• Breaking News

    Thursday, July 30, 2020

    Home Unlabelled Hearthstone Day 1...

    Hearthstone Day 1...

    July 30, 2020

    Hearthstone Day 1...

    Day 1...

    Posted: 30 Jul 2020 06:05 AM PDT

    Mr Bigglesworth! Blizzard has not forsaken us!

    Posted: 30 Jul 2020 10:04 AM PDT

    New Card Back for September 2020 - Faerie Tail

    Posted: 30 Jul 2020 12:20 PM PDT

    The new poison splatter icon in 1.18.0!

    Posted: 30 Jul 2020 10:23 AM PDT

    18.0 Patch Notes

    Posted: 30 Jul 2020 10:01 AM PDT

    he changed

    Posted: 30 Jul 2020 06:35 AM PDT

    I know Hearthstone doesn't have a 100% true timeline, but I like the idea that Kel'Thuzad was napping through all recent stuff like The League of E.V.I.L and The Rusted Legion only to suddenly just

    Posted: 30 Jul 2020 09:06 AM PDT

    Well, I guess I have to take it...

    Posted: 30 Jul 2020 01:28 PM PDT

    Demonic Companion with each of its possible tokens!

    Posted: 30 Jul 2020 02:25 PM PDT

    The answer was there the whole time

    Posted: 30 Jul 2020 07:42 AM PDT

    The greatest news out of the entire 18.0 Patch. Plot Twist is finally buffed.

    Posted: 30 Jul 2020 10:07 AM PDT

    With the new cards revealed today, Hearthstone reached a milestone.

    Posted: 29 Jul 2020 10:40 PM PDT

    On the release of Scholomance, you will be able to build a FULL DECK of (0) cost cards. Priest, specifically, has access to 15 (0) cost cards.

    AAEBAa0GAA/SCs/RA6KsApibA7CRA7ds5QTXzgPqjAOlCeLKAo0Q0P4C2KwDswEA

    Edit: https://playhearthstone.com/deckbuilder/AAEBAa0GAA/SCs/RA6KsApibA7CRA7ds5QTXzgPqjAOlCeLKAo0Q0P4C2KwDswEA

    This is the deck. Have fun drawing no cards and resurrecting Wisps ya ogers.

    submitted by /u/ComboPriest
    [link] [comments]

    Needed more lightfang

    Posted: 30 Jul 2020 06:48 AM PDT

    Hearthstone's 18.0 Patch Includes Data for 6 New Cosmetic Hero Skins for Hunter, Mage, Paladin, and Warrior

    Posted: 30 Jul 2020 11:08 AM PDT

    Deck Destroyer Wombo Combo

    Posted: 30 Jul 2020 08:50 AM PDT

    Thank you Blizzard!

    Posted: 30 Jul 2020 12:57 PM PDT

    Will this be a permanent deck-swap? (After your next turn)

    Posted: 30 Jul 2020 01:25 AM PDT

    Southsea Strongarm’s Art was changed in the most recent Battlegrounds patch. Does anyone know why?

    Posted: 30 Jul 2020 02:31 PM PDT

    Prep Coin is shaking in its boots right now.

    Posted: 30 Jul 2020 05:32 AM PDT

    MY JAWS THAT BITE MY CLAWS THAT CATCH

    Posted: 30 Jul 2020 06:11 AM PDT

    Why "Rank 1 with this deck" posts aren't useful: Understanding Survivorship Bias

    Posted: 30 Jul 2020 09:07 AM PDT

    Hey all, J_Alexander_HS back again today to talk quickly about the topic of survivorship bias and why posts about someone getting a good rank with a deck isn't itself usually useful information.

    This is an important topic for many, as informal surveys - as well as player behavior - suggests that posts about how a player hit rank 1 with a certain list seem to have noticeable impacts on others. It's a fairly common occurrence for a deck that hit rank 1 (or somewhere close to 1) to be posted on a site like Twitter only to spread to the ladder as many players in search of the new, best thing pick it up. "Surely this deck must be great," they think, "since how could it hit rank 1 if it wasn't?"

    To understand why this line of thinking will lead you astray, we can begin by considering a story from World War II. During the war, a military contractor was hired by the US to help assess how to reinforce the armor on their airplanes. You want to have as little armor on planes as possible - since it's heavy and interferes with flight - so they sought to find out how to best armor their aircraft.

    To do so, the contractor examine the planes that returned from battles and found that most of the damage to these planes was concentrated on the wings and the tail. From that finding, the contract recommended that extra armor be placed on the areas that were not damaged during battle.

    Why? Because the planes with damage on the wings and tails had returned. They had survived. This would imply that airplanes damaged in other areas - like the cockpit - had not survived to return. If a plane could survive damage to the wings, those didn't need the most protection. Rather than looking at the observable damage from those that survived, the best way to solve the problem was to imagine the damage on those planes that didn't.

    Just the surviving planes provided a biased sample of data, so too will posts about how "Rank 1 with this new deck" provide incomplete information at best. The TL;DR is that almost no one is going to be posting about their experiments that failed. Let's look at that in more depth.

    Any win in Hearthstone is determined by three factors: player skill, deck build, and luck.

    • When the matchmaking system is working well, players should be matched relatively-evenly on skill with their opponent. If the skills of our players is fairly constant, it will cease to determine the outcome of games regularly. One player can have a slight edge, but it shouldn't be determining too many games per 100.

    • Deck Builds are the 30 cards you included in your deck. How they interact with each other and how powerful your game plan is will determine matches. This is what we are trying to figure out when it comes to whether a deck is powerful.

    • Luck represents the random effects, draw order, match-ups queued into, and so on. As any player of Hearthstone will know, luck can swing wildly. I've played the same deck in the same rank range for dozens of games a day over multiple days and had my win rate swing from 35% to 75%. If player skill and deck builds aren't changing, this can be attributed mostly to random elements. In the long-term, luck determines very little about overall success in Hearthstone, but in the short-term it determines a lot.

    So what happens if you gave 100 players of equal skill the same deck and had them play 50 games? Whether that deck is good or bad, the odds that some players do better than others - perhaps even do very well - is good. If one of those 100 players hits a good rank with the deck and posts it online, you won't see the other 99 players who failed with the list. Moreover, the person that got there did so because of luck-based factors; not because of their particular deck or skill. Even if they were a good player, playing a good deck, so is everyone else floating around the good ranks. The primary determinant of success in the short-term is luck, and "short-term" here can refer to sample sizes of hundreds of games, even if that's a lot of Hearthstone for any one player.

    There are three quick other points to think about, in addition to survivorship bias, for understanding why these posts aren't usually useful:

    • Once a deck is popular and does well, people may stop posting about it. So HL Hunter hit rank 1 legend for the third time this week; so what? It does that all the time. Dog bites man isn't news, whereas man bites dog might be. If everyone knows a deck does well, they might stop talking about it doing well, biasing the information we see more.

    • Meta decks with slight variations usually don't explain their performance. Recently, I saw a high-ranked Galakrond Rogue list playing 2 unusual tech cards (Ooze and Stickyfingers) that probably made the deck worse, on average. However, those options usually replace some of the weakest options in the deck. If we're trying to explain why a deck did well and 28/30 cards are the same, those 2 cards which do not effect the core strengths of the deck in a fundamental way cannot be responsible for much of the win rate. It's likely more a case of the deck drawing well and perhaps (but not necessarily) the tech cards - by luck - hitting their right targets. It doesn't mean there's been an improvement.

    • Sometimes a completely new deck may pop out of left field. Perhaps that deck does well because it catches people by surprise. Perhaps it's just survivorship bias as to why it does well. Perhaps it's actually good. Perhaps you're just looking for something new and interesting to play (aren't we all?) so you pick it up. It's important to not over-ascribe power to the novel deck as the reason for its performance at this stage, however, to avoid falling down the rabbit hole of playing a bad deck over and over because you truly believe it be a winner. We know survivorship bias and luck matter at a lot; we don't know that the new deck is good yet.

    submitted by /u/Popsychblog
    [link] [comments]

    New Card Back for October 2020 - The Breaker

    Posted: 30 Jul 2020 12:21 PM PDT

    Is Trick Totem Good? Lets do the math.

    Posted: 30 Jul 2020 12:44 PM PDT

    Since all the cards for the new expansion have been revealed the one I am most interested in was Trick Totem, the 2 mana 0,3 that casts a random spell that costs 3 or less mana after your turn. One of my favorite decks is totem shaman so the power level of it has been on my mind so I decided to go through all the 3 mana or less spells in standard and try to math it out.

    First, the categories. I split it into "WIN", "GOOD", "NEUTRAL", "50/50", "BAD", and "LOSE". WIN and GOOD are just positive spells with GOOD being good and WIN being just really good, nothing too complicated. NEUTRAL are any spells that do nothing when casted. 50/50 is where it gets complicated. 50/50 is when the spell has a chance to be both a positive spell or a negative spell depending on what it targets. BAD are spells that overload us to much next turn or do damage to the totem without it dying. LOSE is any spell that kills the totem, note that some of these are in 50/50 because they are targeted. Some spells that are targeted have multiple outcomes like lightning bolt can hit both faces, the totem or any minions the enemy has played. For these spells they will be put into GOOD or BAD if there are more or less then 50% one way or the other. When considering this, any damage to our face will not be counted as a negative or positive because we are the aggro deck. So.. any spell that can hit minions and face, they will be 50/50 because it is bad if it hits our totem, good if it hits their face, and then a 50/50 if they have a minion or not. In reality it is not 50/50 if they have a minion or not but that is the easiest way to do it. WHEN LOOKING AT THE CARDS AND WHAT CATEGORY TO PUT THEM IN I AM ASSUMING THE DECK USING THE TRICK TOTEM IS TOTEM SHAMAN. This is because it is the only deck I could see running it other than maybe some highlander shaman, which I also think should run it because it can just high roll wins.

    Next, I had three different times to play the totem. Coining it out on turn 1, playing it on turn 2, and lightning blooming it out on turn 1 when going first. The first two scenarios don't have a difference when looking at the spells because the good spells will always be good and the bad ones will always be bad and the spells that require targeting will either be put in GOOD, BAD, or 50/50 because there is always a chance for the opponent to play a minion before it is played. The only difference is when lightning blooming it out on turn 1. This means that the opponent had no way of playing a minion and has different stats because of it.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19z55UgNZU9cZSg4q7b8P1uK4fRHVlppFWU3QdhAivIo/edit?usp=sharing

    The math. Galakrond spells and class quests were excluded from the math since I believe that they are not possible to be cast. Overall, there are 243 spells that could be cast from the Trick totem. WIN, GOOD, and NEUTRAL outcomes where decided to be lumped together as a net positive, BAD and LOSE lumped together for a net negative, and 50/50 as a separate outcome as possible good or bad.

    On turn two: 175/243 or 72.01% for positive, 44/243 or 18.10% for negative, and 24/243 or 9.87% for a 50/50 outcome of good or bad.

    Coined on turn one: 175/243 or 72.01% for positive, 44/243 or 18.10% for negative, and 24/243 or 9.87% for a 50/50 outcome of good or bad.

    Lightningbloomed on turn one: 182/243 or 74.89% for positive, 60/243 or 24.69% for negative, and 1/243 or .004% for a 50/50 outcome of good or bad.

    The Conclusion. Trick totem is surprisingly really good. When lumping the neutral spells into the positive category it has a little over 70% chance to cast a positive spell with many of them being game winning in some match-ups. If you don't count neutral spells(do nothing) as a positive then:

    On turn two/Coined on turn one: 139/243 or 57.20% for positive, 44/243 or 18.10% for negative, 24/243 or 9,87% for a 50/50, and 36/243 or 14.81% for a neutral outcome.

    Lightningbloomed on turn one: 126/243 or 51.85% for positive, 60/243 or 24.69% for negative, 1/243 or .004% for a 50/50, and 56/243 or 23.04% for a neutral outcome.

    However, when the negative affects can just outright kill the totem itself I would like to think the the do nothing spells are positives especially since it has 3 health compared to other totems at that mana which have 2. This also means it has a higher chance of staying alive and hitting that 51% chance for the positive spell pool or just winning the game in some match-ups. Im an excel noob so the the spreadsheet just shows what spells I put in which categories and the math I did elsewhere.

    TLDR: Trick Totem is a good card and should be run in totem shaman and possibly Highlander Shaman/Highlander Mage

    submitted by /u/Kn1ght9
    [link] [comments]

    How can I refuse such a great deal?

    Posted: 30 Jul 2020 12:44 PM PDT
    Read more
    at

    No comments:

    Post a Comment