This -will- be nerfed. (Hollow Hound)

Multiplayer Discussion
283

THe win rates are not as important as the specific mix of decks in calculating a weighted average because the win rate changes less than the play rates.

This is basic math.

More than double the play rate of your worst match up has a large influence on that “win rate” number than the change in the match up win rate.

This is false.

Bro, I already did this and you ignored it.

I already did this and showed you why you were wrong and you ignored it.

One more try. Assume that hunter wins 100% against everything that isn’t enrage warrior for ease of math.

The maximum influence of zero wins versus 4% of the game (enrage warrior) is 4% of the total win rate, so 96%.

But lets to the opposite of facts and make the win rate improve for hunter to 25% WINS instead of zero, but now warrior is 10% of the meta like top 1k. Would you look at that! HUNTER WIN RATE GOES DOWN TO 92.5 overall even when their match up into enrage warrior improved by 25%!!!

You’re welcome to recreate the match ups with a change of 5%, but (spoiler) that change is miniscule compared to the change due to play rate increases.

The biggest factor wasn’t the change in the match up, it was the amount of enrage warriors in the meta.

284

You did it for one deck. You have to do it for all of them to take a victory lap here.

(Because both factors are impacting things, and it only takes a 1-2% change to shift a deck’s tier, and hunter would lose a quarter percent win rate JUST from doing this to enrage warrior)

285

But don’t deny that you ignored it, lol, nice.

I don’t. I already know it’s true. You are the one who doesn’t see it because you don’t understand the maths proper.

The change from enrage warrior play rate alone is nearly a full% my, dude. (and that was clear from the example above when I showed you the math from the first time, proving again that you’re either ignoring the facts or don’t understand them, but those are functionally equal here)

Again, you’re the one who is late to the boat.

286

Yes, and the skill shift is nearly a quarter percent on top of that on a single deck.

It’s those smaller shifts that allow the meta to change in the first place.

The entire reason that 1 Mana nerfs kill decks is because they do small changes to individual matchups. That allows for the meta to shift in larger ways because matches that used to be slightly unfavored are now slightly favored.

287

… is one whole more than one quarter? So my point that the play rate is more important than the spread of the individual match up is true?

Again, my whole statement has been that the mix of decks is more the factor than the win rate of individual match ups, and you just conceded it.

Hound hunter isn’t different at top 1k, the meta is.

288

Skill differences have the same impact on the game. Small changes in individual matchups can have huge implications on what deck is best to run in large numbers, which then amplifies what the skill changes did to the win rates.

The most extreme cases are things like naga mage, which has like a 30% win rate in diamond across the board, but at top legend, according to the latest VS podcast, has no bad matchups.

Given time, if that catches on, wildly changes what decks are good to use in top legend in a way that can not be mirrored in diamond skill levels, and creates a new meta up there.

The skill drives the changes in win rates, which changes the deck distributions, which further changes the deck win rates.

It’s not working the other way around.

You are identifying the thing that’s shifting the % more, but are ignoring why the meta is different in the first place.

Without the skill changing the quality of the deck, there’s no driver for the meta to change in the first place.

When the best deck is the same at low and high skills, the deck at the top of the play/win rates is the same in both brackets, like it recently was with pure paladin.

289

You can’t measure skill with this data. I know everyone wants to, but you flat cannot. It’s insufficient to attribute the changes to “skill.”

While the bracket as a whole may be more skilled than a lower bracket, the performance of a deck is related to enough factors that aggregate data does not measure skill in the way you want it to. It’s about research design principles, and it’s not something that’s an opinion.

But that’s not a skill issue.

It does not work this way. It just doesn’t.

Look, you tried to tell us that there wasn’t an issue with hunter because your pocket meta didn’t have an issue with hunter. I told you that your pocket meta was wrong and here we are not that much later and (Shock!) now it’s your pocket, too.

My reasoning was that top 1k meta isn’t the final decider of anything other than to top 1k meta and that changes in what decks are popular have outsized effects on the topline “win rate” that people swear is the final word in deck power. Newsflash: It’s not the final word and in pocket metas like 1k it can be a bad indicator. Anyone who has taken rudimentary stats should understand how volatile averages can be.

Huh. Sounds like a pocket meta, not a winning deck.

Then explain how hound hunter seems to have trickled up this week… because that’s the flat opposite of your point.

You don’t have the first clue about what I’m telling you. I tend to think it’s just your stubbornness coupled with your lack of math skills, but it could just be pure obstinence or flat ignorance. Can’t tell causal information from the current data.

Preferences drive metas as much as anything. It’s a game. People like to play for fun. That’s a much larger factor than you want to admit, and “just play this enrage warrior like a top 1k player does” is not how one deals with balance.

But it wasn’t equally played, which changed a whole bunch of top line win rates for other decks. Again, you’re misunderstanding statistics and making conclusions that don’t follow from your data.

290

It’s not coincidental that in diamond naga mage has a terrible matchup against most decks, but when played at the highest ranks, it suddenly has no bad matchups.

If that’s not “skill” being directly measured, what is it?

No, it has nothing to do with the meta.

When a deck loses to say, priest, at diamond, but beats the same priest deck reliably at top 1k legend, that’s a skill difference.

It CREATES a new pocket meta, because now decks have to adjust to the fact that this deck is no longer a favorable matchup for them, but it wasn’t a pocket meta that is allowing naga mage to start looking like potentially the best deck in the format with no bad matchups.

Because it only looks like that when the users are on average, at the highest skill level possible, and know how not to lose to all of the other decks in the game.

The proportions of decks changing (the meta) doesn’t suddenly make naga mage flip their hunter matchup, or their priest matchup, etc.

Only playing the deck differently (I.e. skill) does that.

291

A pocket meta of exactly 1000 players, which I’ve explained to you before.

Skill isn’t measured in cross sectional data, it’s measured with longitudinal data. Skill is how well player x plays deck y, and that’s not what you’re seeing in “winrate” aggregated data.

You literally don’t understand what meta means if you try to make this claim. No. Idea.

Or is it that the skilled players are playing a different deck and the priest list isn’t the exact same list? Or is it the broader sample size of 100k more played games changing the data, especially when deck type is deduced from opponent’s deck like VS does it? Is there something different about the firestone sample versus the HS Replay data - which makes different numbers for VS and HS Replay? How reliable was your assessment? Again, there’s more here than what you’re understanding and you’re clearly not a data scientist about it.

I don’t think it’s nearly what you think it is, though. Show me the data you’ve got on it, but I don’t see what you are reporting… at all.

You aren’t reading what I am saying and understanding what I mean. It’s clear that you need to have your ego or you melt, so there’s zero chance you will ever understand maths enough to grasp this.

Dude, you’re now talking out your behind hole.

292

Metas don’t impact individual deck matchups.

The meta is the overall distribution. It is changed by the individual deck matchups.

Having everyone play DH in diamond won’t make hunter’s win rate drop, because those decks need to be played well in order to beat hunter.

It’s really clear that you don’t.

293

You keep repeating this, despite the math showing you why that’s not the point. You even conceded my argument to me, then went back to this rather than admit, oh, you might have been totally wrong.

This is not as big of a factor as the overall meta. Any one or two match ups are less important that the overall mix of decks when looking at “win rate” for any deck, which is the factor that influences tier of a deck.

If I told you a deck had a 70% win rate but was 2% of the meta is that deck as fearsome as a deck that has the same 70% win rate and is 50% of the meta? The variables move and looking at one of them isn’t the whole picture, you have to see the set to understand what’s happening. You want to tunnel on “skill” and you’re misunderstanding the whole show.

Which is where win rate comes from. It’s a weighted average of the individual match ups. The factor isn’t the match up so much as how often a deck gets that match up.

It will absolutely change the overall win rates even if the match up win rates stay the same.

Clearly, you’re missing what the “weight” part of “weighted average” means.

You keep making my arguments and then trying to contradict yourself as soon as you realize you’ve made me correct.

Dude, you’ve not got a clue here about the maths. My arguments aren’t specific to hearthstone, they are about math and how you don’t understand it.

294

There’s no math showing me wrong here.

You literally looked at enrage warrior gaining win percentages against hunter. Nothing is doing that but play differences.

Those changes happen all over the place. Naga mage gains win percentages on EVERY matchup at high skill play.

Mage isn’t getting better against priest because there’s more DHs (or any other matchup)

Warrior isn’t getting better against hunter because there are more DHs either.

Skill differences are most of why the meta is a different composition in the first place.

1 Like
295

Play rate has a bigger influence on changes in win rate than the match up spread. I literally calculated it and showed it to you. A five percent change in the match up is less important than the rate of that match up occurring twice as much.

The math does not back you up. You are flat wrong.

I showed you exactly why that was different, and that the win rate drops even if the match up were exactly the same at both levels. I even explained why.

You clearly don’t grasp the basic idea of how a weighted average works and why it is different than a plain average.

And I showed you, mathematically, why a few percentage points of differences in win rates is not as influential as the rise and fall of different match ups.

You didn’t measure skill. You can’t attribute causality unless you measure it, and you don’t have that with the aggregated data that’s available to you.

I don’t know how to make you see this point because you’re simply too obstinate to admit that you’re wrong, but you are making assumptions that aren’t supported by data.

My whole point is that “win rate” doesn’t tell you much if you’re just looking at a pocket meta, I’ve proved this with data, and I’ve explained the maths to you.

The only take away here is that you’re fragile epeen won’t let you allow factors other than your leet skillz to explain something, and that’s comical.

296

I’m astonished that you two are still going at it. Can we let this thread die?

297

Why would we, though? There’s nothing else interesting going on around here. Not like everyone is buzzing about this upcoming expansion or anything.

lol

298

Yes, but changes in matchup spread are what trigger the changes in play rates.

Decks becoming better/worse in a matchup happens first, THEN the meta comp changes, amplifying those effects.

Outcast DH can’t rise in diamond, because people aren’t good enough at the deck there. Naga mage also can’t rise in diamond for that same reason.

Those skill differences take a non-viable deck, and make it viable, which allows them to carve out a larger spot in the meta than they can at lower ranks. The change in matchup spread isn’t what makes outcast DH/Naga mage better. People playing it well does.

This makes it so the matchup spread changes, both to make room for the newly viable decks up there, and also to account for the fact that there are now extra decks up there that work that don’t work at lower skills.

Both of those things are lowering hunter’s win rate. There are brand new decks at top legend that have winning records against hunter. Other decks are gaining percentages vs hunter, AND those things happening lead to a different matchup spread (because the decks that beat hunter are the strongest in the format across the board).

ALL of that is equally important in understanding why hunter isn’t the best deck up there.

You just brush the skill differences away like it doesn’t matter, which is actually insane.

No, you showed a fragment that supported my argument. (That enrage warrior got better against hunter) that improvement against hunter encourages more enrage warrior to show up to amplify those gains.

Enrage warrior is less encouraged in diamond because the matchup against hunter is closer to a coin flip there.

Small changes in performance often lead to big differences in the meta.

So, your argument here is that the top ranked players in the game aren’t the best at the game.

Interesting take.

299

You should all shift your focus to the Mythical Terror, today reveled. Hollow hound on steroids. And in a class with more broken cards than hunter has.

1 Like
300

Mythical Terror is more expensive, doesn’t have cleave, doesn’t have rush, and doesn’t have Selective Breeder or Faithful Companion or Hope of Quel’Thalas or AaBJ or Stranglethorn Heart.

It’s not nearly as strong as Hollow Hound.

1 Like
301

Only 1 mana in a class with masive mana cheats.

Instead of 3 minions (or 2 with properly positioned taunts), it hits all.

Just hits all instead, which makes rush irrelevant.

But does have massive card draw, which is way better.

Fair point, but legandaries without tutoring are inconsistent.

We shall see. Not once was I wrong with card power predictions in previous years. Not even once.

302

So long as it can survive being hit by all.

Yes, hollow hound doesn’t hit everything, but it only takes the damage from one of the hits.

It’s definitely weaker than hollow hound in most common situations.

But, I don’t see DH moving away from unleash fel + SP, which works out to be stronger in many game environments where mystical terror kind of isn’t.