True, but that doesn’t get factored into her stats.
The card is doing insane things for BSM given that previous versions were like tier 4.
If Skyla weren’t a tourist it might have been a tier 3 deck. My old build might have gone to tier 2 instead.
The other rogue cards are doing the rest of the work, and the deck isn’t even fully optimized to use Conman.
Yea and the metal detector is a better play on 3 advancing the game plan and potentially getting 2 mana anyways
I did the taboo “personal experience” before looking up the numbers, i did try to add the bit about the shill data as my penance xD
Let it be said that I’d do it anyway
Maybe I learn something along the way
Agreed
Finally got to play the deck, wen’t 3:0 into 3:2 and gave it up, shill wasn’t played a single time
There’s always something better
I obviously haven’t been playing, but I was coming to a pretty similar conclusion just looking at the individual card stats on HSguru. There’s a LOT of competition for cards that cost 3, and you only want about 5-7 cards, so 3-4 different picks. And Sea Shill, while kinda hanging in there, isn’t an obvious pick if we’re going purely by stats. The two copies each of Metal Detector are obvious, two copies of Watercolor Artist a little less obvious but still probably correct, but past that Shill is competing with a LOT of different 3s, and more or less tying.
Maybe the right answer is to run exactly one Shill. Or maybe running both is correct. Or maybe none. But the point is that I don’t think the answer is at all obvious. I think Shill should be understood as a 29th or 30th or 31st or 32nd best card for the deck, potentially cut-able to make room for other important stuff.
Those singular-card stats are often very sketchy; they should often be totally ignored; we have clear proof about it. E.g. the Shopper DH was the most obvious example of all time; the stats sites were showing Shopper the WORST card when it was the BEST card; it was obviously because it was tutored by the weapon but it was a very good example proving the stats methodology can go very wrong; but it might not be so blatant in other cases.
I haven’t developed a robust method to identify the problem always but I have a very good idea of a common cause of it in most decks (that don’t have blatant causes like the Shopper DH weapon); some cards are just AMAZINGLY BAD if you draw them at the wrong time and AMAZINGLY AMAZING if you draw them at the right time; the average of samples may not have enough samples or it may be extremely sensitive to skillful play.
Well, it WAS the worst card to draw and mulligan for. 5 Mana shoppers just aren’t scary.
But yeah, sometimes the card stats are definitely misleading.
Sea Shill just hasn’t felt like that strong of a card to me in practice. Unless it’s exactly accelerating Skyla, it really feels awkward to use. The other coin generators do the job of sea shill better.
That’s only because the example was the most blatant possible. There are various subtle ways to do it similarly; e.g. having cards that “generally draw” change the dynamic because some cards being bad to be drawn early may now not be that terrible; e.g. maybe something will tutor something and then that something may help a third card but it’s unclear which card in the chain will be good or bad on the stats.
Something huge I didn’t even mention is that those stats are HUGELY flawed at the opponent level; e.g. hsguru doesn’t even filter by archetype(of opponent); that means that in some cases you should effectively not even read ANY card stats but only the general deck stats because you have no clue which archetype was the opponent when an opponent class has multiple diverse archetypes.
It’s a little bit off-topic, but I don’t wanna create a thread to ask one simple question:
How would you explain that my average rank doesn’t change with or without mulligan data? It’s been 200 for 6 months now.
I’ve played with mulligan stats from Firestone for the last 2 months and my average rank is the same, although it changed my mulligan tactics for every deck I play, at least in half of the matchups.
How does that NOT impact my win rate at all?
It honestly seems that a better mulligan doesn’t make any difference at this stage, while I would expect it to make a huge difference. There’s a gap of like 6% winrate I need to break.
I am literally clueless about what to change in my gameplay to finally break this skill barrier and start averaging 100 or something.
You know I’m starting to be desperate when I’m asking you for advice
You play for like 12 hours a day. That’s your actual “skill rank”. I doubt you’ll find much improvement at micromanaging decks if you see cards ghosting over your eyes when you go to sleep at night;
Improve yourself; be less egotistical (“how dare you speak to me with what rank I have” is an indication you play worse than your potential); be P2W because I’ve seen no top 20 without all the cards.
Yeah, the popular big spell mage is a bit chaotic with card stats.
You don’t want under the sea sitting in your deck to be hit by under the sea or Surfalopod.
You often don’t want to naturally draw your big spells, sometimes you do, sometimes you need your tsunamis in deck to be drawn by surf or under the sea…
The stats on a lot of those cards are messy as hell with how all over the place the deck is on wanting)not wanting to draw stuff.
And don’t forget we often have tainted stats of ALL cards because the opponent may be very unclear (e.g. hsguru not being able to filter by archetype of a class opponent).
I think it’s more interesting that we sometimes forget much more easier methods: e.g. check if the deck is just very fast: that’s usually a deck that kills mid-ranged/combos.
After a point it needs some general intuition from experience: e.g. a slow deck has a lot of defensive AOE: that will probably control well any board-based aggro etc.
I’ve said it over and over. The power creep is too much and these are among the biggest issues in the game. I also find it difficult to come up with a simple solution. We either need something similar to a stat squish in WoW, or we could use a better system than “Core” set changes.
See, this is the difference between you and me. You will never see me construct an argument like this:
“…because I never saw” or “…because I never…”
That might be just a support argument, aka additional argument meant to support my main argument. In this case, you’re lacking a main argument:
Why is it not possible to be top 20 without all cards?
Where is that argument being supported by proofs?
Don’t bother answering - the question is rhetorical. Norwis hit rank 1 repeatedly without ever paying a dime.
So yeah, no. You’re way out of your depth here.
Do you have a source for that? In any case it’s just bad for performance to not play any deck on demand.
The main reason is composition of OPPONENTS; it’s about farming; if you farm you raise rank fast.
There are some things about competitive levels of play, such as this, that you either know or you don’t know.
If you don’t know, I’m not interested in proving it to you. If you do know, I don’t have to prove it.
There’s also the fact that I don’t just randomly spit facts which I can’t prove. I can still prove this, but I won’t, because no matter how many things I prove, the same few people (you included) still don’t believe me the next time I say something, so what’s the point?
Why would I prove anything to you? You have already proved that:
a) you have issues with reading comprehension
b) you have issues with focus (mainly, you have short-term obsessions so you try to make every thread and every post about whatever that obsession is at the moment, even if it’s unrelated to the topic)
c) you have issues with reading people.
I literally don’t know why you’re even trying to have a conversation with me, or anyone else for that matter, when you can’t stick to the topic, you can’t figure out what’s being said and who’s right or wrong.
EDIT: you just have to work on yourself a bit before you can enter serious discussions with people who have much more general knowledge than you. See, I’m not pulling ranks with you this time, although it’s a game, so the rank in this game should mean more than general knowledge.
No, I’m pulling actual lack of knowledge that you have which prevents you from having serious discussions because people you want to “correct” know much more than you and it can only annoy them.
For someone personally attacking people that they don’t have “comprehension” you sure have no comprehension of what you’re doing: we have no obligation to believe you unquestionably: that’s a fascist statement for no reason; sorry but I won’t believe you unquestionably; I will never apologize for it whatever spam of personal attacks you vomit next again.
Anyway: on topic: it’s still bad take to be f2p if you want to rank the best. Choice is power especially since you can farm the popular decks.
I have all the decks I want or need and I’m f2p.
So, another miss. Try again if you’re not sick of being wrong all the time.
No sure if what decks you want are optimal. We had you complaining for 2 days that the new mage is bad while you were still losing.
(Maybe you didn’t have the comprehension that you were playing a mid range deck and if you want to farm them you need control.)
That’s true, but it doesn’t matter. I’ve also played meta tyrants, decks people hit rank 1 with, and never broke the barrier.
It’s still about game knowledge, not deck choice.