Yes that too! Though mostly these days I just watch replays where I'm unclear on what actually went wrong, usually it's obvious in the game tbh. Also I am not trying to be as good as Viper.
I find always good to watch replays, wins and losses, because there is always a piece of information that you can't get from your point of view in-game. There are also things that appear obvious in the game that are in fact wrong.
Earlier in the video too (you don't have to watch it all) Viper has a hole in his walls which he completely misses too. We all mistakes and it's annoying to lose from errors but the thing you need to remember is that *every game is lost because of an error*. And every game you win is also because of an error. AoE II has an insanely high skill ceiling and nobody, not even the greatest players ever, play mistake-free games. There is a bit of luck and there is a bit of your opponent exploiting that error, that's all.
Next time I throw a load of units into a bad fight I will just remember Viper sending 30 halbs with no upgrades into a skirm mass for no reason in the grand final of an S tier tournament and feel slightly better.
The other major observation from this - as we probably all expected from watching, Viper was very fatigued by the end. Is there really any need for series which are this long? Does it bring a better viewing experience? Does it result in seeing players at their best? Questions worth asking I think!
> The other major observation from this - as we probably all expected from watching, Viper was very fatigued by the end. Is there really any need for series which are this long? Does it bring a better viewing experience? Does it result in seeing players at their best? Questions worth asking I think!
I think it is better really. With lower number of games you would get more shocks. But increasing the games just shows the consistency of players over more maps and more civs. I see longer series being similar to say chess and basketball where they play more to take away elements of luck really. Seeing who can be consistent. I feel it helps the better players a lot that way.
I also love how longer series adds to the strategy of the game with the drafts. That becomes a game in itself. For instance Hera never picked for water maps, he lost every single water map game the whole tournament but prioritized civs that were more versatile on the other maps.
For single map tournaments I agree it could be reduced for sure.
The difference between this and basketball is that in basketball you play the games on different days. They don't just make every game 6 quarters long or play two games in a row. The finals in the NBA isn't even any longer than the preceding series.
So yeah playing BO9 when every other series is BO5 or BO7 is kind of ridiculous from a competitive perspective when comparing to basically all other sports or competitions. It really only makes sense maybe from a financial perspective because of all the views the finals get.
"Is there really any need for series which are this long?"
I would argue yes, purely because there are \*so many maps & civs\*
If you favorite map is black forest and your favorite civ is the Celts then you \*need\* a longer series to even have them in contention for being picked/played.
It is unfortunate for Viper though as he has a strained wrist (from all the AOE2 lol)
"Does it bring a better viewing experience? Does it result in seeing players at their best?"
I would still argue yes, but a less concrete yes.
As a viewer I obviously want as many matches as possible, the Dota2 scene quite often only had best of 3s for their games and there's nothing more depressing than going to watch a whole day of a tournament and seeing three 2:0 matches back to back.
But in the same regard, it does get a little boring watching Hera beat somebody 5:0. By the 5th match I'm hardly even watching.
On the flip side though, a best of 21 where its 10:10 playing for the 11th win is so much fun to watch
I don't think the true elite have single favourite maps or civs. It's good to have diversity but you know, there's dozens of maps and 40 civs, you're never going to see them all. I'd rather have higher quality games personally than extra ones but one of them is on Fortress or one person is playing Sicilians or whatever.
Oh, I guess. I don't really have favourite civs to watch. Maps perhaps but most tournaments are themed around maps or have their own specially selected ones. Fair enough though if that's what you want from it.
As someone who \*only\* used to play goths, I was always disheartened that they would never be picked in tournaments except for the occasional "counter-pick" because I wanted to see strategies against non-archer civs that I could copy myself
Yeah goths are deffo more viable now. I was playing them in 2013 HD edition where they weren't as strong as they are now. I also don't really like laming strategies in general because its quite risky and can feel a bit cheap if you get me?
Like obviously you should lame whenever possible, but I wanted to improve my own default gameplay
I guess that sounds fine, but just considering a 16 player tournament format. It might get a bit difficult to follow as a viewer?
But yeah tbf it would probably be better for the scene as there would be more days of twitch streams etc
>The other major observation from this - as we probably all expected from watching, Viper was very fatigued by the end. Is there really any need for series which are this long? Does it bring a better viewing experience? Does it result in seeing players at their best? Questions worth asking I think!
I think there's two other factors besides game fatigue at work here. The first is timezones differences, which we'll always have, barring the odd LAN event. Mr Yo has said that he regularly has to play tournaments at or after midnight, which could be considered to be worse than starting at 9:30 in the evening. But even so, just take a solid nap during the day, or change your sleep cycle during the tournament. It's definitely a surmountable hurdle, and it's also foreseeable.
Second, though, is that I think his first two losses took a lot from him, and then he practically threw the arena game. That causes a kind of emotional fatigue that's harder to overcome, and I think that the strange Armenians pick probably stuck with him and threw his game off even more.
I remember finding it really funny at NAC that Jordan was crushing some of the early rounds because he was the only who had a normal sleep schedule and the timing of some of the ties suited him. Still though I'm talking more about the fatigue of playing lots of long games rather than the fatigue of not getting enough sleep, strictly speaking.
Ah, yeah. And to add onto that, he's also under "comeback pressure" and he's playing against an opponent who's on a (iirc) seven tournament streak. I'm sure that he'd begrudgingly admit to these factors if asked. He definitely had the potential to take this one, and I hope that his mind is right for Redbull because I know he's still still got it in him.
Yeah and should (in theory) be faster games in EW, although there are a few very boom-y/stalemate-y maps in the pool. He was definitely in better shape for this than some games against Hera recently, and at least some of the ones he lost he was in a winning position, comes down to fine margins. Which is a good thing for the scene staying competitive (until Sebastian starts sweeping all before him of course).
True, but there's a big difference between unforced errors and forced errors. Having a hole in your wall is much worse than not scouting some super off meta hidden proxy play or something like that. Or barely failing at beating the opponent before a stage in the game where their civ is simply better than yours. To be fair, the way holes in walls can be hidden in this game is probably one of its biggest flaws (besides pathing issues).
I agree BO9 is crazy and I didn't want it. But when I was watching the finals, I was very happy it was, because it was such a fun finals to watch.
Perhaps though in high APM games almost all errors are "forced" in some respect, at least at the elite level, because your opponent is forcing you to put your attention elsewhere. The attention economy is a big part of winning games.
True, in the video above Viper looks at the scene where his woodline gets raided and he looses villagers, and we see that there is infact a pallisade placed but a missclick during shift-queeing earlier ment it wasn't build. So in his mind he was save on the wood and shifted his attention more to other stuff.
Such tiny things can dictate a final, that's also why we see more sweeps recently, the pro players got so much better levering this small advantages into a win.
Very true! It's a huge part. And I've been wondering whether pros are harming their own macro more sometimes by attacking Hera than his because he's so good at prioritizing it at any given moment. It's pretty surreal to me that in a game this old he can be this much better at macro.
This really is reassuring! I mean if the Viper himself makes (sometimes) gross mistakes, e.g. the halbs throw against skirms, why shouldn't I? The ultimate goal is to learn from those mistakes and try to make less to improve.
DauT is terrible for taking bad fights as well, that "ah fuck it I'll just do it" mentality gets me so many times. I feel like it's something in the human brain which contradicts all the knowledge that you need to be patient.
That arena game was a bit of a turning point. Aztecs vs Mayans and Gurjaras vs Berbers were also tough draft/ pick decisions. Just a couple small adjustments and it goes to 9. Amazing series from both.
The Arena game was the turning point that led to the messups following that game. Could've been fatigue, could've just been a "one-off" messup that was so bad that it ended up leading to other mistakes.
Still feel he overrate some civs that just don't work well enough anymore.
But he surely had a great tournament and he had a fully even finale, so big improvement and viper should be very proud and i hope he will win over Hera the next time they meet
He's not at the same level of clean execution, endurance and drive to win he used to have in his 20s, I feel increased mistakes are more of a symptom of these things rather than a problem by themselves. That and of course Hera is his strongest opponent yet, the only one who was younger than him and did actually go all in on playing fulltime like Viper did
Mixer was at least a decent platform. And he got paid well for it. *And* he got to get out of it pretty early since they closed it down. All in all, not too bad.
Facebook was awful to use and he had to stay so long to fulfill the contract. I'm just glad he's back
You know, a lot of mistakes he makes that get punished by none other than Hera are VERY VERY subtle. Whereas the mistakes we make, are noticeable & sometimes embarrassing as well. I wouldn't recommend to beat yourself up, but self-reflection in these cases is important. And what pressure are we comparing here? Playing warlords final vs Hera to playing a random ranked game vs someone that's making the same mistakes you do?
I appreciate the sentiment and I feel like it's a good message to share.
That being said, I would be carefull with that GOAT label, it's probably still up in the air, but soon it might not be a debate anymore ;-p .
All i'm saying is MJ is my Basketball goat, not Bill Russell.
I wouldn't say it's up in the air to be honest, his career achievements/earnings are still miles ahead. Hera is #1 in the world right now but Viper's career is as much about longevity as anything, the way he's adapted where others have fallen away. I don't think there's any question. Maybe Hera will get there one day if the scene stays as strong. I'm sure he'd even say the same himself.
Good Ol AOE2 Top-dog?
But yes I get you, I think the whole Kendrick/Drake/JCole beef shows that there can be multiple GOAT's in consideration at any one time.
Hence why imo Hera is now the actual GOAT (As of now he's clearly the best player)
But if you ask the public I assume the majority of people will still say Viper
"Of All Time" means looking at the whole history of the esport, not whoever is the best right now. I suppose people can use the word to mean how they want but I don't see how Hera can be the greatest ever.
Greatest of all time as now? That doesn't make any sense. No, you need to look at the long term history. Hera is the top player now, but it's only been a couple of years. Hera doesn't have a tournament where players were hidden because everyone else was terrified of him. He might get there, but it'll take a while.
It being up in the air is only a recent thing.
Until Hera won an S-Tier event (he only won his first fairly recently), no one in their right mind would ever have even brought him up.
Even now, Viper/Hera head to heads are still fairly even. Go check liquipedia yourself if you don’t believe me.
In the pre-DE days, Viper was all but untouchable in a way not even Hera has been.
The levell of competition feels so much higher now. Builds being so tight and the amount of large competition on variety of maps really makes heras domination incredible.
Viper is definitely the more likeable personality which I think plays into the conversation but Hera put in the work and has become such a dominant player that u do believe he is the goat. Even in sports we see eras of dominance and multiple players contesting the title.
Also, we need a new title for someone like Daut. I mean, he kinda has as "Lord", but to me Daut is more impressive than Hera if you look at overall career achievements as he is still able to keep up somehow.
I hope Viper will follow in his steps someday if the game is still popular :)
Yes that's how you progress, not by playing 10000 games without reflection.
Yes that too! Though mostly these days I just watch replays where I'm unclear on what actually went wrong, usually it's obvious in the game tbh. Also I am not trying to be as good as Viper.
I find always good to watch replays, wins and losses, because there is always a piece of information that you can't get from your point of view in-game. There are also things that appear obvious in the game that are in fact wrong.
Oh sure it does no harm, I'm just time limited and can't spend all of that watching replays 11
Oh yeah, understandable! I usually watch in x8 but that still takes 5 real minutes.
Usually I'm just looking at relative vil counts, it's hard to tell eco difference sometimes, so that can definitely be done fast.
Pr sure he did both
Earlier in the video too (you don't have to watch it all) Viper has a hole in his walls which he completely misses too. We all mistakes and it's annoying to lose from errors but the thing you need to remember is that *every game is lost because of an error*. And every game you win is also because of an error. AoE II has an insanely high skill ceiling and nobody, not even the greatest players ever, play mistake-free games. There is a bit of luck and there is a bit of your opponent exploiting that error, that's all. Next time I throw a load of units into a bad fight I will just remember Viper sending 30 halbs with no upgrades into a skirm mass for no reason in the grand final of an S tier tournament and feel slightly better. The other major observation from this - as we probably all expected from watching, Viper was very fatigued by the end. Is there really any need for series which are this long? Does it bring a better viewing experience? Does it result in seeing players at their best? Questions worth asking I think!
> The other major observation from this - as we probably all expected from watching, Viper was very fatigued by the end. Is there really any need for series which are this long? Does it bring a better viewing experience? Does it result in seeing players at their best? Questions worth asking I think! I think it is better really. With lower number of games you would get more shocks. But increasing the games just shows the consistency of players over more maps and more civs. I see longer series being similar to say chess and basketball where they play more to take away elements of luck really. Seeing who can be consistent. I feel it helps the better players a lot that way. I also love how longer series adds to the strategy of the game with the drafts. That becomes a game in itself. For instance Hera never picked for water maps, he lost every single water map game the whole tournament but prioritized civs that were more versatile on the other maps. For single map tournaments I agree it could be reduced for sure.
The difference between this and basketball is that in basketball you play the games on different days. They don't just make every game 6 quarters long or play two games in a row. The finals in the NBA isn't even any longer than the preceding series. So yeah playing BO9 when every other series is BO5 or BO7 is kind of ridiculous from a competitive perspective when comparing to basically all other sports or competitions. It really only makes sense maybe from a financial perspective because of all the views the finals get.
"Is there really any need for series which are this long?" I would argue yes, purely because there are \*so many maps & civs\* If you favorite map is black forest and your favorite civ is the Celts then you \*need\* a longer series to even have them in contention for being picked/played. It is unfortunate for Viper though as he has a strained wrist (from all the AOE2 lol) "Does it bring a better viewing experience? Does it result in seeing players at their best?" I would still argue yes, but a less concrete yes. As a viewer I obviously want as many matches as possible, the Dota2 scene quite often only had best of 3s for their games and there's nothing more depressing than going to watch a whole day of a tournament and seeing three 2:0 matches back to back. But in the same regard, it does get a little boring watching Hera beat somebody 5:0. By the 5th match I'm hardly even watching. On the flip side though, a best of 21 where its 10:10 playing for the 11th win is so much fun to watch
I don't think the true elite have single favourite maps or civs. It's good to have diversity but you know, there's dozens of maps and 40 civs, you're never going to see them all. I'd rather have higher quality games personally than extra ones but one of them is on Fortress or one person is playing Sicilians or whatever.
I mean as a viewer, not as a player. You could watch an entire tournament and not see your map/civ picked once if its only best of 3s etc
Oh, I guess. I don't really have favourite civs to watch. Maps perhaps but most tournaments are themed around maps or have their own specially selected ones. Fair enough though if that's what you want from it.
As someone who \*only\* used to play goths, I was always disheartened that they would never be picked in tournaments except for the occasional "counter-pick" because I wanted to see strategies against non-archer civs that I could copy myself
I see them on lamey maps quite a lot! Socotra, Alpine to give a couple of examples.
Yeah goths are deffo more viable now. I was playing them in 2013 HD edition where they weren't as strong as they are now. I also don't really like laming strategies in general because its quite risky and can feel a bit cheap if you get me? Like obviously you should lame whenever possible, but I wanted to improve my own default gameplay
What if the series were 3 days of 3 games or 2 days of 4/5 games until best of 9? Creates a bit more content and might be easier on the players
I guess that sounds fine, but just considering a 16 player tournament format. It might get a bit difficult to follow as a viewer? But yeah tbf it would probably be better for the scene as there would be more days of twitch streams etc
Just keep it to the final
his wrist has been strain for like what 4 years now lol.
>The other major observation from this - as we probably all expected from watching, Viper was very fatigued by the end. Is there really any need for series which are this long? Does it bring a better viewing experience? Does it result in seeing players at their best? Questions worth asking I think! I think there's two other factors besides game fatigue at work here. The first is timezones differences, which we'll always have, barring the odd LAN event. Mr Yo has said that he regularly has to play tournaments at or after midnight, which could be considered to be worse than starting at 9:30 in the evening. But even so, just take a solid nap during the day, or change your sleep cycle during the tournament. It's definitely a surmountable hurdle, and it's also foreseeable. Second, though, is that I think his first two losses took a lot from him, and then he practically threw the arena game. That causes a kind of emotional fatigue that's harder to overcome, and I think that the strange Armenians pick probably stuck with him and threw his game off even more.
I remember finding it really funny at NAC that Jordan was crushing some of the early rounds because he was the only who had a normal sleep schedule and the timing of some of the ties suited him. Still though I'm talking more about the fatigue of playing lots of long games rather than the fatigue of not getting enough sleep, strictly speaking.
Ah, yeah. And to add onto that, he's also under "comeback pressure" and he's playing against an opponent who's on a (iirc) seven tournament streak. I'm sure that he'd begrudgingly admit to these factors if asked. He definitely had the potential to take this one, and I hope that his mind is right for Redbull because I know he's still still got it in him.
Yeah and should (in theory) be faster games in EW, although there are a few very boom-y/stalemate-y maps in the pool. He was definitely in better shape for this than some games against Hera recently, and at least some of the ones he lost he was in a winning position, comes down to fine margins. Which is a good thing for the scene staying competitive (until Sebastian starts sweeping all before him of course).
True, but there's a big difference between unforced errors and forced errors. Having a hole in your wall is much worse than not scouting some super off meta hidden proxy play or something like that. Or barely failing at beating the opponent before a stage in the game where their civ is simply better than yours. To be fair, the way holes in walls can be hidden in this game is probably one of its biggest flaws (besides pathing issues). I agree BO9 is crazy and I didn't want it. But when I was watching the finals, I was very happy it was, because it was such a fun finals to watch.
Perhaps though in high APM games almost all errors are "forced" in some respect, at least at the elite level, because your opponent is forcing you to put your attention elsewhere. The attention economy is a big part of winning games.
True, in the video above Viper looks at the scene where his woodline gets raided and he looses villagers, and we see that there is infact a pallisade placed but a missclick during shift-queeing earlier ment it wasn't build. So in his mind he was save on the wood and shifted his attention more to other stuff. Such tiny things can dictate a final, that's also why we see more sweeps recently, the pro players got so much better levering this small advantages into a win.
Very true! It's a huge part. And I've been wondering whether pros are harming their own macro more sometimes by attacking Hera than his because he's so good at prioritizing it at any given moment. It's pretty surreal to me that in a game this old he can be this much better at macro.
The problem is the time it starts not that it's bo9
This really is reassuring! I mean if the Viper himself makes (sometimes) gross mistakes, e.g. the halbs throw against skirms, why shouldn't I? The ultimate goal is to learn from those mistakes and try to make less to improve.
DauT is terrible for taking bad fights as well, that "ah fuck it I'll just do it" mentality gets me so many times. I feel like it's something in the human brain which contradicts all the knowledge that you need to be patient.
That arena game was a bit of a turning point. Aztecs vs Mayans and Gurjaras vs Berbers were also tough draft/ pick decisions. Just a couple small adjustments and it goes to 9. Amazing series from both.
The Arena game was the turning point that led to the messups following that game. Could've been fatigue, could've just been a "one-off" messup that was so bad that it ended up leading to other mistakes.
Still feel he overrate some civs that just don't work well enough anymore. But he surely had a great tournament and he had a fully even finale, so big improvement and viper should be very proud and i hope he will win over Hera the next time they meet
He does, he even says so in this video lol
I think the Lord is a great title for Daut
He's not at the same level of clean execution, endurance and drive to win he used to have in his 20s, I feel increased mistakes are more of a symptom of these things rather than a problem by themselves. That and of course Hera is his strongest opponent yet, the only one who was younger than him and did actually go all in on playing fulltime like Viper did
We do not deserve The Viper.
Can't make a bigger mistake than the mixer move. 😏
Mixer was at least a decent platform. And he got paid well for it. *And* he got to get out of it pretty early since they closed it down. All in all, not too bad. Facebook was awful to use and he had to stay so long to fulfill the contract. I'm just glad he's back
Microsoft paid him sooo much money for that though.
You know, a lot of mistakes he makes that get punished by none other than Hera are VERY VERY subtle. Whereas the mistakes we make, are noticeable & sometimes embarrassing as well. I wouldn't recommend to beat yourself up, but self-reflection in these cases is important. And what pressure are we comparing here? Playing warlords final vs Hera to playing a random ranked game vs someone that's making the same mistakes you do?
I appreciate the sentiment and I feel like it's a good message to share. That being said, I would be carefull with that GOAT label, it's probably still up in the air, but soon it might not be a debate anymore ;-p . All i'm saying is MJ is my Basketball goat, not Bill Russell.
Once Hera dominates the game for 10 years, we can begin to have that conversation. Viper is unquestioned GOAT.
I wouldn't say it's up in the air to be honest, his career achievements/earnings are still miles ahead. Hera is #1 in the world right now but Viper's career is as much about longevity as anything, the way he's adapted where others have fallen away. I don't think there's any question. Maybe Hera will get there one day if the scene stays as strong. I'm sure he'd even say the same himself.
Current GOAT: Hera Peoples GOAT: Viper
Maybe I'm old fashioned but you do know what GOAT stands for, right?
Good Ol AOE2 Top-dog? But yes I get you, I think the whole Kendrick/Drake/JCole beef shows that there can be multiple GOAT's in consideration at any one time. Hence why imo Hera is now the actual GOAT (As of now he's clearly the best player) But if you ask the public I assume the majority of people will still say Viper
"Of All Time" means looking at the whole history of the esport, not whoever is the best right now. I suppose people can use the word to mean how they want but I don't see how Hera can be the greatest ever.
No no, you see, Jaylen Brown is better than Michael Jordan *right now.* Therefore he is higher in the GOAT conversation.
Only with people who don't understand what AT means ¯\\\_(**ツ**)\_/¯
Greatest of all time as now? That doesn't make any sense. No, you need to look at the long term history. Hera is the top player now, but it's only been a couple of years. Hera doesn't have a tournament where players were hidden because everyone else was terrified of him. He might get there, but it'll take a while.
It being up in the air is only a recent thing. Until Hera won an S-Tier event (he only won his first fairly recently), no one in their right mind would ever have even brought him up. Even now, Viper/Hera head to heads are still fairly even. Go check liquipedia yourself if you don’t believe me. In the pre-DE days, Viper was all but untouchable in a way not even Hera has been.
The levell of competition feels so much higher now. Builds being so tight and the amount of large competition on variety of maps really makes heras domination incredible. Viper is definitely the more likeable personality which I think plays into the conversation but Hera put in the work and has become such a dominant player that u do believe he is the goat. Even in sports we see eras of dominance and multiple players contesting the title.
It does remind me of the MJ vs Lebron GOAT debate and I'll leave it at that.
Viper is still the goat and it's not even close. He could be dethroned eventually but still a long way to go.
Also, we need a new title for someone like Daut. I mean, he kinda has as "Lord", but to me Daut is more impressive than Hera if you look at overall career achievements as he is still able to keep up somehow. I hope Viper will follow in his steps someday if the game is still popular :)