Your main advantage was that it was not registering on the highly memed VS stats. E.g. people are whining this patch that supposedly “75% of netdecks” got nerfed (“look at VS list”).
Nope; it’s not 75% of netdecks that got nerfed; it was 75% of the OVERPLAYED netdecks that got nerfed because people (including VS) make the mistake to require very big samples.
Feeling awful and being awful are two different things, of course I can’t tell you how to subjectively feel about the rogue. But there’s a lot of unconquered terrain, much more than what could be covered with just a few homebrew variations.
For someone who’s led by emotions, it’s a strong indication the class is just bad right now.
Well, I disagree. Rogue has one of the most diverse sets which allow for a vivid exploration, with many powerful cards. And sadly people tend to forget about cards from older expansions too; magnetize is still very strong and fun.
Mech is strong in good hands, but easily counterable, so it loses much of its strength in high legend + if you don’t draw some of the cards, you just don’t stand a chance. You play a weak control game and lose in the end because you don’t have a tempo swing turn.
And it’s the best rogue currently, apart from the Weapon and Cutlass monstrosities, which I predicted should be the strongest decks in this expansion. The thing is, I didn’t predict the Big Spell Mage freezing every turn.
And unfortunately for Rogue players, Mage is here to stay. The tsunami nerf was 45% a buff and 55% a nerf. It’s not enough, especially when you take into account other classes got real nerfs (well, apart from Druid, because as others have already stated, the Yogg nerf is a relative buff for ramping Druids).
Getting to high legend is a decent goal. That’s what I wrote earlier: When is enough enough? When I get top 5k, top 1k, or do I have to end up at #1?
I think a deck that can perform decent until high legend is a good deck. Especially if its a homebrew that can contest against all the refined meta decks tested and improved by ten thousands of players.
That being said, there are two types of decks: Decks that are well balanced against any situation, and Decks that are a bit more powerful against this and a bit less against that. Many decks wouldn’t see a win against the Big Spell Mage, but that doesn’t render them useless. It’s just one hard matchup that is difficult to win, but against all other decks that isn’t the case.
But there are other rogue decks that can be developed that don’t rely on single powerful mechs or the weapon. Or you could get creative against BSM if you notice that you face so many, that your winrate strongly depends only on that single matchup.
For instance, I’m sure BSM wouldn’t be too happy about Flik Skyshiv with Shadowstep and Dirty Rat.
Since some people are talking about rogue, and the topic of conman, I’ll throw in my 2 cents on conman in rogue.
I just messed around a few games as burgle rogue. I did not run conman.
The times when I won is because I can do massive mana cheats. Not with conman, but with sonya, and/or velarok, and/or with Marin treasure. Throw in bounces for extra effect/get to do it again in another turn.
I could never get it to work, but I’ve seen many rogues get wishing well to pop off.
Conman is similar to those things in that it also cheats mana, and it also depends on RNG in what other card you get to repeat.
But the thing is, at best, a single conman repeats a 10 drop. And you’re only repeating once card.
With the other stuff, you can potentially cheat more than 10 mana, AND/OR you cheat out more cards in a turn. The thing with tempo is that playing multiple smaller cards usually results in more tempo than playing one big card. (e.g two vanilla two drops at 3/2 is slightly more stats than a single yeti 4/5)
Sonya/Velarok turns may also include discover, which gives rogue more flexibility to respond to whatever it happening in the match.
No. Ranks below Diamond 5 have a win streak bonus, and are frequently subject to bonus stars from placing higher in the previous month. Even with no bonus stars, if you win 4 games in a row then lose 5, that’s +1 net and climbing at D6 and below; a full random 45.34% winrate or higher will climb. Diamond 5 is the first rank where you actually need a winrate over 50% to climb, which means that even if you aren’t good enough to climb through those ranks now, the mathematical bias of being more favorable than center will pull the good players out of your rank like some kind of backwards gravity, making those ranks much easier over time.
This is why I call all ranks below D5 participation trophy ranks, they’re mostly there for the illusion of challenge, to create a false sense of accomplishment. Those ranks do not require over 50% to climb, not even in the “second segment,” so I don’t take them seriously.
Why not? The 30 games they’ve just played aren’t going to be as representative as the 3000 they played before that. If you want to properly evaluate the skill of a player, you can’t have recency bias about it.
Kind of. The issue here is that we’re talking about a player vs player experience. Yes, you’re constantly improving, but so is your opponent. It’s not like a player vs computer experience where the opposition remains static and any improvement by the player is a net gain. Different players are going to improve at different rates, and at the end of the day that improvement is basically relative to whatever the average improvement is.
That’s exactly what I said. You won’t make it from D5 to Legend with 40% winrate.
Because like I said, people improve.
Easy example:
There’s a guy who practiced football, he used to miss 70% out of 100 shots. So he would only have a success rate of 30%.
Now, half a year later, he scores 7/10 goals out of 100 shots, so 70% success rate. This made him a champion.
If you look now at the overall success rate, you’d come to the conclusion that it only takes 50% to be a champion, because that’s the average if you track him all the way back. But this would be very misleading since his actual current success rate is 70%.
If you now say “Everyone and their mother can become a champion, all it takes is 50% success rate” then you’re underestimating what’s required. Statistically it’s correct if you look at all the games, but it gives a wrong impression for said reasons; so it’s mandatory to pull these numbers apart and see what’s really required.
Because someone else, starting at D5, having a 50% winrate, won’t make it to Legend. And he would say “But why, the other guy did it too with 50%”. And then you’d have to explain what I just explained above. So it’s better to be clear from the very beginning instead of mixing things up in a misleading way.
No, you said that you can’t make it from X to D6 without a 50%+ winrate. But you can, so that’s false.
Nope, you cut off the last part of the sentence:
This was the short version of
Hence the word current.
Player starts at Diamond 10, 0 stars, rank floor, after just having lost a match. We’re going to calculate the minimum winrate where no loss streak takes him to a lower rank than he had at the end of a previous loss streak.
Player wins 8 games in a row. The first two wins give him one star each, to Diamond 10 2 stars. Each win after that gives him two stars each: to D9 1 star, D9 3 stars, D8 2 stars, D7 1 star, D7 3 stars, D6 2 stars.
Player then loses 13 games in a row. This takes him down to D10 1 star, which is higher than D10 0 stars.
Player then wins 8 in a row then 13 in a row again. He maxes out at D6 3 stars, drops down to D10 2 stars.
Player then wins 7 in a row, then loses 11 in a row, ending at D9 0 stars. Then again, wins 7 loses 11, D9 1 star.
Then wins 6 loses 9, twice. Ends at D8 0 stars.
Then wins 5 loses 7, twice. Ends at D8 2 stars.
Then wins 4 loses 5, twice. Ends at D7 1 star.
Finally, we’ll have him win 4 in a row to finally make D5.
That’s a grand total of 64 wins and 90 losses in the current segment, with a winrate of 41.56%, that nevertheless had a continuous climb. Granted, that’s a rather extreme example, either worst case or very close to it, but the point is that a win streak bonus means that there is no requirement of 50% winrate for the current segment.
On average, the breakpoint for climbing in a win streak bonus (participation trophy) rank is 45.34%. Not 50%. This means that even the slightly below average players are climbing out, and the average skill level of the rank decreases over time, making it easier later in the month.
You’re talking past my example. I separated the time from D5 upwards in order for the statistics not to become misleading through bonus stars.
If you are at D5 right now, and you’re currently winning 4 out of 10 games on average (40% winrate), you won’t make it to Legend. It’s simple as that.
You are moving the goalposts.
No I’m not, you’re by cutting off the sentence - you just did it again.
Quote the full phrase:
Notice the word current as in “after reaching D5”.
The goalpost were that no matter how worse or good you played until D6, as soon as you reach D5 you need a winrate higher than 40% in order to reach Legend.
On average, someone climbing from Bronze to Diamond 6 does not improve more than the average player improves over the course of the climb. Like I said earlier, you’re not improving relative to a static computer enemy, it’s relative to human opponents who are also improving. So really there is no net improvement advantage, unless you’re a statistical outlier (weird). It’s also possible to be weird in the other direction.
I already explained that the main part of improving for homebrew players comes from developing, refining and learning their newly crafted deck. The curve is much higher than only learning how to play a premade deck with tons of guides available.
But that’s anyways a different subject. No matter whether or not you have a big or small learning curve, you can’t get around the fact that you won’t make it to Legend from D5 on with a still 40% winrate.
The vast majority of homebrew experiences fail, and fail miserably.
Not mine, but that’s anyways off topic.
No, I don’t. I called you full of crap. I stand by that. Show us your stats or quit making up stories.
You’ve presented yourself as having created a unicorn deck, but don’t have any evidence.
No one is denying that you make your own deck or that homebrew is a thing. Schyla, who you have been attacking, is among the better deck builders on this board.
No one is upset about you being a homebrew person, we’re calling bullcrap on your assertion that you’ve made a unicorn rogue deck.
This is 100% wrong. Rank isn’t considered at all in the match. Doesn’t matter if you have bonus stars, are diamond, are legend, are bronze - you are matched solely by MMR now. You only face people with approximately the same MMR.
The more games you have played on your account, the less your MMR will move at all. There are hundreds of people if not thousands that have the exact same MMR as you. Your MMR doesn’t move like you think it does. If you beat someone at your MMR, neither of you gain or lose anything.
You’ve never been to high legend, so you can save it.
Oh but it does. I play jank in wild… and never see anything but homebrew jank. I’m higher ranked in wild than I’ve ever been before… and I still see mostly bad/off-meta decks.
I laugh at people when they get so hung up this idea that it must be a netdeck if it shares cards because the choices are limited. There’s actual data behind what cards work and what cards don’t, so good deck builders will converge on similar answers very quickly. You seem to ignore the fact that every “netdeck” was a homebrew before it spread.
If your homebrew was even fractionally as good as you say it is, you wouldn’t be the only person playing it.
This is not true. I asked them to show us their stats from their tracker and they haven’t supplied anything.
We are curious about their deck, they have shrouded it in mystery.
Even you should doubt anonymous new users who claim to have homebrewed a magical unicorn rogue deck, as if rogue - the favorite class of the top meta - isn’t already iterated to death by top players hoping to make it go to break up the zarimi priest fiesta.