More like “Deceptively Simple (to cause) Insane(ly) Fun.” 
Or just deceptive and insane. Especially after they have two (probably soon to be three) game modes that failed.
1 Like
Insanely simple, deceptively fun, you wanted to say? 
Eh? Arena and Duels failed, Classic and Mercs discontinued in one way or another, Twist and ‘Traditional HS’ in general qualify as failures as well; oh, Battlegrounds turned P2W at the very least. In what timeline have you got just two or three of these failed ones? 
1 Like
Yeah, that feels about right. It was so simple all along, and the fun was always just deceptive. It all makes sense to me now.
Failed Modes:
1). Classic
2). Mercenaries
Marginalized Modes:
1). Duels
2). Wild
3). Arena
Popular Modes:
1). Battlegrounds
2). Standard
Other Modes:
1). Solo Content (PvE)
2.) Tavern Brawls
3). Twist: I expect Twist to become the third most popular mode out of the currently existing modes, but this will vary based on the quality of each season.
1 Like
I don’t expect twist to last long based on the nonsense going on right now. The playerbase’s tolerance for this dev team and company’s shenanigans are at an all time low. After mercstone and classic, “fool me once, shame on you; fool me THREE times…”
Bingo…
Makes sense if you wanna make it appealing to the masses, I suppose.
Meaning, you think you are having fun, but actually… What? I mean, look at all those ‘frustrated’ or ‘ridiculous’ topics, for example…
Whether this deceptive notion of fun is that infamous cycle of hype and disappointment or some ‘dopamine’ and other tricks to keep you playing, remains to be discussed.
I like those forum analytics sometimes. Especially considering what a resounding failure [1], [2] the beta of ‘Twist’ has apparently been and the current iteration is turning out to be (hey, at least Classic was much more balanced than that).
‘Mercstone’ hasn’t been shut down, at the very least — the bugs might still be there, but so is the mode, you can keep playing it.
so much for that "maintenance” they promised.
Just like years of lies about “improved communication.”
How can you tell an actiblizz dev team is lying?
Their post count is going up.
To be honest, it was… never their strong suit even when the mode was supposedly in active development, i.e. at least receieved content updates.
Well, you can improve in lying too, you know. Hmm… But if you do that, you’re no longer a liar, right? That’s almost like a version of the liar’s paradox.
At least they were pretending to care bout it. Now the pretense is gone. It won’t be long before they do the same to twist.
No, that means you are just more proficient at lying.
Increasing integrity is the way to go. Something this dev team and company know little about.
It’s a tossup who’s worse: scummy mega corps or politicians.
1 Like
By which time, it would have served its purpose (yeah, I know, linked that one already).
Well, a better liar — that’s apparently an improvement, see?
Sounds good… Too good to be true. 
They don’t deal in such nonsense.
Actually, if you look at the history of modern so-called ‘democracy’ — not the direct one, like those ancient Greeks or the Novgorod Republic had or the Swiss might still be doing, or the kind found in socialist states, but the so-called Western (bourgeois, if you will) kind, supposedly the only true one and the only model that everyone else is supposed to follow — if memory serves, its invention coincided more or less with with the industrial revolution, as a form of power where a government could be appointed and, more importantly, replaced, if needed, easily, without the mess of coups, revolutions etc, in order to serve the long-terms needs (considering the investment horizon of industrial projects and so on) of ‘scummy mega corps’, as you put it (hey, I don’t think just any pauper had even nominal voting rights initially — it was mostly for upstanding middle-class citizens and such, although I’m not sure at this point… gotta brush up sometime, perhaps). In this light, it’s rather clear that the quality of those politicians stems from the powers (including corporate ones, yes) that they serve and are funded by (including even those election campaigns and other… ‘political technologies’, as they are sometimes called, although that’s more or less the tip of the iceberg).
That sounds strange to me. I feel like your take would make the original matter at hand irrelevant for the sake of evil or something. Branding someone a liar is probably not the best way to go, but ignoring hurt feelings from lies also doesn’t seem right either. Lying can also be somewhat subjective of the matter at hand being told about. If the intention was to just straight-up lie, then the liar needs to be branded.
Ugh, I was just mocking the ‘improved communication’, in other words, please don’t overthink it.
1 Like