The 65.7 score is only the average of the base value of every individual card. Since your deck runs a lot of synergistic cards like Nourish, Celestial Dreamer, Jade Blossom and Guild Recruiter (the ones that popped into my head the most), cards that work better depending on your deck type, those cards lower the base value of the deck.
Besides, that number overall is pretty irrelevant. A deck with 30 Ultimate Infestations would have an insane score of 126 (since that is the individual score of the card) but would never net you any wins unless your opponent would disconnect.
Don't know. I'm not too familiar with arena these days, but I guess maybe 4-7 wins (that's the score I'd expect myself with that deck, and I'm a pretty average player myself). The deck is capable of cycling out its smaller cards with Oaken Summons and its draw cards, but seems a bit light on answers and early game. Then again, if it does reach the later stages of the game and you're not losing too hard, you will do a lot of comeback wins.
In the end, just hope you don't find too many tempo decks and you'll be doing fine. This is one of those decks that can easily go 12-0 or 0-3, based on draw luck alone.
The 65.7 score is only the average of the base value of every individual card. Since your deck runs a lot of synergistic cards like Nourish, Celestial Dreamer, Jade Blossom and Guild Recruiter (the ones that popped into my head the most), cards that work better depending on your deck type, those cards lower the base value of the deck.
Besides, that number overall is pretty irrelevant. A deck with 30 Ultimate Infestations would have an insane score of 126 (since that is the individual score of the card) but would never net you any wins unless your opponent would disconnect.
It is not irrelevant. It is very relevant for actual card distributions in decks. You typically won't get a card offered more than ~5 times (sometimes higher), but you will never get it 30 times.
Are win shares irrelevant because a team with 25 catchers would never win?
It's pretty irrelavant in the sense it is an average. If we went together for a lunch where we have a chicken to eat and I eat all of it, I can say we both ate, on average, half a chicken, even though I left you hungry.
That number represents how good the cards in the deck are in a vacuum, not how good they are in a deck. For example, Savage Roar is a 56 point card, which is somewhat underwhelming, but if you have a deck capable of filling your board with tokens, the 56 point card is your win condition a lot of times even though it is actually lowering the deck score.
That UI example was, without a doubt, an exaggeration, though. I just didn't want to calculate the average of a deck filled with great cards that would tank hard when played so I went overboard with one card.
PS: I honestly don't know what sport you're talking about with the 25 catchers example.
It's pretty irrelavant in the sense it is an average. If we went together for a lunch where we have a chicken to eat and I eat all of it, I can say we both ate, on average, half a chicken, even though I left you hungry.
That number represents how good the cards in the deck are in a vacuum, not how good they are in a deck. For example, Savage Roar is a 56 point card, which is somewhat underwhelming, but if you have a deck capable of filling your board with tokens, the 56 point card is your win condition a lot of times even though it is actually lowering the deck score.
That UI example was, without a doubt, an exaggeration, though. I just didn't want to calculate the average of a deck filled with great cards that would tank hard when played so I went overboard with one card.
PS: I honestly don't know what sport you're talking about with the 25 catchers example.
If you are trying to measure how hungry I am, and you eating the entire chicken is a common occurrence, then average food ate is a bad metric.
I don't think irrelevant is the right word you are looking for. Deck score correlates with the wins a deck will get. It can be off a lot for certain decks, but that doesn't make it irrelevant.
Also, tell me what sport you are most familiar with and I will adjust the example
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Lich KIng, Ysera , Kun , Ultimate Infes. in an Arena Deck Yet the Score is 65 ????? Please Explain!
Probably because the rest of the deck doesn't have that much value, +it's too control for arena, doesn't have so many early drops
The 65.7 score is only the average of the base value of every individual card. Since your deck runs a lot of synergistic cards like Nourish, Celestial Dreamer, Jade Blossom and Guild Recruiter (the ones that popped into my head the most), cards that work better depending on your deck type, those cards lower the base value of the deck.
Besides, that number overall is pretty irrelevant. A deck with 30 Ultimate Infestations would have an insane score of 126 (since that is the individual score of the card) but would never net you any wins unless your opponent would disconnect.
Ranked game wins per class (26/Dec/2018): Druid - 457; Hunter - 482; Mage - 345; Paladin - 435; Priest - 295; Rogue - 234; Shaman - 430; Warlock - 419; Warrior - 367
I really should update my signature more often...
How many wins could this deck get if you are an average arena player?
Don't know. I'm not too familiar with arena these days, but I guess maybe 4-7 wins (that's the score I'd expect myself with that deck, and I'm a pretty average player myself). The deck is capable of cycling out its smaller cards with Oaken Summons and its draw cards, but seems a bit light on answers and early game. Then again, if it does reach the later stages of the game and you're not losing too hard, you will do a lot of comeback wins.
In the end, just hope you don't find too many tempo decks and you'll be doing fine. This is one of those decks that can easily go 12-0 or 0-3, based on draw luck alone.
Ranked game wins per class (26/Dec/2018): Druid - 457; Hunter - 482; Mage - 345; Paladin - 435; Priest - 295; Rogue - 234; Shaman - 430; Warlock - 419; Warrior - 367
I really should update my signature more often...
It's pretty irrelavant in the sense it is an average. If we went together for a lunch where we have a chicken to eat and I eat all of it, I can say we both ate, on average, half a chicken, even though I left you hungry.
That number represents how good the cards in the deck are in a vacuum, not how good they are in a deck. For example, Savage Roar is a 56 point card, which is somewhat underwhelming, but if you have a deck capable of filling your board with tokens, the 56 point card is your win condition a lot of times even though it is actually lowering the deck score.
That UI example was, without a doubt, an exaggeration, though. I just didn't want to calculate the average of a deck filled with great cards that would tank hard when played so I went overboard with one card.
PS: I honestly don't know what sport you're talking about with the 25 catchers example.
Ranked game wins per class (26/Dec/2018): Druid - 457; Hunter - 482; Mage - 345; Paladin - 435; Priest - 295; Rogue - 234; Shaman - 430; Warlock - 419; Warrior - 367
I really should update my signature more often...
I don't play much arena, so this is a bit of a stab in the dark, but:
Maybe it's the 86.66% of the deck you didn't mention in the title?
could go easy 12 wins but you have to stand against the early game