Agree that Blizzard cannot act too hastily with buffs and nerfs, but waiting for another 2-3 weeks before they adjust something again, is just too frustrating. I can't even enjoy the game, while it's full of annoying Paladins.
Regarding decks that have a 75% win rate, (assuming you are talking about results on HSReplay), this more often than not is based only upon a few thousand or so games, which is nowhere near enough to get a proper representation of the deck strength. I've seen decks that have showcased an 80+% win rate for the first couple of thousand games, and have then plummeted as other people pick up the deck and realise it's not as good as it looked. Of course, if there are decks performing to that standard (75%+) with 50,000+ games played, then it's likely to grab Blizzard's attention more.
The top deck on HSReplay has 81,000 games under its belt. The win rate is 69.2%. That is still way too high.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
Regarding decks that have a 75% win rate, (assuming you are talking about results on HSReplay), this more often than not is based only upon a few thousand or so games, which is nowhere near enough to get a proper representation of the deck strength. I've seen decks that have showcased an 80+% win rate for the first couple of thousand games, and have then plummeted as other people pick up the deck and realise it's not as good as it looked. Of course, if there are decks performing to that standard (75%+) with 50,000+ games played, then it's likely to grab Blizzard's attention more.
The top deck on HSReplay has 81,000 games under its belt. The win rate is 69.2%. That is still way too high.
Mm-hmm. Vastly different to 75% though. When you're at that sort of region, every percentage point counts for a huge amount. Whether 69% is "too high" or not is another matter. I've seen plenty of decks that have had rates similar to that without needing or receiving nerfs.
What is an "acceptable" win rate? And to make that happen, you would have to "fix" a deck to perform within certain parameters. So you would also need to remove as much of the aspect of skill from a deck to replace with something you can control such as RnG. And I doubt anyone would want to remove the player input from a deck (judging by all the normal complaints we get about decks being "autopilot" as it is). It's a slippery slope...
Regarding decks that have a 75% win rate, (assuming you are talking about results on HSReplay), this more often than not is based only upon a few thousand or so games, which is nowhere near enough to get a proper representation of the deck strength. I've seen decks that have showcased an 80+% win rate for the first couple of thousand games, and have then plummeted as other people pick up the deck and realise it's not as good as it looked. Of course, if there are decks performing to that standard (75%+) with 50,000+ games played, then it's likely to grab Blizzard's attention more.
The top deck on HSReplay has 81,000 games under its belt. The win rate is 69.2%. That is still way too high.
Mm-hmm. Vastly different to 75% though. When you're at that sort of region, every percentage point counts for a huge amount. Whether 69% is "too high" or not is another matter. I've seen plenty of decks that have had rates similar to that without needing or receiving nerfs.
What is an "acceptable" win rate? And to make that happen, you would have to "fix" a deck to perform within certain parameters. So you would also need to remove as much of the aspect of skill from a deck to replace with something you can control such as RnG. And I doubt anyone would want to remove the player input from a deck (judging by all the normal complaints we get about decks being "autopilot" as it is). It's a slippery slope...
By the same token, your exact argument has been made for every deck that has ever been nerfed.
A (barely) acceptable win rate is around 60%. You should definitely not be able to beat more than 2/3 of the field with one deck.
That's not to say that every deck above 60% must be nerfed, but they should be looked at. However, any deck that goes over 65% must be taken down a notch or two. If you disagree, that's fine, but then we have very different opinions of what a healthy meta looks like.
Mm-hmm. Vastly different to 75% though. When you're at that sort of region, every percentage point counts for a huge amount. Whether 69% is "too high" or not is another matter. I've seen plenty of decks that have had rates similar to that without needing or receiving nerfs.
What is an "acceptable" win rate? And to make that happen, you would have to "fix" a deck to perform within certain parameters. So you would also need to remove as much of the aspect of skill from a deck to replace with something you can control such as RnG. And I doubt anyone would want to remove the player input from a deck (judging by all the normal complaints we get about decks being "autopilot" as it is). It's a slippery slope...
By the same token, your exact argument has been made for every deck that has ever been nerfed.
A (barely) acceptable win rate is around 60%. You should definitely not be able to beat more than 2/3 of the field with one deck.
That's not to say that every deck above 60% must be nerfed, but they should be looked at. However, any deck that goes over 65% must be taken down a notch or two. If you disagree, that's fine, but then we have very different opinions of what a healthy meta looks like.
Which argument are you referring to? I'm not entirely sure what you meant by that.
I don't agree or disagree on whether a deck that goes over a 65% win rate must be taken down, mostly because every deck needs examining in its own right, and while some may require attention, others may not (based on the meta and the circumstances surrounding it).
For a "loose" example: Let's say that secrets suddenly became really strong in one meta and were the Go-To deck of the time for easy wins. Secret-based decks had a big win rate and everyone was playing them. Then, someone discovers that there are a number of cards which are Secret-Deck destroyers. It swings the meta. All the "regulars" are still playing Secret decks because they were so strong, but suddenly there's a rise of Secret-Killer decks, with massive win rates due to the amount of farmable Secret decks. This doesn't mean that these secret-destroyer decks are broken or in need of a nerf, only that they are enjoying a meta in their favour. As soon as people realise that Secret decks are losing to the new meta they start switching to other archetypes. Now, these secret-destroyer decks are suddenly not as strong as before and so natural evolution of metas comes into effect.
According to non-premium HSR (bronze to gold), Secret Libram Paladin worst matchup is 50%... against Secret Paladin. On higher ranks (according to Vicious Syndicate) he is favored against most meta decks, even with few, slightly unfavored against Secret Rogue and unfavored against Rush Warrior. That's not right...
According to non-premium HSR (bronze to gold), Secret Libram Paladin worst matchup is 50%... against Secret Paladin. On higher ranks (according to Vicious Syndicate) he is favored against most meta decks, even with few, slightly unfavored against Secret Rogue and unfavored against Rush Warrior. That's not right...
What's not right? You just mentioned that where it matters the deck is good, but not broken. Are decks not allowed to be good?
According to non-premium HSR (bronze to gold), Secret Libram Paladin worst matchup is 50%... against Secret Paladin. On higher ranks (according to Vicious Syndicate) he is favored against most meta decks, even with few, slightly unfavored against Secret Rogue and unfavored against Rush Warrior. That's not right...
What's not right? You just mentioned that where it matters the deck is good, but not broken. Are decks not allowed to be good?
You confuse "good" with "broken". The data says, that with most decks you have to be D5 to legend (which is around 5% of all HS players) if you want to have at least 50/50 against Paladin. If you are not that good (and 95% players are not) you will most likely lose against him, even despite being on the same skill level. Ye, that's wrong.
Paladin has a problem, and it is that you have a countdown over your head that says :in turn 9 you are gonna get rekt by a pyroblast that leaves an 8/8 on field
Aren't half the decks on ladder running the new Alex?
Why do you guys give three pages of consideration to an OP that clearly just made shit up?
As has been painstakingly discussed, there's no 75% win rate, and frankly anything being quoted from bronze to gold sections have little relevance. Personally I can't remember the last time I lost a game in bronze-gold, so I guess everything I've played is grossly OP with a 100% win rate.
Obviously that's ridiculous and so is this discussion. I know there will be those who say, "yeah but there's a discussion to be had about paladin regardless of OP's lies," in which case by all means, start a thread and discuss it. But why are we acting like this deserves attention?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
I don't enjoy facing the class because of how helpless you feel if they get an amazing mulligan but the same could be said about any class. I don't think much needs to be changed with the class and in fact, I wish Blizz would focus on buffing certain cards rather than nerfing others. Doing this would allow people to still enjoy decks in the current meta while allowing room for some potential new creativity.
An easy example would be to buff a card like Overlord Saurfang to 6 mana to see if it finds a higher attach rate. This is a pretty neat card design for the Warrior class which will never see the light of day because it is too slow in its current state and the 'frenzy' gimmick will most likely not see support in future expansions. A buff such as this is also a very consumer friendly move because you now provide more deck making flexibility towards casual/budget/F2P players who may have opened this card in a pack but can't find a viable use for it.
Obviously that's ridiculous and so is this discussion. I know there will be those who say, "yeah but there's a discussion to be had about paladin regardless of OP's lies," in which case by all means, start a thread and discuss it. But why are we acting like this deserves attention?
Pretty sure that's the discussion to be had, regardless of numbers. Paladin is one of the few tier 1 on ladder right now (with rush warrior). And to be fair to OP, it's hsreplay's stats which are misleading. I still don't get why non premium users go to hsreplay instead of VS for meta analysis.
But ironicaly, despite what i'm saying, I don't think it deserves a nerf. I think the current state of the ladder is more a result of low deck diversity (edit : I should say low viable card pool) rather than one deck being toxic and shutting down other deck experiments. Paladin is beatable, targetable with deck like rogue, or warrior (some people say priest also counters paladin? I never tried it, i'm not entirely convinced, but i haven't played priest this expansion).
That deck has a 69% win rate Bronze to Gold. It drops to below 60% at Diamond 1-4.
HSReplay is great but a lot of the free stats are next to useless.
The majority of players are Gold and below, so I don't think it's correct to ignore that segment. Their fun is not less important than your fun, even if they aren't as skilled or as tryhard as you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
Instead of complaining about win rates of separate classes the focus on win condition win rate is fundamentally more meaningful. Thereby looking at the nerfpolitics of devs. If the target audience complain, nerf will there be (to paraphrase Yoda). Apparently Mage was the target this time.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Instead of complaining about win rates of separate classes the focus on win condition win rate is fundamentally more meaningful. Thereby looking at the nerfpolitics of devs. If the target audience complain, nerf will there be (to paraphrase Yoda). Apparently Mage was the target this time.
True, but the issue is much deeper. Some classes just can't work, because they lack proper toolset (Shaman, Warlock and to some extent also Priest) and we shouldn't expect the change to happen any time soon (maybe in mini expansion, but it will take few weeks). Until then, we can only count on balance changes.
Obviously that's ridiculous and so is this discussion. I know there will be those who say, "yeah but there's a discussion to be had about paladin regardless of OP's lies," in which case by all means, start a thread and discuss it. But why are we acting like this deserves attention?
Pretty sure that's the discussion to be had, regardless of numbers. Paladin is one of the few tier 1 on ladder right now (with rush warrior). And to be fair to OP, it's hsreplay's stats which are misleading. I still don't get why non premium users go to hsreplay instead of VS for meta analysis.
But ironicaly, despite what i'm saying, I don't think it deserves a nerf. I think the current state of the ladder is more a result of low deck diversity (edit : I should say low viable card pool) rather than one deck being toxic and shutting down other deck experiments. Paladin is beatable, targetable with deck like rogue, or warrior (some people say priest also counters paladin? I never tried it, i'm not entirely convinced, but i haven't played priest this expansion).
I just wish shaman was actualy playable D:
I second the motion re: Shaman
Having said that, no, it is not HS Replay's misleading stats that resulted in the OP making a win rate up, because there isn't anything on HS Replay that contains that win rate regardless of how one parses the data.
I just believe the OP of a thread has a tendency to set the tone and direction of a discussion, and if we agree on that premise even a little, then this discussion isn't going anywhere because the OP was complete fantasy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Agree that Blizzard cannot act too hastily with buffs and nerfs, but waiting for another 2-3 weeks before they adjust something again, is just too frustrating. I can't even enjoy the game, while it's full of annoying Paladins.
The top deck on HSReplay has 81,000 games under its belt. The win rate is 69.2%. That is still way too high.
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
Mm-hmm. Vastly different to 75% though. When you're at that sort of region, every percentage point counts for a huge amount.
Whether 69% is "too high" or not is another matter. I've seen plenty of decks that have had rates similar to that without needing or receiving nerfs.
What is an "acceptable" win rate? And to make that happen, you would have to "fix" a deck to perform within certain parameters. So you would also need to remove as much of the aspect of skill from a deck to replace with something you can control such as RnG.
And I doubt anyone would want to remove the player input from a deck (judging by all the normal complaints we get about decks being "autopilot" as it is).
It's a slippery slope...
By the same token, your exact argument has been made for every deck that has ever been nerfed.
A (barely) acceptable win rate is around 60%. You should definitely not be able to beat more than 2/3 of the field with one deck.
That's not to say that every deck above 60% must be nerfed, but they should be looked at. However, any deck that goes over 65% must be taken down a notch or two. If you disagree, that's fine, but then we have very different opinions of what a healthy meta looks like.
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
That deck has a 69% win rate Bronze to Gold. It drops to below 60% at Diamond 1-4.
HSReplay is great but a lot of the free stats are next to useless.
Which argument are you referring to? I'm not entirely sure what you meant by that.
I don't agree or disagree on whether a deck that goes over a 65% win rate must be taken down, mostly because every deck needs examining in its own right, and while some may require attention, others may not (based on the meta and the circumstances surrounding it).
For a "loose" example:
Let's say that secrets suddenly became really strong in one meta and were the Go-To deck of the time for easy wins. Secret-based decks had a big win rate and everyone was playing them. Then, someone discovers that there are a number of cards which are Secret-Deck destroyers. It swings the meta. All the "regulars" are still playing Secret decks because they were so strong, but suddenly there's a rise of Secret-Killer decks, with massive win rates due to the amount of farmable Secret decks.
This doesn't mean that these secret-destroyer decks are broken or in need of a nerf, only that they are enjoying a meta in their favour. As soon as people realise that Secret decks are losing to the new meta they start switching to other archetypes. Now, these secret-destroyer decks are suddenly not as strong as before and so natural evolution of metas comes into effect.
According to non-premium HSR (bronze to gold), Secret Libram Paladin worst matchup is 50%... against Secret Paladin. On higher ranks (according to Vicious Syndicate) he is favored against most meta decks, even with few, slightly unfavored against Secret Rogue and unfavored against Rush Warrior. That's not right...
What's not right? You just mentioned that where it matters the deck is good, but not broken. Are decks not allowed to be good?
You confuse "good" with "broken". The data says, that with most decks you have to be D5 to legend (which is around 5% of all HS players) if you want to have at least 50/50 against Paladin. If you are not that good (and 95% players are not) you will most likely lose against him, even despite being on the same skill level. Ye, that's wrong.
Paladin is pretty hard to nerf. You would need to hit multiple cards.
I think I would start with oh my yogg. Nerf that and hope it drops the win rate a point or two.
Deck would still be strong, but hopefully be vulnerable to removal heavy decks.
Galavant Animation
Aren't half the decks on ladder running the new Alex?
Why do you guys give three pages of consideration to an OP that clearly just made shit up?
As has been painstakingly discussed, there's no 75% win rate, and frankly anything being quoted from bronze to gold sections have little relevance. Personally I can't remember the last time I lost a game in bronze-gold, so I guess everything I've played is grossly OP with a 100% win rate.
Obviously that's ridiculous and so is this discussion. I know there will be those who say, "yeah but there's a discussion to be had about paladin regardless of OP's lies," in which case by all means, start a thread and discuss it. But why are we acting like this deserves attention?
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
This discussion is not ridiculous even though there is no 75% winrate as Paladin IS still the best.
https://twitter.com/HSReplayNet/status/1387065257898643457/photo/1
If Paladin has 2 best decks and another one in top 5 it means this class is just op and should be nerfed, question is not if but how.
I don't enjoy facing the class because of how helpless you feel if they get an amazing mulligan but the same could be said about any class. I don't think much needs to be changed with the class and in fact, I wish Blizz would focus on buffing certain cards rather than nerfing others. Doing this would allow people to still enjoy decks in the current meta while allowing room for some potential new creativity.
An easy example would be to buff a card like Overlord Saurfang to 6 mana to see if it finds a higher attach rate. This is a pretty neat card design for the Warrior class which will never see the light of day because it is too slow in its current state and the 'frenzy' gimmick will most likely not see support in future expansions. A buff such as this is also a very consumer friendly move because you now provide more deck making flexibility towards casual/budget/F2P players who may have opened this card in a pack but can't find a viable use for it.
Pretty sure that's the discussion to be had, regardless of numbers. Paladin is one of the few tier 1 on ladder right now (with rush warrior). And to be fair to OP, it's hsreplay's stats which are misleading. I still don't get why non premium users go to hsreplay instead of VS for meta analysis.
But ironicaly, despite what i'm saying, I don't think it deserves a nerf. I think the current state of the ladder is more a result of low deck diversity (edit : I should say low viable card pool) rather than one deck being toxic and shutting down other deck experiments. Paladin is beatable, targetable with deck like rogue, or warrior (some people say priest also counters paladin? I never tried it, i'm not entirely convinced, but i haven't played priest this expansion).
I just wish shaman was actualy playable D:
The majority of players are Gold and below, so I don't think it's correct to ignore that segment. Their fun is not less important than your fun, even if they aren't as skilled or as tryhard as you.
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
Game is broken and developers do not know how they will fix it.
Instead of complaining about win rates of separate classes the focus on win condition win rate is fundamentally more meaningful. Thereby looking at the nerfpolitics of devs. If the target audience complain, nerf will there be (to paraphrase Yoda). Apparently Mage was the target this time.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
True, but the issue is much deeper. Some classes just can't work, because they lack proper toolset (Shaman, Warlock and to some extent also Priest) and we shouldn't expect the change to happen any time soon (maybe in mini expansion, but it will take few weeks). Until then, we can only count on balance changes.
I second the motion re: Shaman
Having said that, no, it is not HS Replay's misleading stats that resulted in the OP making a win rate up, because there isn't anything on HS Replay that contains that win rate regardless of how one parses the data.
I just believe the OP of a thread has a tendency to set the tone and direction of a discussion, and if we agree on that premise even a little, then this discussion isn't going anywhere because the OP was complete fantasy.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.