Bro this hero and me are one, destiny choose me to play the hero. I’m a master a this hero. I AM THIS HERO
Of course, you got better, which means you had to practice to get there right? Were you automatically good just because you watched a couple Fan videos? I doubt it.
3 Likes
BRING BACK SOLO Q FOR RANKED, MATCHMAKING IS BROKEN. thank you sir
2 Likes
If I hadn’t watch the videos I would not know what I can improve on.
Sure I need to practice, everyone does.
1 Like
I think part of the confusion comes from ppl thinking anyone who says they’re not bad on first try “claims” they’re master of the Hero on first try.
From “being terrible” to “playing like a pro” there is a huge gap, it’s a wide spectrum where ppl can “not suck”.
I doubt even those who got angry here truly play (or would play) awfully on every single Hero if they play their first match in QM.
1 Like
Which insinuates you played a hero first, then watched a video to learn how to improve. But you weren’t good at the hero right from the start. That’s what I’m saying.
Exactly. Because no one starts off good with a hero they’ve never played before lol
Lol how thick can you get?
1 Like
I think Kara meant he can play “ok” with heroes on the first try, not coming out of the woodwork on their first game as a master.
I think if you have atleast macro covered, you won’t be terrible. With that said I’m still bad with hanzo.
1 Like
It’s definitely what I tried to say.
Regardless, it’s kind of a silly thing to flaunt about because it opens yourself up to needless attacks. It just comes across as arrogant and clueless. If I’d have to choose a Karabars who is playing a new hero or one that he’s more practiced with, I think most everyone would choose the latter, regardless of whatever how competent you think you are on your first try.
1 Like
Sure thing, but the @Op told everyone that “you don’t know the Hero and thus shut up”, which doesn’t sound good.
I know enough to challenge the order for my silence.
Plus I think I put enough on the table so ppl don’t assume -out of the blue-, that I suck on my first match.
Achievements tho can sound “arrogant”, those aren’t a good reason for attacks.
The “I achieved these so I beg your pardon I’m not bad” is imo reasonable and all I wanted to say original (with the addition to don’t be toxic to your allies).
2 Likes
“literally” tends to be used emphatically, rather than ‘literally’ these days. Kara posted a conditional statement; the phrasing on it is usual for US written ‘english’, but as the ‘author’ he can try to convey what he meant if people ask for clarification. It is much easier to accuse people than ask questions.
The debate fixated on a particular set of words based on how you interpreted them. Written english is not taught the same in all regions or courses, let alone how people read it. The intent of his expression – as elaborated on in that topic – the picks aren’t ban worthy, but they can indicate coming behavior that is reportable. While you might draw ire at the insinuation that people can have ‘predictable’ behavior, he does conclude that people that get banned must have done something to earn it, and it isn’t from reporting the hero choice. Instead of attacking the choice, you probably could have posted an if/then for indicating meaning, and then posted your stylistic preference on how to match intent with written word.
The back-and-forth is nit-picking for a strawman. Some of the other non-us posters have arguments based on phrasing with you too, and, that’s also cultural differences in stylistic experience.
None. The gibberish is skcabdrow gnitirw: writing backwords. I think it demeans yourself that you have to conclude I’m considering myself to have some “elevated” vocabulary for calling someone intentionally-ignorant. I intend a formal tone for explaining things as a way of showcasing respect and attempt to find middle-grounds or convey missed information, particular since I am someone who will write in all manner of tones, so something has to be that much more indicative of when I’m not telling jokes.
If people (as a whole) don’t read things through, refuse to consider something they didn’t consider, and make effectual liars of anyone else by 'standing their ground," then they are being intentionally ignorant. It is not an insult, is a description of problematic communication. Everyone is ignorant, but when given the opportunity to expand their perspective, some take pride in faulting others for their refusing to communicate with other people. That’s setting anyone involved up for a bad time, so if someone is offended at being ‘ignorant’ sometimes they can take two-steps back and broader considerations beyond the initial check against their id.
correct, it is misconstrued (incorrect interpretation) because there is evident case of incorrect claim from conduct posted. If someone is making a claim that disregards what someone wrote in favor of interjecting their interpretation of things, then they are favoring the assumption over naysay or clarification.
The concerns you express for “others” posting the same issues doesn’t mean they aren’t posting the same problem, particular when in the lengthy back-and-forths I post to people they do finally admit that they didn’t read something though. They similarly refuse to think there is something ‘wrong’ with people not reading something, and then asserting their hottake is ‘correct’ despite the evident error posted.
What I post at people it isn’t “because I say so”; i post processes that indicate why something is problematic, reference to corroborative sources (if people bother to click those) and elaborate on more than simply lording my opinion over someone else. Needless ‘debate’ over these type of replies has boiled down to people indicating they didn’t read things through, found something easy to attack, and are offended at the consideration they are ‘wrong’ about something despite posting evident contradiction between their claim and conduct.
(i started using numbered bullet points to try to curb people not reading stuff; I am under the impression that since I am still “xenterex” that it doesn’t matter to [them])
It is odd to me that people have an obsession with being ‘right’ (or dislike being told they’re ‘wrong’) and then deny themselves resources that influence their present perspective. ie, they can assert right/wrong proof/etc, and then fall short of their own declared standard. Typically when I see that, they obsess over others being “hypocrites” when the declaration for that is determined by their own hypocrisy: they rationalize away reading something through, reject clarification, and then impose their standard on someone else to declare them the ‘hypocrite’. Unfortunately, that tends to be the same sort that conflate the emphatic use of ‘literally’ with the ‘literal’ usage.
Ironic.
Quotes [here] tend to be used for 2 things: 1 to highlight context of information to follow, or line-item refutation. It is far more common for the “line item” approach largely because people aren’t going to bother to read things through, nor do they want to put in the time to ‘refute’ every little nit and pick of the other person. Social media has effectively ruined written communication. While it can see that ‘arrogant’ of me to thus type in long-form despite knowing people don’t have the time/attention for things longer than a text/tweet/tic tok, I think it that much more necessary that people are willing to consider something beyond themselves long enough to read what people are trying to overcome in the flaws of written communication.
To note, I am not going to highlight, address, or reply to every ‘item’ someone posts my way; topically, I try to have a ‘thesis’ of concern that requires reading through the whole of something through. People tend to already have the reply button going, and just write their impulse at the moment they find something disagreeable, so they will post reactions in ‘real time’ assuming a person is reading what they wrote as they made it and bemoan the person for repetition they themselves made in the post. They act as if the other person ‘heard’ them write it the first time in a post, and fault them for bringing it up again despite the post not actually existing until after the rant is over.
In the context of people posting unreliable things, having someone post on another account for ‘liking’ the agreement they made with themselves doesn’t make something ‘untrue’, but it tends to bely other problematic behaviors that cause issues of trust and intent in reading & conversation. If a concern comes from a person disagreeing by ‘who’ posted it (and not the what) then having a visible mark of them liking their own post reaffirms the concern of topical disagreement over content. Since you post about us/them cliche stuff, replying and liking yourself draws more attention to the divisions you are creating for yourself.
I don’t use the ignore function. Some like to assume that I do, and then draw conclusion from that assumption. Posting that then draws the usual “holier than thou” or “hypocrite” replies as people tend to assume I have to put on some ego rant to satiate myself instead of trying to be consistent with the thesis by which I write.
However, since [they] don’t read through the thesis form, they skip over the parts of where I explain why I’m explaining my explanation. (Egad! how arrogant) It’s a lot easier for people to look what confirms that they were ‘right’ all along than to notice, and admit, that they are actually in agreement with something, and were arguing needlessly, esp if that’s the thing they were faulting someone else for doing. So long as people have someone else to blame, they usually don’t consider faults or attempt to improve things, or ask for clarification, or apologize.
Some of the arguments you’ve had with some posters have posted attempts at clarification, admitted they were wrong, and/or apologized for things, so they’re more like to draw likes/sympathy from other posters that want that, or attempt that themselves.
This is pretty much the topical context that sets you against any and anyone else here that hasn’t ‘agreed’ with you on something. Many of the forum regulars (Discord cliches or no) tend to be here to either help people. Other mediums exist that suit other incentives more, so fewer people populate the forums now. What you may interpret as “arrogant” can be one trying to convey that something is even possible to people that claim it isn’t.
“This game is rigged, I can’t climb, actibli$$ard only let people who pay win games”
“I got to GM without paying”
“zomg, stop bragging”
Yea, that’s an oversimplification, but it’s also in response to an overgeneralization. You heard a boogieman story that people might not be on the forum to express every little conversation they might have had with any given poster on the board. This isn’t a ‘public’ forum; there’s not some magic ‘honor’ here to impugn. I am not the limit of my avatar, and if I go a month without posting, minky is probably the only identity here that’d care.
Posters with the worst forum reps probably don’t get flack in the only other context that applies to this forum: the game. So, off-site gossip or no, it’s mostly assumptions for belittling others in a rationalization to justify that treating others how you think they’re treat you first is justified since they’ll do it anyway.
In a game that tries to encourage ‘teamwork’, regulars aren’t here to be a ‘hivemind’ for maintaining a status quo; they’re acting here in ways that largely conform to the ‘teamwork’ they’d have in the game. An overgeneralization of repeat topics come from 0-post alt accounts that indicate they aren’t actually looking to improve, learn more, make friends, or do much else than complain.
It is a woeful confirmation bias that the replies can ‘chase’ a poster away, and then reaffirm that they were right about being terse/confrontational, or whatever to the topic, but, due to walls in communication (culture, context, etc) some do thing they are doing what they can to be positive, constructive, inspire change, and be more than a self-satisfying egocase.
As much as people can learn about writing and expression, there’s only so much they can do for reading interpretation. This topic is a demonstration on the difference in experience, expectation, and communication. Some hold that one shouldn’t ‘admit’ to being new with a hero (invites insults, demoralized allies) and some hold that it is useful information to invite advise and protips (ha! amiright?) or cautions allies to temper their play, at least initially.
It’s not just two sides to something, right/wrong, but distinctions in divergent context. The forums tend to be a cliche anime of person A declaring person B to be arrogant, and then person B saying person A is thus arrogant, and the two feeling insulted enough to have to fight over it because it’s easier to lump things into agree/disagree and fault anyone that says otherwise as more ‘disagree’.
1 Like
Because writing 2 sentences without any form of context isn’t a thread, nor give enough info to assume what it means, people can in this way reflect on it in any way and a common trope is gamers seething after a match and people will follow the “gamers seething after a match” by respond with a “gamers seething after a match” response.
Ego trip or not, the OP is cherry picking replies and ignoring a good few points around he could easily reply to.
But sure we agree to disagree over this point.
To be fair, it really isn’t the OP that did and clinging on to it. He barely even talked about anything.
Why talk when thou can see the profile thyself.
Saying I’m new to a hero is fine in QM since QM does not matter much. Doing it in ranked tho is just trolling and will get you reported when you lose.
4 Likes
No sir. Taking your noob character into ANY match with other players, that’s not against AI? That’s a jerk move and inconsiderate. No, it doesn’t matter if it’s QM or Ranked. Learn on YOUR OWN time! Not other player’s time.
Like i said above, at LEAST slug it out in a dozen or so AI matches first. To get a decent sense of what works with your character.
But doing like, “First time ever picking Fenix. Time for QM!”. No sir. You’re Wrong for that.
https://www.heroesprofile.com/Hero/Single/?blizz_id=10162227&battletag=Landmine®ion=1&hero=Hanzo&league=&season=18
Followed up by: https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/heroes/t/any-hanzo-players-here-i-seek-thy-council/51073
Darn, you beat me to it.
Also wow, alot has been deleted from that thread.
Ahh, yes. Cherry-picking some random point. On a site that doesn’t even contain the entire history at that.
Also thanks for reminding me. I knew I’d forgotten SOMEONE that needed to be put on ignore. G’bye 
i agree , people should play solo and learn the hard way without the help of anybody to play the game .