VS Data Report #136: A Cyclonic Meta Change

Multiplayer Discussion
36

Agree to disagree on that. Shark rogue is one of the best decks in the game.

37

I guess the question here is define ‘good.’ If we’re talking about laddering up we’d also need to assume ‘average person’ as well in which case I would say Shark Rogue isn’t a great climbing deck.

If your definition is ‘competent pilot of that deck’ then I can’t say much as I am not a huge Rogue fan in general so my experience with that deck (and obviously frequency seeing it) is low.

1 Like
38

Seems silly to define a decks strength based on people playing the deck poorly. If people can’t climb with a deck that consistently performs well at high levels, then the issue is the players and not the deck.

39

It is kind of the ol’ Patron Warrior conundrum all over again, lol. It wasn’t that good on ladder until VERY high on the ladder but once you got to that point it was crazy how divided it made the game.

Edit: Obviously Shark Rogue isn’t anywhere close to the level of Patron Warrior. In fact Cyclone/Miracle/Conjurer w/e the deck’s name is more appropriate parallel to Patron Warrior.

Edit #2: It is kind of the debate to a degree. Do you balance around Legend? (just toss GM into Legend), r5?, r10? ./shrug

I know Magic does around ‘Legend’ (tournaments) but HS appears to aim everywhere, lol

1 Like
40

I’m not arguing that balance should be based around high legend. I’m just saying that the deck is good for climbing. If people aren’t climbing with it, it’s not because the deck is bad. There’s lots of people who have climbed with rogue and/or won Master’s qualifiers. The idea that the secondary and tertiary decks are the main reason the deck is successful against a tournament field doesn’t make much sense either. You have to queue your primary vs mage/warrior/shaman/hunter/etc. So, your primary deck has to be strong against the field.

41

Well.

That is exactly what they are doing for a long time but I also not think that dificult to pilot are easy both to identify or to correctly balance.

Like:

Is nomi priest a dificult deck to play or a bad deck?

A deck with a ton of skill ceiling should be allowed to fly under the radar ? Why?

Why those 2 questions to start with?

Well. To a deck be considered a high skill deck you need 2 elements:
A learning curve and an actual meta defining powerlevel.

If it not has power enough to be conquered it is just a extra bad deck and if it not has the learning curve there is no skill on play it.

But if those are at correct levels you have a high skill ceiling level.

Why we should be more tolerating(not blind) towards their powerlevel?
They make people actually learn the game and allow they to be at the top makes the game itself more rewarding to learn for the entire competitive playerbase.

With that said and returning to our discussion. In my opinion shark rogue needs to get a little stronger to be considered such type of deck.

42

I guess at that point we can easily debate what a “good deck to climb with is”. Streamers and pros can climb with just about anything. Does that make it an optimal tool to do so with, though?

Obviously Patron Warrior can be used as a good example of something low-tier that’s actually quite a bit stronger than aggregate data wouod suggest. Perhaps I’m underestimating the deck, or overestimating everyone if encountered who’s played it.

1 Like
43

You just contradicted yourself. If the deck is good for climbing, people should be climbing rather than dropping.

That’s not the only contradiction. I mentioned how OG gets to legend every month without legendary and epics. By your view, because he makes it then these budget decks must be high tier decks. Thijs also routinely hits Top 100 with every kind of deck. A deck isn’t tier 1 based on OG and Thijs, if that was the case there would be no tiers because every deck would be tier 1.

Shark Rogue doesn’t break even at Legend. That’s not a good deck for climbing unless you are a GM. If you are a GM, by definition it means you are going to stomp everyone not because of deck quality, but because of play quality.

44

So, by your logic GM’s and tournament players are intentionally handicapping themselves by bringing a bad deck?

45

The class/deck spread in a GM event isn’t the same as it is on the ladder, though. Different meta to tackle, different tools to consider doing so with.

2 Likes
46

So, GM is a little different because they can target each other a little bit.

But, here’s the class distribution from one of the latest Master’s Qualifier:

Druid: 5 (1%)
Hunter: 26 (12%)
Mage: 66 (29%)
Paladin: 7 (3%)
Priest: 1 (0%)
Rogue: 57 (25%)
Shaman: 4 (2%)
Warlock: 2 (1%)
Warrior: 56 (25%)

Those numbers look a lot like the ladder distribution from my experience (a little low on Shaman in tournament). It’s generally a 3 class format, with some hunter and shaman.

47

Shaman looks more than a bit low and, obviously, Rogue is a bit high but that is the cornerstone of the argument so it should be =p

I guess you and I just have a different definition of “good to climb” then. I view a “good to climb” deck as a deck that I can put in the hands of an ‘average’ (average active) player and they can play it close to optimally quickly and climb against the field.

I’ll use examples here from my own experience. Although I hit Legend with these decks @ 60% or better WRs I wouldn’t have called them good ladders decks:

  • Crusher Shaman (BRM)
  • C’thun N’Zoth Priest (WotOG)
  • Resurrect Tempo Priest --best way to describe I guess-- (ONIK)
  • Elemental Shaman (J2U)
  • Quest Mind Blast Priest (WW)
  • Control Warlock (KoFT)

Obviously I’ve also climbed with decks that are good ladder decks in my view as well. I guess that is just how I see it. Some decks are good for most people and some decks are good for a small group of players but I wouldn’t call them egnerally good ladder decks if that makes sense.

2 Likes
48

It’s not like Rogue is a fringe off-meta deck though. It’s pretty well refined popular deck that is a staple of the tournament and ladder.

Anyways, if you climbed with 60+% with those decks, then I wouldn’t call those bad decks. Clearly, those decks are good when played properly. And that’s part of my problem with VS and the aggregate data websites; there are dozens of decks that people are having success with that aren’t being tracked. And people refuse to play outside the VS report box.

49

Both HSR and vS show Shaman and Hunter as significantly more popular than what your spread displays (especially Shaman) especially in the 5-legend bracket, fewer Warriors by at least 5% depending on which one you’re looking at, and fewer Rogues by a solid 10+%.

Yeah, different meta when you can’t be so sure of what you’re going to come up against, especially with the heavily increased chances of dealing with an aggressive Shaman or Hunter deck.

Folks don’t run Shaman in GM events though because they KNOW that they’ll run into enough Warriors to knock them out of the event. Laddering, you don’t have to worry about that and can more than make up for it by preying on numerous other decks, hence the reason Masters events are often a fair bit slower on average. If you can’t beat Warrior consistently, you can’t hack it. The same isn’t true for ladder. This matters a lot.

3 Likes
50

There’s separate BO3 and BO1 ladders in MTGA.

Lykotic, can you please explain the extent to which these two back ladders have different better performing decks?

Because it’s you who has to show that somehow in HS a BO3 Specialist ladder meta wouldn’t be different, in light of the fact that they are in other CCGs.

51

Similarly, Cyclone Mage is dominating because, in the hands of the best players, it doesn’t really have any truly terrible match ups. Many pro actually say it doesn’t have any unfavorables at all. That certainly wouldn’t be true if, for instance, Doomhammer Shaman could actually be played in tournaments, but as you pointed out, it loses hard to Warrior.

We’ll see what happens with the next expansion, but I have a feeling it’s going to be more of the same decks without nerfs. Still way too early to say, though. It just takes a few cards to completely change everything.

52

If Hunter was free to be more popular in tournaments it would probably slow down Cyclone Mages. Yes, the Mage CAN deal with anything Hunter puts down - in theory - but right now the tournament meta is slow enough that Cyclone Mage can afford some crappy early draws that Hunters are capable of lethally punishing with ease. A greater number of them would likely discourage Cyclone Mage a bit more IMO, or at least force them into an entirely anti-Aggro tertiary deck, which still isn’t bulletproof.

I’ve played the deck myself enough to agree overall though, when it draws halfway decently and is played properly it can overcome just about anything.

I’ll also say that any and every one of them I’ve encountered when playing Overload Shaman got absolutely slaughtered by me unless they got a very early Giant into a board of Grave Horrors.

2 Likes
53

I can’t speak to Specialist well as I don’t spend a ton of time watching tournaments, but sure I can talk about Magic ladders here easily.

In general (there are exceptions) decks which can take a small lead and ‘run with it’ do a lot better in Bo1 than Bo3. So decks like White Weenie (which is non-existent in Bo3), RDW (small presence in Bo3), and Mono Blue Tempo (although doing better in Bo3 than before) all tended to decks which were VERY good in Bo1 formats but failed in Bo3 when decks could sideboard in situationally good cards to shut them down with. A good example is a card like Healing Grace and Leyline of Protection which my Naya Feather deck has (or did have) in it’s sideboard to shutdown RDW.

The decks which tend to do better in Bo3 are decks which can either perform their win condition in multiple ways so it is harder to counter (Gruul Stomp or Dino as an example), Have extremely strong game plans that can lockout an ability to counter with their own sideboard options (Naya Feather, Simic Flash, Temur Elementals), or can slot in answers from their sideboards for most decks (Esper Hero/Control, Grixis Control).

How much this relates to Specialist format and design in HS I am not sure tbh but that is essentially how Bo1 vs. Bo3 metas workout in MtG:A.

4 Likes
54

:clap: :clap: :+1: :+1: :ok_hand:

1 Like
55

Do you have any tips on where to look for play tips on SHark Rogue? I played it a while back and I had to agree with VS at the time, the deck really did feel better without Shark. He so often ended up collecting dust in my hand while I made tempo plays to stay ahead on board.

Shark Rogue may make sense in high legend and GM because they are so much slower, but I would argue that Spirit of the Shark usually isn’t ideal in the 5-1 bracket no matter who you are.

2 Likes