for the past few days streamers have been putting "new decks" in their stream titles, and all they're doing is playing the same decks that have been played for the past 2 months....... are they like adding 1 card to these "new decks" and calling them new decks? is that how we roll in hearthstone?
How many new cards one should put in a deck for you ton consider it a new deck ?
i dont know? however many it takes? lets say a streamer used a priest deck. he changed from 4/3 to 3/6 4 drop and called it a "new deck", that would not be a new deck.
now as bad as it is, if that same streamer was playing a typical priest deck then decided to run a purify based silence deck, that would be considered a new deck.(new in general, or new as in its not the same kind of deck as his last 1)
Maybe they mean new deck for them? Like they never played this deck before on stream, but it's not new original deck. Just a guess, I don't know much about streamers community.
The ship of Theseus, also known as Theseus' paradox, is a thought experiment that raises the question of whether an object that has its components replaced remains fundamentally the same object.
The ship of Theseus, also known as Theseus' paradox, is a thought experiment that raises the question of whether an object that has its components replaced remains fundamentally the same object.
Well, nice try.
For me a new deck is a new archetype. Like we get after WoG Release.
This debate has been going on for 3000 years and will not be solved today.
- do you achieve the same objective with the card(s), but better? Lets say, Babbling Book for yogg mage, it just generates another spell to create a bigger yogg.
- does the card(s) change your win condition? Are you swapping an N'zoth or a Loot hoarder? This is generally, but not restricted to, what makes a deck "original" as you say.
- does the card(s) prepare you against certain matchups? Tournament techs can be inserted in this question, like Harrison.
- The questions can go, these probably are the main ones.
Now, consider the deck you watched, compare and judge.
It depends on whether you replace the core cards of the deck enough that it changes the entire goal / mechanic / archetype of your deck. If yes, then it is a new deck. Otherwise, no because you might just want to add in the tech cards or better cards or try out new cards instead.
The ship of Theseus, also known as Theseus' paradox, is a thought experiment that raises the question of whether an object that has its components replaced remains fundamentally the same object.
Well, nice try.
For me a new deck is a new archetype. Like we get after WoG Release.
This debate has been going on for 3000 years and will not be solved today.
Not sure it appies here though.
The trick with the theory is that the ship is just replacing parts with similar parts. They aren't removing parts of the ship and replacing them with cotton. If they replaced all of the parts of the ship with cotton at one point they wouldn't even call it a ship anymore: it would be a cotton ball the size of a ship.
(which gets to an interesting point to at what point is it a 'ship' and what point a 'cotton ball' or do we jsut go by percentages)
For example, when Patron warrior went into Old Gods, cards like Death's Bite were removed and Old Gods cards were added. However, we didn't deem it a new deck. When one card, Patron, was removed, though, we stopped calling it a Patron warrior and called it Tempo warrior.
In fact, after the warsong nerf happened, Patron warrior lost only one card. However, though the name of the deck stayed the same, it as no longer considerd the same deck at all. Thus we use the term "old Patron" to refer to the older, combo oriented deck, and Patron to refer to the Tempo oriented version.
Now if you want a good example of a Ship of Theseus, look at Zoo. Zoo is at he point where pretty much all of its cards have, at one point, been removed for other cards. Some have then been replaced back in. The deck actually doesn't operate the way it used to. It started off aggro, then went even more aggro to near face conditions, then back ot aggro with Undertaker, then midrange when it merged with Demonlock, then went into the Tempo oriented style here. But still, zoo is zoo.
The point, some cards in a deck can be removed without the deck being seen as 'changing' while others can be removed or added that dramatically alter how the deck functions. The OP is saying that the 'new decks' hes seeing are the former and not hte latter. To use your terms, he's saying that he expected someone to turn the ship into an airship, not just fix the sails.
The ship of Theseus, also known as Theseus' paradox, is a thought experiment that raises the question of whether an object that has its components replaced remains fundamentally the same object.
Well, nice try.
For me a new deck is a new archetype. Like we get after WoG Release.
This debate has been going on for 3000 years and will not be solved today.
Not sure it appies here though.
The trick with the theory is that the ship is just replacing parts with similar parts. They aren't removing parts of the ship and replacing them with cotton. If they replaced all of the parts of the ship with cotton at one point they wouldn't even call it a ship anymore: it would be a cotton ball the size of a ship.
(which gets to an interesting point to at what point is it a 'ship' and what point a 'cotton ball' or do we jsut go by percentages)
For example, when Patron warrior went into Old Gods, cards like Death's Bite were removed and Old Gods cards were added. However, we didn't deem it a new deck. When one card, Patron, was removed, though, we stopped calling it a Patron warrior and called it Tempo warrior.
In fact, after the warsong nerf happened, Patron warrior lost only one card. However, though the name of the deck stayed the same, it as no longer considerd the same deck at all. Thus we use the term "old Patron" to refer to the older, combo oriented deck, and Patron to refer to the Tempo oriented version.
Now if you want a good example of a Ship of Theseus, look at Zoo. Zoo is at he point where pretty much all of its cards have, at one point, been removed for other cards. Some have then been replaced back in. The deck actually doesn't operate the way it used to. It started off aggro, then went even more aggro to near face conditions, then back ot aggro with Undertaker, then midrange when it merged with Demonlock, then went into the Tempo oriented style here. But still, zoo is zoo.
The point, some cards in a deck can be removed without the deck being seen as 'changing' while others can be removed or added that dramatically alter how the deck functions. The OP is saying that the 'new decks' hes seeing are the former and not hte latter. To use your terms, he's saying that he expected someone to turn the ship into an airship, not just fix the sails.
The problem is that NEW is a RELATIVE term. While something may seem new to me, it may not seem new to you. This is why people can change one card and call it new.
Its like if I say its hot out, and you say no its not. What you would be doing is meer argument. You will not be factualy able say that I am wrong, while I will not be able to say that I am absolutly correct.
its called a PARADOX for a reason. You can type until your fingers bleed, but you will not be able to convince me that I am not hot, because I "feel" hot.
The problem is that NEW is a RELATIVE term. While something may seem new to me, it may not seem new to you. This is why people can change one card and call it new.
Its like if I say its hot out, and you say no its not. What you would be doing is meer argument. You will not be factualy able say that I am wrong, while I will not be able to say that I am absolutly correct.
its called a PARADOX for a reason. You can type until your fingers bleed, but you will not be able to convince me that I am not hot, because I "feel" hot.
Tldr:read caps
That's not a part of the Ship of Theseus paradox is what I'm saying. That's just a matter that Newness is subjective which is related but not the same thing. Subjective matters aren't paradoxes since, by designed, they are based on the judgement of the person. "Hot" for example, is defined by a 'feeling of high body heat'. Thus if you 'feel' hot then actually arguing against you is wrong. Even using more objective terms like "hot room" is messy since we don't have an objective definition of 'hot'.
The SoT paradox is a demonstration that what we consider "self" isn't based on the individual parts especially once Time is added to the equasion. For example, every single cell in your body has been changed out 7 years ago. Thus every part of you is a different living thing than it was less than a decade ago. Yet every measurement we use between you and the person 7 years ago marks both as the same person. Even you would since you 'were' that person. However, if I were to make a clone of you, the exact person right down to memories, the general assumption is that the 'clone' isn't the real person (if we get away from the comedy of not knowing which is which).
This is less of a case of 'self' and more of a basic subjective element. It's the mistaken concept of a subjective term being treated as an objective one. I'd go less with Ship of Theseus and more "your opinion is wrong!"
However, we COULD just cut all this down and get to a very basic concept. Because "New' is subjective, it's not really a good thing to use the term at all given that you are unnecessarily misleading some of the audience (the group that doesn't see it as 'new' enough to count). You could be more honest by jsut putting down "Priest deck with Kara cards!" Tells what's going on and uses objective terms for clarity.
The ship of Theseus, also known as Theseus' paradox, is a thought experiment that raises the question of whether an object that has its components replaced remains fundamentally the same object.
Philosophizing time boyz.
Great paradox there. Love that one.
I kinda want to make a poll asking people if you keep changing a deck one card at a time, when is it no longer the original deck. Would be fun to mess around with people's minds.
What amuses me more so, is seeing streamers accuse every other opponent of stealing their deck because they use the same cards, as if they had rights to them
How many new cards one should put in a deck for you ton consider it a new deck ?
yeah, sometimes a few changes would completely change the way the deck is played... we can't escape that the core is going to be similar, there just aren't that many viable cards for the most part to make wildly different archtypes (other than warrior)
How many new cards one should put in a deck for you ton consider it a new deck ?
we can't escape that the core is going to be similar, there just aren't that many viable cards for the most part to make wildly different archtypes (other than warrior)
i think the worst part is "we" are okay with this.
How many new cards one should put in a deck for you ton consider it a new deck ?
we can't escape that the core is going to be similar, there just aren't that many viable cards for the most part to make wildly different archtypes (other than warrior)
i think the worst part is "we" are okay with this.
I think as time goes on, more cards will be added to the classic set and make them better... also at some point a basic set overhaul could really shake the game up.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
for the past few days streamers have been putting "new decks" in their stream titles, and all they're doing is playing the same decks that have been played for the past 2 months....... are they like adding 1 card to these "new decks" and calling them new decks? is that how we roll in hearthstone?
They just wanna get some viewers.
Annoy-o-Tron: deathriddle: 'Goodbye, Goodbye, Goodbye'
My battle tag is Fely#.... Can you find all the digits after the #. They're hidden amongst my profile, it's like an easter egg hunt.
<3.14159265359 you!
Now Stop checking my spoilers!
Spoiler
43Fely#2...
Empty
Bonus Spoiler
now as bad as it is, if that same streamer was playing a typical priest deck then decided to run a purify based silence deck, that would be considered a new deck.(new in general, or new as in its not the same kind of deck as his last 1)
Maybe they mean new deck for them? Like they never played this deck before on stream, but it's not new original deck. Just a guess, I don't know much about streamers community.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
The ship of Theseus, also known as Theseus' paradox, is a thought experiment that raises the question of whether an object that has its components replaced remains fundamentally the same object.
Philosophizing time boyz.
2 different cards can completely change the deck.
Imagine Miracle Rogue without Gadgetzan, or Secret Paladin without Mysterious Challenger, they're not the same at all.
For me, depends on each case:
- do you achieve the same objective with the card(s), but better? Lets say, Babbling Book for yogg mage, it just generates another spell to create a bigger yogg.
- does the card(s) change your win condition? Are you swapping an N'zoth or a Loot hoarder? This is generally, but not restricted to, what makes a deck "original" as you say.
- does the card(s) prepare you against certain matchups? Tournament techs can be inserted in this question, like Harrison.
- The questions can go, these probably are the main ones.
Now, consider the deck you watched, compare and judge.
It depends on whether you replace the core cards of the deck enough that it changes the entire goal / mechanic / archetype of your deck. If yes, then it is a new deck. Otherwise, no because you might just want to add in the tech cards or better cards or try out new cards instead.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
What amuses me more so, is seeing streamers accuse every other opponent of stealing their deck because they use the same cards, as if they had rights to them
people getting triggered over anything nowadays, what a waste of forum space