⚙
Learn More
Cosmetics
Related Cards
Card Pools
✕
×
PopCard Settings
Click on the buttons to change the PopCard background.
Elements settings
Click on the button to hide or unhide popcard elements.
Click on the buttons to change the PopCard background.
Click on the button to hide or unhide popcard elements.
On the other hand, if you do not agree with face, that Legend with Control shaman / Paladin / Mage > Legend with Pirate warrior / Face Hunter / Token druid, you are probably playing one of decks from second group :)
There are a lot of measures of "good"
1) rank - simply because it means the higher the rank, the more time playing the game (with varying degrees of skill sprinkled in there)
2) Average Arena wins - this is a good measure as it means you know what cards are good, and the play-around moves are on a higher spectrum as you are playing around a larger pool of options (compared to a smaller pool from generic deck lists)
3) Games won with sub-optimal decks/ vs. decks where the opponent has the advantage (combo vs control, aggro vs anti-aggro, etc.)
Personally I think the best measurement is when you can watch a great streamer and either anticipate lethal and the moves before they play and understand all of the reasons to either trade/ go face. I started using this because the above measures can be altered by personal preference/play style. e.g. I like playing surprising decks on ladder that are often much weaker than the opponents (but more fun) and I often also draft in arena cards for the memes rather than the tier score. This play-style reduces the win-rate ratio, but does not make someone a bad player. In the end, some people want an optimized win-rate and others are there for a laugh/looking for highlights and unique screenshots.
It depends greatly whether you're trying to make your own deck work or netdecking. Two very different skill with entirely different standards.
Frequently, bad players netdeck and can't make that work right, because they're bad, don't understand what they're doing wrong, how to anticipate plays, and most frequently don't know how to mulligan. They also can't spot a netdeck that's meant for a particular meta counter and realize they're playing it in the wrong meta (like high legend or Rank 3 and facing only tempo rogue and highlander priest).
A good player can make their own deck work, often not to legend, but to Rank 5, unless the idea really is just awful, then you'll have to be good just to get it to rank 10. This is a much more fun challenge for me than playing the top meta deck to legend.
taking legend each month without much effort
Rank often plays little part in determining the skill of the player.
You can have Rank 23s who are gods, but just haven't taken the time/effort to rank up in a while.
You can also have Legend players with the game sense of a chipmunk who are both extremely lucky and/or piloting a broken deck.
Only above Rank 3 and 4 stars.
I've never made legend in 3 years, not once. And at no point does that make me bad at the game.
I played semi pro rugby for a while and I NEVER made that jump to a full time professional. I played against internationals, club, county and country players and not once did their reputation ever make a difference to how I would play. If you wanted to come against me, feel free - but do not for a second think that because others consider you better than me that I will give you an easy 80 minutes.
You can be really good at something consistently but never make it to the echelons and that's OK. As long as you are happy with how you perform and it doesn't consume you then you are probably doing it right and for the right reasons.
There is no such thing as being a good player in Hearthstone, because 99 percent of games are decided by pure luck.
There are players who play more than the others with better decks.
Playing more gives more experience and gets you to a higher rank.
If you or I would play the same amount of games as pro players and we would have acces to the same decks we would be just as good as any of them .
None, ranks dont show skill in this game, its Just a matter of how much free time do you have to invest in hs.
I'd say that if you can climb above rank 5 (even if it's just to 4), then you're a good player, if rank has to be the only measurement. However, that is assuming that you even have the time to get to rank 5 in the first place. There's no point in trying to get a measurement below 5, due to people generally playing worse decks, because of the win streak bonus stars, and because average game length is more meaningful than winrate for climbing to 5.
But there are other factors that can contribute as well. Doing well with a lower tier deck means you're a better player, and so does doing well with a difficult to play deck. Also, you may consider flexibility to matter, how well you can play multiple different decks.
Then there is the factor of deckbuilding, which you may or may not count as "playing". There's nothing stopping you from looking at top players and just copying and mastering their decks, but imo a good player should also be able to at least know how to optimize the deck they're playing for a given meta. That's particularly important during the opening weeks of a new expansion, where the top players are often those who've made powerful new decks, giving them an edge until other people catch on.
i just want to point out a couple of things after i read most of the comments here:
1st: anybody who says i don't have time to reach rank 5 is joking. they are simply bad players, they can't win consistently, rank 5 can be achieved in 4h-5h easily if you are a good player. and if you don't have 5h in a season you are not playing the game at all. (i'm not talking about legend, just rank 5)
2nd: don't get wrong between luck and deck consistency, aggro decks are mostly consistent because 80% there decks are playable cards before turn 5, while control decks are highly punished because of bad draws, but it's not about luck most of the time, it's about probabilities, your deck relying on a few cards that can stop aggros, and the chance of drawing them is hard because half of your deck is unplayable cards before turn 5, while aggro players can play whatever they draw.
3rd: luck or skill?: it's not just about hearthstone, the human life is like that, human mind can simply remember all or most of the unlucky moments they had, but they can't see the lucky moments they had, hearthstone is the same we all have lucky and unlucky moments, both luck and skill are part of this game, you can't get to legend just with luck, cause you can't be lucky all the time. like any other player you get your lucky and unlucky moments but most of the time both players are in the same situation, that's when skill matters.
4th: does aggro decks requires skills? yes. i usually see control players says aggro doesn't require skill, i was thinking the same long time ago when i was playing a lot of control. (please don't call razakus priest and cubelock control decks, control decks died in standard with reno rotation, this two decks are mostly about drawing the right card on the right time). so here it is all decks require thinkings at some points it's just different for each deck, with old control decks (which doesn't exist nowadays) there were a lof of thinking required, and u had limited resources, you needed to be careful when to use them,
in aggro vs control decks not much thinking required (still some needed), aggro players don't need to think much about trades, the still need to be carefull about aoe's and predicting next turns, keeping something safe from aoe. same for control decks they don't need much thinking, just finding the right aoe, keeping resources for future threats. not much thinking required for both sides.
in aggro vs aggro decks more thinking required, you need to be really careful about your trades (trades is the most problem i see among players) when to go face, when to trade.
in control vs control match-ups a lot thinking required, mostly to be carefull about your resources and managing resources properly.
so that's it, aggro vs control requires less thinking (but still some required) for both sides, but it doesn't mean any of those decks are brain dead.
Rank 5= you are playing better than most people.
Legend= you are dedicated to grind rank 5 and up.
So you are an OK-ish player if you reach rank 5, but reaching legend is a completely different task.
If I’m having fun (however I define “fun”) I’m a good player.
There are no good or bad hearthstone players. There are only lucky and unlucky ones. EleGiggle
Great art can never be created without great suffering.
To generalize: Rank 5 and above=good player. Legend=great player. High rank legend=outstanding player.
However, it's not that simple. It's important to realize that a lot of it depends on your playstyle and your preferences. You can be incredible with one class because you put in the effort to learn the ins and outs of the matchups and have extensive experience utilizing nearly all of their cards, and suck donkey balls with another class that you literally never touch except for quest reasons. Heck even within a class, your playstyle and preferences will play into how you perform with it. Piloting a Patron Warrior is just a completely different animal from piloting a Pirate Warrior.
I'll just use myself as an example. I personally believe myself to be an excellent Shaman player. I have hit legend mostly playing Shaman on all 4 occasions I had time to go for it (ie. not a school month and no full time summer job), and managed to hit rank 3 even during the Blackrock Mountain meta (when it was the unquestioned worst class in the game), simply because I was familiar with the class mechanics, win conditions, and matchups. However, even though it's my favourite class, I had probably less than 20 games played as Shaman during the One Mistake in Karazhan meta because I couldn't stand the existence of Spirit Claws. I also refused to show the Golden Shaman I prided myself having earned during League of Explorers meta, and how it was devalued by the legion of players who jumped on the MIdrange Shaman bandwagon. Instead I alternated between Dragon Warrior, N'Zoth Paladin, and Tempo Mage. If you had made me play Midrange Shaman during Karazhan, I probably would've struggled to hit even rank 5 since I put in next to no effort into learning how to pilot the deck. Once Spirit Claws went byebye, Shaman once again became my best performing class since I actually enjoyed it again and bothered to learn how to use the decks.
Conversely, I suck absolute dog shit at Priest. Every meta, regardless of if Priest is good or bad (and for most of Hearthstone history, it's been the latter), I just fail with the class. It's my least successful class by over 100 wins, and it is most definitely not my least played class (Paladin). The react and stall playstyle just doesn't jive for me and I instinctively want to be the player with initiative and presenting the problem rather than solving them. The only Priest deck I saw any kind of success with was Dragon Priest since it fit into my "Midrange, minion combat based, resource management" playstyle. A deck like Raza Priest is basically the exact opposite of that, and as such I only do moderately well with it.
I'm back to playing Shaman again even though I know the class is complete trash and believe it or not, I have a comparable winrate with Evolve Shaman as Raza Priest (55-60% for both). That's because I know exactly how to approach every matchup as a Shaman be it mulligans, resource management, proper deck techs, and general gameplan. I make very few misplays and know how to extract every little bit of extra value from my (underpowered) Shaman cards. Raza Priest on the other hand, I did not do my due diligence in how to operate the deck. I literally used one of those online mulligan guide when I first started playing the deck since I had no idea what I was doing, constantly make mistakes, misuse the (overpowered) Priest cards in pretty much every common matchup, and make a poor tempo vs value judgment call seemingly every second game. That's why I have a similar winrate with one of the worst decks in the game and arguably the game's best meta deck.
Depends on what you play. The ammount of decision making, planning over turns and such are what makes a player good.
It was, for example, far more skilled to get to rank 5 with handlock than with mech mage.
And the story repeats itself nowadays, only with other decks.
Click to see my Hearthstone projects:
I dont really think rank tells you how good a player is. I started playing on season 3 and since then when I reachd rank 3. Never again went over rank 15... not because I couldnt. Because I really hate the grind. I now always go to 15 and experiment a lot every time a rotation happens. When the meta is set and you just predict what is your oponnent playing with the first move, the game becomes a predictable grind that depends 80% on rng and 20% on skill.
i actually would love to get to legend and see what people experiment there. But find it much more enjoyable playing with rank 20s (depending the meta as maybe you find lots of bad metadeck players) and casual wild mode as I can actually get surprised about what I see every time. Today fpr example a double battlecry + deathrattle deck actually crushed me. It was a hunter activating deathrattles with a battlecry and brann in plY and other cards. This worked great with the 3 mana hunter card or doctor boom or other wakky combination you just wont see on ranked, as everything is so refined. He might actually have a great w/l ratio and having fun. As he plays with more people that play like him.
So in conclusion, rank is a grindfest and you can find good player anywhere. But good and creative only in certain places