Hearthpwn

Quote from badhank14 >>

Quote from Velin01 >>

Sorry for my bad english...

If you can have sidedeck, f.e. 5 tech cards and if you can add them to your deck when you facing this and that deck (before match start of course), then it will be ok for eveyrone...

F,e.: If I know I facing Priest I can guess what Priest it should be and then take off f.e. 2 cards a add 2 tech cards from my sidedeck to fight Priest effectively, the same can do you opponent...

This solution may solve lot of problems and it´s cheap, fast and fair...And it´s very strategical...Only good and skilled player will know what decks are playing from this and that class and what cards are good enough against them...

Just idea...

 I like this idea too.  Something that has been suggested in the past in other forums.  I would even go as far as try it out in a Tavern Brawl to see how it works out first.  You could even create a new permanent play mode in which you have a 'sideboard'.  When you queue up, you know you are facing priest and yes, you can take out cards you know will be useless and put in other cards you think will work.

You could even make it Discover like effect.  You premake all of your sideboard packages.  1 for Aggro match ups.  1 for Control and 1 for OTK decks.  Then when you start the game and you know what class they are playing you 'Discover' one of your 3 pre made packages.

The packages would define what cards get taken out and the cards you chose go in place of them.  Quick Example...

1. Aggro - take out my 8, 9 and 10 drop cards and replace them with board clears and healing cards.

2. Control - take out my early game minions and replace them with my 8, 9 and 10 drops.

3. OTK - take out some of the vanilla minions and add in tech minions.

I do think a Tavern Brawl to test out these ideas is exactly why Tavern Brawl was created.  Come up with kooky ideas and let the players loose on it.  This idea is far better than the current Tavern Brawl of 'play a minion, cast random spell and win or lose on the spot.'

 Yeah, this is very good variant to do that. i like it. You can have premade sidedecks like you have premade decks with you r playin. Sounds good to me. And idea to test new mechanics in tavern brawl is also good. But we all know Blizz...

What i realy like is that it supports creativity and going off mainstream a bit.  It might actually be that blizzard doesn´t want to reduce the odds of their 80% Copy&Paste customers so IDK ...

Quote from DiamondDM13 >>

The meaning of uninteractive is something which lacks interaction.

Interaction are actions you can perform to affect something.

In Hearthstone, all decks can interact with Combo decks, OTK and non-OTK ones.

Interacting with these decks doesn't mean disrupting or destroying their strategy. Or rather, it is not limited to these. Interacting means taking any action to affect them.

The simple fact that they rarely use board presence also means they rarely use board presence. They have a Hero, just like you, and their Hero, unlike yours, it's usually wide open for constant actions. They don't have minions but they have a Hero that can be killed.

It is the simple fact that they still have a Hero regardless of the minions they play, that makes their decks interactive. Any action you take will normally affect their Hero, and considering both players need their Heroes alive to continue playing, whenever you take actions that affect the opponent's Hero, you are by default interacting with them, you are taking actions that affect them, and that universally forces them to react to you.

This is same principle as the stupid "Solitaire" comment thrown at the same decks.

You need to be incredibly stupid to believe that Combo decks play Solitaire in Hearthstone, that the player can play the entire game and disregard your actions completely. If that were possible, every Combo deck would be composed of X cards that made the Combo the deck is based upon, and the entire rest of the deck would be Card Draw Engines. Nothing else would be part of Combo decks because that is mathematically the most effective composition of a Combo deck.

However, because the opponent can always interact with a Combo deck, because the vast majority of actions the opponent takes will affect the Combo player, they are forced to include all kinds of Survival tools in the deck to account for this fact. No Combo player wants to have Area of Effect tools, Removal tools, Healing tools and so on, they are forced to have them in the deck because they cannot just play the game independently of what the opponent is doing, the opponent is always given the option to interact and force the Combo player to react.

What is it with you and your overly literal interpretations of words? xD That definition of "interactive" just makes the term useless for any discussion of any deck, as it applies to literally every possible deck!

Quote from Wolfric >>

What i realy like is that it supports creativity and going off mainstream a bit.  It might actually be that blizzard doesn´t want to reduce the odds of their 80% Copy&Paste customers so IDK ...

 All is about money...If customers like copy & paste without any creativity, then they get it, because they are exactly that customers Blizz can milk. That´s cruel reality.

I don´t have a problem with net decking itself, if someone who play on budget want a good deck without spend a tons of money, it´s good choice to choose one of the meta decks from profi players a play with it, but i miss more variety even with these existing decks if you know i mean. Of course if someone can make a solid deck without net decking and can invent a whole new archetype or new strategy, hands down.

Quote from DiamondDM13 >>

Quote from Jennifer >>

What is it with you and your overly literal interpretations of words? xD That definition of "interactive" just makes the term useless for any discussion of any deck, as it applies to literally every possible deck!

 I'm not supposed to use the real meaning of words? I'm supposed to use some made up meanings that others decide to attribute to words?

The definition of Interactive doesn't change just because it doesn't fit your needs. If you don't have a proper word to apply to the meaning you want, you create a new word.

And yes, in Hearthstone, every single deck in the game is Interactive, that is the entire point, people throw the Uninteractive term when that is just stupid because that is not a correct word to use.

People want to complain about decks with low disruptive interaction, Combo decks, so that is the term they should use.

This is important, because while in Hearthstone Uninteractive decks don't exist, there are Strategy Card Games where Uninteractive decks do exist.

I played Uninteractive decks for a long time in Yu-Gi-Oh. They were called FTK, First Turn Kill decks, decks whose strategy literally played and finished the game without allowing the opponent to interact, they finished the game in the first turn before the opponent took any action.

And while I highly enjoyed playing these decks, I also strongly supported every decision they took to heavily lower the effectiveness and ability of these decks to exist. Not because I didn't enjoy them or playing against them, I really did, it was displayed player ability at it's best, I did so because they were inherently unfair, they were UNINTERACTIVE. There were literally no actions at all the opponent could take to affect you or the game.

I use words in the literal meaning because words have literal meaning, it is the meaning they were intended to be used for. In Politics, you see idiots going around calling people that don't agree with them Nazis, Fascists, and all absurdly stupid accusations that are thrown around to people they don't agree with, when these words have very strong meaning and shouldn't be used lightly.

If Hearthstone had Uninteractive decks, I would be the first person to bring that problem to Blizzard's attention, because I've had extensive experience with the subject, I don't want that to happen in Hearthstone. Using terms specifically designated to define bad things, and applying them to simply things you don't like, doesn't lead to any productive discussion.

 In this context, "not interactive" means devoid of meaningful interaction, and it is very useful in this discussion. That should not be too hard to understand. Pretty much everyone but you seem to get it.

So what is the point of your ranting? How does that further the discussion?

Quote from Jennifer >>

Quote from DiamondDM13 >>

Quote from Jennifer >>

What is it with you and your overly literal interpretations of words? xD That definition of "interactive" just makes the term useless for any discussion of any deck, as it applies to literally every possible deck!

 I'm not supposed to use the real meaning of words? I'm supposed to use some made up meanings that others decide to attribute to words?

The definition of Interactive doesn't change just because it doesn't fit your needs. If you don't have a proper word to apply to the meaning you want, you create a new word.

And yes, in Hearthstone, every single deck in the game is Interactive, that is the entire point, people throw the Uninteractive term when that is just stupid because that is not a correct word to use.

People want to complain about decks with low disruptive interaction, Combo decks, so that is the term they should use.

This is important, because while in Hearthstone Uninteractive decks don't exist, there are Strategy Card Games where Uninteractive decks do exist.

I played Uninteractive decks for a long time in Yu-Gi-Oh. They were called FTK, First Turn Kill decks, decks whose strategy literally played and finished the game without allowing the opponent to interact, they finished the game in the first turn before the opponent took any action.

And while I highly enjoyed playing these decks, I also strongly supported every decision they took to heavily lower the effectiveness and ability of these decks to exist. Not because I didn't enjoy them or playing against them, I really did, it was displayed player ability at it's best, I did so because they were inherently unfair, they were UNINTERACTIVE. There were literally no actions at all the opponent could take to affect you or the game.

I use words in the literal meaning because words have literal meaning, it is the meaning they were intended to be used for. In Politics, you see idiots going around calling people that don't agree with them Nazis, Fascists, and all absurdly stupid accusations that are thrown around to people they don't agree with, when these words have very strong meaning and shouldn't be used lightly.

If Hearthstone had Uninteractive decks, I would be the first person to bring that problem to Blizzard's attention, because I've had extensive experience with the subject, I don't want that to happen in Hearthstone. Using terms specifically designated to define bad things, and applying them to simply things you don't like, doesn't lead to any productive discussion.

 In this context, "not interactive" means devoid of meaningful interaction, and it is very useful in this discussion. That should not be too hard to understand. Pretty much everyone but you seem to get it.

So what is the point of your ranting? How does that further the discussion?

 No, in the context most commonly used  here it means I lose to it because I dont have an autowin card and refuse to see the option already here reeeee.

As far as I know about ''non-interaction'' anything you're doing proactively while not generating any tempo (aka presence on board) can be qualified to a certain extent as non-interaction. 

This goes from the rogue shuffling 4/4 into their deck and drawing into them to the Grim Patron combo happening and killing you from with a board full of damn taunts playing Handlock (which was hard countering them following the Tier list). 

If you can qualify all these things as uninteractive, you might as well stop playing hearthstone. OTK decks aren't any different then Fatigue decks or Mill decks or Face Hunter. What's interactive about Hunter agressing the heck out of your face with efficient aggressives cards. Yeah sure, defending yourself and barely making it because they edge your life . 

What's uninteractive is simply having an opponent having turns while you can't do things. Mana Floating is not something efficient in Hearthstone while in Magic The Gathering, a blue deck will wreck your options while you're declaring them in the safety of your turn. 

We have secrets exploiting this mechanic, but we can somehow play around them and minimize their effect (not attacking into a Freezing Trap with a single minion and forcing them to interact with your board somehow). 

I wouldn't complain. Hearthstone is fine as it is. They keep things in good watch recently. Nerfs won't stop where they are at. 

Quote from DiamondDM13 >>

Quote from Jennifer >>

 In this context, "not interactive" means devoid of meaningful interaction, and it is very useful in this discussion. That should not be too hard to understand. Pretty much everyone but you seem to get it.

So what is the point of your ranting? How does that further the discussion?

 Devoid of meaningful interaction? You seem to be confusing meaningful interaction with disruptive interaction.

Meaningful interaction is about as broad a term as you can use. Combo decks allow plenty of meaningful interaction, but funnily enough meaningful interaction for you only matter if you are a Control deck and capable of disrupting the Combo and removing their ability to win the game.

However, if you are an Aggro deck, meaningful interaction is any Interaction because the Aggro deck is not looking to disrupt the win condition, they are looking to kill them. Their meaningful interaction is killing the Combo deck.

This is why meaningful interaction is stupid, you change deck and suddenly meaningful interaction becomes a whole different thing.

What you state as "Not Interactive" simply means a deck hard to disrupt or interact with as a Control deck, nothing more. An Aggro deck finds a Control deck to be far less interactive than a Combo deck.

This is to say, your "Not Interactive" is not actually Uninteractive by definition, it is simply a deck you, as a Control player, find hard to perform disruptive interactions.

If it were Uninteractive, it wouldn't change based on the deck you are playing. Interactiveness is based on the mechanics of the game, not the deck you are playing with.

The point is to hopefully lead people away from illogical discussion and into productive discussion. Mislabelling Combo decks Uninteractive doesn't yield productive conversation, all it creates is a hole where everyone complains about their hatred for Combo as Control players. There is nothing productive to discuss because if Combo decks were Uninteractive, the logical course of action would be to remove them from the game. (Hence why the most common sight is comments stating this, that they think it's absurd that these decks exist, since they hate them and that means they shouldn't exist.)

 Meaningful interaction is broad for a reason, it's any interaction with your opponent that has the potential to influence the outcome of the game. So any matchup where either player has very limited options to do that is un-interactive. It's that simple, and certain decks have many such matchups. The type of deck you play is irrelevant, and your baseless assumptions about my deck archetypes are just plain wrong.

Most intellectuals are able to grasp the dynamics of language and glean the subtle nuances in the meanings of words from their context – strictly adhering to literal interpretations is not necessary or useful. and your ranting and getting bogged down in definitions is disruptive and irrelevant to the topic being discussed.

Quote from Jennifer >>

Quote from DiamondDM13 >>

Quote from Jennifer >>

 In this context, "not interactive" means devoid of meaningful interaction, and it is very useful in this discussion. That should not be too hard to understand. Pretty much everyone but you seem to get it.

So what is the point of your ranting? How does that further the discussion?

 Devoid of meaningful interaction? You seem to be confusing meaningful interaction with disruptive interaction.

Meaningful interaction is about as broad a term as you can use. Combo decks allow plenty of meaningful interaction, but funnily enough meaningful interaction for you only matter if you are a Control deck and capable of disrupting the Combo and removing their ability to win the game.

However, if you are an Aggro deck, meaningful interaction is any Interaction because the Aggro deck is not looking to disrupt the win condition, they are looking to kill them. Their meaningful interaction is killing the Combo deck.

This is why meaningful interaction is stupid, you change deck and suddenly meaningful interaction becomes a whole different thing.

What you state as "Not Interactive" simply means a deck hard to disrupt or interact with as a Control deck, nothing more. An Aggro deck finds a Control deck to be far less interactive than a Combo deck.

This is to say, your "Not Interactive" is not actually Uninteractive by definition, it is simply a deck you, as a Control player, find hard to perform disruptive interactions.

If it were Uninteractive, it wouldn't change based on the deck you are playing. Interactiveness is based on the mechanics of the game, not the deck you are playing with.

The point is to hopefully lead people away from illogical discussion and into productive discussion. Mislabelling Combo decks Uninteractive doesn't yield productive conversation, all it creates is a hole where everyone complains about their hatred for Combo as Control players. There is nothing productive to discuss because if Combo decks were Uninteractive, the logical course of action would be to remove them from the game. (Hence why the most common sight is comments stating this, that they think it's absurd that these decks exist, since they hate them and that means they shouldn't exist.)

 Meaningful interaction is broad for a reason, it's any interaction with your opponent that has the potential to influence the outcome of the game. So any matchup where either player has very limited options to do that is un-interactive. It's that simple, and certain decks have many such matchups. The type of deck you play is irrelevant, and your baseless assumptions about my deck archetypes are just plain wrong.

Most intellectuals are able to grasp the dynamics of language and glean the subtle nuances in the meanings of words from their context – strictly adhering to literal interpretations is not necessary or useful. and your ranting and getting bogged down in definitions is disruptive and irrelevant to the topic being discussed.

 Well said.

Maybe it helps when connecting interactiveness to win condition. Decks that that for their win condition don't really care about the board are un-interactive. Also decks that just stall the board till they reach their win condition (OTK)  are also to be considered un-interactive. The two are connected through the observation which I call: damage-out-of-hand. It comes down to watching the opponent do their trick. 

When it comes to debating topics on this forum make a distinction between those who actually want to analyze and think and those who feel themselves obliged to defend T5. With the first you can reach some understanding. The latter is talking to deaf ears.

Well for me that means like going as control warrior versus exodia mage. Unless I lich king > deathgrip > Antonidas which is pretty low chance, its gg. They should just release more type of cards like dirty rat and it would be fine. Its painful when You know from the beggining that You cant win. 

Quote from DiamondDM13 >>

Quote from Jennifer >>

 Meaningful interaction is broad for a reason, it's any interaction with your opponent that has the potential to influence the outcome of the game. So any matchup where either player has very limited options to do that is un-interactive. It's that simple, and certain decks have many such matchups. The type of deck you play is irrelevant, and your baseless assumptions about my deck archetypes are just plain wrong.

Most intellectuals are able to grasp the dynamics of language and glean the subtle nuances in the meanings of words from their context – strictly adhering to literal interpretations is not necessary or useful. and your ranting and getting bogged down in definitions is disruptive and irrelevant to the topic being discussed.

 You contradict yourself. Uninteractive means devoid of any actions, any options at all to interact. That is the issue. Uninteractive means there are ZERO actions a player can take to affect them.

Decks cannot be Uninteractive if there are actions players can take to affect those decks. Even if there are less actions than other decks, that doesn't make them Uninteractive.

Control decks have less possible interactions compared to Aggro and specially Midrange. That doesn't make Control Uninteractive, it makes it less interactive.

This should be fairly simple to understand. Less interactions is not the same as zero interactions.

Most intellectuals are intelligent enough to know not to use the wrong terms in the first place. That is the good part of being knowledgeable on a subject, you can be specific enough and you are also able to correctly identify and use the appropriate terminology. It is only when you lack the knowledge that you use broad terms and definitions that don't accurately represent reality, you lack the ability to specifically detail what you mean.

To reiterate – that interpretation is useless in this context, as only meaningful interactions should be considered relevant. If you are going to participate in a discussion, please try to contribute and be constructive. "Less interactive" and "uninteractive" are interchangeable, and everyone (except *ahem* someone) understands what is meant regardless of which is used.

Quote from DiamondDM13 >>

Quote from Jennifer >>

 

 I played Uninteractive decks for a long time in Yu-Gi-Oh. They were called FTK, First Turn Kill decks, decks whose strategy literally played and finished the game without allowing the opponent to interact, they finished the game in the first turn before the opponent took any action.

And while I highly enjoyed playing these decks, I also strongly supported every decision they took to heavily lower the effectiveness and ability of these decks to exist. Not because I didn't enjoy them or playing against them, I really did, it was displayed player ability at it's best, I did so because they were inherently unfair, they were UNINTERACTIVE. There were literally no actions at all the opponent could take to affect you or the game.

 

Is that seriously a viable strategy in that game? That sounds like absolutely terrible game design. No wonder nobody in the gaming world takes that game seriously.

Quote from DiamondDM13 >>

Quote from Jennifer >>

To reiterate – that interpretation is useless in this context, as only meaningful interactions should be considered relevant. If you are going to participate in a discussion, please try to contribute and be constructive. "Less interactive" and "uninteractive" are interchangeable, and everyone (except *ahem* someone) understands what is meant regardless of which is used.

 Any interaction that you can take is meaningful. Any interaction, by definition, is an action which affects the opponent. By definition, if it affects the opponent, it is already meaningful.

For it to not be meaningful, it would not affect the opponent.

Meaningful doesn't mean it will change the result of the matchup. This is the problem, some people are dumb enough to think that for any interaction to be relevant, it means that interaction needs to change the outcome of the game.

Or, if you follow through with that reasoning, that means the only interactions that are meaningful in your mind, are the use of direct disruption tools that automatically hand you the win in the matchup, Auto-Win Cards. Which are a great example of terrible card design.

I'm starting to believe you truly don't understand the difference. If Less Interactive and Uninteractive are interchangeable to you, that means they are the same to you.

As such, I can assume that for you, having Less Money is the same as having Zero Money. Therefore, I might as well take all the money you have, even if the money is not much, since for you, having little money is the same as having zero money.

Or, alternatively, your argument is just illogical, which is obviously the case.

Either way, since you can tell those apart, it's not even worth discussing. Have a nice day.

 Apologies, I should have specified that they're interchangeable for the sake of this specific discussion. Context is important.

What's illogical is attempting to refute common uses of language. Your pragmatic difficulties are baffling!

There is nothing less interactive in this game than watching a warrior stack 4 infinite effective healing every round for 30+ minutes.

Quote from DiamondDM13 >>

Quote from Jennifer >>

 Apologies, I should have specified that they're interchangeable for the sake of this specific discussion. Context is important.

What's illogical is attempting to refute common uses of language. Your pragmatic difficulties are baffling!

It is illogical to continue making the same mistake even after having that mistake pointed out to you. We all make mistakes when we don't know better, but continue to make the same mistake even after knowing better, that is completely illogical.

 You should really listen to your own advice there, champ! It's good stuff!

Let's leave it at that. It is obvious that you are only here to derail the conversation with irrelevant nitpickery and not discuss the actual topic of the thread.

Quote from thazud >>

Quote from user-100382977 >>

We know it feels bad to play against these decks, but I don't believe its because they don't interact with us (because they do), but because they deny us the ability to interact meaningfully with them. Sitting back and passively clearing the board while gaining tons of life is all well and good if players have other ways to interact with you/your board, but these decks typically don't have a board (or much of one) to interact with and Hearthstone isn't too big on hand/deck/mana control, and cards that can be played in the opponents turn don't work so well with Hearthstone's engine. THIS is what I think people mean when they call a deck uninteractive - the interaction is one-sided with the non-combo player being left unable to make meaningful decisions.

 You just described control decks. 

Not all control decks are like Odd Warrior. Both Control Warrior and Priest used to a lot of minions back in classic days. Currently I think Control Priest, Mage and DMH Warrior plays a lot of minions and are pretty interactive. 

Control Warrior gets pretty uninteractive with +4 armor hero power. Even with Justicar, Warrior used to HP and pass in many matchups. Odd Warrior is just another level. 

Quote from Jennifer >>

Quote from DiamondDM13 >>

Quote from Jennifer >>

 Apologies, I should have specified that they're interchangeable for the sake of this specific discussion. Context is important.

What's illogical is attempting to refute common uses of language. Your pragmatic difficulties are baffling!

It is illogical to continue making the same mistake even after having that mistake pointed out to you. We all make mistakes when we don't know better, but continue to make the same mistake even after knowing better, that is completely illogical.

 You should really listen to your own advice there, champ! It's good stuff!

Let's leave it at that. It is obvious that you are only here to derail the conversation with irrelevant nitpickery and not discuss the actual topic of the thread.

Been there, done that. Debating someone who considers himself a fellow-traveller on the bandwagon of team 5 and emissary on behave of Ayala and consort, is a sobering experience.

Quote from DiamondDM13 >>

Quote from Jennifer >>

 You should really listen to your own advice there, champ! It's good stuff!

Let's leave it at that. It is obvious that you are only here to derail the conversation with irrelevant nitpickery and not discuss the actual topic of the thread.

 Of course it's good stuff, hence why I posted to begin with, to correct those making the mistake. They are obviously free to keep making it. You know what I'm stating is correct, you might want to disregard it because it is inconvenient, but I do kind of think deep in there you know you shouldn't.

Of course, it is interesting that you think me pointing it out derails the conversation when you overlook how framing it incorrectly like it is always derails the entire discussion due to the fact that there is no defensible argument for Uninteractive decks, but people still feel compelled to create discussions to a topic that wouldn't be discussed at all.

(If Combo decks were Uninteractive, no sensible person would be discussing them, it would have been handled by Blizzard for obviously it wouldn't be acceptable. However, since Combo decks are Interactive, then people do try to discuss and there are positions on both sides, because Combo decks are inherently acceptable, they are just not liked by everyone, which is normal, not everyone enjoys the same thing.)

And yes, I'll leave it as is.

 Oh, but the thing is, they are not mistaken – it is only you who think so.

The meaning of "un-interactive" depends on context – something which everyone discussing it obviously understands. Because with your overly strict interpretation of the word, any discussion about interactivity in Hearthstone is moot by definition, so then there is nothing to even discuss.

You are of course free to invent your own terminology and keep using it as you see fit.

But remember – young padawan – that only a Sith deals in absolutes!

Quote from DiamondDM13 >>

Quote from Jennifer >>

 Oh, but the thing is, they are not mistaken – it is only you who think so.

The meaning of "un-interactive" depends on context – something which everyone discussing it obviously understands. Because with your overly strict interpretation of the word, any discussion about interactivity in Hearthstone is moot by definition, so then there is nothing to even discuss.

You are of course free to invent your own terminology and keep using it as you see fit.

But remember – young padawan – that only a Sith deals in absolutes!

 Haha, I love it. First you say I'm too strict because I use the literal definition of words. I use the literally application of the words to the context. Then you tell me I'm free to invent my own terminology, when you just pointed out how I'm already using the literal definition and terminology. That mind of yours must be fun confusion to live in.

It is not my fault that using the correct definition makes discussion moot, that is the entire point. If Uninteractive decks existed, there would be no discussion. You have objective measures you can use to determine it, and that is why, since it fails to meet the criteria, the entire discussion is pointless.

This kind of discussion about Combo decks and their low Interactivity is never about Interactivity, it's always about some people liking these decks and some people hating these decks. Since that leads nowhere, people that hate Combo decks try to label them as something they are not, Uninteractive, because they know Uninteractive is a problem and that is what they try to use to justify their hatred.

It is the same thing as the new generation hitting adulthood. They created the new term Micro-Aggression. There is no such thing as a Micro Aggression. There are Insults and there are Aggressions, Violent Acts.

Insults are simply something these people hate because it offends them. Aggressions, Violent Acts, those are crimes, they have an objective standard.

So what they is try to bring the Aggression terminology into the discussion to try to criminalise Insults, simply because they don't like them and feel offended. Because they know that if they talk about Insults for what they are, Insults, no one will even bother listening to them.

You do the same thing with Combo decks. You don't like them, but you know that people won't care or listen to you if you complain about Combo decks for the real reason, that you don't like them.

So to try and put so weight behind your complains, you bring in the wrong terminology, the Uninteractive term, because you know that Uninteractive is something that needs to be addressed, because you know Uninteractive is an objective standard that details a problem and bad design.

But funnily enough, when people point out that you are using it incorrectly, you try and disregard it with the "Oh you know what I mean" argument.

I do know what you mean. I know exactly what anyone calling Combo decks Uninteractive mean. They mean they don't like Combo decks, they would like something to be done to stop them from existing because they don't like them and they feel they shouldn't have to be faced with something they don't like, so they use terminology that is only relevant to real problem to label something that isn't a problem, but that they themselves feel is a problem to them, SUBJECTIVELY.

It is the same as Micro Aggressions, Insults that people don't like to hear, so they want them banned, criminalised, so they don't have to feel offended, instead of growing up, realising that the world isn't just flowers and rainbows, and that is it extremely important to not try to remove any adversity in the world, but that in order to grow, you need to actually overcome adversity, not cry, complain and demand that the adversity be removed for you.

 Well that's just yet another thing you keep being wrong about – thinking you know what others like or want. I never said I don't like combo decks, or that the archetype should not exist, because that is not true. A healthy meta should have room for every archetype to have viable decks.

Writing long rants does not make you less wrong, it just makes others care less about what you're trying to say.

Quote from DiamondDM13 >>

Quote from Jennifer >>

 Well that's just yet another thing you keep being wrong about – thinking you know what others like or want. I never said I don't like combo decks, or that the archetype should not exist, because that is not true. A healthy meta should have room for every archetype to have viable decks.

Writing long rants does not make you less wrong, it just makes others care less about what you're trying to say.

 I do know what others want. They make it very clear anytime the discussion goes long enough. It always starts with how they find it uninteractive, and it ends with what should be done to prevent it from existing.

I only write long "rants" because I can detail what I have to say. You might not care, others might not care. I don't write it for people to care, I write it because it's true, and that is what I care about, the truth.

Now I'll do as I stated before but failed to act, not bother further, have a nice day.

The downside of teleological reasoning as what can be observed here is that explanations must be in line with a a goal. That goal in this case is that any explanation given must be in line with card design and explanation given by T5. So if there are a lot of OTK decks in the meta it must be good because T5 willed it. Anybody doesn't agree must be wrong then.

This kind of 'The-boss-said-so-so- I- say-so' - kind of reasoning comes with an annoying deconstructive twist (not in a Derridarian way). If someone makes an unwelcome statement, deconstruction follows in the form demonstrated in this discussion: derail, change the subject, nitpickery, confuse. It is a well known discussion technique to protect the boss. 

Of course if you work  for the Boss it is understandable. But doubtful that is the case. So what is wrong here, Why why mr. Anderson, why...is it out of love?  Love for T5 that you can't be a freethinker and be objective and exhibit healthy critical attitude? Because that makes you more believable.