Why I believe DK was a mistake

Multiplayer Discussion
122

I think Demon Hunter and Death Knight feel really distinct and have distinct mechanics.

It’s a bit…silly that they chose to make the primary 3 rune incentive cards just boosted versions of existing cards (Firelands Portal, Shield Block and Bloodlust becoming Frost Wyrm’s Fury, Vampiric Blood and Grave Strength respectively) but I get why they would do that.

But otherwise I think the corpse mechanic is super cool and very unique. I really like the rune mechanic a lot and I think it’ll be a lot more interesting/cool in the new set. Where players will have to genuinely debate whether they want some of the powerful new one rune cards or to stick to pure 3 rune builds.

I think Demon Hunter’s way of handling demons and weapons is cool. It’s sort of the way Warrior handles weapons but feels pretty different.

123

Yes, we do. Do you know of ANYONE today that looks back and says “Nothing wrong with us owning people as property a few hundred years ago?” Short of a few members of a certain…cult, no one thinks that. Everyone is pretty much in agreement that slavery is bad, always was bad, and should never have happened.

Progression and empathy has changed, as it always does. I’m sure the future will look back at us and view our ownership of pets as “owning slaves” and absurd that we didn’t give pets rights. The future never looks back on the past with adoration on how we did things.

We’re really bad at predicting future societies :rofl: We either get it wrong and didn’t go too far into the future or get it wrong and predicted it would happen way later than it did. Very rarely do we get this right.

That being said, flying cars normalized and dome cities ETA 2200 imo. :rofl:

1 Like
124

The Jetsons was set in the far flung, distant future of 1992.

Let’s think on that. That’s how wild technological development was in the 1960s.

EDIT: Never mind this isn’t true, it’s 2062. I dunno where I heard that.

2 Likes
125

They always fail to take into account humanity’s stubborn rejection of change and new ideas.

Just look at the electric cars of today. It’s practically a rerun of idiocy that we had in the early 1900s when gas cars were said to take the place of horses.

  1. They’ll catch on fire out of no where
  2. too expensive, will never be affordable for the average person
  3. the price to replace part X is so outrageous that people can’t afford to replace parts
  4. you can’t get far in them and they barely get any mileage before you need to fill it up

It’s literally the same arguments against electric cards of today. It’s hilarious. We absolutely reject and hate change and new ideas and we never consider how much humanity will try to hamper progression.

126

That wouldn’t be my cue. Though if Blizzard did start using characterizations that blatantly triggering, I would be here to say something.
That much you know for sure.

127

Once again: just three? A bit disappointing, perhaps, that it’s not ten. :grinning:

Define ‘everyone’. :grinning: As far as I’m aware, it’s considered a historical reality, adequate for its time, although not for present, of course, since times change after all.

Oh, one more small thing: the world is not black and white, and what’s ‘good’ or ‘bad’ is often down to… just the current social consensus, more or less. In this light, labelling something thus outside its historical context doesn’t make much sense.

‘Progress’ is very… relative. Who was this author that wrote something like this: if cannibals start using forks and knives (for eating their particular… diet, that is), is that progress?

Humanity has certainly developed a lot of ‘forks and knives’, but at its essence, especially if you consider the empathy you speak of and human nature in general… Sure, from owning people’s bodies (slavery), we have transitioned to owning their land (feudalism) and subsequently their materialised labour (i.e. capital), mostly because it has been technologically feasible to do so, but what’s different if you look at the core and not just the very exterior wrapping? If you ask me, a stupid question like ‘Tell me about yourself… What are your strengths and weaknesses?’ by some HR pr*ck, for example, is no different from checking the teeth of your potential purchase on a slave market or feeling it (sic) up, and definitely no less dehumanising or degrading — it’s just more pragmatic to do it slightly differently according to modern… parameters and technological requirements.

Besides, if you read some literature pieces that are hundreds or thousands years old, you’ll realise that the human nature hasn’t changed.

The view of our ancestors as uncouth barbarians is a very simplistic and misguided one.

Told you so. :grinning:

That’s something called neophobia in ethology (relevant also to wolves, for example, and others)… And yeah, speaking of ‘progress’ in terms of human nature, as opposed to their technologies. :smirk:

(Updated and edited a bit)

1 Like
128

if you ask me, humans have regressed.

1 Like
129

Progression for the stubborn feels like regression :rofl:

Much like how equality feels like oppression for the privileged.

3 Likes
130

This one statement explains so much crummy behavior from certain groups over the past twenty years.
If they can’t feel superior, they feel victimized.

1 Like
131

Especially when some are more equal than others because of some supposed ‘privilege’, eh? :wink: :grinning:

132

Privilege is the greatest blindfold ever.
Anyone who thinks meritocracy exists needs therapy.

133

What is barbaric is veganism. Okay, so apparently it’s a requirement that one consume organic matter to live, meaning one needs to kill organisms. What is more just: to kill that which has never hurt another living thing in its life, or to kill a killer? Obviously eating plants (with the exception of Venus flytraps and the like) is unethical.

1 Like
134

Define ‘barbaric’ and ‘just’, please. :grinning: Also ‘unethical’, namely, which ethical theory you are adhering to.

135

I would say it all depends on your idea of what hurt is.
Animals kill each other to eat.
We don’t have to do that, and have the means to eat only that which replenishes itself without destroying the planet that We all require to live. ( BTW I eat meat too, so I’m no better, but I am aware that nothing will get better without being willing to change.)

136

Does this mean that evolution is false? Because I don’t understand how survival of the fittest would work unless meritocracy not only exists, but is woven into the very fabric of nature, predating human civilization.

That said, I do understand what the naturalistic fallacy is: just because a thing is natural doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily good. That would be a separate and more complicated argument. But it seems to me that the existence of meritocracy is self-evident.

137

Survival of the fittest and meritocracy aren’t the same thing.
The weakest man alive can out- draw you.
The biggest pacifist ever can get his fill and kill you in your sleep.
If meritocracy actually existed homeless shelter workers would be richer than the Kardashians. (who were born rich, as were most of the people claiming they are"self made"

138

Animals replenish themselves AND have a carbon footprint. Plants replenish themselves and have a negative carbon footprint. If we care about global warming we should eat meat and leave the precious plants alone to do their carbon fixing thing. Every carbon footprint a cow has in one less for human use.

139

It would seem to me that survival of the fittest is “the holding of power by people selected on the basis of their ability.” Or rather, it is if we grant other organisms personhood.

What is meritocracy, according to you?

140

I disagree with your analogy, but I see your point.
At any rate poor people have no choice.
They eat what they are afforded.

141

It’s one of my favorite sayings currently. A lot of people also don’t understand the “privilege” part because they automatically assume it means a certain ethnicity (see below) when it really pertains a lot more to other groups. I won’t get into much detail because those people will be offended, but reality is that privilege DOES exist in groups and when you hit them with equality, they absolutely hate it and feel they are being oppressed. One specific group I can mention that just happened recently is the ordeal in Pennsylvania where an after school Satan club wanted equal rights to use the school for a program that another religion was doing. The people of the other religion didn’t want them to have that same right and claimed they were being oppressed when being called out for being hypocrites.

I’m sure you’re thinking of a certain group, but I wasn’t thinking of that one. The equality = oppression group comes in all forms and the privilege IS real.

1 Like