In Hearthstone, Scrotie already gave dust cost as a relevant factor. You don’t get to bring it up as if he didn’t.
Which is sort of what you did with my example. Let’s say that park goers indeed gave those answers. But the park is Epcot, so the park’s donut design makes location irrelevant, they would have to go through there regardless, unless they want to miss most of the park. So it ends up being that people checked those boxes to check boxes and get done with the survey rather than analyzing their own actions.
I said there could be an anomaly in the drop rate of specific legendaries causing upticks in play of a specific deck.
Dude, this is 100% disingenuous right here, though. I’ve never been to Epcot, so I can’t speak to how it is arranged. It was a hypothetical example that you’ve modified to fit your own conclusions rather than accepting the example. You’re nitpicking it and moving the goal posts.
My example showed how one can easily draw erroneous conclusions about motivations and causal relationships when your data doesn’t measure those things.
Like, the fact that any of you are still arguing this is mindboggling to me.
You guys are taking people’s shoe size and hand width and deciding how well they can play football or something. They need to actually play football before you can extrapolate those things, man.
Discover is a great mechanic but like everything in this game need to be toned down.
You have to pay for it.
Remember when you play a 1/1 for 2 manas to get a discover from it? That is what I talking about it, now you play a 2/4 for 3 manas and discover a spell it will cost 2 manas less, so, you get free discover and a 2/4 for 1 mana in the end, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay powerful for a so versatile mechanic.
The same goes for everything else, battlecries now don’t get it immediate effect increasing the cost or having a stats penaulty.
It is all free without tempo loss what of course break the mana system as a whole.
I agree with everyone who thinks that Discover could, and should, be limited.
Then again; I could say that of every keyword.
I often wonder how it is the devs know that rolling back the lunacy wouldn’t work, when they only tried it once on Year of the Raven, (I think.) which was really poorly implemented imo, as they only rolled back the new expansion and left prior cards untouched.
Unironically if you give me a list of hand widths I can easily determine which ones do NOT belong to NBA players. Because tall people don’t have baby hands.
I don’t know why you’ve made ignorance of correlations the hill you want to die on.
Hmm. More vizier complaints. As if its the only card.
Today I fought against some DK. Turn one Arms Dealer, turn 2 Amalgam, turn 3 Vizier, turn 4 School Teacher. He played 4 cards in 4 turns, and 3 of them discovered a card. Going forward into turn 5, as the opponent, what am I supposed to play around? He has a discovered undead, a discounted spell, and a 1 cost minion/spell combo, and he still has more cards in hand.
The sheer quantity of discovers is what is disgusting these days. It has hit a point where it’s possible that you can start a turn with 10 cards in hand, play 3 cards, and you finish your turn with 10 cards in hand because GOD DAMN EVERYTHING has discover now.
I’ve seen new spell Dh doing some lady s***tano bs otked my despite having 13 hp on the board and 23 hp. The new 0 mana dh spell is making her come back eith abusive sergeant
There’s a certain level of inference that may be gained based on a data set. In fact, no single scientific theory has ever been proven.
Theories are never proven. They are failed to be falsified.
You are in essence pulling a “God of the gaps” type fallacious argument.
As far as the park, I specifically said Disney World in the first place. So don’t complain about further specifics on that.
But it doesn’t matter. You can “God of the gaps” any evidence based argument, which is why it’s a useless tactic to take.
At the end of the day, we don’t even know those games were actual games, that if they were games it wasn’t Gibbons instead of humans playing and choosing those less than optimal decks based on a pretty portrait, or that the universe didn’t start today by a God with a twisted sense of humor who inserted those games to laugh at our analysis.
The vizier and school teacher needs both a nerf. Good tempo with discover and mana cheat on top of it. They should nerf the stats on school teacher back to 4/3 3/4 or even 3/3. Vizier should have it’s condition changed for something like 2 undead. Or at least change the mana cheat to 1 mana
And I have bigger hands than every single starting NFL quarterback and my shoulder is so broken I can’t play catch with my kids.
Because you don’t have any information on a correlation, you have a guess. You don’t know what the correlation is, dude. You are assuming, that’s the key word, ASSUME what the correlation is between two things that are not the same.
To determine two things are correlated, you have to measure both of them.
You can’t speculate on why people do what they do in the way that you are trying to, with a made up stat that makes perfect sense in your brain because it’s your made up assumptions, because you don’t have any data to justify your actual conclusion.
I agree, but you can’t draw conclusions beyond what you actually measured.
I agree with you, and I’m actually on that side of things here.
I am not. Not even in the slightest.
I am saying the data one is using to infer fun can’t separate the variance of the target variable from noise and confounds that could also explain the observed metrics.
No, you did not name a part, then you specifically said epcot and not some other part of the park, and now a third thing.
None of that is relevant to my example, though. My point isn’t Disney related, it’s data related.
What evidence do you have? That’s the question, right?
You have play rates and you have win rates. You are trying to tell me that you can tell what is fun only with those two things, but you haven’t even been able to nail down fun as a construct before drawing inferences, which is why scrotie moved the posts to “irrational” and even that is fraught with problems.
If I was trying to tell you any of these things, though, I would concede your point. I am not making wild arguments, though.
I’m asking you to show me any sort of information on why people pick their decks on a population scale, and we don’t have that information. We don’t know what percent does it for fun, what is for expedience, or even other things I don’t know.
And it’s also not helpful to be smug in false extrapolations from data.
It is not the only but is the major offender because the cost of discovered card is reduced, so, the card don’t have a stats or tempo loss for the discover ability, it is a powerful extremely versatile tool costing nothing.
The second close is the 4/4 put a 3 manas spell into a 1 mana 1/1 minion.
It depends on how generously one interprets Marcos’ statement here. Neon is presenting an argument from ignorance, but not a God of the Gaps fallacy. A God of the Gaps fallacy is a specific type of argument from ignorance. Is a generic argument from ignorance “a ‘God of the gaps’ type fallacious argument”? It’s close, but I’d say not close enough tbh.
This entire discussion arose from you trying to make the spectrum of reasons people do something into a binary, then using data that gives zero insight into those reasons, to make conclusions about what decks are fun to play.
Play rate and win rate are not a proxy for why decks are played. You need to prove the correlation before you can assert that it exists.
This isn’t an argument from ignorance or even a fallacy, it’s good science.
The point of the phrase “broadly speaking” is to indicate that I was deliberately oversimplifying something that is mostly two factors into just two factors, Drax.
Theories in mathematics are proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, and most of scientific knowledge actually depends on these theories, so clearly this can’t be true.
If things are abstracted out of the real world and into the realm of mathematics, things can be proven 100% to be truth.
Now, you could argue that Godel’s theorem shows you can not be certain all of the mathematical theorems are indeed correct, due to having to pick an arbitriary axiom to be assumed to be true, but at this point you are splitting hairs.
And in any case I prefaced in the previous paragraph “scientific theories”.
As a general rule of English, it’s acceptable to drop adjectives of a term after the first mention, and for it to be understood the adjective to continue to apply. It was not my intention to be confusing, and I apologize if it ended up being the case.
You can’t make your “oversimplification” if you reject the premise on which your “oversimplification” is predicated. To agree to anything you have said, one has to ignore the problems with it and accept that it is meaningfully accurate.
In the most plain language terms I can explain it with, your two factors are not completely independent and are likely the same variable on a continuum if you try to reduce them to binary, meaning your formula has no meaningful result.
In statistical analysis they would have shared error variance, and this error variance would be overlapping variance between the two that is most likely from a third (or set of) variables that is not captured in targets. It’s also likely they are correlated to an extent that wouldn’t allow you to find meaningful results to support your derivation of “fun” or even “irrational” in a meaningful or accurate way.
Your “fun” formula an example of what data does not do, and that is make conclusions about things you have not measured.