He wont because none actually exist.
Despite the fact that many replays literally do not exist because of patch missmatch, Karabars outright admitted that the request for information has nothing to do with the discussion at hand and is only for his own personal curiosity.
It’s odd to see someone actually admit to using a red herring but -shrug- whatever.
On the flip side, you’re much worse than he his. You conveniently ignore any particular that is damaging to your case whilst bulldozing ahead pushing your opponents with irrelevant red herring and strawman fallacies to distract from your own ineptitude at formulating reasonable hypotheses.
Speaking of which…till waiting for an explanation of this gem of a quote btw:
Would have been more defensible to just stick with “Deathwing is not OP” but I’ll assume you’ll ignore this too because “not muh science!”
the fact you disregard a FACT
to supplement your own opinion is just plain idiotic
and then the article you wrote to justify it? i feel truly sorry for you for the rage is overwhelming within you not intelligence
good luck in life chump
and like i said before, you are boring me
This thread is a mess.
Both parties arguing are acting like clowns, seriously.
but uh yeah DAE 
3 Likes
There is no tale no head in this topic anymore.
You sound bothered by it. Maybe you should return to threads where you feel more comfortable and don’t have to actually use your brain/use deductive reasoning (or lack thereof) to stand up to people you disagree with?
I hear this one is pretty popular:
1 Like
Most statisticians agree that the minimum sample size to get any kind of meaningful result is 100. If your population is less than 100 then you really need to survey all of them.
### A good maximum sample size is usually 10% as long as it does not exceed 1000
A good maximum sample size is usually around 10% of the population, as long as this does not exceed 1000. For example, in a population of 5000, 10% would be 500. In a population of 200,000, 10% would be 20,000. This exceeds 1000, so in this case the maximum would be 1000.
Even in a population of 200,000, sampling 1000 people will normally give a fairly accurate result. Sampling more than 1000 people won’t add much to the accuracy given the extra time and money it would cost.
http://www.tools4dev.org/resources/how-to-choose-a-sample-size/
Significant results issued from larger studies usually are given more credit than those from smaller studies because of the risk of reporting exaggerating treatment effects with studies with smaller samples or of lower quality [[23](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2493004/#CR23), [27](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2493004/#CR27)], and small trials are believed to be more biased than others. However, there is no statistical reason a significant result in a trial including 2000 patients should be given more belief than a trial including 20 patients, given the significance level chosen is the same in both trials. Small but well-conducted trials may yield a reliable estimation of treatment effect. Kjaergard et al. [[18](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2493004/#CR18)], in a study of 14 meta-analyses involving 190 randomized trials, reported small trials (fewer than 1000 patients) reported exaggerated treatment effects when compared with large trials. However, when considering only small trials with adequate randomization, allocation concealment (allocation concealment is the process that keeps clinicians and participants unaware of upcoming assignments. Without it, even properly developed random allocation sequences can be subverted), and blinding, this difference became negligible.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2493004/
I’m sure this will get ignored but why not.
3 Likes
No, I just find both parties arguing like clowns, you people are hilarious either way with how ridiculous you all sound.
Werid flex but ok.
1 Like
People like doing this type of thing on the internet idk why…….
On another note im just going to laugh when DW gets hit with more nerfs…all we need to do is say that DW is “unfun” and that alone will be enough to justify a nerf for the dev team lol.
I mean… It is a forum, the purpose of said forum is to debate. This particular debate has devolved because of poor argumentation skills by forum contrarians karabars and zenasprime, but a discussion can always return to a productive one.
2 Likes
You cared enough to post so you obviously must be disturbed/bothered by it enough to input your opinion.
Reading is hard
Look buddy, you can consistently imply they are poor skill but its not like you, Orangejuice and all those who consistently think DW is Overtuned ATM are also falling in that poor argumentation skill.
I literally just told you I found this thread hilarious, there’s nothing bothering me for a bunch of people smack talking then using some absolute sound ridiculous, both sides, it gave me chuckles, a lot.
So yeah,
for you it seems. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Seems like poor argumentation to me. One side uses data, the other side says the data is irrelevant and their person experiences with deathwing are more important.
Not quite sure how it can get worse than that.
1 Like
Meh whatever, water is wet, New Hero are no logically are always leaned to side of overtuned mainly for obvious reasons meant for the player to actually feel their presence, either way nerf heat wave so dumb.
Yeah, that’s not how it works. This just shows me you either haven’t been keeping track or just don’t know what you’re talking about. I and several others have posted evidence like stats, screenshots, winrates, pickrates, banrates, and the opposition (that side) has simply reesorted to saying “well the stats can be trusted” even with a sample size of over 4k.
Stats don’t lie. Saying you don’t like the stats because they don’t support your worldview is not how constructive argumentation works.
One side uses data which at best is as accurate as Hotslogs was, which was proven to be somewhat inaccurate by Blizz, stating it can be off with ±5%.
Meaning that arguing that DW needs nerfs because he’s 60% wr is dull, since there is a possibility it is actually 55% and these ppl don’t ask for nerfs for Heroes with 55% wr.
But they ignore this important detail.
And the otherside (if I can say I’m the otherside) doesn’t uses their personal experience as the trumpcard of balance, just treats it as it is somewhat close to what HeroesProfile has. A collection of anecdotes.
So saying the otherside thinks their personal experience with DW is more important is the fallacy of strawmanning, since that was never my argument but you want to make it sound like it, but sure, consider everyone you disagree with as “bad arguers” and praise everyone on your side. That proves that you’re on the right track, ay?
Because this is a “we vs them”, and not an actual discussion. You are right cuz HeroesProfile and everyone who disagrees with that are bad at debates. Gotchya.
No, I know exactly what is going on here, main problem is, you all arguing weither a bunch of data collected on a third party none affiliated blizzard website that very few people use is either useful or not, sometimes they were right, sometimes not so much…
The best part, none of this would literally matter if we actually had an API or actually a working open stats profile page like Overwatch does which is even by far its best accurate way of actually collecting data for the sites that have been doing that for the past 3 years, this thread would probably at least 50 - 100 posts instead of going back forth over “how 2 talk with someone” and “how 2 share replays none email style (free) (no virus) (2020 working)”.
If we actually had that stupid promised API already then:
- Nobody will have to make some dumb theories.
- Nobody will have to theorize that the data is inflated or incorrect.
- Nobody has to use those dumb website or send replays anymore.
- We won’t be having this absolute mess of a discussion where both sounds, so, so… ridiculous, seriously, you should specifically look at your on posts, I even gave those a like because they were really cute and funny.
Every single time we go through this that “stats don’t lie” patch notes says something completely different every time, ETC highest winrate tank? Does not go with the data, Some hero with a low winrate despite what those says has a reasonable winrate of 49% - 51% according to some dev comment? Oh yeah how unexpected.
The reason I dislike those websites is because from past experience I get some moron linking me a profile saying “hew guws this has vewy low winrate of [less than 45%] why people listen to him? uwu” only to be legitimately not the actual stats, that barely adds nothing in the slightest.
And being off by +/-5 percent is a perfectly acceptable range, especially compared to person anecdotes which can be off far greater than that.
The thread you are arguing in isn’t using ONLY winrate as evidence. It’s also using POPULARITY and BAN RATE. And yes, people have in the past asked for nerfs to 55 percent winrate over 50 percent popularity heroes. Diablo, the instance when rexxar was incredibly popular, yrel, etc.
A collection of anecdotes > a single anecdote. That is what social science is based on. Observing these anecdotes through a medium in which can dissect the truth and the falsity.
I’m not making a we vs them, I’m just pointing out that you and zenasprime have so far argued simply to argue. Not really based on anything substantiative. You are bad at argumentation because you don’t attack arguments, you attack the people making them and you attack the sources without basis.
1 Like
Its kinda weird how discussion about hotslogs/heroesprofile always boils down to “its probably lower” but never “it could be higher”.
4 Likes
Not if you want to use it as facts.
As @Sami pointed it out, there were lot of times when ppl pointed at hotslogs/heroesprofile claiming things need to change because it shows it only for the devs to come in on the forums or the patchnotes’ dev comments and say nah-ah.
I can’t expect you to read this whole clownfest, but I also pointed it out that HeroesProfile showed DW has 180% popularity. That’s far from an acceptable error-range.
And high banrate means little.
Kael has a high banrate for at least a year and still untouched.
DW’s playrate is 9%. That’s closer to niche Heroes than the top dogs of ranked. Yet ppp consider DW’s winrate as if he would’ve been a commonly played Hero.
These ppl ignore all these points but they are the ones with good argumantation skills, sure.
Show me where I attacked someone.
Because I can show where OJ “attacked” me. They twisted this whole thread around me for quite some time, but somehow I attacked them? With what?
I debated their points and not them and it’s clear you either didn’t read this whole thread or you just forgot due to its massive size, but your accusation is mute, thanks.