|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
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.
|
@Zealously
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].
|
This is such a fluff article, and with player bashing-in-disguise.
And I really think you should change your avatar. Why mislead?
Anyway, just honest opinion. Very bad and biased write up.
Worst than your other fluff articles. I hope you improve and be more objective.
|
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
|
: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.
|
On January 13 2018 01:05 LSN wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
Good read, time will tell how Rogue will go down in history books.
|
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 01:28 Penev wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Mizenhauer: "Patchzerg"
Zerg posters: "REEEEEEEE"
Triggered
|
On January 13 2018 00:34 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:+ Show Spoiler +@Zealously
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 noteI 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.
|
More from this clickbait 'author'....
|
On January 13 2018 01:36 Durnuu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2018 00:34 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:+ Show Spoiler +@Zealously
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 noteI 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.
|
This title is about as ironic as it gets, considering who wrote it.
|
United States97274 Posts
On January 12 2018 22:10 Waxangel wrote:
Make sure to tune in to GSL (in 14 hours!) to watch Rogue stick it to Mizenhauer!
Did the tl preview predict rogue 4-0 or no?
|
|
|
hope rogue fades into obscurity. he was a jerk to soo in real life, denied soo fairy tale ending, and a better title than patchzerg is sniper 2.0
i will be cheering him to lose and crash and burn in every game
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On January 13 2018 01:59 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2018 01:36 Durnuu wrote:On January 13 2018 00:34 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:+ Show Spoiler +@Zealously
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 noteI 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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
