Honestly, that is one of the biggest bullshit arguments in this thread so far.
Wow. Way to invalidate any argument you may have had right there. Good one.
No, that was just stating a fact. Invalidated was your argument by the rest of my post which you didn't quote.
I didn't need to. Your pointlessly aggressive stance said enough. You had no valid argument.
Oh, c'mon, can we stop with this bullshit about being over sensitive on the internet? I'm pretty sure you have to deal with much worse responses in real life every day scorpyon, and also pretty sure you accept them as something normal.
Horkinger point is totally valid, you are avoiding it because you have no counterargument, that is all.
Here is a brief example how winrate statistics are used by pros (beginning and 9:40):
Are you just referring to the 5 seconds he checks the deck WR statistics? Is there more of it? Where does it end?
Yes, I merely refer to the few seconds when he checks the stats during the mulligan. If you are experienced in the game and know how to use the stats, 5 seconds is enough for a brief check. I just wanted to give an example (as support for my arguments) how stats can be used and that statistics of a card is not the amount of decks the card is played in, but that the statistics are used to determine decisions.
If you aren't buying the arguments, just look at the statistics. They all say it's good. That won't help you understand why it's good, but it should help show you that it is, indeed, good.
In the early 20th Century, statistically the vast majority of Germans thought Nazism was a good thing. Your argument is on the same lines. You don't seem to understand the subjectivity of mob-born popularity versus objective usefulness.
Essentially, just because it's used in a lot of decks has literally no bearing on the value of a card. People didn't use Prince Keleseth for a long time because "obviously it is a terrible card; look at the statistics - nobody plays that card, so if you think it's good that means you must not understand why it is bad"....
I think you can see the problem with this line of thinking here...
for one thing, Nazism and hearthstone are so different, there is no way you can compare them.
and about keleseth, that card is now seen as good, and people like it, and how long did it take people to realize it was good? like a few months? and tracking has been around for like what? since the beginning? so we have had plenty of time to evaluate the card, and how good it is.
do you really think that every single pro player out there is mistaken? and you are the ONLY person who can see it? are you really that stubborn? just because statistics are not always 100% correct does not mean that you are right, and tracking is bad. there are so many people out there who disagree with you. so why can't you see that you are wrong? don't you think that if tracking was a really bad card then people would know it? but no, you assume that everyone else who plays hearthstone is mistaken, and only you, and a handful of others are right.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Rejoice, for even in death, you have become children of Thanos.
Honestly, that is one of the biggest bullshit arguments in this thread so far.
Wow. Way to invalidate any argument you may have had right there. Good one.
No, that was just stating a fact. Invalidated was your argument by the rest of my post which you didn't quote.
I didn't need to. Your pointlessly aggressive stance said enough. You had no valid argument.
Oh, c'mon, can we stop with this bullshit about being over sensitive on the internet? I'm pretty sure you have to deal with much worse responses in real life every day scorpyon, and also pretty sure you accept them as something normal.
Are you referring to your unexpectedly aggressive rant on my thread earlier? As you can see from that, it certainly doesn't bother me at all (calling someone out on acting in a bad way is hardly being "sensitive", but it's a nice deflection). But when people attack a person / opinion with such unnecessary venom, it stands to reason that this is usually to mask the obvious flaws in their own arguments.
Horkinger point is totally valid, you are avoiding it because you have no counterargument, that is all.
Ugh! Ok, to address his non-point (since apparently civility is a lost art these days) - I watched the video. I saw nothing on there that had anything to do with whether Tracking (the point of this thread) was a good card based on statistics. I saw a guy look to see what card might be a good choice against warrior. So nothing to do with statistics determining whether a particular card is good or not. Just statistics showing what card is useful in a particular cherry-picked scenario. If anything, his point was completely and utterly irrelevant. But that's the standard I have come to expect, hence why I don't bother trying to debate strawman arguments like that. But since it was "demanded" and mistakenly assumed to somehow make my argument invalid, there you go.
I really hate having to waste time to prove obvious points. Sigh...
In the end, you just need to find Deathstalker Rexxar in most of the cases , all other cards are expendable , so tracking is good. As for your DR Hunter, without a decklist, I cant really comment.
Yes, I merely refer to the few seconds when he checks the stats during the mulligan. If you are experienced in the game and know how to use the stats, 5 seconds is enough for a brief check. I just wanted to give an example (as support for my arguments) how stats can be used and that statistics of a card is not the amount of decks the card is played in, but that the statistics are used to determine decisions.
That's good then, cuz I already do that in my games :)
Yeah, that is why he said "here is a brief example", dude.
Sherman, what actual value to bring to a discussion? You're just the dude that stands there looking like a dick saying, "yeah man, what he said....unf unf unf"
If you aren't buying the arguments, just look at the statistics. They all say it's good. That won't help you understand why it's good, but it should help show you that it is, indeed, good.
In the early 20th Century, statistically the vast majority of Germans thought Nazism was a good thing. Your argument is on the same lines. You don't seem to understand the subjectivity of mob-born popularity versus objective usefulness.
Essentially, just because it's used in a lot of decks has literally no bearing on the value of a card. People didn't use Prince Keleseth for a long time because "obviously it is a terrible card; look at the statistics - nobody plays that card, so if you think it's good that means you must not understand why it is bad"....
I think you can see the problem with this line of thinking here...
for one thing, Nazism and hearthstone are so different, there is no way you can compare them.
Strawman argument. I wasn't comparing Nazism and Hearthstone. I was comparing the thought that "something is good because a lot of people think it is" with the indisputable fact that this is what happened in Nazi Germany at the beginning of the century. (People thought Nazism was a good thing, and assumed that because so many other people agreed, then it must be true.)
and about keleseth, that card is now seen as good, and people like it, and how long did it take people to realize it was good? like a few months? and tracking has been around for like what? since the beginning? so we have had plenty of time to evaluate the card, and how good it is.
Tracking was not considered that good originally. It was only when a couple of influential people started claiming it was, months later, that people started thinking "Oh, if XXXX pro player says it's good, then it MUST be good, because #reasons..."
do you really think that every single pro player out there is mistaken? and you are the ONLY person who can see it? are you really that stubborn?
That's a silly argument. Using the Argument from Authority is a slippery slope. I suppose you think Einstein was a stubborn idiot? And Darwin? And Gallileo? The list goes on. Same principle applies here. Also. don't be so naive that just because a player calls themself a "pro" means they are in any way more qualified to make an opinion call about card quality. It means less than nothing. Simply do a search on Youtube for "Hearthsone Streamers were wrong about Rastakhan's Rumble cards" That brings back to the Keleseth point. One person had to originally decide it was actually a good card. Does that make him just stubborn? If being stubborn means being able to prove that you were right all along in the face of so many people being wrong, then sure: call me stubborn.
just because statistics are not always 100% correct does not mean that you are right, and tracking is bad.
That works both ways. So ditto back at ya. But the most important point there is that you just freely admitted that statistics are not always right. Since the apparently strongest argument FOR Tracking is that the statistics prove it so and we can't trust the statistics because they are not always right (as you have just said), then that actually concludes the argument there, I suppose.
but no, you assume that everyone else who plays hearthstone is mistaken, and only you, and a handful of others are right.
And yet judging by this thread alone, there are enough people who apparently agree with me that we could say the same thing about you. Swings and roundabouts, my friend.... Swings and roundabouts....
Yeah, that is why he said "here is a brief example", dude.
Sherman, what actual value to bring to a discussion? You're just the dude that stands there looking like a dick saying, "yeah man, what he said....unf unf unf"
Just....fuck off
WTF? How did such a post offend you that much? Calm down, I wasn't trying to be rude... :/
Like seriously, I'm not joking here. Maybe I shouldn't have said "dude" at the end, I don't know... :(
If you aren't buying the arguments, just look at the statistics. They all say it's good. That won't help you understand why it's good, but it should help show you that it is, indeed, good.
In the early 20th Century, statistically the vast majority of Germans thought Nazism was a good thing. Your argument is on the same lines. You don't seem to understand the subjectivity of mob-born popularity versus objective usefulness.
Essentially, just because it's used in a lot of decks has literally no bearing on the value of a card. People didn't use Prince Keleseth for a long time because "obviously it is a terrible card; look at the statistics - nobody plays that card, so if you think it's good that means you must not understand why it is bad"....
I think you can see the problem with this line of thinking here...
for one thing, Nazism and hearthstone are so different, there is no way you can compare them.
Strawman argument. I wasn't comparing Nazism and Hearthstone. I was comparing the thought that "something is good because a lot of people think it is" with the indisputable fact that this is what happened in Nazi Germany at the beginning of the century. (People thought Nazism was a good thing, and assumed that because so many other people agreed, then it must be true.)
and about keleseth, that card is now seen as good, and people like it, and how long did it take people to realize it was good? like a few months? and tracking has been around for like what? since the beginning? so we have had plenty of time to evaluate the card, and how good it is.
Tracking was not considered that good originally. It was only when a couple of influential people started claiming it was, months later, that people started thinking "Oh, if XXXX pro player says it's good, then it MUST be good, because #reasons..."
do you really think that every single pro player out there is mistaken? and you are the ONLY person who can see it? are you really that stubborn?
That's a silly argument. Using the Argument from Authority is a slippery slope. I suppose you think Einstein was a stubborn idiot? And Darwin? And Gallileo? The list goes on. Same principle applies here. Also. don't be so naive that just because a player calls themself a "pro" means they are in any way more qualified to make an opinion call about card quality. It means less than nothing. Simply do a search on Youtube for "Hearthsone Streamers were wrong about Rastakhan's Rumble cards" That brings back to the Keleseth point. One person had to originally decide it was actually a good card. Does that make him just stubborn? If being stubborn means being able to prove that you were right all along in the face of so many people being wrong, then sure: call me stubborn.
just because statistics are not always 100% correct does not mean that you are right, and tracking is bad.
That works both ways. So ditto back at ya. But the most important point there is that you just freely admitted that statistics are not always right. Since the apparently strongest argument FOR Tracking is that the statistics prove it so and we can't trust the statistics because they are not always right (as you have just said), then that actually concludes the argument there, I suppose.
but no, you assume that everyone else who plays hearthstone is mistaken, and only you, and a handful of others are right.
And yet judging by this thread alone, there are enough people who apparently agree with me that we could say the same thing about you. Swings and roundabouts, my friend.... Swings and roundabouts....
you do realize that I answered all your arguments and the only response was "well I could say all that back to you" but you didn't, I said it to you, and now you have to provide an answer.
and let me tell you sir, you are no Einstein. Einstein had facts, and figures. you are just shooting back. you are not providing any arguments to support your claim that tracking is a good card, but are instead trying to counter any argument saying it is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Rejoice, for even in death, you have become children of Thanos.
I saw a guy look to see what card might be a good choice against warrior. So nothing to do with statistics determining whether a particular card is good or not. Just statistics showing what card is useful in a particular cherry-picked scenario.
This is really funny comming from a guy who compares himself to Einstein. Did you know that everything is relative, scorpyon? Because you can never, never say a card is good or bad without a proper context. Statistics showing that a card is useful in a particular scenario are perfectly fine. Tracking has been a good card in many metas (and still is), but suddenly (like any other card) can turn into garbage if the context changes unfavorable against it.
Wow. Way to invalidate any argument you may have had right there.
Good one.
No, that was just stating a fact. Invalidated was your argument by the rest of my post which you didn't quote.
I didn't need to. Your pointlessly aggressive stance said enough.
You had no valid argument.
OK let's change Nazism for Kardashians.....
Oh, c'mon, can we stop with this bullshit about being over sensitive on the internet? I'm pretty sure you have to deal with much worse responses in real life every day scorpyon, and also pretty sure you accept them as something normal.
Horkinger point is totally valid, you are avoiding it because you have no counterargument, that is all.
Are you just referring to the 5 seconds he checks the deck WR statistics? Is there more of it? Where does it end?
IMO tracking is better than zuljin.
this is just my opinion, I dont want a thousand replies talking about the value of zul'jin vs tracking.
Rejoice, for even in death, you have become children of Thanos.
I remember a time long ago when this thread was full of nice and polite posts with great discussion.....
But just like life itself, it must be dragged down to the lowest common denominator. Great work!
Yes, I merely refer to the few seconds when he checks the stats during the mulligan. If you are experienced in the game and know how to use the stats, 5 seconds is enough for a brief check. I just wanted to give an example (as support for my arguments) how stats can be used and that statistics of a card is not the amount of decks the card is played in, but that the statistics are used to determine decisions.
for one thing, Nazism and hearthstone are so different, there is no way you can compare them.
and about keleseth, that card is now seen as good, and people like it, and how long did it take people to realize it was good? like a few months? and tracking has been around for like what? since the beginning? so we have had plenty of time to evaluate the card, and how good it is.
do you really think that every single pro player out there is mistaken? and you are the ONLY person who can see it? are you really that stubborn? just because statistics are not always 100% correct does not mean that you are right, and tracking is bad. there are so many people out there who disagree with you. so why can't you see that you are wrong? don't you think that if tracking was a really bad card then people would know it? but no, you assume that everyone else who plays hearthstone is mistaken, and only you, and a handful of others are right.
Rejoice, for even in death, you have become children of Thanos.
Are you referring to your unexpectedly aggressive rant on my thread earlier?
As you can see from that, it certainly doesn't bother me at all (calling someone out on acting in a bad way is hardly being "sensitive", but it's a nice deflection). But when people attack a person / opinion with such unnecessary venom, it stands to reason that this is usually to mask the obvious flaws in their own arguments.
Ugh!
Ok, to address his non-point (since apparently civility is a lost art these days) - I watched the video. I saw nothing on there that had anything to do with whether Tracking (the point of this thread) was a good card based on statistics.
I saw a guy look to see what card might be a good choice against warrior. So nothing to do with statistics determining whether a particular card is good or not. Just statistics showing what card is useful in a particular cherry-picked scenario.
If anything, his point was completely and utterly irrelevant.
But that's the standard I have come to expect, hence why I don't bother trying to debate strawman arguments like that. But since it was "demanded" and mistakenly assumed to somehow make my argument invalid, there you go.
I really hate having to waste time to prove obvious points. Sigh...
In the end, you just need to find Deathstalker Rexxar in most of the cases , all other cards are expendable , so tracking is good. As for your DR Hunter, without a decklist, I cant really comment.
Yeah, that is why he said "here is a brief example", dude.
That's good then, cuz I already do that in my games :)
Good to know I'm doing something right!!
Sherman, what actual value to bring to a discussion? You're just the dude that stands there looking like a dick saying, "yeah man, what he said....unf unf unf"
Just....fuck off
Strawman argument. I wasn't comparing Nazism and Hearthstone. I was comparing the thought that "something is good because a lot of people think it is" with the indisputable fact that this is what happened in Nazi Germany at the beginning of the century. (People thought Nazism was a good thing, and assumed that because so many other people agreed, then it must be true.)
Tracking was not considered that good originally. It was only when a couple of influential people started claiming it was, months later, that people started thinking "Oh, if XXXX pro player says it's good, then it MUST be good, because #reasons..."
That's a silly argument. Using the Argument from Authority is a slippery slope. I suppose you think Einstein was a stubborn idiot? And Darwin? And Gallileo? The list goes on. Same principle applies here.
Also. don't be so naive that just because a player calls themself a "pro" means they are in any way more qualified to make an opinion call about card quality. It means less than nothing. Simply do a search on Youtube for "Hearthsone Streamers were wrong about Rastakhan's Rumble cards"
That brings back to the Keleseth point. One person had to originally decide it was actually a good card. Does that make him just stubborn?
If being stubborn means being able to prove that you were right all along in the face of so many people being wrong, then sure: call me stubborn.
That works both ways. So ditto back at ya.
But the most important point there is that you just freely admitted that statistics are not always right.
Since the apparently strongest argument FOR Tracking is that the statistics prove it so and we can't trust the statistics because they are not always right (as you have just said), then that actually concludes the argument there, I suppose.
And yet judging by this thread alone, there are enough people who apparently agree with me that we could say the same thing about you.
Swings and roundabouts, my friend....
Swings and roundabouts....
WTF? How did such a post offend you that much? Calm down, I wasn't trying to be rude... :/
Like seriously, I'm not joking here. Maybe I shouldn't have said "dude" at the end, I don't know... :(
you do realize that I answered all your arguments and the only response was "well I could say all that back to you" but you didn't, I said it to you, and now you have to provide an answer.
and let me tell you sir, you are no Einstein. Einstein had facts, and figures. you are just shooting back. you are not providing any arguments to support your claim that tracking is a good card, but are instead trying to counter any argument saying it is.
Rejoice, for even in death, you have become children of Thanos.
just hit the ignore button. That's what I've done.
This is really funny comming from a guy who compares himself to Einstein. Did you know that everything is relative, scorpyon? Because you can never, never say a card is good or bad without a proper context. Statistics showing that a card is useful in a particular scenario are perfectly fine. Tracking has been a good card in many metas (and still is), but suddenly (like any other card) can turn into garbage if the context changes unfavorable against it.