Why HoTs will never be good

[Xenterex-1540]

@Onceler-11628

Statiscally, even 10 games would have low confidence,

and you do.

That is why the point variance will be much higher than settled accounts with a higher confidence – to which you didn’t bother to check or even consider because you already consider yourself to be correct.

The basis of your ‘experiment’ here is just confirmation bias, which doesn’t especially help that the details you convey are meaningless.

“oh i had the most xp, “best” k/d ratio and mvp.”

so… you picked as split-push specialist that spent the whole game ignoring others in favor of deluding yourself with padded numbers?

The conclusion you draw from this is to “win three placement games” to ‘get out of bronze’. Cept, you didn’t win those games, so you wouldn’t actually know if that would get you out of bronze. So you drew a bad conclusion from incomplete information, blame someone else for your self-induced misery, and then brag you accomplished something by “proving” the point you didn’t actually prove.

The 3 game placement matching is still based on the ‘k’ value for (the starting placement) the lower amount of games to ‘place’: it’s visual fluff for getting to ‘mmr’ shown sooner. The effect is more pronounced for accounts transitioning from one season to the other and should similarly stem new accounts from jumping too high into the rankings – is they could so do before.

Neither of those are apparent considerations in your rant.

Similarly, you seem to only consider the initial ranking of the 3 placements rather than what comes before that point – btw, stuff comes before that point.

So what you posted is you wasting your own time because you’re too content trying to project you’re right to actually think through what is it you’re trying to actually do.

From what could be gleaned from your efforts is less than the same sort of complaints that flood similar games. However, the effect of what you’re complaining about, some one might be more inclined to think hots the better option compared to those games due to the weak content of your claim & protest.

Or it just seems you’re well behind the curve of complacent complaints that would thus get met with apathy or ‘no duh’ --type of replies should you post the exact thing verbatim in a competitor’s community.

[Wicked-12884]

This game is sh*t. Blizzard doesn’t care.

[UltraliskX-2933]

The potatoeggedon had happened!

[Onceler-11628]

So many assumptions here that are incorrect it’s a meaningless response.

And how dare you call my post a rant, you are wordy as can be - to the point you are nearly unreadable.

[Xenterex-1540]

@Onceler-11628

how dare you call my post a rant

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/rant

A rant is an argument that is fueled by passion, not shaped by facts.

Some sources may add length as an attribute to a ‘rant’ but consistently there are qualities attributed to passion and emotional outburst, and not necessarily length. “Rant” comes from the Dutch ‘ranten’ (to talk nonsense) and shares that origin with “rave”; the two can be used together (to rant and rave) to be particular to the action, and not necessarily the duration.

While passionate people potentially post particularly prolonged protests, the quality of note is the emotionality demonstrated, esp at the neglect of other persuasive devices. Emotional outbursts (rants) can be noted for their irreconcilability or refusal to engage with things that don’t agree with them (demonstrated per children and zealous religious advocates as a generalized example)

However, rather than take into consideration the "whole’ of something, you neglect possibilities in favor of fixated assumptions to accuse others of the thing that you are doing. So your offense taken at a word used would suggest my diagnosis of your efforts isn’t just assumption, its how you conduct yourself consistently from one topic to another, from one complaint to its repetition.

While you can try to assert that a claim of too many “assumptions” would not be worth your time to debunk, it is not an assumption for someone to point out that your lack of details and evidence can be explained with possibilities you didn’t debunk with your displayed dialogue. Therefore, they can be valid claims that you didn’t consider, and possibly even refuse to consider because of the emotional aspect of your position.

To note, i presented possibilities, not ‘assumptions’, & i used length to be particular about presenting that. You don’t seem to have read enough into the reply to notice than, and you are, instead, making assumptions of the content.

Your shown refusal to attempt to demonstrate how at least one thing presented is an assumption could be seen as a continuation of lacking effort and evidence to your argument. it’s a claim that doesn’t carry content to convince or cause the congregation to care.

[MurlocAggroB-1893]

Heroes of The storm.

[Xenterex-1540]

btw the

@Onceler-11628

No, never heard that phrase, do you hear it often? I don’t think your subjective psuedo psycology is “Science”.

can be offset with, ya know, bother to look it up:

https://www.livescience.com/1827-bad-memories-stick-good.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/24/your-money/why-people-remember-negative-events-more-than-positive-ones.html

https://www.webmd.com/brain/news/20070829/bad-memories-easier-to-remember

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativity_bias

e.g.

Negativity dominance describes the tendency for the combination of positive and negative items/events/etc. to skew towards an overall more negative interpretation than would be suggested by the summation of the individual positive and negative components.

One explanation that has been put forth as to why such a negativity bias is demonstrated in social judgments is that people may generally consider negative information to be more diagnostic of an individual’s character than positive information

As addressed by negative differentiation, negative information seems to require greater information processing resources and activity than does positive information; people tend to think and reason more about negative events than positive events.

Aside from studies of eye blinks and color naming, Baumeister and colleagues noted in their review of bad events versus good events that there is also easily accessible, real-world evidence for this attentional bias: bad news sells more papers and the bulk of successful novels are full of negative events and turmoil. When taken in conjunction with the laboratory-based experiments, there is strong support for the notion that negative information generally has a stronger pull on attention than does positive information.

Research concerning the effects of punishment and reward on learning suggests that punishment for incorrect responses is more effective in enhancing learning than are rewards for correct responses—learning occurs more quickly following bad events than good events.

When studying both positive and negative behaviors, participants tend to recall more negative behaviors during a later memory test than they do positive behaviors, even after controlling for serial position effects.

There is also evidence that people exhibit better recognition memory and source memory for negative information.

When presented with a situation in which a person stands to either gain something or lose something depending on the outcome, potential costs were argued to be more heavily considered than potential gains.

Granted, wiki is just a collection of sources, and not the authority itself, the point is to convey the extent of negativity bias seen contrasted to the reply your gave Lilpenpusher.

You didn’t look up something that conflicted with your world view, assumed it to not be ‘science’ and persisted in acting out on assumption rather than verification. Your responses tends to neglect information & possibilities, so you tend to attribute that sort of response to other people that don’t agree with you. Since you assume it to be ‘wrong’, you don’t even bother to check.

You’re an apparent example of the bias manifest. When in the position of potentially learning something you didn’t know, you act out with an adverse response to the ‘cost’ rather than to the benefit. Things are “assumptions” that you don’t check, people will be ‘wrong’ on default for disagreeing with you, and processes that can be verified (like science) aren’t put through their process to verify their validity.

You say ‘trolls’ ruin the game, behave in ways other people identify as being a ‘troll’ and then also claim the game is ruined for you.

That sort of apparent loop is going to suggest to people " this “sounds like a you -problem, buddy”?"

[MurlocAggroC-2617]

@Pockey-11832

Don’t listen to anyone with a Murky avi. Their credibility goes out the window.

100% agree

[M3kk-1631]

@VanBust-1724

@Onceler-11628

I’d argue this game is QM, at least 90 percent of games played are.

This might be true but you might not understand the reason behind that. WHY do you think QM is the most played mode?

A) because of it’s great design and balance so it’s like the most fun to play mode

B) Every player had to play QM to level up the account/heroes until it becomes possible to queue up for SL? QM is like the default mode because it doesn’t require you to own a specific amount of heroes…

Or, probably the reason for most people…

C) It’s an easy/stress-free mode to play without drafting. Also a good mode to learn new heroes in, since you don’t need to worry about being hyper-competitive and picking tier 1 heroes/drafting.

[Onceler-11628]

rant warning, poster has no self awareness, and wil go on and on and on

[VanBust-1724]

@M3kk-1631

C) It’s an easy/stress-free mode to play without drafting. Also a good mode to learn new heroes in, since you don’t need to worry about being hyper-competitive and picking tier 1 heroes/drafting

In other words, you claim that 90% of the players in HOTS have ladder anxiety and therefore they stick to QM because it’s stress-free?
You might be one of those and that’s why you assume that most people are like you?

[Onceler-11628]

Well, this is part of the fundamental problem with HoTs, people don’t even agree on what the various modes are there for.

I always assumed “quick mode” was a “mode” designed to give you a “quick” game. I’m not sure where I got that idea, but that is what I assume. I think this means that it does away with draft, and matchmaking is looser, . . . basically prioritizing time.

I also assumed “practice mode” was where people would “practice”. Again, just my crazy assumption.

The issue is, there are super selfish people in the world, who see nothing wrong with putting 9 other people through a bad game, because they decided to go super casual and know nothing about their hero in QM. I mean, I come for a world where I don’t inconvenince 9 other people just cause I feel like it and can.

It reminds me of the guy who shows up 10 mins late to a meeting with 10 people. That guy just wasted almost 2 hours of everyone’s time, but if you ask him, he’ll be like “hey it happens”.

The standard for how little you can care about people is super super low these days. Ironically, it’s during a time where that same community claims to be super “aware”. The reality is, society as a whole is horribly more selfish and self centered than ever before in my experience, and it’s really pretty sad.

It’s the same reason you simply can’t talk to anyone. They will react and get defensive, then blame you for triggering them. Just pahtetic really.

And this is why having this community police itself through reporting is a complete joke. The reports and punishments have nothing to do with who is actually more offensive. The troll trowing the game through incompetence is empowered to ban you, if you suggest he do anything differently.

[Xenterex-1540]

@Xenterex-1540

Your responses tends to neglect information & possibilities, so you tend to attribute that sort of response to other people that don’t agree with you. Since you assume it to be ‘wrong’, you don’t even bother to check.

thanks for demonstrating this.

again.

[Wyrmheart-1343]

you shouldn’t practice in vs AI because it teaches you bad stuff, makes you miscalculate your ability woth the hero. Practice in QM, take it to ranked once you feel confident.

[Front242-21926]

Why HoTs will never be good?

Becouse 4 other RND players determine your PERSONAL rank…

[Nezia-1731]

QM is also the first contact new players have with the game, it’s there their first experiences is built, and if it’s not a decent one then they will simply leave before even hitting 50 where they can start to join ranked.

Talking about experience… I’m sure these guys here must be having an amazing one:

https://imgur.com/j3SPuxR

[FireSoup-1987]

The problem is that matchmaking needs fixing. Really new players shouldn’t be matched up with good players.

[Eberon-1397]

I have mixed feelings, you can practice combos in a.i. But a.i is just so bad, when I want to learn a new hero even on elite a.i my games end in 7 minutes because a sgt hammer just pushed bot lane all the way to core and nothing stopped him and in the end I learned nothing. But if I go into QM clueless, can expect some angry people and telling you to go back to a.i if you play like you are new and have no idea what you are doing. A.I teaches you nothing about the game except what your abilities do and how to string them together.

[Onceler-11628]

I agree. I’ve said this for years. It’s meaningless to have a personal ranked based on team performance, or at best, frought with difficulties and inaccuracies