>>45434206>>45434269Pretty much this.
The best points about him are his logic surrounding team comp and the idea of pivots, and playing around bad RNG. He will note when things happen due to bad luck, but always in the context of "I knew, or should have known that could happen", and also pretty consistently note when he shouldn't have won, but got super fucking lucky.
Additionally, any time he offers criticism of another person's run, it is almost always constructive, and on the level of "I'm not judging this person for bringing a Whismer into the Brawley fight, they've brought it, that decision has been made, I'm evaluating how they use it now that it's here."
So in that sense, he's actually pretty based. He's still pretty narcissistic and insufferable, though, but at the very least he can actually be learned from.
