-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Hearthstone |OT10| Ultimate Infuriation
- Thread starter ZealousD
- Start date
Keyser Soze
Member
Out greeded 
Karsticles
Member
Out greeded
Or you're playing someone at rank 12 who doesn't understand the deck.
Current rank of a player is irrelevant. We need to know their overall experience.
Karsticles
Member
I don't think rank is entirely irrelevant. If someone made it to legend with Raza Priest, that person probably has a strong idea of the ins and outs of that deck. I agree it's not the whole story, though.
Keyser Soze
Member
Okay, time to stop posting in here. Thanks for you input.
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
If raza priest is dying in fatigue it's because their deck sucks, they're bad at it, they made big mistakes, or perhaps really poor draw order. Rank 12, I am willing to bet they are simply not that great at it. It's definitely not a wash but it is priest favored and I don't think greed has to do with it because priest is not trying to win in fatigue. They're not trying to attrition you either. Assuming this was raza priest and not big priest. Can't say much for big priest match up tbh. I assume it was raza because 2 twisting nethers in hand.
Honestly, it's not that far fetched to assume an outcome based on that screenshot lol... I mean can't always be right though. I don't understand why there is drama re: what kars said. It wasn't really insulting, just kinda guessing the player is bad to lose that way. It's not even far fetched. If he played well and lost anyway, just say so. No drama needed.
Honestly, it's not that far fetched to assume an outcome based on that screenshot lol... I mean can't always be right though. I don't understand why there is drama re: what kars said. It wasn't really insulting, just kinda guessing the player is bad to lose that way. It's not even far fetched. If he played well and lost anyway, just say so. No drama needed.
Karsticles
Member
I'm sorry if it came off as though I was insulting your rank. That wasn't my intention. As I wrote below, my comment was within the context of the discussion that happened on the previous page re: Raza Priest losing to greed decks.
Did you read the last page? There was a claim that Raza Priest can be beaten by greed. If someone then posts and says they beat Raza Priest through greed, it's important to address that. Otherwise people start to think that Raza Priest is vulnerable to greedy decks.
Meanwhile in Shadowverse
To be fair, the game was a Tier 0 dumpster fire 2 months ago.
However, that's kind of why it's perfect example what monthly balance patches that actually hit the problematic cards can to for a game.
To be fair, the game was a Tier 0 dumpster fire 2 months ago.
However, that's kind of why it's perfect example what monthly balance patches that actually hit the problematic cards can to for a game.
Someone shares a nice accomplishment and what they get back is basically is "rank 12 LUL" that's fucked. The rank-shaming that happens here is pretty disgusting and antagonistic and I suspect is part of the reason this particular gaf "community" is so small.
Many, many pro players consider Warlock favored vs Razakus priest despite what the numbers say. They say that Warlock, played optimally, beats Razakus.
Why do we get "you only won because your opponent was bad" based on one fucking screenshot? How about we assume they are roughly equal in skill level and our community member here actually outplayed someone?!?
Why does everything have to be so toxic and negative.
Many, many pro players consider Warlock favored vs Razakus priest despite what the numbers say. They say that Warlock, played optimally, beats Razakus.
Why do we get "you only won because your opponent was bad" based on one fucking screenshot? How about we assume they are roughly equal in skill level and our community member here actually outplayed someone?!?
Why does everything have to be so toxic and negative.
Props to Nalguidan!
#TeamArgentina
#TeamArgentina
I dont think the HS community is ready for such a thing
I mentioned current rank because I just happen to be Rank 12, but have been Legend multiple times(including last month). I don't always climb very high every season for various reasons.
That said it is pretty shocking that a warlock could fatigued a Razakus priest.
Why? Lots of razakus priests are as much draw as possible, control spells, anduin, raza and kazakus.
Karsticles
Member
Yeah, that was my bad to bring up the number.
I would love monthly patches.
DyslexicAlucard
Member
I was going to go on a long rant, but it's not worth it. Some posters will never change anyway. I'll just take the obvious route and use the ignore function. I just wish GAF's was better at actually hiding posts, lol.
I figured the priest would burst you down before it got to that point, but I suppose his deck had enough big threats that the priest spent all his resources on board control instead of face damage.
HS community has been wanting monthly balance patches for a while now. A lot of the top players want this (like Zalae for example).
Though not to the level that we are seeing with this latest patch but something like 1-2 cards touched a month.
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
It didn't come off that way to me. It didn't come off as a sly way to insult someone or try to start a fight. It came off to me as him commenting this result was not because of greed but because it wasn't played optimally by the priest.
Maybe they should post replay so we can evaluate
DyslexicAlucard
Member
It didn't come off that way to me. It didn't come off as a sly way to insult someone or try to start a fight. It came off to me as him commenting this result was not because of greed but because it wasn't played optimally by the priest.
Maybe they should post replay so we can evaluate
Or maybe you can just take a poster at his word instead of implying that he doesn't know enough to evaluate what happened in his own game.
Pretty much seems like what happened to me. Priest got into a spot where he had to waste resources clearing the board, or else he'd be dead next turn (or so.) But if I really wanted to know, I'd probably just ask Keyser.
I dont think it would be healthy for the community-dev relationship because people would be complaining about the changes every month.
Maybe it could work, but Blizz would have to be on point with the communication and the community would need to be a bit more open minded.
Karsticles
Member
Well, I apologized and made it clear that it wasn't my intention to "rank shame". There isn't more for me to say beyond that.
I think it helps to understand that Razakus Priest isn't a control deck - it's a combo deck. It is basically the Priest version of Freeze Mage, but it tries to wipe the board over and over instead of freeze it. Then it OTKs you.
So if you view it like a combo deck, what you posted suddenly isn't so absurd - ALL combo mirrors come down to who draws the combo first (right?). It just so happens that this particular combo deck is also great at board control, card generation, defeating aggro, and healing itself...LOL.
I think there's tension toward Team 5 because they only ever nerf, and they tend to overnerf. If they were willing to go back and look at past cards and improve them toward viability, it wouldn't be so nerve-wracking when they destroy your favorite card. Like personally, I dislike that TLK is such a highroll/lowroll card. Get Army of the Dead and you just have trash in your hand for the rest of the game. Get Frostmourne and you might have just won the game. I'd like it if they revisited that card.
I think it helps to understand that Razakus Priest isn't a control deck - it's a combo deck. It is basically the Priest version of Freeze Mage, but it tries to wipe the board over and over instead of freeze it. Then it OTKs you.
So if you view it like a combo deck, what you posted suddenly isn't so absurd - ALL combo mirrors come down to who draws the combo first (right?). It just so happens that this particular combo deck is also great at board control, card generation, defeating aggro, and healing itself...LOL.
People complain if changes suck. People are happy if changes are good. HotS gets a balance patch every month, and the community is generally pretty positive toward it (at least on GAF).
I think there's tension toward Team 5 because they only ever nerf, and they tend to overnerf. If they were willing to go back and look at past cards and improve them toward viability, it wouldn't be so nerve-wracking when they destroy your favorite card. Like personally, I dislike that TLK is such a highroll/lowroll card. Get Army of the Dead and you just have trash in your hand for the rest of the game. Get Frostmourne and you might have just won the game. I'd like it if they revisited that card.
Community is going to complain no matter what.
If balance changes don't come fast enough then they will complain.
If balance changes come too frequently then they will complain.
Monthly changes are honestly too frequent. Even then this patch is arriving almost a month after set came out. It's very quick honestly.
Shadowverse needs monthly updates because the devs were complete dumbasses for like 3 sets in a row and there are so many utterly stupid cards printed in that time that they're not going to be done nerfing things any time soon. It was really really bad. We never had it this bad in this game.
Shadowverse needs monthly updates because the devs were complete dumbasses for like 3 sets in a row and there are so many utterly stupid cards printed in that time that they're not going to be done nerfing things any time soon. It was really really bad. We never had it this bad in this game.
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
I disagree. This is a place for discussion and criticism, hopefully mostly constructive criticism and I'll admit rank is not always a constructive talking point. Here, I think it is, but in other places less so. As long as people don't intend to insult when bringing up rank, I think we're okay.
Yet no one is complaining that this patch is coming out too early. 1 month seems to be about the time that the community is ok with changes in the game.
I don't even remember the last time anyone complained that a balance patch came too fast in this game. Maybe before the game was even released when they kept changing UTH, that's hella annoying but again that's beta.
This time druid was just too bad. We don't get something this broken often so it made it seem longer. But realistically you need more than a month to nerf something. Nerfing everything before they have enough time to be played and explored is just poor. Druid was not a new problem either. It was old problems getting out of hand.
DyslexicAlucard
Member
You literally had nothing to criticize. He posted a picture, showing that he was happy he won a reasonably bad match up. There is next to nothing to go on, nor was he asking for it.
But both of you took it as an opportunity to imply that he didn't win because he played well. Nope, according to you there's a better chance his opponent just must've sucked. Why give him credit (or just ignore the post) when you can criticize and bring someone down?
"I was being constructive" hardly works as an excuse when you just said he only won because his opponent sucked. Do you seriously not understand how that comes off? It's also not the first time I've seen you exact two posters treat others this way too. It's frustrating and makes others wary to post here.
Yes, constructive criticism can be helpful. It's totally fine to do so when someone wants to discuss a match in detail -- and especially when they ask for feedback like that. But don't just assume someone wants to hear that you think they probably only won because their opponent sucks.
That being said, you both are technically free to act how you wish (within the rules, obviously.) I'm just saying that maybe it's time to look in a mirror and see how you come off to some people, instead of constantly looking for a way to criticize others.
Honestly, this is something I've noticed in both of you for a while, so it's not just a one-off occurrence. If it was, I would have let it slide. But, to me, it's a pattern. However, if you are sincere and maybe think twice in the future before posting, I would appreciate that. I truly think it would make the thread a better place.
This is how it read to me as well.
I just netdecked the absolute dumbest priest deck ever.
http://www.hearthpwn.com/decks/931784-greed-is-good-priest
First game was against another razakus priest. It went as dumb as you might expect.
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
20k dust lol
Long story short
Shadowverse release Undertaker + Patches in one card and every month since release of that card most broken version of the deck using the card got nerf but the card itself not nerfed yet and the next version of broken deck is the one that nerfed in monthly patches
And the issue still there
Its like if they nerf one of giant deck in wild every month and the isdue still exist cause blizz refuse to change the naga
Shadowverse release Undertaker + Patches in one card and every month since release of that card most broken version of the deck using the card got nerf but the card itself not nerfed yet and the next version of broken deck is the one that nerfed in monthly patches
And the issue still there
Its like if they nerf one of giant deck in wild every month and the isdue still exist cause blizz refuse to change the naga
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
First, I would like to correct you. I didn't imply he won because his opponent played poorly. I said that could be a reason you would see a raza priest dying in fatigue to warlock. I said that was 1 among many possible outcomes "If raza priest is dying in fatigue it's because their deck sucks, they're bad at it, they made big mistakes, or perhaps really poor draw order." Maybe he had a bad deck list or merely drawed poorly. It's just a fact that happens. Maybe gnomeferatu hit some important card? I guess that is an outcome I overlooked, not knowing the lists but seeing gnomeferatu being played. And I chimed in because I think kars was being unfairly criticized in bringing up rank. I was not saying "oh boy you won cause your opponent sucked". I was saying I see where kars is coming from with his comment.
Also to shorten this post, I'll just point out a screenshot so to speak paints a thousand words. There actually was a lot to go off of. But I don't want to belabor this point.
I actually think the fact that it was in fatigue is more pertinent than the rank, but the two combined is what could lead a reasonable person to conclude the priest played poorly. It's like a DMH warrior losing to fatigue damage. You might think, hey that guy probably played like shit, he is losing the way he should never lose. It's of course not always true that the DMH warrior who loses to fatigue played poorly, quite the opposite. There are many reasons why a DMH warrior might lose to fatigue. But if someone posted a pick of a DMH warrior fatiguing out against a warlock, I'd assume the guy did not play optimally and made some mistakes and I'd be right often. I am certainly open to extra context. In fact, I invite more context. When something intrigues me I want to see the replay.
I don't remember this thread being instagram. If you post a screenshot I don't think it is unreasonable for people to talk about the screenshot in ways you might not have intended. As long as people don't intend to insult someone, and I don't think kars did, I think we're okay. He apologized for any unintentional insult. I think we're okay here.
In fact, many times before I posted something and people had something to say about it that I didn't intend. Like, I'll post this screenshot and say "wow this guy played so shitty" and there will be several people saying "well maybe x, y, or z happened". I don't get mad at them, I respond to them and explain some of the facts that led me to believe the person didn't play well. Or, if I am not open to discussing it further, maybe I just don't respond at all.
I'll speak for myself here. I only posted my thoughts because I think people were overreacting to the comment about ranked. I never said he only won because his opponent sucked. I never said that. You seem to think I have, but I didn't. And I don't think bringing up rank is always a bad thing. In fact, I don't think bringing up ranks is an insult nor was kars, knowing him, intending to insult anyone here. It's being overblown and he already apologized for any unintended insult.
I don't think it's fair for you to say the last part about me. I don't think that is true, but if you want to show me some evidence then maybe I'll concede the point. Basically, show me this "pattern" as you called it.
Karsticles
Member
A patch every other month is fine. Just some sort of frequency with intention to make the game a more balanced and diverse experience is what I want.
1) Bad deck.
2) Bad plays.
3) DK Anduin and/or Raza near the bottom of the deck (horrific draws).
Otherwise I consider the matchup unwinnable for Control Warlock. Similarly, if someone posted that they beat Fatigue Warrior with Mill Rogue, I would wonder how that happened (ok, the answer is that they milled DMH - lol - otherwise it should be impossible!).
Also, I absolutely do not have a pattern of rank shaming. On multiple occasions I have talked about how personal rank isn't a general reflection of skill. This isn't an opinion I have at all. Maybe you have me confused for someone else. Hell, on the very rare occasion it has happened I have defended people against it.
Like I said, my intention was to comment within the context of the prior page discussion about beating Razakus Priest with greed. If the Razakus Priest goes into Fatigue and loses, the only possible options are:
1) Bad deck.
2) Bad plays.
3) DK Anduin and/or Raza near the bottom of the deck (horrific draws).
Otherwise I consider the matchup unwinnable for Control Warlock. Similarly, if someone posted that they beat Fatigue Warrior with Mill Rogue, I would wonder how that happened (ok, the answer is that they milled DMH - lol - otherwise it should be impossible!).
Also, I absolutely do not have a pattern of rank shaming. On multiple occasions I have talked about how personal rank isn't a general reflection of skill. This isn't an opinion I have at all. Maybe you have me confused for someone else. Hell, on the very rare occasion it has happened I have defended people against it.
This is why I really dislike Skulking Geist. So many decks unfairly punished for the sins of Jade Idol.
DyslexicAlucard
Member
This chain is getting long, so I'll try to address things succinctly and condense where needed.
Right. You know what all of your "possibilities" have in common? They all imply that the victory was out of Keyser's hands (except maybe Gnomeferatu, which equates to saying maybe he got lucky with a discard.) You know another possible way a Razakus Priest can lose? Maybe Keyser played well. Maybe he made correct decisions, and put his opponent in a position where he had to use resources typically used to go face in order to clear the board instead. Maybe, just maybe, that's why he was proud of a win and posted a screenshot. Maybe, just maybe, he didn't want that win to be discounted by random people chiming in to say it likely had nothing to do with him.
It's not just about pointing out the rank. It's about you two taking all agency away from his win (when you have little-to-no idea what happened in the matchup) with no discernible reason. Like, when you do well at work, or on a test in school, would you want people to "discuss" the possibility that maybe your job is just easy/the test was a cakewalk? Even if they didn't take it themselves? Not a perfect analogy, but I think you get the gist.
Again, yes it's possible for a Warlock to win for various reasons. But what is the purpose of pointing them out? He said he out-greeded him, it worked, and he was happy about it. Why undermine that? Because you want to have a discussion hinged not only on someone only winning because of things out of their control, but also on them not even being able to recognize that?
Also, just saying, for someone that sees himself as so perceptive and insightful (to the point of assuming you know more about a match than the person who played it), I found it funny that you posited the possibility of his opponent being Big Priest (because he had two Twisting Nethers) when there were multiple Voidform pings in the history. Not a substantive critique, but I just found it amusing.
Maybe ask for a replay next time, instead of jumping to point out 1) His rank, and 2) That you think it's possible he didn't so much win as his opponent lost.
I already stated that you're free to post however you see fit. But, since you like to point out that this is a forum, I'm also free to point out how your posts can come across. Whether you intend to insult someone or not doesn't really matter when multiple people point out that it came across that way.
You don't see the difference between you saying someone played shitty and others saying maybe you don't know why they played that way -- a result that takes nothing away from you either way -- and someone posting a screenshot of a matchup they won and you immediately taking any credit away from him? (Or, at least, bringing the "possibility" up for no reason?)
You literally raced to point out every possibility that takes credit from Keyser. But this has already been addressed.
I'm not going to skim through your post history for hours just to find examples. I've already spent too much time on this as-is (which is exactly why I originally intended to just ignore it again.) You post a lot, so there's a lot to go through. But, trust me, I've been noticing it for a while, and others have too. There's at least one member that quit the thread entirely because of that kind of attitude.
Maybe I'll do it later, if/when I'm in the mood to do so. Either way, I'm now feeling guilty for derailing the thread.
First off, I don't think it's unwinnable at all. Yes, the Priest is favoured, but a Warlock can win -- especially with that DK. And, it's true, a draw order can greatly affect the outcome, like in any game of HS. But there's also an equilibrium where, because of the draw order, it can go either way. At that point, it comes down to each player's decisions. Call me crazy, but I think that would be a reason for someone to post about beating someone, and not just because Shadowreaper was the last card in his opponent's deck or something.
Second, my critique isn't exclusively about rank shaming, so much as an overall air of "smugness," for lack of a better term. Like I said, maybe I'll look for examples mater, but I've definitely noticed it for a while. But hey, maybe I'm just imagining things. *shrug*
Right. You know what all of your "possibilities" have in common? They all imply that the victory was out of Keyser's hands (except maybe Gnomeferatu, which equates to saying maybe he got lucky with a discard.) You know another possible way a Razakus Priest can lose? Maybe Keyser played well. Maybe he made correct decisions, and put his opponent in a position where he had to use resources typically used to go face in order to clear the board instead. Maybe, just maybe, that's why he was proud of a win and posted a screenshot. Maybe, just maybe, he didn't want that win to be discounted by random people chiming in to say it likely had nothing to do with him.
It's not just about pointing out the rank. It's about you two taking all agency away from his win (when you have little-to-no idea what happened in the matchup) with no discernible reason. Like, when you do well at work, or on a test in school, would you want people to "discuss" the possibility that maybe your job is just easy/the test was a cakewalk? Even if they didn't take it themselves? Not a perfect analogy, but I think you get the gist.
Again, yes it's possible for a Warlock to win for various reasons. But what is the purpose of pointing them out? He said he out-greeded him, it worked, and he was happy about it. Why undermine that? Because you want to have a discussion hinged not only on someone only winning because of things out of their control, but also on them not even being able to recognize that?
Also, just saying, for someone that sees himself as so perceptive and insightful (to the point of assuming you know more about a match than the person who played it), I found it funny that you posited the possibility of his opponent being Big Priest (because he had two Twisting Nethers) when there were multiple Voidform pings in the history. Not a substantive critique, but I just found it amusing.
Maybe ask for a replay next time, instead of jumping to point out 1) His rank, and 2) That you think it's possible he didn't so much win as his opponent lost.
I already stated that you're free to post however you see fit. But, since you like to point out that this is a forum, I'm also free to point out how your posts can come across. Whether you intend to insult someone or not doesn't really matter when multiple people point out that it came across that way.
You don't see the difference between you saying someone played shitty and others saying maybe you don't know why they played that way -- a result that takes nothing away from you either way -- and someone posting a screenshot of a matchup they won and you immediately taking any credit away from him? (Or, at least, bringing the "possibility" up for no reason?)
You literally raced to point out every possibility that takes credit from Keyser. But this has already been addressed.
I'm not going to skim through your post history for hours just to find examples. I've already spent too much time on this as-is (which is exactly why I originally intended to just ignore it again.) You post a lot, so there's a lot to go through. But, trust me, I've been noticing it for a while, and others have too. There's at least one member that quit the thread entirely because of that kind of attitude.
Maybe I'll do it later, if/when I'm in the mood to do so. Either way, I'm now feeling guilty for derailing the thread.
First off, I don't think it's unwinnable at all. Yes, the Priest is favoured, but a Warlock can win -- especially with that DK. And, it's true, a draw order can greatly affect the outcome, like in any game of HS. But there's also an equilibrium where, because of the draw order, it can go either way. At that point, it comes down to each player's decisions. Call me crazy, but I think that would be a reason for someone to post about beating someone, and not just because Shadowreaper was the last card in his opponent's deck or something.
Second, my critique isn't exclusively about rank shaming, so much as an overall air of "smugness," for lack of a better term. Like I said, maybe I'll look for examples mater, but I've definitely noticed it for a while. But hey, maybe I'm just imagining things. *shrug*
Karsticles
Member
Oh, well that's definitely true and fair, then. But while you might think I'm smug, I tend to wonder why others are so sheepish. I don't lack the ability to reflect and notice this about myself, though. I just rather enjoy being this way, and think it's a shame when others disagree.
slightconfuse
Banned
Figured out how to win the quest Mage mirror.
Make them burn their antonidas
Make them burn their antonidas
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
First off, you said I implied he won because his opponent played poorly. I explained to you that wasn't the case. My post was explaining that kar's comment doesn't sound like an unreasonable conclusion. Now you're saying I am implying the victory was out of keyser's hands. Whelp, I got news for you. That is a big pivot in your position and this is a card game where a lot of things are out of your control. A freeze mage can beat a control warrior in a match up that is 90% favored for the warrior. It's not insulting to the freeze mage to imply the result was out of their control because that is just a fact.
I never took any agency away. As I had just pointed out, I posted what I said to defend kars' stance on it. You saying I actually attacked him because I don't find kars' remarks inflammatory is just wrong. You keep equating the two things. This is a false equivalency. Basically strawman argument.
Kars and I are two separate people that said two separate things. Get off your high horse and make distinctions here, because I am not okay with these strawman arguments and personal attacks.
Again, my purpose was to show that kars' conclusion was not extraordiary and were likely not meant to be a personal insult to keyser. I saw his post and thought, yeah I can see where he is coming from with this comment. I never said he is right. I said I can see why he made this conclusion.
So to be clear, you're saying I am an unperceptive idiot who mistakenly believed it could have been a big priest. Of course by your own admission you added this tidbit because you found it amusing. Maybe Kars posted what he did because he found it amusing. I guess that justifies it by your own logic
I did ask for replay. I didn't jump to point out his rank. I posted that I understand why kars concluded rank was a reason his opponent lost. You do realize kars and I are separate people right? Context here is important here.
Again, kars and I are separate people and did separate things. I find it so amazing that you refuse to recognize this. I don't think kars intended to result, that was the point of my post.
I don't think you understood my point. My point was that sometimes you post something and you don't intend to invite discussion or criticism. It happens. That is just a part of a discussion thread. Sometimes people want to discuss something, or they levy criticism at your post.
No, actually I did not. I defended kars' post about rank. Please learn what context is. Because it's important. I don't think you understand that my post was not racing to, as you love to put it, take away from keyser. My post was to defend kars.
I think this is a really shitty thing to do. You go off about how I have a pattern of behavior regarding rank shaming. I don't think I've ever shamed anyone for having a low rank. But you say I have a pattern of doing this. I really don't think I do. I think rank is relevant often, but have I actually shamed someone's rank? I don't think so. But you claim I have a pattern of this behavior. You've been noticing this pattern of behavior for a while now. But when push comes to shove, you can't provide a single instance of rank shaming?
And you're just gonna accuse me of shitty behavior but then when asked for evidence of this, it's "take my word"?
For the record, I would have never posted what kars did. I don't just go out of the blue and say people win because your opponent is bad. I don't think that was kars' intent but I definitely did not say that myself. I find it problematic that you can't find any evidence but you're so willing to impugne my character and motives, so openly. I think intentionally insulting people should not be allowed. I have been open about that. Yet in this response you've both managed to intentionally insult me about my perception and insight and attack me on a personal level a second time.
DyslexicAlucard
Member
I don't know if you're intentionally missing my point here, but no, that's not a "big pivot." My issue was always that you were taking away from his win for no reason -- whether it was because you think his opponent may have drawn poorly, or played poorly is irrelevant. The key to my displeasure was, and I quote, "Why give him credit (or just ignore the post) when you can criticize and bring someone down?"
First off, I'm not attacking you personally. I'm criticizing the way you engage people here. The closest I ever came to "attacking" you was saying you come across as smug and it drives people away. I literally even put "for lack of a better term" because it was just the only way I could explain what I meant easily. I could have went a lot harsher than that, but I'm trying to be civil here.
Quoting your first post on the matter directly:
"If raza priest is dying in fatigue it's because their deck sucks, they're bad at it, they made big mistakes, or perhaps really poor draw order. Rank 12, I am willing to bet they are simply not that great at it. It's definitely not a wash but it is priest favored and I don't think greed has to do with it because priest is not trying to win in fatigue."
You did the same thing he did, pretty much to a T. Essentially, "If Raza priest lost against you, it had nothing to do with you." Followed by arguing that it couldn't possibly be for the reason he stated, despite the fact that you have no deep knowledge of how that matchup went. As I already pointed out, yes, RNG can be a factor, but when it reaches an equilibrium, then what each player does matters and can determine the outcome. Why would you not assume this is why he was happy with a win?
No, I'm not saying that at all. I was pointing out the irony of someone claiming to know more about a match from one screenshot than the guy who played it then going on to miss something fairly obvious. It doesn't mean you're an idiot, and I never said as much.
In a second post, after you'd already posted that ^. I said maybe if you want to discuss it further you should ask for a replay instead of assuming the worst --which, again, you did. "If raza priest is dying in fatigue it's because their deck sucks, they're bad at it, they made big mistakes, or perhaps really poor draw order." Once again, those can be factors, but even lopsided matchups often reach an equilibrium where each choice matters.
"Rank 12, I am willing to bet they are simply not that great at it." Literally the second sentence you wrote on the subject. And not saying "I can see why Kars thought this" either. Written in the first person, as your opinion.
When have I "refused" to recognize this? What are you on about? I'm criticizing you both for doing the same thing. What I quoted above shows exactly that. And you accuse me of strawmen?
My point was there's a difference between opening discussion on how someone not on this forum played poorly, and changing the focus of someone's post from "I won this game! Nice!" to "You likely had nothing to do with it." At no point are you the one being criticized/minimized in your scenario. That is why they are different, not "if discussion was intended."
"If raza priest is dying in fatigue it's because their deck sucks, they're bad at it, they made big mistakes, or perhaps really poor draw order. Rank 12, I am willing to bet they are simply not that great at it. It's definitely not a wash but it is priest favored and I don't think greed has to do with it because priest is not trying to win in fatigue."
Okay, for the record, it wasn't my intent to claim you and Kars are consistent "rank shamers." I think you did in this instance, but that's not the consistent issue I had been noticing. What I take umbrage with over time is your attitudes, essentially talking down to people. I see how "rank shaming" came up more prominently when Kars said he doesn't do it and I said "it" (and by that I meant his overall attitude, and yours) is something I've noticed for a while. I should have seen how this pronoun could be conflated, but I feel I made my point enough times that your eventual claim here of "moving the goalposts!!!" should fall on deaf ears to anyone paying attention.
Anyway, you want examples?
Fine.
Here's a post where you lament people "crying" about Auctioneer.
Here's you saying "Valid reasons are a dime a dozen" to a list of reasons someone doesn't like microtransactions.
Here's you telling a member, "Oh no, you mean warrior doesn't have perfect answers to 90% early game minions anymore? Give it a break already. We get it." after he laments the lack of Control Warrior early game. This, mind, after spending numerous posts the previous month complaining about Druid and saying (correctly, IMO) that people are allowed to express their displeasure with aspects of the game here. This is followed up, when the member takes umbrage with you dismissing him like that, with "I give up. Soap box away."
Here is you saying "Welcome to card games?" when they bring up variance in the game as a reason he or she dislikes it. Again, I agree with your sentiment (and the others' tone wasn't great either) but two wrongs don't make a right.
Here is you dismissing someone rudely when they say the collection you start with affects how well you do. Again, it's not the substance, but the tone.
I could go on, but this is the stuff I'm talking about. And, to be honest, it seems like you had been getting better lately.
I'm not going over this for the umpteenth time, but I think it's fairly clear you did. I've provided the evidence over and over. People can make up their own minds now.
I have a lot of experience with threads where people are going back and forth, quoting and responding to individual points within large posts, creating their own large posts that also get quoted and responded to.
That experience has told me to stop doing that, because it just means everybody is arguing in circles, nobody is listening to anybody, and it just makes the thread more toxic.
That experience has told me to stop doing that, because it just means everybody is arguing in circles, nobody is listening to anybody, and it just makes the thread more toxic.
BananasWithGuns
Member
Well anyway, I know a bunch of people were worried about "Priest meta."
If that ends up being the case I still think the deck is vulnerable. Greedy versions of midrange Jade Shaman, N'Zoth Hunter and Dead Man's Hand N'Zoth Warrior seem like they could be quite good against it if aggro actually does fall off.
There are probably even more out there but that's just off the top of my head. I also think double Dirty Rat could start to become a thing again if Mage grows in popularity alongside Priest.
Of course this all relies on Druid not seeing as much play, which I'm not sure is likely at all considering I don't really believe that class got hit all that hard.
If that ends up being the case I still think the deck is vulnerable. Greedy versions of midrange Jade Shaman, N'Zoth Hunter and Dead Man's Hand N'Zoth Warrior seem like they could be quite good against it if aggro actually does fall off.
There are probably even more out there but that's just off the top of my head. I also think double Dirty Rat could start to become a thing again if Mage grows in popularity alongside Priest.
Of course this all relies on Druid not seeing as much play, which I'm not sure is likely at all considering I don't really believe that class got hit all that hard.