Sorry, but the OP is just mindless speculation, coupled with a better-than-you attitude.
I'm sorry if the perceived tone you gave my words sends that implication to you. Try a better perceived tone with my words and you might not get that impression. As for the mindless speculation bit, I assure you all the speculation I did in this thread was based on logic. You may disagree with that logic, but it's there.
I actually preferred the Shieldmaiden vote, since pirate always has been rather gimmicky & I doubt that will change in the future. I prefer to see a solid minion that's likely to be used than another "fun" card.
Shaman has several unusable spells and didn't really get anything worthwile with naxx, but so did druid. So I'd say neither has really been a "better" choice. Though I personally liked the art of the druid card better.
It's not about what you prefer. It's about what can teach us more, as is the point of the thread. If you liked the Shieldmaiden vote than good for you I guess. The Pirate card would have told us about pirate cards in the new meta, which is more information overall. Even if we did learn they were still gimmicky and had not really changed, and there is no guarantee that we would, that still says a lot about Pirate's in the new meta. Personally, I have seen many people on here complaining about Pirates and how not viable they are, and wishing for more usable pirate synergy. I highly doubt Blizzard would not be aware of this. Looks like we'll have to wait until the expansion to find out because we didn't vote for that knowledge.
Oh my, this is a very strange thread. I mean the the op trying to convince people that his way is the only good way and it is better for everyone. Sorry, I do not agree and as I read back, I'm not the only one.
I'm happy that the warrior and shaman cards were revealed, because I'm more interested in those classes. It is that simple. Theorycrafting is not really worthwhile at this stage as most of the cards are still unknown and they could turn everything upside down. I think the op needs to calm down and accept that people has their own opinion and it might be different than his.
When did I ever say my way was the only good way? I simply feel it's better for everyone to vote for knowledge because that information is available to everyone. It's like a personal desire vs. greater goods argument. Sure, this will not sit well with everyone. Some people, like you apparently, only care about what they want and won't change their minds. That's your right.
If you only care about certain classes then good for you I guess. But it's not efficient for knowledge. My point is we can learn as much as we can about as many of the classes as possible by voting this way. Personally, I do believe it's more beneficial for most people if we learn about all the classes instead of just a few. But again, you probably don't care about everyone else.
I agree with the OP that getting a lot of knowledge right now(before the release) can help out a ton in doing predictions as to how the meta will look after release. However, I think each and every vote is pretty much just trivial. You have to base your predictions on the card-type(minion/spell/weapon), rarity, art and class. There are already so many archetypes for each class with such a relatively limited cardpool, that each card could possibly give the class or even the entire meta a huge swing.
Of course I would've loved to see the Pirate instead of the Shieldmaiden, both before and after the reveal of the latter. However, we really couldn't know at the time that the Shieldmaiden had such a boring effect, and it might've been a gamechanger just as much. What I'm trying to say is, that each card could influence the meta and it's hard to judge which one will be more succesful at doing so based on the artwork and card type, etc.
Well, yes there is no guarantee. But it's not like predictions can't come true. With logic, we can try to make more accurate guesses. I think my predictions of voting for knowledge have been fairly accurate so far. And I have used past examples to show where my logic has successfully predicted this.
and at the end all cards will be revealed so I just don't get the point. It's not like you gonna have them before the others. People "plan" stuffs, decides which card is playable or OP, but to me it's only BS: a card taken alone worth nothing before it's in your hand or your opponent hand
Sure, they will all be revealed when the expansion comes out. But if that's what you are waiting for, then why bother voting to see cards early? Just wait until the expansion.
This all seems fairly pointless to me. Any unknown card can potentially be the next meta-defining bomb or some worthless mech with random abilities. I see little point in speculating either; it's not like craft prices are going to increase or things like that. Just hold onto your gold and dust and wait for the full spoiler, while having fun voting for cards you like.
Some speculation will be wrong, but some will stick. My point is that with better knowledge, we can make that speculation more accurate. Sure, there will always be surprises and things we don't or can't account for. But that chance to be wrong doesn't mean we can never be right about anything.
My 21/20 hindsight reveals without a doubt that all the cards that won and were therefore revealed so far were more "metachanging" than the ones that lost and weren't. If the opposite had happened it would also be true btw.
You are taking my argument and making something it's not. You can't say the ones that won were the most metachanging just because. You have to support that with evidence and logical analyses based on that evidence. You show none of that here. I did. What's disappointing to me is that while many people disagree, no one has actually shot down my logic with logic of their own. Only a few have even tried. For the most part it has been "who cares?" or "I vote for what I want." or whatever. Disagreement on this topic is to be expected. But there hasn't been anything proven wrong with my concept. It's just a bunch of people who don't care. Which I suppose is also to be expected.
Most stupid post op i've read on this site yet. Who are you to tell people what to vote for lol? Why should everyone share your concern about theorycrafting? Why couldn't people just vote for what card they want to get revealed faster because they like the class? I lol'ed so hard when you wrote that you knew the shaman card was going to be bad because it looked like a spell.
Don't forget blizzard made the game and they understand it better than you do. And also, speculation, so far, is just a pleasant thing people would do in their free time. How could it become any serious when we know so little cards and have so little ideas what we are talking about? We could even know every card and yet we would most likely be totally wrong about what the new meta's about to be. That's what makes Hearthstone a good game, it's that you cant predict it.
You're like a blind man pretending to teach people what colours are. Lol.
You are taking my argument and making something it's not. You can't say the ones that won were the most metachanging just because. You have to support that with evidence and logical analyses based on that evidence. You show none of that here. I did. What's disappointing to me is that while many people disagree, no one has actually shot down my logic with logic of their own. Only a few have even tried. For the most part it has been "who cares?" or "I vote for what I want." or whatever. Disagreement on this topic is to be expected. But there hasn't been anything proven wrong with my concept. It's just a bunch of people who don't care. Which I suppose is also to be expected.
My argument is: the ones that were revealed are have more impact on the supposed meta you want to theorycraft to than the ones that weren't simply because you know what those cards (the revealed ones) do. Hence the follow-up that the opposite would also be true. Or in a practical example if the voting was reversed on every card up to this point I could make the exact same post as you only changing the name of the cards/classes in each of the votings.
You present no real arguments, you have a speculation post about "what ifs" based on a biased perception that the other non-revealed cards would be more significant than the ones that were. That is something you simply can not know.
The Pirate card would have told us about pirate cards in the new meta, which is more information overall. Even if we did learn they were still gimmicky and had not really changed,
No, if that were the case what it would have said was that THAT CARD was still gimiccky and not changing much from the current pirate selection, it would be a logical leap (slippery slope?) to infer that any other Pirate that we might or might not see would also be gimmicky.
Sure, they will all be revealed when the expansion comes out. But if that's what you are waiting for, then why bother voting to see cards early? Just wait until the expansion.
For fun and hype. And to keep players interested while the expansion isn't released. Yep, it's the hype train.
Another note on theorycrafting without hands-on play or full set disclosure: Naxx would be the death of aggro!
Most stupid post op i've read on this site yet. Who are you to tell people what to vote for lol? Why should everyone share your concern about theorycrafting? Why couldn't people just vote for what card they want to get revealed faster because they like the class? I lol'ed so hard when you wrote that you knew the shaman card was going to be bad because it looked like a spell.
Don't forget blizzard made the game and they understand it better than you do. And also, speculation, so far, is just a pleasant thing people would do in their free time. How could it become any serious when we know so little cards and have so little ideas what we are talking about? We could even know every card and yet we would most likely be totally wrong about what the new meta's about to be. That's what makes Hearthstone a good game, it's that you cant predict it.
You're like a blind man pretending to teach people what colours are. Lol.
Typical inflammatory response I have come to expect from this thread. It appears I shook the Hornet's next. As I have said before, knowledge benefits everyone. It's more efficient to vote for knowledge so that we learn a lot about all the classes, rather than hyperfocus on a few. Isn't all better to know about more classes than less? If we vote smarter we could learn about everyone's favorite classes.
And yes we can predict it. We won't always be right. But we won't always be wrong, either. It's such a lazy and defeatist approach to think, "Why bother. We'll never be right about anything anyway." Prediction do come true sometimes you know. Knowledge helps those prediction be more accurate. But since predictions evidently aren't your thing, I doubt you would understand this. When the new expansion comes out, I'll even post what I got right and wrong and the logic leading up to what made those predictions. If your interested, and you probably aren't but if you are, you could then see how the knowledge I had impacted those predictions.
But what good is reason when you don't care and clearly never will. That's fine. Then this thread isn't for you.
My argument is: the one that were revealed are have more impact on the supposed meta you want to theorycraft to than the ones that weren't simply because you know what those cards (the revealed ones) do. Hence the follow-up that the opposite would also be true. Or in a practical example if the voting was reversed onevery card up to this point I could make the exact same post as you only changing the name of the cards/classes in each of the votings.
You present no real arguments, you have a speculation post about "what ifs" on a biased perception that the other non-revealed cards would be more significant than the ones that were. That is something you simply can not know.
You misunderstand, whether on purpose or by accident. What was revealed is unequal to what could have or even would have been the most informative. This should not be hard to comprehend. And it's not about just what I theorycraft. As I have said many times before, the knowledge would be beneficial to everyone.
It's really convenient to use that "real" and "not real" label on my arguments without actually disproving the logic behind those arguments. Unfortunately for you, it doesn't mean anything. It's just a misused label to try and compensate for the fact you can't actually discredit my argument.
No, if that were the case what it would have said was that THAT CARD was still gimiccky and not changing much from the current pirate selection, it would be a logical leap (slippery slope?) to infer that any other Pirate that we might or might not see would also be gimmicky.
Then it would have told us Pirates likely haven't changed much in the new meta, which is still more information. And if it were different, their would be a whole bunch of information. All Shieldmaiden told us is that warrior gets more armor. It has little indication on what an entire type of cards are going to be like.
Sure, they will all be revealed when the expansion comes out. But if that's what you are waiting for, then why bother voting to see cards early? Just wait until the expansion.
For fun and hype. And to keep players interested while the expansion isn't released. Yep, it's the hype train.
Hype is the reason for Blizzard to do it. Not for the players. Sure, it's supposed to be fun. My point is we can benefit more as a whole if we vote for knowledge, which again benefits everyone.
On a more serious note - just relax - you've already written enough for your first novel in this thread trying to defend your "logic". I think its clear that most people don't buy your theory, so maybe cut your losses.
Its not worth anyone's time to de-construct your anti-logic.
See. It's this sort of thing that is counterproductive. Maybe that's your goal. You don't like the idea of the thread so just take shots at it? But without an actual argument against my logic, your shots have no weight to them. Misused labels like anti-logic are just that. They don't mean anything. If you don't buy the premise of the thread then fine. If you don't want to take the time to discredit it then fine. But don't just come here and troll.
You misunderstand, whether on purpose or by accident. What was revealed is unequal to what could have or even would have been the most informative. This should not be hard to comprehend. And it's not about just what I theorycraft. As I have said many times before, the knowledge would be beneficial to everyone.
I'm going to say it's by accident. Either that or you simply don't want to accept any counters to your solid logic. So now using a very very specific example: So you know that Ancestor's Call is useless and not metachanging (whether it is or not remains to be seen). So now we have 2 possibilities:
1. The Druid spell was equally useless and you are in the same spot, the meta won't change because of it and you won't get to "theorycraft" because you wouldn't use it on any of possible future decks
2. The Druid spell is a very strong card and everyone starts to theorycraft about the decks the can use it on.
My question to you is how can you prove to me that possibility #2 is more likely than #1? If I flip a coin there's a 50% chance i'll get the outcome right, and honestly when you say "some of my predictions were right in the past" that's all I read into it. So can you prove that either of the non-revealed was more important than the revealed ones? I'm not saying that you can't I'm just asking that you demonstrate it so that I become convinced.
I cannot reasonably counter you with logic the same way I can't prove that aliens don't exist. They either do or they don't, your bet is that they do, what I'm trying to say is that I don't know. Besides stating that you got some coin flips right in the past there is nothing to say that any of the non-revealed cards was/will be more important to the game than the ones we already know.
Then it would have told us Pirates likely haven't changed much in the new meta, which is still more information. And if it were different, their would be a whole bunch of information. All Shieldmaiden told us is that warrior gets more armor. It has little indication on what an entire type of cards are going to be like.
Again, a single card would not tell you that much, it would tell you exactly as much as Shielmaiden did. Because it's a single card, because we can't yet see the bigger picture, because even if it was a good card who's to say it sinergizes well with the current pirates without other cards we're yet to see. If it was a perceived bad card what's to say that there aren't 10 pirates we're yet to see that will make a super-fun competetive pirate deck? See the 2 possibilities above... In one case you'll say: see how my prediction was right, on the other you'll say: no-one can be right all the time. In any case it's just a "coin flip".
Hype is the reason for Blizzard to do it. Not for the players. Sure, it's supposed to be fun. My point is we can benefit more as a whole if we vote for knowledge, which again benefits everyone.
Not knowing what the other car is how can you say that either of them is more educationational than the other? See the 2 possibilities above...
I'm going to say it's by accident. Either that or you simply don't want to accept any counters to your solid logic. So now using a very very specific example: So you know that Ancestor's Call is useless and not metachanging (whether it is or not remains to be seen). So now we have 2 possibilities:
1. The Druid spell was equally useless and you are in the same spot, the meta won't change because of it and you won't get to "theorycraft" because you wouldn't use it on any of possible future decks
2. The Druid spell is a very strong card and everyone starts to theorycraft about the decks the can use it on.
My question to you is how can you prove to me that possibility #2 is more likely than #1? If I flip a coin there's a 50% chance i'll get the outcome right, and honestly when you say "some of my predictions were right in the past" that's all I read into it. So can you prove that either of the non-revealed was more important than the revealed ones? I'm not saying that you can't I'm just asking that you demonstrate it so that I become convinced.
I must admit you make an interesting point here. But I think you are looking at it from the wrong angle. The problem is it isn't just the Druid spell will be useless or the Druid spell with be great. Perhaps it is my fault for creating this misunderstanding by saying things along the line of how we didn't learn anything from the Shaman card other than it is bad. But it's not just about how good or bad a card is. It's what we can learn from it. Maybe we learn less from a bad card because it won't see play. But we would have learned more from that bad (if it was bad) Druid card than the bad Shaman card. Among other things, we could have confirmed or denied the viability of the leaks.
The other thing is likelihood. What are the chances a card will tell us mor than another. Is it 50/50? Not necessarily. What did the art of both cards suggest to you? Not which one you thought looked cooler. Which card had art that you could draw implications from? The current vote is a good example of this. The Rouge card is a wrench. That could imply synergy with mechs. You could guess things like that just from what the art implies.
Again, a single card would not tell you that much, it would tell you exactly as much as Shielmaiden did. Because it's a single card, because we can't yet see the bigger picture, because even if it was a good card who's to say it sinergizes well with the current pirates without other cards we're yet to see. If it was a perceived bad card what's to say that there aren't 10 pirates we're yet to see that will make a super-fun competetive pirate deck? See the 2 possibilities above... In one case you'll say: see how my prediction was right, on the other you'll say: no-one can be right all the time. In any case it's just a "coin flip".
No. Certain cards can tell us more. Shieldmaiden was one card for the class that didn't tell us much about it. How many people's opinion of new meta warrior really changed from that card? Probably not many. I thought Bouncing Blade was far more educational to new meta warrior. Same with Screwjank Clunker which came out later.
The same thing applies to the cards we vote for. That pirate card could have suggested new mechanics for an entire group of cards. Shieldmaiden isn't a bad card. It will likely see play. It just doesn't tell us much.
Then there is also what we know about the class. We knew zero new Paladin cards and several Priest cards, so it was almost guaranteed we would learn more about the new Paladin class from that one card than the Priest. We voted for Muster for Battle. In a coincidence, Cobalt Guardian was revealed. Between those two cards, we can now make predictions about the new meta paladin which had formally been a total mystery. Again, this is not the only factor. And particularly when the number of known cards for both classes are similar or the same, other factors come into play.
Although it might seem that I was saying that I totaly disagree with your post that's not the case.
For instance I'd love to see the pirate, Would give and idea if one could start thinking about making a pirate deck or not (my point being that we couldn't draw an absolute conclusion from a single card).
On the paladin vs priest vote it's quite obvious that paladin was more usefull because we already knew quite a few priest cards .
Where I totally disagree is on the druid vs shaman vote, not much was known about either class and there was no way to know what would come of the cards, my personal preference would be druid but only because I like to play druid more not because I think I would learn more from the general meta from it, but more from the druid future meta.
On the current vote even going by art only I'd go for rogue because I want to know how it's weapons' are going to evolve especially since we already know a rogue minion that interacts with weapons. But the paladin looks like a cogwheel, Imagine something like: every time a mech is damaged gain a Spare Part... That would be quite a difining weapon. And Blizzard can make it even more crazy! Any will be interesting, which would be more that's something I can only judge when I know both!
For all you know the outcome of the voting is influenced by Blizzard staffs flooding votes into whichever they want to reveal and our votes doesn't matter.
Just sit back and enjoy the shiny cards being revealed.
Fuck that. im voting for everything paladin-related that pops up because paladins only got shit on with naxx and needs a lot of love, thats why im giving paladins love!
Although it might seem that I was saying that I totaly disagree with your post that's not the case.
For instance I'd love to see the pirate, Would give and idea if one could start thinking about making a pirate deck or not (my point being that we couldn't draw an absolute conclusion from a single card).
On the paladin vs priest vote it's quite obvious that paladin was more usefull because we already knew quite a few priest cards .
Where I totally disagree is on the druid vs shaman vote, not much was known about either class and there was no way to know what would come of the cards, my personal preference would be druid but only because I like to play druid more not because I think I would learn more from the general meta from it, but more from the druid future meta.
On the current vote even going by art only I'd go for rogue because I want to know how it's weapons' are going to evolve especially since we already know a rogue minion that interacts with weapons. But the paladin looks like a cogwheel, Imagine something like: every time a mech is damaged gain a Spare Part... That would be quite a difining weapon. And Blizzard can make it even more crazy! Any will be interesting, which would be more that's something I can only judge when I know both!
Yes. When people say the logic I have posted in the first part of the thread just because, "Who can tell?" it doesn't really help. The entire point of that logic was how I could tell and why. If someone thinks there is something wrong with the logic or a specific example I'm happy to debate it. But just because isn't good enough for me.
The druid one is the most controversial of them all because the classes were at the same knowledge level and there wasn't a distinct difference like pirate. I have had logic for that one earlier in the thread and I do believe it's quite conclusive even if we don't know the card yet. But it's still a bit of a touchy issue.
On the current vote I went for rouge for the weapon synergy that is clearly going on with rouge and hoping for potential implications for pirates since we missed that vote. Plus the Rouge only has one known new card (that plays off weapon synergy) so we know a lot less. I feel like we learned enough about Paladin for now with the two new cards we now know.
For all you know the outcome of the voting is influenced by Blizzard staffs flooding votes into whichever they want to reveal and our votes doesn't matter.
Just sit back and enjoy the shiny cards being revealed.
What. You are a conspiracy theorist now? If I wanted to just sit back and wait I wouldn't have made the thread. So you don't like the thread. We get it and you aren't the only one. That's ok. You can go vote for your favorite "Ohhhh shiny!!!" card without a care in the world. Me, I'm more concerned with knowledge. But that's clearly not your thing. You won't find anything you are looking for here.
Fuck that. im voting for everything paladin-related that pops up because paladins only got shit on with naxx and needs a lot of love, thats why im giving paladins love!
Yeah, that's great and all. But wouldn't it be more beneficial to know about all the classes? Rouge is more of a mystery because we never vote for Rouge. Paladin was unknown, but now we know 2 very interesting cards for it. I think it's safe to say the class isn't getting screwed again. You still aren't satisfied with that?
It's definitely not bad. Regenerating divine shields every turn is an interesting mechanic. I think Blood Knight in Paladin might become more viable again.
I have some serious questions for you guys. I am french, I study philosophy, and I am amazed at the passion for logic arguments you seem to have. It's unusual from my point of view.
Lol. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm a bit of an odd bird. Yes, I do like to analyze, theorize, predict, think logically, etc. And yes, I like to talk about it.
Okay I admit this has almost nothing to do with the debate.
Don't worry about it. As long as the thread doesn't get too off-topic for too long we can wander off it a bit every now and then. You were perfectly fine about it.
Fuck that. im voting for everything paladin-related that pops up because paladins only got shit on with naxx and needs a lot of love, thats why im giving paladins love!
Yeah, that's great and all. But wouldn't it be more beneficial to know about all the classes? Rouge is more of a mystery because we never vote for Rouge. Paladin was unknown, but now we know 2 very interesting cards for it. I think it's safe to say the class isn't getting screwed again. You still aren't satisfied with that?
Well I'm from Portugal, and my English comes from 8 years in school and another 5 raiding in an English speaking guild in WoW.
If so, do yo think there is something in the english culture / education that makes you more educated to the pleasure / art of logical argumentation ?
If being english is not the right explanation, do you think it can come from the fact that this is a website (1) about a strategical card game (2).
Not being english I can't say how that has any influence on how much more pleasant logical argumention is on a personal basis. I always enjoyed listening and engaging in this sort of conversation.
More than being a site about a strategical game I'd say that it is a "sub-site" that only people with a little more than superficial interest in the game come to. Of course the "professional troll" will also come here but the percentage of truly engaged/passionate people that want to discuss the game is probably higher than on the official forum so you're more likely to find serious debate here than there (or filtering the trash posts is more easy at least).
Okay I admit this has almost nothing to do with the debate.
To keep the thread on topic I'll be happy to continue this discussion over coffee on the first weekend of december since I'm going on a small 4 days holiday to France. :P
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm sorry if the perceived tone you gave my words sends that implication to you. Try a better perceived tone with my words and you might not get that impression. As for the mindless speculation bit, I assure you all the speculation I did in this thread was based on logic. You may disagree with that logic, but it's there.
It's not about what you prefer. It's about what can teach us more, as is the point of the thread. If you liked the Shieldmaiden vote than good for you I guess. The Pirate card would have told us about pirate cards in the new meta, which is more information overall. Even if we did learn they were still gimmicky and had not really changed, and there is no guarantee that we would, that still says a lot about Pirate's in the new meta. Personally, I have seen many people on here complaining about Pirates and how not viable they are, and wishing for more usable pirate synergy. I highly doubt Blizzard would not be aware of this. Looks like we'll have to wait until the expansion to find out because we didn't vote for that knowledge.
When did I ever say my way was the only good way? I simply feel it's better for everyone to vote for knowledge because that information is available to everyone. It's like a personal desire vs. greater goods argument. Sure, this will not sit well with everyone. Some people, like you apparently, only care about what they want and won't change their minds. That's your right.
If you only care about certain classes then good for you I guess. But it's not efficient for knowledge. My point is we can learn as much as we can about as many of the classes as possible by voting this way. Personally, I do believe it's more beneficial for most people if we learn about all the classes instead of just a few. But again, you probably don't care about everyone else.
Well, yes there is no guarantee. But it's not like predictions can't come true. With logic, we can try to make more accurate guesses. I think my predictions of voting for knowledge have been fairly accurate so far. And I have used past examples to show where my logic has successfully predicted this.
Sure, they will all be revealed when the expansion comes out. But if that's what you are waiting for, then why bother voting to see cards early? Just wait until the expansion.
Some speculation will be wrong, but some will stick. My point is that with better knowledge, we can make that speculation more accurate. Sure, there will always be surprises and things we don't or can't account for. But that chance to be wrong doesn't mean we can never be right about anything.
You are taking my argument and making something it's not. You can't say the ones that won were the most metachanging just because. You have to support that with evidence and logical analyses based on that evidence. You show none of that here. I did. What's disappointing to me is that while many people disagree, no one has actually shot down my logic with logic of their own. Only a few have even tried. For the most part it has been "who cares?" or "I vote for what I want." or whatever. Disagreement on this topic is to be expected. But there hasn't been anything proven wrong with my concept. It's just a bunch of people who don't care. Which I suppose is also to be expected.
Yes. Really. If you don't like it you don't have to be here.
Most stupid post op i've read on this site yet. Who are you to tell people what to vote for lol? Why should everyone share your concern about theorycrafting? Why couldn't people just vote for what card they want to get revealed faster because they like the class? I lol'ed so hard when you wrote that you knew the shaman card was going to be bad because it looked like a spell.
Don't forget blizzard made the game and they understand it better than you do. And also, speculation, so far, is just a pleasant thing people would do in their free time. How could it become any serious when we know so little cards and have so little ideas what we are talking about? We could even know every card and yet we would most likely be totally wrong about what the new meta's about to be. That's what makes Hearthstone a good game, it's that you cant predict it.
You're like a blind man pretending to teach people what colours are. Lol.
I vote for pretty pictures.
My argument is: the ones that were revealed are have more impact on the supposed meta you want to theorycraft to than the ones that weren't simply because you know what those cards (the revealed ones) do. Hence the follow-up that the opposite would also be true. Or in a practical example if the voting was reversed on every card up to this point I could make the exact same post as you only changing the name of the cards/classes in each of the votings.
You present no real arguments, you have a speculation post about "what ifs" based on a biased perception that the other non-revealed cards would be more significant than the ones that were. That is something you simply can not know.
No, if that were the case what it would have said was that THAT CARD was still gimiccky and not changing much from the current pirate selection, it would be a logical leap (slippery slope?) to infer that any other Pirate that we might or might not see would also be gimmicky.
For fun and hype. And to keep players interested while the expansion isn't released. Yep, it's the hype train.
Another note on theorycrafting without hands-on play or full set disclosure: Naxx would be the death of aggro!
Typical inflammatory response I have come to expect from this thread. It appears I shook the Hornet's next. As I have said before, knowledge benefits everyone. It's more efficient to vote for knowledge so that we learn a lot about all the classes, rather than hyperfocus on a few. Isn't all better to know about more classes than less? If we vote smarter we could learn about everyone's favorite classes.
And yes we can predict it. We won't always be right. But we won't always be wrong, either. It's such a lazy and defeatist approach to think, "Why bother. We'll never be right about anything anyway." Prediction do come true sometimes you know. Knowledge helps those prediction be more accurate. But since predictions evidently aren't your thing, I doubt you would understand this. When the new expansion comes out, I'll even post what I got right and wrong and the logic leading up to what made those predictions. If your interested, and you probably aren't but if you are, you could then see how the knowledge I had impacted those predictions.
But what good is reason when you don't care and clearly never will. That's fine. Then this thread isn't for you.
You misunderstand, whether on purpose or by accident. What was revealed is unequal to what could have or even would have been the most informative. This should not be hard to comprehend. And it's not about just what I theorycraft. As I have said many times before, the knowledge would be beneficial to everyone.
It's really convenient to use that "real" and "not real" label on my arguments without actually disproving the logic behind those arguments. Unfortunately for you, it doesn't mean anything. It's just a misused label to try and compensate for the fact you can't actually discredit my argument.
Then it would have told us Pirates likely haven't changed much in the new meta, which is still more information. And if it were different, their would be a whole bunch of information. All Shieldmaiden told us is that warrior gets more armor. It has little indication on what an entire type of cards are going to be like.
Hype is the reason for Blizzard to do it. Not for the players. Sure, it's supposed to be fun. My point is we can benefit more as a whole if we vote for knowledge, which again benefits everyone.
See. It's this sort of thing that is counterproductive. Maybe that's your goal. You don't like the idea of the thread so just take shots at it? But without an actual argument against my logic, your shots have no weight to them. Misused labels like anti-logic are just that. They don't mean anything. If you don't buy the premise of the thread then fine. If you don't want to take the time to discredit it then fine. But don't just come here and troll.
I'm going to say it's by accident. Either that or you simply don't want to accept any counters to your solid logic. So now using a very very specific example: So you know that Ancestor's Call is useless and not metachanging (whether it is or not remains to be seen). So now we have 2 possibilities:
1. The Druid spell was equally useless and you are in the same spot, the meta won't change because of it and you won't get to "theorycraft" because you wouldn't use it on any of possible future decks
2. The Druid spell is a very strong card and everyone starts to theorycraft about the decks the can use it on.
My question to you is how can you prove to me that possibility #2 is more likely than #1? If I flip a coin there's a 50% chance i'll get the outcome right, and honestly when you say "some of my predictions were right in the past" that's all I read into it. So can you prove that either of the non-revealed was more important than the revealed ones? I'm not saying that you can't I'm just asking that you demonstrate it so that I become convinced.
I cannot reasonably counter you with logic the same way I can't prove that aliens don't exist. They either do or they don't, your bet is that they do, what I'm trying to say is that I don't know. Besides stating that you got some coin flips right in the past there is nothing to say that any of the non-revealed cards was/will be more important to the game than the ones we already know.
Again, a single card would not tell you that much, it would tell you exactly as much as Shielmaiden did. Because it's a single card, because we can't yet see the bigger picture, because even if it was a good card who's to say it sinergizes well with the current pirates without other cards we're yet to see. If it was a perceived bad card what's to say that there aren't 10 pirates we're yet to see that will make a super-fun competetive pirate deck? See the 2 possibilities above... In one case you'll say: see how my prediction was right, on the other you'll say: no-one can be right all the time. In any case it's just a "coin flip".
Not knowing what the other car is how can you say that either of them is more educationational than the other? See the 2 possibilities above...
I must admit you make an interesting point here. But I think you are looking at it from the wrong angle. The problem is it isn't just the Druid spell will be useless or the Druid spell with be great. Perhaps it is my fault for creating this misunderstanding by saying things along the line of how we didn't learn anything from the Shaman card other than it is bad. But it's not just about how good or bad a card is. It's what we can learn from it. Maybe we learn less from a bad card because it won't see play. But we would have learned more from that bad (if it was bad) Druid card than the bad Shaman card. Among other things, we could have confirmed or denied the viability of the leaks.
The other thing is likelihood. What are the chances a card will tell us mor than another. Is it 50/50? Not necessarily. What did the art of both cards suggest to you? Not which one you thought looked cooler. Which card had art that you could draw implications from? The current vote is a good example of this. The Rouge card is a wrench. That could imply synergy with mechs. You could guess things like that just from what the art implies.
No. Certain cards can tell us more. Shieldmaiden was one card for the class that didn't tell us much about it. How many people's opinion of new meta warrior really changed from that card? Probably not many. I thought Bouncing Blade was far more educational to new meta warrior. Same with Screwjank Clunker which came out later.
The same thing applies to the cards we vote for. That pirate card could have suggested new mechanics for an entire group of cards. Shieldmaiden isn't a bad card. It will likely see play. It just doesn't tell us much.
Then there is also what we know about the class. We knew zero new Paladin cards and several Priest cards, so it was almost guaranteed we would learn more about the new Paladin class from that one card than the Priest. We voted for Muster for Battle. In a coincidence, Cobalt Guardian was revealed. Between those two cards, we can now make predictions about the new meta paladin which had formally been a total mystery. Again, this is not the only factor. And particularly when the number of known cards for both classes are similar or the same, other factors come into play.
Now we're getting to common ground.
Although it might seem that I was saying that I totaly disagree with your post that's not the case.
For instance I'd love to see the pirate, Would give and idea if one could start thinking about making a pirate deck or not (my point being that we couldn't draw an absolute conclusion from a single card).
On the paladin vs priest vote it's quite obvious that paladin was more usefull because we already knew quite a few priest cards .
Where I totally disagree is on the druid vs shaman vote, not much was known about either class and there was no way to know what would come of the cards, my personal preference would be druid but only because I like to play druid more not because I think I would learn more from the general meta from it, but more from the druid future meta.
On the current vote even going by art only I'd go for rogue because I want to know how it's weapons' are going to evolve especially since we already know a rogue minion that interacts with weapons. But the paladin looks like a cogwheel, Imagine something like: every time a mech is damaged gain a Spare Part... That would be quite a difining weapon. And Blizzard can make it even more crazy! Any will be interesting, which would be more that's something I can only judge when I know both!
For all you know the outcome of the voting is influenced by Blizzard staffs flooding votes into whichever they want to reveal and our votes doesn't matter.
Just sit back and enjoy the shiny cards being revealed.
"Put your face in the light!" - Tirion Fordring
Fuck that. im voting for everything paladin-related that pops up because paladins only got shit on with naxx and needs a lot of love, thats why im giving paladins love!
Retired Hearthstone Columnist
Yes. When people say the logic I have posted in the first part of the thread just because, "Who can tell?" it doesn't really help. The entire point of that logic was how I could tell and why. If someone thinks there is something wrong with the logic or a specific example I'm happy to debate it. But just because isn't good enough for me.
The druid one is the most controversial of them all because the classes were at the same knowledge level and there wasn't a distinct difference like pirate. I have had logic for that one earlier in the thread and I do believe it's quite conclusive even if we don't know the card yet. But it's still a bit of a touchy issue.
On the current vote I went for rouge for the weapon synergy that is clearly going on with rouge and hoping for potential implications for pirates since we missed that vote. Plus the Rouge only has one known new card (that plays off weapon synergy) so we know a lot less. I feel like we learned enough about Paladin for now with the two new cards we now know.
What. You are a conspiracy theorist now? If I wanted to just sit back and wait I wouldn't have made the thread. So you don't like the thread. We get it and you aren't the only one. That's ok. You can go vote for your favorite "Ohhhh shiny!!!" card without a care in the world. Me, I'm more concerned with knowledge. But that's clearly not your thing. You won't find anything you are looking for here.
Yeah, that's great and all. But wouldn't it be more beneficial to know about all the classes? Rouge is more of a mystery because we never vote for Rouge. Paladin was unknown, but now we know 2 very interesting cards for it. I think it's safe to say the class isn't getting screwed again. You still aren't satisfied with that?
You actually think cobalt guardian is good?..
It's definitely not bad. Regenerating divine shields every turn is an interesting mechanic. I think Blood Knight in Paladin might become more viable again.
Lol. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm a bit of an odd bird. Yes, I do like to analyze, theorize, predict, think logically, etc. And yes, I like to talk about it.
Do you mean country or language? English is my native language but I'm from the USA, not England.
I don't know. Some people like that stuff. Most people I know do not, but some do including me. I'm not sure it's really a cultural thing.
Well yes. Strategy has some factor in it. I like to do this sort of stuff anyway.
Don't worry about it. As long as the thread doesn't get too off-topic for too long we can wander off it a bit every now and then. You were perfectly fine about it.
no im not. that is def not enough yet.
Retired Hearthstone Columnist
Paladins are so weak, weak like priest was pre-naxx, pala needs something OP @Dark Culsts' level to be able to be playable again.
Retired Hearthstone Columnist
Well I'm from Portugal, and my English comes from 8 years in school and another 5 raiding in an English speaking guild in WoW.
Not being english I can't say how that has any influence on how much more pleasant logical argumention is on a personal basis. I always enjoyed listening and engaging in this sort of conversation.
More than being a site about a strategical game I'd say that it is a "sub-site" that only people with a little more than superficial interest in the game come to. Of course the "professional troll" will also come here but the percentage of truly engaged/passionate people that want to discuss the game is probably higher than on the official forum so you're more likely to find serious debate here than there (or filtering the trash posts is more easy at least).
To keep the thread on topic I'll be happy to continue this discussion over coffee on the first weekend of december since I'm going on a small 4 days holiday to France. :P