Please define “beef” and how it overpowers 3/4ths of the meta like Brann Warrior?
I already reported on the news several times, one of which was removed due to certain people on these forums. Please refer back to the news reports and you will find the answers.
Uh-huh. No thanks. I’m not going to search your stream of messages to find out something that isn’t common knowledge that you could just tell. Also, you likely made up the term. No thanks.
That’s just as well 
And continuing down that line of thinking would only continue to make things worse.
I don’t know how people can look at a deck that loses 49.x% of the time and unironically say “this deck is non interactive.” Half of the time the opponent interacts with it to death, it’s right there in the stats. Every single time anyone has said
what they are really saying is “the evidence against my argument exists but I am just blatantly going to ignore it.”
Winrate measures interactivity. Your feels do not.
Killing someone faster than they kill you don’t mean that the deck they are killing is non-interactive in what it is doing. Crazy logic. Imagine if someone goes AFK and you kill them. Is that interactive? By your definition, yeah, great game.
Wow. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about across the board.
2 Likes
No for the AFK player, yes for the opponent of the AFK player. The non-AFK player is interacting with their opponents face
You 100% are missing the point. It’s a two player game. If all you are doing is stalling and sending spells face, there isn’t real interaction to your win con. Even otk decks of old had to fight for board. Now they don’t. Now, it is just, “can I kill my opponent faster than they draw their face spells?”
Furthermore, old otks required set up and planning. This is just draw and play.
1 Like
It is a statistical fact, hard and objective, that over 49% of the time Spell Mage opponents perform some combination of actions that prevent the Spell Mage from winning the game. So over 49% of the time Spell Mage opponents successfully interact in the matchup.
It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. I don’t care what theories you have on interactivity. If they say that Spell Mage is non-interactive, your theories suck. The data is the source of truth.
No, your reasoning is a mistake. If a deck had a card that read: “Flip a coin: heads, you win” but at this time it only won 48% of the time, that wouldn’t be interaction. The way you think is ridiculous. A joke.
1 Like
I didn’t use reasoning. The interactivity of Spell Mage is data. It is fact. Like the sky being blue. I didn’t reason the sky into being blue, it just is.
YOU are using reasoning. Your reasoning is bad because it’s trying to say that we can’t trust our lying eyes.
Okay. So you agree that a card that read, “Flip a coin: call it right, you win,” is interactive. Good job!
“If X then Y” means nothing when X is false.
Well, it’s obvious why your avatar is a little gnome: because you are a big troll. Good luck.
1 Like
Your argument is literally “if unicorns exist, then the data doesn’t mean that, therefore I’m ignoring the data.”
No, it isn’t. Good luck, troll brain.
You are so jarring, and just outright incorrect.
1 Like
I am calling him a troll as a compliment. I get the feeling he’s not trolling, which is even more alarming. His mind only thinks of definitions and statistics as practical arguments, failing to recognize that people make those things possible. Reasoning is far more important in many situations. If I asked you, “How many people are left handed?” then yeah, stats matters more than reasoning.
1 Like
Yes, he prefers to blindly follow the data because they give him a sense of control
Since he knows he doesn’t have control over people and their feelings and experiences, he just chooses to outright ignore that aspect
It’s a scientific way of doing things, but doesn’t give you a complete picture in most of the cases where a system is complex
Not only do we fail to account for the synergies between cards, we also have to realize that human aspect (deck pilot) is a crucial aspect of this complex system, and has to be taken into account whenever possible
Yesterday he called my takes bad because I said I’d rather trust top 10 player who mains Infinitylock regarding mulligan choices than hsguru’s data
Like, who does that, lol?
I literally proved him wrong with my example of flipping a coin to win a game, but it is below 50% because of RNG. And his only response is, “But that isn’t a card that exists.” You literally understand that a 50/50 card can have a reduced win rate because of variation, but you choose to ignore that it proves your simple way of thinking wrong.
Not to mention, it isn’t the only card in the deck. Consider the deck is completely stall, and it’s only win con is a coin toss–it’d have a lower than 50% win, but that was somehow interactive? Makes no sense. Your only interaction is winning before they make the 50/50, but was that 50/50 interactive itself? No. Ridiculous argument that win rates depict interaction.
1 Like