HL sham was the end of the 4th tier as such any deck below it like HL DH is not in t4 and as such remains a complete report.
HL sham is better NOT worse than HL DH by THERE data. You have said yourself you pulled the data from another site that showed hl dh above this dose not reflect there data which obv showed it below.
All decks do have a tier just only the top 4 are shown. Everything else is t5 (trash tier).
Had NOTHING to do with representation.
No, it doesnt. HL Shaman is the worse deck. ANy deck better than it, with at least as many games played as it, earns a tier placing.
Considering they havent provided any data to contradict HSReplay, we just dont know. You are speculating.
What we do know is they had more than enough games to provide it a tier, and other sources have it performing BETTER.
INCOMPLETE REPORT.
HS replay we have shown that it dose have numbers quite a bit diffrent than that report as alreast proven above. 0.4% representation vs 2.4%. Mainly due to the dates the numbers where taken from. As such the winrate being quite a bit diffrent is not a speculation it is highly likly.
It is also NOT a speculation that HL Dh is worse than HL sham as it is shown on the vs report from the site you picked. Any deck not listed is a tier below t4 meaning t5. As such HL DH is t5 and worse winrate than HL sham by there data. That is not speculation that is shown on the report. If hl dh had a higher winrate by there data than sham it would of been shown this is fact. As such it is fact hl dh was WORSE than hl sham. As such report is complete.
Not necessarily. It could just as easily mean an INCOMPLETE REPORT.
Lets break down the criteria to create a tier list, shall we?
Representation. Yes, this is the MOST important factor. A deck MUST see enough play for it to be considered meta, and by default, assigned a tier. Decks without enough representation are off-meta decks. They are close, but just dont quite cut it when it comes to tier lists.
Performance. Obviously, the better a deck performs against the other meta decks, the lower (higher?) tier it will be awarded. That is not to say the the #1 deck, tier wise, is the meta-defining deck, far from it. We have seen enough occasions of T3 decks being the meta-defining deck to refute that. It simply means its got the best global win rate.
Rank/MMR. T1 at high legend could also be T2 in the pleb ranks. Proven time and time again.
What you are expecting of me is to believe that, despite a larger sample to go on, and better performance elsewhere, VS cannot assign HL DH a tier 'cos reasons? If after 150K total games they can assign HLS a tier, then you will have to do a lot of convincing to make me believe your speculation that they believe HL DH is T5. Its a completely fallacious claim.
so, again,
INCOMPLETE REPORT!
Edit: My main reason for calling out VS on their incomplete reports is largely due to their last wild report… Reno Shaman, little more than a meme in wild, earnt a spot on their tier list, while an actual good deck in Odd Rogue, they “guessed at”.
Guaranteed there are more Odd Rogue games than Reno Shaman, yet VS had to make assumptions for the better, more played, deck?!?! makes no logical sense.
Unless you have definitive evidence to support you claim of a incomplete report within THERE rules it is not this is fact.
As there data NOT the data you are pulling from other sites is what matters here. As such the data they have placed hl dh UNDER hl sham. As such it is under hl sham in tier and as such dose not fall into t4 that hl sham is the bottom of. This is fact.
As such it is not an incomplete report until you manage to prove that. Without there data you can not as such the report is complete. As it is there report. You can pick to not use that report but fact remains there report is complete within the rules they have placed on it. It is there report and there rules as such they pick what is complete or not, not you.
As such it is complete this is fact. You are only making yourself look rather dense claiming otherwise.
You can claim there report is false all you want but that means nothing. The report is true to there data and there rules as such the report is true. You can pick to not use there data if you wish as the data might not fit your rules for gathering data or what ever other reason you want. But fact remains it is not YOU but them that sets the rules for how there report is made and as such the report remains accurate and complete to there rules.
Unless you can show how a deck with more games, that is confirmed elsewhere as being the better deck, misses its place… Yes, its incomplete.
You, again, are assuming. Given the number of games played, there are inconsistencies. See my edit above:
VS is not the holy grail, as Marcos believes. They too post opinion pieces. They simply dont have enough data for much of their reports, or use OPINION to fill in the blanks.
Therefore, INCOMPLETE REPORT!!!
SHow me how their reports are complete when many of the decks with enough games played dont even make a tier rating?
If they have enough games played, they are a part of the meta. As such, the LOWEST of those is bottom of T4. Not the randomly decided deck the decide is the cutoff.
No, I said their report is incomplete. and it is. You are yet to show me how its not.
Representation, as I said, is the first factor when determining a meta/tier list. So, when lesser played decks, are worthy of being assigned a tier, then any deck with a higher play rate than said deck is also worthy of being given one.
no vs is not the holy grail but so long as you are correctly citing your source it dosent matter if it is the holy grail or not. It can be the most useless site out there so lnog as it is correctly cited. Its up to the person in question to judge if that data should be trusted or not.
The report in question thou is complete as the sites rules have set it to be. The site picks if a report is complete or not. You as a reader can only pick if YOU trust it or not. You don’t get to tell someone if there report is complete or not when there rules say that it is.
The report is not incomplete. They are complete within there rules.
No, its incomplete. You cant say a 1.5% play rate deck is more meta than a 2.5% play rate deck. Fact. If the 2.5% play rate performs worse than the 1.5% play rate deck, then it gets a lower tier rank… ITS NOT EXCLUDED!!!
There own sites rules state it as complete as such it is. You do not have the abilty to call it incomplete as you do not have there data. Pullnig from other sites do not let you all it incomplete as that is not the data set in question. You can only say if YOU trust it or not.
There report is complete as per there rules.
I call it incomplete because it is. I dont trust it by default, but Im not gonna sugar coat the truth!
IT is not incomplete it is complete as per there rules.
You not trusting it is fine and your right dosent change that it is complete within there rules. THEY set there rules not you.
What are their rules?
They dont follow the rules for accurate statistical reports, thats for sure. They cut out FAR too much, making their reports…
INCOMPLETE!!!
Great boys.
We’re arguing today about how terrible HL DH is. We already knew it was bad before the last nerf, and nerfing 2 cards it can’t cut certainty didn’t make it better.
go ask them how they make there reports and rules thats a subject for there fourms and there data reporters.
The report is not incomplete unless there rules say that it is. As it is complete by them it is complete this is fact.
https://www.vicioussyndicate.com/wild-vs-data-reaper-report-22/
Read this one, Razzy.
Convince me that they had anywhere near enough data to assign Reno Shaman a tier, while not Odd Rogue. They had, by their own admission, MORE data on Odd Rogue, yet couldnt confirm anything on the deck…
Now, convince me they provide complete reports
Non of that has anything to do with the subject at hand. Go ask on there site why that report was as such.
Again what matters is if the report is accurate and complete within there rules. As it was posted it was.
As such complete.
Complete is a definition given by the HOST and the report maker NOT the reader.
If it is TRUSTABLE is given by the reader. As said before. No I would not call there reports the end all be all of accurate and perfectly trustable data but never once said that.
Non the less the reports are complete.
Not when they are cutting much of the data they have gathered. They cant seriously expect anyone with half a brain to believe that HLS is a better deck than HLDH, yet they acknowledge the weaker deck…
Ok, the report isnt incomplete, its fallacious as its is missing crucial elements to provide the unbiased reports they were once known for.
True or false, its still better than HL Shaman?
Your precious VS is just as opinionated as TS is.
Yes I will agree there reports are bias at times.
Are they missing elements no as again if something is missing is defined by the report maker not the reader. ITs up to the report maker to pick if x goes into there report not the reader. Yes them picking that adds bias but that is within there rights as a report maker. The report remains complete and accurate within the rules if they do.
How trustable it is the reader needs to pick.