Created an off meta deck to confuse the matchmaking system

[SparkyElf-2852]

@Schyla-1490

Challenge to the OP:

Now that you’ve told your story from your perspective, humor me and tell me the perspective of your opponent playing against you.

I’m not him, but allow me to offer my version of this story, i.e. an opponent’s perspective, anyway: ‘Trogg no stupid! Trogg make you stupid! Smash!’

Or perhaps, if said opponent has at least learnt how to create your typical topics on the forum, ‘Me no stupid, me netdeck gud deck, why I lose? Seriously? This is just stupid! Ridiculous!’

@Cestea-1454

Of course, you can’t. No conspiracy theorist can possibly imagine what it’s like for their opponents. Only if the conspiracy theorist themselves are losing is the game rigged, right?

PS: What shape is the tin foil hat you wear?

Ah, here comes yet another self-annointed (sic… that’s this game’s orthography, by the way, not mine) conspiracy theory basher, probably thinking themselves so smart for it.

This forum is repetitive, as some people have aptly noted, and I’ll have to resort to yet another self-citation:

@SparkyElf-2852

Second, this whole dismissing things as ‘conspiracy theories’ is a typical example of a ‘straw man’: you take the most ridiculous one, bash it thoroughly, then dismiss the rest as equally invalid. I could point out the obvious logical flaw here, but suffice to say that’s not how it works.

DuPont hadn’t concealed their research data about PFOA toxicity for decades and continued to dump it, poisoning the environment and people, it was just a mad conspiracy (by those afflicted who noticed something bad going on in their surroundings).

NSA hasn’t conducted illigal mass surveilance via big tech companies, among other tools, it’s paranoia (by those more tech-savvy).

This game, owned by the most scrupulous company ever, is fair and definitely not rigged, the forum advocates tell me.

Or a shorter version, for those who don’t like to read much:

@SparkyElf-2852

However, lemme note that just because something is a ‘conspiracy theory’, it doesn’t mean that it’s not true — or there is no conspiracy. After all, Snowden, for instance, only documentally confirmed what many have long suspected.

---

@WorriedCheez-1780

Well technically since the op isn’t conspiring with another, it isn’t a conspiracy at all. That’s the problem with folks throwing around the term conspiracy theory. Often, there’s no conspiracies at all, ha!

Indeed, I’d like to hear who’s conspiring with whom. Blizzbots on the ladder with each other?

@Vankrys-2732

But, i have to side with others here, a sample of 10-20 games is nowhere near enough to get an accurate assessment of the deck. You’d need at least 1,000 games, and even then you’d have a +/- 5% on your average winrate. For a true assessment, you’d need at least 10,000 to 100,000 games.

Ooh, a would-be maths guru? Please, indulge me and point out what distribution you assumed, what statistic you used (if you know what it is) and your estimate of confidence intervals to back up those particular figures. Or have you just made them up because of your opinion and feeling?

@Boreas-1179

is ridiculous

Ridiculous I say. Ridiculous! Or perhaps something else is?

@Coffee-2748

Yup, a definition of conspiracy is correct, but OP is not conspirator or part of conspiracy. He makes conspiracy theory.

That’s a repetition already, much has been said, so instead I’ll point out the following: this topic provides evidence of an obvious conspiracy by some forums members to defame the topic-starter as a conspiracy theorist. Ha!