Hearthpwn

On my f2p account in NA i got 3 including the free one in 12 packs. On my main EU account i got from 30 packs on gold same 3 legs including the free one. Sad

I consider myself very lucky opening the packs.

I bought the mammoth deal and got King Togwaggle, Zola, the Gorgon, Sonya Shadowdancer, Thrall, Deathseer and the Warlock quest.

Bought the 70 packs + 26. Got Blackhowl Gunspire, Genn Greymane, both paladin legendaries, both rogue legendaries (Face Collector was the free one), Hagatha the Witch, Splintergraft and Azalina Soulthief.

Quote from Dweight888 >>

110 packs and 7 legends, baku golden. Not very good either

Whilst OP may not know this, there have been these threads going on for years and each time it happens the community generally responds pretty badly. Can we not create a Salt Thread just for pack openings?

We could throw a Pepper one in as well to offset people like me who just have all of the luck all of the time. Because all of my cards were the ones you wanted that you didn't open. 

Quote from johnnyedge >>

 

Quote from davidwizard >>

 

Quote from johnnyedge >>

 

Quote from pipicar >>

cry more dude... grow a pair

 

 You're a fuckin asshole bud.  42 packs is a lot of money if you paid for them, and getting 1 legendary kind of ruins your whole experience for the expansion.  The rewards system is clearly broken here, and maybe you could be a little more sympathetic to someone trying to have fun playing the exact same game you are.  People like you make me sick. 

I have no sympathy for someone complaining about the way that math works. Despite Blizzard not publishing the information, we know to a pretty high degree of accuracy what the odds are for pack outcomes. Complaining because you low-rolled within the expected range of any given RNG event is asinine. When you choose to play a game of chance, you implicitly accept the known mathematics behind that game. You and you alone made the decision that the potential gains were worth the investment. Thus, you are the only person to blame when you are dissatisfied with the outcome.

Now if you want to make an argument about the morality of exploiting cognitive biases for profit, that's a discussion worth having (as well as an incisive indictment of capitalism in general).

 

Let's say your friend smokes, and then he gets cancer. And then when he tells you, "Hey man, I have cancer" by your own logic, you would say "cry more dude, grow a pair."  I mean, he smoked, right? He played the odds and got cancer, so fuck him. Right? 

Eat lunch meat? Get ass cancer? Sorry dude, you played the odds. Don't exercise for 30 minutes a day and have a heart attack at 30? Sorry man, you played the odds.  

You're right. Life's about choices, and you choose to be an asshole.  Sorry you have to live with that. 

Quote from davidwizard >>

 

Quote from johnnyedge >>

 

Quote from davidwizard >>

 

Quote from johnnyedge >>

 

Quote from pipicar >>

cry more dude... grow a pair

 

 You're a fuckin asshole bud.  42 packs is a lot of money if you paid for them, and getting 1 legendary kind of ruins your whole experience for the expansion.  The rewards system is clearly broken here, and maybe you could be a little more sympathetic to someone trying to have fun playing the exact same game you are.  People like you make me sick. 

I have no sympathy for someone complaining about the way that math works. Despite Blizzard not publishing the information, we know to a pretty high degree of accuracy what the odds are for pack outcomes. Complaining because you low-rolled within the expected range of any given RNG event is asinine. When you choose to play a game of chance, you implicitly accept the known mathematics behind that game. You and you alone made the decision that the potential gains were worth the investment. Thus, you are the only person to blame when you are dissatisfied with the outcome.

Now if you want to make an argument about the morality of exploiting cognitive biases for profit, that's a discussion worth having (as well as an incisive indictment of capitalism in general).

 

Let's say your friend smokes, and then he gets cancer. And then when he tells you, "Hey man, I have cancer" by your own logic, you would say "cry more dude, grow a pair."  I mean, he smoked, right? He played the odds and got cancer, so fuck him. Right? 

Eat lunch meat? Get ass cancer? Sorry dude, you played the odds. Don't exercise for 30 minutes a day and have a heart attack at 30? Sorry man, you played the odds.  

You're right. Life's about choices, and you choose to be an asshole.  Sorry you have to live with that. 

Yes, because getting cancer is exactly comparable to gambling with a couple of dollars. You really nailed that analogy in a very sensitive, thoughtful way. Kappa.

Analogies don't magically just become TRUE statements because you construct them - they're meant to clarify an idea. Since this idea didn't need clarification, your analogy is merely a reductio ad absurdum argument. This is an obvious logical fallacy in this instance, since obviously I was not stating a philosophy which applies to all arenas of life, but only to people who gamble with money, as Hearthstone players do.

An appropriate analogy in this instance would be "would you have sympathy for someone who bought a house without inspecting it with the intention of flipping it, only to find out it was full of lead pipes and paint?" And the answer in that case is consistent: no, I would not have sympathy for someone that incredibly stupid. Gamblers are not analogous to people who develop diseases. Cool talk, bro.

Quote from Ilyanthiel >>

How many more post to understand the concept of "random"???

Quote from Dweight888 >>

110 packs and 7 legends, baku golden. Not very good either

2 legs in 3 packs, plus the free one.

got 12 in 155. i'm happy :) sadly no golden one

Quote from davidwizard >>

Analogies don't magically just become TRUE statements because you construct them - they're meant to clarify an idea. Since this idea didn't need clarification, your analogy is merely a reductio ad absurdum argument. This is an obvious logical fallacy in this instance, since obviously I was not stating a philosophy which applies to all arenas of life, but only to people who gamble with money, as Hearthstone players do.

An appropriate analogy in this instance would be "would you have sympathy for someone who bought a house without inspecting it with the intention of flipping it, only to find out it was full of lead pipes and paint?" And the answer in that case is consistent: no, I would not have sympathy for someone that incredibly stupid. Gamblers are not analogous to people who develop diseases. Cool talk, bro.

Quote from johnnyedge >>

 

Quote from davidwizard >>

Analogies don't magically just become TRUE statements because you construct them - they're meant to clarify an idea. Since this idea didn't need clarification, your analogy is merely a reductio ad absurdum argument. This is an obvious logical fallacy in this instance, since obviously I was not stating a philosophy which applies to all arenas of life, but only to people who gamble with money, as Hearthstone players do.

An appropriate analogy in this instance would be "would you have sympathy for someone who bought a house without inspecting it with the intention of flipping it, only to find out it was full of lead pipes and paint?" And the answer in that case is consistent: no, I would not have sympathy for someone that incredibly stupid. Gamblers are not analogous to people who develop diseases. Cool talk, bro.

 

 But is that answer a consistent no? No, it's not.  It is for you, and that's all you clearly care about.

Someone was trying to make a dollar, and messed up.  You can have empathy for that person still.  I understand you don't, because you' lack empathy.  But don't say that I can't be empathetic to someone who "gambled" and lost, just because you are not.  You are projecting your own values onto a situation.  

FURTHER to that, I understand why you may not feel empathetic, and that's fine. You do you, buddy.  The issue is when a guy is clearly down on his luck, and buddy comes along and kicks him while he's down, saying "grow a pair."  Really? That's pretty disgraceful. Be an ignorant a-hole on your own terms, sure. But don't come in here pretend to know what the fuck you're talking about. 

Thanks. 

well, you can't go worse than 1 legendary in 79 packs :D

Once i oppened 5 leg in 7 packs, one was a golden tirion, but it was for a friend... 

Quote from AntonydusWurm >>

well, you can't go worse than 1 legendary in 79 packs :D

Quote from davidwizard >>

 

Quote from johnnyedge >>

 

Quote from davidwizard >>

Analogies don't magically just become TRUE statements because you construct them - they're meant to clarify an idea. Since this idea didn't need clarification, your analogy is merely a reductio ad absurdum argument. This is an obvious logical fallacy in this instance, since obviously I was not stating a philosophy which applies to all arenas of life, but only to people who gamble with money, as Hearthstone players do.

An appropriate analogy in this instance would be "would you have sympathy for someone who bought a house without inspecting it with the intention of flipping it, only to find out it was full of lead pipes and paint?" And the answer in that case is consistent: no, I would not have sympathy for someone that incredibly stupid. Gamblers are not analogous to people who develop diseases. Cool talk, bro.

 

 But is that answer a consistent no? No, it's not.  It is for you, and that's all you clearly care about.

Someone was trying to make a dollar, and messed up.  You can have empathy for that person still.  I understand you don't, because you' lack empathy.  But don't say that I can't be empathetic to someone who "gambled" and lost, just because you are not.  You are projecting your own values onto a situation.  

FURTHER to that, I understand why you may not feel empathetic, and that's fine. You do you, buddy.  The issue is when a guy is clearly down on his luck, and buddy comes along and kicks him while he's down, saying "grow a pair."  Really? That's pretty disgraceful. Be an ignorant a-hole on your own terms, sure. But don't come in here pretend to know what the fuck you're talking about. 

Thanks. 

No one "kicked him while he's down" - they said a very slightly mean thing to him after he got an EXPECTED RESULT from a gambling situation he entered into willingly. If he wasn't willing to accept a low-roll, he shouldn't have gambled in the first place.

If you want to extend your empathy to people who whine about completely predictable and entirely optional rolls of the dice, that's your business. But to think that all empathic people should be as ludicrously generous as you are is naive in the extreme. You're just setting yourself up for disappointment. And if you think people who lack empathy for gamblers must lack ALL empathy, well... I guess I just feel sorry for you and your simplistic Manichean worldview.

Thanks!

You decided on a special, narrow meaning for the word "gambling" and refuse to recognize all other common meanings? Awesome! I'm impressed.

D&D is a great example (and, like Hearthstone, is also a form of low-stakes gambling). If you roll ones over and over, I laugh at you. If I roll ones over and over, I laugh at myself. It's a game! If you can't have fun while losing, that's your own personal character flaw to deal with - it's none of my concern.

And sorry big words frighten you, but until the dipshit police come along and cart me away for not catering to the lowest common denominator, I'll keep using the full range of the English language. Thanks for the completely useless tips, though! Keep on trying to drag the rest of the world down to your level - I'm sure it'll work someday.

Quote from davidwizard >>

You decided on a special, narrow meaning for the word "gambling" and refuse to recognize all other common meanings? Awesome! I'm impressed.

D&D is a great example (and, like Hearthstone, is also a form of low-stakes gambling). If you roll ones over and over, I laugh at you. If I roll ones over and over, I laugh at myself. It's a game! If you can't have fun while losing, that's your own personal character flaw to deal with - it's none of my concern.

And sorry big words frighten you, but until the dipshit police come along and cart me away for not catering to the lowest common denominator, I'll keep using the full range of the English language. Thanks for the completely useless tips, though! Keep on trying to drag the rest of the world down to your level - I'm sure it'll work someday.

i opened 5 legendaries in 45 packs, two where from the same pack.