Oh thank God the meltdown is over, on to more important things.
What the hell is this …You drop a shadow like and dont even jump in the waters deep on insanity???
Are you even worthy of the mantle anymore???
Change your avatar to something boring and bland.
Thats what you are this days, white bread.
What a hypocrite you truly are at the end. You gave speeches on having changed after coming back from a ban only to go back on your ways.
You are getting reported here and I don’t see myself believing you again. Hypocrite.
I still believe that there is no good reason to ever call another forum user a liar in this place.
Call something a falsehood. Tell someone they’re wrong… about everything, if you like. But calling someone a liar is both mindreading and unnecessarily insulting.
One thing I have changed on is calling non-forum-users liars. I will NOT flag a post for accusing Blizzard, as a corporation, of lying. They’re not actually here to be insulted.
I don’t think you’re quite getting what I’m saying. I’m saying I’m fair with you in I acknowledge you play at a higher level so when you tell me Sludgelock is doing well for you, internally, I believe you. I don’t think you’re lying.
But allow me 1 more chance to try to make this as simple as I can. All I ask is that you answer honestly.
Tell me what is wrong with my thinking here:
Me: looks at VS Data that shows Rainbow Shaman is played 230 times with a win rate of 53% at Top 1K Legend.
Conclusion “Oh that’s interesting, apparently this deck is good at Top1K Legend”
You: “Don’t believe this data, it’s really bad and is not my experience”
*Also Me: *looks at Altair’s data that shows Sludgelock is played 250 times at Top 1K Legend with a win rate of 53%
Conclusion “Oh that’s interesting, apparently Sludgelock is good at Top1K Legend”
You: “Trust me because this is my experience”
Me: “Why can’t I trust both?”
Why are you upset that I am applying the same rationale conclusion to both?
I’m using the same logic and same conclusion of data that VS provides to me about a deck as you provide to me about another deck. I am being honest and equal, yet you reject my honest and equal conclusion.
The point is that his sample size with Sludgelock is greater than VS’s sample size with Sludgelock, but his sample size with Rainbow Shaman is much less than VS’s sample size with Rainbow Shaman.
The most bizarre part of it all is that he considers a sample size of 0 (or 1, or 3) with Rainbow Shaman to be some kind of flex. VS is not saying that Rainbow Shaman is a popular deck in top Legend.
I’m trying to make sense of it. I don’t think he’s being deceitful or that he’s a liar, I just think there’s a slight bias I’m trying to get over. I’m being as unbiased as I can be about it.
I also don’t understand the “but I haven’t seen it only a few times” argument, because how many streamers could say they’ve seen Sludgelock exactly 0 times and yet would be incorrect in claiming Sludgelock sucks if Altair’s numbers are truthful? Same exact logic has to be applied here.
I can’t judge how good Sludgelock is based on how many times Zeddy has ran into it, I’d have to take Altair’s numbers of Sludgelock and use that. For the same reason I can’t use Altair’s number of times he has ran into Rainbow Shaman to determine how good Rainbow Shaman is, I’d have to take VS numbers.
It’s the exact same logic I’m using for both decks, yet somehow my logic is wrong and should be dismissed as being fair when coming to a conclusion.
I’m just lost on the logic that is being applied here.
Exactamundo.
Unfortunately Altair doesn’t seem to see the difference between being an expert on T1KL Sludgelock — which I genuinely respect and admire him for — and being an expert on T1KL generally. One of these is within the reach of an individual, while the other demands data aggregation from multiple people.
Right.
Like if someone said
“Sludgelock sucks at Top1K Legend. I’ve never seen it.” I’m sure Altair would have zero issues with me saying “Well I know a guy that has a great win rate with it at Top1K Legend. Just because you don’t see it doesn’t mean it’s not good.”
But if he says “Rainbow Shaman sucks at Top1K Legend. I’ve never seen it” then somehow there is an issue if I say “Well I know a guy that has a great win rate with it at Top1k Legend. just because you don’t see it doesn’t mean it’s not good”
Yeah, about that…
It’s nothing that needs to be proven, it’s one of the first lessons in statistics, and it’s about variance and sample sizes. Any college in my country learns that on their 2nd year.
The lower the sample, the higher the variance, and vice-versa.
I’ve taken the time to make an excel spreadsheet with 2 tables:
https://www.vicioussyndicate.com/drr/vs-power-rankings-data-reaper-report/), which I consider, based on experience and knowledge of the game and analysis to be completely nonsensical - only two tiers are needed to convey the messagehttps://www.vicioussyndicate.com/drr/classarchetype-distribution-data-reaper-report/ - By rank, top 1k) by taking a product of their playrate and power ranking score, which I understand to be some form of a winrate turned into index of powerAll statistics are for 1k legend because that’s where I play, so I immediately knew it wasn’t based on reality.
The tables are neatly shown in an image on this link (please open it, I even color-coded everything!) https://ibb.co/FHKPQYz
Left table is their original power ranking. If you play as much as I do, few things strike you as immediately weird:
Don’t worry - I got you covered.
aand we’re back to sample vs variance!!
The reason why Dragon Druid and Insanity Lock are at the bottom of tier 2 is BECAUSE THEY ARE THE MOST PLAYED CLASSES, as you can easily check on the playrate report link, and as you know from your own experience and trackers.
Why? Because their power ranking divides some form of winrate with number of games played ,so the higher the number of games played, the lower the power ranking AND because the lower the sample (the lower the games played) the higher the variance (less reliable data).
On the right side you have a corrected table. Like we do in economy, we just took the playrate, turned it into a decimal number and multiplied by the power ranking (that’s essentially playrate * winrate), to get the weighted strength of a deck taking into account the number of games played.
Green is higher and better. Red is lower and worse. Now the table makes sense, with Insanity Lock and Dragon Druid confidently on 1st and 2nd place.
Frost DK was apparenty the only correct placement as the 3rd strongest deck (probably by accident xD)
What happened to Rainbow Shaman? It dropped to 10th/12 decks!!
I’m not surprised…are you??
Which list makes more sense to you??
Play rate is not an indication of strength, so at no point should you be multiplying play rate with strength. Popularity has no indication on how good a deck is. In fact, popularity can skew results because the more popular a deck gets close to 100% play rate, the more closer it will get to 50% win rate since it faces itself in a mirror match.
This is why VS parses the two from each other.
Highlander Warrior is like the 5th most popular deck, yet is widely agreed upon as being a Tier 4 deck.
In any case, I would still like an answer to my question about as to why you think my logic is flawed when I apply the exact same logic to your deck as I do to another deck.
Because I said so, and I actually PLAY in those ranks
And because I came with proof, see post above.
Because your rationale is wrong. You’re believing everything, even though the two sources you believe are conflicted.
Wrong, as you can see from the picture in the post above. I used THEIR data, and came up with a completely different tier list which actually makes sense based on everything we talked about for weeks.
Dragon druid is broken. Insanity Warlock is sus. Potentially broken.
Rainbow Shaman? What??? when have you seen or replied in a thread about rainbow shaman being strong??
I agree completely with this.
VS deliberately multiplies winrate and popularity to create a frankenstatistic they call Meta Score. VS does not agree with us. They openly side with Altair on this issue.
Oh that is very kind of you.
Tell that to:
hmm…that would be 1, on EU. I haven’t played Norwis (this month, I’ve played him before). That’s all.
Ins4ne, played agaisnt, he knows. Theo, played against, he knows. Thijs, played against, he knows. I have a few more, do you want me to post tracker proofs?
Do me a favor. Humor me.
What do you think Rainbow Shaman is?
I’m not going to bother with all the other stuff we’ve talked about, we can agree to disagree. I do not view your person anecdotal evidence as somehow more superior to 3 data collecting websites dedicated to collecting data as accurate as possible. I’m sorry if that offends you, but it’s just never gonna happen.
At the most, I viewed them as equal, which is putting a tremendous amount of credit and respect to you and the fact that it’s still not enough seems crazy to me.
But we can drop that topic now since I understand you don’t accept my kind consideration of your data as being kind.
So what do you think Rainbow Shaman is?
That’s called “weighting”, you adjust one variable by the impact of another to standardize the data and make them comparable. Seriously, I’m sorry to ask this in this context, but, would you be so kind to share your education? I’m confused, I’m shocked how you don’t know these things.
If their power ranking is ANY good at all, once you multiply it with playrate you get the correct picture of what is played in top 1k and why.
Unless you that … (dragon druid + insanitylock playrate) 31,3% of top 1k players are that stupid? to play the bottom of the tier 2 deck?
Really? Are we that stupid?
This isn’t necessary. I’ve shown you more than enough respect in this thread as others can attest to I’m sure.
Is it really that much to return the favor?
It should be obvious by now that the low-rank types on this forum can and will complain about anything that they lose to, and that the quantity and intensity of complaining is proportional to deck popularity alone, with no consideration whatsoever for deck strength.
Deck strength does have some impact on deck popularity, but for the most part deck popularity is irrational. This is especially true at the ranks of most of the complainers.
No one is saying that Rainbow Shaman is a popular deck. VS isn’t saying it, Altair isn’t saying it, Schyla isn’t saying it, I’m not saying it.
I appreciate every time the report is posted. Dont let others discourage you from posting.
There are plenty of people who really enjoy when these kinds of threads are created even if they dont always leave a comment.
No, man, I literally posted proofs in excel sheets. I didn’t, I didn’t take myself to be so important so I would ask of people to trust me blindly.
I did think I deserved trust due to many things, but whatever, I’ll put my money where my mouth is.
But from few posts above, you’re arguing in bad faith, you’re not accepting what is clearly more logical, based on reality and analytically more precise. I can’t take you seriously anymore:
I’m sorry if that offends you, but it’s just never gonna happen.
Ditto.
Currently unknown. Barely played deck. Too low sample. Might have queued into decks it counters by accident too many times.
That’s literally what you’re implying. Think about it.
Me, who plays in that rank, a lot of thread posters who posted about dragon druid and insanity warlock (and not a rainbow shaman), and 31,3% of people playing dragon druid and insanity warlock, have to be clearly …something bad, if we choose to play/believe those two decks are tier 1, and not some random shaman.
You are IMPLYING this. You can’t choose to disregard all of that without implying we’re not thinking rationally.
And you don’t have personal experience, you don’t have personal tracker data, you don’t have tables which are better than mine - all you have is one number in a suspiciously calculated power ranking tier list on VS (the only thing I discredit from them, btw), and you choose to put your faith in that blindly.
And you ask me for respect?