Bigger samples are “better period” only at statistical significance. I’m talking against BARRING COMPLETELY entire archetypes from even being informed of their existence.
Around 80 samples aren’t nothing statistically hence there is great value in low sample sizes when we still investigate new rarely played decks early into patches.
Because it’s not good. It’s too easy to counter if you’re even remotely competent and not trying to race it.
This is a skill issue.
This deck sucks. The only good thing it does is showdown beam combo with giants and zilliax.
Handbuff pala doesn’t need any nerfs it’s strong deck but nowherenear as good as like oberheal priest which badly needs nerfs.
Funny how this priest main goes for paladin witch hunt while priest needs to be nerfed. XD
They seem to nerf too late after collecting stats much earlier. I bet they have much better stats than all the third parties because they log all the games; their nerfs always seem backed by stats; but they may be out of sync in terms of where the meta has progressed at the time.
That priest was on my radar from hsguru 2 days before the patch; maybe they should also look at only ~100 samples for early signs; unless they promote priest on purpose because Blizzard is known to have a culture of doing bad balancing decisions to make it “exciting”.