Its not about enouth , i just want 1 time ,1 example in the past years where Mage is n1 .
The tyrant of the meta ,the big dog .
Surely all this talk and doomsaying is based on past experiences that left deep scars.
So i ask again …
Where is the report that shows Mage on the n1 spot?
Heck, you’ve been playing a lot longer than me. Has mage ever had the top deck?
If you go by VS reports, Mage had the top deck at both Legend and at Ranks 5-1 in four reports each during Journey to Ungoro.
(Reports #48, 50, 52 and 55 for Legend. Reports # 47, 48, 51 and 52 for Ranks 5-1.)
And that’s it.
You never disappoint, just the man i was baiting an answer from.
So here you have it 2017 , year of the Mammoth that coincidentaly is also my favorite time in Hearthstone history.
“All this talk and doomsaying”? I went through this whole thread just now as of this writing, and the post you replied to was basically the one and only one that claimed mages were a tyrant.
Rather than baiting Aegaeon to go through VS reports, I think we should ask him to go through mage threads and actually count how much “this talk and doomsaying” there is.
Better yet, maybe Aeg can identity the exact individuals who post the most mage hate (by post count or by how hateful the comments were… however he can classify the latter). If we can actually identify the haters, we can watch out for them and deal with (e.g ignore) them the next time they make mage hate posts.
I know I’m putting myself in a vulnerable position since I often get push back from the usual mage posters, even though I don’t think me disagreeing with mage posters equals to me hate the mage class (I personally don’t think I hate mages). I’ll gladly take this risk of being identified as a mage hater if it means we can catch the other ones.
I’m going to reserve judgement on this whole card and that skeleton synergy thing till after the first week it is released. I am just afraid there’s a degenerate interaction we haven’t seen yet.
Also…
Technically Lunacy Mage was before the nerfs and that was Barrens.
He did this work a long time ago thats why i knew he was the best person to answer the question.
Its not like he went and looked at all the vs reports just to answer me , he was kind enouth to share with the whole forums before what classes tend to be on top .
A pointless errand and quite frankly bellow him, i could care less if you or anyone else for that matter hates the class.
We all have our bias, im just sick and tiered of the fame Mage gets when the stats clearly show its undeserving.
Some players here act like Mage is the boogeyman but have never seen it on top and started the game long after 2017.
In short , lets drop the moral posturing shall we?
We both know theres is no altruism in this pursuit , your reckless indignation brought you here i counted on it.
And thats sadly wrong , when Lunacy Mage was at the top of its win rate the highest possible it was still n2 to Paladin, i dont know if its either selective memory , pressure from the masses or simply an honest mistake but the fact is stats dont LIE.
Some players here act like Mage is the boogeyman but have never seen it on top and started the game long after 2017.
I cannot think of one, just people that like making fun of threads like this.
stats dont LIE
No, but you do.
Its not about enouth , i just want 1 time ,1 example in the past years where Mage is n1 .
This thread wasn’t about that, it was about how YET AGAIN Mage was the unwanted stepchild of Hearthstone. When that got exposed for the drivel it was you start arguing against stuff nobody was claiming in the first place.
I know what Aeg did. I was there too. I asked him precisely because he was the guy who has shown to have the patience/discipline to do the task. All I’m saying is hey, let’s identify those people, using the same method/tool we used.
Aeg’s post with the stats is like a turning point in how forum discussions go. I’m saying somebody (not me, I don’t care enough lol) do the same so we move discussions another step forward.
There is no “we”, just you. You the one who is “sick and tired”. I’m the one who is, as I said above, don’t care enough to do the stats myself.
I’m just making a suggestion to a solution to you being sick and tired. I may not care enough to do the work myself, but I’ll at least offer ideas.
None of this is posturing. I’m doing this like I can theorycraft deck ideas for decks I might not play myself. I may not care enough to run the deck myself, but I care enough to discuss the theory.
Again there is no we. I already said I’m willing to risk my own reputation.
The only one being distrustful and cynical is you.
Nah, my care for the mage class (and every other class really) and the forum community keeps me here. We can do this “he said she said” about why I’m here all day but that won’t resolve the matter any more than how people used to argue about how often mage was top dog.
…but if somebody did the stats…
We should be baiting everyone to go through VS reports. It’d be nice if people were basing their arguments off data rather than misinformation.
Measuring sentiment in this forum is absurd. You’re not going to get a representative sample of the playerbase as a whole here. So I don’t think getting a level of resolution more than “some” is worthwhile. I think the best strategy is just to address the group you want to address (e.g. “Mage haters” “Mage defenders”) without specifying how populous said group is. Let people self-identity group membership.
Which is why I suggest we gather some data on “mage hate” rather than vague intuitions that there are some nebulous number of mage haters out there.
That’s why I said it’s better if we identify individual hateful people. We may not know if those individuals represent the whole, but we can find out who posts the most about what.
It’s like we may not find out if our neighborhood’s thugs represent the crime rate of the state or even the city, but at least we’ll know who to look out for when walking down the street or hanging out in the local bar.
Well first as above, I already said it’d be better if we identified individuals instead of finding out group sizes.
Second, I strongly disagree that it’s a good idea to not identify who you are talking to or about. To me is the very thing you object to - basing arguments off misinformation (non-information I suppose, since you have no information on who are the “mage haters” or “mage defenders” beyond vague intuitions) instead of data.
I dare say you also should be defining what it means to be a mage hater. Is it crying for mage nerfs? But what if you don’t want nerfs, but you just want to express that you find certain mechanics annoying (the same way people complained about say tickatus or res priest or I remember there was one thread about pally divine shields…)? What if you just want to disagree with a mage?
Yeah, that’s not a belief supported by data ;p
In the real world, studies on cults and racists have shown that those who have drank the Kool Aid don’t believe they’re doing anything cultish or racist. If anything they think it’s the rest of the world that is mad for not believing/doing what they do.
Heck, one doesn’t even need to go to the level of cults and racists. Just look at the political divide in the US. On both sides of the spectrum you have people who truly believe their side is good and the other side evil, and from there justify their people doing horrible things to the other side or flipping out over the slightest thing the other side does.
I think the way to go forward - both on forums and in America - is to actually talk to each other as specific individuals, not sweep each other under nebulous labels.
And how is it that they are led to believe the other side is evil? Not “lies.” Instead: by focusing on individual people who are not representative of the whole, and allowing them to represent the whole. The term for this is cherry-picking.
That’s why I am against analysis of attitudes on this forum. It’s not a representative sample of the playerbase. Any fruit of such analysis will be cherry-picking, if it’s generalized outward. Or in other words, the sample here is not generalizable. It’s a waste of time to collect data on the ungeneralizable.
The drive to collect data from the ungeneralizeable is usually disingenuous from the outset, but not always. Especially among those with weak research skills, accidental cherry-picking can cause good-hearted people to become further indoctrinated into a wrongheaded ideology.
Yep, the entire basis of the OP. For once we agree!
…do you have any data to actually substantiate this? Again, it seems for all the talk of you wishing people to base their arguments on data, you yourself don’t practice what you preach 
No offense, but cherry picking what I think you just did above. At best. Again, I don’t see you provide any data to support your claim, so I can only at best assume you have certain cherry picked anecdotes in your head from which you base your argument on.
At worst, you just pulled that out of your behind. Again, no offense.
I’ll repeat for the third time: I already said we can just identify the worst individuals, not analyze attitudes of the forum.
Again, not what I said. Let me quote myself again