I just gave one example of a previous deck that came to mind. Every deck gets better with experience, but rn I'd say priest has that highest skill gap keeping it from having a good win rate in the hands of some players. I also think mage has a skill gap right now. Obviously there are the brain dead Games where you get the dream incanters flow and win. But sometimes that's not the case and pointing a fire ball face instead of a minion, or vise versa can be game costing. Or just how you use the cards given to you. You can definitely tell the difference between a good mage player and bad one
But, other equally good players playing the best decks are always going to do even better than good players playing worse, below 50%, "high skill cap" decks. Thus, the latter players will always underperform playing "high skill cap" decks against their colleges. At the very best, they can only get even. So, it all comes back to statistical average win-rates. Someone can bring 45% deck to 51%, as well as someone can bring 51% deck to 57%. So, people playing a "high skill cap" 45% deck can have a hard time against a complete noob who's playing a 51% deck (who can't outperform, just possibly underperform). Actually, their best hope is beating noobs. But, on the ladder one plays against similarly skillful players.
Most of the time "high skill cap" are even without potential, they are plain crap. Some excellent pros play 10 games with a crappy deck from rank2 to rank1 legend, and advertise that on twitter (they wouldn't twitt otherwise), but it's just a statistical error, other people will not achieve good results, not even pros. 10 games and spectacular effects in those don't matter a penny.
People are either biased, memers or masochistic and eccentric posers, so they want to see something in nothing; hidden truths and esoteric knowledge. We humans are biased, we go hype after seeing something fancy, but nobody notice all those times when xy card never panned out, sitting useless in your hand, actually losing you most of your games. For example, Ooze. Isn't it great when you ooze someone, but for every oozing you lose 10 other games because of that card in your deck (even against weapon decks). Ooze is good only if most of the meta are weapon decks. People shouldn't judge things after seeing one thing in one game. Very often, ugly decks with nothing fancy have the highest winrate; they beat you purely through synergies of their 30 cards.
I could be bias bc I love the class. But I think the class gets more hate bc people just see a win rate on hs replay. I know hs replay is a great reference. But there's been many deck in the past like patron warrior, that was kinda meh until it hit the hands of an experienced player. I feel like priest rn is one of those
Every deck is better in the hand of an experienced player. Why just Priest or Patron Warrior?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.”
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
⚙
Learn More
Cosmetics
Related Cards
Card Pools
✕
×
PopCard Settings
Click on the buttons to change the PopCard background.
Elements settings
Click on the button to hide or unhide popcard elements.
But, other equally good players playing the best decks are always going to do even better than good players playing worse, below 50%, "high skill cap" decks. Thus, the latter players will always underperform playing "high skill cap" decks against their colleges. At the very best, they can only get even. So, it all comes back to statistical average win-rates. Someone can bring 45% deck to 51%, as well as someone can bring 51% deck to 57%. So, people playing a "high skill cap" 45% deck can have a hard time against a complete noob who's playing a 51% deck (who can't outperform, just possibly underperform). Actually, their best hope is beating noobs. But, on the ladder one plays against similarly skillful players.
Most of the time "high skill cap" are even without potential, they are plain crap. Some excellent pros play 10 games with a crappy deck from rank2 to rank1 legend, and advertise that on twitter (they wouldn't twitt otherwise), but it's just a statistical error, other people will not achieve good results, not even pros. 10 games and spectacular effects in those don't matter a penny.
People are either biased, memers or masochistic and eccentric posers, so they want to see something in nothing; hidden truths and esoteric knowledge. We humans are biased, we go hype after seeing something fancy, but nobody notice all those times when xy card never panned out, sitting useless in your hand, actually losing you most of your games. For example, Ooze. Isn't it great when you ooze someone, but for every oozing you lose 10 other games because of that card in your deck (even against weapon decks). Ooze is good only if most of the meta are weapon decks. People shouldn't judge things after seeing one thing in one game. Very often, ugly decks with nothing fancy have the highest winrate; they beat you purely through synergies of their 30 cards.
“Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.”
Every deck is better in the hand of an experienced player. Why just Priest or Patron Warrior?
“Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.”