Well, I don’t. I like pinpointing exactly what it is that motivates people on irrational decision making. You won’t learn your deck while playing against bad players, right? So by trying to minimize the risk of losing on the ladder, you actually make that risk higher.
I gotta give SOME label to it.
Being carefree in this context means being a coward, and you found yourself insulted, otherwise you wouldn’t have made that post.
I’m used to people being tougher than that. This is a competitive game. In competition, people use deragatory terms to incite competition. It’s testosterone.
Don’t be weak. Or at least don’t show weakness. Nothing wrong with being weak. There’s strength in that.
I was unaware of such a high caliber of testosterone present within HS, let alone required to play
/s
Nope. I simply stated it’s unnecessary.
There are several reasons for someone to post anything. We aren’t aligned nor required to be so with your assumed reasoning for anything, just as no one is to mine or anyone else’s. It’s the point of conversation. For example, in this case, I am simply passing time and thought I’d reply back.
True, it wouldn’t make much of a difference with a 10 star bonus but i am never in a rush to get back to legend most months. Mostly because i enjoy BG’s more. Standard has its moments but the climb is to keep the star bonus from month to month and getting the rewards. Every so often there’s a meta and a deck in that meta that i enjoy and i play more seriously in legend.
Number two makes sense but number one just spoils it.
Your number one would produce gaming addiction, players would be more depressed and some might actually quit this game. Oh wait that’s happening now so ignore the last one.
Do you spam statistical phrases in case something sticks? This is a practical INEVITABILITY in the way it works; you are LOCKED to the bottom of a rank; OBVIOYSLY you will have more people that usual and of varying skills at those bottoms.
Maybe you should go get a degree (in Statistics maybe) before spamming nonsense in places for video games that children may be affected.
What I’m telling you is: the number of people increasing doesn’t mean that variety increases. I mean, when you’re talking about one or two people it would, but when you’re going from a hundred to two hundred there is no discernable difference in variance. The 99th percentile is still the 99th percentile there’s just two of them now instead of one. Just like there’s two of every other percentile.
Basically what I’m saying is that the difference between a 1 in 100 player and a 1 in 200 player is so small as to be negligible, therefore even doubling the numbers isn’t going to have a noticeable effect at that scale.
The beginning of the month is my favorite, i can try goofy deck, i don’t feel bad because even if i lose 3 out of 4 games, i’m still ranking up fast thanks to 10 stars bonus.
When i reach plat 5 and only 3 stars bonus, i tend to switch to more “conventional” deck. I say conventional in quote because even with “terrible” deck like highlander priest, i’m still having higher winrate than reported in HSreplay, and still climbing.
I’m in no rush to reach legend every month because once i do, i lose the incentive to play outside completing the quest.
I have never seen a asteroid nor a dead person, nevertheless i am 100% sure both exist. You not personaly seen something with your own eyes does not mandate said thing does not exist.
Is this literally the only thing you can think of?
You know who else gets locked in at a “rank floor”? Legitimately good players who hit a bad luck streak. No less common than bad players who are only there because they had a good luck streak to get there.
You know what’s going to be a lot more common than either of those? Players who aren’t particularly good nor particularly bad, they’re just kinda there, and they lost the previous round just because it was a coin flip.
A lot in the middle and a bit on the ends? What does that look like? A bell curve. The bottom quarter of which does kinda look like what you’re describing, but that’s only the bottom quarter.
BUT THEY ARE FEWER. I don’t know why we’re still “debating” this. It is blatantly more people with worse ability locked at rank-bottoms who in a more fair game would just be gone (so on average they are more than they would be otherwise (otherwise with a fair/normal game without the locks the rank would be a “truer” representation of ability of the average player of the rank(and WE KNOW that they don’t match you based on MMR because you can literally see your friends’ rank and it is ALWAYS on approximately the same rank when they are matched with you))).
No. It catches bad players who had good luck before, and good players who are having bad luck currently, in roughly equal numbers. It’s not as if the rank floor checks to see how skilled you are and allows you to go down a rank if you’re a good player and only keeps you up if you’re bad.
Absolute nonsense. The bad players are LOCKED-downwards GUARANTEED. The good players are locked-upwards only if they go even further up so they are FEWER being locked-upwards because reality follows the path of least resistance which is losing so the lock-downwardses will be inevitably more (think of it another way: “losing is easier than winning” (or think of it another (scientific) way: entropy (it’s just more common to see bad games than great games))).
What are you even talking about. You can even concede in 0 seconds and stay at the bottom.
Obviously “locked downwards” is more common than “locked upwards” in this concept.
PS and I have another “card” as an argument I didn’t even mention: the good players can ALSO be locked downwards but the bad players will only have a chance to be locked-downwards[or at least their chance for an EXTRA streak is minuscule] so locking-downwads has an extra reason to be more pronounced than being locked-upwards.
You realize that we’re talking about a zero sum system, right? Every win for you is a loss for your opponent and every 5 second concede for you is a 5 second win for your opponent. There is no way that winning can be easier than losing, and no way for losing to be easier than winning. They are both tautologically equally difficult.
It doesn’t affect the concept. The concessions are representing bad gameplay in that context.
To say something new for a change: here’s a situation that happens in practice:
Step 1: Congestion of bag gameplay at bottoms of ranks
Step 2: A good player enters that bottom for the 1st time
Step 3: The good player steamrolls them contributing making it feel a mess; those bad players should not be there at all; hence THEY WHINE BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE DELUSION THEY BELONGED THERE TO BEGIN WITH.