I kinda see what you’re saying
but have you considered that forumers lose more often to decks they see often than to decks they see less often?
How does this affect the complaint they give about “not seeing a deck, so it must be bad” or “deck is weighted too good because play rate is only 2%” arguments?
Most decks are below a 5% play rate. In Top1K Legend, only 5 decks break the 5% play rate. This is seemingly ignored, and they complain that a deck with a 2% play rate is somehow insignificant in the meta data.
To put this in perspective, this is like playing 100 games, seeing a deck 5 times and saying “This sees lots of play! Good deck!” and seeing a deck 2 times and saying “This barely sees play, must be bad”.
Seeing a deck 5 times in 100 games is so miniscule. This isn’t the meta of yestermonths where we saw 10-25% play rates. But somehow, that 5% and that 2% is weighted heavily for them as if that is some crazy big difference.
The cognitive dissonance is pretty strong.
Well let’s imagine someone who is very intellectually lazy. They might vaguely understand that there is some way to understand which decks are good, but they’re not going to do the figuring out themselves. The single most basic implementation of this “others think for me” strategy, is that if that is the deck that most of my opponents picked, well, they must think it is good, therefore it is good.
I think the most “lizard brain” take on deck power possible is that it’s simply equal to popularity. It’s not right, but there’s a certain, I don’t know, neanderthal comfiness to it. It makes you feel like people are smart and you’re copying people so you’re smart too. The problem, of course, is that people are not smart.
2 Likes
And for a good reason - its not a normal situation. Its a product of 2 strong balance patches and it will last for more day because of the mini set.
Maybe you forgot what a normal meta looks like, but VS archives havent.
For months you had 20-40% playrates being normal (reno warrior into dragon druid) and the next 2 classes had most of the remaining playrates.
Why would that be the case? Math doesnt lie. I dont lie.
If the formula you gave me is the one they use, then this is a neccessary conclusion. I just simplified it to turn it into a heuristic.
My previous position was that popularity matters more than you think (and more than their tier lists seemed to show, before i knew the formula), and that position is unchanged.
In fact, now its proven, because the formula used literally says that the higher the popularity of the deck, the higher its non-mirror winrate.
Gravity also proves that, just as the earth pulls you down, you pull the earth very slightly up towards you. But we ignore that second part because it’s insignificant. I already told you that the effect was safe to ignore.
(Maybe I’m talking Newtonian gravity, whatever, it’s just an analogy)
You can call it lizard brain, but what it actually is called in science is System 1 (intuition, quick rules of thumb, heuristics, biases) and its the literal only thing which experts in an area hold over the others.
Its a heuristic. I know its simplified, but its more true than not, and thats something which you unconsciously accepted when you accepted their data as objective.
So the joke is on you, mr “i despise lizard brain, i smart, other stupid”, as you have continuously fought to defend the very formula that proves what you so vehemently denied.
Top 1k popularity is the single best predictor of the deck strength.
Its a bad analogy. It doesnt work.
Nothing insignificant about popularity when it is the literal only variable which impacts the deck’s winrate, as per the formula.
You dug this hole, not me. I admitted i was wrong. Is it so hard to do the same?
So Reno warrior is the 5th best deck in the game? You just made fun of someone in another thread for playing it and here you are inadvertently saying it’s strong.
You’re all over the place in what you believe.
1 Like
I swear you guys just love the drama. It doesnt even matter who is right or wrong as long as you can duke it out on here.
So many interesting comments or questions get ignored while you argue over who’s interpretation of the data is more meaningful xD.
Make your case and leave it at that. No one is changing their minds especially when the discussion is filled with personal attacks on both sides. 3 or 4 people are having a good time fighting and the rest of us dont even want to engage in the threads when 90% of the comments are this ridiculous back and forth that is going nowhere
Several back and forth messages to make your case and have a discussion is reasonable. Hundreds of messages is just a trainwreck
1 Like
I was making fun of the fact that a bronze player is playing their own homebrewn deck, and saying im happy i didnt help a reno warrior enjoyer because i hate warriors in general
Got Nothing to do with its strength, and even if it had, i still made that post before i got to read this formula and interpret it.
For how long do you intend to keep this smear campaign going? At least post sources next time so i dont have to bother replying
Im pretty sure others can read properly, even if you cant
You don’t need to be here. You could just avoid clicking on the thread with triple digit replies and go have your “reasonable” discussion elsewhere.
So the real question is, why do you feel an authoritarian impulse?
1 Like
If you mean the stream sniping allegations, didn’t he quote you admitting it?
But I don’t have the quotes in front of me right now so I can’t confirm it.
because you all are posting off-topic which breaks CoC?
The vast majority of my posts in this thread are on topic, either directly using VS #303 data to drive conclusions, or explaining the validity or applications of VS Data Reaper reports generally.
There has been a lot of ON-TOPIC back and forth debate.
I’ve largely stayed out of this debate in this thread because it’s so dumb on many sides, but I want to point out here that there are different ways we can mean/interpret insignificant.
Decks seeing 2-5% play rate in just about any meta are not going to get nerfs and aren’t significant enough to tech for. Are there a stack of good, fun things that win lots of games that fit inthis 2-5% play rate? If yes, they this is a balanced and healthy meta, so anyone trying to look deeper is dumb.
If no, it usually means there are a couple of things being played way more that reduce the viability of stacks of other things, and thats when balance needs adjusting.
The current meta is great for diversity. Lots of things to try and one’s personal preferences are the biggest thing driving deck selection right now, at least from my chair.
The rest of the discussion is (self gratification).
1 Like
Its not an authoritarian impulse; it is a desire for a healthy forum community.
You regularly complain about trolls and such, but they are the people you respond to most. It seems what you really are into is the rush you get from this hunt
There are just way more personal attacks than necessary on both sides
2 Likes
He’s a very smart person, but he often enters the forum on a mood and starts posting very aggressively without much meaning.
Late night boredom posting I guess?
1 Like
Do I? Provide more than one example.
Lets just use this as an example as a flagrant attack on another forum member by the person supposed to be keeping the thread from devolving into this kind of b.s.
Im not spending anymore effort helping to derail the thread
I like all of you guys fine and digging up the dirt is not worth my time. You know what you say and anyone else paying attention know too
1 Like
Meh, I’m done with this anyway
I’ll just be correcting senseless mistakes from now on and move on
One of them being the author of this thread defending the very formula which proves his mantras wrong, and not admitting when they’re wrong
But let’s also not forget how their friends go around in groups bullying people and smearing them
Low quality people, low quality posters, mods aren’t doing the great job if this is allowed to happen.
But let’s also be fair enough and admit 99,9% of the forum deserves it just for being silent and letting this pass instead of grouping back at them to teach them a lesson and humble them.