Rainbow DK vs Aggro DH is actually about fifty-fifty plus-minus error when it comes to win rates, but if your prefer to live in your own reality and/or cry, suit yourself.
Maybe in Gold that’s true.
Every good player is aware of how overpowered DH is.
1 Like
You have to be joking here xD
Ah well, I guess some people can’t even pilot a deck as easy as aggro DH 
Go on, post your figures for the aforementioned match-ups, then maybe I’ll laugh too.
Ah well, I guess some people can’t even beat such an easy opponent as an aggro DH — even with their overpowered 4-mana 7-7s (well, even if it’s 5-7s now — no matter) shooting 3 felballs per turn. 
That’s a 25% winrate matchup for. DH is a pure counter to any warlock decks in existence, and always has been. Just never as much as this, because dh is sitting on 60% global winrate
My global winrate is 58,5% in top 200 legend EU
Every other matchup is:
Mage: 72,5%
Warrior: 70% (been 80+ but new Zilliax is dooming against me)
Hunter: 84%
Warlock: 62,5% because of mirros, otherwise probably around 75%
DK: 73%
No other classes exist in the game currently.
Btw everyone agrees my deck is tier 3 at the moment.
DH is sitting in tier 1 alone
If DH wasn’t so damn easy to play and so broken, Sludgelock would probably be a tier 2 or tier 1 nerf candidate*, but its’ popularity is so big it impacts my winrate tremendously
Also, there’s the thing about samples. Global winrate is much lower because the sample is much bigger than individual matchup winrates.
the more you play, the lower the winrate polarization
*not neccessarily, because when it gets nerfed, meta might change to one even worse for sludges
I’m tired of explaining that there’s generally no such thing. For example:
or:
or this rather silly one:
No offence, but generally such number are indicative of playing against bots 
(or something else fishy) for the aforementioned reason; in short, you can’t win against yourself, it’s about 50-50 plus-minus small fluctuations… maybe there’s an extra percent or two for really successful players, which is how they make it. That’s just an objective circumstance: HS is HS, more like poker than chess by nature, if you will.
But actually, I was asking about DH’s match-ups against proposed counters, which you have found amusing for some reason.
Is that so?
See, for instance, this meta review:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xd2wnqFcyo
or an older text version:
https://www.hearthstonetopdecks.com/welcome-our-demon-hunter-overlords-the-best-meta-decks-after-the-first-balance-patch/
In short, it’s arguably still (!) one of the best decks in the game.
By the way, my opinion regarding the notion of so-called ‘tiers’:
It’s a very arbitrary and subjective concept, to put it mildly, dunno why some people go bananas about these ‘tiers’.
I am currently top 200 on EU, and I finished 150 on NA
Where I play, there are no bots. That winrate is against mid and high legend players, and I’ll need at least couple of % more to hit rank 10 judging by how low my rank gain per win is now (11, 12 per win, disaster)
Also, if you want to discuss things with me, get on my rank so you get some credibility
Until then, all I see is trolling
Saying that someone needs a high rank to have a valid opinion on a discussion board is itself trolling
You’re correct about there basically being no such thing as 60% wr tho
He’s also saying stats are useless/wrong
So he’s not only speaking against my experience, but against stats as well
His opinion is just that, his opinion. As objective truth it’s definitely invalid.
Also I did not invalidate his opinion. I just stated I’m no longer discussing things with people who don’t understand the game as much as I do 
Okay and there’s plenty of ways to be wrong or even stupid without trolling. But whether or not someone is right in a discussion board has absolutely nothing to do with who they are and has everything to do with what they said
I’ve no idea what your point here is, but it’s alright.
I don’t care anyway.
My point is that the ad hominem fallacy is a fallacy.
Ok, I’ll bite.
How would you respond if you literally quote your own stats in more than 500 games in the last 10 days and they tell you it’s against bots, which you know is not true cuz you’re grinding with 11-stars or in top 200 legend against NohandsGamer, MakiahTime and other people?
I can even post timestamps and dates when I was on their stream.
So apparently, my evidence isn’t valid. So how am I supposed to discuss things with people who refuse to take evidence into account?
How’s that not trolling? How am I supposed to seriously discuss things with someone who is…like that? I’d really, really like to know.
As expected, no replies now.
Anyway, here’s the thing with stats:
when a person, especially from high legend, posts their own personal stats, it’s perfectly normal for their winrates to be 60+, even 70+ because their number of games in is hundreds, tops, not hundreds of thousands as the stats you see on stat websites.
The higher the sample, the lower the variance/the higher the convergence to the expected value.
So please stop calling people liars when they post their own stats and they’re higher than you’ve ever seen. Rather ask yourselves why you don’t have such stats and how much do you really know about this game xD
1 Like
Well, first off, I’d never quote my own stats of my past games. So I’d never find myself in that position.
Also, I generally don’t read SparkyElf posts as a rule, because I generally [edit: removed by me. Point is I don’t like him]. But fine. I’ll actually read the thread.
The only counters to Shopper DH are Handbuff Paladin and Odyn Combo Warrior, the two decks nerfed in the most recent patch.
Shopper DH is:
- 70-30 against Druid,
- 60-40 against Brann Warrior,
- 70-30 against Zarimi Priest,
- 60-40 against Rainbow DK and
- 65-35 vs Sludge Warlock.
True.
Well, at least there is the qualification of “or something else fishy.” Kassadin is aware of how d0nkey winrates need to be normalized because they’re tracker side only, well that’s the “something fishy.” It’s not bots at T10KL or higher.
That really depends on what you mean by “really successful.” Is one a “really successful” player if all they do is run the Firestone deck tracker software? Because it’s a fact that this alone raises average winrates about 4.x% in Diamond 4-1 and about 1.x% — your “extra percent or two” — in top 1000 Legend. I think that the really successful players are looking at something more like a +3% or +4%, although I admittedly don’t know for sure. I just think that having Firestone installed doesn’t really make you that special.
Traditionally, the barrier between Tier 2 and Tier 3 is 50% overall winrate. Right now my best estimate of Sludge Warlock is 49.8% winrate. Technically that’s top of Tier 3, although it’s definitely within the margin of error of maybe the deck being low Tier 2. I kinda want to call it Tier 2.5, but the point is that I think Kassadin is taking one of a couple reasonable positions here. Except for the “everyone agreeing” part, this is the internet, idiots can’t even agree that the earth isn’t flat.
Hey now, give me some time, I had a wall of text to build.
I’m not calling you a liar. I’ll call you someone who’s posting to low quality evidence though. The only time I think that personal stats count as acceptable evidence is when “big data” on the subject simply isn’t available — for example, bot encounter frequency.
Hundreds of games is not low quality. Medicine and pharmacy often test of much lower samples than that and do things which decide on people’s lives.
And this is not tracker data from d0nkey, so the stats are real. I can post number of wins vs number of losses if you prefer, but either way the percentage will be the same
It is compared to thousands. The crucial concept to get your head around, as I implied in the previous post, is that quality standards are never objective. They’re always relative to whatever other quality is available. Your personal stats will lose to big data every time.
When we’re talking about which classes to nerf, sure.
When we’re talking about which deck to pick up to grind, na-ah.
Too many bad players pick up OP decks and lose on them and skew the statistics. If you want true deck power, ask an expert on the deck for his winrates.
That’s why rainbow mage is not top tier, yet everyone in top 20 legend seems to play just that.
Don’t waste ur time on that one, mate.
I’m gone for months and some things are still the same - that one is still wrong about stats and doubles down on his ignorance. It’s sad, really.
You are correct that general stats do not negate your specific case, but we’d have to accept expertise outside of ourself to admit it… which doesn’t really happen with that one.
1 Like
You have an elitist perspective because you look at the normal person — and that’s what you mean by “bad player” here, a person of roughly average skill — and you view their very existence as a contamination of the data. I view it as the job of data to reflect reality, not my desires, and that everyone of normal or below average skill who is out there exists and should be reflected in the data in some manner. You want to escape humanity. You can’t escape humanity. This is what we are, warts and all, and our species really isn’t all that intelligent.