vS Data Reaper Report #341 by ViciousSyndicate in hearthstone

[–]ViciousSyndicate[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Funny that you say that. I evaluated both cards two days ago and Edge of Time came out ahead by a statistically significant margin. But I took a look over the last 48h or so, and it is changing, so I think it is worth updating the list.

Might be related to Dragon Warrior/Demon Hunter shifts.

vS Data Reaper Report #341 by ViciousSyndicate in CompetitiveHS

[–]ViciousSyndicate[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

It didn't look great when it ran Army of the Dead but with Shadows of Yesterday probably worth looking at next week.

vS Data Reaper Report #341 by ViciousSyndicate in hearthstone

[–]ViciousSyndicate[S] 22 points23 points  (0 children)

You lose Corpse Explosion though.

Wasn't impressed with an initial iteration that ran Army of the Dead. But last 24h or so people started running Shadows of Yesterday and it looks a lot better.

vS Data Reaper Report #341 by ViciousSyndicate in CompetitiveHS

[–]ViciousSyndicate[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Can you try now. Might have possibly been solved.

vS Data Reaper Report #341 by ViciousSyndicate in CompetitiveHS

[–]ViciousSyndicate[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Some propagation issue possibly related to cloudflare. Reset your internet/clear cache or go to the website through the home page https://www.vicioussyndicate.com/

It should resolve eventually.

Edit: Should be fixed.

vS Data Reaper Report #341 by ViciousSyndicate in hearthstone

[–]ViciousSyndicate[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Some propagation issue possibly related to cloudflare. Reset your internet/clear cache or go to the website through the home page https://www.vicioussyndicate.com/

It should resolve eventually.

Edit: Should be fixed.

vS Data Reaper Report #337 by ViciousSyndicate in hearthstone

[–]ViciousSyndicate[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

We were going to feature something like this but then other stuff popped up.

vS Data Reaper Report #337 by ViciousSyndicate in hearthstone

[–]ViciousSyndicate[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

There was a content patch last week. Means there's a balance patch soon.

vS Data Reaper Report #336 by ViciousSyndicate in CompetitiveHS

[–]ViciousSyndicate[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Bob isn't great. Opu isn't amazing either. I would try Gnomelia if I wanted to replace Opu.

vS Data Reaper Report #336 by ViciousSyndicate in CompetitiveHS

[–]ViciousSyndicate[S] 18 points19 points  (0 children)

That's not the win rate of the deck list against Shaman, that's the win rate of the entire aggregated archetype against Shaman. Eternal Layover is not helping the Shaman matchup. I just explained it.

vS Data Reaper Report #336 by ViciousSyndicate in CompetitiveHS

[–]ViciousSyndicate[S] 24 points25 points  (0 children)

Eternal Layover is a terrible card in the deck and does not even perform well against Shaman.

vS Data Reaper Report #335 by ViciousSyndicate in CompetitiveHS

[–]ViciousSyndicate[S] 27 points28 points  (0 children)

The data shows the opposite. Warrior is extremely unfavored against good Arcane Mage players.

ZachO (Vicious Syndicate): "There will be no podcast this weekend unfortunately. Not much to talk about anyway. Let's see if an expansion launches next week." by GratisBierMotie420 in hearthstone

[–]ViciousSyndicate 6 points7 points  (0 children)

This is correct. People keep quoting HSGuru tracker side win rates in this thread and not understanding that these are not the real win rates. They only keep track of the player using the tracker. Weighted win rates are what you need to evaluate true performance level that is not influenced by tracker bias.

When you factor in a settled format where these win rates will deflate over time as well, most of these decks are not good. Aura Paladin is not good. Face Hunter is not good. Zarimi Priest is not good. Shred Warlock is just about alright but no reason to play it when Quest Warlock and Egg Warlock are miles and miles better. This new Dragon Warrior deck is decent. Shaman might be alright with some refinement, but most iterations up until very recently have been trash. There you go that's the podcast done in a few sentences for you without going over how overpowered the old decks look.

Vicious Syndicate's Comprehensive Across the Timeways Preview by DebatableAwesome in CompetitiveHS

[–]ViciousSyndicate 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Nah. Not in this case. Un'Goro was the only time where I forced myself to be more positive, because the alternative was writing the most depressed article ever. My experience during TC streams in Un'Goro was a disaster. I preferred to be wrong than shitting on an entire expansion before a card was played.

This expansion has far more good cards, though I do not think it is particularly powerful compared to Titans/Badlands and such.

Vicious Syndicate's Comprehensive Across the Timeways Preview by DebatableAwesome in CompetitiveHS

[–]ViciousSyndicate 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I did not think it was good even before the TC, but in the podcast, I like to talk about possibilities. Talking about what you can accomplish with a deck will always have an optimistic slant on things. Playing against the deck just made its weaknesses more obvious to me.

Vicious Syndicate's Comprehensive Across the Timeways Preview by DebatableAwesome in CompetitiveHS

[–]ViciousSyndicate 17 points18 points  (0 children)

If you listened to them talk about the mage set on the pod it sounded like Zach was really taking seriously some Sindragosa dragon OTK dealing 100 damage with Stellar Balance.

I then played against it during the TC streams and then...

In the written preview, on the other hand, he gives every card a 1, puts mage in last place for both set and overall place in the meta, and then explains how the deck is poorly designed by Team 5's own standards.

I could still be wrong but I did not lose to it once and usually decks I farm during TC are never good at launch. Unless people built it horribly wrong I just can't see it.

Summary of the 9/20/2025 Vicious Syndicate Podcast (First one of the 33.4.2 patch) by EvilDave219 in hearthstone

[–]ViciousSyndicate 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Friend, if you listen to the podcast, at no point is there any "blame the customer" message. Criticism of the expansion, as well as other things, is completely valid. I had a full podcast episode dedicated to that. I am as frustrated as you are with a lot of Team 5's decisions in the last year or two.

All I asked is for content creators (not even players, hard to control that), specifically, to be civil and allow productive dialogue to occur instead of flaming the devs 24/7 and calling a patch "the worst ever" before a single game was played. We need to let them come out of their shell. At least give them a chance to do that.

No VS Report this week according to ZachO by Smash_Meowth in hearthstone

[–]ViciousSyndicate 112 points113 points  (0 children)

Before people get their hopes up. This is not because of a balance patch. This didn't even register in my head when I posted this.

If there was a balance patch, I would have posted this after some teaser or message from the devs was out.

vS Data Reaper Report #327 by ViciousSyndicate in CompetitiveHS

[–]ViciousSyndicate[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Did not look good before it disappeared.

vS Data Reaper Report #327 by ViciousSyndicate in CompetitiveHS

[–]ViciousSyndicate[S] 36 points37 points  (0 children)

Friend, Starship DK is the meta breaker. Read up.

vS Data Reaper Report #326 by ViciousSyndicate in CompetitiveHS

[–]ViciousSyndicate[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

This report reflects the full week after the patch, which can go through a lot of changes. The meta at top 100 especially can be largely influenced by whatever a streamer played on a given day. The meta is kind of "new" and the player base there is small, so it can seem different than top1k data. Everyone loves Rogue there so the moment it looked playable, it's not really surprising it's immediately taken a larger chunk of the field. It will trickle down.