Blizzard tracks tons of stats, the last I heard going first is still a very slight advantage, which means the coin is just about right. That going first is more advantageous in Arena than constructed also shows that the coins use as a spell is important to keeping this balance.
In other words its OPness is mostly in your head.
I know that statistically that used to be true, I do wonder if that might have changed since Naxx as the coin combos with Undertaker are pretty strong.
It used to be that starting first gives you a slight advantage. But with the introduction of so many sick 2-drop cards that could snowball into a huge advantage if your opponent doesn't have an immediate answer, it seems like starting with coin is almost always favourable now, especially if you have a mech rush deck.
E.g. Turn 1 coin into Mechwarper, turn 2 plop down two Micro Machines and as many Clockwork Gnomes/Cogmasters you have, etc.
Certain classes also have early mechs that can be very OP, e.g Whirling Zap-o-Matic, Metaltooth Leaper, etc.
It seems that unless you can deal three damage on Turn 2 to kill that Whirling Zap-o-Matic/Mechwarper, you are screwed. Most classes aren't able to deal AOE damage until Turn 4 at least, by which time the game is almost over for you.
I dont see how thats much different than what we already had. Undertaker>Leper Gnome/Webspinner/Zombie Chow already made it so that the only way to stop the snowball was to have 3 dmg on turn 2. The mechs are just reinforcing that standard. Aggro decks are all about setting the tempo and it looks like thats the tempo that every class can set now.
I dont see how thats much different than what we already had. Undertaker>Leper Gnome/Webspinner/Zombie Chow already made it so that the only way to stop the snowball was to have 3 dmg on turn 2. The mechs are just reinforcing that standard. Aggro decks are all about setting the tempo and it looks like thats the tempo that every class can set now.
The difference is that Undertaker was a 1-drop, so if you started first you could still play it. You can throw out your Leper Gnomes and Webspinners on Turn 2 and the result would be the same. But now the new sick cards are mostly two drops so you must start second in order to put them out on Turn 1.
The advantage of going first pre-dates Undertaker. There have always been strong 2-drops, that will never change. People have always had an irrational pro-Coin bias, that will also never change. That's the beauty of such a well designed balancing effect. Until we get updated official statistics from Blizzard, we can only speculate, but personally I doubt if the advantage has shifted.
I dont see how thats much different than what we already had. Undertaker>Leper Gnome/Webspinner/Zombie Chow already made it so that the only way to stop the snowball was to have 3 dmg on turn 2. The mechs are just reinforcing that standard. Aggro decks are all about setting the tempo and it looks like thats the tempo that every class can set now.
The difference is that Undertaker was a 1-drop, so if you started first you could still play it. You can throw out your Leper Gnomes and Webspinners on Turn 2 and the result would be the same. But now the new sick cards are mostly two drops so you must start second in order to put them out on Turn 1.
But if you play Undertaker turn 1 without coin then your opponent has more options. Its not 3 damage on turn 2 or you're screwed. Either way, the most aggressive opener is turn 1 w/coin dropping a minion that is (or becomes) a 2/3. The problem you just described is only a problem if you are also playing mechs. Yes, in the mech vs mech matchup having the coin is probably preferable because you can get the first Mech Warper out. But it might not be the case if you are playing any number of other decks against mech.
Regardless though, my point was that with either opener there is a potential situation of, I can do 3 dmg on turn 2 or this snowballs out of control. Aggressive decks are always trying to set that quick tempo and this sets tempo that is relatively on par with UT.
Perhaps it's slightly better now after the patch. But it doesn't change the fact that having the coin gives you an advantage on one turn only, all the other turns your opponent has the same advantage that you had on turn 2.
It used to be that starting first gives you a slight advantage. But with the introduction of so many sick 2-drop cards that could snowball into a huge advantage if your opponent doesn't have an immediate answer, it seems like starting with coin is almost always favourable now, especially if you have a mech rush deck.
E.g. Turn 1 coin into Mechwarper, turn 2 plop down two Micro Machines and as many Clockwork Gnomes/Cogmasters you have, etc.
Certain classes also have early mechs that can be very OP, e.g Whirling Zap-o-Matic, Metaltooth Leaper, etc.
It seems that unless you can deal three damage on Turn 2 to kill that Whirling Zap-o-Matic/Mechwarper, you are screwed. Most classes aren't able to deal AOE damage until Turn 4 at least, by which time the game is almost over for you.
Blizzard has confirmed that having The Coin is still a disadvantage:
Just for the record: based on current data, going first is still slightly more advantageous than going second. Also, to clarify the central discussion in this thread, no, the cards introduced in Goblins vs Gnomes have not offered an advantage to the player going second. Like many others, I also often feel more secure going second, but alas, it's just a feeling, and one that's not backed up by the data.
i remember that, according to stats, the win rate of the player who has coin is a little higher than the opponent. However, i just found my situation is different (according to my tracker).
i remember that, according to stats, the win rate of the player who has coin is a little higher than the opponent. However, i just found my situation is different (according to my tracker).
That's not true. The player with The Coin has a lower win rate. It's 3% better to go first than second.
i remember that, according to stats, the win rate of the player who has coin is a little higher than the opponent. However, i just found my situation is different (according to my tracker).
That's not true. The player with The Coin has a lower win rate. It's 3% better to go first than second.
That's not true, that's on average, over the whole playerbase, so some people could play much better with the coin than without, it also depends a lot on the deck you are playing, your skill level etc. You can't always say that every player will have a better win rate if they go first more often, since it's just an average, and the advantage overall is tiny even over such a large sample (I'm assuming it's large of course, with the Blizzard stats).
i remember that, according to stats, the win rate of the player who has coin is a little higher than the opponent. However, i just found my situation is different (according to my tracker).
That's not true. The player with The Coin has a lower win rate. It's 3% better to go first than second.
That's not true, that's on average, over the whole playerbase, so some people could play much better with the coin than without, it also depends a lot on the deck you are playing, your skill level etc. You can't always say that every player will have a better win rate if they go first more often, since it's just an average, and the advantage overall is tiny even over such a large sample (I'm assuming it's large of course, with the Blizzard stats).
That's basically what IS being said. "On average' it's better to go first than second by about 3%." Thus YMMV when it comes to individual stats.
(Though do note that it's actually NOT common for a deck to actually break into "going second is better" territory. Too many think too much of Dream Combos that aren't that common, like a perfect undertaker + 1/2/3 mana deathrattle minion and forgetting the many times you get a 1/2/3/4 or 12/3/3 combo, which is actually horrible for a Coin start. Thus on average most decks, even many aggro ones, are better off going first in the long run.)
The thing is that while you need to pay attention to YOUR deck when dealing with your game, when it comes to topics like this that question whether the coin, as a whole, is better then we go with the overall average: no it's not.
final note: Note that even WITH decks made to be better with the coin, the advantage doesn't break past 3% either. Thus the coin, with ALL of its benefits, gives a range of 3% advantage first-1-2% advantage second depending on deck. We honestly are talking about spare change here as far as advantages goes.
It's very deck-depend in my mind. I remember, before all the Miracle Rogue nerfs, my stats were far better with the coin.
Miracle was one of the few decks that could actually break into the 'better going second' territory. Even then, it was a small percentage. It honestly did almost as well going first as second (it wouldn't be loved as a deck for half a year if it only did well half of the time).
I can put it this way, there isn't a deck out there that does horrible going first but rocks going second. If it can kick your face with the coin, it typically could've kicked your face without the coin.
That's basically what IS being said. "On average' it's better to go first than second by about 3%." Thus YMMV when it comes to individual stats.
No, that was not what was said by the person I quoted, some people seem to think you will always have higher w/r if you go first more often, I was just pointing out why this isn't true.
He did not say "on average" he said "The player with The Coin has a lower win rate. It's 3% better to go first than second." Since he did not say "on average" it is therefore implied that he means every player, it is important to make the distinction in these matters, as they mean quite different things.
i remember that, according to stats, the win rate of the player who has coin is a little higher than the opponent. However, i just found my situation is different (according to my tracker).
That's not true. The player with The Coin has a lower win rate. It's 3% better to go first than second.
No, that was not what was said by the person I quoted, some people seem to think you will always have higher w/r if you go first more often, I was just pointing out why this isn't true.
He did not say "on average" he said "The player with The Coin has a lower win rate. It's 3% better to go first than second." Since he did not say "on average" it is therefore implied that he means every player, it is important to make the distinction in these matters, as they mean quite different things.
Read my post again. I bolded the important bit for you.
Obviously I don't mean it's true for every player. That would be stupid. Someone could register an account, play 1 game with the Coin and win, and then play 1 game without the Coin and lose, and thus have a 100% win rate with the Coin. The implication of "on average" should go without saying.
Read my post again. I bolded the important bit for you.
Obviously I don't mean it's true for every player. That would be stupid. Someone could register an account, play 1 game with the Coin and win, and then play 1 game without the Coin and lose, and thus have a 100% win rate with the Coin. The implication of "on average" should go without saying.
Well some people do believe it's true for every player, I don't make assumptions. Sorry for the misunderstanding though.
Coin /axe isn't advantagous. It's just the same thing as just a turn 2 axe when you go first. Either way, it's "opponent drops minion, you whack with axe." In fact it's a little worse since now you've used the coin for it and will have to spend the next 9 turns behind on mana. Control warrior is NOT one of the decks that does better going second.
Coin wild growth is a bad play unless you have a 3 drop and all it really does is put you in the 'going first' position, using your mana before they do..which you get naturally going first anyway, and a lot of ramp druids don't carry 3 drop minions.
Otherwise, I imagine ramp druid is one that uses the coin well. Though it does well without it since a wild growth + going first actually puts you 1 mana ahead of your opponent (you drop a yeti while they have 3 mana to fight it)
I know that statistically that used to be true, I do wonder if that might have changed since Naxx as the coin combos with Undertaker are pretty strong.
It used to be that starting first gives you a slight advantage. But with the introduction of so many sick 2-drop cards that could snowball into a huge advantage if your opponent doesn't have an immediate answer, it seems like starting with coin is almost always favourable now, especially if you have a mech rush deck.
E.g. Turn 1 coin into Mechwarper, turn 2 plop down two Micro Machines and as many Clockwork Gnomes/Cogmasters you have, etc.
Certain classes also have early mechs that can be very OP, e.g Whirling Zap-o-Matic, Metaltooth Leaper, etc.
It seems that unless you can deal three damage on Turn 2 to kill that Whirling Zap-o-Matic/Mechwarper, you are screwed. Most classes aren't able to deal AOE damage until Turn 4 at least, by which time the game is almost over for you.
Most classes have small removal at turn 2. Dark bomb, frost bolt, fiery waraxe
Thanks FOO(The Banner God)!
I dont see how thats much different than what we already had. Undertaker>Leper Gnome/Webspinner/Zombie Chow already made it so that the only way to stop the snowball was to have 3 dmg on turn 2. The mechs are just reinforcing that standard. Aggro decks are all about setting the tempo and it looks like thats the tempo that every class can set now.
i have conceded immediately the last 20 times i did not have the coin. i lost 8 out of 10 before that
The difference is that Undertaker was a 1-drop, so if you started first you could still play it. You can throw out your Leper Gnomes and Webspinners on Turn 2 and the result would be the same. But now the new sick cards are mostly two drops so you must start second in order to put them out on Turn 1.
The advantage of going first pre-dates Undertaker. There have always been strong 2-drops, that will never change. People have always had an irrational pro-Coin bias, that will also never change. That's the beauty of such a well designed balancing effect. Until we get updated official statistics from Blizzard, we can only speculate, but personally I doubt if the advantage has shifted.
But if you play Undertaker turn 1 without coin then your opponent has more options. Its not 3 damage on turn 2 or you're screwed. Either way, the most aggressive opener is turn 1 w/coin dropping a minion that is (or becomes) a 2/3. The problem you just described is only a problem if you are also playing mechs. Yes, in the mech vs mech matchup having the coin is probably preferable because you can get the first Mech Warper out. But it might not be the case if you are playing any number of other decks against mech.
Regardless though, my point was that with either opener there is a potential situation of, I can do 3 dmg on turn 2 or this snowballs out of control. Aggressive decks are always trying to set that quick tempo and this sets tempo that is relatively on par with UT.
Perhaps it's slightly better now after the patch. But it doesn't change the fact that having the coin gives you an advantage on one turn only, all the other turns your opponent has the same advantage that you had on turn 2.
Blizzard has confirmed that having The Coin is still a disadvantage:
i remember that, according to stats, the win rate of the player who has coin is a little higher than the opponent. However, i just found my situation is different (according to my tracker).
That's not true. The player with The Coin has a lower win rate. It's 3% better to go first than second.
That's not true, that's on average, over the whole playerbase, so some people could play much better with the coin than without, it also depends a lot on the deck you are playing, your skill level etc. You can't always say that every player will have a better win rate if they go first more often, since it's just an average, and the advantage overall is tiny even over such a large sample (I'm assuming it's large of course, with the Blizzard stats).
That's basically what IS being said. "On average' it's better to go first than second by about 3%." Thus YMMV when it comes to individual stats.
(Though do note that it's actually NOT common for a deck to actually break into "going second is better" territory. Too many think too much of Dream Combos that aren't that common, like a perfect undertaker + 1/2/3 mana deathrattle minion and forgetting the many times you get a 1/2/3/4 or 12/3/3 combo, which is actually horrible for a Coin start. Thus on average most decks, even many aggro ones, are better off going first in the long run.)
The thing is that while you need to pay attention to YOUR deck when dealing with your game, when it comes to topics like this that question whether the coin, as a whole, is better then we go with the overall average: no it's not.
final note: Note that even WITH decks made to be better with the coin, the advantage doesn't break past 3% either. Thus the coin, with ALL of its benefits, gives a range of 3% advantage first-1-2% advantage second depending on deck. We honestly are talking about spare change here as far as advantages goes.
Miracle was one of the few decks that could actually break into the 'better going second' territory. Even then, it was a small percentage. It honestly did almost as well going first as second (it wouldn't be loved as a deck for half a year if it only did well half of the time).
I can put it this way, there isn't a deck out there that does horrible going first but rocks going second. If it can kick your face with the coin, it typically could've kicked your face without the coin.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
I play control decks about 80% of the time, I'm not really suited to aggressive decks. I have a far better win rate starting with the coin:
Coin + Firey War Axe
Coin + Wild Growth
Coin + Innervate + Yeti or Sejin Shield Masta
gg
Unbowed. Unbent. Unbroken.
No, that was not what was said by the person I quoted, some people seem to think you will always have higher w/r if you go first more often, I was just pointing out why this isn't true.
He did not say "on average" he said "The player with The Coin has a lower win rate. It's 3% better to go first than second." Since he did not say "on average" it is therefore implied that he means every player, it is important to make the distinction in these matters, as they mean quite different things.
Read my post again. I bolded the important bit for you.
Obviously I don't mean it's true for every player. That would be stupid. Someone could register an account, play 1 game with the Coin and win, and then play 1 game without the Coin and lose, and thus have a 100% win rate with the Coin. The implication of "on average" should go without saying.
Well some people do believe it's true for every player, I don't make assumptions. Sorry for the misunderstanding though.
Coin /axe isn't advantagous. It's just the same thing as just a turn 2 axe when you go first. Either way, it's "opponent drops minion, you whack with axe." In fact it's a little worse since now you've used the coin for it and will have to spend the next 9 turns behind on mana. Control warrior is NOT one of the decks that does better going second.
Coin wild growth is a bad play unless you have a 3 drop and all it really does is put you in the 'going first' position, using your mana before they do..which you get naturally going first anyway, and a lot of ramp druids don't carry 3 drop minions.
Otherwise, I imagine ramp druid is one that uses the coin well. Though it does well without it since a wild growth + going first actually puts you 1 mana ahead of your opponent (you drop a yeti while they have 3 mana to fight it)
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
My stats shows a distinct trend in favor of coin.
Stats taken GvG arenas only.
Strive for constant improvement and achieve your full potential.