I understand why VS sparses the two apart, then combines them for a “Theoretical Best Deck” but I don’t agree with the combination of the 2 for any reasoning, especially theoretical ones.
I understand that they just mean “the best deck in the game is the deck that beats the most amount of people, and the one that gets played the most” but I interpret this more to mean “it’s the best at capturing player interactivity” and not to mean “best for the meta”.
So for example, assume a 1% win rate deck but it’s played by 80% of the players. It would come close to being rated as the “theoretical best deck” on the popularity end, but not on the strength end, so it would balance out to be more in the middle of “best deck”
It’s a weird thing to mix. It’s like saying the best food in the world is the one that kills you but is also the most popular. Probably a really bad analogy, but that’s all I got. Mixing the 2 doesn’t make sense to create a “best”.
You literally said the exact opposite thing in many threads about, for example, Nature Shaman, when he got “sentimentally nerfed” even though it wasn’t " a winning deck".
You said people complain about things they lose to when their opponent has much fun beating them, even though the deck isn’t strong nor played enough to warrant the nerf.
Norwis is rank 1 legend EU using that same, twice nerfed, “losing” deck.
Theoretically impossible. If there were only two decks with a 0-100 matchup against each other and 50-50 mirror matches, a deck with 80% popularity would have a 40% winrate.
I did say the analogy wasn’t good, and I didn’t mean for the numbers to be good. I was trying to create an exaggerated scenario to show that mixing the two doesn’t make sense. At least for me, it doesn’t make sense.
It’s like multiplying A and 1. Sure, you get 1A, but only if A is a number. If A is a letter and nothing else, it doesn’t make sense number wise. Sort of that kind of thing, you just don’t mix them.
So a theoretical best deck has both the highest play rate and highest win rate, which is “the best”…but it’s “the best” at breaking the game…which isn’t what you want “the best” deck to do. So it’s not really “the best”
Well, here’s the point:
Deck A would have 40% winrate and 80% popularity.
Deck B would have 80% winrate and 20% popularity.
VS would give Deck A a Power Score of 25 and a Frequency Score of 100, for a Meta Score of 25.
VS would give Deck B a Power Score of 100 and a Frequency Score of 25, for a Meta Score of 25.
According to Meta Score, both decks would be equal.
Part of the reason VS is often full of crap, is that they don’t separate the Regions (America and Europe especially). I’ve lost count of the days that the 1K stats of hsguru are completely different between Regions. E.g. Painlocks being ~60% and Handbuffs ~50% on one region and then checking the other region and seeing almost the inverse.
Are you selecting specific stats to make some weird point that isn’t connected?
Just because I said “how many streamers could say they’ve seen Sludgelock exactly 0 times” doesn’t equate to “exactly 0 streamers have seen Sludgelock”, you know that right? And acting like they are the same is being dishonest.
Look, I’ve been extremely fair with you and Sludgelock. All I did was interpret your personal data the same way I interpret Rainbow Shaman data, said Rainbow Shaman must be good which implies the same logical conclusion that Sludgelock must be good, and this somehow sent you over the edge.
I thought in doing so I was being respectful of your personal data by propping it up to the level of VS data in how I see it, and somehow this isn’t enough for you to the point you are now doing some weird specific data selection to prove a point that was never made.
It’s getting weird man. I even tried to give the benefit of the doubt of dropping the topic because I didn’t want your ego to take an unintentional hit, but you still somehow keep attacking me as if I wasn’t trying to be respectful, even though I’ve made several attempts to do so.
You are challenging my challenge of one piece of data in the only report website I value. You don’t have personal experience in my ranks. You don’t have better data than my correction of VS. Or do you? Maybe you do, but I disregarded them. If I did, I had reasons.
You don’t have ANY number of posts claiming it’s strong or complaining about it AT ALL on the whole forum, with the exception of my own prediction that it will be strong.
Well I can’t tell future. But I can recognize today, and today is not Rainbow Shaman day.
And it’s not the day I allow myself and truth to be challenged based upon some notion of “fairness” and blind faith in everything VS posts.
You’re joking, man xD
You’re mentioning ego in a conversation about truth, analysis, data?
How am I supposed to get my ego hurt when I’m not talking from ego?
I seriously don’t care what people think about me. I care what people think in general. I want them to know the truth, and the truth is, the VS report’s power ranking tier list is wrong.
Because Blizzard doesn’t do stats on their own and makes their decisions based on what VS says in their analysis.
I like VS’s stats a lot. But I wouldn’t call myself a fan of their analysis. It doesn’t correlate exactly with their stats, and at times goes directly against them.
The very fact that I viewed your data as equal to data from VS is all the proof you need. I doubt a single person on these forums would do that and would dismiss you. Yet I used your own data to form an opinion, applied that same logic to VS data about another deck and came up with a conclusion of my own based on the similar data- both decks are good.
No, I challenged your rejection of the data, despite using the same data you rejected to give kudos to your deck.
Just because I’ve never come out and said Sludgelock is good or have seen a thread that said Sludgelock sucks and defended it doesn’t mean I didn’t support what you said. It’s not a popular deck, so it doesn’t get talked about. Is that my fault? If someone did say Sludgelock sucks, I’d tell them they have a piloting issue and refer them to your posts. That is 100% fact. But I haven’t seen anyone on here saying Sludgelock sucks.
Wut. VS routinely whines every other podcast or so that Blizzard didn’t listen to their “wise” words. And Blizzard is usually right; VS is often full of crap; e.g. look at how bad most of the decks they make before releases are.
If sometimes Blizzard seem to listen to them, it seems to be correlation rather than causation.
E.g. I predicted Reno is overpowered: did I cause the nerf?
