The most likely explanation is that VS’s archetype definition algorithm identified opposing Sludgelock decks as another existing Warlock archetype, most likely Insanity. It’s hard to get enough data on an unpopular archetype, but it’s even harder when most of its deck list is in common with a deck that IS popular, making it harder for the data combing robots to distinguish between the two.
This would mean that VS counted your games, but they didn’t count them as Sludgelock.
They had almost the same list for months on their stats, which means it’s in their database
I’ve changed like 2, maybe 4 cards from Habu-Gabu’s list
It’s still much more similar to that than to Insanity
If you have an algorithm which classifies decks into archetypes, and if that algorithm takes a deck without Encroaching Insanity and puts it under “Insanity Warlock”, then that’s a terrible algorithm and the stats are terrible.
There’s also a possibility that your data was simply unidentified and thrown out. VS brags that their algorithm identifies the archetype of over 95% of opponent decks, but that’s not 100%. The raw data includes more games than they actually use, 1-5% is thrown out.
They’re not necessarily going to be perfect regarding low popularity archetypes. It’s totally possible for them to include a good definition for an unpopular archetype, ignore a definition for a slightly less unpopular archetype, say the definitions are good enough and call it a day. They probably quit as soon as they break the 95% mark.
I just remembered, yeah I only changed 2 cards from the list Makiah published everywhere, which was analyzed and emphasized in a VS report when a Warrior was broken and Sludge was its best counter
I added Yogg and changed the Zilliax to another one, that’s all
Granted, since then I’ve made 1 more change (flame imps out, Pupils in) but that’s irelevant, sludgelock was missing in both reports
I might be biased because I’m the one playing it, but if I brought it (multiple) times to top 100, and play it in top 1k all the time, I’d say not putting it again and again in the report is a mistake.
And worst thing is, it will be in the next report, but not my version.
Looks like someone made a DK tourist version of sludgelock without the fatique package.
Not only is that deck totally different than Insanity, it’s probably made by some known streamer who will spread the word about it soon enough
They can’t change they are not the game Devs, and their sample has always the bias of “data sourced from the clients of the people who happen to accept to opt-in to giving us their personal data or don’t know how to opt-out”.
You could stretch it and say “but they might in the future be given that data in some kind of Blizzard API to download all the played games” but until then only the Devs have it.