Ok, well enough bragging! (Sorry about that - I don't usually boast, but am on a bit of a high with this deck.)
So I thought I would see if I could try and make a Paladin deck that might be a bit more competitive than the usual shtick. So far I've gone 12 for 0 with this one, which is rather surprising, since I usually find Paladin to be more weaker than the other classes.
For reference, these matches were in Wild (rather than standard), for no reason other than I was practising and didnt want to mess up my standard rank - ironically it looks like maybe I should have just gone standard after all! Heh!
Deck is in the image attached. Feel free to make suggestions, offer ideas etc. And of course, by all means give it a try if you want. :-)
Im kinda desperate to find a good paladin deck (playing different paladin decks and floating around 20 to 16 rank for 2 days straight) so Im gonna give it a shot now.
12 games don't tell much, your reasoning let me believe it's low rank, also players tend to have weaker decks in wild in the lower ranks than in standard.
Your deck doesn't have anything special either it's just buffadin (with outfitters instead of keleseth as the more popular build)
also had success with it, but when the buffadin fails it feels very one sided.
Well, ranks were from 12 up to 8 or so, so granted it's in the lower end of the ranks, but I haven't been playing much wild hence why my rank there is so low.
Could you report back when you have larger sample size, like 100 games or preferably 250+ games?
If I can remember (and haven't bored myself to death) by that point, then sure! Lol!
I was mostly just politely hinting that you have such incomplete data that claiming anything about this deck is a little bit disingenuous.
To be fair, that's a pretty disingenuous comment as it stands. Since you can't make a claim for me to "come back when I have played X games" in any sort of realistic sense, since it doesn't matter how many games I could or couldn't play. I deal in facts, not fantasy. And the facts are that in the games I have played thus far, this is the outcome. That's undeniable. I could just as easily say "10 games is a perfectly good number for this sort of test, because I said so..."
To try and dismiss this by saying "Your results don't mean anything unless you play this arbitrary number of times that I made up in my head, because #reasons...." is pretty pointless and is simple denial of evidence at this point. I mean, you don't have to like the results that I've provided, but your attempt to irrelevantise them that way is pretty impolite.
There's nothing incomplete about the data I provided. Just your ability to accept it.
Could you report back when you have larger sample size, like 100 games or preferably 250+ games?
If I can remember (and haven't bored myself to death) by that point, then sure! Lol!
I was mostly just politely hinting that you have such incomplete data that claiming anything about this deck is a little bit disingenuous.
To be fair, that's a pretty disingenuous comment as it stands. Since you can't make a claim for me to "come back when I have played X games" in any sort of realistic sense, since it doesn't matter how many games I could or couldn't play. I deal in facts, not fantasy. And the facts are that in the games I have played thus far, this is the outcome. That's undeniable. I could just as easily say "10 games is a perfectly good number for this sort of test, because I said so..."
To try and dismiss this by saying "Your results don't mean anything unless you play this arbitrary number of times that I made up in my head, because #reasons...." is pretty pointless and is simple denial of evidence at this point. I mean, you don't have to like the results that I've provided, but your attempt to irrelevantise them that way is pretty impolite.
There's nothing incomplete about the data I provided. Just your ability to accept it.
Your data set is too small to draw any conclusions from. You don’t need to be a statistician to see that.
Hey look I won 1 of 1 games hurr durr look at my 100% winrate!
Could you report back when you have larger sample size, like 100 games or preferably 250+ games?
If I can remember (and haven't bored myself to death) by that point, then sure! Lol!
I was mostly just politely hinting that you have such incomplete data that claiming anything about this deck is a little bit disingenuous.
To be fair, that's a pretty disingenuous comment as it stands. Since you can't make a claim for me to "come back when I have played X games" in any sort of realistic sense, since it doesn't matter how many games I could or couldn't play. I deal in facts, not fantasy. And the facts are that in the games I have played thus far, this is the outcome. That's undeniable. I could just as easily say "10 games is a perfectly good number for this sort of test, because I said so..."
To try and dismiss this by saying "Your results don't mean anything unless you play this arbitrary number of times that I made up in my head, because #reasons...." is pretty pointless and is simple denial of evidence at this point. I mean, you don't have to like the results that I've provided, but your attempt to irrelevantise them that way is pretty impolite.
There's nothing incomplete about the data I provided. Just your ability to accept it.
Your data set is too small to draw any conclusions from. You don’t need to be a statistician to see that.
Hey look I won 1 of 1 games hurr durr look at my 100% winrate!
That is literally completely wrong. And your comparison made completely no sense. "Hurr-durr! 1 is the same number as 12... derp! Counting is fun, liek!" /facepalm But thanks for trying anyway...
Apparently "statisticians" don't know the difference between 1 and 12.... go figure... XD
Could you report back when you have larger sample size, like 100 games or preferably 250+ games?
If I can remember (and haven't bored myself to death) by that point, then sure! Lol!
I was mostly just politely hinting that you have such incomplete data that claiming anything about this deck is a little bit disingenuous.
To be fair, that's a pretty disingenuous comment as it stands. Since you can't make a claim for me to "come back when I have played X games" in any sort of realistic sense, since it doesn't matter how many games I could or couldn't play. I deal in facts, not fantasy. And the facts are that in the games I have played thus far, this is the outcome. That's undeniable. I could just as easily say "10 games is a perfectly good number for this sort of test, because I said so..."
To try and dismiss this by saying "Your results don't mean anything unless you play this arbitrary number of times that I made up in my head, because #reasons...." is pretty pointless and is simple denial of evidence at this point. I mean, you don't have to like the results that I've provided, but your attempt to irrelevantise them that way is pretty impolite.
There's nothing incomplete about the data I provided. Just your ability to accept it.
Your data set is too small to draw any conclusions from. You don’t need to be a statistician to see that.
Hey look I won 1 of 1 games hurr durr look at my 100% winrate!
That is literally completely wrong. And your comparison made completely no sense. "Hurr-durr! 1 is the same number as 12... derp! Counting is fun, liek!" /facepalm But thanks for trying anyway...
Apparently "statisticians" don't know the difference between 1 and 12.... go figure... XD
I’m really, very sorry that you were never able to take your mathematics education far enough to understand how statistics are interpreted. Unfortunately I don’t have time to teach you the ins and outs.
I’m really, very sorry that you were never able to take your mathematics education far enough to understand how statistics are interpreted. Unfortunately I don’t have time to teach you the ins and outs.
I get it. You're just a troll. Shame on me for biting... Well done...
I’m really, very sorry that you were never able to take your mathematics education far enough to understand how statistics are interpreted. Unfortunately I don’t have time to teach you the ins and outs.
I get it. You're just a troll. Shame on me for biting... Well done...
Honestly, I thought you were the troll! Goes to show how context is everything.
Everything about this thread makes my day go by so much better. I truly enjoy cyber shit talking and so many people boasting how cool their deck is while an equal amount of people shit all over their posts. There must always be balance with the force. Hey looked i just posted in 1/1 threads...I know have a 100% post rate on the forum!!! /score
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Courage is not the absence of fear, Courage is the presence of faith.
Delicious as that is, you are aware that 1/1 actually is 100%, yes? The same as 12/12. Or 100/100. Or 250/250. Which proves that this has literally no bearing on anything.
By the way, did you also know that the sun is bright, the grass is green and the sky is (often) blue? Because that must blow your mind! Lol! XD
I’m really, very sorry that you were never able to take your mathematics education far enough to understand how statistics are interpreted. Unfortunately I don’t have time to teach you the ins and outs.
I get it. You're just a troll. Shame on me for biting... Well done...
Honestly, I thought you were the troll! Goes to show how context is everything.
And yet, you came onto this thread to troll away like you did. Liiiiittle bit obvious, dude...
Is Sunkeeper Tarim there for Jade Golems or as a general "big minion removal" or for some other reason? Cause with how many hand buffs u have it seems counter-intuitive to use it as a buff for your own guys.
Also isnt Tirion Fordring a bit slow? Seems like Bonemare would do much better job tempo wise ;-)
Delicious as that is, you are aware that 1/1 actually is 100%, yes? The same as 12/12. Or 100/100. Or 250/250. Which proves that this has literally no bearing on anything.
By the way, did you also know that the sun is bright, the grass is green and the sky is (often) blue? Because that must blow your mind! Lol! XD
It doesn't change the statistical insignificance of your tiny data set. Somebody who is colourblind would probably disagree with your interesting colour tangent.
Edit: I'm happy to tell you you're wrong all day XD
Ok, well enough bragging! (Sorry about that - I don't usually boast, but am on a bit of a high with this deck.)
So I thought I would see if I could try and make a Paladin deck that might be a bit more competitive than the usual shtick. So far I've gone 12 for 0 with this one, which is rather surprising, since I usually find Paladin to be more weaker than the other classes.
For reference, these matches were in Wild (rather than standard), for no reason other than I was practising and didnt want to mess up my standard rank - ironically it looks like maybe I should have just gone standard after all! Heh!
Deck is in the image attached. Feel free to make suggestions, offer ideas etc.
And of course, by all means give it a try if you want. :-)
Im kinda desperate to find a good paladin deck (playing different paladin decks and floating around 20 to 16 rank for 2 days straight) so Im gonna give it a shot now.
Could you report back when you have larger sample size, like 100 games or preferably 250+ games?
12 games don't tell much, your reasoning let me believe it's low rank, also players tend to have weaker decks in wild in the lower ranks than in standard.
Your deck doesn't have anything special either it's just buffadin (with outfitters instead of keleseth as the more popular build)
also had success with it, but when the buffadin fails it feels very one sided.
100% in which rank? Your deck doesn't seem to have anything special, so I guess on higher ranks it wouldn't be so successful.
Well, ranks were from 12 up to 8 or so, so granted it's in the lower end of the ranks, but I haven't been playing much wild hence why my rank there is so low.
Honestly isn't going to work in standard. No better than any of the other handbuff paladins out there
#nerfbarnes
I deal in facts, not fantasy. And the facts are that in the games I have played thus far, this is the outcome. That's undeniable. I could just as easily say "10 games is a perfectly good number for this sort of test, because I said so..."
I mean, you don't have to like the results that I've provided, but your attempt to irrelevantise them that way is pretty impolite.
"Hurr-durr! 1 is the same number as 12... derp! Counting is fun, liek!" /facepalm
But thanks for trying anyway...
Well done...
Everything about this thread makes my day go by so much better. I truly enjoy cyber shit talking and so many people boasting how cool their deck is while an equal amount of people shit all over their posts. There must always be balance with the force. Hey looked i just posted in 1/1 threads...I know have a 100% post rate on the forum!!! /score
Courage is not the absence of fear, Courage is the presence of faith.
Lol, the jealousy drippeth! XD
Delicious as that is, you are aware that 1/1 actually is 100%, yes? The same as 12/12. Or 100/100. Or 250/250. Which proves that this has literally no bearing on anything.
By the way, did you also know that the sun is bright, the grass is green and the sky is (often) blue? Because that must blow your mind! Lol!
XD
Liiiiittle bit obvious, dude...
Is Sunkeeper Tarim there for Jade Golems or as a general "big minion removal" or for some other reason? Cause with how many hand buffs u have it seems counter-intuitive to use it as a buff for your own guys.
Also isnt Tirion Fordring a bit slow? Seems like Bonemare would do much better job tempo wise ;-)
- Click Here To Join Us On Discord! -