I am a newer player and have been playing a decent handlock deck based of QuietPenguins handlock. However, I seem to be stuck around the rank 16-17 mark playing exclusively with that because I find it the most fun. I have ran my rank up to 14-15 in the past rather quick playing exclusively mech mage, but found it far to grindy and didn't find the decision making at all complicated.
My question is how much of the game currently is skill as a player as opposed to the strength of the deck, and what ranks are achievable by simply playing mediocre decks efficiently?
I realize at some level small card changes mean a big difference in win rate just wondering what ranks strategy as opposed to good play starts becoming a determining factor.
It's hard to tell, not only because you're a newer player, but also because it seems you're playing a single type of deck. Notably, handlock is not strong against the decks in the current meta right now. It's pretty weak to Hunter and Mech Mage, and depending on your draw, it can fall to Midrange Druid as well.
Could you post the decklist? If you go to the page containing the deck, you should be able to find a number enclosed in [ deck] brackets. Then typing "[ deck]####[ /deck]" without spaces and quotes should make the deck appear in the post.
From what I have seen around Rank 10 everyone is playing a netdeck, and knows what to expect from other netdecks, its very saturated, and both getting a good hand, and the littlest plays start making big difference.
Because of this at this rank it feels to me like you just got to grind as many dam games as possible to see star progress, unless your having a really good day your not going to see to many bonus stars
It's hard to tell, not only because you're a newer player, but also because it seems you're playing a single type of deck. Notably, handlock is not strong against the decks in the current meta right now. It's pretty weak to Hunter and Mech Mage, and depending on your draw, it can fall to Midrange Druid as well.
Could you post the decklist? If you go to the page containing the deck, you should be able to find a number enclosed in [ deck] brackets. Then typing "[ deck]####[ /deck]" without spaces and quotes should make the deck appear in the post.
I disagree here that Handlock is not strong against the decks in the current meta. It's false. It's all about understanding the matchup. It's not weak to aggro decks... it is actually pretty good since the addition of Antique Healbot as a replacement of Farseer.
To the OP... I can't help you without seeing the deck you are playing. However... coming up with a ''netdecking'' mentality won't help you climb that far.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Used to be a proud Handlock player.
Legend 17 times.
Still flirting with the ladder from times to times with Renolock.
From what I have seen around Rank 10 everyone is playing a netdeck, and knows what to expect from other netdecks, its very saturated, and both getting a good hand, and the littlest plays start making big difference.
Because of this at this rank it feels to me like you just got to grind as many dam games as possible to see star progress, unless your having a really good day your not going to see to many bonus stars
It's normal. People will play consistent decks as you'll rank up. Handlock is one of the most ''underdog'' deck at this moment. That doesn't restrain me to get to Legend playing almost exclusively Handlock this season. I'm running a ''tweaked'' version including the Arcane Golem + Faceless Manipulator + Power Overwhelming combo. I can't tell you how many times this combo (or parts of it, to be right) have helped me won the game.
It's adding a surprise factor while providing some key plays (like buffing a crappy minion to Shadowflame it or simply using Faceless to copy an enemy minion like Tirion or a Belcher).
The main way to improve your matchup against aggro decks is to know what you are Mulliganing for and how you can be greedy with your lifetap / Molten Giant. Baiting your opponent at setting you at the right amount of health is something handy... but not hard to master.
I would like to see your decklist in PM... and if you could record one or two of your games... send me the link in PM... I'll try to give you some positive feedback about what you could have done/what I would have do.
Hope I can help in a near future, Remhouse.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Used to be a proud Handlock player.
Legend 17 times.
Still flirting with the ladder from times to times with Renolock.
It's hard to tell, not only because you're a newer player, but also because it seems you're playing a single type of deck. Notably, handlock is not strong against the decks in the current meta right now. It's pretty weak to Hunter and Mech Mage, and depending on your draw, it can fall to Midrange Druid as well.
Could you post the decklist? If you go to the page containing the deck, you should be able to find a number enclosed in [ deck] brackets. Then typing "[ deck]####[ /deck]" without spaces and quotes should make the deck appear in the post.
I disagree here that Handlock is not strong against the decks in the current meta. It's false. It's all about understanding the matchup. It's not weak to aggro decks... it is actually pretty good since the addition of Antique Healbot as a replacement of Farseer.
To the OP... I can't help you without seeing the deck you are playing. However... coming up with a ''netdecking'' mentality won't help you climb that far.
Perhaps you're right; I've been winning a lot lately against Handlock as mage, but that may be due to good draws on my end, or imperfect play on my opponents' end. I could also be playing opponents with outdated Handlock decks that can be improved by adding some demon-specific cards.
But I still assert that the potentially explosive start possible with Mech Mage and Midrange/Face Hunter decks, combined with the burst potential of each, is a favored matchup against handlock since handlock strategy relies on using Life Tap until Turn 4 and not playing any minions until then. Since Handlocks don't get a taunt up by Turn 5, and having used 2-3 Life Taps, it's conceivable for the Handlock player to be at 14-17 health (or even lower), at which point it's a matter of time until burst damage is drawn and the Mage/Hunter ends the game.
Of course, this doesn't always go perfectly for the Handlock opponent. Ancient Watcher and Sunfury Protector or Shadowflame can definitely turn the game around, or Hellfire by itself. Antique Healbot can only save you once you've stabilized, since playing it Turn 5 means not taunting up that turn and probably taking more damage from minions going face. However, according to this (hypothetical) analysis, and the data from https://tempostorm.com/articles/the-meta-snapshot-7-tempostorms-gvg-ladder-tier-list, which, at the time of posting is current, 3 of the 5 Tier 1 Decks have a 60%+ winrate against handlock, Oil Rogue has a 70/30 winrate against Handlock's cousin, the Demonlock, and the final Tier 1 Deck lacks statistics on its handlock matchup. I feel that this is enough evidence to justify my statement that Handlock isn't doing well in the current meta.
The deck list is important. My handlock was woefully bad this meta until I went to the 'zombie chow' version. There is also the watcher/no watcher aspect to consider.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Free to try and find a game, dealing cards for sorrow, cards for pain.
It's hard to tell, not only because you're a newer player, but also because it seems you're playing a single type of deck. Notably, handlock is not strong against the decks in the current meta right now. It's pretty weak to Hunter and Mech Mage, and depending on your draw, it can fall to Midrange Druid as well.
Could you post the decklist? If you go to the page containing the deck, you should be able to find a number enclosed in [ deck] brackets. Then typing "[ deck]####[ /deck]" without spaces and quotes should make the deck appear in the post.
I disagree here that Handlock is not strong against the decks in the current meta. It's false. It's all about understanding the matchup. It's not weak to aggro decks... it is actually pretty good since the addition of Antique Healbot as a replacement of Farseer.
To the OP... I can't help you without seeing the deck you are playing. However... coming up with a ''netdecking'' mentality won't help you climb that far.
Perhaps you're right; I've been winning a lot lately against Handlock as mage, but that may be due to good draws on my end, or imperfect play on my opponents' end. I could also be playing opponents with outdated Handlock decks that can be improved by adding some demon-specific cards.
But I still assert that the potentially explosive start possible with Mech Mage and Midrange/Face Hunter decks, combined with the burst potential of each, is a favored matchup against handlock since handlock strategy relies on using Life Tap until Turn 4 and not playing any minions until then. Since Handlocks don't get a taunt up by Turn 5, and having used 2-3 Life Taps, it's conceivable for the Handlock player to be at 14-17 health (or even lower), at which point it's a matter of time until burst damage is drawn and the Mage/Hunter ends the game.
Of course, this doesn't always go perfectly for the Handlock opponent. Ancient Watcher and Sunfury Protector or Shadowflame can definitely turn the game around, or Hellfire by itself. Antique Healbot can only save you once you've stabilized, since playing it Turn 5 means not taunting up that turn and probably taking more damage from minions going face. However, according to this (hypothetical) analysis, and the data from https://tempostorm.com/articles/the-meta-snapshot-7-tempostorms-gvg-ladder-tier-list, which, at the time of posting is current, 3 of the 5 Tier 1 Decks have a 60%+ winrate against handlock, Oil Rogue has a 70/30 winrate against Handlock's cousin, the Demonlock, and the final Tier 1 Deck lacks statistics on its handlock matchup. I feel that this is enough evidence to justify my statement that Handlock isn't doing well in the current meta.
Yep, this is true. That is where I added something no one ever considered to their handlock list I've checked out : Flame Imp
Flame Imp has done a tremendous job in two points.
1 ) Acting as a good early game threath to remove the infamous MechWarper or some 3 life threath / Baiting my opponent to think I was playing Zoo.
2 ) Enabling cheaper Molten giant when my opponent did not attack to actually deny me this option.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Used to be a proud Handlock player.
Legend 17 times.
Still flirting with the ladder from times to times with Renolock.
Deck-making and in-match skill go hand-in-hand, imo. You can't have one without the other. If you're not winning (assuming you have good decision-making skills), you need to switch something out based on your understanding of the meta.
It's very tough nowadays to rank up. Keep learning.
Deck-making and in-match skill go hand-in-hand, imo. You can't have one without the other. If you're not winning (assuming you have good decision-making skills), you need to switch something out based on your understanding of the meta.
It's very tough nowadays to rank up. Keep learning.
It's not very tough to rank up. It's very tough to tweak our own deck to rank up. Ranking up is not something difficult once you've understand how your BAD matchups goes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Used to be a proud Handlock player.
Legend 17 times.
Still flirting with the ladder from times to times with Renolock.
handlock strategy does NOT rely on tapping til turn 4 to get minions out lol. That is only for 3-5 deck types (basically all control too) where it is reasonably safe to do that, and even THEN you can get punished by either an silence spell/minion or BGH. The tap tap tap mountain giant or drake only really works safely against priest, which is basically handlocks best matchup where you can basically misplay 2-4 times and still come out with a easy win.
personally I believe 50% of handlock's difficulty lies in proper mulligans. understanding the popular decks of each class and betting on which cards to keep/toss has decided a lot of games for me lol
handlock strategy does NOT rely on tapping til turn 4 to get minions out lol. That is only for 3-5 deck types (basically all control too) where it is reasonably safe to do that, and even THEN you can get punished by either an silence spell/minion or BGH. The tap tap tap mountain giant or drake only really works safely against priest, which is basically handlocks best matchup where you can basically misplay 2-4 times and still come out with a easy win.
personally I believe 50% of handlock's difficulty lies in proper mulligans. understanding the popular decks of each class and betting on which cards to keep/toss has decided a lot of games for me lol
Proper mulligans is key to any type of deck. It does not differ for Handlock.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Used to be a proud Handlock player.
Legend 17 times.
Still flirting with the ladder from times to times with Renolock.
My question is how much of the game currently is skill as a player as opposed to the strength of the deck
Almost nothing. Maybe a 2-3% win rate difference between the best player in the world and the average rank 5.
To put this in perspective, it's like becoming 95%+ as good as Michael Jordan after you've been playing Basketball for a month.
Just play that first month, basically.
And this winrate is always there because high ranks players tends to be able to predict what the meta will develop in, and thus, adapt to it or use it as a strenght in their deck building capability. Also... they almost take the right decision, mulligan and prediction against what their opponent will play.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Used to be a proud Handlock player.
Legend 17 times.
Still flirting with the ladder from times to times with Renolock.
Skill during a match is rather minimal. You pretty much just need to learn: - The basic understanding of the game and it's mechanics - Understanding of effect resolution stacks - Card Advantage - Mana Efficiency - Efficient Trading - Playing around board wipes (Their damage, mana cost, and required cards) - Playing around burst combos (Their damage, mana cost, and required cards) - Playing around tech cards (Their mana cost, and activation requirements)
Then you're pretty much playing as well as any other player in the game. The actual "skill" in this game is deck building. You have to adapt to the Meta, you have to play the right class/tech cards, etc. Lots can be mitigated by just netdecking, but the people who are constantly high rank legends have the understanding of deckbuilding to keep evolving their deck when they notice a change that can push their win-rate higher. So people who purely netdeck don't often have as consistent results as the pros who would adjust their decks.
Since most of the skill IMO relates to deck building, and deck building = deck strength... I'd say that having a strong deck with a basic understanding of Hearthstone is more important than being "Skillful" at this game. By just netdecking, I bet you could easily hit rank 10~5. Although it's not too surprising to hit Legend with netdecks though, you just need lots of playtime really. (IMO # of matches is the biggest factor into hitting legend)
Skill during a match is rather minimal. You pretty much just need to learn: - The basic understanding of the game and it's mechanics - Understanding of effect resolution stacks - Card Advantage - Mana Efficiency - Efficient Trading - Playing around board wipes (Their damage, mana cost, and required cards) - Playing around burst combos (Their damage, mana cost, and required cards) - Playing around tech cards (Their mana cost, and activation requirements)
Then you're pretty much playing as well as any other player in the game. The actual "skill" in this game is deck building. You have to adapt to the Meta, you have to play the right class/tech cards, etc. Lots can be mitigated by just netdecking, but the people who are constantly high rank legends have the understanding of deckbuilding to keep evolving their deck when they notice a change that can push their win-rate higher. So people who purely netdeck don't often have as consistent results as the pros who would adjust their decks.
Since most of the skill IMO relates to deck building, and deck building = deck strength... I'd say that having a strong deck with a basic understanding of Hearthstone is more important than being "Skillful" at this game. By just netdecking, I bet you could easily hit rank 10~5. Although it's not too surprising to hit Legend with netdecks though, you just need lots of playtime really. (IMO # of matches is the biggest factor into hitting legend)
Skill comes into the number of matches you need to reach Legend then ;)
And yes there is a lot of skill involved in matches. Decisions making, trading the board, risk taking, predicting your opponent to have X card. Also... maths are involved... I often see misplays due to miscalculations of something.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Used to be a proud Handlock player.
Legend 17 times.
Still flirting with the ladder from times to times with Renolock.
I realize at some level small card changes mean a big difference in win rate just wondering what ranks strategy as opposed to good play starts becoming a determining factor.
Those 2 factors are actually not as exclusive as they may seem. Rather, both skill sets grow organically at the same time. To properly build, choose, and tech the right cards (strategy), you need to have a strong understanding of your opponent's most probably deck choices, most likely lines of play, and most favored win conditions at any point in time.
But with that out of the way, technical play is never the critical, determining factor for whether a match will result in a win or a loss. Match-ups and deck compositions (strategy) are. Speaking from experience, this has held true whether you're at rank 16 or top 100 legend every season.
Instead, it's more like you have to have be above a certain threshold of technical expertise, or else you're just going to get stonewalled by specific decks because you just don't know how to win against them (this happens more and more as people use better and better decks, which really starts to kick in at around rank 5 or so). But assuming you're above the required skill threshold, it's again, strategy and tech choices over anything else.
I think that not only Deck strength and Skill count. Luck is also a huge thing. There were months when I easily reached rank 5 or 6, then there are months when I can't get past 12.
I may suggest to call that "context" rather than mere luck. For me, luck is randomness, and is negated when you play a sufficient number of games.
An unexpected evolution of the meta, or something like that, is not part of it in my opinion.
I do not understand people who say skill is not that important, notably musicmf.
Skill during a match is rather minimal. You pretty much just need to learn: - The basic understanding of the game and it's mechanics - Understanding of effect resolution stacks - Card Advantage - Mana Efficiency - Efficient Trading - Playing around board wipes (Their damage, mana cost, and required cards) - Playing around burst combos (Their damage, mana cost, and required cards) - Playing around tech cards (Their mana cost, and activation requirements)
Then you're pretty much playing as well as any other player in the game.
[...]
Even if HS is possibly not as deep as other games in terms of strategy, in most cases you really have to take into account long term strategy. I agree with all points mentioned here, but by no means I find them sufficient.
I think these are the basic concepts of the game. But questions such as "Should I be the aggressor or the control?" or the best line of plays that you have to chose between to when you have multiple good options require some skill. It's not just playing around "simple" tech cards, it's about planning about combinations of points mentioned above, and that I find becomes quite complex.
My question is how much of the game currently is skill as a player as opposed to the strength of the deck
Almost nothing. Maybe a 2-3% win rate difference between the best player in the world and the average rank 5.
To put this in perspective, it's like becoming 95%+ as good as Michael Jordan after you've been playing Basketball for a month.
Just play that first month, basically.
I would not know how to define the average rank 5 player, but I definitely easily reach rank 5 myself, and I do not think at all I have winrates so close to top players.
Were does such a figure come from ? It's really hard to say so.
Honestly, when I see Xixo reach Legend #17 (if i am not mistaken) with pirate rogue in so few games, if I look at imagine/extrapolate the number of games that I would require to hit legend (related to the difficulty of climbing) with that deck and the relation between winrates and number of wins required to hit legend, I think there is much more that 2-3% difference.
Edit : to be honest, I do not reach rank 5 every season, but I would say I have a very average time of play and that when I take the time to regularly play, it is within grasp.
I think that not only Deck strength and Skill count. Luck is also a huge thing. There were months when I easily reached rank 5 or 6, then there are months when I can't get past 12.
I may suggest to call that "context" rather than mere luck. For me, luck is randomness, and is negated when you play a sufficient number of games.
An unexpected evolution of the meta, or something like that, is not part of it in my opinion.
I do not understand people who say skill is not that important, notably musicmf
No, don't get me wrong. Of course the deck is important and the skill is important, but luck is also a big part. You can draw bad cards three games in a row, get insecure and loose more games - though yeah, I agree, that's context again.
I think I get your point, and that we both agree that those 3 first games can be called "luck".
Interestingly though, the fact of getting insecure losing more games may be a kind of skill that you have to develop that has not been mentioned here but is often talked about (having a good mental state). You have to understand when you made the best decisions with the knowledge you had and still lost, and when your plays may have been suboptimal.
There may be two schools of thought when losing due to bad luck : preserve your mental state by taking a break, or swapping to another deck for a change, or ignoring the existence of bad luck and go on playing exactly the same whatever the outcome of the games are.
I don't agree to most posts here, let me explain myself:
I think the polpulation of really close to "perfect" players is very, very small: Sure, between a firebat, a strifecro and a Kolento, there is not much difference in "playing" (at least over the long haul on the ladder) and there it really only comes down to the meta-mindgames ... But these players are probably around 100-200 in a Game played by millions each month ...
So, to you question, about a hypothetical line where playskill "doesn't matter anymore":
Between Rank 20 and legend100-XXX (which is more or less the whole population): There is a difference in playskill that also determines the ranking! Only in the very high legend ranks, the adaption to the meta becomes the (almost) single decisive factor!
There might be exceptions, but those are very hypothetical cases : Some players might just constantly refuse to adapt to the meta due to personal preferences, while playing "perfect". For example, heavy Midrange-Shaman or Handlock-Players in the current meta, even if those decks can get legend, they won't win as much as the "better" meta-decks ... And, of course, there is the hypothetical case of an incredible talent at HS, playing already perfect but not having the sufficient cardpool to get a tier-one deck. This case was, however, in all metas to date almost impossible. There was always at least one competitive Aggro-Deck that was craftable after 1-2 months of serious play, and nobody, with under 2 months of play is already top-level (don't let you tell otherwise!!!)
I am a newer player and have been playing a decent handlock deck based of QuietPenguins handlock. However, I seem to be stuck around the rank 16-17 mark playing exclusively with that because I find it the most fun. I have ran my rank up to 14-15 in the past rather quick playing exclusively mech mage, but found it far to grindy and didn't find the decision making at all complicated.
My question is how much of the game currently is skill as a player as opposed to the strength of the deck, and what ranks are achievable by simply playing mediocre decks efficiently?
I realize at some level small card changes mean a big difference in win rate just wondering what ranks strategy as opposed to good play starts becoming a determining factor.
It's hard to tell, not only because you're a newer player, but also because it seems you're playing a single type of deck. Notably, handlock is not strong against the decks in the current meta right now. It's pretty weak to Hunter and Mech Mage, and depending on your draw, it can fall to Midrange Druid as well.
Could you post the decklist? If you go to the page containing the deck, you should be able to find a number enclosed in [ deck] brackets. Then typing "[ deck]####[ /deck]" without spaces and quotes should make the deck appear in the post.
Chugga chugga chugga chugga
I would say about Rank 10
From what I have seen around Rank 10 everyone is playing a netdeck, and knows what to expect from other netdecks, its very saturated, and both getting a good hand, and the littlest plays start making big difference.
Because of this at this rank it feels to me like you just got to grind as many dam games as possible to see star progress, unless your having a really good day your not going to see to many bonus stars
"I'LL FIX YOU!!!"
I disagree here that Handlock is not strong against the decks in the current meta. It's false. It's all about understanding the matchup. It's not weak to aggro decks... it is actually pretty good since the addition of Antique Healbot as a replacement of Farseer.
To the OP... I can't help you without seeing the deck you are playing. However... coming up with a ''netdecking'' mentality won't help you climb that far.
Used to be a proud Handlock player.
Legend 17 times.
Still flirting with the ladder from times to times with Renolock.
It's normal. People will play consistent decks as you'll rank up. Handlock is one of the most ''underdog'' deck at this moment. That doesn't restrain me to get to Legend playing almost exclusively Handlock this season. I'm running a ''tweaked'' version including the Arcane Golem + Faceless Manipulator + Power Overwhelming combo. I can't tell you how many times this combo (or parts of it, to be right) have helped me won the game.
It's adding a surprise factor while providing some key plays (like buffing a crappy minion to Shadowflame it or simply using Faceless to copy an enemy minion like Tirion or a Belcher).
The main way to improve your matchup against aggro decks is to know what you are Mulliganing for and how you can be greedy with your lifetap / Molten Giant. Baiting your opponent at setting you at the right amount of health is something handy... but not hard to master.
I would like to see your decklist in PM... and if you could record one or two of your games... send me the link in PM... I'll try to give you some positive feedback about what you could have done/what I would have do.
Hope I can help in a near future, Remhouse.
Used to be a proud Handlock player.
Legend 17 times.
Still flirting with the ladder from times to times with Renolock.
Perhaps you're right; I've been winning a lot lately against Handlock as mage, but that may be due to good draws on my end, or imperfect play on my opponents' end. I could also be playing opponents with outdated Handlock decks that can be improved by adding some demon-specific cards.
But I still assert that the potentially explosive start possible with Mech Mage and Midrange/Face Hunter decks, combined with the burst potential of each, is a favored matchup against handlock since handlock strategy relies on using Life Tap until Turn 4 and not playing any minions until then. Since Handlocks don't get a taunt up by Turn 5, and having used 2-3 Life Taps, it's conceivable for the Handlock player to be at 14-17 health (or even lower), at which point it's a matter of time until burst damage is drawn and the Mage/Hunter ends the game.
Of course, this doesn't always go perfectly for the Handlock opponent. Ancient Watcher and Sunfury Protector or Shadowflame can definitely turn the game around, or Hellfire by itself. Antique Healbot can only save you once you've stabilized, since playing it Turn 5 means not taunting up that turn and probably taking more damage from minions going face. However, according to this (hypothetical) analysis, and the data from https://tempostorm.com/articles/the-meta-snapshot-7-tempostorms-gvg-ladder-tier-list, which, at the time of posting is current, 3 of the 5 Tier 1 Decks have a 60%+ winrate against handlock, Oil Rogue has a 70/30 winrate against Handlock's cousin, the Demonlock, and the final Tier 1 Deck lacks statistics on its handlock matchup. I feel that this is enough evidence to justify my statement that Handlock isn't doing well in the current meta.
Chugga chugga chugga chugga
The deck list is important. My handlock was woefully bad this meta until I went to the 'zombie chow' version. There is also the watcher/no watcher aspect to consider.
Free to try and find a game, dealing cards for sorrow, cards for pain.
Yep, this is true. That is where I added something no one ever considered to their handlock list I've checked out : Flame Imp
Flame Imp has done a tremendous job in two points.
1 ) Acting as a good early game threath to remove the infamous MechWarper or some 3 life threath / Baiting my opponent to think I was playing Zoo.
2 ) Enabling cheaper Molten giant when my opponent did not attack to actually deny me this option.
Used to be a proud Handlock player.
Legend 17 times.
Still flirting with the ladder from times to times with Renolock.
Deck-making and in-match skill go hand-in-hand, imo. You can't have one without the other. If you're not winning (assuming you have good decision-making skills), you need to switch something out based on your understanding of the meta.
It's very tough nowadays to rank up. Keep learning.
It's not very tough to rank up. It's very tough to tweak our own deck to rank up. Ranking up is not something difficult once you've understand how your BAD matchups goes.
Used to be a proud Handlock player.
Legend 17 times.
Still flirting with the ladder from times to times with Renolock.
handlock strategy does NOT rely on tapping til turn 4 to get minions out lol. That is only for 3-5 deck types (basically all control too) where it is reasonably safe to do that, and even THEN you can get punished by either an silence spell/minion or BGH. The tap tap tap mountain giant or drake only really works safely against priest, which is basically handlocks best matchup where you can basically misplay 2-4 times and still come out with a easy win.
personally I believe 50% of handlock's difficulty lies in proper mulligans. understanding the popular decks of each class and betting on which cards to keep/toss has decided a lot of games for me lol
Proper mulligans is key to any type of deck. It does not differ for Handlock.
Used to be a proud Handlock player.
Legend 17 times.
Still flirting with the ladder from times to times with Renolock.
Almost nothing.
Maybe a 2-3% win rate difference between the best player in the world and the average rank 5.
To put this in perspective, it's like becoming 95%+ as good as Michael Jordan after you've been playing Basketball for a month.
Just play that first month, basically.
Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice - Sneak Review! http://www.thepoxbox.com/challenges.php?id=batmanvsuperman
And this winrate is always there because high ranks players tends to be able to predict what the meta will develop in, and thus, adapt to it or use it as a strenght in their deck building capability. Also... they almost take the right decision, mulligan and prediction against what their opponent will play.
Used to be a proud Handlock player.
Legend 17 times.
Still flirting with the ladder from times to times with Renolock.
Skill during a match is rather minimal. You pretty much just need to learn:
- The basic understanding of the game and it's mechanics
- Understanding of effect resolution stacks
- Card Advantage
- Mana Efficiency
- Efficient Trading
- Playing around board wipes (Their damage, mana cost, and required cards)
- Playing around burst combos (Their damage, mana cost, and required cards)
- Playing around tech cards (Their mana cost, and activation requirements)
Then you're pretty much playing as well as any other player in the game.
The actual "skill" in this game is deck building. You have to adapt to the Meta, you have to play the right class/tech cards, etc.
Lots can be mitigated by just netdecking, but the people who are constantly high rank legends have the understanding of deckbuilding to keep evolving their deck when they notice a change that can push their win-rate higher. So people who purely netdeck don't often have as consistent results as the pros who would adjust their decks.
Since most of the skill IMO relates to deck building, and deck building = deck strength... I'd say that having a strong deck with a basic understanding of Hearthstone is more important than being "Skillful" at this game. By just netdecking, I bet you could easily hit rank 10~5. Although it's not too surprising to hit Legend with netdecks though, you just need lots of playtime really. (IMO # of matches is the biggest factor into hitting legend)
Skill comes into the number of matches you need to reach Legend then ;)
And yes there is a lot of skill involved in matches. Decisions making, trading the board, risk taking, predicting your opponent to have X card. Also... maths are involved... I often see misplays due to miscalculations of something.
Used to be a proud Handlock player.
Legend 17 times.
Still flirting with the ladder from times to times with Renolock.
Those 2 factors are actually not as exclusive as they may seem. Rather, both skill sets grow organically at the same time. To properly build, choose, and tech the right cards (strategy), you need to have a strong understanding of your opponent's most probably deck choices, most likely lines of play, and most favored win conditions at any point in time.
But with that out of the way, technical play is never the critical, determining factor for whether a match will result in a win or a loss. Match-ups and deck compositions (strategy) are. Speaking from experience, this has held true whether you're at rank 16 or top 100 legend every season.
Instead, it's more like you have to have be above a certain threshold of technical expertise, or else you're just going to get stonewalled by specific decks because you just don't know how to win against them (this happens more and more as people use better and better decks, which really starts to kick in at around rank 5 or so). But assuming you're above the required skill threshold, it's again, strategy and tech choices over anything else.
I may suggest to call that "context" rather than mere luck. For me, luck is randomness, and is negated when you play a sufficient number of games.
An unexpected evolution of the meta, or something like that, is not part of it in my opinion.
I do not understand people who say skill is not that important, notably musicmf.
Even if HS is possibly not as deep as other games in terms of strategy, in most cases you really have to take into account long term strategy. I agree with all points mentioned here, but by no means I find them sufficient.
I think these are the basic concepts of the game. But questions such as "Should I be the aggressor or the control?" or the best line of plays that you have to chose between to when you have multiple good options require some skill. It's not just playing around "simple" tech cards, it's about planning about combinations of points mentioned above, and that I find becomes quite complex.
I would not know how to define the average rank 5 player, but I definitely easily reach rank 5 myself, and I do not think at all I have winrates so close to top players.
Were does such a figure come from ? It's really hard to say so.
Honestly, when I see Xixo reach Legend #17 (if i am not mistaken) with pirate rogue in so few games, if I
look atimagine/extrapolate the number of games that I would require to hit legend (related to the difficulty of climbing) with that deck and the relation between winrates and number of wins required to hit legend, I think there is much more that 2-3% difference.Edit : to be honest, I do not reach rank 5 every season, but I would say I have a very average time of play and that when I take the time to regularly play, it is within grasp.
I think I get your point, and that we both agree that those 3 first games can be called "luck".
Interestingly though, the fact of getting insecure losing more games may be a kind of skill that you have to develop that has not been mentioned here but is often talked about (having a good mental state). You have to understand when you made the best decisions with the knowledge you had and still lost, and when your plays may have been suboptimal.
There may be two schools of thought when losing due to bad luck : preserve your mental state by taking a break, or swapping to another deck for a change, or ignoring the existence of bad luck and go on playing exactly the same whatever the outcome of the games are.
I don't agree to most posts here, let me explain myself:
I think the polpulation of really close to "perfect" players is very, very small: Sure, between a firebat, a strifecro and a Kolento, there is not much difference in "playing" (at least over the long haul on the ladder) and there it really only comes down to the meta-mindgames ... But these players are probably around 100-200 in a Game played by millions each month ...
So, to you question, about a hypothetical line where playskill "doesn't matter anymore":
Between Rank 20 and legend100-XXX (which is more or less the whole population): There is a difference in playskill that also determines the ranking! Only in the very high legend ranks, the adaption to the meta becomes the (almost) single decisive factor!
There might be exceptions, but those are very hypothetical cases : Some players might just constantly refuse to adapt to the meta due to personal preferences, while playing "perfect". For example, heavy Midrange-Shaman or Handlock-Players in the current meta, even if those decks can get legend, they won't win as much as the "better" meta-decks ... And, of course, there is the hypothetical case of an incredible talent at HS, playing already perfect but not having the sufficient cardpool to get a tier-one deck. This case was, however, in all metas to date almost impossible. There was always at least one competitive Aggro-Deck that was craftable after 1-2 months of serious play, and nobody, with under 2 months of play is already top-level (don't let you tell otherwise!!!)