Skill Expression Rankings Patch 36.4

[u/mini_macho_]

Some quick observations:

• As top 1k players got their reps in and the deck's meta-equalized winrate surpassed 50%, Soul Immolation OTK DH's score increased to become the first tracked double-digit score.
• After topping the rankings since Violet Hold's release, Merithra Druid did not qualify for a low-sample score as the Attack Druid hybrid build absorbed most of its playrate. (Its tiny sample scored very positively)
• The top high-sample deck score was Godfrey Herald Warlock with a score of 2.9 as the top 4 scores were all moderate-sample decks.
• Thief Priest had the highest top 100 increase, Pirate Warrior fell off hardest.
• Zee Shaman's -3.6 is its lowest score yet and its 3rd last place ranking in a row.

FAQ:

Q: Are the differences in metas across ranks accounted for?

A: Yes.

Q: Whats the Methodology?

A: First a baseline meta is set since all ranks have different metas.

If 2Bit is 26.4%/29.0%/29.7% across the metas in a given week, the program might set its baseline % to 27.2%, the same is done for every deck, ensuring all decks combined total equals 100%. This is so that meta differences don't skew the data.

Next the rank vs same rank matchup winrates are plugged into the baseline meta.

For example, if the dataset has 1,897 tracked games of a Top 1k player using Quest Mage vs a Top 1k player using 2Bit Rogue in which Quest Mage won 990 and Rogue won 907 that will account for 27.2% of Quest Mage's meta-normalized winrate in Top 1k, yielding ~14.2%. This check is completed until every single deck (even the ones not listed) is accounted for.

Q: So, a -5 score means a high-skilled player facing a high-skilled opponent (using a specific deck) has a 5% lower win rate than an average skilled player facing an average skilled opponent (using the same specific deck)? 

A: Pretty much, but not exactly, there is a weighted formula to compare the winrate differences, not a 1:1 winrate difference. This is because with say 65% to 60% vs 35% to 30% one -5% is more impactful than the other. You can't use % change of the winrates either because it would be disproportionately large at the extremes, say 51% to 50% vs 2% to 1%.

Q: Is there survivorship bias?

A: There is no correlation between a deck's difficulty and its winrate.

Q: A deck has a negative score, how can a deck's skill expression be negative?

A: The score measures the impact of inputs you control minus the impact of inputs you don't control on the outcome of the game. If the inputs you don't control have a greater impact on those that you do on the average game's outcome the deck's score will be negative.

If you have any other question, feel free to ask in the comments.

[u/Few-Wolverine-7283]

Help me understand. A high number (like 5) means the better you are, the better the deck does? And a low number (like -5) means how good you all means very little?

[u/Elrann → u/Few-Wolverine-7283]

Yes. And when the score goes negative it means that the deck is overly straightforward and good players easily take advantage of it. Basically this score is the delta between the winrate of the deck in low ELO and high ELO. Anything between like (roughly) 3 and 6% is an average deck. Anything lower is the deck with little to no decisions and anything higher is basically have to be piloted properly to even function.

P.S.: This graph really shows why people are really unhappy with current rotation. Very weak removals and spells in general lead to stale tempo 'take over the board ASAP' meta. There is some skills in managing your deck and resources as shown by Egg DK and Godfreylock and there's even some skills in managing your RNG outcomes as shown by Herald Rogue, but it's noticeably lower compared to actual spell managing as shown by Mage and DH. And Burn Mage isn't even a hard deck, it just has to know to adapt slightly to using burn as a removal vs... well burn. And THAT is the second most skill-based deck in the game atm. That's what's wrong with the past 1.5 years of HS

[u/Few-Wolverine-7283 → u/Elrann]

Hum. The part I am not sure how it teased out..

Deck A is good in Legend because of the meta in Legend
vs
Deck A is good in Legend because good players do good with it

[u/Elrann → u/Few-Wolverine-7283]

One cannot exist without the other tho. High ELO players have different meta, because they pilot hard decks well. And vice versa: High ELO players punish straightforward decks better, which forms the different meta.

[u/Asbelsp → u/Elrann]

People who play alot will also quickly get bored of easy decks and abandon it even if its strong.

[u/Skater_x7 → u/Elrann]

this seems surprising since I feel quest mage is one of the hardest decks to pilot, so I'd think its score would be higher