VS Data Reaper #303: Shaman Supremacy Edition

And that still doesn’t change anything in my argument.

The number of games (37000) which goes into a denonimator while calculating winrate doesn’t change, so my argument about the law still holds.

Even if that number is just one fraction of the total number of games that enter the equation, it still doesn’t change this.

So where do we go from here?

I now advance my argument to a greedier version: I now confidently know that:

a) Rainbow Shaman’s winrate is exaggarated in the report, and
b) the report is biased.

Please, keep telling me how my experience is wrong, without playing and without finding proofs against it other than a biased report?

It really should.

You have no evidence for this conclusion.

Every report will be. VS is the least biased I’m aware of, and certainly less biased than Altair Reports, Inc.

Gladly.

1 Like

Which part of the law do you not understand?

I’ll cave when you present to me the complete formula VS uses to decide the Deck strength, if it proves I’m wrong.

It’s very easy to prove it if you present to me the formula.

All we have to prove is that the Deck strength score doesn’t negatively correlate with the total number of games recorded/presented to us. That’s all.

If it does, however, you are objectively wrong.

Look, I even put the ball on your own side of the court, statistics. Go find me that correlation score.

I know what I’m saying when I said this whole saga was because Altair can’t admit he can’t play the deck very optimally so he labels the deck bad.

ZachO often says dumb things but the deck is played well on the top ranks; lower win rate on low ranks; hence it’s a high skill cap deck.

The most important element that makes it sensitive to suboptimal play is that Razzle-Dazzer has multiple ways to be “fed”.

There’s a difference between “not playing optimally” and “playing so bad its winrate dropped to 44%”

When I pick up other meta decks, the winrate will fall 1, maybe 2%, not 10%.

Yes, I don’t play the deck nearly as optimally. No, the deck is not good at all.

I don’t know how your brain works so I’m not going to judge further, but personally I’m VERY aware that Razzle-Dazzler is an extremely sensitive part of the deck. It can be “fed” in ways that can turn a board from a 4 minions Razzle-Dazzler to a 7; I fully expect beginners of low ranks to be completely useless at it; not surprising that the win rate drops as the rank …drops.

1 Like

It makes no difference how many of them you spawn

If they have AoE to clear 4 of them, they have AoE to clear 7 of them.

You play it on turn 6 no matter what if it’s in your hand.

If they don’t have a clear, you won. That’s how the win rate changes; if may happen only 1/3rd of the time that their luck is out; but 1/3rd of the time is 33.3% extra wins.

So many strange things packed into such a small space.

What does it even mean for your luck to run out? And where are these numbers coming from?

Never had a bad draw that left you with low defenses? The numbers are figurative, because I said “if” and “may”.

https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1400/1*7yFVNaCmj2RxwP0Y13LXtA.png

No.

Lol xD

You have to compare the odds of drawing more different spells in your deck through N turns with odds of them not drawing their aoe clear in those same N turns

And I assure you, the odds of you drawing 4th or 5th different spell from your deck are much lower than of them drawing an AoE if they didn’t already have it.

So your best expected value in the long term is to drop it ASAP and get the tempo, if not the value.

You still can’t just throw numbers like that.

What are they mean to represent? In this dream scenario, I am right, but am unaware of the real chances of it happening?

It isn’t much of an argument.

1 Like

I dont think the winrate for rainbow shaman is exaggerated. I think its a decent deck to climb with. However i feel like if people started to tech against the weapon it will struggle. The windfury weapon really carries the deck

Yeah but instead of 33% it could be 60% or 2%. It doesn’t mean anything because you (Carn) have no data.

Additionally, the more the deck just throws out Dazzler hoping it sticks, praying for no board clear, the LESS skill intensive the deck is.

1 Like

Not only what you said is random guesswork: it also depends on the 2 decks. Fact is this game makes you lose a lot of the time by just having some extra bad luck,

it’s about giving that extra push; 2 extra 5-mana minions are huge on the board; they may actually feel they are 10-mana worth and they drop on round 6.

Fine, we can do it the hard way.

From the formula, we can prove that the number of games played by a certain deck doesn’t change that deck’s strength.

If it does, well we can also check how. Does the increasing number of games played by that deck decrease its’ deck strength, or does it increase it? Or none of those?

So? where’s the formula?

That’s a very dumb thing to say. Those decks in general spawn in an instant multiple complex minions (they often have active effects you have to be aware of); they are not beginner friendly decks; or if you think they are beginner friendly: you don’t know the decks.

And that’s the least of it in this case; the “feeding” of Razzle-Dazzler itself has a higher skill cap; I’m personally VERY aware I can’t play it even near optimally because I’m not perfectly aware of what the opponents do or will soon do.

The more you have of something, the lower the value of the next additional unit of that something to you.

It’s a basic economic principle, universal for any type of resource.

You even see it in the card costs. Summoning 3 silver hand recruits costs 3, summoning 5 costs 4.

That means you paid 1 mana for 2 (0,5 mana per hand) while until then you paid 1 mana for 1 (3 mana for 3 silver hand recruits = 1 mana per hand)

It’s everywhere.

No, it’s not about the extra push. It’s about resource management, and yours, is a bit lacking in foundations.

But thank you! I haven’t enjoyed like this for months. To find someone so lacking in foundations correcting one of the top players, that’s really rare xD

Curious, too. I wonder how that’s even possible?

Honestly, the deck isn’t that intuitive.

A deck that was similar but actually intuitive was Drum Druid.

1 Like