Kazakusan is literally the last card you want to draw in that deck. Do you not realize how nonsensical drawn winrate would be as a measurement for that cards power?
1 Like
by played winrate, Kazakusan is 1st. What it means is that kazakusan is played in the endgame, and druids are kings of the endgame.
If the druid survived long enough to play kazakusan, the game is 75% won. (the winrate if kazakusan is played jump to 75% according to hsreplay)
1 Like
People are forgetting that Mutanus and other hand disruption stuff still existâŚ
Also in the current druid deck, you still need to go through your entire deck to even play it. If you havenât kill the druid by then, Kazakusan is not gonna change much anyway. Itâs a win condition as any other.
I feel like Kazakusan isnât the issue. The issue is that Druid has too much draw and can reliably empty their deck while playing costly cards due to Guff.
Nope. Battleground Battlemaster is 1st by played winrate and drawn winrate.
Kazakusan is 2nd, because he isnât often played. Naga Giant is 3rd.
I have been trying to tell you, at its heart Ramp Druid isnât a Kazakusan deck. Itâs a Giants deck. Kazakusan is Plan B, and usually games are too fast for it to matter.
Whatâs nonsensical is refusing the single best measurement for card power because it conflicts with your ideology.
âIt is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.â
â Sherlock Holmes
If drawing a particular card doesnât win you games, itâs a bad card. Against the meta generally, Kazakusan is not a card that wins Ramp Druid games in which it is drawn â at least, not relative to other cards competing for deck slots.
Yeah, see, this is why I find your insistence that you are backed by stats better than others laughable. Because you donât actually understand what makes drawn winrate good or bad as a tool or when it should/shouldnât be used.
This is a blatantly obvious situation where itâs unhelpful. The best place for Kazakusan is clearly the bottom of your deck; drawing it earlier is useless. And it clearly has an enormous impact on matches against decks like Control Warrior or Control Paladin, to the point itâs the deciding factor in which deck is favored.
Kazakusan is to those decks as Rustrot Viper was to decks like Poison Rogue or Doomhammer Shaman. Maybe with the volume turned to maximum, but still: Kazakusan is a tech card.
This thread to me is like a Rustrot Viper hate thread, where people unironically claim Viper is the strongest card in the format.
Maybe the part youâre not getting is this: do you think Kazakusan is played against Demon Hunter? Or Pirates? Or Mechs?
Now youâre effectively arguing that a card like Landslide was just a âtech cardâ because you never wanted to draw it vs control Warrior or Owl Warlock. You can watch tournaments where they just toss that card away to make hand space.
The difference is, Landslide had a monstrously high drawn winrate.
The thing youâre not getting is that you think Control Warrior and Control Paladin, etc, matter more than they do. Theyâre a tiny, barely significant part of the meta. Not like aggro when Landslide was ran. Value deck popularity is so miniscule that itâs borderline debatable if Druid should even bother running Kazakusan to deal with it. This meta is Demon Hunter and Pirates and Mechs and Ramp Druid, for the most part, and that means Kazakusan is almost entirely there for the mirror.
The near irrelevance of dealing with control decks is why Kazakusan has such a low drawn winrate.
Thatâs why this is like a Rustrot Viper hate thread. Youâre looking at the card exclusively from a particular perspective â which is fine, I actually think the opening post is well argued â but then acting as if that perspective is a valid basis for nerfs, when it isnât. Ramp Druid is an overperforming deck so it deserves a nerf, but that overperformance doesnât come from Kazakusan any more than decks would overperform because they included Viper. It is essential that the nerf target be something other than Kazakusan.
Youâve immediately, as I expected, gone back to drawn winrate, despite me clearly explaining why itâs unhelpful at analyzing Kazakusan in this deck.
Nobody plays those control decks because they canât beat Druid. Due to Kazakusan.
No, I never left it. As I explained above, it is a completely valid metric despite your unfounded claims otherwise. Iâm not going to leave it unless Iâm presented with actual valid arguments to.
And no, âthe metric doesnât fit my personal anecdotal experienceâ is not an argument.
Describe why itâs valid to use drawn winrate to rate a card that doesnât function until youâve drawn basically your entire deck.
Because Ramp Druid doesnât draw its entire deck in all* of its matchups.
.* edit: I put âthe majorityâ here originally but
- Iâm not sure on that, merely reasonably confident and
- itâs overkill, even if itâs 40% thatâs significant
Oh I see. And itâs just a coincidence Iâm sure that all the matchups where it would happen to have vanished from the meta, as if there was a âtechâ card in Druid decks that makes it hopeless to go long against them. A âtechâ card so good itâs still worth having in the mirror match against the single slow deck that remains: itself.
So you argue itâs a tech card because it only gets used in matchups where you draw your deck. You argue those matchups donât exist so actually itâs for the mirror and somehow still makes the cut. And you argue that drawn winrate is an important metric for this card youâve argued is unusable in most matchups and in those matchups is played last, emphasizing my point that even in those matches itâs best at the bottom of your deck.
There are control decks with good, or at least mostly even, matchups against Ramp Druid. Shellfish Priest Iâm surprised isnât a good match for Priest, turns out itâs 53.4% (so just barely) in Druidâs favor. But thatâs not Clam Priestâs real problem â what wrecks that deck is Pirates and Mechs. Mechs arenât OP generally, but Iâm very much for nerfing Pirates, as well as Demon Hunter (currently slight disadvantage for Clam Priest, hopefully converted into a slight advantage). And yes Iâm for nerfing Ramp Druid, Iâm just against nerfing Kazakusan, so maybe that slight disadvantage would turn advantage.
And Iâm for buffing decks like Clam Priest. I have never understood this bizarre mentality some people have that the best way to make your favorite decks viable is to nerf things. No, buff the cards you see in EVERY match, thatâs the best way.
The devs literally have explicitly stated why nerfs make more sense for managing meta balanceâŚ
Ad verecundiam fallacy.
If the devs balance logic can be dismissed out of hand then so can yours, and I declare your claim that buffing is better to be complete bunk. Not only that but you will also constantly suggest things that are less likely to happen.