This is my only account as well. I have never logged in to anything else. I’m as honest as I can be.
1 Like
The Frog has always been The Frog. Multiple accounts are for inferior humans.
4 Likes
You should have abandoned handbuff about 10-15 days ago when about 3 to 5 other archetypes had higher winrate. “Just stats” is something others learn to work around relatively fast and the mana nerf tech cards were often a handicap if your personal “micrometa”(in your specific ranks) didn’t have many card generators (and your meta is hard to to derive unless you reach top 50 in this game).
In fact AGGRO paladin appeared better for all these days; that’s because it’s at least fast and many other people settled to playing very long games; better yet do the “unthinkable” and start combining your copy pasting skills with some homebrewing (after all the best players in this game both netdeck but also understand what cards to switch to (which is partly homebrewing)).
1 Like
…OP as in power level, not popularity.
You yourself said
Popularity is different subject, so looking at the whole class is fair game.
But you know, even if we only talk about decks, ok, then paladin is 6th or 7th out of the top 10 most powerful decks
I mean, if you look at many many other things on popularity, top 10 is usually the cut off. It’s an arbitrary cut off, a judgement call made by whoever is making the list. Note: when I say arbitrary I don’t mean like they’re thoughtless or irrational, but that they aren’t objective facts
This leads to another thing I want to say… your obsessions that other people are “denying facts” or suffer from “brain rot” or whatever.
You’re confusing facts with interpretation on facts.
Paladin is 6th or 7th. They’re played around 3-4%. Those are facts. I don’t think people are seriously denying them. e.g it’s not like people are saying paladins are 1st in popularity or that they have 20% play rate.
But whether that means paladin is or isn’t popular are interpretations. They’re arbitrary judgement calls made by individuals.
So when you to say
Is actually nonsense. Contrary to the saying, facts do not speak for themselves. The data doesn’t “prove” anything. Data just sits there. It’s up to a person like you to interpret that to mean paladins are or aren’t popular (or whether they need nerfs, etc). YOU are saying that paladins are or aren’t popular. I’m… not actually sure if you are saying they are popular, because you say they are “as popular as it is” instead of just a yes or no assertion.
This is why some people say tier lists and metascores are meaningless, because those too are interpretations. The people who come up with them may say they’re using math and calculations, but read again: some people come up with them. Those people made some judgment calls that which data is relevant or not, and which formula(s) to use.
Put it another way: tier lists and meta scores are the opinions of “the experts” on VS. You know, the same kind of “experts” you’d mock and deride if they posted their takes on the forums.
Well, if you want to make it more clear, don’t say “as popular as it is”. Just say they are popular or not.
It also would help to not use so much flowery language and inserting personal attacks (e.g the entire thing about denying facts and brain rot and dishonesty, etc). All that stuff is unnecessary and frankly irrelevant if not a distraction from the facts.
The self congratulatory posts between you and Scrotie? Yeah those don’t help either. To put it poorly it looks like you two are in your own little bubble. Your hope that others reading this thread will somehow see the light (haha, light, paladins, me make pun)? Yeah I suspect it might not go as well as you think it would
3 Likes
This is an objectively false statement.
10-15 days ago is Aug 15-20.
VS Report #302 is proof that Handbuff Paladin was the single best deck in Top Legend, and a Tier 1 deck in other ranks, for the period of Aug 14-20.
We don’t have high quality data for after Aug 20. If you want to say things have changed, that’d be one thing. But you’re not talking about right now, you’re talking about a timeframe we have records on. And somehow you picked almost exactly the timeframe covered.
1 Like
if everyone is super, no one is…
Brilliant!
Whole reply is brilliant. I was busy proving things, but this works better, especially once the proofs fell on deaf ears
1 Like
For the timeframe covered in the most recent VS report, it is #1 in winrate at top Legend, #6 in Legend overall, and #5 in Diamond 4-1. So I consider #7 to be an objectively false statement; it is 6th or better, depending on context.
For the timeframe covered in the most recent VS report, that is demonstrably false.
For the timeframe covered in the most recent VS report, Handbuff Paladin was in the top 7 decks according to popularity. 4.42% in top Legend, 4.09% in Legend overall, 4.49% in D4-1. So not 3-4%, but 4-5%.
I didn’t make those posts to help. I made them for fun. Stay mad.
2 Likes
5th according to my, objective version of the tier list (the one they call Meta score and you keep denying although it’s more objective)
The reason why it’s more objective is because it takes both winrate and popularity into account, instead of just one of them.
And the reason why that matters is because decks that people in top 1k play are played for a reason, because they work, and others do not, so not taking popularity into account at all is an arrogant mistake which implies that the best of the best players of the game are ignorant and prone to self-sabotage.
That’s why it matters and why you’re objectively wrong to side with Schyla. Also, his desperate attempts to prove me a liar reflect back on you, because of that (not that you need any help with painting yourself the same way, twisting the truth and my words as you did that day)
2 Likes
Not really. You guys are failing to differentiate between data and analysis. The ordering of decks from highest winrate to lower, or how often tracker players encountered each archetype, is not subjective; that’s data. The decision on where to separate Tier 1 from Tier 2, or how many tiers to have, that’s analysis, and is subjective. Meta Score is, in my opinion, in a third category of complete nonsense trying to pass itself off as data, but if you want to toss that in the analysis pile then go ahead.
I am a fan of Vicious Syndicate data. I have gone to their Discord, I have asked them many questions, argued with them. I understand the methods they use to calculate and I approve. Their data is good.
Their analysis, on the other hand, I’ve never been a huge fan of. The most important part of the report to most people isn’t the numbers because, let’s face it, the vast majority of people are mathematically illiterate — which is synonymous with not being educated in statistics. Most people read the words in the report, the editorializing, and VS’s editorializing is… well, significantly better than the kinds of takes commonly seen on this forum, on average, but still far from perfect. VS can and has made statements in their report which are directly contradicted by their own data, because calculating the numbers doesn’t mean that you actually remember them when it’s time to write the report.
1 Like
Winrate matters. Popularity matters (because winrate matters, and overall winrate is the sumproduct of matchup winrate and opponent deck popularity). But winrate times popularity doesn’t matter.
By far the biggest problem is the formula. I get that what a lot of top players are trying to get out of a VS report is something predictive for metagaming purposes. They aren’t going to read a report published on Aug 22 then go back in a time machine and play during the Aug 14-20 timeframe that report covered. Because winrate is the sumproduct of matchup winrate and opponent deck popularity, they want to know not what their opponent deck popularities were but instead what their opponent deck popularities are going to be. So the hope is to come up with some grand unification theory which takes the previously observed popularities, factors in some concept of “gravity” — the willingness of players to keep playing a deck if they already play it, or to switch to that deck among all the other options if they stop playing another deck — in order to create a predictive model of what popularities will be in the near future, boiled down to a single number that can be placed nearly on a chart.
I get the intent of the system.
The problem is, that intent doesn’t matter. The goal that is wished for doesn’t determine the value of a system. What determines the value of a system is it’s output, and you’re never going to get a useful predictive number by
- Substituting the concept of Power Score for “deck gravity,” when Power Score itself is just a nonsensical transmutation of the winrate statistic, and
- Simply multiplying that number by popularity to get the answer, as if the formula for every phenomenon is just to simply multiply two numbers together.
Meta Score is unironically Terrence Howard level thinking. Y’know, the 1x1=0 guy. Granted, VS isn’t trying to find 0 here, they’re trying to find future deck popularities. But the core of Howard’s folly is thinking that simply multiplying two seemingly important numbers together will yield some breakthrough that will revolutionize the way we think about the world. It will not, because that’s not how math works.
And as cool as it would be, there will never be a formula for “deck gravity.” The pull that Hearthstone players feel towards or away from deck archetypes is fundamentally subjective. It’s like trying to calculate future marginal utility, it’s just not going to happen. Hari Seldon is science fiction.
My comment was about popularity, or play rate.
Again, play rate is not win rate.
I wasn’t talking to you. I was talking to Schyla.
I have that Thalnos “I don’t even know you” face right now. You’re just making stuff up. Or to put it in your words… you are failing to differentiate fantasy and reality 
This is more for Schyla: this is the sort of personal attacks I’m talking a out.
Other way around. That’s what I’m saying to Schyla, and a lot of the stuff in your post I ALREADY agree with.
The data is 3-4% or 4-5%…WHATEVER. Doesn’t matter which really. It wasn’t the point. I’m not arguing that, nor do I think the others in “you guys” are.
The analysis, which is what Schyla has been arguing, is whether that is “popular” or not.
1 Like
I like how you completely ignored this part:
Top 1 to 6 by winrate, top 5 to 7 by popularity. It’s a top deck by both metrics.
Give him a break how to you expect him to maintain the illusion if you keep asking uncomfortable questions.
We should all take him at face value because he says so, nevermind that he posted a bunch of decks with negative win rates that he says are the best in the meta(unlike those VS idiots he knows better thank you very much).
Dont you try to take this away from him, might be all he has.
1 Like
If I thought Altair was truly a bad player, then I’d have to think that I’m a bad player too. Because I’ve played games with him, I think the matchup should have been even if the players are evenly matched, and we matched games in the series. In defense of my own piloting skill ego, I defend his. If he is around 2k right now, it’s because he’s slacking; he could rather easily do better.
I don’t just challenge someone, have them accept my challenge honorably, and forget that honor. I don’t care what else that they do, it won’t wipe that out.
Hearthstone piloting skill isn’t statistics though.
They said themselves it was mainly because of the tech cards in specific isolated metas of specific ranks. The deck was all over the place outside those niches.
I can tell you were not playing it.
One of the few mercies the almighty has bestowed to humanity.
One of you is already too great a burden to bear.
2 Likes
Both are true.
While It isn’t underplayed when compared to the rest of the game.
1 in 20 isn’t a very high chance to find something.
So the real question here should be “underplayed by what standard?”
It also show that what we consider diverse maybe isn’t that much diverse since the 6th most played deck can only be found around once each 20 games.
It was a good read but the answer created many New questions.
1 Like
This is what often bothers me about VS, personally.
We will be in an OTK meta, and they’ll call the format low lethality because the deck manages to live to turn 8 to OTK you.
While kind of ignoring that if you make the meta lethal enough that the turn 8 OTK is impossible, nothing else can really exist past that turn either.
Because the VS guy only plays very slow control decks. Well he plays others, but only when he can’t find a very slow control deck.