You are literally always nerfing the few decks that are fun to play and you leave braindead decks like handbuff paladin and painlock untouched, even though stats these decks perform the best among all ranks.
I really dont get this balance team, every patch makes the game worse.
Handbuff is more or less bad for most of the ladder since it doesn’t have much win rate on the top ranks. Pain was better for a while but it also seems to be lower win rate now.
The weirdest thing about this patch is that they basically killed ramp druid completely because while it was slightly better than others it wasn’t at all a “lone tyrant”.
It was the best performing deck in top 1000 Legend in the most recent VS report.
That’s only because those players chose to play it. They could have easily chosen a different deck which is just as good if not better. Idk why so many people are sheep only thinking and believing what they are told, meanwhile the wolves lick their gums
By “best performing” I mean highest overall winrate. Vicious Syndicate is literally saying that Handbuff Pally is the best deck in Standard at the highest ranks.
Right, and my point was it means nothing.
Zach is both right and wrong in parts. In the latest podcast he correctly identified that the deck is bad on the lower ranks(outside the very top ranks) if you add the tech cards that nerf the mana of opponents; then he said (and he laughed while saying it) that it was ludicrous how someone went Legend 1 with 8 tech cards since he was probably playing in a very segregated “micrometa” of his peers that allowed those cards to be good.
Then he proceeded to suggest to just play the “old deck” without any tech cards at all because the tech cards make it bad for anyone outside the very top; that’s a bit contradicting; with 0 tech cards the deck doesn’t seem that great outside pre-Diamond when I filter at hsguru for more than 10 days now (PS the subjectivity based on how you filter is always high because you can even filter for your Region specifically).
I’m not talking about their worthless talking, I’m talking about the hard data. Winrate is not opinion. Handbuff Pally is the #1 deck by winrate, in top Legend, in the most recent report.
It’s not hard data. It’s subjective filtering, on a biased sample.
It’s as hard as data gets, with the possible exception of mysterious Bigfoot data that you’ll never see.
They choose a subjective set of filters and categorizations and groupings out of thousands they can do, and their sample is very biased since it’s only collected from the players who play against the users who choose to share their personal information.
And they never talk about regions; e.g. my region and rank micrometa may have a lot of rogues and concierge druids; if I don’t put tech cards in handbuff it would be foolish but they suggest I don’t.
handbuff is a fun deck
Literally what are you even talking about. These are like the ravings of a madman.
There are not a thousand different ways to calculate the winrate of Handbuff Pally in top 1000 Legend. I can admit that there’s more than one angle of approach — for example, you can go the “raw count” approach or you can go the “sum of products of matchup winrate and opponent deck popularity” approach, getting slightly different answers each time. But this is not subjective stuff, it’s math. There are a very limited number of valid approaches.
Edit: VS uses the “sumproduct” method when it publishes. Regarding the “raw count” method, I can, with a lot of math, reverse engineer approximately what that result would be, if you’re interested.
Calling people madmen and then admitting it’s subjective …OK. And that’s not the only way it’s subjective. E.g. they call decks “Tier X” when the thresholds are completely arbitrary set by them; e.g. they believe ignoring the Region is good when I find it pretty bad because the sample sizes might be enough; E.g. why are the non-opponent data always useless?
This is true regarding the boundaries between Tiers 1&2 and Tiers 3&4. It is not arbitrary for between Tiers 2&3; the boundary is 50% winrate, nice and objective.
However, this “arbitraryness” is not a VS exclusive, it’s been part of the overall Hearthstone community, and the overall phenomenon on tier lists, for a very long time.
Perhaps most importantly, Tiers have NOTHING to do with ANY of the discussion on this thread prior to you bringing it up. Handbuff Pally is the best deck at top Legend as of the most recent VS report, regardless of what Tier you put it in. Technically, that report covered 8/14-8/20 so we’re talking about a timeframe in the recent past, but due to the lack of balance changes implemented since then, it’s safe to assume not much change, if any.
I partially agree and partially disagree with this. If players are rational, then they would use metagame information from other regions, researched through to the Internet, to inform their own strategies, to include which deck they choose to play as. However, this is a big “if,” and the answer to whether they do this or not isn’t really no, it isn’t really yes, the answer is “sort of.” In terms of whether it’s closer to yes or no, I think it’s closer to no, although it’ll always be some mix.
So yes, I agree here that separating data out by region would be a substantial improvement from the perspective of informed competitive play. HOWEVER, from the perspective of balance, I don’t think it really matters. Blizzard isn’t going to nerf a card in one region and leave it unnerfed in another. For balance purposes, combining all regions makes good sense.
Useless isn’t the word I’d use. I’d say contaminated instead. They introduce selection bias into the data, therefore increasing bias in the subsequent analysis.
I said “always” for a reason. There are cases that data can be very useful. E.g. it’s good if hsguru includes them when you want to check the “archetype stats” page because at that page you’re not looking for what deck to pick but how the cards compete with each other inside the archetype (Draw/Mulligan/Kept impacts); it can still be a bit contaminated; but it’s probably less important when you don’t even have a sample size (especially a problem for the newest or/and less played decks).
Tracker side is ALWAYS contaminated by selection bias. ALWAYS. Opponent of tracker isn’t.
There is ALWAYS a sample size. A complete lack of data has a size of 0.
If it looks like the Sorcerer’s Apprentice change will be permanent I’ll temporarily reinstall Hearthstone to delete all my cards.
But why though? Seriously