i literally never won against flood paladin xDD its gonna be fun facing them on the climb to legend again xDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDd
ecksssss deeeeeeeeee 
1 Like
what would happen if you played flood paladin then? would you never lose?
1 Like
The deck is dumb; I was playing that deck a lot; I’ve gone legend with it without star bonuses. The deck is like those Blizzard bot decks with mechs; they are a test against decks that do nothing good for a few rounds; they will kill anything slower without much good defenses.
Basically you can ruin it with some AOE; a single clear after round ~5 usually means the death of the paladin; decks without AOE can also kill it easily if their stats are better or they combine that with some smarter clearing.
1 Like
Flood Paladin isn’t even the problem.
And they can’t nerf Flood Paladin anyway, since it’s the deck that hard counters Handbuff Paladin, the bigger and better deck.
1 Like
That deck is actually worse than flood now. Most people got wind of what it does and the tech cards are usually a handicap since the meta is not just concierge druid and rogue now.
I see signs that even excavate is better that hand; it makes SOME sense; excavate has at least some surprise spells when handbuff is the least surprising deck (at least flood is fast).
2 Likes
I’m sure this Thursday the report will come out to show, once again, that you are wrong. And, once again, you’ll deny deny deny.
This person is not in the Top1k Legend bracket, so go look at climbing to legend like they are looking at doing and you can clearly see Handbuff Paladin is still one of the best decks in the meta and Flood is far inferior.
3 Likes
You don’t need to fanboi for ZachO; anything they say is through their own bias; you can do your own research without my help.
Just go hsguru; go to the meta stats; do some alternating filtering (it’s subjective how you filter which makes VS subjective).
You’ll see the meta has aggro usually higher than handbuf; even exca is rarely better; don’t dismiss all low sample sizes.
Yeah, that’s why your data is bad. You are purposefully filtering so that Handbuff Paladin doesn’t show up rather than just looking at the data as is.
We’ve already been through this. Like that time you tried to push for a deck to be really good using 50 games of data trying to act like an 80% deck win rate was a real win rate to consider.
Or, you can just go to VS Live and see Handbuff Paladin is the 2nd best deck at all ranks.
You can’t argue against that honestly no matter how hard you try.
1 Like
Ah the usual cause of death of the common gaming forum thread; the strawman; they can’t answer with arguments so they start imagining the talk to a monster that doesn’t exist.
I said do multiple types of filtering; you WILL see your handbuff higher in some cases too; but it’s very often that it’s not.
E.g. Aggro is often higher even on the low brackets you mentioned; you can filter 10-20 ways at least; PS I like to not dismiss low sample sizes of like 100 games because I consider them a good enough sample size if the archetype would be otherwise completely hidden.
1 Like
This is exactly what I said you were doing, which you said was a strawman, which you then in turn admitted to doing.
Thanks for confirming.
We’ve already been through why 100 games is completely absurd and you don’t acknowledge why it is.
Either way, aggro is not the problem in this meta. Aggro can be dealt with and countered fairly easy and needs to exist.
Flood Paladin should not be nerfed at all.
1 Like
It’s dumb to drop all those results. I know your god ZachO does it too and it’s dumb that he does it; that’s because that way you don’t see entire archetypes in metas that might not have that many players; that’s especially valuable information early in a patch when few people try the best new decks.
I have formal training on statistics; 100 samples are not nothing; it’s not amazing but it’s not nothing and it’s a good start in a new patch when we still investigate new ideas.
yes but im not a bad boy, im a good boy that doesnt play netdecks
I don’t think handbuff is doing as well as it was, honestly. I wouldn’t be shocked it dropped a tier.
It’s not a bad deck, but the meta isn’t very favorable right now.
It is, but that doesn’t make handbuff still great.
A lot of what makes Handbuff great is how it keeps stuff like Insanity Warlock in check, which is a deck they love to play at Top1k Legend.
Handbuff Paladin will not be seeing any nerfs as long as Insanity Warlock is around.
But Insanity just got a slight nerf, so I can’t see Handbuff Paladin doing worse. And it is slightly favored against Painlock, which is also one of the best decks.
Its almost impossible to lose to paladin as a shaman. If you’re having problems with paladin switch to shaman.
2 Likes
It’s not better than flood in various contexts. E.g. Flood is clearly higher on the Diamond-Legend and Diamond-1-4 on the current default meta pages of hsguru. I like to do custom filtering there and I see even further information support that handbuff is pretty mediocre under several conditions; e.g. on the top of legend it’s probably just Tier 4 or 5 now (no paladin deck is good there (including flood)); in some rare cases excavate beats hand and I have a good idea why because I was very experienced in all 3 decks: at least exca has some surprises from the excavation generation unlike handbuf and flood which are the most brutally predictable decks in the history of card gaming.
People mostly play Holy Paladin now
I haven’t seen a Flood Pally in a month
Handbuff pally…is talked about much more often than seen in game
2 Likes
Yes I did notice the appearance of Pipsi Pala in the highest of legend stats. It’s probably the highest skill-ceiling deck of pala since it has some complex choices with the spells.
It doesn’t seem very high rate on the top 1k; but it might be a top 20 deck in reality; like those high APM rogue decks that nobody could play aside PocketTrain and friends.
1 Like
I am not a big fan of setting magic numbers as arbitrary cutoff points. There’s only a very small difference between a sample of 99 games and a sample of 102, but one will get published by VS and one won’t. There is nothing statistically significant about the number 100.
The core problem I have with the “alternative facts” that Carnivore, Altair and others are pushing is: bigger samples are better. Period. I mean, if you can demonstrate that there’s a significant bias, maybe you throw one set out, but what we’re fighting against are people who are inverting the concept of bias, labeling any data that doesn’t confirm what they believe as “biased” in a cheap and baseless effort to discredit it. No, by “bias” in data we mean tangible, clear indicators that a sample is not sufficiently random, like using the tracker side only — something that the HSGuru they like to cite always does, and which VS does NOT for popularity data, and which VS filters out of winrate data as much as possible.
VS numbers (not their editorials) are by far the least biased of any competing site, and they probably have a larger sample size than any individual player.
1 Like