is when they are my opponents
why is that?
is when they are my opponents
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 ‘real’ 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 didn’t pick suppression pulse against a team that is hindered by blind.
HP posts about a 53/47 split on his heroic for QM.
it’s almost as if I said the When he goes suppression pulse, implying it’s 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 “i’m not on ooze’s side” then speculation is moot.
there isn’t an answer to be had, so the only thing is going to be fluff, “passive aggressive” 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 “others could have other oppinions on that though”. 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
that’s just you being… well… you
I mean there’s answering and then there’s being an @$$
In what way where my post being an @$$?
it isn’t; you just don’t get the joke. Lot easier for people to assume someone is being ‘passive aggressive’ 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 I’m 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 don’t always blidly pick the same talens are rare.
He wasn’t saying that artanis’s 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… you’re 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 don’t read things through thinking that their bad take on heckling others must therefore indicate that someone didn’t read something through.
As I stated before, what I posted is a ‘joke’. I’ve also posted precisely that instead of posting a “/s” I use a tell of italicizing words like “clearly” or “obviously” to indicate that I am using an implied form of “quotes” to indicate I am using a word in a way not usually associated with it’s definition. While people may demand that someone must use a ‘/s’, 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 ‘true’ statement. So asking “why” on something that has not provided the basis for patterns, explanations, or correlations doesn’t do much. So, when deterministic patterns won’t work, then the next option is quantum physics because there stuff is allowed to be “random”
So while someone might think I tossed in ‘quantum entanglement’ for no ‘apparent’ reason, i included it for specific reasons.
What people might know of quantum physics is a bad take on Schrödinger’s Cat – the thought experiment was intended to show an issue of interpretations regarding quantum superpositions – or Marvel/Disney tossing ‘quantum’ behind any number of conjoining words.
Regardless, the 2022 Nobel Prize for physics was awarded to an experiment regarding quantum physics and there’s a number of trending/clickbait videos out there that are trying to explain the significance or troll the internet with the phrasing of “the universe is not real.”
My point of concern (turn of the joke) is the duality imposed on wave/particle properties: once something has been “observed,” (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 they’re now – kinda – 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 ‘joke’ is that the observation is precluding the ‘linked particle’. By posting a match where an enemy heroic didn’t pick the desired heroic, then the superposition is that there is a game where the opposite is true, and it is true because of ‘quantum entanglement’.
However, I don’t expect people that ‘liked’ the comment to realize that I actually meant “quantum entanglement” as an explanation for the OP, which is part of the humor at hand.
Your “joke” just isn’t 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 you’re trying to explain yourself by calling it a joke… good one there bud.
No, I only look that way to people that don’t pay attention, refuse to consider option they won’t consider and lie to themselves about it. I’ve 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 didn’t consider something that they didn’t consider. Which you didn’t consider.
It’s not an elaborate hoax because I got ‘called out on it’ which I wrote is verbatim ‘correct’. I used all my usual tells (which I explain), the option is the ‘3rd item’ (rule of three) and in recent events, talk about quantum mechanics is trending. “Jokes” or “humor” aren’t always “Funny” as in “ha ha” and serves a number of other purposes that people generally do not consider, esp the sort that don’t know how to get ‘jokes’ 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, I’d rather be a a “criticizing douche” than a one-trick that takes pride in looping the same bad faults over and over again. People care about ‘skill’ and the having of it, and then pretty much do everything they can to curb their ability to improve outside of – i assume – autotomy.
You’re certainly writing a long message to explain a “joke” 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 “tells” about joking