Why Blizz? Why make these so stupid that it takes 5 matches to win? The only way I win it is when someone else this is so stupid I"m outta here.
2 Likes
This is the kind of Brawl you get your free pack and never, ever, ever touch it again. Whatever dev thought of this needs to be shown the door to the unemployment office.
4 Likes
Definitely another repeat of an old âlook, itâs card discountâ brawl. Shows how the creativity has dried up.
But donât worry, if you thought this was bad, the illegal casino scam mode heroic brawl is coming back soon.
Remember forum goers: save that gold and buy packs instead!
Unless you like throwing your gold away, for some strange reason.
1 Like
Thatâs most brawls imo
I dont get the hate for it, I enjoyed it, even tho it was sorta dumb to give the weapon finding card in a deck that ultimately had no weapons for it to find⌠outside that I dont get whats to hate.
How many tries did it take for you to win? It took me at least 7. Maybe 8 or 9 because of the horrible RNG for a deck. Thatâs why the hate for it. It takes too long to win for a plain olâ basic pack.
I love this brawl. I won my first game then immediately queued up another. 2nd game, my opening hand was two Fire Plume Harbinger (battlecry: reduce the cost of elementals in hand by 1) and Ragnaros. Of course, I had to play 2x Fire Plume turn 1 then Rag on 2. Then opponent cleared my board and I conceded. Was still a fun game for me
So youâve played the brawl twice? Have you played it again after the second game?
1 Like
Not yet. I saw a list on the forums I wanted to try in ranked standard. Iâm easily distracted
Common complaint is that everyone plays same meta decks. Now is your change to face different deck in every game.
How odd, itâs usualy the blue fox posting this. Verbatim.
Oh well, thereâs this thing called âempathyâ where you try and understand where other people are coming from. Maybe try reading some of what people are posting to gain this perspective.
The answer (and I suspect the metric would bear this out if they released them) if this was a âone and done.â
Itâs clear this take on âstandard discount brawlâ wasnât really original and has been done to death.
1 Like
Rereading what I wrote, it looks like I was being snarky : I wasnât trying to be. I was curious if anyone has played the brawl after getting their free pack. Like I said, it took me 7 - 9 tries because the deck RNG favored my opponents - aka give death rattle minions an extra rattle - no death rattles in hand and possibly buried in deck - or give taunts +1/+1 but no taunts in hand or on board; meanwhile the other player is getting cards like âsummon 6 40/40 minions thatâs immune to EVERYTHING, eat all you opponentâs mana crystals, burn their deck, select their hand and discard as many cards as you like, gain control over the account.â type stuff 
2 Likes
Oh I can empathize just fine, and I do for the OP. But empathy for another and getting why someone hates a thing are not the same ideas at all. Empathy is just a projection of compassion for another for their situation they are in. Understanding the motivations that drive a personâs hatred of a thing is not that at all. So while I can feel for the OP and their string of bad brawls, I can at the same time, not understand their motivation to hate it. The two are not the same thing.
I too have the uncanny bad lucks of RNG where if this were a tabletop game use 6 sided dice, I would roll a negative number every time. I personally hate how predictable my odds favor such impossibly bad outcomes for me, but I dont expect another person to get that, but I would expect a minimum level of respectable empathy from someone else if I were complaining about it tho. I can feel a thing without needing to understand anotherâs feeling.
I think you might be thinking of Deep Empathy. The kind of empathy that only another person that has gone thru the same thing can express to another. A famous example is the Howard Stern interview with Stephen Colbert discussing the origins of his sense of humor, and from left field Stern asked Colbert if he thinks he got his humor from a desire to please his mother, something Stern knew very well as it was his own origin source of his sense of humor. And Colbert was suddenly speechless and expressed how mind blowing that question was and revelatory to Stephen as heâd never connected the two. Thats deep empathy, no average interviewer would have thought to ask that question of Colbert, but Stern, having gone thru it himself, took that stab in the dark and he hit a bullseye.
Regular empathy doesnt require the person to have such an experience to express how (you feeling bad makes me feel bad) to another.
So to the OP, I feels for your string of unfavorable brawls. I do. I dont get why the hate, and thats not for me to truly dig into. But what I can tell you to improve your brawls in the future, I find it a good practice to be in to assess my beginning 2 or 3 rounds and feel if Im in an uphill climb already, if I am, I just concede and retry the brawl again and hope for a better starting position. I give the other person their free pack so I see it as a charitable concession and not a straight up loss like in other modes. Others have posted this practice before and I know I have been the recipient of such practices as many times a brawl starts and right away after mulligans my opponent checks out and I get my pack before the first card can be played. So i tend to take the practice as a pay it forward type and even after Ive won my pack Iâll jump in again planning to concede to make sure someone else can get their pack too without much hassle at all. (And if its a fun or interesting brawl Iâll keep on trying over and over if I need to in order to find a long match to play out). Basically, dont be afraid to treat the mulligan as a reason to try again right away, as this isnt a ranked mode at all. If more people did this more people would get their free packs much easier.
I donât enjoy tavern brawl. I donât even enjoy regular ranked play. Lately the only enjoyment I get from this game is Battlegrounds and Mercenaries.
1 Like
And not even 20 posts in and we got the âMUH HATE THE GAME/THING ABOUT THE GAME/COMPANY!â post.
Seriously, you guys need new material. Direct quote where op said âhateâ or admit you are lying.
And now for the âempathy doesnât mean this, because reasons.â Actually it does, because empathy means understanding where someone is coming from, good, bad, ALL of it. Which is something you and your crowd lack, especially in your rush to label others as âMUH HATER.â The official definition:
empathy
em¡âpa¡âthy Ëem-pÉ-thÄ
1**:** the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another
also : the capacity for this
ht tps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empathy
Because if we lack the capacity to understand why someone dislikes something, weâll make the shallow posts like âtee hee, I liked it,â âHAVING SO MUCH FUNâ and so on, rather than trying to actually see where someone else is coming from, and propagandizing for something that isnât all that great rather than actually engaging with people.
And all the blog posting in the world canât make excuses for a lack or having it.
Too bad they killed mercstone, scamming everyone who payed money into it (and now have the nerve to push new bundles, in spite of not even doing basic support for the mode).
I originally never said specifically it was the OP that expressed the hate for it. But here you go.
So im not lying in any stretch. I didnt parse the different users of the OP and that person as I thought they were the same in my mind. I didnt notice that the OP wasnt that person in the thread until I went back just now. Not noticing something, essentially, making an error, a mistake, if you will, is not an act of lying. Lying requires the intentional knowledge that what I am saying is not true. Being wrong is not the same as lying. But even at that point I wasnt wrong in saying I dont get all the hate, and am immediately answered âthats why all the hate.â
You can quote whatever dictionary you like, but I gave my understanding of the term used as well. Whether or not it is accurate or not, it was consistent with what I gave. You seem more concerned with being right than being consistent. Example, if given a math problem and you were sub in the wrong value for X, but you were correct with all the maths despite the value of x not being correct, the math teacher would not mark the entire problem as against you, you would be given a partial credit for and against you because while you were not giving the expected answer, you were consistent with your work given the value you did input. (if the problem was X+1 = Y , and then the following problem was Y + X = Z and you put in 9 for X but the original told you that X was actually 5, if your math is accurate using the 9 for X across the problems despite the fact that you were to use 5 instead, the math teacher can see you can do the math despite not inputting the correct value for x to get the expected right answer. If you can give a value for Z that is consistent with what you said your X was, you clearly show your ability to do the math). Having the answer being consistent is just as valuable as also getting the right one. Obviously itâd be ideal to have both, but we aint all perfect like you Boba.
I have been consistent with my thoughts and messages despite my human ability to err or make mistakes. You however are a broken record of your soapbox anywhere you post. If anyone needs new material, it aint me.
Post 6 was not made not the OP. But 0/8 for effort. I can see weâre not going to get that admission any time soon.
Thereâs an old saying that says when you tell the truth, you never have to remember the lie you told.
Unironically posted.
All the blog posting in the world doesnât change the fact that you werenât honest, were too quick to jump on the âMUH HATEâ and lied about the op in your haste to defend a sub standard brawl. Then lied about your dishonesty. For someone who goes on about âsoapboxingâ you word count seems to increase exponetially based on how wrong you are in a given situation. Especially when you needlessly made something up about another poster.
Again, you are clearly being manipulative to the point of conveniently ignoring that a lie requires intent for it to be a lie. Making a false statement due to a misunderstanding, bad recollection, poor memory, or just plain being mistaken, does not equal a lie. You are being purposefully intent on saying I am doing a thing I did not. And despite knowing that it isnt what I did, you continue to say I did. That shows intent that you are making a false statement knowingly, purposefully. Your ability to manipulate and twist to try to support your stance is just reprehensible and deplorable. You are a continuing TOS violation with every assertion that I lied.
Saying a wrong thing isnt a lie. its just being wrong. Trying to convince someone of something you know is false, like what you are doing a very clear example of here, is a lie.
Direct quotes prove otherwise, and all the blog posting in the world doesnât change that. And by your own standard:
you claimed
then I quoted three examples where you did just that:
And note, for those who are paying attention: still no apology for making false statements about the op. Just more blog posting trying to justify dishonesty.
Edit: All this talk about YOU ânot doingâ thisâŚplease feel free to admit you were account sharing or someone hacked your account (that you still somehow have access too), and the three times that YOUR account posted those statements about OP I quoted above were somehow made by someone else on YOUR account.
Iâll be happy to apologize.
They arenât wrong. This tavern brawl is the epitome of trash design.
1 Like