What shills and trolls like this one don’t realise is that playing well generally doesn’t really help to win in this game.
The classic example I’ve posted many times:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tav_ttqyv9Q
Any more or less seasoned player (not some Big_Streamer™) with even a little bit of something up there in the attic has probably had those streaks of playing sloppily and smashing the opponents anyway or being super-focused etc, only for the game to ‘discover’ a perfect counter for whatever they are doing every time, which raises suspicions for some of them.
There’s even a theory that playing badly like a total dimwit would probably result in an increased win rate due to paraintellectual help from the game (The Algorithm).
That’s not even the point, if you ask me: the person thinks (s)he is someone only due to some alleged — no-one here has been able to verify it (UPD: there’s apparently a confession below, and if you trust it, there’s nothing special about that player), and online any forum warrior would claim he’s on the Forbes fortune list, has two Nobel prizes, a Grandmaster title in chess and is very handsome and loved by women etc — rank (s)he was able to hit at some point, as if it were ever a big deal.
So there’s hubris, yes, but there’s little to be said for that disposition otherwise: there are obvious problems with maths, for example, problems with civilised discourse (this topic being enough of a self-demonstrating example, I suppose) and so on.
If you’re wrong you’re wrong. Bring arguments next time.
Well, done that (re arguments why that poster is wrong) for you.
You sure like to pretend you’re special.
Bingo.
Sludge is easily above 60% today across any bracket of the ladder.
Btw, there’s generally no such thing, but that’s gonna be an umpteen time’s repetition.
For example:
I’m tired of explaining that there’s generally no such thing. For example: or: or this rather silly one: Go on, explain to me how it could be possible (big spoiler: it’s not) in a zero-sum game like this. No offence, but generally such number are indicative of playing against bots (or something else fishy) for the aforementioned reason; in short, you can’t win against yourself, it’s about 50-50 plus-minus small fluctuations… maybe there’s an extra percent or two for…
Yes it is, lol, thanks to me:
https://www.reddit.com/r/CompetitiveHS/comments/1cfew4b/sludge_warlock_is_incredibly_powerful_right_now/
Wow, did this one just ‘deanonimise’ himself?
I’ve had some misgivings:
How foolish of you to try that card (a second person to have done that recently … What is it with with this syndrome: Valeera avatar, delusions of grandeur… ).
(See the rest of that post if you’re interested — there’s a nice little story about a guy who, unlike this forum nobody, would subsequently become HS world champion — and displayed a completely different attitude)
But what have we got there — a confession, apparently.
So yeah, in short, we’ve got a completely ordinary, run-of-the-mill HS playah (just check d0nkey.top or something like it) with, as said, delusions of grandeur.
But of course, you didn’t even know who you’re replying to.
O, the great one! Spoiler: actually not (see above).
How would you know when you get banned all the time because of your aggressive demeanor?
Said someone who resorts to posting from an alt account.
If you reached legend, you have some skills to play
and the rest is just rng
Says a person believing oneself to be special due to some lucky streak once or twice.
Warriors should just be redesigned; I see no reason why the game should have anything be extremely powerful at defense for ~18 minutes and then be “aggro” for ~2 mins; my suspicious mind goes to “the Devs are probably pressured to up time-played”.
By the way, what does the Brann Warrior vs Token Hunter match-up look like in terms of ‘stats’? I haven’t really checked…