Still no balance a year later - with facts

Considering a beyond shadow reached 100, this all seems kinda pointless. Who cares if he died? He obviously did so AFTER reaching 100.

"

Saying that shadows are underperforming at top levels of HC play, IS NOT AN OPINION, IT'S A FUCKING NUMBER. Jesus christ already.

It is NOT a NUMBER, it is the meaning you choose to give to a fact you choose to put up. People can give a different interpretation of the same fact while basing their opinions on the same data than you, or even giving other numbers. Also, choosing to emphase one fact over an other (you or others here) is already something partially subjective, it is not neutral. The fact that people say you should include, for example, dead ones, is a clear illustration of that. The fact they think a dead 97+ shadow in HC doesn't mean shadow is bad is an opinion, just as you thinking the contrary is an opinion.

So one last time : "no shadow alive in top 40" is raw data, chosen subjectively over others, and that has no direct meaning. Some might have the opinion that this statement means shadows are underperforming in HC. Some disagree with that interpretation of this fact and have a different opinion about it, while others prefer to put up other facts on the line.

I hope you get it now, this is not non sense, you're stuck in your own circle of thoughts only convincing yourself by puting "facts" and "data" in caps every two lines.

I read this post and smiled... because I can close my browser and never have to deal with this again. Wonderful thread to point out exactly what is wrong with kids these days.

I personally find Shadow to be the best Hardcore race starting location.
Very easy to do well in races with shadows.

One more time because we have some dense people here.

"Shadows suck" - opinion

"Shadows numerically dropping off at high levels of play (in this case, position 40-1 bracket). - not an opinion, this is what the data shows, not an interpretation.

I'm sure there are people who will try to claim this is somehow an opinion, but it simply is not. This is a FACT. You can continue being wrong if you like but that's how it fucking is.

And yes, I did selectively choose this bracket, however it's not misleading in the least of the full top level. You can divide it up anyway you want and it will still come out under the selection percent.

"

treffnix wrote:

"

Legatus1982 wrote:

As you can see, there's a clear lack of common sense in this forum and it is extremely annoying...

Heeheehee :) If most people disagree with you, then they define what is common sense. You might disagree with the "sense" bit, though ;) If you attacked people a bit less and stopped calling everybody stupid, you might have more success keeping a real debate going.

On topic: Maybe the node arrangement around the shadow nudges people into more glass-cannoney builds. Maybe lots of people enjoy such builds, even though the game kills them off sooner than the tanky ones. So what? Does that mean that all classes should be equally tanky? Hell, no. So what should be rebalanced?

Touche and this would be a valid point, but im still waiting for this to be verified. Right now is still just a claim that shadows are offense oriented, and wouldn't really change the facts at all anyways.

"

Legatus1982 wrote:

"Shadows numerically dropping off at high levels of play (in this case, position 40-1 bracket). - not an opinion, this is what the data shows, not an interpretation.

And that doesn't mean anything ! And we don't debate fucking numbers. But you use the fact that still-alive shadows are dropping numerically off at high levels in Beyond to say that they are underperforming, which is no more a fucking fact, it's an OPINION based on the stated fact, and people can disagree with that opinion, and normal people accept that someone can discuss their opinions too. Which is not your case.

"Dropping living Shadows in HL Beyond Ladder (fact, that is not debated, but still the choice of that statistic is subjective)" =/= "Shadows are underperforming" (not a fact). And people are discussing 1/ the subjective choice of that particular stat over other ones ; 2/ Your opinion/conclusion taken from that fact. I don't discuss 1+1=2. Holy fuck.

"

Morgoth2356 wrote:

"

Legatus1982 wrote:

"Shadows numerically dropping off at high levels of play (in this case, position 40-1 bracket). - not an opinion, this is what the data shows, not an interpretation.

And that doesn't mean anything ! And we don't debate fucking numbers. But you use the fact that still-alive shadows are dropping numerically off at high levels in Beyond to say that they are underperforming, which is no more a fucking fact, it's an OPINION based on the stated fact, and people can disagree with that opinion, and normal people accept that someone can discuss their opinions too. Which is not your case.

"Dropping living Shadows in HL Beyond Ladder (fact, that is not debated, but still the choice of that statistic is subjective)" =/= "Shadows are underperforming" (not a fact). And people are discussing 1/ the subjective choice of that particular stat over other ones ; 2/ Your opinion/conclusion taken from that fact. I don't discuss 1+1=2. Holy fuck.

DESCRIBING THE DATA ACCURATELY IS NOT A FUCKING OPINION GUY holy fucking hell

"

Legatus1982 wrote:

DESCRIBING DRAWING A CONCLUSION FROM THE [limited] DATA ACCURATELY IS NOT A FUCKING OPINION GUY holy fucking hell

"

Antnee wrote:

"

Legatus1982 wrote:

DESCRIBING DRAWING A CONCLUSION FROM THE [limited] DATA ACCURATELY IS NOT A FUCKING OPINION GUY holy fucking hell

LOL

No guy, sorry but I described what the data shows. I didn't draw any conclusions at all, I know you have nothing left to go on but a desperate hope that I've given an opinion here but I have not. This is exactly numerically what the data shows.