High Quality video with very good explanations on Tempo vs. Value and perfect visual representation. Will definitely use this to help new players on the discord understand the topic more. Keep uploading content like this, i imagine it will be highly helpful for others in the future (and this video is already highly helpful right now) :)
A good explanation. Can we have the second Ooze video where you cover why people shouldn't be playing tech cards on ladder which is a best of one format where they should be playing cards that progress their own gameplan, or provide more general answers?
No, because the idea that "you shouldn't be playing tech cards" isn't a good idea, and I'm not sure where you heard that it is. You're 100% correct that you need to play cards that progress your own game plan, but where we disagree (and pro players would also disagree) is that tech cards can't be a part of that progression. Most importantly is that we've repeatedly seen variations of meta decks that INCLUDE tech cards, have higher winrates than the ones that leave them out, on ladder! For example, in early Rise of Shadows meta, when Waggle Pick rogue decks were so dominant, playing weapon removal (often Ooze) was kind of a mandatory tech option. If you were a control deck, weapon destruction DID progress your game plan, as it essentially "heals" by removing the potential for weapon damage (in this case 8 damage), AND because it reduces the possibility of comboing Waggle Pick with Leeroy (which had not been HoF'd at the time) which would be 6 extra damage. It also cleared a minion off board so it was hella useful. Even when playing a tempo/aggro deck, playing Ooze during that time slowed down your opponents tempo, while still producing Tempo on your side, which is exactly what aggro decks want! There are many other examples of tech cards being essential pieces of a deck within Hearthstone's meta (standard and wild) throughout the games history. It's often the case that tech cards are a necessary and sometimes mandatory part of deck building. As long as you're picking tech cards that are still independently decent (as in they're playable if the opponent doesn't have the stuff you're teching against) they're a worthwhile inclusion, even on ladder. Ooze fits this criteria because it's a decent body (2 mana 3/2 is "good" stats for the mana) and makes sense in a meta with a lot of weapons. What's not worth doing is playing stuff like The Black Knight, because you might encounter a taunt card, when there's rarely ever been specific taunts that make that card worth running, and the stats aren't good for the mana. I also agree that playing way too many tech cards is a mistake. You want to tech against the dominant stuff in the meta, but you don't want to compromise your own game plan either. If the tech card is useful the majority of the time, it's probably worth it, even if it's only OK vs certain decks. At the end of the day, boosting your average win % will always be a good idea, objectively.
@@RadarHearthstone The counter argument to that would be the fact that in the decks they are ran, tech cards (especially Acidic Swamp Ooze) are consistently one of if not the worst cards in the deck. More often than not, versions of decks running tech cards are worse, statistically, than ones not. It may gain you an extra few % against the specific match ups you're playing the tech card for, but reduces it against the rest of the field because for them you're playing a bad card. "At the end of the day, boosting your average win % will always be a good idea, objectively". Just speaking purely from a statistical standpoint, you should not include tech cards in your deck. And to quickly counteract one thing you've said, a 2 mana 3/2 is not "good enough". Bloodfen Raptor has never been good. You're choosing to play a card which turns into Bloodfen Raptor (worse technically as there are zero tribal synergies with an Ooze) every time it misses a weapon, either because you've had to play it for tempo, or the deck you're against runs zero weapons to begin with. A tech card, to be ran, can't just be "good enough". It has to be exceptional in the match ups it wins to make up for the ones it can cost you. And they don't more often than not.
@@BlackOctoberFox It feels like we're really close to agreeing, but then you're acting as if the stats are on your side when they're not. They may be on your side in certain cases/certain decks, which would suggest that a specific tech card in question is not worth running, but there isn't statistical evidence to suggest "you should not include tech cards in your deck" and that claim doesn't really hold up under even basic scrutiny? If we want to examine a claim like "you should not include tech cards in your deck" we need to understand what conditions would need to be met in order for it to be worth running a tech card. This is pretty easy to do: all we need to check is whether including the card increases or decreases your AVERAGE win% on ladder. If the tech card increases your win rate and that increase is greater than if you chose to run a card that plays to your decks game plan, then statistically that card is worth running. So, hypothetically, what are some possible ways a tech card could increase your average win%, and what are the factors we need to consider? Once again, this is pretty simple: how much do you gain from running the card, and how much do you lose, and how popular are certain decks in the meta? These three factors determine whether you should tech in a card. Under this framework, we can understand that if a card boosts your winrate in a certain matchup to 100%, that's amazing, but not if it comes at the cost of reducing your winrate vs the other 9 classes by a significant enough margin to not run the card. However if it boosts your winrate to 100% in one matchup, and only drops it by 3% in every other matchup it starts to become a more interesting proposition. Most interesting of all, if the card in question boosts your winrate vs Deck A by 100%, decreases it by 3% in other matchups, but Deck A is 20% of your ladder games, then you really want to play that tech card. While a 100% winrate is obviously over the top, tech cards that target combo decks have actually had historically VERY VERY high winrates in certain decks. If you dirty rat out a Mecha'thun or Malygos or whatever early, you usually just win the game on the spot. Some tech cards are THAT powerful. Examples of tech cards with this kind of power level off the top of my head are: - Mindrender Illucia (amazing disruption card) - Skulking Geist (rip jade druid) - Golakka Crawler (not as powerful but still so popular and worth running) There's also a small argument to be made that "tech card" is a pretty general statement and some cards can be considered "tech additions" in the sense that running say, a second shield slam in warrior may be worth it in an aggro meta, but it doesn't mean shield slam is only good against aggro. Hearthstone by design, is always going to have certain decks be popular and certain decks be unpopular, even accounting for winrate. Right now, HSreplay says that Highlander Hunter is the best deck from Ranks 4-1, and yet Vicious Syndicate says that the deck accounts for only 2.86% of decks on the ladder. In contrast, Soul Demon Hunter takes up 10.30% and Evolve Shaman occupies 7.54%. Both lower winrates, yet higher play rates. Stuff like cost of the deck matters a lot with this, but also difficult of the deck is a big factor too. While I personally think there are some limitations to these kinds of data (as individual players can have much higher winrates with a specific deck due to the way they play, thus affecting the tierlist and creating the possibility that a deck is much better than general data suggests) I believe this data is still useful because in both cases, it's sampling the general public, not one individual player. SO if certain decks are always going to be more popular than others, that already makes tech cards more compelling option. However, what's even more important is when you consider the value of tech cards that target specific archetypes. For example, there are many ways to tech against aggro decks, and aggro decks aren't limited to one single class/deck. There are times where the majority of decks in the game are tempo/aggro decks, including right now! If we look at the most recent Vicious Syndicate data for today's standard meta, aggro decks make up the vast majority of the meta. 18.9% are playing demon hunter, 9.6% are playing Hunter,12.11% are playing Evolve/Totem Shaman, 8.77% are playing Pure Paladin, 3.05% are playing secret mage, 2.12% are playing Aggro Rogue, 1.88% Zoolock, etc. This means, at MINIMUM 56.43% of the meta from 4-1 is aggro decks. That's today's meta, but here have been times where we've had combo focused metas (near the late end of Shirvallah Paladin meta for example), control metas etc. The point is, when you have a metagame that leans heavily in one direction, which is common, this is where tech cards become most popular. It's also worth mentioning that the percentage of other archetypes still matters too. If the remaining 43.57% of decks are control decks, then it might not be as good as anti-aggro cards are usually not super useful vs control. As of right now though, Control Warrior makes up only 3.18% of the meta, and priest makes up 5% of the meta, so in today's example, anti-aggro cards are quite useful. I could go on and on, but the point is that there are always conditions where tech cards can make sense and there always will be. We've seen plenty of tech cards see repeated play on ladder, with superior winrates, despite what you claim. While you can find MANY MANY examples of data that suggests a tech card isn't worth running, you'll also find examples where a tech card is clearly a necessary inclusion. So, the conclusion you should draw from this info isn't "all tech cards are inherently not worth running" it's "the meta is in a state where this deck, at this time, now does not benefit from a tech card." As for my statement re: Ooze I am well aware that Ooze being a 2 mana 3/2 is not "good enough" in the sense that it's not enough to see vanilla play. Please try to respect that I might actually have enough knowledge to understand that. I'm able to see that a 2 mana 3/2 is "fair" at best. What I mean by "good enough" is that a 3/2 is still reasonable stats for the mana. It's not understated at all. A good parralel example is the difference between a card like Spellbreaker, and a card like Ironbeak Owl. In the vast majority of cases, Spellbreaker was chosen over Ironbeak Owl, and the reason is pretty simple: Spellbreaker has better vanilla stats for the mana. Does that mean a 4 mana 4/3 is a good statline? Of course not. But there's a reason why people chose to run Spellbreaker, a card that has stats equivalent to a 3 mana card, over a Ironbeak Owl, a card that has stats equivalent to a 1 mana card. Spellbreaker simply does more for the mana, roughly 2 mana more value than Ironbeak Owl. I bring this up because it's an example of why the stats of a card are so important, even if they're not necessarily "good." Are there situations where you would choose to play Ironbeak Owl in spite of this? Of course. There's Odd/Even decks that can't run Spellbreaker. There's beast focused decks that use cards like masters call, forcing you to play only beasts. The most common reason now would be that Spellbreaker was HoF'd, which says a lot about it's utility as a card btw. The fact that Blizzard felt it should be removed from standard play kinda proves that it actually had impact on the meta, and not just the tournament meta. Which kind of singlehandedly proves that tech cards actually are useful after all lol.
(btw the reason I made such a lengthy reply is that this is clearly a good topic for a future video, and planning out my arguments, even if it's just in a TH-cam comment, is useful!
Great video, wish there was more than just the two educational videos on here since I'm trying to get my friend to understand these kind of things and I'm bad at explaining. Liking and subbing to hope for more later :P
Pretty sure they’re written by me, but inspired by definitions I’ve found in the hearthstone wiki and other places. Basically they’re my personal definitions?
High Quality video with very good explanations on Tempo vs. Value and perfect visual representation. Will definitely use this to help new players on the discord understand the topic more. Keep uploading content like this, i imagine it will be highly helpful for others in the future (and this video is already highly helpful right now) :)
Nice guide
Cool explanation, thanks
A good explanation. Can we have the second Ooze video where you cover why people shouldn't be playing tech cards on ladder which is a best of one format where they should be playing cards that progress their own gameplan, or provide more general answers?
No, because the idea that "you shouldn't be playing tech cards" isn't a good idea, and I'm not sure where you heard that it is.
You're 100% correct that you need to play cards that progress your own game plan, but where we disagree (and pro players would also disagree) is that tech cards can't be a part of that progression. Most importantly is that we've repeatedly seen variations of meta decks that INCLUDE tech cards, have higher winrates than the ones that leave them out, on ladder!
For example, in early Rise of Shadows meta, when Waggle Pick rogue decks were so dominant, playing weapon removal (often Ooze) was kind of a mandatory tech option.
If you were a control deck, weapon destruction DID progress your game plan, as it essentially "heals" by removing the potential for weapon damage (in this case 8 damage), AND because it reduces the possibility of comboing Waggle Pick with Leeroy (which had not been HoF'd at the time) which would be 6 extra damage. It also cleared a minion off board so it was hella useful. Even when playing a tempo/aggro deck, playing Ooze during that time slowed down your opponents tempo, while still producing Tempo on your side, which is exactly what aggro decks want!
There are many other examples of tech cards being essential pieces of a deck within Hearthstone's meta (standard and wild) throughout the games history. It's often the case that tech cards are a necessary and sometimes mandatory part of deck building. As long as you're picking tech cards that are still independently decent (as in they're playable if the opponent doesn't have the stuff you're teching against) they're a worthwhile inclusion, even on ladder.
Ooze fits this criteria because it's a decent body (2 mana 3/2 is "good" stats for the mana) and makes sense in a meta with a lot of weapons.
What's not worth doing is playing stuff like The Black Knight, because you might encounter a taunt card, when there's rarely ever been specific taunts that make that card worth running, and the stats aren't good for the mana.
I also agree that playing way too many tech cards is a mistake. You want to tech against the dominant stuff in the meta, but you don't want to compromise your own game plan either. If the tech card is useful the majority of the time, it's probably worth it, even if it's only OK vs certain decks.
At the end of the day, boosting your average win % will always be a good idea, objectively.
@@RadarHearthstone
The counter argument to that would be the fact that in the decks they are ran, tech cards (especially Acidic Swamp Ooze) are consistently one of if not the worst cards in the deck. More often than not, versions of decks running tech cards are worse, statistically, than ones not. It may gain you an extra few % against the specific match ups you're playing the tech card for, but reduces it against the rest of the field because for them you're playing a bad card.
"At the end of the day, boosting your average win % will always be a good idea, objectively".
Just speaking purely from a statistical standpoint, you should not include tech cards in your deck.
And to quickly counteract one thing you've said, a 2 mana 3/2 is not "good enough". Bloodfen Raptor has never been good. You're choosing to play a card which turns into Bloodfen Raptor (worse technically as there are zero tribal synergies with an Ooze) every time it misses a weapon, either because you've had to play it for tempo, or the deck you're against runs zero weapons to begin with. A tech card, to be ran, can't just be "good enough". It has to be exceptional in the match ups it wins to make up for the ones it can cost you. And they don't more often than not.
@@BlackOctoberFox It feels like we're really close to agreeing, but then you're acting as if the stats are on your side when they're not. They may be on your side in certain cases/certain decks, which would suggest that a specific tech card in question is not worth running, but there isn't statistical evidence to suggest "you should not include tech cards in your deck" and that claim doesn't really hold up under even basic scrutiny?
If we want to examine a claim like "you should not include tech cards in your deck" we need to understand what conditions would need to be met in order for it to be worth running a tech card. This is pretty easy to do: all we need to check is whether including the card increases or decreases your AVERAGE win% on ladder. If the tech card increases your win rate and that increase is greater than if you chose to run a card that plays to your decks game plan, then statistically that card is worth running.
So, hypothetically, what are some possible ways a tech card could increase your average win%, and what are the factors we need to consider? Once again, this is pretty simple: how much do you gain from running the card, and how much do you lose, and how popular are certain decks in the meta? These three factors determine whether you should tech in a card.
Under this framework, we can understand that if a card boosts your winrate in a certain matchup to 100%, that's amazing, but not if it comes at the cost of reducing your winrate vs the other 9 classes by a significant enough margin to not run the card. However if it boosts your winrate to 100% in one matchup, and only drops it by 3% in every other matchup it starts to become a more interesting proposition. Most interesting of all, if the card in question boosts your winrate vs Deck A by 100%, decreases it by 3% in other matchups, but Deck A is 20% of your ladder games, then you really want to play that tech card.
While a 100% winrate is obviously over the top, tech cards that target combo decks have actually had historically VERY VERY high winrates in certain decks. If you dirty rat out a Mecha'thun or Malygos or whatever early, you usually just win the game on the spot. Some tech cards are THAT powerful. Examples of tech cards with this kind of power level off the top of my head are:
- Mindrender Illucia (amazing disruption card)
- Skulking Geist (rip jade druid)
- Golakka Crawler (not as powerful but still so popular and worth running)
There's also a small argument to be made that "tech card" is a pretty general statement and some cards can be considered "tech additions" in the sense that running say, a second shield slam in warrior may be worth it in an aggro meta, but it doesn't mean shield slam is only good against aggro.
Hearthstone by design, is always going to have certain decks be popular and certain decks be unpopular, even accounting for winrate. Right now, HSreplay says that Highlander Hunter is the best deck from Ranks 4-1, and yet Vicious Syndicate says that the deck accounts for only 2.86% of decks on the ladder. In contrast, Soul Demon Hunter takes up 10.30% and Evolve Shaman occupies 7.54%. Both lower winrates, yet higher play rates. Stuff like cost of the deck matters a lot with this, but also difficult of the deck is a big factor too. While I personally think there are some limitations to these kinds of data (as individual players can have much higher winrates with a specific deck due to the way they play, thus affecting the tierlist and creating the possibility that a deck is much better than general data suggests) I believe this data is still useful because in both cases, it's sampling the general public, not one individual player.
SO if certain decks are always going to be more popular than others, that already makes tech cards more compelling option. However, what's even more important is when you consider the value of tech cards that target specific archetypes. For example, there are many ways to tech against aggro decks, and aggro decks aren't limited to one single class/deck. There are times where the majority of decks in the game are tempo/aggro decks, including right now!
If we look at the most recent Vicious Syndicate data for today's standard meta, aggro decks make up the vast majority of the meta. 18.9% are playing demon hunter, 9.6% are playing Hunter,12.11% are playing Evolve/Totem Shaman, 8.77% are playing Pure Paladin, 3.05% are playing secret mage, 2.12% are playing Aggro Rogue, 1.88% Zoolock, etc.
This means, at MINIMUM 56.43% of the meta from 4-1 is aggro decks. That's today's meta, but here have been times where we've had combo focused metas (near the late end of Shirvallah Paladin meta for example), control metas etc. The point is, when you have a metagame that leans heavily in one direction, which is common, this is where tech cards become most popular. It's also worth mentioning that the percentage of other archetypes still matters too. If the remaining 43.57% of decks are control decks, then it might not be as good as anti-aggro cards are usually not super useful vs control. As of right now though, Control Warrior makes up only 3.18% of the meta, and priest makes up 5% of the meta, so in today's example, anti-aggro cards are quite useful.
I could go on and on, but the point is that there are always conditions where tech cards can make sense and there always will be. We've seen plenty of tech cards see repeated play on ladder, with superior winrates, despite what you claim. While you can find MANY MANY examples of data that suggests a tech card isn't worth running, you'll also find examples where a tech card is clearly a necessary inclusion.
So, the conclusion you should draw from this info isn't "all tech cards are inherently not worth running" it's "the meta is in a state where this deck, at this time, now does not benefit from a tech card."
As for my statement re: Ooze
I am well aware that Ooze being a 2 mana 3/2 is not "good enough" in the sense that it's not enough to see vanilla play. Please try to respect that I might actually have enough knowledge to understand that. I'm able to see that a 2 mana 3/2 is "fair" at best. What I mean by "good enough" is that a 3/2 is still reasonable stats for the mana. It's not understated at all.
A good parralel example is the difference between a card like Spellbreaker, and a card like Ironbeak Owl. In the vast majority of cases, Spellbreaker was chosen over Ironbeak Owl, and the reason is pretty simple: Spellbreaker has better vanilla stats for the mana. Does that mean a 4 mana 4/3 is a good statline? Of course not. But there's a reason why people chose to run Spellbreaker, a card that has stats equivalent to a 3 mana card, over a Ironbeak Owl, a card that has stats equivalent to a 1 mana card. Spellbreaker simply does more for the mana, roughly 2 mana more value than Ironbeak Owl. I bring this up because it's an example of why the stats of a card are so important, even if they're not necessarily "good."
Are there situations where you would choose to play Ironbeak Owl in spite of this? Of course. There's Odd/Even decks that can't run Spellbreaker. There's beast focused decks that use cards like masters call, forcing you to play only beasts. The most common reason now would be that Spellbreaker was HoF'd, which says a lot about it's utility as a card btw. The fact that Blizzard felt it should be removed from standard play kinda proves that it actually had impact on the meta, and not just the tournament meta. Which kind of singlehandedly proves that tech cards actually are useful after all lol.
(btw the reason I made such a lengthy reply is that this is clearly a good topic for a future video, and planning out my arguments, even if it's just in a TH-cam comment, is useful!
Dude mad good vid bro. Subbed!
bloodfen raptor is also a beast, which can be seen as a positive
Yup, that’s why I was trying to say the majority of situations, not all situations. Hopefully that was clear!
@@RadarHearthstone Still not strictly superior though.
@@lukaseichmann9974 yes I’ve addressed this repeatedly lo
Great video, wish there was more than just the two educational videos on here since I'm trying to get my friend to understand these kind of things and I'm bad at explaining. Liking and subbing to hope for more later :P
This is awesome dude. Keep it up
Such a good video! Thanks!
hey melee guy
:)
Zalae quote got me hahaha
nice
Tempo good, radar good, hit face so they have less life
Did you make or find those definitions of tempo and value? If you found them, would you share the link? It seems like a great resource.
Pretty sure they’re written by me, but inspired by definitions I’ve found in the hearthstone wiki and other places. Basically they’re my personal definitions?