How, EXACTLY, would you define 'off-meta'? If Razakus is meta and you swapped out one card at a time with a basic card, at what point is it 'off meta'? If your Razakaus deck doesn't have DFP, is not Razakus? If you take 29 basic (different) cards and add Raza, is it Razakus? Furthermore, how do you account for tech cards? Different versions of basically the same deck?
Accordingly, it's when Raz is removed.
I've heard the theory before. The idea is that you don't judge the deck directly but instead judge indivdiual cards based on their usage and win rates plopped into some kind of formula to judge how 'meta' the card is. Decks simply then become an average of the cards chosen then compared with other decks.
Thus the more often the cards you use are used often and for high wins, the more 'meta' the cards cause your deck. This DOES mean you can simply swap, say, Raz and Kaz out of your priest deck, keep the rest of the deck then BOOM off-meta but..well...
then you're deck isn't a Raza deck. It's a very *VERY* poor quality singleton deck with a batch of low win rate cards. Same goes for if you play pirates without patches: suddenly you have a bad pirate deck people didn't care to use before Mean Streets.
The theory is that people really aren't bothered by netdecks. What they are really bothered by are repeat cards that are key to particular decks. Thus why we would have a ton of different variations and classes during mean streets but no one cared because every deck was either a "Patches" deck, a "Reno" deck, or a "Jade" deck. This is the lesson Blizzard found when their stats, which suggested a healthy, unoppressive, diverse meta was deemed the stalest meta ever and was killing the game.
The theory takes that to the full conclusion: If the problem isn't so much aggro as it is "OMG pirate into patches followed by Creeper AGAIN!", not so much priest as it is "Raza into Anduin.. again!" then if you remove Patches, Creeper, Raza, and Anduin you will end up with a much more interesting meta.
And the part that brings me to consider it: as a new mode.. as in not Ranked. I think it'll make an interesting mode, perhaps replacing (not)Casual that, say, puts your growth as MMR with a reduction based on 'metaness' (or whatever word you want to use). You're told, as you make the deck, how 'meta' the cards are and the deck is as a whole is so you can swap cards and not be surprised as to what you'll get. It would also be based on real time stats so it'll constantly be shifting as the players move from preferred cards to preferred cards. It's not meant to be "OMG always off-meta decks!" since you COULD just swap out of Raza when it's popular then swap in Raza when everyone moves out. But the idea is that you have to keep riding the 'wave' to keep up and keep growing.
I think it'll be interesting as a different mode.
So under your system, any deck that includes Raza is automatically labeled as "Razakus" and banned?
That seems like a stretch.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life before death. Strength before weakness. Journey before destination.
How, EXACTLY, would you define 'off-meta'? If Razakus is meta and you swapped out one card at a time with a basic card, at what point is it 'off meta'? If your Razakaus deck doesn't have DFP, is not Razakus? If you take 29 basic (different) cards and add Raza, is it Razakus? Furthermore, how do you account for tech cards? Different versions of basically the same deck?
Kaladin's RoS Set Review
Join me at Out of Cards!
How, EXACTLY, would you define 'off-meta'? If Razakus is meta and you swapped out one card at a time with a basic card, at what point is it 'off meta'? If your Razakaus deck doesn't have DFP, is not Razakus? If you take 29 basic (different) cards and add Raza, is it Razakus? Furthermore, how do you account for tech cards? Different versions of basically the same deck?
Kaladin's RoS Set Review
Join me at Out of Cards!