Hearthpwn

Quote from MalakyEx >>

Quote from maroon5five >>

Quote from MalakyEx >>

Because what you were saying is false, by claiming that BGH was "just as populare then" as it is now. Which isn't, BGH is more popular today with Dr.Boom than it was back with Hs Vanilla.

I find it kinda humorous how your lack of reading comprehension makes you feel like you're "winning" (as you keep repeating like a child in every single post) when you're simply not getting the point right.

I find it absolutely hilarious that you think you're winning even though I've posted actual proof that you are wrong.

LOL. I was making fun of YOU for this sort of attitude (like we're having a battle or something) but in your abysmal reading comprehension all you "understood" is that I'm somehow claiming victory, like a kid.

Quote from maroon5five >>

Quote from MalakyEx >>

Quote from maroon5five >>

Quote from MalakyEx >>

Because what you were saying is false, by claiming that BGH was "just as populare then" as it is now. Which isn't, BGH is more popular today with Dr.Boom than it was back with Hs Vanilla.

I find it kinda humorous how your lack of reading comprehension makes you feel like you're "winning" (as you keep repeating like a child in every single post) when you're simply not getting the point right.

I find it absolutely hilarious that you think you're winning even though I've posted actual proof that you are wrong.

LOL. I was making fun of YOU for this sort of attitude (like we're having a battle or something) but in your abysmal reading comprehension all you "understood" is that I'm somehow claiming victory, like a kid.

 You think you don't display the same sort of attitude?

Quote from ambershee >>

You haven't shown evidence at all, you just keep reiterating the same statements over and over again whilst everyone else in the thread disagrees with you and draws completely different conclusions from the 'evidence' you're providing.

There were approximately 21,775 non-arena, non-adventure decks list on Hearthpwn prior to GvG, and approximately 1875 of them contained BGH (8.6%). After the release of GvG, there were approximately 184,975 decks, and 38,275 of them contained BGH (20.70%) - that's a pretty freaking huge jump going from ~1:13 to ~1:5. Approximately 53,300 decks contain Dr. Boom (28.81%) and these numbers are not a coincidence.

Quote from MalakyEx >>

Quote from maroon5five >>

Quote from MalakyEx >>

Quote from maroon5five >>

Quote from MalakyEx >>

Because what you were saying is false, by claiming that BGH was "just as populare then" as it is now. Which isn't, BGH is more popular today with Dr.Boom than it was back with Hs Vanilla.

I find it kinda humorous how your lack of reading comprehension makes you feel like you're "winning" (as you keep repeating like a child in every single post) when you're simply not getting the point right.

I find it absolutely hilarious that you think you're winning even though I've posted actual proof that you are wrong.

LOL. I was making fun of YOU for this sort of attitude (like we're having a battle or something) but in your abysmal reading comprehension all you "understood" is that I'm somehow claiming victory, like a kid.

 You think you don't display the same sort of attitude?

 Considering I never claimed "victory" (which you've been stressing in your every other posts), no.

Quote from maroon5five >>

Quote from MalakyEx >>

Quote from maroon5five >>

Quote from MalakyEx >>

Quote from maroon5five >>

Quote from MalakyEx >>

Because what you were saying is false, by claiming that BGH was "just as populare then" as it is now. Which isn't, BGH is more popular today with Dr.Boom than it was back with Hs Vanilla.

I find it kinda humorous how your lack of reading comprehension makes you feel like you're "winning" (as you keep repeating like a child in every single post) when you're simply not getting the point right.

I find it absolutely hilarious that you think you're winning even though I've posted actual proof that you are wrong.

LOL. I was making fun of YOU for this sort of attitude (like we're having a battle or something) but in your abysmal reading comprehension all you "understood" is that I'm somehow claiming victory, like a kid.

 You think you don't display the same sort of attitude?

 Considering I never claimed "victory" (which you've been stressing in your every other posts), no.

 Attitude isn't always about what you say, it's about how you say it.

Quote from MalakyEx >>

 I don't give a shit, and honestly I wasted too much time with you. This thread proved that none but two people agrees with you, so that's it.

Quote from ambershee >>

Quote from maroon5five >>

While you have your own evidence to support your claim, that still doesn't invalidate my evidence as mine is in response to the claim that BGH was used less in vanilla than it is now, your evidence is just pre GvG (not just vanilla) and post GvG (includes more metas than just the one we are in right now). That means that we are talking about completely different time period comparisons. I accept your evidence to your claim, and I accept your argument, but I don't believe that it invalidates my evidence or my claim in the slightest.

Using the decks posted here, you can compare any pre-GvG patch after the game's release you like with any post-GvG launch - no matter which pair you decide to look at it there is a significant increase in the incorporation of BGH into decks. Dr Boom finds himself in 1 in every 4 decks at the time of the GvG launch. Popularity of both cards remains consistent after GvG.

Quote from ambershee >>

Tempostorm is an opinion column written by a handful of experienced players, it is not reflective of the player base or game as a whole and their data set is small (also, just because a meta snapshot contains umpteen decks, doesn't mean they're all being played in equal measure). If anything, I'd argue the data here is much more reliable as a whole, given the sheer volume of samples. ~185,000 decks is a pretty hefty sample size.

Quote from ambershee >>

Quote from maroon5five >>

 Do you really believe that people that play super cookie cutter decks post their decks on here at the same percentage that people post their own creations or their decks that have more tech choices? I don't. How about people who use net decked aggro decks to climb and farm, do you think they post their decks on here at the same percentage that other people do? I'm going to say I don't believe that one either. Sample size means nothing when certain groups are much more likely to post decks than others. It's like doing political polls by polling people with landline phones, you can have a large sample size but it is likely to not have any correlation to the actual numbers.

The tempo storm lists are based on some observations of the meta, and they have a direct impact on the meta themselves (as some people always want to be playing the top deck). I have always found their meta analysis to be pretty similar to what I see on ladder, but individual results will vary as the meta does change at different points on the ladder.

Pick a popular deck archetype, find an example, click 'similar decks' - you'll always get a full 20 results and most of them are extremely similar if not identical. Yes, players who upload decks here post their cookie-cutter decks and they make up the vast majority of decks on this site once you ignore adventures / tavern brawls / arena drafts. First row of decks from the front page:
http://www.hearthpwn.com/decks/437470-mkrr3s-ftp-9-days-legend-from-zero (19 almost identical decks, 1 very similar deck)
http://www.hearthpwn.com/decks/437998-j4ckiechans-1-legend-eu-injured-camel-hunter (13 literally identical decks, most uploaded in the past couple of days - I'm guessing this is a pretty new archetype)
http://www.hearthpwn.com/decks/436452-s23-legend-sigmas-max-impact-zoo-full-in-depth#related:similar-decks-collection (15 almost identical decks, 5 very similar decks)

I havent read all the discussion, but i think the best way how to nerf him is change his Battlecry to "Destroy a non-legendary minion with attack of 7 or more". It would have still the same mood, but no more could one dwarf kill Deathwing or Old God or whatever lore-nonsense.

Easy. "Your minions with 7 or more attack have +1 attack"

Kappa

What's the question again?

Is this the nerf we need? No
Could Blizzard do better? Yes

I like it as it is anyway.

Hitting 6+ attack, non-legendaries minions could be a reasonable nerf though.
Mysterious Challenger and Savannah Highmane are definitelly big games.
Ragnaros the Firelord, yeah it's kinda a too big game.

BGH doesn't pay anything for it's effect. 

The healthy way to change the card would be to up the mana cost by 1 thus making it cost 4 mana or to reduce the stats to 3/2 or 2/2 (even 3/1 could work and it would still be valuable).

It is going to be needed in a lot of decks especially since WOG is trying to move towards a slower meta with the introduction of many expensive 7+ attack minions.