I was watching the stream of the Hearthstone champion and he was going on about how Valerok is an OP card that must be nerfed; it’s because the rogue deck is bad right now but that card is the only good good thing in that deck; I thought he was joking.
No he was definitely right; those rogue decks are ludicrous right now; the only thing they do is to spam-resummon Velarok lol…
You really don’t realize how strong velerok is until you play him and look at his stats.
Games where I can activate him early + draw him early I win 65% of the time. Almost doesn’t matter vs what.
Games where I cant find him are much worse.
Ludicrous design by the Devs (to rely on 1/30th of a deck (or worse) to win). Not surprised the best players in the world call them out. They are usually smarter than mediocre Devs.
The card was unreliable trash before (it needed 3 cards of a different class), however, instead of the middle ground they overly buffed the card and it’s insane now.
btw, i’s not the only good thing rogue has. reliably excavating 3 times on t3/4 is pretty good too imo.
Do you play this deck? Its interesting that you’re calling a tier 1 deck bad, considering It is the most played deck in legend right now.
Correct me if I’m wrong, you mentioned you’ve only been playing hearthstone for a couple of months, and have a limited amount of cards, that you don’t play most meta decks because of the cost to build them. For that reason, I do find it rather interesting that you are quick to tear down a tier 1 deck.
Didn’t you also mention that you play Paladin? Have you played a Rogue deck?
Rogue decks generally perform well.
You know who you remind me of. My mother, she was just like you. Thought the whole world was against her and god forbid someone might try to have a conversation without her going on the defensive assuming that everything is an attack.
Did I say “you suck” no, you said you suck. Not me.
Ok now we devolve into talking about your mother. Nobody cares. Stay on topic of Hearthstone; nobody is learning anything about Hearthstone with ad hominem attacks; as I just said I may suck and be right about Hearthstone at the same time so what is even your point going off topic?
You talk about Bully’s derailing your thread… yet you can’t even respond to questions regarding the arguments you are making without playing the victim card.
I asked you, Do you play this deck?
I asked if you said you’re new to hearthstone and that you have a limited amount of cards.
I asked you if you had mentioned that you play paladin?
I asked you Have you played the rogue deck?
Your response…
It’s comedic, that you are told to not do ad hominems, and every single question you spammed there is only a “do YOU do?” one.
I actually think that this is a good point. Carnivore’s individual play experience is completely irrelevant to the subject.
That said, in your opening post you said
so I was wondering what your source was, since it obviously wasn’t your individual play experience.
The only comedic thing is that you refuse to answer simple questions to clarify your position on how you have come to the conclusion about a specific deck.
How do you expect anyone to take what you seriously if you won’t even acknowledge the things you’ve said or refuse to engage in dialogue regarding your opinion?
Finally someone who understands how irrelevant an ad hominem is. You are a breath of fresh air in a sea of forum people who can’t understand the irrelevancy (or at least the HIGH irrelevancy) of who someone who makes a point is (adjacent issue to authority fallacy by the way).
My source was seeing it myself; I was playing some paladin decks (basic aggro etc.) and they keep playing the rogue that way; they either lose or win because Velarok was re-used lol…
You’re welcome.
Oh dear. That’s no good. Because if you are yourself the source of the data, then it’s 100% valid and not irrelevant at all to question you regarding how you collected that data. It’s then valid to ask you what deck you were playing, how long you’ve been playing, what rank you were playing at, and other similar questions. If you are the source of the data, then your “ad hominem” defense is COMPLETELY INVALID.
More likely than not, your personal experience is NOT generalizable to the whole, which means that it’s unfit for data purposes. As opposed to, say, the hundreds of thousands of games analyzed in the Vicious Syndicate meta reports. If you cite a source like that, then how you play doesn’t matter to your argument. But you can’t have your “it doesn’t matter who I am” cake and eat it too.
That’s a strawman argument. I didn’t claim to make a PhD-level-quality study; it was mainly a discussion; and almost for the lols.
I saw the Hearthstone champion calling out the card to be nerfed “because the rest of the rogue deck is bad without it” and I figured it makes sense when I also see that deck only winning with that card exclusively.
The eye test / personal experience is very useful for data collecting and forming opinions. It is still the main way sports scouts operate. It’s also useful for regular people who want to cut through outside biases to come to conclusions based on their reality which are entirely valid even if it isn’t considered scientific or legal proof
And being completely and utterly wrong.
This is one of the most factually incorrect things I’ve ever read. It’s not just wrong, it’s like if wrong was mud then your sentence here is a pig who is thoroughly enjoying rolling around in it and getting it all over themselves. And then saying that they’re clean. Wow.
Yes and no. Sometimes the popular opinion is very dangerous; sometimes the Scientific establishment itself may be wrong; e.g. the “Pyramid of Foods” was a total fiasco and the people responsible barely admitted the “crime” (they just retracted it silently) but for many years (and to this day for people not paying attention) the “Pyramid of Foods” is “scientific fact because scientific people told me so”.
Look at the work of Michel Foucault who was the expert at describing the establishment being occasionally part of tyranny (including the scientific official-establishment).
While the eye test and personal experience significantly contribute to data collection and opinion formation, these methods also carry inherent limitations. Subjectivity, perception bias, and personal interpretations can distort the assessment, leading to potential inaccuracies. In sports scouting, for instance, different observers may have varying interpretations of an athlete’s performance. This variability underscores the importance of pairing personal observation with more objective, quantifiable methods of evaluation. Harnessing the power of data analytics alongside the eye test can provide a comprehensive understanding, mitigating potential biases and ensuring a more balanced conclusion.
There is a difference between opinion and data. (Although you can have data about opinions.)
Oh for crying out loud. I could write a whole wall of text on the wrong there.