This thread was marked as Locked by MurlocHolmes_HS.
⚙
Learn More
Cosmetics
Related Cards
Card Pools
✕
×
PopCard Settings
Click on the buttons to change the PopCard background.
Elements settings
Click on the button to hide or unhide popcard elements.
This is formally known as "Gresham's Law of Dating", named after the Economic Law called "Gresham's Law." You can look it up, but it basically it says that pure gold coins are rarely found in the marketplace, people get rid of their mixed-metal coins first and keep the gold ones. You aren't first to the trough (guy named Johnston and probably others before that) but you've got the right idea.
Nice thread and nice insight.
Kudos to the OP and the posters like this one above me!
It's the peanut butter toast theory.
No, peanut butter toast doesnt always land face/peanut butter side down. It has more to do with the height of the fall etc. However, more so, the emotional loss of your precious peanut butter toast triggers memory more than when your toast comes out unspoiled.
So is the loss of a game in Hearthstone (and a bad date with Failed Suitor). Losing is emotionally scaring so there is an automatic trigger to hate Shamans.
Trust me, I'm a grown up.
lol hope you feel better but lol
I came here thinking this was a salt thread, specifically to upvote the person who linked to the Main Salty thread, but I was mistaken. And pleased.
This is actually the most logical explaination I've encountered about why more games seem to be against aggro.
An explaination for people who did not clearly understand. Lets THEORETICALLY say, there are 100 Hearthstone Players out there. 50 of them play aggro, and 50 of them play control. (ignoring any other archetype for now).
You are control player number 1. For ease of explaination, from now on, Aggro is A, control is B. So you are B1. All players queue at the exact same moment. You have a 49/99 chance to face control, and a 50/99 chance to face aggro. Already it is biased against you, but lets ignore that because the player distributation we are using is theoretical, you have a 50% chance to face aggro, and a 50% chance to face control.
Now, lets define gametimes. Control vs Control is 20 minutes. Aggro vs Aggro is 5 minutes. Aggro vs Control will be 10 minutes. Again, all theoretical just to show the idea.
Using the 100 players all queueing at once, we create 50 games. Do determine who goes against who is irrelevant. A coin flip, really, so for the sake of bullshit science lets say 16 games are Control vs Control, 16 are Aggro vs Aggro, and 18 are Control Vs Aggro. What happens?
Well, in 5 minutes, 16 games will end and 32 players will return to the "gaming pool". This pool now consists of 100% aggro players. If these players requeue, and for the sake of convience instantly get into another game, they will all be facing aggro players by definition.
Lets say the second aggro vs aggro game ends at the exact same time the first Aggro vs Control games end. 10 minutes have elapsed. The gaming pool will now be 50% the aggro players just leaving their second game, 25% aggro players leaving this first game, and 25% control players leaving their first game. You now have 75% aggro players in the pool! Again, queueing is biased towards aggro!
Now say they all get into to more games instantly. another 10 minutes pass for a total of 20, and once again, all players are dumped into the player pool. The statistics are now reset. When they all queue, it will be 50% aggro, and 50% control. So no imbalance, right? Well, no. Because except for the lucky 50% of control players, who are 25% of the total player pool who got to play vs control, everyone else faced aggro. Unclear?
Lets return to the original idea. You are B1, a control player. You queue and get put against aggro. The game ends after 10 minutes. You queue again, and because chances are 25%/75%, you queue against aggro once more. You play and the game ends in 10 minutes. Only now, after 2 games, are your chances of Aggro/Control equal again.
It gets even worse if you are A1, an aggro player. A1, if he is unlucky enough to face aggro in his first game, is promised to face aggro in his second game, and highly likely to face aggro in his third game, and once again promised to face aggro in his fourth game! Only on the 5th game will he get his second chance at a 50/50!
B1 has a higher chance to face more aggro players, because his odds are 50/50, 25/75, and then 50/50 again.
A1 has a much higher chance to face more aggro players, because his odds are 50/50, then 0/100, then 25/75, then 0/100, and only then 50/50 again.
I hope that clears it up.
DISCLAIMER : This is 100% Bullshit Science. None of this is accurate in the least. It is merely here to clarify the concept through an example. There are a bunch of variables not put into consideration, the numbers are made up, and I didn't even include midrange or combo decks.
TEMPO MAGE
But that doesn't matter too much; I'm sure aggro-aggro is shorter than control-control on average; the relative duration of aggro-control will affect the strength of the effect but not the basic conclusion.
For example, if you try to figure how many people on average are at movie screenings by asking moviegoers, you'll get a very skewed number, since most moviegoers will be at popular screenings.
If you ask moviegoers, 200 will tell you that there were 200 people in the theater when they went. 1 will tell you that the theater was empty.
Based on that you might think, oh, the theater is almost always full. If you naively compute the average you'll get very close to 200.
But it turns in reality the theater was empty half the time.
Was there some reason you necro'ed this nonsense?
This post is cringe incarnate. Someone doesn't feel like commiting their life to a relationship, which is entirely their prerogative, and they are a jerk lol. Run the other way from this one.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Senior ModeratorBit of a bizarre topic, and 3-years old. Please try not to restart threads that are so old.
Locked.