Well if that was the only reason...I would then happily play it on turn 2 and do the 17 dmg on turn 3 any way? Ok I also need Elemental Evocation or Coin in that case. If they do not want that then they should have make it cost 5 mana or something.
I mean, there are a ton of low cost mage spell in this rotation: even without Mana Cyclone Mana Wyrm would insanely snowball at 1 mana. It was a problem before stuff like Ray of Frost, Shooting Star, Elemental Invocation and so on, I don't want to think what trouble it would cause now.
Moreover, it's not that the devs don't want that, it's more that they want it to happen less frequently/later, in order to have better chances to counter it.
Ok, but then I also want something to counter that snowballing Priest 1-3 minion...which draws you so many cards with CoH and injured blademasters etc...I mean 0 mana heal up all and get me 4 cards from my deck...that is just too much value and can be compared to a Sorcerer Apprentice / casting some spells for 0 mana / elemental evocation / Cyclone combo, although then you get random spells instead of solid well chosen cards from your deck, and you are not buffing your board. Problem with Priest is they get board, card draw and tempo, including the always looming OTK threat if you leave one big health minion up.
Lucky for you this whole thread is dedicated to discussing potential nerfs to Northshire Cleric.
And I think your analogy is flawed. Northshire cleric doesn't kill you by herself. If she sticks on board it's the cards she draws that'll give the priest an edge. With Mana Wyrm, if you don't have a direct answer for it the little pest will keep hitting you in the face turn after turn while the mage uses their spells to protect the wyrm and keep the board clear. That's the difference. A better comparison would be Lightwarden, but that already has 2 hp (hint hint).
Not all of us purchase premium access to hsreplay.
Then don't post incomplete data maybe?
I didn't claim it was complete, now did I? Also, you're the one arguing for a more select data set - which is by definition LESS complete. Essentially, you're arguing that any data from lower rankings is irrelevant to the power level of a deck.
"Let's just completely ignore all the people who don't have the time to grind legend every month because they are too noob and too unskilled for their data to matter." --iWatchyousleep
This may not be your intention, but this is exactly what your argument boils down to.
Not all of us purchase premium access to hsreplay.
Then don't post incomplete data maybe?
I didn't claim it was complete, now did I? Also, you're the one arguing for a more select data set - which is by definition LESS complete. Essentially, you're arguing that any data from lower rankings is irrelevant to the power level of a deck.
"Let's just completely ignore all the people who don't have the time to grind legend every month because they are too noob and too unskilled for their data to matter." --iWatchyousleep
This may not be your intention, but this is exactly what your argument boils down to.
You said "It's objectively not even the best deck right now." Now I'm sure you can define that in many ways, but without qualifiers I think most people would assume you're talking about the deck with the highest win-rate in the hands of competent players. It's not uncommon in hearthstone at all to have a deck that's complicated or otherwise hard to pilot that has terrible ladder stats except at high legend/competitive play. Patron Warrior is the ur-example, but it happens a lot. Topsy priest and Nomi priest are more recent examples.
The most "complete" dataset isn't necessarily the most pertinent. If I want data on peak human performance I'll look at athletes, not general population statistics. Some data is better than no data, sure, but let's not pretend combo priest isn't at the tippy-top of competitive play ATM. I'd be shocked if it weren't the most protected and/or banned class in GM right now.
The best players can make almost any semi-viable deck look good. Also, "good in tournament" does not mean "good on ladder." There have been plenty of cases of decks that are just bad on ladder being brought to tournaments and doing well there, so we can't get global data on deck power from tournaments, so GM is not necessarily relevant.
And despite all of this discussion, it is actually not the poor Northshire Cleric who is at fault for the power level of the combo priest anyways (getting back to the original topic). As many people have said, it's the degenerate design of Divine Spirit.
Also, also -- why are people trying to get priests nerfed, when priests only just got near the top of the pack again after nearly an entire calendar year of being utterly irrelevant to the metagame, and the deck in question already got nerfed once recently? Let the priests have their fun for a while.
And back to the spirit of the data I shared, there are a LOT of other decks that are doing just fine in the meta game, even if priest might be pretty close to the best. Just because there is a best deck doesn't mean no other really good decks exist. There will always be a best deck - no way to avoid that (and if there were not a best deck, it would basically mean everything is equally bad, which isn't a fun meta).
The best players can make almost any semi-viable deck look good. Also, "good in tournament" does not mean "good on ladder." There have been plenty of cases of decks that are just bad on ladder being brought to tournaments and doing well there, so we can't get global data on deck power from tournaments, so GM is not necessarily relevant.
And despite all of this discussion, it is actually not the poor Northshire Cleric who is at fault for the power level of the combo priest anyways (getting back to the original topic). As many people have said, it's the degenerate design of Divine Spirit.
Also, also -- why are people trying to get priests nerfed, when priests only just got near the top of the pack again after nearly an entire calendar year of being utterly irrelevant to the metagame, and the deck in question already got nerfed once recently? Let the priests have their fun for a while.
And back to the spirit of the data I shared, there are a LOT of other decks that are doing just fine in the meta game, even if priest might be pretty close to the best. Just because there is a best deck doesn't mean no other really good decks exist. There will always be a best deck - no way to avoid that (and if there were not a best deck, it would basically mean everything is equally bad, which isn't a fun meta).
Oh for the love of-
I'm not the one who dragged combo priest into this discussion, you did. For you to now pivot back to discussing only Northshire Cleric is extremely disingenuous. We've already established that combo priest does well on ladder was well, so acting like this deck doesn't perform outside of tournaments is also preposterous.
Even if Northshire Cleric saw zero play because there was no support for it in standard, the card itself would still be OP regardless of its presence in the meta, so this entire tangent is pretty much moot.
It clearly wasn't OP enough to dig priest out of the gutter for an entire year, so it cannot be that bad. Cleric was here all that time that we were seeing Priest at the dead bottom of the hsreplay class winrate listings ... clearly something else is responsible for priest finally having a viable deck again, and it cannot just be Cleric. Something tipped the scales in this new set, probably the early game, high health units.
(Side note: even Divine Spirit has been here the whole time as well, and wasn't really a problem either, except in the niche case of Wall Priest that had a short-lived time in the spotlight. The problem of both cards comes when something else tips the balance in their favor, like damaged, high health, early units.)
It clearly wasn't OP enough to dig priest out of the gutter for an entire year, so it cannot be that bad. Cleric was here all that time that we were seeing Priest at the dead bottom of the hsreplay class winrate listings ... clearly something else is responsible for priest finally having a viable deck again, and it cannot just be Cleric. Something tipped the scales in this new set, probably the early game, high health units.
Did I stutter? "Even if Northshire Cleric saw zero play because there was no support for it in standard, the card itself would still be OP regardless of its presence in the meta..."
The exact same stupid argument you're making can be applied to Divine Spirit. Clearly that card can't be busted because priest isn't always a T1 deck!
And I never claimed cleric was solely responsible for Priest's success, that is a complete misconstrual of what I've consistently said throughout this thread. If you have to make up arguments to refute... consider not doing that.
Yes, it's a strong card. But it's about the only genuinely good card in the entire Priest basic set. If you think the power level of Cleric needs to be addressed, then you are basically asking Blizzard to ditch the entire basic set of priest and start over from scratch with entirely new basic cards. Because if Cleric gets nerfed without redoing the entire set of priest's classic cards, priest will drop completely off the map as a playable class forever.
Side note: "...just because priest isn't always a tier 1 deck" -- this is a hilariously under-stated comment. Between the nerf to Raza and the current expansion, priest has been so far below tier 1 that it should have had its own unique tier at the bottom as "dumpster priest." Even when other classes got nerfed, they could comfort themselves that even post-nerf, they still weren't as bad as priest.
Not all of us purchase premium access to hsreplay.
Then don't post incomplete data maybe?
I didn't claim it was complete, now did I? Also, you're the one arguing for a more select data set - which is by definition LESS complete. Essentially, you're arguing that any data from lower rankings is irrelevant to the power level of a deck.
"Let's just completely ignore all the people who don't have the time to grind legend every month because they are too noob and too unskilled for their data to matter." --iWatchyousleep
This may not be your intention, but this is exactly what your argument boils down to.
Look I don't even really need to respond to this as AliRadicali already explained it to you but take this as a parting gift, if you will:
Irrelevant? No. Less relevant? Definitely. And it's not just me who thinks that. An exempt from Dean Ayala's most recent conversation on Reddit, who, if you somehow don't know, is one of Hearthstone's lead designers (blue is Dean):
"Imagine thinking that the ladder stats of rank 5 players are even borderline relevant to anything"
"I mean, statistically speaking, they are the most relevant to the entire population. That's why we chose R5 and above. Within that range the data doesn't vary much, and outside that range… 1/2.
very low rank play is more about access to cards rather than card or deck balance. And I think players overestimate how different their archetype win rate data is vs groups they perceive to be much lower skilled than they are."
So yes, data from rank 5, technically 4 as 5 is the experiment rank, and onwards is far more reliable as it doesn't vary much, most likely due to card accessibility and deck builds. So you can continue arguing this all you want but at the end of the day even the Hearthstone designers, the very people who decide what cards get changed, do not agree with you.
Oh and next time you're gonna do this cute strawman quote thing, at least have the decency to spell that person's name properly, okay?
Yes, it's a strong card. But it's about the only genuinely good card in the entire Priest basic set. If you think the power level of Cleric needs to be addressed, then you are basically asking Blizzard to ditch the entire basic set of priest and start over from scratch with entirely new basic cards. Because if Cleric gets nerfed without redoing the entire set of priest's classic cards, priest will drop completely off the map as a playable class forever.
Side note: "...just because priest isn't always a tier 1 deck" -- this is a hilariously under-stated comment. Between the nerf to Raza and the current expansion, priest has been so far below tier 1 that it should have had its own unique tier at the bottom as "dumpster priest." Even when other classes got nerfed, they could comfort themselves that even post-nerf, they still weren't as bad as priest.
I don't think anyone in this thread so far has disagreed with the idea that priest's evergreen cards need an overhaul. As I've already stated in this thread, I think such an overhaul would necessarily entail addressing the really good cards like Cleric and Divine Spirit, not just the crappy ones. Why do you think Priest never gets any good 2-drops? Could it have something to do with the best 1-drop in the game being evergreen
Not all of us purchase premium access to hsreplay.
Then don't post incomplete data maybe?
I didn't claim it was complete, now did I? Also, you're the one arguing for a more select data set - which is by definition LESS complete. Essentially, you're arguing that any data from lower rankings is irrelevant to the power level of a deck.
"Let's just completely ignore all the people who don't have the time to grind legend every month because they are too noob and too unskilled for their data to matter." --iWatchyousleep
This may not be your intention, but this is exactly what your argument boils down to.
And I think players overestimate how different their archetype win rate data is vs groups they perceive to be much lower skilled than they are."
Your own quote from Dean Ayala, where he is making the point that archetype winrate hardly varies across all ranks. That says "overestimate" -- in other words, archetype winrates are pretty much the same everywhere on ladder. You are defeating your own argument with that quote. Allow me to put some of the rest his quote in here for you, "The reality in most [sic] all circumstances is that yes, a R5 player vs a High Legend player has a crazy low win rate regardless of deck choice. But archetype win% for those two groups doesn't really vary much at all." --Iksar
Bottom line: combo priest winrate is combo priest winrate - it doesn't matter what rank your data comes from. From your own source.
Edit: One more juicy one from Dean Ayala in a different place: "This is the thing I think is mostly a myth. At least a myth that there is some huge percentage difference between R5 and normal players."
Your own quote from Dean Ayala, where he is making the point that archetype winrate hardly varies across all ranks. That says "overestimate" -- in other words, archetype winrates are pretty much the same everywhere on ladder. You are defeating your own argument with that quote. Allow me to put some of the rest his quote in here for you, "The reality in most [sic] all circumstances is that yes, a R5 player vs a High Legend player has a crazy low win rate regardless of deck choice. But archetype win% for those two groups doesn't really vary much at all." --Iksar
Bottom line: combo priest winrate is combo priest winrate - it doesn't matter what rank your data comes from. From your own source.
Edit: One more juicy one from Dean Ayala in a different place: "This is the thing I think is mostly a myth. At least a myth that there is some huge percentage difference between R5 and normal players."
Oh come on. I even explained it in my previous post because I knew you would misinterpret it otherwise (something which you seem to have a knack of) and yet you still don't understand it?
Alright. Once more, from the start: Dean explicitly states that: "That's why we chose R5 and above. Within that range the data doesn't vary much" they use the data from rank 5 onwards. Nowhere in this thread did I mention that a player's skill to play a deck is relevant. I even, as I just mentioned, explicitly stated that it is most likely due to deck builds that there is a difference in an archetype's winrate among different ranks. Hence why they look at rank 5 onwards, because at that point the builds vary only marginally and players have access to all the cards. Let me add an example, maybe that'll help: Combo priest players at lower ranks are most likely still not running Bwonsamdi, the Dead, unlike most players at ranks 5 and above.
Good job showing that you're once again incapable of interpreting information though. Your quote mentions rank 5 - high legend and the difference between those two rank types. This has never been the point of debate. The point of debate is that data from all ranks differs from rank 5 to (high) legend.
That was your initial standpoint, I'm not sure why you're trying to shift it now all of a sudden.
Bottom line: Combo priest winrate is combo priest winrate at ranks 5 and above, which is their measurement staff. As said by Dean Ayala.
If you nerf/HoF Northshire Cleric, how does priest win?
If you can answer this with a strong argument (which, imo, doesn't really exist right now), then the decision to change cleric is yes, it is OP (evidenced by it's increased stats and massively beneficial mechanic).
If you can't answer this with anything realistic, then the decision would be no, we need it to give priest a powerful deck.
Everything else is gray areas (I think most people would agree that Priest needs some serious overhaul to make it a truly viable class, but that again is my experience and opinion). If and when we get a massive restructuring of Priest, this question becomes much easier to answer as Priest would have more options.
I hate Northshire Cleric (as I agree it is OP... Rover as well) and I hate DS/IF, but without them I don't think Priest really stands a chance.
Just watch the GM season to see how strong Combo Priest is, and how important Cleric is (as all but one GM brought it to the table last week)
"We will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."
Your own quote from Dean Ayala, where he is making the point that archetype winrate hardly varies across all ranks. That says "overestimate" -- in other words, archetype winrates are pretty much the same everywhere on ladder. You are defeating your own argument with that quote. Allow me to put some of the rest his quote in here for you, "The reality in most [sic] all circumstances is that yes, a R5 player vs a High Legend player has a crazy low win rate regardless of deck choice. But archetype win% for those two groups doesn't really vary much at all." --Iksar
Bottom line: combo priest winrate is combo priest winrate - it doesn't matter what rank your data comes from. From your own source.
Edit: One more juicy one from Dean Ayala in a different place: "This is the thing I think is mostly a myth. At least a myth that there is some huge percentage difference between R5 and normal players."
Oh come on. I even explained it in my previous post because I knew you would misinterpret it otherwise (something which you seem to have a knack of) and yet you still don't understand it?
Alright. Once more, from the start: Dean explicitly states that: "That's why we chose R5 and above. Within that range the data doesn't vary much" they use the data from rank 5 onwards. Nowhere in this thread did I mention that a player's skill to play a deck is relevant. I even, as I just mentioned, explicitly stated that it is most likely due to deck builds that there is a difference in an archetype's winrate among different ranks. Hence why they look at rank 5 onwards, because at that point the builds vary only marginally and players have access to all the cards. Let me add an example, maybe that'll help: Combo priest players at lower ranks are most likely still not running Bwonsamdi, the Dead, unlike most players at ranks 5 and above.
Good job showing that you're once again incapable of interpreting information though. Your quote mentions rank 5 - high legend and the difference between those two rank types. This has never been the point of debate. The point of debate is that data from all ranks differs from rank 5 to (high) legend.
That was your initial standpoint, I'm not sure why you're trying to shift it now all of a sudden.
Bottom line: Combo priest winrate is combo priest winrate at ranks 5 and above, which is their measurement staff. As said by Dean Ayala.
Let's summarize your points:
1. Rank 4 - legend data is better for a given archetype, because there is far less variation in builds, and the builds are more optimized
2. The optimized lists are responsible for winrate differences, not player skill
Now, go back to my original post with hsreplay data and read it again. I've been assuming this whole time that you had actually read that post. Clearly, I should not have made that assumption. Good job showing many times over now in this argument that you're incapable of interpreting information, a fact which only now finally became clear to me.
The reason I've consistently misinterpreted your posts is because you've been misinterpreting mine this entire time, like one giant straw man argument. The data I posted originally was for one single deck build, the most popular one, for each strong archetype. I even underlined those parts of the original post. Call me crazy, but when the data I posted was for one single deck build, the cards are exactly the same at all ranks, since it's exactly the same deck. Thus, I naturally assumed your objection had to be related to player skill, since a single deck cannot vary, by definition.
My mistake for making such a generous assumption. And just to be blunt, you've been an absolute jerk - and it turns out the reason for it is your own inability to read my initial post. I'd honestly appreciate an apology.
1. Rank 4 - legend data is better for a given archetype, because there is far less variation in builds, and the builds are more optimized
2. The optimized lists are responsible for winrate differences, not player skill
Now, go back to my original post with hsreplay data and read it again. I've been assuming this whole time that you had actually read that post. Clearly, I should not have made that assumption. Good job showing many times over now in this argument that you're incapable of interpreting information, a fact which only now finally became clear to me.
The reason I've consistently misinterpreted your posts is because you've been misinterpreting mine this entire time, like one giant straw man argument. The data I posted originally was for one single deck build, the most popular one, for each strong archetype. I even underlined those parts of the original post. Call me crazy, but when the data I posted was for one single deck build, the cards are exactly the same at all ranks, since it's exactly the same deck. Thus, I naturally assumed your objection had to be related to player skill, since a single deck cannot vary, by definition.
My mistake for making such a generous assumption. And just to be blunt, you've been an absolute jerk - and it turns out the reason for it is your own inability to read my initial post. I'd honestly appreciate an apology.
Oh then you're just further proving my point, thanks!
Because the actual deck with the highest winrate on hsreplay right now is, drumroll please... Combo priest!! With a 61.3% winrate. With a build that has been getting more popular at, can you guess it? High legend, whoo!
What I am trying to make clear is that if other classes like Priest can do crazy stuff early game, it is unfair to remove the crazy stuff mage can do early game. And I would say, either all classes have a powerful 1-3 minion for 1 mana or we all don't have one. Especially now since mage has the worst quest of all, its turn one is a problem, mage is not that OP that he can always skip turn 1 and be cool.
What I am trying to make clear is that if other classes like Priest can do crazy stuff early game, it is unfair to remove the crazy stuff mage can do early game. And I would say, either all classes have a powerful 1-3 minion for 1 mana or we all don't have one. Especially now since mage has the worst quest of all, its turn one is a problem, mage is not that OP that he can always skip turn 1 and be cool.
hey guys, I just had a great idea, what if we gave all classes the same cards so that no matter which class you play you can have the exact same plays turns 1-4 and everyone can be the same!
not every class has to be the exact same power-level in all the same areas. some classes have strong early game cards, some classes have strong late game cards, some classes have lots of draw, some classes have lots of removal. it is just the way of things.
Every class should have a strong 1 drop. I don't mind that Cleric exists, or even that Warrior Rover. What upsets me is that other classes simply don't have a solid one drop and thus games feel "unfair" and are decided very early due to these strong one drops.
I appreciate balancing is not easy. But it seems preposterous some classes are so favoured in the early game.
I suppose Warlock has Flame Imp. Am I missing any other obvious contenders?
Lucky for you this whole thread is dedicated to discussing potential nerfs to Northshire Cleric.
And I think your analogy is flawed. Northshire cleric doesn't kill you by herself. If she sticks on board it's the cards she draws that'll give the priest an edge. With Mana Wyrm, if you don't have a direct answer for it the little pest will keep hitting you in the face turn after turn while the mage uses their spells to protect the wyrm and keep the board clear. That's the difference. A better comparison would be Lightwarden, but that already has 2 hp (hint hint).
I didn't claim it was complete, now did I? Also, you're the one arguing for a more select data set - which is by definition LESS complete. Essentially, you're arguing that any data from lower rankings is irrelevant to the power level of a deck.
"Let's just completely ignore all the people who don't have the time to grind legend every month because they are too noob and too unskilled for their data to matter." --iWatchyousleep
This may not be your intention, but this is exactly what your argument boils down to.
You said "It's objectively not even the best deck right now." Now I'm sure you can define that in many ways, but without qualifiers I think most people would assume you're talking about the deck with the highest win-rate in the hands of competent players. It's not uncommon in hearthstone at all to have a deck that's complicated or otherwise hard to pilot that has terrible ladder stats except at high legend/competitive play. Patron Warrior is the ur-example, but it happens a lot. Topsy priest and Nomi priest are more recent examples.
The most "complete" dataset isn't necessarily the most pertinent. If I want data on peak human performance I'll look at athletes, not general population statistics. Some data is better than no data, sure, but let's not pretend combo priest isn't at the tippy-top of competitive play ATM. I'd be shocked if it weren't the most protected and/or banned class in GM right now.
The best players can make almost any semi-viable deck look good. Also, "good in tournament" does not mean "good on ladder." There have been plenty of cases of decks that are just bad on ladder being brought to tournaments and doing well there, so we can't get global data on deck power from tournaments, so GM is not necessarily relevant.
And despite all of this discussion, it is actually not the poor Northshire Cleric who is at fault for the power level of the combo priest anyways (getting back to the original topic). As many people have said, it's the degenerate design of Divine Spirit.
Also, also -- why are people trying to get priests nerfed, when priests only just got near the top of the pack again after nearly an entire calendar year of being utterly irrelevant to the metagame, and the deck in question already got nerfed once recently? Let the priests have their fun for a while.
And back to the spirit of the data I shared, there are a LOT of other decks that are doing just fine in the meta game, even if priest might be pretty close to the best. Just because there is a best deck doesn't mean no other really good decks exist. There will always be a best deck - no way to avoid that (and if there were not a best deck, it would basically mean everything is equally bad, which isn't a fun meta).
Oh for the love of-
I'm not the one who dragged combo priest into this discussion, you did. For you to now pivot back to discussing only Northshire Cleric is extremely disingenuous. We've already established that combo priest does well on ladder was well, so acting like this deck doesn't perform outside of tournaments is also preposterous.
Even if Northshire Cleric saw zero play because there was no support for it in standard, the card itself would still be OP regardless of its presence in the meta, so this entire tangent is pretty much moot.
It clearly wasn't OP enough to dig priest out of the gutter for an entire year, so it cannot be that bad. Cleric was here all that time that we were seeing Priest at the dead bottom of the hsreplay class winrate listings ... clearly something else is responsible for priest finally having a viable deck again, and it cannot just be Cleric. Something tipped the scales in this new set, probably the early game, high health units.
(Side note: even Divine Spirit has been here the whole time as well, and wasn't really a problem either, except in the niche case of Wall Priest that had a short-lived time in the spotlight. The problem of both cards comes when something else tips the balance in their favor, like damaged, high health, early units.)
Did I stutter? "Even if Northshire Cleric saw zero play because there was no support for it in standard, the card itself would still be OP regardless of its presence in the meta..."
The exact same stupid argument you're making can be applied to Divine Spirit. Clearly that card can't be busted because priest isn't always a T1 deck!
And I never claimed cleric was solely responsible for Priest's success, that is a complete misconstrual of what I've consistently said throughout this thread. If you have to make up arguments to refute... consider not doing that.
I get your point Ali. I just think you are wrong.
Yes, it's a strong card. But it's about the only genuinely good card in the entire Priest basic set. If you think the power level of Cleric needs to be addressed, then you are basically asking Blizzard to ditch the entire basic set of priest and start over from scratch with entirely new basic cards. Because if Cleric gets nerfed without redoing the entire set of priest's classic cards, priest will drop completely off the map as a playable class forever.
Side note: "...just because priest isn't always a tier 1 deck" -- this is a hilariously under-stated comment. Between the nerf to Raza and the current expansion, priest has been so far below tier 1 that it should have had its own unique tier at the bottom as "dumpster priest." Even when other classes got nerfed, they could comfort themselves that even post-nerf, they still weren't as bad as priest.
Look I don't even really need to respond to this as AliRadicali already explained it to you but take this as a parting gift, if you will:
Irrelevant? No. Less relevant? Definitely. And it's not just me who thinks that. An exempt from Dean Ayala's most recent conversation on Reddit, who, if you somehow don't know, is one of Hearthstone's lead designers (blue is Dean):
"Imagine thinking that the ladder stats of rank 5 players are even borderline relevant to anything"
"I mean, statistically speaking, they are the most relevant to the entire population. That's why we chose R5 and above. Within that range the data doesn't vary much, and outside that range… 1/2.
very low rank play is more about access to cards rather than card or deck balance. And I think players overestimate how different their archetype win rate data is vs groups they perceive to be much lower skilled than they are."
So yes, data from rank 5, technically 4 as 5 is the experiment rank, and onwards is far more reliable as it doesn't vary much, most likely due to card accessibility and deck builds. So you can continue arguing this all you want but at the end of the day even the Hearthstone designers, the very people who decide what cards get changed, do not agree with you.
Oh and next time you're gonna do this cute strawman quote thing, at least have the decency to spell that person's name properly, okay?
Thanks.
I don't think anyone in this thread so far has disagreed with the idea that priest's evergreen cards need an overhaul. As I've already stated in this thread, I think such an overhaul would necessarily entail addressing the really good cards like Cleric and Divine Spirit, not just the crappy ones. Why do you think Priest never gets any good 2-drops? Could it have something to do with the best 1-drop in the game being evergreen
Your own quote from Dean Ayala, where he is making the point that archetype winrate hardly varies across all ranks. That says "overestimate" -- in other words, archetype winrates are pretty much the same everywhere on ladder. You are defeating your own argument with that quote. Allow me to put some of the rest his quote in here for you, "The reality in most [sic] all circumstances is that yes, a R5 player vs a High Legend player has a crazy low win rate regardless of deck choice. But archetype win% for those two groups doesn't really vary much at all." --Iksar
Bottom line: combo priest winrate is combo priest winrate - it doesn't matter what rank your data comes from. From your own source.
Edit: One more juicy one from Dean Ayala in a different place: "This is the thing I think is mostly a myth. At least a myth that there is some huge percentage difference between R5 and normal players."
Oh come on. I even explained it in my previous post because I knew you would misinterpret it otherwise (something which you seem to have a knack of) and yet you still don't understand it?
Alright. Once more, from the start: Dean explicitly states that: "That's why we chose R5 and above. Within that range the data doesn't vary much" they use the data from rank 5 onwards. Nowhere in this thread did I mention that a player's skill to play a deck is relevant. I even, as I just mentioned, explicitly stated that it is most likely due to deck builds that there is a difference in an archetype's winrate among different ranks. Hence why they look at rank 5 onwards, because at that point the builds vary only marginally and players have access to all the cards. Let me add an example, maybe that'll help: Combo priest players at lower ranks are most likely still not running Bwonsamdi, the Dead, unlike most players at ranks 5 and above.
Good job showing that you're once again incapable of interpreting information though. Your quote mentions rank 5 - high legend and the difference between those two rank types. This has never been the point of debate. The point of debate is that data from all ranks differs from rank 5 to (high) legend.
That was your initial standpoint, I'm not sure why you're trying to shift it now all of a sudden.
Bottom line: Combo priest winrate is combo priest winrate at ranks 5 and above, which is their measurement staff. As said by Dean Ayala.
To me, this boils down to a simple question...
If you nerf/HoF Northshire Cleric, how does priest win?
If you can answer this with a strong argument (which, imo, doesn't really exist right now), then the decision to change cleric is yes, it is OP (evidenced by it's increased stats and massively beneficial mechanic).
If you can't answer this with anything realistic, then the decision would be no, we need it to give priest a powerful deck.
Everything else is gray areas (I think most people would agree that Priest needs some serious overhaul to make it a truly viable class, but that again is my experience and opinion). If and when we get a massive restructuring of Priest, this question becomes much easier to answer as Priest would have more options.
I hate Northshire Cleric (as I agree it is OP... Rover as well) and I hate DS/IF, but without them I don't think Priest really stands a chance.
Just watch the GM season to see how strong Combo Priest is, and how important Cleric is (as all but one GM brought it to the table last week)
"We will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."
~ Martin Luther King, Jr.
Let's summarize your points:
1. Rank 4 - legend data is better for a given archetype, because there is far less variation in builds, and the builds are more optimized
2. The optimized lists are responsible for winrate differences, not player skill
Now, go back to my original post with hsreplay data and read it again. I've been assuming this whole time that you had actually read that post. Clearly, I should not have made that assumption. Good job showing many times over now in this argument that you're incapable of interpreting information, a fact which only now finally became clear to me.
The reason I've consistently misinterpreted your posts is because you've been misinterpreting mine this entire time, like one giant straw man argument. The data I posted originally was for one single deck build, the most popular one, for each strong archetype. I even underlined those parts of the original post. Call me crazy, but when the data I posted was for one single deck build, the cards are exactly the same at all ranks, since it's exactly the same deck. Thus, I naturally assumed your objection had to be related to player skill, since a single deck cannot vary, by definition.
My mistake for making such a generous assumption. And just to be blunt, you've been an absolute jerk - and it turns out the reason for it is your own inability to read my initial post. I'd honestly appreciate an apology.
Oh then you're just further proving my point, thanks!
Because the actual deck with the highest winrate on hsreplay right now is, drumroll please... Combo priest!! With a 61.3% winrate. With a build that has been getting more popular at, can you guess it? High legend, whoo!
No.
Why?
Cause it's stupid to trow everything to wild without retouching it.
Don't treat wild as a TRASHBIN, thank you
For the king for the land for the mountains, For the green valleys where dragons fly, For the glory the power to win the black Lord
THE LIGHT WILL PREVAIL, HENCE WISDOM IS GOLD
What I am trying to make clear is that if other classes like Priest can do crazy stuff early game, it is unfair to remove the crazy stuff mage can do early game. And I would say, either all classes have a powerful 1-3 minion for 1 mana or we all don't have one. Especially now since mage has the worst quest of all, its turn one is a problem, mage is not that OP that he can always skip turn 1 and be cool.
hey guys, I just had a great idea, what if we gave all classes the same cards so that no matter which class you play you can have the exact same plays turns 1-4 and everyone can be the same!
not every class has to be the exact same power-level in all the same areas. some classes have strong early game cards, some classes have strong late game cards, some classes have lots of draw, some classes have lots of removal. it is just the way of things.
Carrion, my wayward grub.
It'd be helpful if you quoted the person you're throwing invective at so we know who you're responding to
Every class should have a strong 1 drop. I don't mind that Cleric exists, or even that Warrior Rover. What upsets me is that other classes simply don't have a solid one drop and thus games feel "unfair" and are decided very early due to these strong one drops.
I appreciate balancing is not easy. But it seems preposterous some classes are so favoured in the early game.
I suppose Warlock has Flame Imp. Am I missing any other obvious contenders?
Shaman - ?
Hunter - ?
Mage - bye bye Mana Worm?
Druid - ?
Rogue - ?