Ruskin's Journal

This is so true. I’ve been playing this game for a while and consider myself pretty knowledgeable about the heroes. But I have a hard time telling people which hero to max. And I’m constantly surprised at how quickly people say that a hero is better than another one. There are obviously some clear cut cases, but most of the time it depends on roster, how many summons that person does and personal choice. There’s a lot of subjectivity.

Early in the game I have decided to max whatever hero I wanted. Some heroes I maxed only because they’re different. It’s a game, people should have fun with it. I maxed Thorne early on and I don’t use him at all. But for a while he was the only blue 5* I had. He served his purpose. Same with Elkanen and other examples. I maxed Salmon Loki fully knowing what he is (I played with him in beta). I have laughed out loud every time he kills the whole enemy team, and sometimes when he kills no one too. He’s too random for me, I don’t use him in war. But he’s been fun to use for a while.

People should play the game as they want. Following your own instincts is usually the best path.

I’m loving your posts, keep them coming.


Fair points.

I would say that if I ask a question I try to give as much background for my situation as possible. Likewise when I request advice, or give it, I give my rationale for them.

I find it helpful occasionally though to come here. Not so much as in if the forum says to do it, I have to, but rather for those that take time explain things I can get perspectives for things I may not have gotten myself. I can ask about one hero and get a response I think is nuts for my question but gives me a great idea for another hero in a different situation.

The more information you have that yourself, or someone else, took time to actually think through the more confident you can be in whatever you decide. Perspective isn’t bad, even if it merely reinforces you approval of your own.

For those reason I generally don’t like polls or 1 one word responses.



I guess a new player getting better access to season 3 and 4 heroes early doesn’t really bother me.
Even if someone got say 1,000,000 Atlantis coins, their roster would be severly lacking. As long as the latest heroes aren’t freely given I’d be okay. My “newst” legendary heroes are Aino and Kravekrush. So unless portals were massively changed for newer players, that catch up mechanic would probably only be temporary and quickly outdated.

Let’s say SG gave us 100 free draws in Season 3 valid only tomorrow. With the odds, the average player would walk away with ~4 legendary heroes. Going from zero to 4 legendary heroes won’t exactly change the advantage I’ve built up in this game.

777 free draws at current odds would be approximately 8 times better, which nets 32 legendary heroes. Certainly enough to keep a player engaged. I’ve been playing for almost 4 years and have 44 legendary heroes. So it would take quite a long time for that new player to level up all of those heroes. Add in ascension mats, emblems, aethers, feeders, and ham and those will give the new player a lot to work with, but will keep them bottlenecked for quite a while.
Having said that all outloud, I’d be okay with that. So much would have to happen for a new f2p to catch up and be competitve to us longer term players.

Thank you. Love to hear it. Keeps me engaged too.


Today as I was reading posts, I saw some familiar low value users and it got me wondering…which user has had the most of their posts flagged or merged? I’m curious both who has the most number and who has the highest rate (subject to a minimum). Of course I don’t want to actually name and shame anyone so no one should answer me.

1 Like

What’s the definition for a “low value user”?


That’s a complicated detail there if I ever saw one! :wink:

1 Like

I don´t know I even really understand what the question is. Is number of merged topics an indicator of something? Or number of flags?
I can see the first thing being an indicator of opening an unnsecessary topic instead of posting in an existing one, so I guess kinda annoying yes. Flags? I don´t even know what you get flags for… Posting unpopular opinions?

1 Like

I think these tend to be more, abusing/insulting other players. and not following forum rules (which include respect for others).

unpopular opinions that are said respectfully and politely tend to be left alone from flags.

also: happy birthday @Gargon !!!


I can tell you right now that likes do not equal game intelligence :joy:

Great thread @Ruskin505 been a fun read so far. I have bookmarked it so I can keep up with it


Flags would have Rigs back in the day. He was like a moth to the flag flame….

But he lived and died by the sword and I always respected that.

1 Like

Each person can have their own definition. My isn’t one set thing but can include some of the following: poor judgement, no value add to others, asking repetitive questions that are answered elsewhere, failure to understand simple mechanics, blatanly wrong information presented as facts, repetitive posts, predictive posts.

I was just thinking about some users who repetitively create new posts and none of them stick around because they’re all merged accordingly. I was curious who does it the most. Then I wondered about the flags. You make good points about the flags. I generally think unpopular opinions aren’t flagged, but hostile comments are. Then again I’ve never analyzed it. Boy that could be a fun project.

I don’t know why I bothered to type something when this response did it better than I could.

Thank you kind sir!

Ooo that’s a good answer. I laugh everytime I see this.


Can I actually see my flagged posts? I am sure I must have some somewhere, but would be curious to see what they got flagged for :slight_smile:

1 Like

Interesting journal (I should be working!)

Usually the advice given is good for the giver’s situation but not necessarily for the receiver’s. This is why I usually prepend my advice with the disclaimer that I am basing the advice on fighting against the hero since I am essentially (pseudo)f2p. Before taking any advice it is best to evaluate your own situation and figure out what best applies to you. Accept none on blind faith.

I come here a lot seeking advice but never actually specifically ask for it. My situation rarely matches anyone else’s here.

I feel the same way. There are just so many new heroes that I know practically nothing about now. Someone asks “Should I max A or B or C” and I ahve to go check on who these heroes even are. Whereas even little over a year ago I was pretty familiar with most of the heroes even if only from facing them in raids a lot.

I liken SG to LinkedIn and Zynga to Microsoft.

LinkedIn was created as a networking tool for professionals to keep and build relationships, and it did that quite well. Since Microsoft acquired it, it has morphed into a social networking grab bag. You can still network your professional contacts, but you also get bombarded with feeds and ads and whatnot. All in the name of increased user engagement to sell advertising. Similar to the evolution of Facebook (which I haven’t used in years and not regularly in a decade or more) …

What happened to the unix philosophy? Do one thing and do it well.

I just read an interview with the former CEO of Ticketmaster where he basically blamed all the fans for the issues Ticketmaster is having and his concluding remark was “That’s how capitalism works” as if that made it all ok.

I have always said our society is a constant uneasy struggle between capitalism and democracy, because the two systems have competing objectives. Capitalism builds from the top down, democracy from the bottom up.

Guess I should go do some work!


I don´t know who ticketmaster is, but from that one-liner I don´t see much in terms of justification, just an explanation of facts.
Given that it´s a CEO talking I would guess he thinks capitalism is the best thing ever, as it is the thing that turned him from an average Joe into something resembling a king.

If you ask me capitalism is the source of (maybe not all, but lots of) evil :D. However it is rather irrelevant what I or anyone else thinks about it, it is a simple fact of life, that isn´t very likely to change any time soon… I´d vote for getting rid of it, for the sake of novelty, not because I think humans would actually come up with something better on the next try.

Interesting theory, but you somehow you stopped before you got to the interesting point? What are their objectives? Top down and bottom up is only the way to achieve the objective, both can work simultaneously towards the same objective.

But discussing democracy is always fun. I find democracy is just another broken system. It was a great idea (like communism also was a great idea), however in the long run it becomes clear that it isn´t working either. While it has initially led to a lot of improvements in the life of its population, by now democracy is hovering somewhere in the middle between a popularity contest and complete randomness (both heavily corrupted by financial interests of a elite few). It has become some form of institutionalized acting in which all the players have their roles to play, but the core of the system has been pushed to the fringes.
It seems that the average IQ of humans is dropping instead of increasing and isn´t even close to where it has to be to make democracy work. Or maybe the complexity of the world is increasing faster than avg intelligence? Anyway humans are falling behind more and more rather than getting closer to making it work.

1 Like

As CEO that is how he would think. Capitalism rewards those at the top. It is basically the logical successor to feudalism, with capital goods replacing the power source of land.

Capitalism is an economic system, democracy is a political system. They are not direct competitors, but capitalism’s natural political analogue would be authoritarianism. Democracy, in theory, derives it’s power from the people so bottom up, and it’s natural economic analogue would actually be socialism.

All systems are broken in real life application. Just look at the mess that communism made as it devolved into an authoritarian structure. And that is what we are witnessing happening in democracy now.

As for IQ’s, there is no unbiased way to measure that yet. I doubt that average IQ has changed much (if at all) in the last thousand years or so. Knowledge on the other hand has increased. But then the more we know the more we know we don’t know.


Yes I very much agree with this :slight_smile: I mean IQ as a innate property of our brains probably hasn´t changed much in the last 20000 years, potentially longer. In terms of evolution to change this I don´t think enough time has passed since then to make considerable changes to our brains.
Knowledge has been increasing obviously that´s also a fact.

For whatever reason though in the past that seems to have led to greater understanding in one form or other, while over the last say 30 or so years it seems to be going the other way. I don´t want to say people are becoming dumber even though it seems that way sometimes, but they certainly behave inmore and more stupid ways . I wonder how that comes?
Is it just a relative problem? Meaning there is more and more knowledge available, but people aren´t able to process it and therefore make horrible decisions? Relative because decision making hasn´t gotten worse, it may even have improved, but it can´t cope with the much greater influx of information.
Or has peoples ability to make good decision really decreased, be it because of social media or bad education or whatever?
Or maybe this whole idea of worse decision making is wrong and it really isn´t the case? It´s hard to compare it to anything else as we live in the time we live in and can´t make a comparison to other times. but I just can´t shake the feeling that in the past people have made mistakes and then somehow learned from them trying not to reapeat them. Now when there are obvious solutions to real problems, we turn around and go the other way…

1 Like

This may sound counterintuitive at first, but, I think that this has to do with the general advancements of knowledge and society.

You see, I don’t believe there are more people born who lack intelligence, nor that society in general is less intelligent. What has happened is twofold (or maybe more).

One, society as a whole has advanced to a point where most people do not live life in survival mode. We don’t worry (as much) about how to have food available, nor shelter, nor clothing. In many places in the world, even homeless and jobless people have access to these things.

Second, the knowledge of society in general has advanced to a point where many types of diaeases, injuries, and genetic “defects” which were once fatal, or once ensured a shortened lifespan are now treatable.

Between the two, plus the ever greater numbers in global population, allows people to pursue things other than hunting, gathering, and home/community building. With improved medical knowledge, people heal better from injuries and thus are more apt to repeat what caused the injury.

I think these observations in the end are a kind way of saying that the less intelligent or more foolish people have more opportuinites to survive. Which is a good thing overall (I think), but coupled with ever-increasing global access, the foolish have a seemingly larger presence in the world


As the pool of knowledge grows it becomes harder and harder to understand a wide range of topics. People become specialized in what they know. As the joke goes – I learn more and more about less and less until I know everything about nothing. I think this also gives rise to the Dunning-Kruger effect. People who are (near) experts in one thing think that transfers over to other things that they do not have a deep understanding of. But they are either refusing to or incapable of acknowledging the gap in knowledge and charge on secure in their own perceived expertise.

People also tend to reside in an echo chamber, aligning with and listening to those who they already agree with. This only reinforces their sense of rightness, and really precludes any opportunity for debate.

Actual joke


A person who learns more and more about less and less until they know everything about nothing


A person who learns less and less about more and more until they know nothing about everything


I like this thought :slight_smile: Evolution has been halted by medicine, I have so far only considered this physically as “survival of the fittest” has been degraded into “survival of everybody”, meaning crappy genes not being screened out anymore. But I guess it could easily be applied to stupidity…

Which reminds me of the Darwin Awards :smiley: does anyone remember those? Hilarious stuff!


As we are looking in more philosophical aspects of live let me add my 2 cents.

  1. Capitalism and Democracy are far from perfect, but the damn best social order humankind has ever developed. Capitalism has always to be reign in by a strong democracy, so its important to enforce anti trust legislative and limit the influence of big money on the political decision makers. Limiting the number of years a top politician can stay in office is a very good measure for this…

2nd : IQ improved in the last hundert years because of better nutrition for the brain. With a changing lifestyle we see a dropback in some aspects. Children in western countries do not play a lot in open playgrounds anymore, that is bad for 3-dimensional experiences hampering some understanding there. The changing of family structures with many single children families have some negative aspects on social abilities. Many are no longer able to disagree in a civilized matter, this is amplyfied by the pseudo anonimity of online accounts.

Happy thinking and gaming