No, they aren’t, which is why very few actual good players post here. We have like 3 or 4 ACTUAL, certifiable, good players (top 500 quality) who post here…
You aint one of 'em!
Maybe realise that you have made a really bad entrance to this discussion by attacking a very good player who is well respected on these forums by most.
Pull your neck in, turkey.
You are not as good as you believe. The data aggregation sites DISAGREE with your stance that Rogue is “in a good spot” ATM. Yet you keep doubling down on it.
You are wrong, and you made the biggest mistake of coming in as a newbie to these forums with an attitude.
I should not, because unlike Schyla I never claimed that because I didn’t manage to achieve something, it must be unachievable.
Then I congratulate - you’re one of the many people who didn’t understand the recent changes in MMR. They work like a rubber-band, but only short-term. You can’t run 60-70% Winrate and still be matched against bad players.
You come across like Schyla’s 2nd account definding yourself. Everyone with two eyes and a functioning brain can see that he attacked me, not the other way round.
In Germany we have a proverb: “What you shout into the forest comes back to you”.
If you can’t stand to be attacked, then don’t attack first. Simple as that. You want a civilized discussion? Then discuss it civilly.
Say it 10 more times, maybe it will become true (it won’t).
Nope, it doesn’t. All it shows is that there’s currently no popular rogue meta deck because nobody developed one. I already explained that earlier in the thread.
Do you even notice how much unnecessary stuff you add to your posts all the time? There’s zero substance behind what you say so you keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again.
“ooh you’re wrong. You made a big mistake. Very big mistake. With that attitude! Big websites disagree with you. All of 'em! Fly away fly! You’re wrong, yet you double down. Have I already mentioned how WRONG you are? Yeah, because I said it, right now, right here, god is my witness. Boyyy, you can’t believe how W R O N G you are. You know the thing you said? Yeah that thing. Yeah guess what, it’s wrong. Very wrong.”
Schyla doesn’t want to actually argue with you on this. He probably reckons it would be tedious. I don’t disagree. But I am more willing.
There are two things you might be missing here.
Runs can be broken into segments.
Every run from D5 zero stars to Legend can be broken into two parts. The second section begins with a two wins, never has losses ≥ wins, and has 16 more wins than losses; this is the actual climb. The first section is of arbitrarily length (zero to thousands) of games with losses ≥ wins, during which the player clung to the Diamond 5 rank floor.
While it’s obviously true that a deck needs a winrate > 50% during the second section, this is not true about the first section. Because of this, it’s possible to average the two sections and get a winrate below 50%. If you have a deck that won 40% of the time purely randomly and lost the other 60%, then eventually it would have a lucky streak with 16 more wins than losses and graduate from D5 to Legend, a temporary winrate over 50% despite the overall average being lower.
This, however, is my point. I doubt it’s what Schyla meant. I think what he meant was…
Politing skill exists.
When a site says that a particular deck has a certain winrate, that winrate assumes an average pilot. An exceptionally strong pilot with a mediocre deck combines to a somewhat strong winrate. For anyone who has Top Legend piloting potential — and mind you that many of the people with this potential do not care to actualize it, they get their pack reward for hitting Legend then stop caring — it’s pretty doable to hit Legend with a Tier 3 or even Tier 4 deck.
Schyla has, in word if not in deed (I wouldn’t know, I’ve not spectated him much recently), a predilection for Tier 3 decks, homebrew, and Priest. He probably would have Top Legend results by now if he didn’t have such a fondness for subpar lists. He probably meant this (not #1).
What Scrottie is trying to say but as usual, the argument is skewed by a poor interpretation, is that it doesn’t matter what deck you play. What matters is who you are matched with.
For example if you queue a class ( lets say druid ) and you lose 8 out of the next 10, if you remember which classes dunked you, and you queue one of those, chances are you will win at the same rate or more.
Basically, decks rarely matter, classes / matchmaking matter.
People can get to legend with tier 1 or with tier 5 decks, but most of the people getting to legend think it has something to do with the deck, and thats a skewed perception.
It really doesnt matter what deck you play, only the class.
Considering the crapstorm that might be coming after this post, ill just say this :
Statistics dont matter to the individual.
The matchmaking is as random as who is or isn’t behind you when you get in line at the grocery store. Which is to say, technically, it isn’t random at all; it’s not like anyone rolled dice to decide that Grandma Jenkins would be in front of you in line, and in the same way there’s no RNG function called to match you with a similar skilled player who just happened to queue up around the same time that you did. Matchmaking is determined by a score that attempts to measure skill based off past results (MMR), and by time spent in queue; neither of those involves pseudorandom number generation. But it’s not rigged; the matchmaking is not considering your class nor your decklist.
I do believe that things like who’s in front of you in line at the grocery store, while being “random-ish,” do have some degree of legitimate patterns. For example, there are probably times of day which are more likely to see Grandma Jenkins, and ladies like her, visit the grocery store; and I think that there are times of day where the Hearthstone queue is more “tryhard” and difficult than others. I believe some of those patterns may be counterintuitive, and/or counterproductive to the desired gaming experience. But I also believe that for every 1 of those patterns that are real, there are 10 superstitions that are false.
No, you really should. You are trying to convince people that you’ve created the perfect rogue deck and win way more than anyone else playing rogue… which is a pretty impressive feat considering how hard many of the top players are willing to work to make rogue go.
No, I don’t think you understand that divorcing matching from rank means you can continue to destroy bad decks all the way to legend without ever having to run the D5 gauntlet.
I would bet money your personal match doesn’t match the overal top meta because you aren’t really seeing much in the way of meta decks because losing to one or two of them brings you back to your homebrew friends. As long as you beat three homebrews for every two meta decks, you will make legend if you play enough.
I haven’t done the simulation, but it will very quickly over a couple of months start to cluster homebrew and meta decks into separate piles and your wins are more the product of that phenomena than your mediocre piloting skills.
It all depends on who you beat and who you don’t, but you don’t need to win that much to make legend.
The difference between your skewed perception and my reasoning is that your assumptions have 0 evidence or logic behind them.
You are assuming theres some magic mmr that doesnt care about classes.
Its like assuming that people creating kernels for linux are just throwing random lines of code and assume it will work with anything they put inthere. Thats a faulty line of logic.
Devs actually know what they are doing. its a corporate programming code, the whole game, not just a part. It has set rules that abide the current ideology which is capitalism, which follows the one golden rule → MUST PROFIT.
Even though i said i wont be getting into random debates, i will clarify it a bit.
Since its a corporate product with the QA / QC departments working on this product, the main reasoning is to induce people into buying packs / store items. Powercreep cards make packs most attractive, but for a healthy game economy you need balance, which comes from balanced classes before anything else.
Balanced classes mean that classes need to have 50% win / lose rate +/- some percent.
Games are decided by the draw / mulligan, which means Blizzard has control over every aspect of the game.
I’m not saying its rigged, its the same situation like with the nature. It kills indiscriminately and the same thing is with the engine behind Hearthstone. It grats wins / losses indiscrimnately. For example in nature you have the set of physics rules, in HS you have the set of coding rules.
If you have any questions, do ask them, but try to put some logic behind them, not just asumptions.
The core flaw in your reasoning is that you’ve made an assumption that you cling to, probably without realizing it. Your assumption is “chaos can’t be a form of control.” You look at randomness and what you see seems useless, harmless; you don’t see all that there is to be seen. You don’t see the potential that RNG has as a tool, a weapon to be wielded.
Casinos don’t need to rig. Blizzard doesn’t need to rig. Randomness is addictive and manipulative. Randomness is powerful. They know how to harness chaos as a tool of corporate control.
Keyser Soze said that the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he doesn’t exist. You don’t believe in the demon of randomness.
You do realise that the same thing can be said about you right ? that you dont believe in control. The only difference is that i gave you the path and the tools to follow the logic, even though you may not have the tools to understand.
There is random though, its not 100% fully locked controlled environment, and the random is in that +/- percent that allows class win rates to go up and down, but as soon as the % reach the set quota in the rule, the engine adjusts it.
One of the reasons why people are so upset is that they meet that system auto adjust.
Im not sure if you can grasp the actual concept here.
When the system autoadjusts, that means that players choices have 0 value, and their decisions dont mean anything, hence why you see so many people that are just spectators / mouse clickers to their games.
Later edit : Casinos are rigged, hence why all the card counters and strong maths skills people are banned in casinos.
Let me give you the little dirty secret.Nobody is gonna say it outloud cause it would piss off alot of people that have alot of money, and it wouldnt help at all.
In every heavily corrupted country theres a casino / a bank / a pharmacy / a pawnshop for every block of flats and that you can check on google maps. It’s been the standard recipe since a very long time.
To me rogue has two design paths these days… scam and combo… Scam isnt doing so good (although I guess that new spellburst rogue has some promise) as all the scam cards are overshadowed by mage/druid doing their thing.
Combo (which for rogue requires a lot of APM) isnt for everyone. To me it isn’t fun casting 15 deadly poisons over 2 minutes or whatever sonya combo you’re running. I think they claimed griftah rogue was one of the best decks in the game prior to the nerfs but it wasn’t for everyone… so I assume there are good enough rogue decks but people just prefer not to play them.
Another problem for rogue is that rogue probably has the worst defensive offerings of any class in the game now so when scam is strong rogue doesnt really have the tools to defend itself (I hate rogue but give them a ‘mass sap’ vanish reprint…actually dont because I really hate playing against scam rogues and I want nothing to enhance their standing)
Obviously, but it doesn’t change what I said. If you played 1000 games from X to Dia 6, and you improved over these games and you refined your deck, so that you finall reach Diamond 5 and start winning more often than you lose and hit legend, you (current) winrate is obviously over 50%.
You don’t review the deck or the player on the entity of his Hearthstone career. You look at a somewhat representative timeline in the present. And someone who hit Legend can by definition not have a winrate of 40% anymore. He had a winrate of 40%. Only because the Decktracker contains all the old numbers. That’s a big difference.
My last homebrew had <50% when I reached Diamond 5 because I generally develop decks and prototype them in ranked which drags down the stats of a given deck; I however was mainly done with all the prototyping and refining the deck at this point and, starting at Dia 5, I won 13 out of 15 games.
https://ibb.co/Hd1rrcj
These are the stats when I reached D2, so even though I won 13 out of 15 games, it brought my deck only to 50% at this time because I had to even out all the defeats from when I played the earlier unfinished versions of the deck in ranked already. I hit legend one hour after with a 55% winrate.
So that first part doesn’t matter, and you usually don’t count it. Because improvement is a thing, no matter whether it’s the player himself actually getting better or the deck was just not in its prime yet - or both. You’ll of course have a learn curve even with your homebrew decks.
He didn’t mean that because we’ve been talking about homebrew decks.
I never did that. It was again Schyla claiming that noone else wins this much with rogue. I said that there are people doing that, they just play homebrews.
Do yourself a favour: Go to HSguru and see which rogue decks are currently available. You’ll have a good laugh, because it’s only two, very old ones. There isn’t even one in the meta right now. So without any present deck being publicly available you can hardly said it failed.
You confuse netdecks with homebrews. If anyone holds the burden of proof, then it’s people claiming that homebrews don’t exist and that you can’t play what’s not on the list.
You’re pointing at the sky, saying “look, it’s not blue” and then ask me to prove it’s blue.
How about you sharing your failed homebrews with your stats? Maybe we can have a look together at what’s wrong? I assume you have several homebrew rogue decks with hundreds of games and at least 10+ different variations that back up your claim that rogue is in a bad spot.
It does not. The only thing that changed is, that if you are stuck on a checkpoint - let’s say diamond 5 - and you lose 10 games in a row, matchmaking will short-term match you with people from platin or even gold, that seem to share your current MMR. But if you then win 2-3 games, it jumps back up to default. The other way round, if you win 10 games in a row, you’ll get much stronger opponents from above; again short-term. As soon as you lost 2-3 games, you’ll be back to default. That’s the rubber-band mechanism they introduced.
I wish that would be true, but there are so few people playing homebrews that you unfortunately almost exlusively meet netdeck players. Only in high legend I came across homebrew players more often.
Nope, it won’t - but this is a good point. The absence of homebrews and the enormous presence of netdecks is proof that it doesn’t.
Legend can be bruteforced with a low winrate, because of the rank floors. E.g. an illegitimate bot playing 24/7 will easily go Legend with only 30% win rate because it will hit multiple winstreaks inside the thousands of games it spams (a bot is an extreme example (legitimate players playing for many hours daily can do it similarly on 40%)).
This is true, and everyone in this convo already knows it’s true, they’re just pretending it’s not because it suits their argument.
They all know I’ve been winning in high legend with sludgelock for 6 months, while 95% of the reports didn’t even contain Sludgelock in it because it was just me playing it.
It’s not a homebrew, but it proves the point that if it’s not on the data website, it doesn’t mean it’s not viable.
As for the rogue argument, I’m afraid I’m going to have to take their side. Rogue feels awful now, and yes, I have tried a few homebrewn variations, as well.