is when they are my opponents
why is that?
I do not know, in my experience i rarely see Artanis players go for other then suppression pulse. I actualy never go the other ult since it is to many heroes that can dodge it. When suppression pulse is always usefull, in my opinion, others could have other oppinions on that though.
- confirmation bias
- poor sampling
- quantum entanglement
- cuz one deals potentially lethal damage
obviously there is a direct and ârealâ answer that has someone has observed and they can 100% confirm that your claim is true, and the concern concrete and thus provide an explanation with their witness testimony.
oh look, the most recent match (at this posting) in your HP play history that has an enemy artanis that didnât pick suppression pulse against a team that is hindered by blind.
HP posts about a 53/47 split on his heroic for QM.
itâs almost as if I said the When he goes suppression pulse, implying itâs not every single opponent that takes it
just that those suppression pulse takers are never on my team
So if you would kindly take your passive aggressive B.S and shove it where the rogues do it that would be great.
if the stipulation you pose indicates other people are still not going to take it because âiâm not on oozeâs sideâ then speculation is moot.
there isnât an answer to be had, so the only thing is going to be fluff, âpassive aggressiveâ or no
Why ask a question in a forum if you do not want a answer? Somtimes when you ask a question the response is not there to add to your own ideas, sometimes answers are there to give another perspective then you might have. And i clearly stated âothers could have other oppinions on that thoughâ. So your last sentence war indeed very rude. Even to the other poster who clearly tried to give you perspective.
no one said the fluff had to be passive aggressive
thatâs just you being⊠well⊠you
I mean thereâs answering and then thereâs being an @$$
In what way where my post being an @$$?
it isnât; you just donât get the joke. Lot easier for people to assume someone is being âpassive aggressiveâ than actually read into something.
Laser has slightly higher winrate than pulse across all levels. Even in masters + diamond the laser has higher winrate.
Perhaps your incorrect view that suppression pulse is better in all games is the problem� There are games where not picking pulse is outright dumb (e.g. vs Butcher, Greymane and AA valla) but in an average game its fairly even between the two artanis ults, any many people prefer the playmaking late game potential of the laser.
Meme Beam can be quite strong vs some Team Comps. I particularly like using Purifier Beam vs a Ragnaros when he is Molten Crore, it just burns though his trait.
If Iâm against a team with some scary AA heroes like Illidan, The Butcher, Tracer, Valla of course I take Suppression Pulse. However Purifier Beam is a very good zoning tool (and can secure kills) vs a team that has little mobility of speed boosts.
Then stop picking Purifier Beam, OP!
Did anyone else just notice this great line? This needs to be on a T-shirt
Players who donât always blidly pick the same talens are rare.
He wasnât saying that artanisâs on the enemy team only take suppression pulse , but that the only time people do is when they are enemies.
Maybe you should take your own advice. Oh wait⊠youâre too arrogant for that.
Suppression pulse requires the enemy team have a significant amount of its damage come from auto attacks to be useful. Picking it against heroes like Kelthuzad, Li Ming, Kael, Mediev, Jaina and the like is largely a waste of time as the damage it mitigates will likely be less than if you used laser to force one of their mages to keep moving.
There are also a lot of heroes which can build away from auto attacks, for example Azmodan and Orphea, who might choose to do so if faced with an Artanis due to the threat he may pick up suppression pulse later on. If they do build away from auto attacks it is again pointless to take Suppression Pulse since the damage it will mitigate is probably less than distracting a character with laser.
Because I absolutely enjoy the people that take pride that they donât read things through thinking that their bad take on heckling others must therefore indicate that someone didnât read something through.
As I stated before, what I posted is a âjokeâ. Iâve also posted precisely that instead of posting a â/sâ I use a tell of italicizing words like âclearlyâ or âobviouslyâ to indicate that I am using an implied form of âquotesâ to indicate I am using a word in a way not usually associated with itâs definition. While people may demand that someone must use a â/sâ, the Onion has done a wonderful job of explaining what that is unneeded in a legal brief, so if people are sufficiently not scared of actually reading something, I can link that later, but I degrees.
The op has not indicated any sort of frequency to their claim, or much else to really indicate an observation of note. They could have had 1 game with an ally artanis and have a âtrueâ statement. So asking âwhyâ on something that has not provided the basis for patterns, explanations, or correlations doesnât do much. So, when deterministic patterns wonât work, then the next option is quantum physics because there stuff is allowed to be ârandomâ
So while someone might think I tossed in âquantum entanglementâ for no âapparentâ reason, i included it for specific reasons.
What people might know of quantum physics is a bad take on Schrödingerâs Cat â the thought experiment was intended to show an issue of interpretations regarding quantum superpositions â or Marvel/Disney tossing âquantumâ behind any number of conjoining words.
Regardless, the 2022 Nobel Prize for physics was awarded to an experiment regarding quantum physics and thereâs a number of trending/clickbait videos out there that are trying to explain the significance or troll the internet with the phrasing of âthe universe is not real.â
My point of concern (turn of the joke) is the duality imposed on wave/particle properties: once something has been âobserved,â (detected) then that changes the properties of the subject. In quantum entanglement, two linked particles still have conservation of momentum; if one particular is observed to be spinning clockwise, then the linked counterpart can be determined to be spinning counterclockwise. Or more particular to what people may actually encounter, a photon with up/down wave after a polarity filter will be offset by a left/right wave. (Polarized lenses filter out a perpendicular angle, if someone overlays two filters and rotates one, it turns black because theyâre now â kinda â excluding both axis)
So in this case, if there is a link between observed matches (hinted at by the close split on heroic choices on HP metrics) than the âjokeâ is that the observation is precluding the âlinked particleâ. By posting a match where an enemy heroic didnât pick the desired heroic, then the superposition is that there is a game where the opposite is true, and it is true because of âquantum entanglementâ.
However, I donât expect people that âlikedâ the comment to realize that I actually meant âquantum entanglementâ as an explanation for the OP, which is part of the humor at hand.
Your âjokeâ just isnât funny, and makes you look like a criticizing douche bag, which you are. You completely misunderstood what the op wrote, probably due to lack of reading on your own part and are upset you got called out for it. And now youâre trying to explain yourself by calling it a joke⊠good one there bud.
No, I only look that way to people that donât pay attention, refuse to consider option they wonât consider and lie to themselves about it. Iâve called you out on that before and it takes a hefty lot of arrogance and ignorance to keep looping that stuff, and then blaming others for it. But it is a lot easier for people to just lie to themselves than consider that they didnât consider something that they didnât consider. Which you didnât consider.
Itâs not an elaborate hoax because I got âcalled out on itâ which I wrote is verbatim âcorrectâ. I used all my usual tells (which I explain), the option is the â3rd itemâ (rule of three) and in recent events, talk about quantum mechanics is trending. âJokesâ or âhumorâ arenât always âFunnyâ as in âha haâ and serves a number of other purposes that people generally do not consider, esp the sort that donât know how to get âjokesâ in the first place.
People that deny pertinent information tend to set themselves up for a bad time and simply saying that over and over again rarely gets someone to change; using devices apart from their expectation is a way to try to get them to realize something is different. Personally, Iâd rather be a a âcriticizing doucheâ than a one-trick that takes pride in looping the same bad faults over and over again. People care about âskillâ and the having of it, and then pretty much do everything they can to curb their ability to improve outside of â i assume â autotomy.
Youâre certainly writing a long message to explain a âjokeâ that anyone with any level of social awareness could see how it could be misinterprated, as if every single human should know about this non sense and random âtellsâ about joking