[ABOUT MY MATH] This Tops is not my opinion. I process the results of the open meta reports and calculate the popularity of decks, strong archetyps and cards in ladder game every week. This list contains an information from all ranks including the legendary rank. I use such resources - vicioussyndicate.com, hearthpwn.com, tempostorm.com, hsreplay.net.
Steps: 1. I get a percentage of the popularity of classes and their archetypes from open meta sources. 2. I determine the popularity in percent for archetypes in each class. 3. I add an alternative archetype decks from pro players and ladder games. 4. I explore different cards and their quantity (one or two copies) are used in decks. If the card has only one copy in the deck, result will be lesser. If card is legendary, result will double (like two copies in the deck). 5. Finally, I figure up all results toI get the top with more popular cards in meta game.
My opinion
Already, we can compare the new Cobald Meta with the Frozen Throne Meta situation. As you can see, the new set has not radically changed in the meta game. The warlock got many strong cards. A big surprise was the appearance of "dead cards" - Spiritsinger Umbra, Prince Taldaram. They are used by the Cube Warlock. Agro cards dominate the game. Increasing popularity has Leeroy Jenkins. Legendary cards of the Kobold are rarely used and are not necessary. The Priest is the absolute leader. Rogue, Paladin and Druid have a good popularity, but play with old archetypes. Jade Druid lost past popularity, but still is the main archetype of the Druid. Warriors and Shamans are dead. The Warrior is in deep depression after Fiery War Ax nerf. I think the new set did not complete his task. There are few new archetypes and they have little effect on the meta game. Unfortunately, I think we need a nerf.
Man, we appreciate your efforts and your good intentions. But until you do a better job of communicating the meaning of your stuff, there's little point in all of this. All your series of posts and videos share the same shortcomings, sorry about that.
Your English is bad. I know you're somewhat aware of this, you said it somewhere... but maybe you don't realize the extent of the issue. It's not just an esthetic thing, mind. It's bad to the point that it's often hard to understand what you're trying to say. For example, WTF means "I thing this cards are mo powerful in the game for same period"? You're not a native English speaker, I get it, but jeez! Neither am I, so what? That's hardly an excuse. IMHO you should either improve your language skills, or consider to quit publishing these analyses of yours.
While building your model, you can devise some terminology and that's ok, but if you do, you should also explain it. For instance, what is "Last Period of full Frozen Throne meta time"? Is your Period a month (like ranked play season), a week (like the frequency of VS reports), or something else? Oh, wait, maybe you meant Position, like position in last ranking? That would make some sense, since now I see your Lps range from 1 to about 60, and new cards have an Lp of "-". But mate, why do we have to reverse-engineer your writing, in order to understand it!?
Your Mathematics is unclear. Your 5 points give only a vague, qualitative description of what you really do. Actually, the tone of your discourse seems to use Math as a buzzword, whose sole presence should be enough to justify just about anything. You might as well say "For Science!" like they do in the comic Girl Genius, or even "It's Magic, baby!" like a B-movie character. No sir, some of us aren't impressed by the mere word math, can actually do some of their own, and could even evaluate your job (if given the opportunity). So why don't you describe your algorithm in more detail, give us some formulas, etc.? Afraid to be refuted?
OK, maybe this came out harsher than it needed to be. Again, sorry about that. But felt that somebody had to tell you this, for your own good, and the community's, too.
Man, we appreciate your efforts and your good intentions. But until you do a better job of communicating the meaning of your stuff, there's little point in all of this. All your series of posts and videos share the same shortcomings, sorry about that.
Your English is bad. I know you're somewhat aware of this, you said it somewhere... but maybe you don't realize the extent of the issue. It's not just an esthetic thing, mind. It's bad to the point that it's often hard to understand what you're trying to say. For example, WTF means "I thing this cards are mo powerful in the game for same period"? You're not a native English speaker, I get it, but jeez! Neither am I, so what? That's hardly an excuse. IMHO you should either improve your language skills, or consider to quit publishing these analyses of yours.
While building your model, you can devise some terminology and that's ok, but if you do, you should also explain it. For instance, what is "Last Period of full Frozen Throne meta time"? Is your Period a month (like ranked play season), a week (like the frequency of VS reports), or something else? Oh, wait, maybe you meant Position, like position in last ranking? That would make some sense, since now I see your Lps range from 1 to about 60, and new cards have an Lp of "-". But mate, why do we have to reverse-engineer your writing, in order to understand it!?
Your Mathematics is unclear. Your 5 points give only a vague, qualitative description of what you really do. Actually, the tone of your discourse seems to use Math as a buzzword, whose sole presence should be enough to justify just about anything. You might as well say "For Science!" like they do in the comic Girl Genius, or even "It's Magic, baby!" like a B-movie character. No sir, some of us aren't impressed by the mere word math, can actually do some of their own, and could even evaluate your job (if given the opportunity). So why don't you describe your algorithm in more detail, give us some formulas, etc.? Afraid to be refuted?
OK, maybe this came out harsher than it needed to be. Again, sorry about that. But felt that somebody had to tell you this, for your own good, and the community's, too.
Good luck with your endeavors.
Great and constructive response. I agree with all the things you said. The point he is trying to make is unclear.
Man, we appreciate your efforts and your good intentions. But until you do a better job of communicating the meaning of your stuff, there's little point in all of this. All your series of posts and videos share the same shortcomings, sorry about that.
Your English is bad. I know you're somewhat aware of this, you said it somewhere... but maybe you don't realize the extent of the issue. It's not just an esthetic thing, mind. It's bad to the point that it's often hard to understand what you're trying to say. For example, WTF means "I thing this cards are mo powerful in the game for same period"? You're not a native English speaker, I get it, but jeez! Neither am I, so what? That's hardly an excuse. IMHO you should either improve your language skills, or consider to quit publishing these analyses of yours.
While building your model, you can devise some terminology and that's ok, but if you do, you should also explain it. For instance, what is "Last Period of full Frozen Throne meta time"? Is your Period a month (like ranked play season), a week (like the frequency of VS reports), or something else? Oh, wait, maybe you meant Position, like position in last ranking? That would make some sense, since now I see your Lps range from 1 to about 60, and new cards have an Lp of "-". But mate, why do we have to reverse-engineer your writing, in order to understand it!?
Your Mathematics is unclear. Your 5 points give only a vague, qualitative description of what you really do. Actually, the tone of your discourse seems to use Math as a buzzword, whose sole presence should be enough to justify just about anything. You might as well say "For Science!" like they do in the comic Girl Genius, or even "It's Magic, baby!" like a B-movie character. No sir, some of us aren't impressed by the mere word math, can actually do some of their own, and could even evaluate your job (if given the opportunity). So why don't you describe your algorithm in more detail, give us some formulas, etc.? Afraid to be refuted?
OK, maybe this came out harsher than it needed to be. Again, sorry about that. But felt that somebody had to tell you this, for your own good, and the community's, too.
Good luck with your endeavors.
Oh, that was very critical! But thanks...
I am really trying very hard. And I worked a lot of time on this. I'm sorry that my work does not impress you.
Every week I collect all the available information from open meta sources, it's really a lot of information. And I can not be perfect in everything. Yes, I have big problems with English and I know about it. Now I'm very scared to write here with my English ... But I'll try ... ;)
A year ago I was looking for a similar card statistics for myself, but I could not find anything. I'm an F2P player, and it was important for me to invest the game resources correctly. I decided to make the first list. The result was really surprised my and was very useful. I began to understand better the game mechanics and the cards design. A few months ago I decided to share my results here. And many thanks to the friendly hearthpwn community. I got a lot of very useful opinions.
And if you think my work is really bad, please help me make it better. I would be happy to have a correct description for my statistics.
Or maybe, you think this is a complete trash and is not useful? Please write to me, and I will stop doing this statistics.
First of all... Huh? Is he (are you) trying to say too many people use legendary cards and they need to be nerfed? Like, all of them? Or, what needs a nerf? Obviously cards that have been out longer will make up the bulk of the meta, since people are comfortable with them, and their interaction with each other, and have been out long enough for people to create the best correlation. The newest cards generally buff up their existing decks, unless an entire new deck mechanic is introduced (ie, Jade Golems). It seems like you're saying the Kobolds expansion didn't introduce any new archetypes, but then you said that 'agro' decks are dominating the meta (at least, I think that's what you said), but a huge reason that they're dominating the new meta is in large part because of the new "Recruit" mechanic, especially with Paladin's Call to Arms
Also, it really seems like you're argument is directed towards constructed play, but:
% - percentage of using card in popular decks (Dec-Jan). That mean cards are played in x,x % of all POPULAR decks.The number of copies of the card in the deck also has a value per percentage.
You're only listing legendaries, and as far as I know, in constructed play, "The number of copies of the card in the deck"... Is restricted to ONE. However, the fact that you needed to post that disclaimer, makes me think the figures you've obtained from HSReplays, are for all of Standard play, which would include Arena, and maybe even Dungeon. If that's the case... ALL of your figures are obsolete, because in arena, not only is the card usage % mostly based on the RNG of the card selection phase, but legendary cards in general operate much differently in arena than constructed, since they can't correspond with their usual deck archetype support cards.
Unless I missed something, KotFT didn't have a huge affect on gameplay either. Not nearly as much as the Quest, or Jade mechanic in the previous expansions. The expansions that are being sent to Wild in a few months. Far before your 'campaign' could build the legs to see it through to fruition. If it had the merit in the first place. But, then again, I could be arguing about apples, while you're debating about Orange County demographics... I'm really not sure. Good luck nerfing the legendaries!
Man, we appreciate your efforts and your good intentions. But until you do a better job of communicating the meaning of your stuff, there's little point in all of this. All your series of posts and videos share the same shortcomings, sorry about that.
Your English is bad. I know you're somewhat aware of this, you said it somewhere... but maybe you don't realize the extent of the issue. It's not just an esthetic thing, mind. It's bad to the point that it's often hard to understand what you're trying to say. For example, WTF means "I thing this cards are mo powerful in the game for same period"? You're not a native English speaker, I get it, but jeez! Neither am I, so what? That's hardly an excuse. IMHO you should either improve your language skills, or consider to quit publishing these analyses of yours.
While building your model, you can devise some terminology and that's ok, but if you do, you should also explain it. For instance, what is "Last Period of full Frozen Throne meta time"? Is your Period a month (like ranked play season), a week (like the frequency of VS reports), or something else? Oh, wait, maybe you meant Position, like position in last ranking? That would make some sense, since now I see your Lps range from 1 to about 60, and new cards have an Lp of "-". But mate, why do we have to reverse-engineer your writing, in order to understand it!?
Your Mathematics is unclear. Your 5 points give only a vague, qualitative description of what you really do. Actually, the tone of your discourse seems to use Math as a buzzword, whose sole presence should be enough to justify just about anything. You might as well say "For Science!" like they do in the comic Girl Genius, or even "It's Magic, baby!" like a B-movie character. No sir, some of us aren't impressed by the mere word math, can actually do some of their own, and could even evaluate your job (if given the opportunity). So why don't you describe your algorithm in more detail, give us some formulas, etc.? Afraid to be refuted?
OK, maybe this came out harsher than it needed to be. Again, sorry about that. But felt that somebody had to tell you this, for your own good, and the community's, too.
Good luck with your endeavors.
Oh, that was very critical! But thanks...
I am really trying very hard. And I worked a lot of time on this. I'm sorry that my work does not impress you.
Every week I collect all the available information from open meta sources, it's really a lot of information. And I can not be perfect in everything. Yes, I have big problems with English and I know about it. Now I'm very scared to write here with my English ... But I'll try ... ;)
A year ago I was looking for a similar card statistics for myself, but I could not find anything. I'm an F2P player, and it was important for me to invest the game resources correctly. I decided to make the first list. The result was really surprised my and was very useful. I began to understand better the game mechanics and the cards design. A few months ago I decided to share my results here. And many thanks to the friendly hearthpwn community. I got a lot of very useful opinions.
And if you think my work is really bad, please help me make it better. I would be happy to have a correct description for my statistics.
Or maybe, you think this is a complete trash and is not useful? Please write to me, and I will stop doing this statistics.
Yeah, very critical, I know, but I didn't mean any harm, please believe me. Your goal (of evaluating cards and helping decide how to invest limited resources) is a worthy one. And, like I said, the effort you put in your work is to be commended. It's only its result, specially the communication of said result, and the explaination of the process leading to it, which need improvement.
I mentioned quitting as a form of provocation, but actually I would prefer if you didn't stop altogether. Maybe just stop doing it this way? ;)
Probably if you wrote this stuff in your native language AND we spoke it, it would be different. But if we only have English as a common language, we should think of some other solution. Maybe have someone proof-read your texts before publishing them? Say, someone who understands both your native language and English well enough to check for errors, inconsistencies and such? If you don't know a person like that already, you could try searching for them here on hearthpwn.
Sort of the same could go for the description of your computation process. You could write it down in your language and have that person proof-read it. Or maybe go another route: describe the computation in an abstract way, like with a flow-chart. You know, those diagrams one uses to describe algorithms in a general way, before any actual programming?
Man, we appreciate your efforts and your good intentions. But until you do a better job of communicating the meaning of your stuff, there's little point in all of this. All your series of posts and videos share the same shortcomings, sorry about that.
Your English is bad. I know you're somewhat aware of this, you said it somewhere... but maybe you don't realize the extent of the issue. It's not just an esthetic thing, mind. It's bad to the point that it's often hard to understand what you're trying to say. For example, WTF means "I thing this cards are mo powerful in the game for same period"? You're not a native English speaker, I get it, but jeez! Neither am I, so what? That's hardly an excuse. IMHO you should either improve your language skills, or consider to quit publishing these analyses of yours.
While building your model, you can devise some terminology and that's ok, but if you do, you should also explain it. For instance, what is "Last Period of full Frozen Throne meta time"? Is your Period a month (like ranked play season), a week (like the frequency of VS reports), or something else? Oh, wait, maybe you meant Position, like position in last ranking? That would make some sense, since now I see your Lps range from 1 to about 60, and new cards have an Lp of "-". But mate, why do we have to reverse-engineer your writing, in order to understand it!?
Your Mathematics is unclear. Your 5 points give only a vague, qualitative description of what you really do. Actually, the tone of your discourse seems to use Math as a buzzword, whose sole presence should be enough to justify just about anything. You might as well say "For Science!" like they do in the comic Girl Genius, or even "It's Magic, baby!" like a B-movie character. No sir, some of us aren't impressed by the mere word math, can actually do some of their own, and could even evaluate your job (if given the opportunity). So why don't you describe your algorithm in more detail, give us some formulas, etc.? Afraid to be refuted?
OK, maybe this came out harsher than it needed to be. Again, sorry about that. But felt that somebody had to tell you this, for your own good, and the community's, too.
Good luck with your endeavors.
Oh, that was very critical! But thanks...
I am really trying very hard. And I worked a lot of time on this. I'm sorry that my work does not impress you.
Every week I collect all the available information from open meta sources, it's really a lot of information. And I can not be perfect in everything. Yes, I have big problems with English and I know about it. Now I'm very scared to write here with my English ... But I'll try ... ;)
A year ago I was looking for a similar card statistics for myself, but I could not find anything. I'm an F2P player, and it was important for me to invest the game resources correctly. I decided to make the first list. The result was really surprised my and was very useful. I began to understand better the game mechanics and the cards design. A few months ago I decided to share my results here. And many thanks to the friendly hearthpwn community. I got a lot of very useful opinions.
And if you think my work is really bad, please help me make it better. I would be happy to have a correct description for my statistics.
Or maybe, you think this is a complete trash and is not useful? Please write to me, and I will stop doing this statistics.
Yeah, very critical, I know, but I didn't mean any harm, please believe me. Your goal (of evaluating cards and helping decide how to invest limited resources) is a worthy one. And, like I said, the effort you put in your work is to be commended. It's only its result, specially the communication of said result, and the explaination of the process leading to it, which need improvement.
I mentioned quitting as a form of provocation, but actually I would prefer if you didn't stop altogether. Maybe just stop doing it this way? ;)
Probably if you wrote this stuff in your native language AND we spoke it, it would be different. But if we only have English as a common language, we should think of some other solution. Maybe have someone proof-read your texts before publishing them? Say, someone who understands both your native language and English well enough to check for errors, inconsistencies and such? If you don't know a person like that already, you could try searching for them here on hearthpwn.
Sort of the same could go for the description of your computation process. You could write it down in your language and have that person proof-read it. Or maybe go another route: describe the computation in an abstract way, like with a flow-chart. You know, those diagrams one uses to describe algorithms in a general way, before any actual programming?
Yes, I completely agree with you. I really appreciate for your opinion, ideas and your time for comment. This is really very important for me and it will help me to do my job better in the future. Thank you very much! ;)
You are commiting a rather common mistake. This expansion is the last in the current rotation period, we are at the point where the pool of cards for this rotation is at it's peak, it is actually the moment in the entire history of Hearthstone where we have the most amount of cards available in Standard (Before Standard appeared we had Classic + Nax + GvG + BRM + TGT + LoE. The Year of the Kraken had Classic + BRM + TGT + LoE + Old Gods + Karazhan + MSoG. This year we have Classic + Old Gods + Karazhan + MSoG + Un'Goro + Frozen Throne + Kobolds, the first year with 7 Expansions in which only one of them is an Adventure of few cards. Next year it will be an even bigger card pool).
What this means is that there is already an extremely large pool of cards which leads to cards in new expansion, specially later ones like Kobolds, to have low impact on the Meta. For this to not be the case, Blizzard would need to apply a heavy power creep on the Kobold cards, which is a bad idea. Deck Archtypes are at a point where they will be as powerful as they can be, and creating new archtypes from scratch will require them to have correct support or else they are not as finely tuned as archtypes that have been constantly tuned for multiple expansions now.
Expecting the Meta to drastically change and lead to the creation of a pletora of new archtypes is nonsensical. That is what you have to expect during the rotation, in April, when Sets rotate out making old archtypes lose important cards. That will never happen in the last set of a rotation unless Blizzard does the wrong move and absurdly power creeps all the cards in the last expansion.
Your opinion is really very interesting. I also thought about it when I created the list. But Gadgetzan actively played right after the release and radically changed the meta.
Abbreviations:
Lp - Last Period Position (position from full Frozen Throne game period)
% - Percentage of using card in popular Meta decks.
FULL LIST
1 Patches the Pirate - 40,9%, Any (Lp 1 - 41,2%) Gadgetzan
2 Leeroy Jenkins - 23,9%, Any (Lp 15 - 10,0%) Classic
3 Prince Keleseth - 16,1%, Any (Lp 2 - 23,5%) F. Throne
4 Bloodreaver Gul'dan - 15,2%, Warlock (Lp 13 - 11,0%) F. Throne
5 Shadowreaper Anduin - 14,6%, Priest (Lp 5 - 15,8%) F. Throne
6 Bloodmage Thalnos - 14,0%, Any (Lp 3 - 19,9%) Classic
7 Edwin VanCleef - 12,4%, Rogue (Lp 6 - 15,4%) Classic
8 Kazakus - 11,3%, M. P. W (Lp 8 - 12,7%) Gadgetzan
9 Raza the Chained - 11,3%, Priest (Lp 9 - 12,7%) Gadgetzan
10 Prophet Velen - 11,3%, Priest (Lp 12 - 11,4%) Classic
11 Sunkeeper Tarim - 10,7%, Paladin (Lp 23 - 5,5%) Ungoro
12 Lyra the Sunshard - 10,2%, Priest (Lp 16 - 10,0%) Ungoro
13 Prince Taldaram - 9,7%, Any (Lp 66 - 0,0%) F. Throne
14 Spiritsinger Umbra - 9,7%, Any (Lp - 0,0%) Ungoro
15 The Lich King - 9,1%, Any (Lp 7 - 13,8%) F. Throne
16 Skull of the Man'ari - 8,5%, Warlock (Lp - %) Kobolds & C.
17 Aluneth - 7,6%, Mage (Lp - %) Kobolds & C.
18 Aya Blackpaw - 6,4%, D. R. S (Lp 4 - 17,5%) Gadgetzan
19 Y'Shaarj, Rage Unbound - 6,1%, Any (Lp 25 - 5,4%) Old Gods
20 Malfurion the Pestilent - 5,4%, Druid (Lp 11 - 11,7%) F. Throne
21 Barnes - 5,4%, Any (Lp 18 - 9,8%) Karazhan
22 Fandral Staghelm - 4,4%, Druid (Lp 17 - 9,8%) Old Gods
23 Ysera - 4,1%, Any (Lp 27 - 3,7%) Classic
24 Kun the Forgotten King - 3,4%, Druid (Lp 14 - 10,3%) Gadgetzan
25 N'Zoth, the Corruptor - 3,0%, Any (Lp 48 - 0,6%) Old Gods
26 Medivh, the Guardian - 2,2%, Any (Lp 10 - 12,6%) Karazhan
27 Alexstrasza - 2,2%, Any (Lp 22 - 6,4%) Classic
28 Frost Lich Jaina - 2,2%, Mage (Lp 31 - 2,8%) F. Throne
29 Dragoncaller Alanna - 2,2%, Mage (Lp - %) Kobolds & C.
30 Harrison Jones - 2,1%, Any (Lp - 0,0%) Classic
31 Rin, the First Disciple - 2,0%, Warlock (Lp - %) Kobolds & C.
32 Deathstalker Rexxar - 1,9%, Hunter (Lp 24 - 5,5%) F. Throne
33 Rhok'delar - 1,9%, Hunter (Lp - %) Kobolds & C.
34 Sonya Shadowdancer - 1,8%, Rogue (Lp - %) Kobolds & C.
35 Open the Waygate - 1,7%, Mage (Lp 33 - 2,4%) Ungoro
36 Archmage Antonidas - 1,7%, Mage (Lp 36 - 2,3%) Classic
37 Thrall, Deathseer - 1,6%, Shaman (Lp 21 - 7,7%) F. Throne
38 Val'anyr - 1,5%, Paladin (Lp - %) Kobolds & C.
39 Captain Greenskin - 1,4%, Any (Lp 35 - 2,3%) Classic
40 Valeera the Hollow - 1,4%, Rogue (Lp 39 - 1,6%) F. Throne
41 Kingsbane - 1,4%, Rogue (Lp - %) Kobolds & C.
42 Kathrena Winterwisp - 1,2%, Hunter (Lp - %) Kobolds & C.
43 King Krush - 1,2%, Hunter (Lp - 0,0%) Classic
44 Deathwing - 0,8%, Any (Lp 32 - 2,5%) Classic
45 Deathwing, Dragonlord - 0,8%, Any (Lp 38 - 2,0%) Old Gods
46 Master Oakheart - 0,7%, Any (Lp - %) Kobolds & C.
47 Uther of the Ebon Blade - 0,5%, Paladin (Lp 43 - 1,2%) F. Throne
48 Auctionmaster Beardo - 0,5%, Any (Lp 46 - 0,6%) Gadgetzan
49 Lynessa Sunsorrow - 0,5%, Paladin (Lp - %) Kobolds & C.
50 The Caverns Below - 0,5%, Rogue (Lp 59 - 0,1%) Ungoro
51 Zola the Gorgon - 0,5%, Any (Lp - %) Kobolds & C.
52 Finja, the Flying Star - 0,2%, Any (Lp 34 - 2,4%) Gadgetzan
53 Cairne Bloodhoof - 0,2%, Any (Lp 20 - 8,1%) Classic
54 Tirion Fordring - 0,2%, Paladin (Lp 26 - 4,7%) Classic
55 Ragnaros, Lightlord - 0,2%, Paladin (Lp 44 - 0,9%) Old Gods
56 Scourgelord Garrosh - 0,1%, Warrior (Lp 45 - 0,8%) F. Throne
57 Grommash Hellscream - 0,1%, Warrior (Lp 60 - 0,1%) Classic
58 Woecleaver - 0,1%, Warrior (Lp - %) Kobolds & C.
[ABOUT MY MATH]
This Tops is not my opinion. I process the results of the open meta reports and calculate the popularity of decks, strong archetyps and cards in ladder game every week. This list contains an information from all ranks including the legendary rank. I use such resources - vicioussyndicate.com, hearthpwn.com, tempostorm.com, hsreplay.net.
Steps:
1. I get a percentage of the popularity of classes and their archetypes from open meta sources.
2. I determine the popularity in percent for archetypes in each class.
3. I add an alternative archetype decks from pro players and ladder games.
4. I explore different cards and their quantity (one or two copies) are used in decks. If the card has only one copy in the deck, result will be lesser. If card is legendary, result will double (like two copies in the deck).
5. Finally, I figure up all results toI get the top with more popular cards in meta game.
My opinion
Already, we can compare the new Cobald Meta with the Frozen Throne Meta situation. As you can see, the new set has not radically changed in the meta game. The warlock got many strong cards. A big surprise was the appearance of "dead cards" - Spiritsinger Umbra, Prince Taldaram. They are used by the Cube Warlock. Agro cards dominate the game. Increasing popularity has Leeroy Jenkins. Legendary cards of the Kobold are rarely used and are not necessary. The Priest is the absolute leader. Rogue, Paladin and Druid have a good popularity, but play with old archetypes. Jade Druid lost past popularity, but still is the main archetype of the Druid. Warriors and Shamans are dead. The Warrior is in deep depression after Fiery War Ax nerf. I think the new set did not complete his task. There are few new archetypes and they have little effect on the meta game. Unfortunately, I think we need a nerf.
Man, we appreciate your efforts and your good intentions. But until you do a better job of communicating the meaning of your stuff, there's little point in all of this. All your series of posts and videos share the same shortcomings, sorry about that.
OK, maybe this came out harsher than it needed to be. Again, sorry about that. But felt that somebody had to tell you this, for your own good, and the community's, too.
Good luck with your endeavors.
I see another salt post.
What do you want to tell us with "Lp - Last Period of full Frozen Throne meta time."? It is nearly impossible to unterstand what you try to tell us!
2 Prince Keleseth - 23,5%, F. Throne
3 Bloodmage Thalnos - 19,9%, Classic
4 Aya Blackpaw - 17,5%, Gadgetzan
5 Shadowreaper Anduin - 15,8%, F. Throne
6 Edwin VanCleef - 15,4%, Classic
7 The Lich King - 13,8%, F. Throne
8 Kazakus - 12,7%, Gadgetzan
9 Raza the Chained - 12,7%, Gadgetzan
10 Medivh, the Guardian - 12,6%, Karazhan
11 Malfurion the Pestilent - 11,7%, F. Throne
12 Prophet Velen - 11,4%, Classic
13 Bloodreaver Gul'dan - 11,0%, F. Throne
14 Kun the Forgotten King - 10,3%, Gadgetzan
15 Leeroy Jenkins - 10,0%, Classic
16 Lyra the Sunshard - 10,0%, Ungoro
17 Fandral Staghelm - 9,8%, Old Gods
18 Barnes - 9,8%, Karazhan
19 Shaku, the Collector - 8,3%, Gadgetzan
20 Cairne Bloodhoof - 8,1%, Classic
21 Thrall, Deathseer - 7,7%, F. Throne
22 Alexstrasza - 6,4%, Classic
23 Sunkeeper Tarim - 5,5%, Ungoro
24 Deathstalker Rexxar - 5,5%, F. Throne
25 Y'Shaarj, Rage Unbound - 5,4%, Old Gods
26 Tirion Fordring - 4,7%, Classic
27 Ysera - 3,7%, Classic
28 Elise the Trailblazer - 3,3%, Ungoro
29 Prince Valanar - 3,1%, F. Throne
30 Wickerflame Burnbristle - 3,1%, Gadgetzan
31 Frost Lich Jaina - 2,8%, F. Throne
32 Deathwing - 2,5%, Classic
33 Open the Waygate - 2,4%, Ungoro
34 Finja, the Flying Star - 2,4%, Gadgetzan
35 Captain Greenskin - 2,3%, Classic
36 Archmage Antonidas - 2,3%, Classic
37 The Curator - 2,1%, Karazhan
38 Deathwing, Dragonlord - 2,0%, Old Gods
39 Valeera the Hollow - 1,6%, F. Throne
40 Baron Geddon - 1,6%, Classic
41 Xaril, Poisoned Mind - 1,6%, Old Gods
42 Sherazin, Corpse Flower - 1,3%, Ungoro
43 Uther of the Ebon Blade - 1,2%, F. Throne
44 Ragnaros, Lightlord - 0,9%, Old Gods
45 Scourgelord Garrosh - 0,8%, F. Throne
46 Auctionmaster Beardo - 0,6%, Gadgetzan
47 Sindragosa - 0,6%, F. Throne
48 N'Zoth, the Corruptor - 0,6%, Old Gods
49 The Black Knight - 0,5%, Classic
50 King Mukla - 0,5%, Classic
51 Lilian Voss - 0,3%, F. Throne
52 Lord Jaraxxus - 0,3%, Classic
53 Malygos - 0,2%, Classic
54 Pyros - 0,2%, Ungoro
55 Genzo, the Shark - 0,2%, Gadgetzan
56 Rotface - 0,1%, F. Throne
57 Yogg-Saron, Hope's End - 0,1%, Old Gods
58 Hemet, Jungle Hunter - 0,1%, Ungoro
59 The Caverns Below - 0,1%, Ungoro
60 Grommash Hellscream - 0,1%, Classic
61 Fire Plume's Heart - 0,1%, Ungoro
62 Don Han'Cho - 0,1%, Gadgetzan
63 Hallazeal the Ascended - 0,1%, Old Gods
64 Madam Goya - 0,1%, Gadgetzan
65 White Eyes - 0,1%, Gadgetzan
I hope they don't nerfe the Patches and give players 1600 dust return for it.
Oh, I see, Thank you!
Oh, that was very critical! But thanks...
I am really trying very hard. And I worked a lot of time on this. I'm sorry that my work does not impress you.
Every week I collect all the available information from open meta sources, it's really a lot of information. And I can not be perfect in everything. Yes, I have big problems with English and I know about it. Now I'm very scared to write here with my English ... But I'll try ... ;)
A year ago I was looking for a similar card statistics for myself, but I could not find anything. I'm an F2P player, and it was important for me to invest the game resources correctly. I decided to make the first list. The result was really surprised my and was very useful. I began to understand better the game mechanics and the cards design. A few months ago I decided to share my results here. And many thanks to the friendly hearthpwn community. I got a lot of very useful opinions.
And if you think my work is really bad, please help me make it better. I would be happy to have a correct description for my statistics.
Or maybe, you think this is a complete trash and is not useful? Please write to me, and I will stop doing this statistics.
First of all... Huh? Is he (are you) trying to say too many people use legendary cards and they need to be nerfed? Like, all of them? Or, what needs a nerf? Obviously cards that have been out longer will make up the bulk of the meta, since people are comfortable with them, and their interaction with each other, and have been out long enough for people to create the best correlation. The newest cards generally buff up their existing decks, unless an entire new deck mechanic is introduced (ie, Jade Golems). It seems like you're saying the Kobolds expansion didn't introduce any new archetypes, but then you said that 'agro' decks are dominating the meta (at least, I think that's what you said), but a huge reason that they're dominating the new meta is in large part because of the new "Recruit" mechanic, especially with Paladin's Call to Arms
Also, it really seems like you're argument is directed towards constructed play, but:
Unless I missed something, KotFT didn't have a huge affect on gameplay either. Not nearly as much as the Quest, or Jade mechanic in the previous expansions. The expansions that are being sent to Wild in a few months. Far before your 'campaign' could build the legs to see it through to fruition. If it had the merit in the first place. But, then again, I could be arguing about apples, while you're debating about Orange County demographics... I'm really not sure. Good luck nerfing the legendaries!
Tell me more about the Cobald meta
Top deck is cheat