Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Imperial Dane

Shadowlog Report August 13th.

96 posts in this topic

So sword has the worst going second win rate. I could definitely tell, I've been trying to do my dailies today and I got sword and I've been going second a lot and damn these matches just feel unwinnable and unfun. I hate daily quests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh, didn't notice that. But yeah, swordcraft actually has the worst winrate going second now. It's even worse on masters. Not a lot worse than say forest, but still worse. Curious that. My guess would be because they got absolutely nothing to play going second on turn 4 besides Floral fencer or neutrals. They just don't have any good plays there really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alice Sword has a negative winrate going second, but it's not a tire fire. In Masters there are better odds going second with Alice Sword (48.3%) than with Carabosse (46.5%) or Eachtar (46.3%).

But of course, Alice Sword has lots of good plays on turn 4. Alice herself, but also Maisy or Feria. Even Lyrial can turn things right around. The other Sword decks don't have that. Face Sword and Ambush Sword don't fight for the board at all - they just go for the face every turn and try to race. These decks lose about 10 percent in winrate going second, because of course all they are doing is counting to 20 before their opponent kills them or stabilizes. Starting a turn behind on that plan is absolutely crippling.

Sword decks with a lot of defensive plays don't lose much by going second. Control Sword's winrate falls by just 2.5%. Commander Sword's winrate doesn't change at all. And if these decks weren't rarely played and pretty awful, you probably wouldn't see such a big drop in winrate going second.

But while Alice Sword is the best and most popular Sword deck, it's still only a quarter of the overall Swordosphere. All the other positive winrate Sword decks lose more than 10% of their winrate going second. Because they are completely uninteractive decks that just go for face.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, FrankTrollman said:

Temple Defender saw some play when the aggressive threats were piles of 1/1 skeletons back in Tempest. Decks that ran Temple Defender had a positive winrate against the most played deck at the time.

The problem is that Temple Defender isn't much different to a 2//3 Ward against Alice, and a 2/3 Ward isn't good enough. Turn 4 Alice makes Goblin a 2/3, Feria a 3/3, and Grimnir a 3/4. So you play the Temple Defender on turn 3, then your opponent Alices and Feria kills your Defender without even dying in the process. Going second you don't get a chance to kill anything until turn 4 if you just play on-curve followers. And on turn 4 you are facing 4 followers with a total attack of 11 and you have an empty board.

Going secind, Heretical Inquiry is better than any 3-drop follower. At least it trades with something.

Yeah temple defender is specialized against 1 damage stuff like skeletons, elf girl may, Will of the forest, etc.  However I really haven't run into temple defender much since DE.  

Heretical inquiry is pretty bad without hallowed dogma to combo, or if running a candlebra deck.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Imperial Dane said:

Huh, didn't notice that. But yeah, swordcraft actually has the worst winrate going second now. It's even worse on masters. Not a lot worse than say forest, but still worse. Curious that. My guess would be because they got absolutely nothing to play going second on turn 4 besides Floral fencer or neutrals. They just don't have any good plays there really.

Well as Trollman pointed out it is worse for Carabossa blood and Midrange shadow, I guess they have even worse plays going 2nd than Alice sword.  We should buff them so the going 2nd win rate gets closer to going 1st.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FrankTrollman said:

Alice Sword has a negative winrate going second, but it's not a tire fire. In Masters there are better odds going second with Alice Sword (48.3%) than with Carabosse (46.5%) or Eachtar (46.3%).

But of course, Alice Sword has lots of good plays on turn 4. Alice herself, but also Maisy or Feria. Even Lyrial can turn things right around. The other Sword decks don't have that. Face Sword and Ambush Sword don't fight for the board at all - they just go for the face every turn and try to race. These decks lose about 10 percent in winrate going second, because of course all they are doing is counting to 20 before their opponent kills them or stabilizes. Starting a turn behind on that plan is absolutely crippling.

Sword decks with a lot of defensive plays don't lose much by going second. Control Sword's winrate falls by just 2.5%. Commander Sword's winrate doesn't change at all. And if these decks weren't rarely played and pretty awful, you probably wouldn't see such a big drop in winrate going second.

But while Alice Sword is the best and most popular Sword deck, it's still only a quarter of the overall Swordosphere. All the other positive winrate Sword decks lose more than 10% of their winrate going second. Because they are completely uninteractive decks that just go for face.

Saying something had a negative winrate going second isn't really saying a whole lot. For reference, pre-nerf Neutral Bloodcraft had a negative winrate going second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Aru're said:

Saying something had a negative winrate going second isn't really saying a whole lot. For reference, pre-nerf Neutral Bloodcraft had a negative winrate going second.

Probably because mirror match was most common match l0l.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Aru're said:

Saying something had a negative winrate going second isn't really saying a whole lot. For reference, pre-nerf Neutral Bloodcraft had a negative winrate going second.

Pre-nerf Alice Blood mirror matches went to the first player more than 60% of the time. Against the rest of the field, Alice Blood had an overall positive winrate going second. The most popular deck that had a positive winrate against pre-nerf Alice Blood after winning the coinflip was Alice Rune - with a whopping 1.98% of the meta and 51.8% chance of victory if Alice Blood went second.

The extent of complete dominance of Alice Blood is hard to even conceptualize. Most of the time when you thought you saw any kind of weakness at all it was just an artifact caused by the fact that when Alice Blood fought itself  the only possible outcome was one deck winning and the other deck losing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So i am not sure how they did it, but apparently Game-AI has some preliminary stats from shadowlog which they post along with their tier list : http://game-ai.jp/12306/?from=index_menu

 

Which shows that Swordcraft and havencraft shrinking in playsize with most other classes growing, though mostly Rune bounding forwards and in terms of decks Neutral rune is now the third most played with it's winrate taking no appreciable hit and being the only of the 3 top decks that has a positive winrate going second. Unfortunately the data doesn't allow for deeper analysis so not much to say there.

 

But if true certainly looks like Neutral rune is bolting towards being the next really nasty thing.

 

Otherwise vengeance blood is beginning to loose steam having otherwise been strong but is by now having issues, guessing the appearance of neutral rune proved to be too much for it. Also most of the sword archetypes beyond neutral sword by the looks of it aren't reporting positive winrates, though in the case of the aggro ones it is pretty much on the edge there. And even neutral sword is losing a bit of it's rate as well. So just like at the start of WD, whatever sword had .. doesn't last long until someone does the job better :P Neutral sword has been pushed down all the way to tier 3 on their tier list.

 

But we'll see how reliable these numbers are tomorrow. But figured they'd be interesting to post nonetheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Imperial Dane said:

So i am not sure how they did it, but apparently Game-AI has some preliminary stats from shadowlog which they post along with their tier list : http://game-ai.jp/12306/?from=index_menu

 

Which shows that Swordcraft and havencraft shrinking in playsize with most other classes growing, though mostly Rune bounding forwards and in terms of decks Neutral rune is now the third most played with it's winrate taking no appreciable hit and being the only of the 3 top decks that has a positive winrate going second. Unfortunately the data doesn't allow for deeper analysis so not much to say there.

 

But if true certainly looks like Neutral rune is bolting towards being the next really nasty thing.

 

Otherwise vengeance blood is beginning to loose steam having otherwise been strong but is by now having issues, guessing the appearance of neutral rune proved to be too much for it. Also most of the sword archetypes beyond neutral sword by the looks of it aren't reporting positive winrates, though in the case of the aggro ones it is pretty much on the edge there. And even neutral sword is losing a bit of it's rate as well. So just like at the start of WD, whatever sword had .. doesn't last long until someone does the job better :P Neutral sword has been pushed down all the way to tier 3 on their tier list.

 

But we'll see how reliable these numbers are tomorrow. But figured they'd be interesting to post nonetheless.

Rather interesting, have noticed the lack of swords and Havens, mostly been replaced by aggro blood, from my personal experience, though I can see why vengeance blood has shrunk if neutral runes been rocketing up like it has, once blood activates its own vengeance it's basically bye-bye against Rune. It's bonkers xD which is a bit of a shame, it's the more interesting match up compared to aggro blood, oh well.... more casualties lol. Let's see what shadowlogs have to say tomorrow, could do with bit more of a in depth look. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, also just noticed that storm haven has taken quite a beating with it's winrate roughly around Midrange sword, neutral haven which i am assuming is lion haven is doing slightly alright. But haven is definitely in a pretty rough position as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lion Haven is Tempo if I am not mistaken, right? Been seeing some pretty cool variants of that recently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Morrigan said:

Lion Haven is Tempo if I am not mistaken, right? Been seeing some pretty cool variants of that recently.

You could probably call it tempo since it largely does what Daria does, IE play followers on curve that then makes your big card in hand cheaper (Lion of the golden city) which you then play for a big tempo smash, preferrably around turn 4 or 5 or so.

 

Haven't seen much to it myself, most of the havens i encounter tend to be Aegis or Seraph, sadly not much Storm or Lion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven in the gutter, thank goodness for that emptive snow white nerf, such a brilliant idea.

Cygames better fix their mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Imperial Dane n @Morrigan for the most part, tempo/neutral haven is very much the same thing, unlike storm they just play low curve neutrals like any other aggro deck, and basically pool all the resources into a massive lion play on turn 5/6,  storm for the most part is really quite hit n miss by comparison, after all, most Haven storm followers are from amulets, so it's very, how to put it, heavily telegraphed, its obvious when the burst is coming for the most part, giving people plenty of time to bring their defenses or counter plays up.

i do rather like the consistency of lion, being able to put out 13/13 worth of stats in one go is nice, if you can pop it on duel flames, but even with a typical aria, it's decent enough, though at the same time, it's a bit.... ehhhh, since aria is a turn 2 play, pop on 5 regardless, there's better choices, except tea time if you have a Garuda in hand, then ye out of luck, though like I did in a private match against @Unryuu get lion to 0 themis their board and unleash hell on them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

13 minutes ago, Othello said:

@Imperial Dane n @Morrigan for the most part, tempo/neutral haven is very much the same thing, unlike storm they just play low curve neutrals like any other aggro deck, and basically pool all the resources into a massive lion play on turn 5/6,  storm for the most part is really quite hit n miss by comparison, after all, most Haven storm followers are from amulets, so it's very, how to put it, heavily telegraphed, its obvious when the burst is coming for the most part, giving people plenty of time to bring their defenses or counter plays up.

i do rather like the consistency of lion, being able to put out 13/13 worth of stats in one go is nice, if you can pop it on duel flames, but even with a typical aria, it's decent enough, though at the same time, it's a bit.... ehhhh, since aria is a turn 2 play, pop on 5 regardless, there's better choices, except tea time if you have a Garuda in hand, then ye out of luck, though like I did in a private match against @Unryuu get lion to 0 themis their board and unleash hell on them. 

lion is about as bad as daria in terms of hit/miss....

this is the most cancer result that i ever see:

20915247_638194833051768_114147935504239

 

(the guy probably spend a lot of luck to pull this off)

Edited by Kyubey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

7 minutes ago, Kyubey said:

lion is about as bad as daria in terms of hit/miss....

this is the most cancer result that i ever see:

20915247_638194833051768_114147935504239

 

(the guy probably spend a lot of luck to pull this off)

xD best I did was one frozen mammoth, lion and aria in one go, I wasn't lucky enough to get the second mammoth, lion Haven is nuts as it is, just a shame mammoth doesn't count as a neutral follower when you play the amulet, ruins all the fun lol.

also nice bricking on your ramp lol. xD 

Edited by Othello

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dragon in the gutter too, I mean man it totally would have been the next neutral blood if Ouroboros wasn't nerfed!  People argued that nerfs based on the individual cards Snow white and Ouroboros was fine, however Cygame's reasoning for both was Ramp dragon and Aegis Haven could replace neutral blood.  Obviously they were dead wrong, their explanation was fishy garbage much like their reasoning for Test of strength.  

These are the only exceptions to their supposed policy of only nerfing cards from decks that are oppressive/overperforming at master rank.  I know I sound like a broken record, but honestly what they did was the biggest load of BS and needs to be undone.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After playing a lot of Neutral Rune i feel like it really is kinda busted. As much as i love the deck i feel like Falise should probably get nerfed at the end of this month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very weird to me that Game-AI awards "tier 2" status to decks that have losing records. I just don't see how it's even possible for a deck to be tier 1 or tier 2 if it loses more often than it wins against the field including casual decks.

In related news, it continues to be silly to claim that Dragon has a single highly played deck called "Ramp Dragon" when what you're actually looking at is a bunch of different decks that aren't easily distinguished where none of them do particularly well in any context. Dragoncraft is doing so badly right now that people don't even bother identifying and propagating specific winning decks out of it. Claiming that as a good thing is a real failure to read the data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Patrickzzz said:

After playing a lot of Neutral Rune i feel like it really is kinda busted. As much as i love the deck i feel like Falise should probably get nerfed at the end of this month.

Well looking at the statistics and playing against it, it does feel.. Busted. Since it can easily play on tempo while drawing cards, in fact it can draw a lot of cards, synergize with those in nasty ways which includes Falise but also just Alice. I mean alice is not just a board buff but a hand buff, and the ones that can take the best advantage of hand buffs are the ones with the best card draw. It's kinda why hand buffing didn't take off as well as it did in Mean Streets of Gadgetzan, they gave the hand buffs to all the classes with some of the weakest natural card draw.

 

Thus you can just get much better Alice value than pretty much any other deck with Neutral rune.  Which i do think plays a part in why Neutral rune is so far looking to be the strongest of the neutral decks, since they are all running off the Alice engine, but pretty much all of the other decks do not have the same level of card draw nor easy hand synergies. Allowing neutral rune to outvalue any other deck easily.

 

@FrankTrollman It would help if they explained how they came to their tier making decisions, generally these type of listings never actually explain how they get around to those tiers. Like how is Burn rune tier 1 when at the same time it is posting a negative win rate in the very data they provide ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0