Lurker > bng_mmmk

mcflubbin posted...

Type 2 Learn?

This art style does seem similar, but none of the videos I can find of it seem like what I'm remembering.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/hLqjf1UKfPY/maxresdefault.jpg


Possibly Type to Learn 1 or 2 but I can't seem to find much about those. I'll check more thoroughly later.
---

turbopuns

Llarian posted...

bng_mmmk posted...

It had a tune that went

Deeee buh da buh dee buh da buh dee bop bop

Ya know that one?

I am interested in helping you.

But seriously?

Come on, man. There's a reason I didn't post that until the third day!

It was a joke/bump.

I mean that really is how the song went. But I'm not expecting someone to figure it out based on that.
---

turbopuns

It had a tune that went

Deeee buh da buh dee buh da buh dee bop bop

Ya know that one?
---

turbopuns

Nope
---

turbopuns

Saw this earlier. Looks great.
---

turbopuns

No luck as of yet
---

turbopuns

there were a few different game modes. One was where you had to type all the US state capitals without making any mistakes. another one, I think you were typing sentences or something, and were driving a space taxi, and the faster you typed the farther you were able to take the person before running out of fuel? or something?

That's basically all I can remember.
---

turbopuns

Seems like one of those weeks. Lots of injuries and studs not scoring TDs.

One guy in our league is projected to finish with 140 points tonight. The average projection for the other 11 players is 87.
---

turbopuns

LOL

my week 1 opponent tried to get cute. Picked up Vinatieri after I dropped him (due to luck being out)

I'm now ahead by 4 with his team being done and all I have left is a kicker. Guess I'll just drop him...

...also I dropped the Titans D just to pick up the Rams to oppose the Colts.

The opponent is a perennial winner in our league, too. Feels good.
---

turbopuns

VeryInsane posted...

Do you guys want MECHs in the synergy pool

I mean I don't really like the synergy pool at all.
---

turbopuns

MariaTaylor posted...

bng_mmmk posted...

Someone in this very topic said they stopped playing arena as much because it switched to standard.

Hard to argue with empirical evidence, amirite?

I mean you're comparing one person to an entire community

if you can't see the difference between those two things I don't know what to say

The point is...when you bring absolute/mathematically specific terms into it when they are objectively false, you instigate further arguments.

For example...when you posted "THIS IS WHAT THE CURRENT ARENA LOOKS LIKE"...in every one of your examples, the challenge rate of the opponent's deck was 50 or higher.

This tells me that, at least subliminally, in your mind, you've NEVER faced an arena opponent who had a worse deck than you had.

Obviously this is false. And obviously you would agree that it's false.

But it clearly shows that when you come here to make a post you let extreme personal bias based on relatively small sample size hugely impact your analysis.
---

turbopuns

From a CS perspective it seems like their architecture is probably poorly designed if it would take a large effort to implement wild arena though.
---

turbopuns

MariaTaylor posted...

"literally everyone universally complained about this feature, that's how we know it was objectively bad."

Someone in this very topic said they stopped playing arena as much because it switched to standard.

Hard to argue with empirical evidence, amirite?

You just like to argue Maria. And you use hyperbole a lot, which can be counterproductive. Like my question was has blizzard explained the reasoning for this and you jumped in with your own justification.

It's fine, by the way. I've been known to instigate pointless debates too. But you seem to be in a negative cycle right now where you show up mainly to be heard and just take everything like an affront to your intelligence. And since you're currently not too pleased with the game state, maybe take a breather. Just my take on things.
---

turbopuns

*shrug*

I'm not saying I want wild arena. Just curious if blizzard had ever addressed it since arena became standard.

As a side note, seems any time I air grievances or even just neutral opinions on things, someone in this thread is like "in the past people who aren't you complained about the opposite thing!!" As if I care, lol.
---

turbopuns

MariaTaylor posted...

they've never given one but the common sense answer is

1. wild arena would be terrible
2. it would split the arena player base in half

I don't think everyone likes arena for exactly the same reasons, so it's not fair to say "wild arena would be terrible" is common sense.

For B, so what? How is splitting up the arena into two pools bad? And I really doubt if it would be 50%, but regardless, what exactly is the drawback?
---

turbopuns

MariaTaylor posted...

Unleash the Hounds MUST be buffed to 2/1

Oh god that's terrifying
---

turbopuns

What's their excuse for not having the option to play arena as wild or standard?
---

turbopuns

Of course after mentioning that I'm still slowly climbing I go on a run of 1-7. Ick.
---

turbopuns

Wedge Antilles posted...

Malfurion sounds like a smug bastard when he does his well played emote.

Pretty sure that's canon, btw.
---

turbopuns

My aggro hunter win rate definitely dropped some after hitting rank 10. I'm at 9 right now and was one star from 8 earlier.

I keep expecting to hit a solid wall but not yet.

Haven't looked at any lists online yet for comparison. I'll do so later.
---

turbopuns

I have Brady and James white. My opponent has Tyreek Hill and Travis Kelce.

Not regretting benching White, although that bomb to Hill was painful to watch. Outside of that play I felt like I was doing fine despite Brady not doing much.
---

turbopuns

th3l3fty posted...

New England Patriots

---

turbopuns

MZero11 posted...

Level 1: New England
Bonus: Yes

---

turbopuns

Played VANILLA DESTINY and then quit before the first expansion. Letting my hipster cred accumulate to critical mass before I check it out again and rave to everyone nonstop about what it was like back in MY day.

(jk, I'm done with it)
---

turbopuns

Sure. You just don't always have to be 100% upfront about everything. If I'd proofread that announcement I'd have cut that part out instantly. There is such a thing as being too honest with the customer.
---

turbopuns

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Like the only bad part is they accidentally made it sound like that was the deciding factor (even though that interpretation goes against context in the rest of the post). And now he's cleared that up.

That's what I was getting at.

Like I'm just comparing the company I work for to something the size of Blizzard and it kind of amazes me that something would get communicated like that. Something with an audience of millions. I'm more careful to not communicate stuff so easy to misunderstand when I'm writing an insignificant email to exactly one person about an app that is unimportant and will only ever be used by that one person.
---

turbopuns

I'm not trying to get mad at all! lol. I'm just critiquing his public speaking (or whatever you call that) skills.
---

turbopuns

bng_mmmk posted...

It shouldn't even be a minor point.

I'm not saying this as a fan of Blizzard. I'm saying it as someone who has worked in several different kinds of customer service positions as well as having technical roles within the same vein that aren't client facing at all. The communication on that was definitely what I'd call a blunder.
---

turbopuns

It shouldn't even be a minor point.
---

turbopuns

What win % do you say a card should be totally removed?

If Bonemare wins 70% of the time and you cut it, will people start complaining about the 67% winning cards? Then the 63% winning cards? Will cards that aren't as good just increase in their winning % once you remove the top performing cards?
---

turbopuns

Camden posted...

bng_mmmk posted...

tl;dr

if the presence of card X in one deck causes the result of the game being predetermined, then that card won't show up as often


seems good to me?

If the presence of a card causes a game to be predetermined, that card shouldn't show up at all.

sure, but there is clearly some hyperbole at play here. no card gives you a 100% win rate.

like, do you want some deck variance based on the draft, or not?
---

turbopuns

As someone who has always preferred arena, but never followed the meta/pros/developer comments closely, tt's interesting to me that you feel that way. I recall from a couple years ago people talking about how certain classes (mage) were favored because their best arena cards were mainly commons and rares as opposed to epics and legendaries. And whenever new cards would be revealed, there would always be comments like "wow this card is awesome in arena but it's an epic so you'll never see it, fml". The approach they are taking seems like a way to balance the rarity of a card being opened in packs versus the problem of good arena cards being very rarely offered or offered way too often, or whatever.

I don't really get the mindset of how offering advantageous cards less often makes the situation worse. Like if I'm pissed off every time my opponent has a winning card and I don't, it's not upsetting me to see fewer opponents having that card. But I guess that's a personal thing we can just disagree about.
---

turbopuns

tl;dr

if the presence of card X in one deck causes the result of the game being predetermined, then that card won't show up as often


seems good to me?
---

turbopuns

I'm not looking for your advice on whether I should play the game. I'm just trying to understand your stance.

Let's take Bonemare as an easy example.

We'll assume for the sake of discussion that Bonemare is drafed every time it's offered. We'll assume Bonemare has a 20% chance to be offered in any given arena deck.

We'll further assume that any deck with Bonemare has a 60% chance to win. Numbers pulled out of my ass.

Thus, with the new system, Bonemare's likelihood of being offered should end up being reduced, since it tends to be a card that's in the winning deck more than 50% of the time.

Prior to the change, if you draft a deck without Bonemare, then 20% of your opponents will have Bonemare and you'll probably lose to them. You peronsally have a 20% chance of having Bonemare, in which case you'll probably win, since your opponent probably didn't have Bonemare.

After the change, less than 20% of your opponents will have Bonemare. This means that if you don't draft a Bonemare, you'll lose fewer games as a direct result of "welp, he got Bonemare and I didn't". When you DO draft Bonemare, you'll have a higher chance to win than you did before, but it's less likely to happen.


To me, this feels like a positive change, since on average I will experience fewer games where I walk away thinking "he got offered the best common, and I didn't. gg"

My chances of beating Bonemare without a Bonemare remain the same, but I'm facing fewer Bonemares. So it's less likely that I'll draft a better-than-average-but-lacking-bonemare deck and then go 0-3 to decks with Bonemare.
---

turbopuns

I'm kind of lost as to your point on the whole "the best thing about arena right now is the direct result of a harmful policy" part. What does that mean? The best thing is not actually a good thing? Or the harmful policy isn't actually all that harmful?

And, theoretically, even if they normalize the win percentage, isn't that only saying that an average player would have a 50% win rate? Or do you feel that no matter what, the most knowledgeable and experienced players cannot possibly hope for a win rate above 50%?


And also, in response to your comment earlier about "draft the good rare card, you auto-win, or draft the bad rare card, and you auto-lose": why are you drafting the bad rare card? I mean I get that sometimes you have three options for a pick and they're all bad, but it's not like drafting one bad card causes you to lose games, and it's not like even prior to this change there aren't circumstances where you're already forced to draft a bad card. That isn't changing. I mean in specific circumstances you can draw that conclusion, but I just get the feeling you're being narrow minded about it.
---

turbopuns

Are defensive players noticeably less predictable?

Like I'm sure there is some degree of reliability to it, but it seems like defensive players might incidentally get credit for things more often as a result of poor offensive play than the other way around. Or something. Possibly just me making assumptions because I have no experience with it.
---

turbopuns

Suprak the Stud posted...

And four defensive players that aren't starting and need to be replaced.

You guys do defensive players, too? Geez. That puts it over the edge for me. Too much to keep up with.
---

turbopuns

Corrik what is your team
---

turbopuns

what is your all's philosophy on emoting during games?
---

turbopuns

A couple days ago I finally pulled myself away from hunter and tried out glacial mysteries for a while.

My most absurd game by a country mile was against a priest who played Benedictus. So many shenanigans with secrets. I ended up winning due to frozen cloning an arcane giant which he got from my deck, on the same turn which I played Arcane intellect into my own arcane giant plus Kabal Crystal Runner. So I played three 8/8s and a 5/5 for zero mana lol.

In that game I also got Rotface from Medivh on Glacial Mysteries, which I pinged into Deathwing.

That shit is just refreshing.
---

turbopuns

bng_mmmk posted...

If people screw up because they didn't know about the nerf, once is an oops moment and beyond that it's your own fault.

---

turbopuns

Give me the scoop on my team. I don't do the whole preparing/researching thing

12 team league, 0.25 PPR


QB - Tom Brady
RB - Lesean McCoy
RB - Ty Montgomery
WR - T.Y. Hilton
WR - Kelvin Benjamin
Flex - Jarvis Landry
Flex - Jamison Crowder
TE - Greg Olsen
K - Adam Vinatieri
D/ST - Titans
BE - Danny Woodhead
BE - Duke Johnson, Jr.
BE - Adam Thielen
BE - James White
BE - Shane Vereen
BE - Austin Hooper
---

turbopuns

I'm actually very curious how much clock time goes into play testing nerfs.
---

turbopuns

The reasoning follows a logical thought process, but I wouldn't explain that part of the reasoning to the public if it were up to me. The nerf should be based strictly on what works best mechanically. If people screw up because they didn't know about the nerf, once is an oops moment and beyond that it's your own fault. Seems they're afraid to upset anyone even for a brief moment and even when it's the player's own fault.
---

turbopuns

doing my work league fantasy football draft, and realizing I might enjoy these two activities for a lot of the same reasons...or maybe that's just the beer talking.
---

turbopuns

Forceful_Dragon posted...

4-0 start so far to the arena deck i posted in post #321. It surprisingly has not really felt too slow at all.

It seems like one of those lists where you're likely to start out 7-0 and then finish 7-3.
---

turbopuns

Man that really is such a blow to warrior, though. Like I'm just specifically thinking about my recent matches against pirate warrior as aggro hunter. In my most magical dreamland scenario, they pass on turn 1 and play war axe on turn 2. With that gone, yeesh.

Also considerably worse in arena now.
---

turbopuns

VeryInsane posted...

well the playrate of decks with those 1 drops will rise

Imagine if Tunnel Trogg was still in standard and War Axe nerf got announced

lol, ok so to recap the conversation:

"this nerf will make some 1 drops like northshire more dominant"

"do people not play northshire because of war axe?"

"to a certain extent, yeah"

"huh."

~fin
---

turbopuns

MariaTaylor posted...

bng_mmmk posted...

VeryInsane posted...

They both see a lot of play even with Warrior being common so... yes?

I guess I see your point, but it sounds like you're just saying "This warrior nerf will result in reduced win rates for warriors." >_>

nah, I think VI's point is that it will see an increase in the presence of oppressive one drops. which are already kind of a big problem in constructed. so yeah. this "nerf" to warrior is actually a stealth buff to an entire category of cards that is already bullshit tier.

Well that sort of brings it back to my original response of "do people not play northshire because of war axe?"

Like obviously warrior will be worse off against those cards after this nerf, but...only warrior?

So yes, on the whole decks that use those cards will improve, but the only people who will actually feel the impact are the people who are playing warrior, I guess is my point. And when I first read the comment it came across more as "oh noes the meta will be overrun by these 1 drops now".
---

turbopuns

Wedge Antilles posted...

I'm going to go into too much detailed math, but all the effects of UI on individual cards comes out to close to 16 mana. you have 16 mana worth of effects on one 10 mana card

If we're talking straight up mana calculations, isn't N'Zoth like insanely high value? I get that you have to build a deck around him but it's not as if that's difficult.

I think UI is sort of OK. Rarely do I lose because they played UI on turn 10 or later. Or if that's the case it was a close game anyway. But the problem is when they're playing UI on turn 5 or something, which should be less of an issue now.
---

turbopuns