Alright so you know it, I know it, everybody knows it, paladin, druid, hunter, and demon hunter all occupy the meta right now with aggro decks since warlock has fallen off. I still personally think warlock is a tier 1 deck but people are upset over the Snake nerf and dropped it (I think other variants are now better than Snakelock).
So here’s my list of tier 2 and 3 decks.
Aggro Elemental Shaman
I think the gap between tiers 2 and 3 is relatively small and the bottom end of the meta right now is all fairly competitive, but the top end are all just super strong and there is quite a notable different between tiers 1 and 2, IMO.
What decks do you guys think belong where?
What does the title question even mean? Where is the line between Tier 1 and 2?
I’m not sure, but tier 2 decks would be 1 louder, wouldn’t they?
I forget the exact number, but usually you call a deck tier 1 when Data shows it is above a 54% win rate. Tier 2 is like 51-53%.
Could be a little off with my numbers there.
I personally hate this metric. People in the YGO community have tried to theorize tier 0 decks being “above 60% tournament representation” but the native issues with that is that if there are 2 decks in a format that are by far and away better than everything below it, you’re essentially in a double tier 0 format.
Here’s how I characterize the tiers.
Tier 3: Usable, has clear strengths and weaknesses
Tier 2: Strong decks with very little weaknesses, is able to play consistently well into its own gameplan
Tier 1: No discernable weaknesses, meta defining, has a very strong gameplan that is only broken by poor RNG (ergo, drawing).
Tier 0: No weaknesses, is rewarded with good card advantage or tempo for playing cards that are overloaded in comparison to the like-cards that are below it. Basically, if there is a meta where aggro dominates but this deck is able to generate card advantage while pressuring while every other aggro deck exhausts the tank, that’s being overly rewarded for the same gameplan and therefore forces other aggro decks out of the format.
Should also note that archetypes begin to melt away when decks are overtuned, which we kind of saw with the hunter class last format where it was an aggro, midrange, and control deck and did all of these things very well (I would argue it approached tier 0 pre-nerf).
I don’t see any tier 0 decks right now but there are VERY strong tier 1 decks. In a close metagame where the gaps between tiers are small, I think that’s when you can start applying metrics like winrate. Often times very good decks are gated behind a counter that exists and is otherwise very standoutish against everything else and they get relegated into a lower tier when in fact they are actually very dominant. This is the space I would put Odyn warrior before Snakelock nerf.
Cool. Tell that to HSReplay, they are the ones defining such things right now.
HSreplay isn’t an end-all and it’s clear with how often the decks fluctuate. It also ignores context. Gross misunderstanding of how statistics work tbh
FOR EXAMPLE, if there is a deck with an 80% winrate that doesn’t mean the next best deck is tier -50, it means that the relative power this hypothetical deck has is much higher than the ones below it, but when you look at the environment below it and how other decks compete with each other you get different stories. This isn’t a sentiment specific to any meta, this is a general phenomena.
But it is the only website labeling decks as tiers. If someone ever says “this deck is tier #” they are referring to HSR data.
You can convince me all you like of whatever else you’re talking about, but there’s no other reason to use the word “tier #” if you aren’t referencing HSR data. Not even the VS report uses tiers to describe deck performance, and I certainly don’t refer to any decks as a tier anything in reference to any anecdotal evidence I use.
…and Yugioh measures their games differently than HS. No reason to compare.
Took a peek past the ignore shield just to spot this absolute falsehood. HSR, VS, TempoStorm all use tiers.
You’re arguing semantics instead of context which already isn’t a very strong position to take especially when (1) the tier system STARTED in card games like MTG and YGO (2) tiers are in the zeitgeist of pop culture that was fostered via the gaming culture. It doesn’t make sense to say “well tiers mean something different in HS” when your basis for that is using HSR as a barometer when the nomenclature on HSR is in-line with how it’s used elsewhere.
Also the topic is getting derailed now. You could just contribute by saying what you think are in what tiers for the sake of, I don’t know, expressing your opinions on a meta that hasn’t strictly consolidated outside of the top meta decks right now.
A lot of data is also gathered via turnout. Last format I played deathrattle shaman. Want to know what data HSR had on that deck? Literally nothing. It wasn’t a great deck by any means but I had a some of consistent turn 5 to turn 6 wins with it at high ranks. I’m not going to concede that just because a deck has no tracked data (or very little sample size to even make a conclusion) that it’s outside of any tier or that HSR defies conventions of statistics overall.