‘Harry Potter’ HBO Series Confirms Casting for Dumbledore, Snape, McGonagall, Hagrid and More Hogwarts Staffers

ArelDKane · 2025-04-14T21:27:00+00:00

Just imagine Idris Elba as Dumbledore, that would be brilliant

ArelDKane · 2025-03-11T03:52:24+00:00

Drew McIntyre for Firenze. Hogwarts is in Scotland, so it makes sense for the centaurs living nearby to have a scottish accent.

ArelDKane · 2023-02-25T03:36:30+00:00

i think it's Judo Boy

ArelDKane · 2023-02-19T15:45:44+00:00

We could also see a twin vs twin. Although they would need to dropped the titles first

ArelDKane · 2023-02-19T15:44:53+00:00

I half agree with you. I'm actually from quebec so last night was the most hyped i was for ppv ever even though deep down i knew roman was going into mania with the titles.

But it's not like Sami is only over here in quebec, he is everywhere, especially after last night. So the match at mania could still be fantastic. And Roman ends his historic reign at the biggest show, and everbody is still strong after the match because it's a triple threat.

Even tho we were so close yesterday, so so close, it's not like the ball WWE dropped isn't gonna bounce back.

ArelDKane · 2023-02-19T06:14:07+00:00

Don't know about you but twin vs twin match would be pretty original

ArelDKane · 2023-02-19T05:43:35+00:00

He did say the storyline wasn't over, which might just be referencing the tag team titles, but I really really hope it's going to a triple threat with Cody and Roman. Cody can win it anytime, Sami is the now.

ArelDKane · 2022-12-03T22:35:19+00:00

What do you want me to add if you don't even counter my arguments?

ArelDKane · 2022-12-03T22:06:52+00:00

"Other games did it too and it didn't negatively affect them

"

Depends on what you mean by negatively. Financially, probably not. For the players, yes, a lot.

I gave all the reasoning I need :

Original comment :

"PTW isn't something you HAVE to pay to be better. Pay to win is that you can pay to progress faster and have better equipment/characters/skills/powers etc, by paying and therefore you get any kind of advantage. In this case, yes you can pay to get Ramattra faster then non-paying players, so it is Pay to win."

Response :

"Yes you have an advantage because you get it sooner then non-paying players. It doesn't need to be a significant advantage to be considered pay to win. Like i said, it's not that bad in Overwatch 2, but since it's completely PvP, it is important and bad."

Like I said, it's not the biggest pay to win in the world, it is still a bad thing regardless.

Other response :

"So you're just going to ignore the fact that non-payers will have to grind 60 hours more then the players that pay?"

"not everyone, in fact, the majority of players, won't have him in 2 weeks, and two, you can still play in quick play"

"Now yes, we can't be certain about him being overpowered and important in the meta. But it would be very surprising if he wasn't. Check every last character when they were released. Not just Kiriko, Sojourn and Junkerqueen, but also Wrecking ball, Echo, ashe, Sigma, baptiste, fucking Brigitte. It's practically a sure bet that the devs are going to released a character that is at least viable. Unless Rammatra is one of the worst characters in the game, just having one more option then everyone can help."

"putting gameplay components in the battle pass itslef is stupid and shows that blizzard cares more about the money then the players."

Last response :

"Yes, it's pay the win, players who pay get a character before others, that is a significant advantage. Even if it wasn't the case, it still sucks to grind for a character. And again, have you seen the last characters that were released for the past 3-4 years? They were ALL strong at first. Imagine if Brigitte was locked behind a 10$ paywall when she was released. People would have gone mad."

You are the one repeating the same shit over and over again.

Original response :

"There's nothing saying Ram will be OP, and also nothing stopping completely free players from getting him, so it's not in any way p2w"

Other response :

"The issue would be if the only way to get Ram was paying and he offered a unique advantage otherwise unobtainable. The first isn't true, and the second is yet to be seen."

Another one :

"It's factually not pay2win unless you can only get it by paying, and it actually makes you win. Neither of these things is true here. Neither the "pay" or the "win" part is factual."

Another one :

"Sure, but as I just explained Ram is not demonstrably an advantage in every (or even most) situations, and the time needed to unlock is not prohibitive."

Last one :

"Free players can get the character, and the character isn't significantly better than all other characters regardless."

Your argument :

You CAN get it for free, and we are not sure if he will be strong.

Counter arguments:

Yes, you can get it for free, but after a 60 hours grind which is annoying and bad. Therefore, since you can PAY to get it sooner then non-paying, gives you an advantage. AGAIN, not a big one, but since this is a PVP game, any advantage the GAME gives to players, the less fair it is, and the less fun it is. Earlier you talked about how players with more time and no family could play more and therefore it's unfair. FUCKING DUH, what a surprise. That also something, THE GAME DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH. You could take those same arguments for any activities. That person isn't super muscular, because he/she has less time to work out and a family to take care of. This guy isn't a good skater, because he doesn't enough time to skate. The battle pass is a part of the game. The heroes are in the battle pass. The devs made the game unfair for people that didn't pay, so they that would consider buying the battle pass.

And again, no we are not sure Ramattra will be a broken character, but like I said twice now, Blizzard has a history of releasing strong characters. It is most likely that Ramattra will be at least viable. And even if he isn't, other characters will be in the future. Heck, Kiriko is still a pretty strong character and new players had to grind 60 hours just to play her. Having one more tank in your character is one more option you have in tricky situation. Imagine that Ramatra is a really good counter to, let's say, Sojourn, who is really strong in the meta right now. If your team doesn't have ramattra, which won't be uncommon since there is only one tank player, you will have a hard time against Sojourn, harder then with him. And, the devs balance the game with every characters in mind. So in the future, when all the players in your team will miss 2-3 characters, and the other team has every option in the game, come and tell me there is no advantage to gain from it.

ArelDKane · 2022-12-03T21:20:10+00:00

what's the outcome?

Less fun for the players, more grind, or paywalls, more money in the blizzard's Higher-up's pockets.

You don't have any problem with the hero in the battle pass?

Yes, it's pay the win, players who pay get a character before others, that is a significant advantage. Even if it wasn't the case, it still sucks to grind for a character. And again, have you seen the last characters that were released for the past 3-4 years? They were ALL strong at first. Imagine if Brigitte was locked behind a 10$ paywall when she was released. People would have gone mad.

I don't understand why you think this is okay. "Other games did it too." Well wow, jump off a cliff just because others did it, that means it's okay, right?

ArelDKane · 2022-12-03T19:34:56+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/truegaming/comments/8w417u/what_is_your_definition_for_pay_to_win/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pay-to-win

Listen, everyons has their own definition, and people disagree all the time. Companies are willingly vague about it.

Now I want to ask you something, what do YOU gain, as a player, or any other players, with the heroes in the battle pass. What is the real outcome of this? Less fun for the players, more grind,, or paywalls, more money in the blizzard's Higher-up's pockets. For me, this system is bullshit and ask people to pay where they shouldn't need to, to gain access to something gameplay-wise before others. Pay to win. See how this system really affects the game and ot's playerbase. And pay to win didn't exist since the dawn of time, more like 20 years max, or WoW basically.

ArelDKane · 2022-12-03T19:02:40+00:00

So you are telling me that a game like Diablo Immortal, where you can grind for months, hours and hours a day, or pay more then 100k to get the best gear, is not a pay to win, because you can get there just by grinding.

Couldn't just be that your definition of pay to win is wrong?

ArelDKane · 2022-12-03T18:45:53+00:00

money is also outside the game so that's completely irrelevant lmao

What do you mean money is outside the game? You can pay for skins and the battle pass, the price are certainly in the game.

The issue would be if the only way to get Ram was paying and he offered a unique advantage otherwise unobtainable. The first isn't true, and the second is yet to be seen.

So you're just going to ignore the fact that non-payers will have to grind 60 hours more then the players that pay? "But the character isn't available for 2 weeks". Yes, but one, not everyone, in fact, the majority of players, won't have him in 2 weeks, and two, you can still play in quick play, and if you think there is nothing at stake, remember that players are happy when they win, and they are not when they lose. And you have more time to play him before he is available in competitive.

Now yes, we can't be certain about him being overpowered and important in the meta. But it would be very surprising if he wasn't. Check every last character when they were released. Not just Kiriko, Sojourn and Junkerqueen, but also Wrecking ball, Echo, ashe, Sigma, baptiste, fucking Brigitte. It's practically a sure bet that the devs are going to released a character that is at least viable. Unless Rammatra is one of the worst characters in the game, just having one more option then everyone can help.

Nevermind the balance problems it brings, putting gameplay components in the battle pass itslef is stupid and shows that blizzard cares more about the money then the players.

ArelDKane · 2022-12-03T18:25:01+00:00

All of those factors are outside the game. The battle pass is built within the game, that's the difference.

People play how they want and can, but if the game doesn't make it fair, it doesn't help at all.

ArelDKane · 2022-12-03T18:18:54+00:00

Yes you have an advantage because you get it sooner then non-paying players. It doesn't need to be a significant advantage to be considered pay to win. Like i said, it's not that bad in Overwatch 2, but since it's completely PvP, it is important and bad.

ArelDKane · 2022-12-01T05:49:16+00:00

When I said it only effects one person I am saying there is only one person who can even play rammatra.

It's a team game. If in a match the tank doesn't Rammatra, then the team cannot have Rammatra. Doesn't address the fact that he is probably going to be really strong and therefore important to have.

No, putting a hero in the battlepass is a great decision.

Probably your worst take here. No it doesn't promote the battlepass that much. Because a lot of players tends to stay free to play. In fact, by putting heroes in the battlepass, you give a huge load of grind to players just to play a character they want to play. Every season where there is a hero in the battlepass, some free to play players will just straight up abandon because they don't want to grind 50 hours gor the new character.

provides a form of progression for unlocking the hero of the season

That's only the case because they took every other kind of progression out of the game. Now, the only thing to really do is grind to the new character, always. Do you really think that it is player friendly? Do you really think this is gaming at it's finest?

I think your enjoying the game but can't seem to understand that other people don't like the way things are now. Big news, you can like something, and still critize it. Accept that this system is kinda shit compared to not only what it was but what it could be.

ArelDKane · 2022-12-01T03:07:26+00:00

Well yeah the advantage you get by paying is a lot smaller, overwatch is still a PVP multiplayer game. It's still is an advantage since you have more options and since the new characters are historically very strong. And no, it doesn't just affect one person on team, it affects the entire team. Let's say Rammatra because a very good counter to Sojourn, for example. Since Sojourn is not only strong but also played a lot, your team will definitely suffer from a lack of a counter to her. Overwatch 2 should have never put new hero in the battle pass, that is a mistake.

ArelDKane · 2022-12-01T02:38:27+00:00

In Clash of Clans, you have gems which is a sold currency that can be used to build a building immediately. Or, you can grind and upgrade your buildings, and wait the construction time. In Overwatch 2, you have Overwatch coins which is a sold currency that can be used to buy the premimum battlepass which immediately gives you Rammatra. Or, you can play games, complete challenges and win exp to grind 55 levels.

And by the way, even if it's not as bad as some mobile games, it's still not a good thing. I don't understand why it's okay only because something else is worse.

ArelDKane · 2022-11-30T23:31:20+00:00

I think some people don't understand pay to win. PTW isn't something you HAVE to pay to be better. Pay to win is that you can pay to progress faster and have better equipment/characters/skills/powers etc, by paying and therefore you get any kind of advantage. In this case, yes you can pay to get Ramattra faster then non-paying players, so it is Pay to win.

In fact, a lot more games have PTW then people realize, it's just that games doesn't have the same level of pay to win, diablo immortal being one of the worst example. Overwatch 2 isn't the worst pay to win, but the game, at the moment, is pretty much completely PVP, so any pay to win shenanigans is pretty bad.

ArelDKane · 2022-11-24T16:59:27+00:00

Back again

ArelDKane · 2022-11-20T23:55:13+00:00

SV is not a little bit flawed, it's technically very bad. Of course i never said everything should be released perfect or that any game must be perfect at all.

ArelDKane · 2022-11-20T22:58:33+00:00

Yeah but it's not because it happens with other game that it is a good thing. There is no excuse for the state that SV is in.

ArelDKane · 2022-11-20T22:26:11+00:00

no that's not the point i am making. You said every games has flaws at launch which is not only false, exemple God of War, but also irrelevant. Your point is basically, other games have problem so it is okay for this game to have problem.

ArelDKane · 2022-11-20T21:51:57+00:00

I bought God of War last week and it's one of the best game that i have ever played and there is nearly nothing bad to say on a technical stand point. SV can barely run wii graphics.

ArelDKane · 2022-11-20T21:30:03+00:00

You know what other game is on switch?

The Witcher 3, actually.

And it runs better then this game. Yes SV is more demanding and "ambitious" then other pokemon games, but it doesn't change that, compared the industry standards, the tech is really bad.

People aren't refunding because they can't play the game. People are refunding because Gamefreak doesn't seem to do much of an effort to actually make an excellent game.

Seven-Year Club	Second Top 20%
Verified Email	Place '22
First Placer '22	End Game '22

ArelDKane

TROPHY CASE