every month?? i didnt know u had that dog in u like that.
yeah i went from 50 to 1,000 lost 100s of games past few days
2 Likes
Yep, yep, glory days of Sludgelock!
Forgotten and left to its own devices, itâs been torturing the elite and the dumpster players for more than 6 months on every server
But yeah, nothing to talk about, rly, itâs just one-trick pony mastering a fickly, aggro deck, which I assume is also what you did
Iâm finding it hard to believe you got in top 50 playing your homebrew Rogue - not because the deck is bad, but because your highroll into lowroll transition smells like pure aggro, and that Rogueâs not aggro
1 Like
If there is a game that you havenât won.
It must have been rigging that has been done.
So go to the forums with evidence none.
Crying to all âitâs riggedâ a ton.
5 Likes
#worth#inspired#forblizzardshills
1 Like
Yeah sorry, I forgot your âgloriousâ top 50s were all early entries too.
That explains Netâs unhinged posts yesterday.
No such behavior is top 50, in the final day.
1 Like
Yeah, yeah, like those lost souls in casinos have never existed, for exampleâŚ
1 Like
I see weâre ignoring the sheer magnitude that RNG affects outcomes over skill in this game with your statement.
2 Likes
That moves the goalposts. Randomness is one thing and doctoring the game is another. They donât have to doctor the game to make you lose.
They just raise the MMR when you win so the next game you will lose with a higher probability than the previous game.
Only if you think youâre the best player online (and omnipotent too) that wonât raise the probability to lose after a win.
1 Like
I think youâd find that RNG being the factor in winning or losing is far more likely than changes to MMR. Per-turn decisions are more linear than ever, and interactivity/counter tech is minimal.
1 Like
Randomness averages to zero impact given a lot of games. Thatâs because if you lowroll this time you may high roll next time and the same for your opponent.
Itâs only a big issue if the condition âgiven a lot of gamesâ is not satisfied because e.g. if you play 3 games and lowroll on all 3 itâs unfair.
But if you play like 60 games or 100 games then randomness did not really make you lose - on the average - but yourself.
PS itâs also a big problem in tournaments because if 2 top players only play 3 games then itâs unclear who is best.
Disagree, honestly. Perhaps in a longer more drawn out meta that would be true. But as it stands, the things to play on what turn are pretty distinct and game are shorter than ever thanks to power creep and OTK/combo nonsense. You almost get no time to misplay depending on how bad RNG screws you or favors your opponent.
But Iâm glad we agree that skill really isnât a huge factor in the game. Since as you said, youâd need a large sample size to see the potential factor of skill. Itâs just weird to me how people get on the backs of those who are in their right to vent about how skewed the RNG can feel and then bring up something as miniscule as skill since it takes at least 100 games to attempt to even quantify it.
Barring the discussion on how many of the random factors are actually RNG or not; more realistically you are going to win or lose due to getting matched with your counter, and/or getting bad draw versus your opponent, or discovery gives your opponent an answer you cannot account for. Like a Mage getting a Red Card from DH and making your one taunt go dormant.
1 Like
Itâs only like that when two players have about the same MMR, +/- a little
Usually, it takes like 2-3 turns to decide whoâs more skilled
60 or 100 games are not many at all. Itâs the number you usually need to go Legend if your win rate is âreasonableâ and you have not that many stars to carry you through Diamond.
We have evidence that at ~80 samples the randomness becomes (almost) a zero sum game because thatâs when D0nkeyâs stats start stabilizing.
That makes no sense. As many say some decks are âauto-pilotâ. If I play 3 moves on Handbuff paladin I doubt that the Champion would definitely do something smarter.
PS the Champion may do something smarter early, but their âsmartsâ will likely show in later rounds.
You think Iâll forget you laughing at me playing Trogg Gemtosser on 3 against Druid?
And youâre trying to pull this nonsense as an argument against me?
Iâm sorry, it just wonât fly. Just because some decks are plainly easy to play, it doesnât mean youâll play them well.
As I said, it will never take more than 2-3 turns to realize Iâm better than you. And thatâs because we have game knowledge on entirely different levels.
If you could survive 3 turns without making a mistake, you would be near my ranks, if not better.
Iâve told you before that morbid narcissism, is part of the reason some players will never be Champion. You think you are good when you lack basic skills people learn in high school.
Thereâs a reason a 16 year old is Champion this year and you are not: they possess humility and skills you lack.
PS The jury is out on whether playing Trogg on round 2 was great.
Whatâs wrong with tempo gemtosser at 3 against deck that does nothing?? Itâs a valid move I think. I do it sometimes when I was playing my druid loaner deck, itâs way better than only pressing hero power I suppose.
No, itâs not. And itâs embarassing of you to assume differently.
But then again, you get that a lot these days, and it doesnât seem to be changing anything.
Youâre clueless
mlYanming is closer to 30 than to 16 (birthday unknown, though)
You mixed up the 3rd MT with the Worlds
Maxie won the 3rd MT.
Itâs like youâre programmed to only state lies in your replies, amazing. How in the world do you manage to be literally 100% wrong about everything you say?
What a devastating error /s. You are not MT either so go buy some humility. You pretend to be a good teacher and you only go on tantrums when people donât agree with you.
You remind me of those old school teachers who were beating up kids and were causing them psychological issues.
Luckily for me Iâm not a child and your bullying doesnât touch me and I understand itâs your problem not mine.
Define âweâ, please. 
I mean, I would agree with you, of course, but not so sure about the rest.
Donât listen to those âpunditsâ, they know nothing of âSaMpLe SiZeSâ.
But as for your point â Iâd say thatâs not really true:
In other words, with many games the role of skill will eventually drown in random fluctuations (provided they are indeed random, of course, which is very questionable).
Itâs not necessarily about venting or âfeelâ. Gonna do yet another round of copy-pasting the same thing over and over:
Yeah, definitely yourself (ââyouâ problemâ again, yeah) and not the casino. 
Oh, really, Iâd say, but thatâs too rhetoric. 
Banana phlegm, farthing flymum â again (I think I have pointed it out somewhere too, but canât find the post, which is typical for these forums, btw).
What was it about those who insist on repeating their mistakes?
Why do I bother, but anyway: go on, show me that magical âMMRâ algorithm for at least a game of roulette â for the sake of simplicity⌠mind you, Iâm not even requesting one for a rigged roulette or a crazy rigged roulette with EXCITING 
bells and whistles that HS is⌠and then demonstrate how it would indeed do so.
Of course, you will not, you can produce only stock drivelling chiches and nonsense for that sorry ersatz replies of yours.
Maybe they should have beaten you up more â perhaps theyâd have clouted at least some sense into you then.
You never expressed a wish to learn something. You pretend like you already know best and try to correct people who obviously know better.
If you wish to learn, prove it. Post a replay of yours with your commentary/analysis, and let me point to your mistakes and correct thinking. Give me a chance, like Iâm giving you all this time, although I donât know why.
Iâm not even convinced that your mind is capable of logical analysis.