i concur. unlike before the nerf, my winrate now is at less than 50% (D4 to D1)
Isnt it pretty much the most similar style to the old blood DK? People absolutely loved blood DK and playing a slow grindy game trying to kill their opponent over 40 turns with that one thing that dealt 3 damage at the end of turn. I suspect all those people were former blood DK players who noticed they could relive the magic without crafting a bunch of new cards.
Absolutely not.
Plague DK (at least the version the topic is mostl likely about) is very fragile and lacks all that ‘tankiness’, healing and so on that blood DK is notorious for.
2 Likes
It is definitely dominated in usage. I beat it very often. It’s just boring to play against the same thing so much. It could be now that they changed “no duplicates” cards to be based on start of game, it will start to fade. But it hasn’t happened yet.
Ugh… And who exactly prevents you from climbing higher, where budget beginner decks — the only thing some of them can afford, perhaps — are less prevalent?
Have you even read the post where I listed probably the primary reason for the deck’s popularity?
A certain competitive niche in the ‘meta’ wasn’t even it (there you’d meet more of ‘rainbow’ DKs).
I finished at Diamond 3 before the reset, without trying very hard. Is that low?
Based on data report 12,7% of decks in D1 to D4 are death knights. Warrior is more popular.
Death Knight has taken a massive hit in its play rate. While the class seems perpetually popular at lower MMR brackets no matter what happens, its presence at higher ranks has nosedived. It’s almost irrelevant at top legend.
https://www.vicioussyndicate.com/vs-data-reaper-report-292/#tab-663602
1 Like
Diamond 3 = you are basically saying “I play at a low mmr and my opinion is irrelevant when I say that DK is op” (just after a patch nerfing it to the ground).
1 Like
For the most part, probably yes. The climbing experience depends also on the amount of bonus stars you have and such.
If you follow the link Makke provided above, it says that it is based on this many games from people with a deck tracker installed:
| Overall | 1632000 |
|---|---|
| Top 1K Legend | 53000 |
| Legend (Excluding Top 1k) | 562000 |
| Diamond 4 to 1 | 358000 |
| Diamond 10 to 5 | 270000 |
| Platinum | 154000 |
| Bronze/Silver/Gold | 235000 |
So by the end of the month (data collection ended on April 30), just over a third of players with trackers have made Legend, and just under 60% of players with trackers are Diamond 4 or higher. (In both of these cases I am weighing players by games played, so someone who plays twice as much counts twice as much.)
I wouldn’t say that you’re low, but finishing the month at Diamond 3 is extremely average. If you had the perception that Diamond 3 is high, it absolutely is not. The rank system is mostly designed with the same goals as participation trophies, it’s a lie to make average people think they’re better than they are so they are more likely to buy microtransactions. But being average without really trying means that you’d probably be better than average if you tried. 
don’t flatter, it’s someone complaining about an awful archetype on the internet. He’s below average while farming poor decks post ladder and still only made it to Diamond 3.
I already told him it’s a 47% winrate deck with 5% popularity (I was off a bit, turns out 7% popularity, and I nailed the winrate before the report came out). What more do you want?
I maintain that “average” is the more accurate description. I mean, technically someone in the 49th percentile would be below average, but that’s so close to average that average is the better phrasing. He might also be slightly above average. I can’t tell that much from his ending rank, it’s only an estimate.
That’s not even the point here (by the way, that data might be strognly biased — e.g. casual players are less likely to install a tracker in the first place; I personally do not, while I don’t think reaching Legend in modern HS is veru challenging).
If the guy finished at D3 while playing casually, most of the games probably were below D5, which even a deck that barely qualifies even as mediocre, such as that ‘loaner’ Plague DK in question (I assume), could probably reach, thus it could be quite common in that player’s climbing experience.
A second person getting on my case for not being mean enough to a Diamond player I called average? Something is horribly wrong with this community. If you want to keep pushing me to be meaner than I like, well, be careful what you wish for.
2 Likes
Nope, pointing out that you’ve excessively focused on a wrong aspect of the problem, in my opinion.
Once again: it’s not about where the guy ended up, it’s about where the bulk of the games were played — and that is probably the lower ranks.
By the way, the connotations of the word ‘average’ might vary.
It used to mean just ‘ordinary’, good old ‘middle-of-the-road’. In Swedish, for example, it’s still mostly a compliment, while being too good or exceptional sounds like a negative thing, especially to an average bozo (which is quite a controversial thing, to put it mildly, as well, but that’s another matter). In English, however, there’s been this tendency for creeping hyperbolisation (you are absolutely shocked if a cat suddenly jumps in front of you on a street, you’re starving if it’s time for dinner and your stomach gently reminds you of it etc), paired, I guess, with humongous narcissism in cases like this — think of the irony of factoids, from the repertoire of typical ‘British scientists’ studies (like those about navel lint etc), that, say, 85% (or something along those lines) of professors fancy themselves as above average. Thus, ‘mediocre’ has become colloquially synonymous with ‘lousy’ and not just ‘middling’, ‘ordinary’ and such.
In this light, depending on the viewpoint, terms like ‘average’ or ‘mediocre’ can be either a subjective insult or just a statement of an objective mathematical figure, more or less.
It’s about where he ended up. Because the actual data I had was not data on where the bulk of games were played, but on what rank the players playing those games were in the last six days of the month. In other words, I kept the standard fair instead of applying an unfair double standard, like you tend to do whenever you’re trying to rationalize one of your idiotic and untrue arguments.
Pick literally any task, and about 85% of people think that they’re above average at it. That’s what the Dunning Kruger effect is. For example, you believe that you’re above average in writing.
About 85% of the time, it’s both. But I was only really caring about the objective math part.
Is it?
The OP recounted his (or her) climbing experience, and that’s what it is about. What data your have or not is your problem. 
That is, applied something that no-one asked for, substituting the subject at your own personal whim.
I’d probably nominate this for a ‘The Best Self-Demonstrating Example of Double Standards on the Forums’, but who cares anyway.
Is it? If memory serves, it’s a bit more complicated than that, and that wasn’t even the point anyway: 85% being above/below average itself is quite a notion.
Ooh, and what data have you got to support your claim? 
Reconciling two mutually exclusive things simultaneously? Okay.
Is your ego actually so out of control that you can’t even register a burn, or are you just pretending that you’re invulnerable?