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.
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."
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.
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.)
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).
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.)
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).
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.
It's objectively not even the best deck right now. Let's just use the most popular deck from hsreplay for several of the strongest archetypes:
Murloc Shaman: 57.5% winrate
Highlander Hunter: 57.85% winrate
Murloc Paladin: 56.98% winrate
Aggro Warrior: 57.34% winrate
Mech Hunter: 57.93% winrate
Combo Priest: 56.69 % winrate
I could keep going with quite a few other decks that have similar winrates, but I think I've made my point.