you.
And you're trying to suppress his opinions too.
How good is this kind of article for the game ? it's not like there are some many people playing SC2.
TL was like a reference on SC2, not just a random website, mostly because they used to be neutral/not biased and moderate some rage/balance whine behavior.
But recently, they start supporting more and more the "Terran whine", releasing pro-terran articles after pro-terran articles.
It's not fine because on the other side, the view of P and Zerg are not expressed, they stop neutrality for "pro-terran support".
Now they start non-terran progamer bashing ? Really ?
It's the view of one poster, but if you highligh it on the website you say you support it.
He, you can do whatever you want, but well we can stop considering TL to be something different and more respectable than a random SC2 website.
Now it's just TL website, the "Terran lobbying website" and it has no right to claim to represent more than that on the SC2 scene.
I just wanted to remind you that the author is a Z ))
On January 12 2018 14:44 Scarlett` wrote: featured articles like this make pros lose any respect they had for the site
C'mon, using your pro status to try to suppress opinions is pretty low. It might even cause some readers to lose any respect they had for you.
And you're trying to suppress his opinions too.
How good is this kind of article for the game ? it's not like there are some many people playing SC2.
TL was like a reference on SC2, not just a random website, mostly because they used to be neutral/not biased and moderate some rage/balance whine behavior.
But recently, they start supporting more and more the "Terran whine", releasing pro-terran articles after pro-terran articles.
It's not fine because on the other side, the view of P and Zerg are not expressed, they stop neutrality for "pro-terran support".
Now they start non-terran progamer bashing ? Really ?
It's the view of one poster, but if you highligh it on the website you say you support it.
He, you can do whatever you want, but well we can stop considering TL to be something different and more respectable than a random SC2 website.
Now it's just TL website, the "Terran lobbying website" and it has no right to claim to represent more than that on the SC2 scene.
It’s important to know that Terran is the main race in Starcraft. Always has always will be, people start out wanting to be like boxer. Terran is the beautiful race and TvT the best mirror. I say this being a Protoss player for most of sc2. When a godlike player plays Terran, I will always want to watch.
On January 12 2018 14:44 Scarlett` wrote: featured articles like this make pros lose any respect they had for the site
C'mon, using your pro status to try to suppress opinions is pretty low. It might even cause some readers to lose any respect they had for you.
You have a pretty low bar for "suppressing opinions"... "Expressing disapproval as to the website endorsing these opinions" would be a more accurate description.
Though there have been way worse articles in the past. Such as "Welcome to ZParcraft II" which despite all the solid research and the statistics turned into a giant heap of balance whining due to being written in the most insufferable tone ever.
No I don't. Scarlett's post is explicitly formulated as "we pros won't like your site if you post things like this", which is an open abuse of her status in trying to influence the content of the site, in this particular sense trying to push the site for not having similar articles in the future, hence, suppressing opinions. If this was written by a regular joe, speaking for themselves, it would be just an opinion. It is the explicit reference to the "pros" that makes this post so shitty.
Back in the day, I was always psyched to see a pro or a content producer come to TL and interact. However it turns sour more often than it doesn't. Sometimes it is wannabe "celebrities" that think only their opinion matters because everyone else knows nothing (hi TB), sometimes it's players who think they do us a huge service by playing a game and all they deserve is a praise, But really the worst is this "racial agenda". It's stupid enough when pushed by platinum heroes (who could switch race on a whim if they wanted) and it is outright absurd when pros get involved and trying to use their weight to push the public opinion from nerfing their own race instead of getting better.
On January 12 2018 18:53 neutralrobot wrote: Jeez, I feel like once upon a time you'd get warned for posting a comment like this article.
Don't worry, you can get away with worse if you're a pro ! And don't tell me it's sarcastic because even if it is, I've seen plenty of sarcastic people with warnings and/or bans. Also, if we could get away with calling Jonnyrecco and Ziktomini patchzergs in the past, I don't see why we can't call Rogue the same thing (not that this article is only about calling Rogue a patchzerg, but everyone seems to want to focus only on that).
On January 12 2018 18:56 Durnuu wrote: Also, if we could get away with calling Jonnyrecco and Ziktomini patchzergs in the past, I don't see why we can't call Rogue the same thing (not that this article is only about calling Rogue a patchzerg, but everyone seems to want to focus only on that).
Jonnyrecco wasn't a patchzerg, he was The Patchzerg !
On January 12 2018 14:44 Scarlett` wrote: featured articles like this make pros lose any respect they had for the site
C'mon, using your pro status to try to suppress opinions is pretty low. It might even cause some readers to lose any respect they had for you.
TL is one of, if not the main foreign nexus for SC2 related material and exposure. It is the place to go for reporting on current SC2 events. It is the place to go to advertise yourself as a streamer and get some publicity. It hosts the resource for tournament brackets, advertising and organisation.
It's completely fair to expect a modicum of professionality and respect towards the pro players that make any of it worthwhile or possible, especially given the mutually beneficial relationship this place and SC2 pros, casters and organisers have.
Scarlett is not suppressing opinion, she is giving her own as to why this kind of thing is no go if you want to be taken seriously. Imagine if this was on a KR site for SC2? Imagine if Rogue frequented TL, it would be a ****-show. As a player you'd know any joke could be made at your expense, casting doubt in fan's minds about the things you've committed this whole mini-career to, and it could be put up as a featured article.
I think it's incredibly narrow-minded to assume that mizenhauer wrote this article to bash on Rogue or that he doesn’t respect his achievements. But even if he did, articles of this kind have always been very clearly formulated as opinion pieces, and somehow equating mizenhauer's opinion with some preconceived notion of how Teamliquid promotes clickbait, bashing and toxic attitudes is pretty rich. Better to address the content that builds the conclusion that the formulation of that conclusion, if the conclusion so offends.
I dunno maybe people focus on the "patchzerg" thing because it is written as a conclusion and even highlighted ("is")?
At least the formulation is problematic. Replace "patchzerg" with any insult ("no-skill", "bitch", "ass hole") and see how the article reads...
Maybe the author should not have stated so strongly in a matter of fact tone with "is an opinion" like all people agree on it. Something along the lines of. There are people who will call him "patchzerg". But then it's not so catchy ...
In this case, "opinion pieces" like these shouldn't be a featured article and promoted by the site itself. It might be funny as an inside joke, or as a hypothetical posting, but not as a featured article. They should be as posted as normal, not as a "Text byTeamLiquid ESPORTS". It doesn't serve any purpose but self promotion. Imagine it wasn't Rogue, but someone who frequents the site respectfully like Snute or Scarlett. It's just plain disrespectful, no matter how you hide it with the other text.
On January 12 2018 14:44 Scarlett` wrote: featured articles like this make pros lose any respect they had for the site
C'mon, using your pro status to try to suppress opinions is pretty low. It might even cause some readers to lose any respect they had for you.
And you're trying to suppress his opinions too.
How good is this kind of article for the game ? it's not like there are some many people playing SC2.
TL was like a reference on SC2, not just a random website, mostly because they used to be neutral/not biased and moderate some rage/balance whine behavior.
But recently, they start supporting more and more the "Terran whine", releasing pro-terran articles after pro-terran articles.
It's not fine because on the other side, the view of P and Zerg are not expressed, they stop neutrality for "pro-terran support".
Now they start non-terran progamer bashing ? Really ?
It's the view of one poster, but if you highligh it on the website you say you support it.
He, you can do whatever you want, but well we can stop considering TL to be something different and more respectable than a random SC2 website.
Now it's just TL website, the "Terran lobbying website" and it has no right to claim to represent more than that on the SC2 scene.
Lmao somehow I am consistently suprised by the by the dumb things people manage to say
You would be well off rewatching some of rogue's victories and looking at his gameplay and what made him win rather than writing some controversial nonsense.
Regardless if Rogue ever wins a game of Starcraft again, he played awesome the latter half of 2017 and his multitask, precise control, and overall gamesense were a class above all other players playing in those tournaments that he won. Well-deserved. You have no idea the ammount of work and practice went into being able to perform like he did, and it would help to show some respect in your writing about players with great accomplishments that put years of hard work into the game.
On January 12 2018 21:40 DSh1 wrote: I dunno maybe people focus on the "patchzerg" thing because it is written as a conclusion and even highlighted ("is")?
At least the formulation is problematic. Replace "patchzerg" with any insult ("no-skill", "bitch", "ass hole") and see how the article reads...
Maybe the author should not have stated so strongly in a matter of fact tone with "is an opinion" like all people agree on it. Something along the lines of. There are people who will call him "patchzerg". But then it's not so catchy ...
But none of the insults you suggested are substitutes for patchzerg. The word doesn't mean "shit" or any expletive - it has a fairly specific connotation that has stuck around since 2012. Of course the article would read like an insult if it were phrased like one - but I maintain that it is not, and I don't think it was intended to be either.
Besides, when you state an opinion, it's normal to do it in clear and/or absolute terms. You'll notice that you do the same in your posts - if you lay out your thoughts on something to make an argument, you usually don't preface statements with a "maybe" to soften their impact. I definitely see what you mean, but you're applying an unreasonable standard to opinionated writing.
On January 12 2018 23:47 Liquid`Ret wrote: I strongly disagree with your opinions.
You would be well off rewatching some of rogue's victories and looking at his gameplay and what made him win rather than writing some controversial nonsense.
Regardless if Rogue ever wins a game of Starcraft again, he played awesome the latter half of 2017 and his multitask, precise control, and overall gamesense were a class above all other players playing in those tournaments that he won. Well-deserved. You have no idea the ammount of work and practice went into being able to perform like he did, and it would help to show some respect in your writing about players with great accomplishments that put years of hard work into the game.
I cant agree more, you only have to watch ByuN vs soO at IEM shangai and then ByuN vs Rogue at the same event, the difference in the zerg performance in between both matches given the same Terran is notably, calling that performance a patchzerg victory is plain and absolute wrong imho. Even more when you realized Rogue didn't use hydras in those games.
I think it's incredibly narrow-minded to assume that mizenhauer wrote this article to bash on Rogue or that he doesn’t respect his achievements
I don't really see what other conclusion you can come to here. The whole article reads as follows: Creates context, raises the question about how to consider Rogue among other Blizzcon winners, and then proceeds with analysis and conclusion to answer that question by saying the best way to consider Rogue is as a PatchZerg, ie: someone who has relied on balance as a crutch, with the implication that they probably shouldn't have. It's a very strong attack in the SC2 community, one that inherently cast doubt on a player's achievements. Maybe you don't see it that way, but I'd attribute that to your perspective rather than the any broader community perception of the term.
The article even starts out with this:
WCS has, for the most part, given us champions we are proud to call the best in the world.
Innocent in it's own right, but from the first sentence, the article is set up to cast doubt. The implied "But what about Rogue?" at the end of that opening line.
And then there's this line. At this point in the article it was pretty damn obvious that the article had built up to a concerted effort to downplay Rogue's success.
What was different for Rogue in 2017? A new expansion and design patch that fit his skills better? Sure. No other KeSPA teams to compete with Jin Air? That probably helped. Hydralisks? Yeah, that.
Am I really being narrow-minded here to assume that Rogue's achievements are being disrespected? I'd be blind to think otherwise. The analysis then goes on to trash Rogue's macro, when it is clear watching his games that he himself had substantial improvement in that regard towards the end of 2017. It's not like Rogue's macro went up leaps and bounds with the larva mechanic change, that only happened long after. Again, partially attributing Rogue's success to the game not punishing him for missed injects, right after the above Hydralisks line.
To his credit, the author then delves into some actual discussion about how we the community should consider him, giving him some credit (although never without again tempering it with some conditionals). But is all meaningless when the discussion is concluded by saying that with hydras as they are, we can't really judge Rogue properly, but if we want to try...
There is one option that fits better than the rest.
It’s ‘Patchzerg.’
Yeah. That's the conclusion. It's not a random joke. It's the conclusion to the piece. That is what ties up the doubts and discussions and questions raised.
But even if he did, articles of this kind have always been very clearly formulated as opinion pieces, and somehow equating mizenhauer's opinion with some preconceived notion of how Teamliquid promotes clickbait, bashing and toxic attitudes is pretty rich.
It's the top featured TL article. The title is right next to a picture of the TL logo. It has the words "Text byTeamLiquid ESPORTS" right under that title, before even the author's name. And even so, TL is still giving this a platform. Were it not for the "Text byTeamLiquid ESPORTS" I might be inclined to agree somewhat, but even then TL is still choosing to give this opinion a platform. Both in the article and in comments later on (page 2 I think), Mizenhauer states the community is responsible for these labels and legacies. And in so doing, as a prominent voice in the community being given a platform, is admitting responsibility in creating the perception that Rogue is a patchzerg, deliberately casting doubt on his achievements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Separate note I think Liquid'Ret also brings up an important point:
Regardless if Rogue ever wins a game of Starcraft again, he played awesome the latter half of 2017 and his multitask, precise control, and overall gamesense were a class above all other players playing in those tournaments that he won
What this article does now is it strengthens the community potential to see Rogue as a patchzerg in future. It attaches some future condition on his recognition for what he has already accomplished. Which is utter [this word should be obvious].
On January 12 2018 18:32 bo1b wrote: Nice follow up to protossed. Good to see that sc2 gets the content it deserves
Pro Terran bias and anti Zerg and Protoss propaganda has a long and well maintained history on TL.
Terran players in general are the greatest individuals of all times, not only in playing this game but as well in posting here at the forums! And whenever any other race's player is pulling it off, then it is patchzerg, Amoveprotoss and PvZcraft.
Probably it is kind of their religion, those guys ;D
On January 12 2018 18:32 bo1b wrote: Nice follow up to protossed. Good to see that sc2 gets the content it deserves
Pro Terran bias and anti Zerg and Protoss propaganda has a long and well maintained history on TL.
Terran players in general are the greatest individuals of all times, not only in playing this game but as well in posting here at the forums! And whenever any other race's player is pulling it off, then it is patchzerg, Amoveprotoss and PvZcraft.
Probably it is kind of their religion, those guys ;D
PROTOSSED was an article that explicitly defended Protoss player, and was written by the very same author.
But I suppose actually reading the article before complaining about TL is too much to ask.
On January 13 2018 01:09 Luolis wrote: :D and some people say that Terrans are the hugest whiners. I dont get how people can take this article so seriously :D
edit: And what i mean with second sentence is that i dunno why the article ruins your day. I thought it was a fairly good read.
It is. Apparently the word "patchzerg" left some pretty deep scars on some people.
On January 13 2018 01:09 Luolis wrote: :D and some people say that Terrans are the hugest whiners. I dont get how people can take this article so seriously :D
edit: And what i mean with second sentence is that i dunno why the article ruins your day. I thought it was a fairly good read.
It is. Apparently the word "patchzerg" left some pretty deep scars on some people.
I think it's incredibly narrow-minded to assume that mizenhauer wrote this article to bash on Rogue or that he doesn’t respect his achievements
I don't really see what other conclusion you can come to here. The whole article reads as follows: Creates context, raises the question about how to consider Rogue among other Blizzcon winners, and then proceeds with analysis and conclusion to answer that question by saying the best way to consider Rogue is as a PatchZerg, ie: someone who has relied on balance as a crutch, with the implication that they probably shouldn't have. It's a very strong attack in the SC2 community, one that inherently cast doubt on a player's achievements. Maybe you don't see it that way, but I'd attribute that to your perspective rather than the any broader community perception of the term.
The article even starts out with this:
WCS has, for the most part, given us champions we are proud to call the best in the world.
Innocent in it's own right, but from the first sentence, the article is set up to cast doubt. The implied "But what about Rogue?" at the end of that opening line.
And then there's this line. At this point in the article it was pretty damn obvious that the article had built up to a concerted effort to downplay Rogue's success.
What was different for Rogue in 2017? A new expansion and design patch that fit his skills better? Sure. No other KeSPA teams to compete with Jin Air? That probably helped. Hydralisks? Yeah, that.
Am I really being narrow-minded here to assume that Rogue's achievements are being disrespected? I'd be blind to think otherwise. The analysis then goes on to trash Rogue's macro, when it is clear watching his games that he himself had substantial improvement in that regard towards the end of 2017. It's not like Rogue's macro went up leaps and bounds with the larva mechanic change, that only happened long after. Again, partially attributing Rogue's success to the game not punishing him for missed injects, right after the above Hydralisks line.
To his credit, the author then delves into some actual discussion about how we the community should consider him, giving him some credit (although never without again tempering it with some conditionals). But is all meaningless when the discussion is concluded by saying that with hydras as they are, we can't really judge Rogue properly, but if we want to try...
There is one option that fits better than the rest.
It’s ‘Patchzerg.’
Yeah. That's the conclusion. It's not a random joke. It's the conclusion to the piece. That is what ties up the doubts and discussions and questions raised.
But even if he did, articles of this kind have always been very clearly formulated as opinion pieces, and somehow equating mizenhauer's opinion with some preconceived notion of how Teamliquid promotes clickbait, bashing and toxic attitudes is pretty rich.
It's the top featured TL article. The title is right next to a picture of the TL logo. It has the words "Text byTeamLiquid ESPORTS" right under that title, before even the author's name. And even so, TL is still giving this a platform. Were it not for the "Text byTeamLiquid ESPORTS" I might be inclined to agree somewhat, but even then TL is still choosing to give this opinion a platform. Both in the article and in comments later on (page 2 I think), Mizenhauer states the community is responsible for these labels and legacies. And in so doing, as a prominent voice in the community being given a platform, is admitting responsibility in creating the perception that Rogue is a patchzerg, deliberately casting doubt on his achievements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Separate note I think Liquid'Ret also brings up an important point:
Regardless if Rogue ever wins a game of Starcraft again, he played awesome the latter half of 2017 and his multitask, precise control, and overall gamesense were a class above all other players playing in those tournaments that he won
What this article does now is it strengthens the community potential to see Rogue as a patchzerg in future. It attaches some future condition on his recognition for what he has already accomplished. Which is utter [this word should be obvious].
Yes, one can ignore all the praise about Rogue in the article and call it a Rogue-bashing article, sure.
At the end of the day the sexy boy is now a sexy rich boy. The guy put the work in. Now it's up to Savage Rogue to prove he isn't a flash in the pan and stay competitive and relevant.
I think it's incredibly narrow-minded to assume that mizenhauer wrote this article to bash on Rogue or that he doesn’t respect his achievements
I don't really see what other conclusion you can come to here. The whole article reads as follows: Creates context, raises the question about how to consider Rogue among other Blizzcon winners, and then proceeds with analysis and conclusion to answer that question by saying the best way to consider Rogue is as a PatchZerg, ie: someone who has relied on balance as a crutch, with the implication that they probably shouldn't have. It's a very strong attack in the SC2 community, one that inherently cast doubt on a player's achievements. Maybe you don't see it that way, but I'd attribute that to your perspective rather than the any broader community perception of the term.
The article even starts out with this:
WCS has, for the most part, given us champions we are proud to call the best in the world.
Innocent in it's own right, but from the first sentence, the article is set up to cast doubt. The implied "But what about Rogue?" at the end of that opening line.
And then there's this line. At this point in the article it was pretty damn obvious that the article had built up to a concerted effort to downplay Rogue's success.
What was different for Rogue in 2017? A new expansion and design patch that fit his skills better? Sure. No other KeSPA teams to compete with Jin Air? That probably helped. Hydralisks? Yeah, that.
Am I really being narrow-minded here to assume that Rogue's achievements are being disrespected? I'd be blind to think otherwise. The analysis then goes on to trash Rogue's macro, when it is clear watching his games that he himself had substantial improvement in that regard towards the end of 2017. It's not like Rogue's macro went up leaps and bounds with the larva mechanic change, that only happened long after. Again, partially attributing Rogue's success to the game not punishing him for missed injects, right after the above Hydralisks line.
To his credit, the author then delves into some actual discussion about how we the community should consider him, giving him some credit (although never without again tempering it with some conditionals). But is all meaningless when the discussion is concluded by saying that with hydras as they are, we can't really judge Rogue properly, but if we want to try...
There is one option that fits better than the rest.
It’s ‘Patchzerg.’
Yeah. That's the conclusion. It's not a random joke. It's the conclusion to the piece. That is what ties up the doubts and discussions and questions raised.
But even if he did, articles of this kind have always been very clearly formulated as opinion pieces, and somehow equating mizenhauer's opinion with some preconceived notion of how Teamliquid promotes clickbait, bashing and toxic attitudes is pretty rich.
It's the top featured TL article. The title is right next to a picture of the TL logo. It has the words "Text byTeamLiquid ESPORTS" right under that title, before even the author's name. And even so, TL is still giving this a platform. Were it not for the "Text byTeamLiquid ESPORTS" I might be inclined to agree somewhat, but even then TL is still choosing to give this opinion a platform. Both in the article and in comments later on (page 2 I think), Mizenhauer states the community is responsible for these labels and legacies. And in so doing, as a prominent voice in the community being given a platform, is admitting responsibility in creating the perception that Rogue is a patchzerg, deliberately casting doubt on his achievements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Separate note I think Liquid'Ret also brings up an important point:
Regardless if Rogue ever wins a game of Starcraft again, he played awesome the latter half of 2017 and his multitask, precise control, and overall gamesense were a class above all other players playing in those tournaments that he won
What this article does now is it strengthens the community potential to see Rogue as a patchzerg in future. It attaches some future condition on his recognition for what he has already accomplished. Which is utter [this word should be obvious].
Yes, one can ignore all the praise about Rogue in the article and call it a Rogue-bashing article, sure.
He gives Rogue a decent amount of praise in the article, but then he pulls the rug from under it all with the conclusion that he's a "patchzerg". It's basically a suckerpunch in article form
I think that what author tried to say that Rogue not only did improve a lot during the 2017 but also he gained the most from the changes in meta that occured after the "hydralisk patch". It doesn't mean that the game was imbalanced after the patch nor that Rogue is not a skillful player. It just means that the meta shift fit Rogue style more than the other zergs and he benefited from it the most in comparison. So the "patchzerg" used in this context is different in meaning than the term used during BL/infestator era where it just meant that due to game imbalance players of less skill could win games just by playing stronger race, being it zerg at that time. All in all I don't feel offended by the article even thou it controversially brings the patchzerg term to describe the WCS 2017 global champion just because it gives solid context to view from different perspective and also, let's not forget, discuss the fate of all WCS champions. It was interesting read but maybe unnecessarily used controversial terms and 'clickbait" title.
I think it's incredibly narrow-minded to assume that mizenhauer wrote this article to bash on Rogue or that he doesn’t respect his achievements
I don't really see what other conclusion you can come to here. The whole article reads as follows: Creates context, raises the question about how to consider Rogue among other Blizzcon winners, and then proceeds with analysis and conclusion to answer that question by saying the best way to consider Rogue is as a PatchZerg, ie: someone who has relied on balance as a crutch, with the implication that they probably shouldn't have. It's a very strong attack in the SC2 community, one that inherently cast doubt on a player's achievements. Maybe you don't see it that way, but I'd attribute that to your perspective rather than the any broader community perception of the term.
The article even starts out with this:
WCS has, for the most part, given us champions we are proud to call the best in the world.
Innocent in it's own right, but from the first sentence, the article is set up to cast doubt. The implied "But what about Rogue?" at the end of that opening line.
And then there's this line. At this point in the article it was pretty damn obvious that the article had built up to a concerted effort to downplay Rogue's success.
What was different for Rogue in 2017? A new expansion and design patch that fit his skills better? Sure. No other KeSPA teams to compete with Jin Air? That probably helped. Hydralisks? Yeah, that.
Am I really being narrow-minded here to assume that Rogue's achievements are being disrespected? I'd be blind to think otherwise. The analysis then goes on to trash Rogue's macro, when it is clear watching his games that he himself had substantial improvement in that regard towards the end of 2017. It's not like Rogue's macro went up leaps and bounds with the larva mechanic change, that only happened long after. Again, partially attributing Rogue's success to the game not punishing him for missed injects, right after the above Hydralisks line.
To his credit, the author then delves into some actual discussion about how we the community should consider him, giving him some credit (although never without again tempering it with some conditionals). But is all meaningless when the discussion is concluded by saying that with hydras as they are, we can't really judge Rogue properly, but if we want to try...
There is one option that fits better than the rest.
It’s ‘Patchzerg.’
Yeah. That's the conclusion. It's not a random joke. It's the conclusion to the piece. That is what ties up the doubts and discussions and questions raised.
But even if he did, articles of this kind have always been very clearly formulated as opinion pieces, and somehow equating mizenhauer's opinion with some preconceived notion of how Teamliquid promotes clickbait, bashing and toxic attitudes is pretty rich.
It's the top featured TL article. The title is right next to a picture of the TL logo. It has the words "Text byTeamLiquid ESPORTS" right under that title, before even the author's name. And even so, TL is still giving this a platform. Were it not for the "Text byTeamLiquid ESPORTS" I might be inclined to agree somewhat, but even then TL is still choosing to give this opinion a platform. Both in the article and in comments later on (page 2 I think), Mizenhauer states the community is responsible for these labels and legacies. And in so doing, as a prominent voice in the community being given a platform, is admitting responsibility in creating the perception that Rogue is a patchzerg, deliberately casting doubt on his achievements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Separate note I think Liquid'Ret also brings up an important point:
Regardless if Rogue ever wins a game of Starcraft again, he played awesome the latter half of 2017 and his multitask, precise control, and overall gamesense were a class above all other players playing in those tournaments that he won
What this article does now is it strengthens the community potential to see Rogue as a patchzerg in future. It attaches some future condition on his recognition for what he has already accomplished. Which is utter [this word should be obvious].
Yes, one can ignore all the praise about Rogue in the article and call it a Rogue-bashing article, sure.
He gives Rogue a decent amount of praise in the article, but then he pulls the rug from under it all with the conclusion that he's a "patchzerg". It's basically a suckerpunch in article form
On the contrary, I didn't take the final two sentences to mean that Rogue definitely is a patchzerg - rather that his circumstances invite the label because players that have reaped the rewards of certain design/balance changes in the past have also been labeled patchzergs for their bumps in results following a patch. Mizenhauer will have to speak for himself on this, but with mize's writing portfolio in mind I feel like it's more likely that the conclusion is a challenge to comfortable conclusions ("Rogue is a patchzerg", "Marineking is a cheeser", "INnoVation cannot adapt") than the comfortable conclusion itself. This might all be in the fine print, but it's a very significant distinction.
After all, the article does not heap undue criticism on Rogue, nor does it unfairly take away any achievements that Rogue has amassed previously - and there are numerous. He is, after all, (arguably?) the most accomplished Zerg alongside soO still active and competing at the top. If the article's goal was to take away from Rogue's achievements, it doesn't hold that it would begin with praise and acceptance of his successes. Then, if it does give Rogue a "decent amount of praise", isn't it pretty reasonable to read the conclusion through the lens of a critical viewer and the open question of whether that is how people will remember him, than a sloppy attempt to make that argument?
On January 12 2018 08:45 pvsnp wrote: Denying that the hydra buff helped Rogue (or any Zerg) is pure idiocy. But I wouldn't go so far as to call him a patchzerg either, though it's fair to say that Rogue received disproportionate benefits from the hydra buff due to his playstyle.
As far as his legacy goes, Rogue will lose to time. The nature of SC2 is such that no player has ever managed to dominate the professional scene for very long. Peaks and slumps are inevitable. Only players with both long careers and sufficient skill can experience multiple peaks and eventually build an enduring legacy.
Rogue is not one of those players. The end of 2017 was his first peak and there simply isn't enough time left to catch up to players with more storied legacies. Of the remaining pros, only Zest and Inno can claim something akin to that and even both of them still have a ways to go.
What do you mean by that? Your post makes it sound like he couldn't go on to have another strong 5 years.
I play mostly BW, so don't follow that closely, but you make it sounds like he is about to run out of time or something. Has he said he is leaving SC2 by some definitive date?
On January 12 2018 08:45 pvsnp wrote: Denying that the hydra buff helped Rogue (or any Zerg) is pure idiocy. But I wouldn't go so far as to call him a patchzerg either, though it's fair to say that Rogue received disproportionate benefits from the hydra buff due to his playstyle.
As far as his legacy goes, Rogue will lose to time. The nature of SC2 is such that no player has ever managed to dominate the professional scene for very long. Peaks and slumps are inevitable. Only players with both long careers and sufficient skill can experience multiple peaks and eventually build an enduring legacy.
Rogue is not one of those players. The end of 2017 was his first peak and there simply isn't enough time left to catch up to players with more storied legacies. Of the remaining pros, only Zest and Inno can claim something akin to that and even both of them still have a ways to go.
What do you mean by that? Your post makes it sound like he couldn't go on to have another strong 5 years.
I play mostly BW, so don't follow that closely, but you make it sounds like he is about to run out of time or something. Has he said he is leaving SC2 by some definitive date?
That's less concern about Rogue leaving the scene any time soon and more concern about the scene itself not having many more years left in it at the professional level in Korea.
On January 12 2018 08:45 pvsnp wrote: Denying that the hydra buff helped Rogue (or any Zerg) is pure idiocy. But I wouldn't go so far as to call him a patchzerg either, though it's fair to say that Rogue received disproportionate benefits from the hydra buff due to his playstyle.
As far as his legacy goes, Rogue will lose to time. The nature of SC2 is such that no player has ever managed to dominate the professional scene for very long. Peaks and slumps are inevitable. Only players with both long careers and sufficient skill can experience multiple peaks and eventually build an enduring legacy.
Rogue is not one of those players. The end of 2017 was his first peak and there simply isn't enough time left to catch up to players with more storied legacies. Of the remaining pros, only Zest and Inno can claim something akin to that and even both of them still have a ways to go.
What do you mean by that? Your post makes it sound like he couldn't go on to have another strong 5 years.
I play mostly BW, so don't follow that closely, but you make it sounds like he is about to run out of time or something. Has he said he is leaving SC2 by some definitive date?
That's less concern about Rogue leaving the scene any time soon and more concern about the scene itself not having many more years left in it at the professional level in Korea.
Since you can't defer enlistment once you reach age 29 (and add 1 to all player ages because Korean age), it's absolutely guaranteed that the SC2 scene in Korea won't last for another 5 years, Rogue included.
Unless you count Maru and Creator playing showmatches as a "professional scene."
It was a nice read. I don't agree with the last line. Rogue is NOT a patchzerg IMO. While I don't like Scarlett I have to agree with her that this shouldn't be here. The last line is way too offensive towards the hard work Rogue had to put into his game.
But I believe he's not a snowflake and he would be able to take it if he knew. I can take it too. I honestly believe that the last line is there only for trolling purposes and should have been left out, but since it's out...
Guys, just get over it. Classic had similar start. Do you remember how he lost his RO32 group few weeks after winning the GSL title? Everyone was about luck, patch toss and other shit like that. And nowadays he's considered as one of the strongest Protoss players out there. C'mon be fair and give Rogue some time and don't overreact. It's just a stupid line, the rest is actually good.
That's all.
@Mizenahuer - dude, stop trolling. And dude, I thought you were a chick, change the icon (nah, kidding )
Sorry for any missclicks and stuff, I cut of the tip of my finger and can't write properly as I use all my fingers to write and I keep forgetting TO NOT USE THAT ONE THAT HURTS AS HELL. Be carefull with knives.
The series against soo alone proves that rogue is no 'patch zerg'. Rogue had in my opinion the more difficult bracket to get to the finals. Soo played well and showed high skill, but Rogue outplayed him decisively.
Using a strong head line and strong words as conclusion might generate discussion, but also overshadows the rest of the article.
Then on twitter, the author writes "I hope Rogue proves me wrong and continues to win in 2017." If that is the case, the headline and the conclusion could have been phrased as questions.
Rogue, yeah who heard of him prior to 2017, as if he was ever in a top 16 of a any premier tournament before the patch hit -_-
I love Rogue as a player, I'm a fanboy, I'm hardly objective but what pissed me off the most is how casually this writer pretty much directly calls ByuN and Dear for patchterran and patchtoss.
I kind of liked the article, but at the same time not. Most of all I wonder what was the purpose, is this written as a big middle finger to Rogue, Dear and ByuN or is it some kind of hard-to-grasp satire. Either way its really sad when posters shit on pro players, especially so when measuring results in this very theoretical way.
On January 13 2018 08:58 Shuffleblade wrote: Either way its really sad when posters shit on pro players, especially so when measuring results in this very theoretical way.
that's really the point
being a media, carrying a label like TL,
with great power comes great responsibility
it's not *appropriate* to *feature* player bashing articles, being a critic is fine, but criticism is PR, it's not professional to bash or troll, imho
On January 13 2018 06:19 [F_]aths wrote: The series against soo alone proves that rogue is no 'patch zerg'. Rogue had in my opinion the more difficult bracket to get to the finals. Soo played well and showed high skill, but Rogue outplayed him decisively.
How well Rogue played against soO has no effect on whether he's a patchzerg or not. A patchplayer is someone who only has success on a specific patch/during a specific time. Rogue has to continue to win outside of that patch to prove he isn't a patchzerg
On January 13 2018 16:43 Vari wrote: hahaha I just saw this OP as the scarlett series was happening and though, I guess we'll know soon how right the OP is.
Zerg won 0/5 Starleagues in 2017 and there was only 1 player able to win premier tournaments (not counting WCS) Rogue is pretty much the farthest away from Patchzerg you can be. He's more in the camp of Mvp/Life/Maru of winning against all odds.
Maybe it's the "INnoVation phenomen" that a single player performing exceptionally well completely skews the perception of the race to the point the race is considered strong despite it being only one player.
On January 13 2018 06:19 [F_]aths wrote: The series against soo alone proves that rogue is no 'patch zerg'. Rogue had in my opinion the more difficult bracket to get to the finals. Soo played well and showed high skill, but Rogue outplayed him decisively.
Did he? Last map he did outplay soO absolutely, yes. But other than that it was pretty equal. 2 mapwins each, with one big luck for Rogue in map 5 (was it map 5? I'm not sure). I hate 4 player maps because its like a damn coin flip quite many times. They got the diagonal start and Rogue scouted soO first. He saw what soO is doing, and could punish him with build order. He knew from where soO's overlords are coming so he could hide his units. It was pretty much a won game from that point. Had soO scouted Rogue first who knows what happens. It could have been easily the opposite. This is why i really hate 4 player maps, because the start locations and who finds the opponent first are absolutely random but can be game deciding...
ByuN issues with multitasking? What the fuck am I reading :x. Didn't you see TY vs ByuN TvT series at blizzcon 2016? Seems like fine multitasking to me :o. edit: I guess since INno lost a bunch of scv from 1 zergling or something during the first Nation Wars of LotV, he has clear issues with multitasking as well and that's why he didn't ever win Blizzcon and won't ever?
I didn't finish the article yet, but I've read from comments that Rogue was called a patchzerg. It's not that insulting in the sense that Life was a bigger patchzerg yet he is still respected (at least his starcraft achievements)
I think it's incredibly narrow-minded to assume that mizenhauer wrote this article to bash on Rogue or that he doesn’t respect his achievements
I don't really see what other conclusion you can come to here. The whole article reads as follows: Creates context, raises the question about how to consider Rogue among other Blizzcon winners, and then proceeds with analysis and conclusion to answer that question by saying the best way to consider Rogue is as a PatchZerg, ie: someone who has relied on balance as a crutch, with the implication that they probably shouldn't have. It's a very strong attack in the SC2 community, one that inherently cast doubt on a player's achievements. Maybe you don't see it that way, but I'd attribute that to your perspective rather than the any broader community perception of the term.
The article even starts out with this:
WCS has, for the most part, given us champions we are proud to call the best in the world.
Innocent in it's own right, but from the first sentence, the article is set up to cast doubt. The implied "But what about Rogue?" at the end of that opening line.
And then there's this line. At this point in the article it was pretty damn obvious that the article had built up to a concerted effort to downplay Rogue's success.
What was different for Rogue in 2017? A new expansion and design patch that fit his skills better? Sure. No other KeSPA teams to compete with Jin Air? That probably helped. Hydralisks? Yeah, that.
Am I really being narrow-minded here to assume that Rogue's achievements are being disrespected? I'd be blind to think otherwise. The analysis then goes on to trash Rogue's macro, when it is clear watching his games that he himself had substantial improvement in that regard towards the end of 2017. It's not like Rogue's macro went up leaps and bounds with the larva mechanic change, that only happened long after. Again, partially attributing Rogue's success to the game not punishing him for missed injects, right after the above Hydralisks line.
To his credit, the author then delves into some actual discussion about how we the community should consider him, giving him some credit (although never without again tempering it with some conditionals). But is all meaningless when the discussion is concluded by saying that with hydras as they are, we can't really judge Rogue properly, but if we want to try...
There is one option that fits better than the rest.
It’s ‘Patchzerg.’
Yeah. That's the conclusion. It's not a random joke. It's the conclusion to the piece. That is what ties up the doubts and discussions and questions raised.
But even if he did, articles of this kind have always been very clearly formulated as opinion pieces, and somehow equating mizenhauer's opinion with some preconceived notion of how Teamliquid promotes clickbait, bashing and toxic attitudes is pretty rich.
It's the top featured TL article. The title is right next to a picture of the TL logo. It has the words "Text byTeamLiquid ESPORTS" right under that title, before even the author's name. And even so, TL is still giving this a platform. Were it not for the "Text byTeamLiquid ESPORTS" I might be inclined to agree somewhat, but even then TL is still choosing to give this opinion a platform. Both in the article and in comments later on (page 2 I think), Mizenhauer states the community is responsible for these labels and legacies. And in so doing, as a prominent voice in the community being given a platform, is admitting responsibility in creating the perception that Rogue is a patchzerg, deliberately casting doubt on his achievements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Separate note I think Liquid'Ret also brings up an important point:
Regardless if Rogue ever wins a game of Starcraft again, he played awesome the latter half of 2017 and his multitask, precise control, and overall gamesense were a class above all other players playing in those tournaments that he won
What this article does now is it strengthens the community potential to see Rogue as a patchzerg in future. It attaches some future condition on his recognition for what he has already accomplished. Which is utter [this word should be obvious].
Yes, one can ignore all the praise about Rogue in the article and call it a Rogue-bashing article, sure.
He gives Rogue a decent amount of praise in the article, but then he pulls the rug from under it all with the conclusion that he's a "patchzerg". It's basically a suckerpunch in article form
On the contrary, I didn't take the final two sentences to mean that Rogue definitely is a patchzerg - rather that his circumstances invite the label because players that have reaped the rewards of certain design/balance changes in the past have also been labeled patchzergs for their bumps in results following a patch. Mizenhauer will have to speak for himself on this, but with mize's writing portfolio in mind I feel like it's more likely that the conclusion is a challenge to comfortable conclusions ("Rogue is a patchzerg", "Marineking is a cheeser", "INnoVation cannot adapt") than the comfortable conclusion itself. This might all be in the fine print, but it's a very significant distinction.
After all, the article does not heap undue criticism on Rogue, nor does it unfairly take away any achievements that Rogue has amassed previously - and there are numerous. He is, after all, (arguably?) the most accomplished Zerg alongside soO still active and competing at the top. If the article's goal was to take away from Rogue's achievements, it doesn't hold that it would begin with praise and acceptance of his successes. Then, if it does give Rogue a "decent amount of praise", isn't it pretty reasonable to read the conclusion through the lens of a critical viewer and the open question of whether that is how people will remember him, than a sloppy attempt to make that argument?
Just the question is why TL never has that kind of stuff about terran. Did you ever see anything like that here before? Calling latest terran GSL winner a patchterran? Probably I always miss that, lol.
Defending protoss in "protossed" doesn't help that at all. That is more like backtracking from protossbashing than anything else.
And in this sense it really does not really matter to me to even read that in detail and argue about facts. As it is onedirectional TL appears tendencious.
And it in fact is.
Just watch your history. E.g. in best players of all times you made a terran player that had the majority of his success during a time when terran was as op as zerg during Broodlord/Infestor, that was the first successful player in SC2 overall, when the game by nature was not yet balanced well and quite volatile (I remember patches like roaches go from 3 to 4 range, SCV got not focuses by attacks when repairing, and many other large scale changes), GSL and other major tournaments were heavily dominated by terrans and the first row of people moved back to broodwar as watching bitbybitprime owning better opponents with a 5 min rush with SCVs in every game was not that much amusing, while casters created words like GomTvT.
I tell you this player does not compare to players like Innovation, Live, and whoever comes to question from the protoss fraction, and he already did not anymore when you released those rankings back in the days.
MvP has alot of things going for him, he was the first complete player of the game. He did not himself abuse early game knockout pushes as much, but benefited from them metawise. Still it is very questionable to put such a player on rank 1 best player of all times under these circumstances.
I don't want to start talking about releasing 30 page of balance wine ZvPcraft, after all the TL terrans who got used to terran OP gameplay of early SC2 and could not mentally adapt that other races get periods of being op as well. At the same time your administrators banned balance whiner's from other races at forums on a daily basis. Etc.
When will the first patchterran article appear on TL?
I think it's incredibly narrow-minded to assume that mizenhauer wrote this article to bash on Rogue or that he doesn’t respect his achievements
I don't really see what other conclusion you can come to here. The whole article reads as follows: Creates context, raises the question about how to consider Rogue among other Blizzcon winners, and then proceeds with analysis and conclusion to answer that question by saying the best way to consider Rogue is as a PatchZerg, ie: someone who has relied on balance as a crutch, with the implication that they probably shouldn't have. It's a very strong attack in the SC2 community, one that inherently cast doubt on a player's achievements. Maybe you don't see it that way, but I'd attribute that to your perspective rather than the any broader community perception of the term.
The article even starts out with this:
WCS has, for the most part, given us champions we are proud to call the best in the world.
Innocent in it's own right, but from the first sentence, the article is set up to cast doubt. The implied "But what about Rogue?" at the end of that opening line.
And then there's this line. At this point in the article it was pretty damn obvious that the article had built up to a concerted effort to downplay Rogue's success.
What was different for Rogue in 2017? A new expansion and design patch that fit his skills better? Sure. No other KeSPA teams to compete with Jin Air? That probably helped. Hydralisks? Yeah, that.
Am I really being narrow-minded here to assume that Rogue's achievements are being disrespected? I'd be blind to think otherwise. The analysis then goes on to trash Rogue's macro, when it is clear watching his games that he himself had substantial improvement in that regard towards the end of 2017. It's not like Rogue's macro went up leaps and bounds with the larva mechanic change, that only happened long after. Again, partially attributing Rogue's success to the game not punishing him for missed injects, right after the above Hydralisks line.
To his credit, the author then delves into some actual discussion about how we the community should consider him, giving him some credit (although never without again tempering it with some conditionals). But is all meaningless when the discussion is concluded by saying that with hydras as they are, we can't really judge Rogue properly, but if we want to try...
There is one option that fits better than the rest.
It’s ‘Patchzerg.’
Yeah. That's the conclusion. It's not a random joke. It's the conclusion to the piece. That is what ties up the doubts and discussions and questions raised.
But even if he did, articles of this kind have always been very clearly formulated as opinion pieces, and somehow equating mizenhauer's opinion with some preconceived notion of how Teamliquid promotes clickbait, bashing and toxic attitudes is pretty rich.
It's the top featured TL article. The title is right next to a picture of the TL logo. It has the words "Text byTeamLiquid ESPORTS" right under that title, before even the author's name. And even so, TL is still giving this a platform. Were it not for the "Text byTeamLiquid ESPORTS" I might be inclined to agree somewhat, but even then TL is still choosing to give this opinion a platform. Both in the article and in comments later on (page 2 I think), Mizenhauer states the community is responsible for these labels and legacies. And in so doing, as a prominent voice in the community being given a platform, is admitting responsibility in creating the perception that Rogue is a patchzerg, deliberately casting doubt on his achievements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Separate note I think Liquid'Ret also brings up an important point:
Regardless if Rogue ever wins a game of Starcraft again, he played awesome the latter half of 2017 and his multitask, precise control, and overall gamesense were a class above all other players playing in those tournaments that he won
What this article does now is it strengthens the community potential to see Rogue as a patchzerg in future. It attaches some future condition on his recognition for what he has already accomplished. Which is utter [this word should be obvious].
Yes, one can ignore all the praise about Rogue in the article and call it a Rogue-bashing article, sure.
He gives Rogue a decent amount of praise in the article, but then he pulls the rug from under it all with the conclusion that he's a "patchzerg". It's basically a suckerpunch in article form
On the contrary, I didn't take the final two sentences to mean that Rogue definitely is a patchzerg - rather that his circumstances invite the label because players that have reaped the rewards of certain design/balance changes in the past have also been labeled patchzergs for their bumps in results following a patch. Mizenhauer will have to speak for himself on this, but with mize's writing portfolio in mind I feel like it's more likely that the conclusion is a challenge to comfortable conclusions ("Rogue is a patchzerg", "Marineking is a cheeser", "INnoVation cannot adapt") than the comfortable conclusion itself. This might all be in the fine print, but it's a very significant distinction.
After all, the article does not heap undue criticism on Rogue, nor does it unfairly take away any achievements that Rogue has amassed previously - and there are numerous. He is, after all, (arguably?) the most accomplished Zerg alongside soO still active and competing at the top. If the article's goal was to take away from Rogue's achievements, it doesn't hold that it would begin with praise and acceptance of his successes. Then, if it does give Rogue a "decent amount of praise", isn't it pretty reasonable to read the conclusion through the lens of a critical viewer and the open question of whether that is how people will remember him, than a sloppy attempt to make that argument?
Just the question is why TL never has that kind of stuff about terran. Did you ever see anything like that here before? Calling latest terran GSL winner a patchterran? Probably I always miss that, lol.
Defending protoss in "protossed" doesn't help that at all. That is more like backtracking from protossbashing than anything else.
And in this sense it really does not really matter to me to even read that in detail and argue about facts. As it is onedirectional TL appears tendencious.
And it in fact is.
Just watch your history. E.g. in best players of all times you made a terran player that had the majority of his success during a time when terran was as op as zerg during Broodlord/Infestor, that was the first successful player in SC2 overall, when the game by nature was not yet balanced well and quite volatile (I remember patches like roaches go from 3 to 4 range, SCV got not focuses by attacks when repairing, and many other large scale changes), GSL and other major tournaments were heavily dominated by terrans and the first row of people moved back to broodwar as watching bitbybitprime owning better opponents with a 5 min rush with SCVs in every game was not that much amusing, while casters created words like GomTvT.
I tell you this player does not compare to players like Innovation, Live, and whoever comes to question from the protoss fraction, and he already did not anymore when you released those rankings back in the days.
MvP has alot of things going for him, he was the first complete player of the game. He did not himself abuse early game knockout pushes as much, but benefited from them metawise. Still it is very questionable to put such a player on rank 1 best player of all times under these circumstances.
I don't want to start talking about releasing 30 page of balance wine ZvPcraft, after all the TL terrans who got used to terran OP gameplay of early SC2 and could not mentally adapt that other races get periods of being op as well. At the same time your administrators banned balance whiner's from other races at forums on a daily basis. Etc.
When will the first patchterran article appear on TL?
BitByBit got trashed, terran wasn't OP for every Mvp GSL win. And I got banned multiple times as a terran whiner don't worry there is no bias here.
When will the first patchterran article appear on TL?
I'm quite sure Byun was called patch terran many times obviously because of his reapers and tankivacs.
Link or didn't happen. ;D
BTW: I didn't mean one of these forum posts by users that you get banned for, while the same thing is happening large scale on the mainpage from TL officials.
When will the first patchterran article appear on TL?
I'm quite sure Byun was called patch terran many times obviously because of his reapers and tankivacs.
Link or didn't happen. ;D
BTW: I didn't mean one of these forum posts by users that you get banned for, while the same thing is happening large scale on the mainpage from TL officials.
come one, even in gsl videos he said that himself. "please dont say i only won because of reapers" :D or something similar.
When will the first patchterran article appear on TL?
I'm quite sure Byun was called patch terran many times obviously because of his reapers and tankivacs.
Link or didn't happen. ;D
BTW: I didn't mean one of these forum posts by users that you get banned for, while the same thing is happening large scale on the mainpage from TL officials.
come one, even in gsl videos he said that himself. "please dont say i only won because of reapers" :D or something similar.
Obviously was not enough for TL staff to name that as a fact but much less is enough to create patchzerg agendas.
I think it's incredibly narrow-minded to assume that mizenhauer wrote this article to bash on Rogue or that he doesn’t respect his achievements
I don't really see what other conclusion you can come to here. The whole article reads as follows: Creates context, raises the question about how to consider Rogue among other Blizzcon winners, and then proceeds with analysis and conclusion to answer that question by saying the best way to consider Rogue is as a PatchZerg, ie: someone who has relied on balance as a crutch, with the implication that they probably shouldn't have. It's a very strong attack in the SC2 community, one that inherently cast doubt on a player's achievements. Maybe you don't see it that way, but I'd attribute that to your perspective rather than the any broader community perception of the term.
The article even starts out with this:
WCS has, for the most part, given us champions we are proud to call the best in the world.
Innocent in it's own right, but from the first sentence, the article is set up to cast doubt. The implied "But what about Rogue?" at the end of that opening line.
And then there's this line. At this point in the article it was pretty damn obvious that the article had built up to a concerted effort to downplay Rogue's success.
What was different for Rogue in 2017? A new expansion and design patch that fit his skills better? Sure. No other KeSPA teams to compete with Jin Air? That probably helped. Hydralisks? Yeah, that.
Am I really being narrow-minded here to assume that Rogue's achievements are being disrespected? I'd be blind to think otherwise. The analysis then goes on to trash Rogue's macro, when it is clear watching his games that he himself had substantial improvement in that regard towards the end of 2017. It's not like Rogue's macro went up leaps and bounds with the larva mechanic change, that only happened long after. Again, partially attributing Rogue's success to the game not punishing him for missed injects, right after the above Hydralisks line.
To his credit, the author then delves into some actual discussion about how we the community should consider him, giving him some credit (although never without again tempering it with some conditionals). But is all meaningless when the discussion is concluded by saying that with hydras as they are, we can't really judge Rogue properly, but if we want to try...
There is one option that fits better than the rest.
It’s ‘Patchzerg.’
Yeah. That's the conclusion. It's not a random joke. It's the conclusion to the piece. That is what ties up the doubts and discussions and questions raised.
But even if he did, articles of this kind have always been very clearly formulated as opinion pieces, and somehow equating mizenhauer's opinion with some preconceived notion of how Teamliquid promotes clickbait, bashing and toxic attitudes is pretty rich.
It's the top featured TL article. The title is right next to a picture of the TL logo. It has the words "Text byTeamLiquid ESPORTS" right under that title, before even the author's name. And even so, TL is still giving this a platform. Were it not for the "Text byTeamLiquid ESPORTS" I might be inclined to agree somewhat, but even then TL is still choosing to give this opinion a platform. Both in the article and in comments later on (page 2 I think), Mizenhauer states the community is responsible for these labels and legacies. And in so doing, as a prominent voice in the community being given a platform, is admitting responsibility in creating the perception that Rogue is a patchzerg, deliberately casting doubt on his achievements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Separate note I think Liquid'Ret also brings up an important point:
Regardless if Rogue ever wins a game of Starcraft again, he played awesome the latter half of 2017 and his multitask, precise control, and overall gamesense were a class above all other players playing in those tournaments that he won
What this article does now is it strengthens the community potential to see Rogue as a patchzerg in future. It attaches some future condition on his recognition for what he has already accomplished. Which is utter [this word should be obvious].
Yes, one can ignore all the praise about Rogue in the article and call it a Rogue-bashing article, sure.
He gives Rogue a decent amount of praise in the article, but then he pulls the rug from under it all with the conclusion that he's a "patchzerg". It's basically a suckerpunch in article form
On the contrary, I didn't take the final two sentences to mean that Rogue definitely is a patchzerg - rather that his circumstances invite the label because players that have reaped the rewards of certain design/balance changes in the past have also been labeled patchzergs for their bumps in results following a patch. Mizenhauer will have to speak for himself on this, but with mize's writing portfolio in mind I feel like it's more likely that the conclusion is a challenge to comfortable conclusions ("Rogue is a patchzerg", "Marineking is a cheeser", "INnoVation cannot adapt") than the comfortable conclusion itself. This might all be in the fine print, but it's a very significant distinction.
After all, the article does not heap undue criticism on Rogue, nor does it unfairly take away any achievements that Rogue has amassed previously - and there are numerous. He is, after all, (arguably?) the most accomplished Zerg alongside soO still active and competing at the top. If the article's goal was to take away from Rogue's achievements, it doesn't hold that it would begin with praise and acceptance of his successes. Then, if it does give Rogue a "decent amount of praise", isn't it pretty reasonable to read the conclusion through the lens of a critical viewer and the open question of whether that is how people will remember him, than a sloppy attempt to make that argument?
Just the question is why TL never has that kind of stuff about terran. Did you ever see anything like that here before? Calling latest terran GSL winner a patchterran? Probably I always miss that, lol.
Defending protoss in "protossed" doesn't help that at all. That is more like backtracking from protossbashing than anything else.
And in this sense it really does not really matter to me to even read that in detail and argue about facts. As it is onedirectional TL appears tendencious.
And it in fact is.
Just watch your history. E.g. in best players of all times you made a terran player that had the majority of his success during a time when terran was as op as zerg during Broodlord/Infestor, that was the first successful player in SC2 overall, when the game by nature was not yet balanced well and quite volatile (I remember patches like roaches go from 3 to 4 range, SCV got not focuses by attacks when repairing, and many other large scale changes), GSL and other major tournaments were heavily dominated by terrans and the first row of people moved back to broodwar as watching bitbybitprime owning better opponents with a 5 min rush with SCVs in every game was not that much amusing, while casters created words like GomTvT.
I tell you this player does not compare to players like Innovation, Live, and whoever comes to question from the protoss fraction, and he already did not anymore when you released those rankings back in the days.
MvP has alot of things going for him, he was the first complete player of the game. He did not himself abuse early game knockout pushes as much, but benefited from them metawise. Still it is very questionable to put such a player on rank 1 best player of all times under these circumstances.
I don't want to start talking about releasing 30 page of balance wine ZvPcraft, after all the TL terrans who got used to terran OP gameplay of early SC2 and could not mentally adapt that other races get periods of being op as well. At the same time your administrators banned balance whiner's from other races at forums on a daily basis. Etc.
When will the first patchterran article appear on TL?
We've ridiculed Marineking, INnoVation and Byun (three of the game's most successful Terrans) a billion times in the past, referred to GomTvT as a period of both Terran dominance and - just what you ask for - unjustly favorable conditions for Terrans. If you think TL at any point has taken on a sitewide or coverage-spanning Terran bias that has oppressed and unfairly hurt players and community members (including people participating) on these forums, I will totally reject that claim as either biased or incredibly revisionist. It's not like there haven't been periods where it has been open season on balance whining about Terran (see HotS release for one example, tankivac drop season for another).
But above all else, you equate individual writers and the aggregate rankings of TL writers to a sitewide stance or a stance held by TL moderation. TL writers are almost completely separate from site moderation/administration, and if Olli wants to call Terran skillfree bullshit (he has) or lichter wants to denigrate Life's accomplishments in relation to Mvp's (he always does), they're just as free to do so as mizenhauer is to pose a question about Rogue's lasting legacy.
TL rankings and TL articles have never (unless explicitly stating otherwise) served to convey the opinion of TL staff as a whole. That you continue to believe that our GOAT rankings mean TL mods favor Terran, or that you seem to believe that we commissioned TheDwf's piece on Zerg/Protoss and what he thought about the state of balance at the time in order to get across staff-wide discontent with the state of the game, is very telling.
All TL writers are free to write mostly according to what they want to write, provided it isn't hateful, inflammatory or patently untrue. Controversial is not the same as bad (in a definitive sense) and Terran-biased does not mean absolutely false. The article on ZvPcraft gained a lot of traction in the community and probably had a tangible impact. I can confirm that TheDwf was a raging Protoss hater, but the article was still rather well argued. Casters have taken up our storylines on-stream many times before. By no means were our storylines absolute or the only stories worth telling - our writers simply happened to think they were, and told them well. At no point have we rejected content critical of Terran because we all love Terran players and despise everyone else. Again, this article isn't about proving that Rogue is a patchzerg, but challenging simple and comfortable conclusions that fans often draw when they perceive imbalance.
I mean, I understand if you think we're unfair. All our writers are passionate fans, and often happen to like similar players. But not everyone voted Mvp #1, and not everyone thought Protoss was hopelessly overpowered in the period when it was widely believed to be the case. It's a shame that you think we perpetuate bias out of spite, but I promise you that we don't.
As a sidenote, it's unreasonable to ask for a "patchterran article" as justice for all Protoss and Zergs. If it's unfair, it's unfair, and it doesn't matter what race is taking fire - right?
On January 13 2018 18:10 Charoisaur wrote: Zerg won 0/5 Starleagues in 2017 and there was only 1 player able to win premier tournaments (not counting WCS) Rogue is pretty much the farthest away from Patchzerg you can be. He's more in the camp of Mvp/Life/Maru of winning against all odds.
Maybe it's the "INnoVation phenomen" that a single player performing exceptionally well completely skews the perception of the race to the point the race is considered strong despite it being only one player.
Patch player = someone that can only win on a certain patch. If Rogue can't win outside that patch then he's a patchzerg.
And towards the end of last year Rogue was the best zerg yes, but that doesn't mean zerg wasn't very strong. iirc zerg was almost universally accepted as favoured due to LBH and swarmhosts being too good.
On January 13 2018 18:10 Charoisaur wrote: Zerg won 0/5 Starleagues in 2017 and there was only 1 player able to win premier tournaments (not counting WCS) Rogue is pretty much the farthest away from Patchzerg you can be. He's more in the camp of Mvp/Life/Maru of winning against all odds.
Maybe it's the "INnoVation phenomen" that a single player performing exceptionally well completely skews the perception of the race to the point the race is considered strong despite it being only one player.
Patch player = someone that can only win on a certain patch. If Rogue can't win outside that patch then he's a patchzerg.
On January 13 2018 23:49 shadymmj wrote: the point is that we don't need such negative articles especially at this stage in sc2's lifespan
It does not call Rogue a patchzerg, it asks if that is how he will be remembered.
There is one option that fits better than the rest.
It’s ‘Patchzerg.’
What was different for Rogue in 2017? A new expansion and design patch that fit his skills better? Sure. No other KeSPA teams to compete with Jin Air? That probably helped. Hydralisks? Yeah, that.
Okay sure. I guess it doesn't. I agree the piece begs the question, but it also does a lot to give an answer to it. You can't just choose to ignore that in defending this piece.
EDIT: Why I don't think you can just let this off as begging the question, is because the author does very clearly give their conclusion on it. The article reads as phrasing a question, presenting the situation and evidence for possible answers, and then answering it. And if you allow the praise given in that second step to mitigate one of the very strong messages the article does a lot to impart on the reader, at Rogue's expense. It's not a coincidence that the programers who have commented on this don't like it, giving writers TL as a community platform to do what this article just did is not professional or fair to the programers in the SC2 community.
What was different for Rogue in 2017? A new expansion and design patch that fit his skills better? Sure. No other KeSPA teams to compete with Jin Air? That probably helped. Hydralisks? Yeah, that.
Okay sure. I guess it doesn't. I agree the piece begs the question, but it also does a lot to give an answer to it. You can't just choose to ignore that in defending this piece.
It certainly opens for that, but let's not pretend that the article does him undue injustices. It lays out his achievements across the span of his career pretty levelheadedly, and the very sentence you quoted suggests that hydralisks being strong was only one of many things that he benefited from in 2017 (do you disagree?), not that it was the sole defining feature of his rise to superstardom. It doesn't even emphasize hydralisks above Jin Air's superiority as a team, or the specific patch over LotV on the whole. Given that the article opens with a discussion of how we remember the other world champions, I don't think it's a far-fetched interpretation to read the ending as a provocation to those who would pull out the "patchzerg" label because it's comfortable (especially in light of Rogue's latest showing) rather than a conclusive judgment. If the intent were to label the guy an undeserving patch profiteer, why even mention the absence of other KeSPA teams? Why appraise his achievements fairly if the goal is to judge him unfairly?
Edit: and in response to your edit, I suppose our disagreement lies in whether or not the final two sentences constitute a conclusion or not. I don't think they do, nor do I believe they were written to. If you take it as a conclusion and an invitation to view Rogue as a patchzerg, then sure - I see the interpretation.
On January 13 2018 23:49 shadymmj wrote: the point is that we don't need such negative articles especially at this stage in sc2's lifespan
It does not call Rogue a patchzerg, it asks if that is how he will be remembered.
There is one option that fits better than the rest.
It’s ‘Patchzerg.’
What was different for Rogue in 2017? A new expansion and design patch that fit his skills better? Sure. No other KeSPA teams to compete with Jin Air? That probably helped. Hydralisks? Yeah, that.
Okay sure. I guess it doesn't. I agree the piece begs the question, but it also does a lot to give an answer to it. You can't just choose to ignore that in defending this piece.
It certainly opens for that, but let's not pretend that the article does him undue injustices. It lays out his achievements across the span of his career pretty levelheadedly, and the very sentence you quoted suggests that hydralisks being strong was only one of many things that he benefited from in 2017 (do you disagree?), not that it was the sole defining feature of his rise to superstardom. It doesn't even emphasize hydralisks above Jin Air's superiority as a team, or the specific patch over LotV on the whole. Given that the article opens with a discussion of how we remember the other world champions, I don't think it's a far-fetched interpretation to read the ending as a provocation to those who would pull out the "patchzerg" label because it's comfortable (especially in light of Rogue's latest showing) rather than a conclusive judgment. If the intent were to label the guy an undeserving patch profiteer, why even mention the absence of other KeSPA teams? Why appraise his achievements fairly if the goal is to judge him unfairly?
Edit: and in response to your edit, I suppose our disagreement lies in whether or not the final two sentences constitute a conclusion or not. I don't think they do, nor do I believe they were written to. If you take it as a conclusion and an invitation to view Rogue as a patchzerg, then sure - I see the interpretation.
It would seem that we have a very different idea of what various pieces of the article are actually doing, and probably won't reconcile that.
For example in the Hydralisks quote, Mizenhauer raises these other questions and explanations tentatively, words like "probably" say, to me, that while this is a factor, it's not the most impactful. He then ends that sentence with a strong affirmative on the balance aspect, and goes on in the next paragraph to expand on that. The article may raise points against what I see as a conclusion to the article, but it rather often then goes some way to mitigating those points or diminishing their importance.
Again, I don't think we'll be able to agree on this, and I can see now why.
I'm still not sure on the idea of having these controversial opinion pieces, which may come at the player's expense, having this by the title:
Text byTeamLiquid ESPORTS
Were I a professional of any sort associated with the scene, this article with that text would have made rather more unhappy than they have as just a reader. Because it rather strongly diminishes that "this opinion not endorsed by TL etc..."
On January 14 2018 01:02 bo1b wrote: TheDwf is one of the better players to have written on this site, and it's one thing to disagree with him, another to think he's a mindless whiner.
avilo is a better player than 99.9% of people posting on this forum but that doesn't make his points any more valid.
On January 14 2018 01:02 bo1b wrote: TheDwf is one of the better players to have written on this site, and it's one thing to disagree with him, another to think he's a mindless whiner.
avilo is a better player than 99.9% of people posting on this forum but that doesn't make his points any more valid.
Avilo does not and has never had the ability to coherently, logically, and persuasively present a case for any sort of balance argument.
TheDwf did. Disagree with his argument if you want, but it was a well-constructed argument nonetheless.
We've ridiculed Marineking, INnoVation and Byun (three of the game's most successful Terrans) a billion times in the past, referred to GomTvT as a period of both Terran dominance and - just what you ask for - unjustly favorable conditions for Terrans. If you think TL at any point has taken on a sitewide or coverage-spanning Terran bias that has oppressed and unfairly hurt players and community members (including people participating) on these forums, I will totally reject that claim as either biased or incredibly revisionist. It's not like there haven't been periods where it has been open season on balance whining about Terran (see HotS release for one example, tankivac drop season for another).
But above all else, you equate individual writers and the aggregate rankings of TL writers to a sitewide stance or a stance held by TL moderation. TL writers are almost completely separate from site moderation/administration, and if Olli wants to call Terran skillfree bullshit (he has) or lichter wants to denigrate Life's accomplishments in relation to Mvp's (he always does), they're just as free to do so as mizenhauer is to pose a question about Rogue's lasting legacy.
TL rankings and TL articles have never (unless explicitly stating otherwise) served to convey the opinion of TL staff as a whole. That you continue to believe that our GOAT rankings mean TL mods favor Terran, or that you seem to believe that we commissioned TheDwf's piece on Zerg/Protoss and what he thought about the state of balance at the time in order to get across staff-wide discontent with the state of the game, is very telling.
All TL writers are free to write mostly according to what they want to write, provided it isn't hateful, inflammatory or patently untrue. Controversial is not the same as bad (in a definitive sense) and Terran-biased does not mean absolutely false. The article on ZvPcraft gained a lot of traction in the community and probably had a tangible impact. I can confirm that TheDwf was a raging Protoss hater, but the article was still rather well argued. Casters have taken up our storylines on-stream many times before. By no means were our storylines absolute or the only stories worth telling - our writers simply happened to think they were, and told them well. At no point have we rejected content critical of Terran because we all love Terran players and despise everyone else. Again, this article isn't about proving that Rogue is a patchzerg, but challenging simple and comfortable conclusions that fans often draw when they perceive imbalance.
I mean, I understand if you think we're unfair. All our writers are passionate fans, and often happen to like similar players. But not everyone voted Mvp #1, and not everyone thought Protoss was hopelessly overpowered in the period when it was widely believed to be the case. It's a shame that you think we perpetuate bias out of spite, but I promise you that we don't.
As a sidenote, it's unreasonable to ask for a "patchterran article" as justice for all Protoss and Zergs. If it's unfair, it's unfair, and it doesn't matter what race is taking fire - right?
I haven't got as good of an overview as you about what has been said on TL or not. I do understand that your writers have opinions and you do not control where and how they accumulate. I still believe that the overall output is a bit onedirectional from what I perceive.
Requesting a patchterran article was not a serious endeavor but meant to be serving as a prove that it doesn't exist, as I was sure some people would be linking articles that shot against terran, which didn't happen.
Is there at all a single article on TL that deals with terran as a race in that kind of manner (patchzerg, pvzcraft) over the lifespan of SC2? I am talking about articles that discredit terran players as they put game balance over individual player abilities to evaluate outcomes of tournements or metagame developments.
From what I have seen and read it (it = the bias) is always shooting against P/Z but never against terran. I haven't seen counterproof yet, but I am sure I missed loads of stuff that was release at TL over the years. Isn't it a fact, that whenever it is about a terran, the argument is constructed around why the terran player stood out despite of the metagame leaning towards terran or good general environment for terran, while it is exactly the other way round when it is about protoss or zerg (then it is not despite but cause of)?
On January 14 2018 01:02 bo1b wrote: TheDwf is one of the better players to have written on this site, and it's one thing to disagree with him, another to think he's a mindless whiner.
avilo is a better player than 99.9% of people posting on this forum but that doesn't make his points any more valid.
Avilo does not and has never had the ability to coherently, logically, and persuasively present a case for any sort of balance argument.
TheDwf did. Disagree with his argument if you want, but it was a well-constructed argument nonetheless.
His argument came very close to being well constructed, but was undermined by all the cheap sarcasm and jabs utterly lacking in objectivity that he felt necessary to sneak in.
We've ridiculed Marineking, INnoVation and Byun (three of the game's most successful Terrans) a billion times in the past, referred to GomTvT as a period of both Terran dominance and - just what you ask for - unjustly favorable conditions for Terrans. If you think TL at any point has taken on a sitewide or coverage-spanning Terran bias that has oppressed and unfairly hurt players and community members (including people participating) on these forums, I will totally reject that claim as either biased or incredibly revisionist. It's not like there haven't been periods where it has been open season on balance whining about Terran (see HotS release for one example, tankivac drop season for another).
But above all else, you equate individual writers and the aggregate rankings of TL writers to a sitewide stance or a stance held by TL moderation. TL writers are almost completely separate from site moderation/administration, and if Olli wants to call Terran skillfree bullshit (he has) or lichter wants to denigrate Life's accomplishments in relation to Mvp's (he always does), they're just as free to do so as mizenhauer is to pose a question about Rogue's lasting legacy.
TL rankings and TL articles have never (unless explicitly stating otherwise) served to convey the opinion of TL staff as a whole. That you continue to believe that our GOAT rankings mean TL mods favor Terran, or that you seem to believe that we commissioned TheDwf's piece on Zerg/Protoss and what he thought about the state of balance at the time in order to get across staff-wide discontent with the state of the game, is very telling.
All TL writers are free to write mostly according to what they want to write, provided it isn't hateful, inflammatory or patently untrue. Controversial is not the same as bad (in a definitive sense) and Terran-biased does not mean absolutely false. The article on ZvPcraft gained a lot of traction in the community and probably had a tangible impact. I can confirm that TheDwf was a raging Protoss hater, but the article was still rather well argued. Casters have taken up our storylines on-stream many times before. By no means were our storylines absolute or the only stories worth telling - our writers simply happened to think they were, and told them well. At no point have we rejected content critical of Terran because we all love Terran players and despise everyone else. Again, this article isn't about proving that Rogue is a patchzerg, but challenging simple and comfortable conclusions that fans often draw when they perceive imbalance.
I mean, I understand if you think we're unfair. All our writers are passionate fans, and often happen to like similar players. But not everyone voted Mvp #1, and not everyone thought Protoss was hopelessly overpowered in the period when it was widely believed to be the case. It's a shame that you think we perpetuate bias out of spite, but I promise you that we don't.
As a sidenote, it's unreasonable to ask for a "patchterran article" as justice for all Protoss and Zergs. If it's unfair, it's unfair, and it doesn't matter what race is taking fire - right?
I haven't got as good of an overview as you about what has been said on TL or not. I do understand that your writers have opinions and you do not control where and how they accumulate. I still believe that the overall output is a bit onedirectional from what I perceive.
Requesting a patchterran article was not a serious endeavor but meant to be serving as a prove that it doesn't exist, as I was sure some people would be linking articles that shot against terran, which didn't happen.
Is there at all a single article on TL that deals with terran as a race in that kind of manner (patchzerg, pvzcraft) over the lifespan of SC2? I am talking about articles that discredit terran players as they put game balance over individual player abilities to evaluate outcomes of tournements or metagame developments.
From what I have seen and read it (it = the bias) is always shooting against P/Z but never against terran. I haven't seen counterproof yet, but I am sure I missed loads of stuff that was release at TL over the years. Isn't it a fact, that whenever it is about a terran, the argument is constructed around why the terran player stood out despite of the metagame leaning towards terran or good general environment, while it is exactly the other way round when it is about protoss or zerg?
Dear fucking god it's just a game, I can't believe how fragile people are that this of all things offends them
On January 13 2018 18:10 Charoisaur wrote: Zerg won 0/5 Starleagues in 2017 and there was only 1 player able to win premier tournaments (not counting WCS) Rogue is pretty much the farthest away from Patchzerg you can be. He's more in the camp of Mvp/Life/Maru of winning against all odds.
Maybe it's the "INnoVation phenomen" that a single player performing exceptionally well completely skews the perception of the race to the point the race is considered strong despite it being only one player.
Patch player = someone that can only win on a certain patch. If Rogue can't win outside that patch then he's a patchzerg.
Fruitdealer = Patchzerg confirmed.
You mistook his failing form for patchiness when it was alcoholism.
On January 14 2018 03:51 starkiller123 wrote: Dear fucking god it's just a game, I can't believe how fragile people are that this of all things offends them
(1) It is the game about opinion leadership as in regular politics. (2) Maybe it is as well a game about how many and which users feel welcome/represented/etc. on teamliquid, and who is turning their back to it instead?
In state of growth it was only important to get control of opinions (1). However in state of decline (now) it is more important to calm things down and be nice to everyone, which you can see from staff answering nicely (2) instead of being aggressive themselves and using the ban button more likely, which was the case some years ago.
On January 13 2018 18:10 Charoisaur wrote: Zerg won 0/5 Starleagues in 2017 and there was only 1 player able to win premier tournaments (not counting WCS) Rogue is pretty much the farthest away from Patchzerg you can be. He's more in the camp of Mvp/Life/Maru of winning against all odds.
Maybe it's the "INnoVation phenomen" that a single player performing exceptionally well completely skews the perception of the race to the point the race is considered strong despite it being only one player.
Patch player = someone that can only win on a certain patch. If Rogue can't win outside that patch then he's a patchzerg.
Fruitdealer = Patchzerg confirmed.
You mistook his failing form for patchiness when it was alcoholism.
Is there any source on that besides gossip? I coudln't find anything back when I googled
Well, so much hype and now crashed and burned. Maybe it is his style. Very slow start (same in 2017) but explosive end. To be honest, his games at GSL were just weird. Tried very hard to play weird style and ended up backfire.
We've ridiculed Marineking, INnoVation and Byun (three of the game's most successful Terrans) a billion times in the past, referred to GomTvT as a period of both Terran dominance and - just what you ask for - unjustly favorable conditions for Terrans. If you think TL at any point has taken on a sitewide or coverage-spanning Terran bias that has oppressed and unfairly hurt players and community members (including people participating) on these forums, I will totally reject that claim as either biased or incredibly revisionist. It's not like there haven't been periods where it has been open season on balance whining about Terran (see HotS release for one example, tankivac drop season for another).
But above all else, you equate individual writers and the aggregate rankings of TL writers to a sitewide stance or a stance held by TL moderation. TL writers are almost completely separate from site moderation/administration, and if Olli wants to call Terran skillfree bullshit (he has) or lichter wants to denigrate Life's accomplishments in relation to Mvp's (he always does), they're just as free to do so as mizenhauer is to pose a question about Rogue's lasting legacy.
TL rankings and TL articles have never (unless explicitly stating otherwise) served to convey the opinion of TL staff as a whole. That you continue to believe that our GOAT rankings mean TL mods favor Terran, or that you seem to believe that we commissioned TheDwf's piece on Zerg/Protoss and what he thought about the state of balance at the time in order to get across staff-wide discontent with the state of the game, is very telling.
All TL writers are free to write mostly according to what they want to write, provided it isn't hateful, inflammatory or patently untrue. Controversial is not the same as bad (in a definitive sense) and Terran-biased does not mean absolutely false. The article on ZvPcraft gained a lot of traction in the community and probably had a tangible impact. I can confirm that TheDwf was a raging Protoss hater, but the article was still rather well argued. Casters have taken up our storylines on-stream many times before. By no means were our storylines absolute or the only stories worth telling - our writers simply happened to think they were, and told them well. At no point have we rejected content critical of Terran because we all love Terran players and despise everyone else. Again, this article isn't about proving that Rogue is a patchzerg, but challenging simple and comfortable conclusions that fans often draw when they perceive imbalance.
I mean, I understand if you think we're unfair. All our writers are passionate fans, and often happen to like similar players. But not everyone voted Mvp #1, and not everyone thought Protoss was hopelessly overpowered in the period when it was widely believed to be the case. It's a shame that you think we perpetuate bias out of spite, but I promise you that we don't.
As a sidenote, it's unreasonable to ask for a "patchterran article" as justice for all Protoss and Zergs. If it's unfair, it's unfair, and it doesn't matter what race is taking fire - right?
I haven't got as good of an overview as you about what has been said on TL or not. I do understand that your writers have opinions and you do not control where and how they accumulate. I still believe that the overall output is a bit onedirectional from what I perceive.
Requesting a patchterran article was not a serious endeavor but meant to be serving as a prove that it doesn't exist, as I was sure some people would be linking articles that shot against terran, which didn't happen.
Is there at all a single article on TL that deals with terran as a race in that kind of manner (patchzerg, pvzcraft) over the lifespan of SC2? I am talking about articles that discredit terran players as they put game balance over individual player abilities to evaluate outcomes of tournements or metagame developments.
From what I have seen and read it (it = the bias) is always shooting against P/Z but never against terran. I haven't seen counterproof yet, but I am sure I missed loads of stuff that was release at TL over the years. Isn't it a fact, that whenever it is about a terran, the argument is constructed around why the terran player stood out despite of the metagame leaning towards terran or good general environment, while it is exactly the other way round when it is about protoss or zerg?
Dear fucking god it's just a game, I can't believe how fragile people are that this of all things offends them
So i'm now free to post "innovation is a patchterran" each time i want like the 15 "patchzerg" posts i've seen in the GSL group C ?
On January 13 2018 18:10 Charoisaur wrote: Zerg won 0/5 Starleagues in 2017 and there was only 1 player able to win premier tournaments (not counting WCS) Rogue is pretty much the farthest away from Patchzerg you can be. He's more in the camp of Mvp/Life/Maru of winning against all odds.
Maybe it's the "INnoVation phenomen" that a single player performing exceptionally well completely skews the perception of the race to the point the race is considered strong despite it being only one player.
Patch player = someone that can only win on a certain patch. If Rogue can't win outside that patch then he's a patchzerg.
And towards the end of last year Rogue was the best zerg yes, but that doesn't mean zerg wasn't very strong. iirc zerg was almost universally accepted as favoured due to LBH and swarmhosts being too good.
Ling bane hydra and swarmhosts didn't exist when rogue won.
2017 Tournaments in korea won by protoss: 3, by zerg: 2 (both rogue), by terran: 2 (both innovation)
9 top 4 finishes of zerg: 2 times 1st places: Rogue, Rogue 2 times 2nd places: Soo, Dark 1 time 3rd place: Byul 4 times 4th places: Solar, Dark, Soo, Dark
Terran had 6 top 4 finishes: 3 times innovation, TY, Alive and Ryung.
Protoss had 10 top 4 finishes: 2 times her0, 4 times stats, 2 times sos, classic and dear.
All in all last year was pretty balanced. Only the best players finished top or are we calling dark and soo also patch zergs now? Hence calling rogue a patchzerg is not fair.
Also this patch is the most imbalanced according to people. Why didn't rogue win if he is a patch zerg?
The terran bias in the scene is obvious! Other races are always called imba and no skill. But terran can do nothing wrong. Terran cheeses and all ins and people say that the player had god like micro.
Why is that the case? In my opinion it is because terran is played by a lot of newbies who don't understand the game yet. It is simply the first race people choose to play. But i can be wrong and all skilled players play terran for some reason.
To be fair, result of last's night's GSL group doesn't actually have anything to do with Miz's observations. It's still amusing, though! Add arbitrary stakes to a night of competitive SC2 whenever you can
I think the community engagement speaks for itself. We need more well written provocative articles before nights of gsl. Thanks miz for a highly entertaining day of reading posts.
I disagree with this article, as i have previously posted. The article is clearly structured to argue the opinion of Rogue being a patchzerg, take away the last paragraph and at least its not clearly stated as the most fitting description of him but that really pushes it way past the line.
Either way the common argument that TL(moderators/writers/whatever) is terran biased and only whine on other races is utter bull. If any of you were here during the periods of terran dominance I don't know how you missed it, what IS new here though is calling a pro player a patchchampion, in an officiell TL endorsed article. It is true, go back in time a year something like this would have been locked and banned no matter what part of the forum you posted it in. Now its official article being defended by moderators, its not terran bias its just the site changing, how and why I don't know, maybe some people got too much power.
On January 14 2018 19:33 Shuffleblade wrote: I disagree with this article, as i have previously posted. The article is clearly structured to argue the opinion of Rogue being a patchzerg, take away the last paragraph and at least its not clearly stated as the most fitting description of him but that really pushes it way past the line.
Either way the common argument that TL(moderators/writers/whatever) is terran biased and only whine on other races is utter bull. If any of you were here during the periods of terran dominance I don't know how you missed it, what IS new here though is calling a pro player a patchchampion, in an officiell TL endorsed article. It is true, go back in time a year something like this would have been locked and banned no matter what part of the forum you posted it in. Now its official article being defended by moderators, its not terran bias its just the site changing, how and why I don't know, maybe some people got too much power.
Yeah TL writers totally never pushed the story that INnoVation is only strong when Terran is strong.
By the way if the article infuriates you, feel free to participate in the LR team league so you can get a chance to beat the writer at a game of Starcraft .
On January 14 2018 19:33 Shuffleblade wrote: I disagree with this article, as i have previously posted. The article is clearly structured to argue the opinion of Rogue being a patchzerg, take away the last paragraph and at least its not clearly stated as the most fitting description of him but that really pushes it way past the line.
Either way the common argument that TL(moderators/writers/whatever) is terran biased and only whine on other races is utter bull. If any of you were here during the periods of terran dominance I don't know how you missed it, what IS new here though is calling a pro player a patchchampion, in an officiell TL endorsed article. It is true, go back in time a year something like this would have been locked and banned no matter what part of the forum you posted it in. Now its official article being defended by moderators, its not terran bias its just the site changing, how and why I don't know, maybe some people got too much power.
Yeah TL writers totally never pushed the story that INnoVation is only strong when Terran is strong.
Yes indeed, I've never read TL writers saying that Inno only could win in a single patch and that we never saw him in a top 16 unless terran were favored as a race.
If you don't think there's a different between saying that a player of race X normally don't make the finals unless their race is also considered strong and calling a world champion for a patchzerg then lets agree to disagree.
On January 13 2018 18:10 Charoisaur wrote: Zerg won 0/5 Starleagues in 2017 and there was only 1 player able to win premier tournaments (not counting WCS) Rogue is pretty much the farthest away from Patchzerg you can be. He's more in the camp of Mvp/Life/Maru of winning against all odds.
Maybe it's the "INnoVation phenomen" that a single player performing exceptionally well completely skews the perception of the race to the point the race is considered strong despite it being only one player.
Patch player = someone that can only win on a certain patch. If Rogue can't win outside that patch then he's a patchzerg.
Fruitdealer = Patchzerg confirmed.
You mistook his failing form for patchiness when it was alcoholism.
Is there any source on that besides gossip? I coudln't find anything back when I googled
asking tl writers to have sources for their claims. lol
On January 14 2018 19:33 Shuffleblade wrote: I disagree with this article, as i have previously posted. The article is clearly structured to argue the opinion of Rogue being a patchzerg, take away the last paragraph and at least its not clearly stated as the most fitting description of him but that really pushes it way past the line.
Either way the common argument that TL(moderators/writers/whatever) is terran biased and only whine on other races is utter bull. If any of you were here during the periods of terran dominance I don't know how you missed it, what IS new here though is calling a pro player a patchchampion, in an officiell TL endorsed article. It is true, go back in time a year something like this would have been locked and banned no matter what part of the forum you posted it in. Now its official article being defended by moderators, its not terran bias its just the site changing, how and why I don't know, maybe some people got too much power.
Yeah TL writers totally never pushed the story that INnoVation is only strong when Terran is strong.
Yes indeed, I've never read TL writers saying that Inno only could win in a single patch and that we never saw him in a top 16 unless terran were favored as a race.
If you don't think there's a different between saying that a player of race X normally don't make the finals unless their race is also considered strong and calling a world champion for a patchzerg then lets agree to disagree.
As silly as it is, they did a lot of time implies that INno is only strong when terran is strong.
On January 14 2018 19:33 Shuffleblade wrote: I disagree with this article, as i have previously posted. The article is clearly structured to argue the opinion of Rogue being a patchzerg, take away the last paragraph and at least its not clearly stated as the most fitting description of him but that really pushes it way past the line.
Either way the common argument that TL(moderators/writers/whatever) is terran biased and only whine on other races is utter bull. If any of you were here during the periods of terran dominance I don't know how you missed it, what IS new here though is calling a pro player a patchchampion, in an officiell TL endorsed article. It is true, go back in time a year something like this would have been locked and banned no matter what part of the forum you posted it in. Now its official article being defended by moderators, its not terran bias its just the site changing, how and why I don't know, maybe some people got too much power.
Yeah TL writers totally never pushed the story that INnoVation is only strong when Terran is strong.
Yes indeed, I've never read TL writers saying that Inno only could win in a single patch and that we never saw him in a top 16 unless terran were favored as a race.
If you don't think there's a different between saying that a player of race X normally don't make the finals unless their race is also considered strong and calling a world champion for a patchzerg then lets agree to disagree.
You've never read that because it's factually incorrect. Inno won multiple tournaments on multiple different patches across multiple years. Some people (and some TL staff) have called him a patchterran, but nobody says he's a single-patch abuser because that's simply wrong.
Rogue on the other hand literally won all of his tournaments on the hydra patch. From the hydra buff on March 7, 2017 until Blizzcon, Zerg recieved 0 balance changes (unless you count burrow visibility). Comparing Rogue to Inno is a false equivalence fallacy.
Rogue is not a patchzerg, in my eyes. But Rogue and Inno are in very different positions.
An interesting comparison between Dear and Rogue. + Show Spoiler +
It seems that Rogue has faded after his last matches in Code S just like Dear did after such a dominance during the second half of 2013. I think that Life was the only one who could keep his best form after Blizzcon grand finals. Actually I haven't seen Rogue in mirror matches against top zergs like Dark, soO or Solar in order to calculate how strong he is against zergs. Starcraft is very complicated web of possibilities. Both aLive and Rogue defeated Innovation in his strong performance for the whole 2017 and now they experience same issues, because aLive could not manage to win any long waited trophy last year and now Rogue failed.
I wouldn't call Rogue a Patchzerg. He simply seized a moment.
I reserve that title for the 16% of total players who are truly underserving zerg right now in the 50-25-25 split you see in tournaments that weren't in the balanced 34-33-33.
Should I name a few zerg who wouldn't stand a chance without the steady overall increase in abilities of the zergling, baneling, overlord, roach, hydralisk, viper, ultralisk, corruptor, and queen since HOTS? That would probably make a few people angry.
No, instead, I will speak well of the zerg who deserve speaking well of:
I really like seeing Snute, Rogue, soO, Solar, Dark, Leenock, and the like play - precisely because their builds look like they could still win when they win if zerg decreased in overall power by 10%.
On January 12 2018 03:45 loft wrote: "patch zerg" seriously F off.
Rogue is the zerg of zergs. Somehow he makes those "gimmicky" strategies work against the best players in the world (when you compare him to sOs the king of gimmicks?).
Rogue is reactionary and willing to go against the meta. His style is unparalleled and finally came to light. Add on his mastery of late game compositions and control and he's the best zerg in town.
lol who wrote the shitty article? How can ANYONE call Rouge Patchzerg? This is just crap. I think TL should be ashamed that this words ever saw daylight.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/528473-rogues-apotheosis That one isnt' though. Mizenhauer with the 10k IQ play, can't be wrong if you write both sides of the story
lmao bringing 2017 article to Jan 2018 article nice try :D
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/528473-rogues-apotheosis That one isnt' though. Mizenhauer with the 10k IQ play, can't be wrong if you write both sides of the story
lmao bringing 2017 article to Jan 2018 article nice try :D
It's just to bring context. If you think mizenhauer is a "salty soO fan", you're terribly wrong.
On March 05 2018 00:01 CBAS2TheHumanLife wrote: just remember this, naming one of top Korean zerg Rogue 'a patch zerg' means making all foreign zergs look even way worse :D
On January 12 2018 04:49 The_Red_Viper wrote: People really should read more than just the last line, are you guys serious now?
Also let's not forget this article either: Rogue's Apotheosis That's really all one has to say really, gl fellow TL posters
Any writer knows that the title and the last line are the two most lasting impressions and colors the entire piece. It's one thing to downplay someone's achievements, but there's no walking back "has no clothes" and "patchzerg". It was intentionally written to be inflammatory and controversial. If that's what he wants fine, but you can't argue that it wasn't the point.
On March 05 2018 01:45 The_Red_Viper wrote: This is a losing battle but i will quote myself:
On January 12 2018 04:49 The_Red_Viper wrote: People really should read more than just the last line, are you guys serious now?
Also let's not forget this article either: Rogue's Apotheosis That's really all one has to say really, gl fellow TL posters
Any writer knows that the title and the last line are the two most lasting impressions and colors the entire piece. It's one thing to downplay someone's achievements, but there's no walking back "has no clothes" and "patchzerg". It was intentionally written to be inflammatory and controversial. If that's what he wants fine, but you have to be willing to take the heat for it.
And every writer hopes people would at least read the whole thing before they express their opinions. But sure it's written that way for a reason, still doesn't mean people are right with their criticsm
On March 05 2018 01:45 The_Red_Viper wrote: This is a losing battle but i will quote myself:
On January 12 2018 04:49 The_Red_Viper wrote: People really should read more than just the last line, are you guys serious now?
Also let's not forget this article either: Rogue's Apotheosis That's really all one has to say really, gl fellow TL posters
Any writer knows that the title and the last line are the two most lasting impressions and colors the entire piece. It's one thing to downplay someone's achievements, but there's no walking back "has no clothes" and "patchzerg". It was intentionally written to be inflammatory and controversial. If that's what he wants fine, but you have to be willing to take the heat for it.
And every writer hopes people would at least read the whole thing before they express their opinions. But sure it's written that way for a reason, still doesn't mean people are right with their criticsm
The entire article leads to that point though. It wasn't like he was heading in one direction and made a sharp turn. It's the emphatic finish of all the questioning and skepticism throughout the article. That makes it clear what his opinion is.
If Scarlett returns to her historic norm after this patch, will there be a TL article asking if she's a patchzerg or do we only apply those labels to world champions like ByuN and Rogue?
On March 05 2018 10:26 Boggyb wrote: If Scarlett returns to her historic norm after this patch, will there be a TL article asking if she's a patchzerg or do we only apply those labels to world champions like ByuN and Rogue?
Scarlett abused Brood Lord/Infestor in WoL, she's a patchzerg no matter what.
On March 05 2018 10:26 Boggyb wrote: If Scarlett returns to her historic norm after this patch, will there be a TL article asking if she's a patchzerg or do we only apply those labels to world champions like ByuN and Rogue?
Foreigners aren't worthy enough to get TL articles dedicated to themselves, so it's a non-issue .
On March 05 2018 10:26 Boggyb wrote: If Scarlett returns to her historic norm after this patch, will there be a TL article asking if she's a patchzerg or do we only apply those labels to world champions like ByuN and Rogue?
Scarlett abused Brood Lord/Infestor in WoL, she's a patchzerg no matter what.
If we apply the same logic :
Every protoss abused blink stalker = all patchtoss, and forever
Every zerg, broodlord/infestor in wol = all patchzerg forever
Every Terran abused 1/1/1 or hellbat drops, or mass reapers, etc... = all patchterran forever.
This article is so biased I don't understand the meaning of it. Is it to tune down the incredible performance of Rogue? Is this a retribution for rolling over Classic?
I mean come on, IEM Shanghai, GSL Super Tournament, Blizzcon and now IEM Katowice! You're putting ByuN on the same level as Rogue, that's pretty sad considering the achievements of Rogue. And finishing that article with 'patchzerg' is somewhat a big tell that you're either trolling or trying to get attention in a sad way. I really do hope the level of writing on TL.net will rise because I feel like we hit rock bottom with this one.
On March 05 2018 10:26 Boggyb wrote: If Scarlett returns to her historic norm after this patch, will there be a TL article asking if she's a patchzerg or do we only apply those labels to world champions like ByuN and Rogue?
Scarlett abused Brood Lord/Infestor in WoL, she's a patchzerg no matter what.
Hard to say if she still couldn't win anything with it.
On March 05 2018 01:45 The_Red_Viper wrote: This is a losing battle but i will quote myself:
On January 12 2018 04:49 The_Red_Viper wrote: People really should read more than just the last line, are you guys serious now?
Also let's not forget this article either: Rogue's Apotheosis That's really all one has to say really, gl fellow TL posters
Any writer knows that the title and the last line are the two most lasting impressions and colors the entire piece. It's one thing to downplay someone's achievements, but there's no walking back "has no clothes" and "patchzerg". It was intentionally written to be inflammatory and controversial. If that's what he wants fine, but you have to be willing to take the heat for it.
And every writer hopes people would at least read the whole thing before they express their opinions. But sure it's written that way for a reason, still doesn't mean people are right with their criticsm
Yes, clearly the only reason anyone would take issue with this is if they're a troglodyte who didn't even read the content. Clearly. Indubitably.
On March 06 2018 02:44 kajtarp wrote: If Maru didnt choke again after leading 2-0 nobody would be here...
But he did choke, and Rogue didn't. The better player won.
Game 5 especially proves it, even if you discount the Nydus and Ravager all-ins of games 3 and 4 as luck.
Honestly I'd still favour Maru in a rematch, maybe even TY. Rogue said himself that in a standard macro or late game he wouldn't win. He went for crazy all-ins to try and entertain and was surprised as everyone else when he won
On March 06 2018 04:36 Fango wrote: Honestly I'd still favour Maru in a rematch, maybe even TY. Rogue said himself that in a standard macro or late game he wouldn't win. He went for crazy all-ins to try and entertain and was surprised as everyone else when he won
Regardless of what he said, he played the way he did because that was his best chance, not just because it's entertaining. A champion finds ways to win even when they seem disfavored on paper, and that's what Rogue did. His mindset was likely a key asset on a big stage like that.
Well, this was an interesting thread to read, to say the least. Not sure how I feel about it, except to note that patchzerg typically denotes someone who loses relevance after a patch. Rogue has far from lost relevance - he's still being called (erroneously or no) the best zerg in Korea (and even the best in the world by Maru, although he's probably biased). So while I like the retrospection on how we view past champions, I think the patchzerg part of this was just kind of a shot at Rogue that was pretty unnecessary and just thrown in to cause controversy, especially with him winning Katowice, what, days after this was written?
What bothers me about this thread is not what it's arguing, because I agree and have said similar things in the past, but that there is no equivalent thread for the plethora of other players who benefitted massively from patches then fell off hard afterwards. Byun was mentioned in the article but he's the most obvious patch Terran around, where's the thread about him? Gumiho, as much as I love him, was NOT gsl champion quality and is a patch Terran plain and simple. Neeb is likely to fall off hard after carriers are nerfed, depending on how the next patch shapes up. Innovation could even be argued to be a patch Terran because his success coincides with things like hellbat or tank buffs. Heck, maru is getting heaps of blind praise right now despite his success clearly coinciding with ravens marauders and ghosts. Or did we all forget that game he played on backwater after the Raven nerf where he clearly didn't know what to do and massed ravens anyway?
And on the flip side you could argue there are great players held back by patches. Dark is the first to come to mind, as roach ravager infestor was his bread and butter and once it was hit with the nerf bat his success dropped dramatically.
All that patch-[insert race] talk always was laughable. Apart maybe from late Broodfestor era there was never a time in that one race dominated so hard that no player of other races took championships. Also the mirror matchup often tells that there is really skill. Nobody can beat soO without being an allaround top level player. Also beating TY, Maru and Classic in IEM World Championship was not on the back of any zerg patch at all. Players can have peaks and downs without any patch having to anything to do with it.
@TheZergishOne I can see your point about Byun but Innovation? He was dominant for far too long to be called as such. And Maru is the clear antithesis of a patchterran. He showed great skill in the protoss-era and after that one game with downpatched ravens he obviously figured out another way to win. He also was the only terran in WESG and GSL S1 playoffs. In GSL S2 he was the only terran in the playoffs to beat any non-terran player.
The Patch-(race) talk has always been stupid. Even in the BL/Infestor era it wasn't justified at all. Terran players were shameless. I know a lot of people were calling Zerg imba those days but I honestly think it was just an excuse for people with no skill. Regardless of the map or race, the superior player always won so I just don't understand why they behaved that way. I don't even understand why sometimes the winning players start whining.
On September 28 2018 06:07 Charoisaur wrote: The Patch-(race) talk has always been stupid. Even in the BL/Infestor era it wasn't justified at all. Terran players were shameless. I know a lot of people were calling Zerg imba those days but I honestly think it was just an excuse for people with no skill. Regardless of the map or race, the superior player always won so I just don't understand why they behaved that way. I don't even understand why sometimes the winning players start whining.
Yeah clearly an excuse for people with no skill, Zerg players just magically got better than the competition and forgot how to play the game when HOTS released. We clearly saw how Roro and Sniper never depended on infestor/broodlord to win. ZvZ finals in every high profile tournament was also mere coincidence.
On September 28 2018 06:07 Charoisaur wrote: The Patch-(race) talk has always been stupid. Even in the BL/Infestor era it wasn't justified at all. Terran players were shameless. I know a lot of people were calling Zerg imba those days but I honestly think it was just an excuse for people with no skill. Regardless of the map or race, the superior player always won so I just don't understand why they behaved that way. I don't even understand why sometimes the winning players start whining.
Yeah clearly an excuse for people with no skill, Zerg players just magically got better than the competition and forgot how to play the game when HOTS released. We clearly saw how Roro and Sniper never depended on infestor/broodlord to win. ZvZ finals in every high profile tournament was also mere coincidence.
And you know that they fell off because BL/Infestor got nerfed and not because they lost motivation? If you watched Sniper play during his peak... that guy was a genius. The biggest waste of talent in SC2. He could've competed with Life for the Zerg GOAT if he didn't lose his motivation.
On September 28 2018 06:07 Charoisaur wrote: The Patch-(race) talk has always been stupid. Even in the BL/Infestor era it wasn't justified at all. Terran players were shameless. I know a lot of people were calling Zerg imba those days but I honestly think it was just an excuse for people with no skill. Regardless of the map or race, the superior player always won so I just don't understand why they behaved that way. I don't even understand why sometimes the winning players start whining.
Jonnyrecco and Ziktomini were just talents amirite
On September 28 2018 06:07 Charoisaur wrote: The Patch-(race) talk has always been stupid. Even in the BL/Infestor era it wasn't justified at all. Terran players were shameless. I know a lot of people were calling Zerg imba those days but I honestly think it was just an excuse for people with no skill. Regardless of the map or race, the superior player always won so I just don't understand why they behaved that way. I don't even understand why sometimes the winning players start whining.
I don't even. People quit the game en masse during the BL/infestor era, it's probably the one major reason the game's popularity went down the shitter.
On September 28 2018 06:07 Charoisaur wrote: The Patch-(race) talk has always been stupid. Even in the BL/Infestor era it wasn't justified at all. Terran players were shameless. I know a lot of people were calling Zerg imba those days but I honestly think it was just an excuse for people with no skill. Regardless of the map or race, the superior player always won so I just don't understand why they behaved that way. I don't even understand why sometimes the winning players start whining.
Even as a zerg player, this post is laughable. Broodlord infestor was far, far too strong. Zerg player after Zerg player will freely admit that they had more success during those days than they should have because of that composition
On September 28 2018 06:07 Charoisaur wrote: The Patch-(race) talk has always been stupid. Even in the BL/Infestor era it wasn't justified at all. Terran players were shameless. I know a lot of people were calling Zerg imba those days but I honestly think it was just an excuse for people with no skill. Regardless of the map or race, the superior player always won so I just don't understand why they behaved that way. I don't even understand why sometimes the winning players start whining.
Even as a zerg player, this post is laughable. Broodlord infestor was far, far too strong. Zerg player after Zerg player will freely admit that they had more success during those days than they should have because of that composition
Tbh you probably got trolled
Lmao Rogue didn't even make out of one of the easiest group.
On September 28 2018 06:07 Charoisaur wrote: The Patch-(race) talk has always been stupid. Even in the BL/Infestor era it wasn't justified at all. Terran players were shameless. I know a lot of people were calling Zerg imba those days but I honestly think it was just an excuse for people with no skill. Regardless of the map or race, the superior player always won so I just don't understand why they behaved that way. I don't even understand why sometimes the winning players start whining.
Even as a zerg player, this post is laughable. Broodlord infestor was far, far too strong. Zerg player after Zerg player will freely admit that they had more success during those days than they should have because of that composition
Tbh you probably got trolled
Lmao Rogue didn't even make out of one of the easiest group.
and got top4 in blizzcon, yet I dont see anyone coming back to this thread to say it. Seriously, I dont think any player deserves this kind of articles
I can appreciate a different angle compared to the "Player X has struggled for many years, fought, persevered and now finally through grit and hardwork has he achived this great victory".
Basically what this article boils down to though is, "he won but he's not really a good player" and as I said the article as such (even though I disagree with it strongly) is not bad but how it is used by others is. Posters that dislike Rogue keep coming back here everytime Rogue underachives to say "look, this article was right, Rogue is shit he just got lucky that one time".
Can we just lock this thread and leave the gloaters that thrive on Rogue fanbois tears behind us?
On November 23 2018 09:13 Shuffleblade wrote: I can appreciate a different angle compared to the "Player X has struggled for many years, fought, persevered and now finally through grit and hardwork has he achived this great victory".
Basically what this article boils down to though is, "he won but he's not really a good player" and as I said the article as such (even though I disagree with it strongly) is not bad but how it is used by others is. Posters that dislike Rogue keep coming back here everytime Rogue underachives to say "look, this article was right, Rogue is shit he just got lucky that one time".
Can we just lock this thread and leave the gloaters that thrive on Rogue fanbois tears behind us?
I wish the internal conversation about this article would have been released. Because I cannot believe they wouldn't be able to foresee the issues.
On November 23 2018 09:13 Shuffleblade wrote: I can appreciate a different angle compared to the "Player X has struggled for many years, fought, persevered and now finally through grit and hardwork has he achived this great victory".
Basically what this article boils down to though is, "he won but he's not really a good player" and as I said the article as such (even though I disagree with it strongly) is not bad but how it is used by others is. Posters that dislike Rogue keep coming back here everytime Rogue underachives to say "look, this article was right, Rogue is shit he just got lucky that one time".
Can we just lock this thread and leave the gloaters that thrive on Rogue fanbois tears behind us?
I wish the internal conversation about this article would have been released. Because I cannot believe they wouldn't be able to foresee the issues.
What issues? It generates controversy, which generates more visitors and clicks.
On November 23 2018 09:13 Shuffleblade wrote: I can appreciate a different angle compared to the "Player X has struggled for many years, fought, persevered and now finally through grit and hardwork has he achived this great victory".
Basically what this article boils down to though is, "he won but he's not really a good player" and as I said the article as such (even though I disagree with it strongly) is not bad but how it is used by others is. Posters that dislike Rogue keep coming back here everytime Rogue underachives to say "look, this article was right, Rogue is shit he just got lucky that one time".
Can we just lock this thread and leave the gloaters that thrive on Rogue fanbois tears behind us?
I wish the internal conversation about this article would have been released. Because I cannot believe they wouldn't be able to foresee the issues.
What issues? It generates controversy, which generates more visitors and clicks.
No one outside the SC2 community gives a shit (are these even shared on social media or anything?) and anyone who would care to read it to begin with is already here though.
On November 23 2018 09:13 Shuffleblade wrote: I can appreciate a different angle compared to the "Player X has struggled for many years, fought, persevered and now finally through grit and hardwork has he achived this great victory".
Basically what this article boils down to though is, "he won but he's not really a good player" and as I said the article as such (even though I disagree with it strongly) is not bad but how it is used by others is. Posters that dislike Rogue keep coming back here everytime Rogue underachives to say "look, this article was right, Rogue is shit he just got lucky that one time".
Can we just lock this thread and leave the gloaters that thrive on Rogue fanbois tears behind us?
It's even worse than that. It's he won, but only won because a patch changes made him win. It's starts out with a reasonable observation that a patch may have boosted his strengths and weaknesses, but goes steadily downhill from there.
On November 23 2018 09:13 Shuffleblade wrote: I can appreciate a different angle compared to the "Player X has struggled for many years, fought, persevered and now finally through grit and hardwork has he achived this great victory".
Basically what this article boils down to though is, "he won but he's not really a good player" and as I said the article as such (even though I disagree with it strongly) is not bad but how it is used by others is. Posters that dislike Rogue keep coming back here everytime Rogue underachives to say "look, this article was right, Rogue is shit he just got lucky that one time".
Can we just lock this thread and leave the gloaters that thrive on Rogue fanbois tears behind us?
I wish the internal conversation about this article would have been released. Because I cannot believe they wouldn't be able to foresee the issues.
What issues? It generates controversy, which generates more visitors and clicks.
It opened the Pandorra's box of patch* naming. Used to be one of the banned things on this forum. Now it's p[ossible toi name people patch* because a TL writer did it. And that's just plainly bad. I miss the old times.
There you go, one issue.
Also it's fucking offensive to players who literally abused one fucking unit and they didn't get the same treatment earlier, but hey, Rogue, who was near the top, is a patchZerg.... fffs
Edit> some people got banned/warned when they named some players patchTerrans/patchZergs because they have risen because of certain patch updates and then they have fallen into shitty state. Rogue was at least still near the top, RO8 of Code S in this year, Blizzcon RO4 and gave the winner fair fight. But for many people he's a fucking patchZerg because TL writer named him such. It's so offensive against Rogue it's not even funny nowadays.
On November 23 2018 09:13 Shuffleblade wrote: I can appreciate a different angle compared to the "Player X has struggled for many years, fought, persevered and now finally through grit and hardwork has he achived this great victory".
Basically what this article boils down to though is, "he won but he's not really a good player" and as I said the article as such (even though I disagree with it strongly) is not bad but how it is used by others is. Posters that dislike Rogue keep coming back here everytime Rogue underachives to say "look, this article was right, Rogue is shit he just got lucky that one time".
Can we just lock this thread and leave the gloaters that thrive on Rogue fanbois tears behind us?
I wish the internal conversation about this article would have been released. Because I cannot believe they wouldn't be able to foresee the issues.
What issues? It generates controversy, which generates more visitors and clicks.
No one outside the SC2 community gives a shit (are these even shared on social media or anything?) and anyone who would care to read it to begin with is already here though.
faulty logic. anyone who spends their time authoring articles on esports is an esports journalist and is almost certainly motivated by pride to draw in views and generate discussion with their writing, and the core principle of clickbait applies whether ten people read it or ten million. you can go on youtube right now and find people who get 100 views putting clickbait in their titles.
frankly the quality of writing in these player highlight articles varies WILDLY on TL. there are some writers who have put out really thoughtful, interesting, informative stuff which i enjoyed reading on a human level. there are also other articles that reach too hard to create a sense of drama using cliches and strained narratives. so not everyone here is going to read every single article just because it's about SC2, the content of the article matters. human psychology is what it is, and a teardown of a respected player is absolutely clickbait.
not to mention that SC2 is a scene that needs to support itself. we already have to criticize players who actually do things that are wrong like match fixing, abusive chat, etc. it's absurdly self-destructive to think we need to shit on players for lesser reasons like "isn't as good in my opinion as people think he is" or "is the best player in the world and got invited to a tournament." even the way we shit on lilbow was unnecessary, he never did anything wrong.
i mean, if we don't care, we don't care. shit on anyone you want. but if we're just shitting on our own game then let's stop pretending "passion" is a thing and admit we're just playing popularity with video game nerds
On November 23 2018 09:13 Shuffleblade wrote: I can appreciate a different angle compared to the "Player X has struggled for many years, fought, persevered and now finally through grit and hardwork has he achived this great victory".
Basically what this article boils down to though is, "he won but he's not really a good player" and as I said the article as such (even though I disagree with it strongly) is not bad but how it is used by others is. Posters that dislike Rogue keep coming back here everytime Rogue underachives to say "look, this article was right, Rogue is shit he just got lucky that one time".
Can we just lock this thread and leave the gloaters that thrive on Rogue fanbois tears behind us?
I wish the internal conversation about this article would have been released. Because I cannot believe they wouldn't be able to foresee the issues.
What issues? It generates controversy, which generates more visitors and clicks.
No one outside the SC2 community gives a shit (are these even shared on social media or anything?) and anyone who would care to read it to begin with is already here though.
faulty logic. anyone who spends their time authoring articles on esports is an esports journalist and is almost certainly motivated by pride to draw in views and generate discussion with their writing, and the core principle of clickbait applies whether ten people read it or ten million. you can go on youtube right now and find people who get 100 views putting clickbait in their titles.
frankly the quality of writing in these player highlight articles varies WILDLY on TL. there are some writers who have put out really thoughtful, interesting, informative stuff which i enjoyed reading on a human level. there are also other articles that reach too hard to create a sense of drama using cliches and strained narratives. so not everyone here is going to read every single article just because it's about SC2, the content of the article matters. human psychology is what it is, and a teardown of a respected player is absolutely clickbait.
not to mention that SC2 is a scene that needs to support itself. we already have to criticize players who actually do things that are wrong like match fixing, abusive chat, etc. it's absurdly self-destructive to think we need to shit on players for lesser reasons like "isn't as good in my opinion as people think he is" or "is the best player in the world and got invited to a tournament." even the way we shit on lilbow was unnecessary, he never did anything wrong.
i mean, if we don't care, we don't care. shit on anyone you want. but if we're just shitting on our own game then let's stop pretending "passion" is a thing and admit we're just playing popularity with video game nerds
I'm not sure what you're talking about here, but your decision to start off by calling out my "faulty logic" is hilarious. How is my logic faulty? I literally said that nobody outside the SC2 community would read these articles regardless of whether they're clickbait or not, which is an objective fact.
If anything I agree that clickbait articles are bad, I was just pointing out that it's especially stupid to write them when you're in a bubble where it's impossible to expand beyond the people who will read them regardless. (I take it that the rest of your post is arguing why they're bad right? No qualms there)
On April 20 2024 06:18 Scarlett` wrote: one of the worst takes of all time
It’s almost certain that Rogue won’t match sOs, a player who had over five plus years to build his legendary career. There’s no way Rogue will have that much time to craft his own legacy, unless fortune goes out of its way to favor both him and StarCraft II. Faced with grim reality, it seems far more likely that he will go follow ByuN’s path as opposed to ascending to a spot in the StarCraft II pantheon.
And if he’s Byun, then that’s fine. Byun inspired countless fans around the world, earned their love, and took them on an incredible journey to the top of the world. That’s more than anyone could reasonably ask for from a StarCraft II progamer. But make no mistake: Byun is no sOs. He was a shooting star streaking across the night sky—astonishing and brilliant, but no less ephemeral. We thought we knew who he was, but we only found out months later when his favored weapons were neutered. That may be Rogue’s fate as well. As long as the hydralisk reigns, we will never know who Rogue really is. We’ll never quite know what we’re supposed to call him.
The second ever Zerg World Champion?
The best player in the world?
A shrewd opportunist?
There is one option that fits better than the rest.
it's amazing how when you actually use your reading comprehension skills instead of only reading one word, the entire argument makes sense.
As long as the hydralisk reigns, we will never know who Rogue really is. We’ll never quite know what we’re supposed to call him.
This sentence clearly states that we won't know what he is until enough time has passed. It turns out that Rogue surpassed sOs and became one of the greatest players of all time.
Feel free to read all my other complementary Rogue articles, they have less objectionable final sentences, which is all you're here for anyway
On April 20 2024 06:18 Scarlett` wrote: one of the worst takes of all time
It’s almost certain that Rogue won’t match sOs, a player who had over five plus years to build his legendary career. There’s no way Rogue will have that much time to craft his own legacy, unless fortune goes out of its way to favor both him and StarCraft II. Faced with grim reality, it seems far more likely that he will go follow ByuN’s path as opposed to ascending to a spot in the StarCraft II pantheon.
And if he’s Byun, then that’s fine. Byun inspired countless fans around the world, earned their love, and took them on an incredible journey to the top of the world. That’s more than anyone could reasonably ask for from a StarCraft II progamer. But make no mistake: Byun is no sOs. He was a shooting star streaking across the night sky—astonishing and brilliant, but no less ephemeral. We thought we knew who he was, but we only found out months later when his favored weapons were neutered. That may be Rogue’s fate as well. As long as the hydralisk reigns, we will never know who Rogue really is. We’ll never quite know what we’re supposed to call him.
The second ever Zerg World Champion?
The best player in the world?
A shrewd opportunist?
There is one option that fits better than the rest.
it's amazing how when you actually use your reading comprehension skills instead of only reading one word, the entire argument makes sense.
As long as the hydralisk reigns, we will never know who Rogue really is. We’ll never quite know what we’re supposed to call him.
This sentence clearly states that we won't know what he is until enough time has passed. It turns out that Rogue surpassed sOs and became one of the greatest players of all time.
Feel free to read all my other complementary Rogue articles, they have less objectionable final sentences, which is all you're here for anyway
It’s almost certain that Rogue won’t match sOs... unless <insert all these other possibilities that are considered unlikely by your own article's writing>.
You can't say that it's "almost certain" Rogue won't match sOs, and then say "but you didn't read the part where I said there's still a chance!"
And you can't say that the best option to call Rogue is a "patchzerg" and then say "but you didn't read the part where I said that if hydras got nerfed then we might see that he's not!"
Then again, we don't know which part of the article's take Scarlett disagrees with. The "one word" you mention. It could be something entirely different from what we think.
On April 20 2024 06:18 Scarlett` wrote: one of the worst takes of all time
It’s almost certain that Rogue won’t match sOs, a player who had over five plus years to build his legendary career. There’s no way Rogue will have that much time to craft his own legacy, unless fortune goes out of its way to favor both him and StarCraft II. Faced with grim reality, it seems far more likely that he will go follow ByuN’s path as opposed to ascending to a spot in the StarCraft II pantheon.
And if he’s Byun, then that’s fine. Byun inspired countless fans around the world, earned their love, and took them on an incredible journey to the top of the world. That’s more than anyone could reasonably ask for from a StarCraft II progamer. But make no mistake: Byun is no sOs. He was a shooting star streaking across the night sky—astonishing and brilliant, but no less ephemeral. We thought we knew who he was, but we only found out months later when his favored weapons were neutered. That may be Rogue’s fate as well. As long as the hydralisk reigns, we will never know who Rogue really is. We’ll never quite know what we’re supposed to call him.
The second ever Zerg World Champion?
The best player in the world?
A shrewd opportunist?
There is one option that fits better than the rest.
it's amazing how when you actually use your reading comprehension skills instead of only reading one word, the entire argument makes sense.
As long as the hydralisk reigns, we will never know who Rogue really is. We’ll never quite know what we’re supposed to call him.
This sentence clearly states that we won't know what he is until enough time has passed. It turns out that Rogue surpassed sOs and became one of the greatest players of all time.
Feel free to read all my other complementary Rogue articles, they have less objectionable final sentences, which is all you're here for anyway
It’s almost certain that Rogue won’t match sOs... unless <insert all these other possibilities that are considered unlikely by your own article's writing>.
You can't say that it's "almost certain" Rogue won't match sOs, and then say "but you didn't read the part where I said there's still a chance!"
If I'm being honest, the main reason I thought Rogue wouldn't match sOs' resume was because I didn't see StarCraft II lasting long enough for Rogue to win 2 more WCs. Fortunately it did and we're still watching great games 6 years later.
Randomly bumping a thread 3 year after the last post just to be an ass, not even the reddit haters from the top 10 goat list made it here, says a lot more about Scarlett than anyone else
On April 20 2024 06:18 Scarlett` wrote: one of the worst takes of all time
It’s almost certain that Rogue won’t match sOs, a player who had over five plus years to build his legendary career. There’s no way Rogue will have that much time to craft his own legacy, unless fortune goes out of its way to favor both him and StarCraft II. Faced with grim reality, it seems far more likely that he will go follow ByuN’s path as opposed to ascending to a spot in the StarCraft II pantheon.
And if he’s Byun, then that’s fine. Byun inspired countless fans around the world, earned their love, and took them on an incredible journey to the top of the world. That’s more than anyone could reasonably ask for from a StarCraft II progamer. But make no mistake: Byun is no sOs. He was a shooting star streaking across the night sky—astonishing and brilliant, but no less ephemeral. We thought we knew who he was, but we only found out months later when his favored weapons were neutered. That may be Rogue’s fate as well. As long as the hydralisk reigns, we will never know who Rogue really is. We’ll never quite know what we’re supposed to call him.
The second ever Zerg World Champion?
The best player in the world?
A shrewd opportunist?
There is one option that fits better than the rest.
it's amazing how when you actually use your reading comprehension skills instead of only reading one word, the entire argument makes sense.
As long as the hydralisk reigns, we will never know who Rogue really is. We’ll never quite know what we’re supposed to call him.
This sentence clearly states that we won't know what he is until enough time has passed. It turns out that Rogue surpassed sOs and became one of the greatest players of all time.
Feel free to read all my other complementary Rogue articles, they have less objectionable final sentences, which is all you're here for anyway
It’s almost certain that Rogue won’t match sOs... unless <insert all these other possibilities that are considered unlikely by your own article's writing>.
You can't say that it's "almost certain" Rogue won't match sOs, and then say "but you didn't read the part where I said there's still a chance!"
If I'm being honest, the main reason I thought Rogue wouldn't match sOs' resume was because I didn't see StarCraft II lasting long enough for Rogue to win 2 more WCs. Fortunately it did and we're still watching great games 6 years later.
On April 20 2024 06:18 Scarlett` wrote: one of the worst takes of all time
It’s almost certain that Rogue won’t match sOs, a player who had over five plus years to build his legendary career. There’s no way Rogue will have that much time to craft his own legacy, unless fortune goes out of its way to favor both him and StarCraft II. Faced with grim reality, it seems far more likely that he will go follow ByuN’s path as opposed to ascending to a spot in the StarCraft II pantheon.
And if he’s Byun, then that’s fine. Byun inspired countless fans around the world, earned their love, and took them on an incredible journey to the top of the world. That’s more than anyone could reasonably ask for from a StarCraft II progamer. But make no mistake: Byun is no sOs. He was a shooting star streaking across the night sky—astonishing and brilliant, but no less ephemeral. We thought we knew who he was, but we only found out months later when his favored weapons were neutered. That may be Rogue’s fate as well. As long as the hydralisk reigns, we will never know who Rogue really is. We’ll never quite know what we’re supposed to call him.
The second ever Zerg World Champion?
The best player in the world?
A shrewd opportunist?
There is one option that fits better than the rest.
it's amazing how when you actually use your reading comprehension skills instead of only reading one word, the entire argument makes sense.
As long as the hydralisk reigns, we will never know who Rogue really is. We’ll never quite know what we’re supposed to call him.
This sentence clearly states that we won't know what he is until enough time has passed. It turns out that Rogue surpassed sOs and became one of the greatest players of all time.
Feel free to read all my other complementary Rogue articles, they have less objectionable final sentences, which is all you're here for anyway
But isn't the point of the title: "The Emperor Has No Clothes" that everyone knows that Rogue is a patch zerg, but no one dares to say it?
So he is a patch zerg til proven otherwise, I take it.
On April 20 2024 06:42 ArtyK wrote: Randomly bumping a thread 3 year after the last post just to be an ass, not even the reddit haters from the top 10 goat list made it here, says a lot more about Scarlett than anyone else
I think so, but it could also be that she finds it impressive that he managed to qualify for GSL so soon after returning.
On April 20 2024 06:18 Scarlett` wrote: one of the worst takes of all time
It’s almost certain that Rogue won’t match sOs, a player who had over five plus years to build his legendary career. There’s no way Rogue will have that much time to craft his own legacy, unless fortune goes out of its way to favor both him and StarCraft II. Faced with grim reality, it seems far more likely that he will go follow ByuN’s path as opposed to ascending to a spot in the StarCraft II pantheon.
And if he’s Byun, then that’s fine. Byun inspired countless fans around the world, earned their love, and took them on an incredible journey to the top of the world. That’s more than anyone could reasonably ask for from a StarCraft II progamer. But make no mistake: Byun is no sOs. He was a shooting star streaking across the night sky—astonishing and brilliant, but no less ephemeral. We thought we knew who he was, but we only found out months later when his favored weapons were neutered. That may be Rogue’s fate as well. As long as the hydralisk reigns, we will never know who Rogue really is. We’ll never quite know what we’re supposed to call him.
The second ever Zerg World Champion?
The best player in the world?
A shrewd opportunist?
There is one option that fits better than the rest.
it's amazing how when you actually use your reading comprehension skills instead of only reading one word, the entire argument makes sense.
As long as the hydralisk reigns, we will never know who Rogue really is. We’ll never quite know what we’re supposed to call him.
This sentence clearly states that we won't know what he is until enough time has passed. It turns out that Rogue surpassed sOs and became one of the greatest players of all time.
Feel free to read all my other complementary Rogue articles, they have less objectionable final sentences, which is all you're here for anyway
But isn't the point of the title: "The Emperor Has No Clothes" that everyone knows that Rogue is a patch zerg, but no one dares to say it?
So he is a patch zerg til proven otherwise, I take it.
On April 20 2024 06:42 ArtyK wrote: Randomly bumping a thread 3 year after the last post just to be an ass, not even the reddit haters from the top 10 goat list made it here, says a lot more about Scarlett than anyone else
I think so, but it could also be that she finds it impressive that he managed to qualify for GSL so soon after returning.
The article poses multiple questions about Rogue's future, while acknowledging that we can't know anything for sure until his career plays out. It is clear that the last word in the article distracted from what is otherwise a really great piece. I definitely learned some lessons with that one that I was able to apply going forward.
Crazy this article came out like a week after the one about Maru never winning a tournament again and INno being the saviour of terran, which was both a more definitive take, and turned out to be even more wrong
I found Rogue no.3's ranking article to be complementary to this old article written by Mizenhaur, but disagreed the ranking so much to put him behind Serral. Rogue should be no.2 instead of no.3. Therefore, I recommended new update ranking in the following year while Serral is doing his military service to "compensate" Rogue's absence during the last two years.
On April 20 2024 20:47 swarminfestor wrote: I found Rogue no.3's ranking article to be complementary to this old article written by Mizenhaur, but disagreed the ranking so much to put him behind Serral. Rogue should be no.2 instead of no.3. Therefore, I recommended new update ranking in the following year while Serral is doing his military service to "compensate" Rogue's absence during the last two years.
Found this digging through some old material. I hope he never changes <3
I had Rogue at 3 pretty early during my evaluation process of the top three players (once I had identified them, of course). Where Rogue suffered most for me was, obviously, his consistency. Since I placed an emphasis on win rates over a large period of time (3 and 5 years were two examples) Rogue really suffered. There's also the issue of how to address his career before he won IEM Shanghai.
He was a very good Proleague player in 2015 and 2016, but he couldn't get past the Round of 8 in Individual Leagues. I think he lost in the Ro8 in five of the six seasons that were held that years (there were three ssl and code s seasons.) and he had a pretty bad year in 2016. This also didn't help him, but given how many tournaments he won, there was no way to put anyone other than Serral and Maru ahead of him.