Hey warriors… We want you to play dragons this set with a gimmick about resummoning a certain legendary… You wanna do that RIGHT?
Throw all that garbage in to the common pool and maybe some crazy person can make a combo with a collection of the right class.
Stop wrecking a classes entire expansion with that if it doesn’t work.
Well said. Instead of releasing cards and letting decks be built, they release these on rail autopilot idiot proof decks that play more like a preset contraption where you just push the first domino down rather than a deck of options with choices.
My kingdom for a deck with meaningful choices.
Two errors here. The rules of the game must exist so having a certain synergy does not necessary mean bad: it may also mean “these are the rules of the game” (and some people like change too). Also it’s not true that it’s “idiot proof” because in that case anyone could be Legend 1 rank and they are not.
Thats an extremely ignorant example.
I am getting constant “mommy, look what i can do” vibes from you. Like stue from SNL
It’s not an example. It’s a logical deduction. Also I don’t have to be Legend rank 1 to know those people can go Legend rank 1 with their skill (and I can not).
In fact you’re probably projecting, because I know I can not go Legend rank 1 and apparently only luck stops you.
I dont grind for high legend rank. Meme specials after i secure my monthly legend rewards. Ya know, because i actually enjoy the game…
Ha
Seems like a “you” problem really.
I believ you dont understand the concept of idiot proof.
Allow me to help. Idiot proofing something is making so someone with zero experience can preform adequately despite any lack of skill or common sense.
Adequately.
Not the best.
Not legend rank 1.
Adequately.
I.e., play the green cards
Hahah this is my exact playstyle as well
I understand your point here I was a bit over broad. I would however say that making legend rank does not mean you are not an idiot, that was part of what I was trying to say. Likely trash legend you are going up against many players who would not be in legend if not for the training wheel decks.
Technically there can only be 1 legend 1
You moved the goalposts. I was saying Legend 1 would be attainable by anyone if intelligence of the player was irrelevant (not just Legend).
You effectively say that only luck plays a role which is probabilistically absurd because the same people are in the top 100 every month.
Legend 1 is obtainable by anyone. Nobody said intelligence is irrelevant, that is something you created from whole cloth. You seem to put words in peoples mouth and exaggerate their statements and then argue against them. A one trick pony. Buy a dictionary or learn to google what words mean.
I will break it down for you
Idiot means foolish or unwise
Foolish or unwise means poor decision making
Idiot proof means poor decision making proof
Hence my post about decks without meaningful decisions
Just no. You’re not becoming Champion by being bad.
Not one person in the top 100 would agree with your premise that because a top 100 exist that means its a skilled based game.
Tell me what order you put these in deciding a game?
RNG
Deck
Skill
Turn Order
So you admit there is skill. We agree. As for randomness: it becomes a zero sum game given a lot of games: the best player eventually shows higher ranked unless they play very few games.
Ill try to help you understand this again.
A zero sum game is a game in which one player’s gain is the other player’s equal sized loss, and this does not apply to hearthstone in any way.
Please stop confusing “zero sum game” with gamblers fallacy.
DONT !
resummon the 6/6! dont always aim at thehardest to pull play !
Sciolism is worse than total ignorance. If you play a lot of games against your friend and your friend is better: even if the game has some randomness: who is going to end up first in score after 10,000 games? The gambler’s fallacy is completely irrelevant.
I will take that as a no you will not rank them. Instead you continue to argue with yourself against a sentiment nobody presented.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of basic concepts. The idea that because there is SOME knowledge involved that means all other factors are considered moot because they are evenly applied to the participants. Its so incredibly off base and misinformed its rather incredible.
You cannot outplay RNG in this game. If your RNG is as bad as possible you will lose to anyone, including a bot, with optimal RNG regardless of what your rank is as a player.
I agree completely. Especially when it comes from someone who cant admit thier own flawed perceptions.
You claim zero sum because rng “balances out”…gamblers fallacy. A zero sum game cannot exist with included random outcomes because random outcomes can and will be entirely one-sided in either direction for some players.
I can understand the theological argument of “my bad luck, is your good luck” but in a game where rankings reset and luck can directly influence the outcome of games and gains and has a soft cap every month as to how much you can play. You cannot claim it has zero sum outcomes.
Chess elo ratings(the epitome of a zero sum game) dont ever reset. Ever. Legend rank and mmr both reset, just another thing that cannot happen in a zero sum game.
Also rating floors disprove your flawed perceptions because the gains from a player winning against someone already at the floor of a rating are inequal to the losses of the player on the floor, i.e. they lose nothing other than some numbers in a hidden statistic while the winner gains mmr, rank and possibly actual (wont call them physical) rewards.
Non-zero sum.
As I said to the other person: sciolism is worse than total ignorance. Study the law of large numbers. Given a large-enough sample: then the randomness will cancel out and the higher skilled player will show higher in ranks.
The simplest example I can think of is: think of playing a large number of games against a friend of yours who is a bit better even if there is some randomness: they WILL show up higher in score eventually.
The only true problem here is that if you play very few games then: yes randomness plays a big role (it’s a problem in tournaments because you can’t tell who is 1st or 2nd (truly) if they only play 3 matches).
I love David Dunning and Justin Kruger so much…There is only one truth in the world, and that is my truth…your opinions somehow will fall flat wrong against my undeniable truth.