Just a question; what kind of rating is viewed as good, mediocre, very good, and the like? I know I'm certainly not the best, but it's good to know rough benchmarks [though I'm still increasing, now I handled yesterday's huge slump] :) One issue with just the MMR visible, not any kind of actual ranking :P
I'm really curious myself. I've been sitting around 5.7k and I have no clue whether that's reasonable or not, but I think it's decent.
Nice, better than me! I'm at around 5-5.1k without preorder, though not been there long, and had a steady rise since stabilizing post-change (as the meta suddenly shifted to 'you're unlikely to get synergy, as everyone's fighting over pieces of it. Go menagerie and if you see non-beasts are open, or you can manage murlocs somehow...' [Managed murlocs once with George, got hatedrafted out of the adapters so couldn't break past second - usually I see them far too fragile, as no hyena/junky, and crashing out early lategame (so 6th-8th, turn 10ish) more often than other strats]). Had a few issues the other day after the changes and dropped 400 or so rating, and I know I'm not that great. Like with MTG drafts, I'm weak at reading signals, so will probably never be top-tier! Hard to tell what's open in the smallish window sometimes, and swapping plans more than once is... risky (counting the transition from early jank to synergy as a change). Looks like top 200 EU is 8.5k-6.5k or so? Would love to see a rough ranking, like 'in the top 1000/2000/3000' etc.. Presuming that there's a lot more in 6-6.5k than 6.5k+ :)
On the leaderboards, for the top 200, the bottom of the list is around 6300-6500 depending on the region. So, if you can make 6k+, you're very good. If you can make 6300+, you're fighting for top 200 in that region.
Beyond that, it's pretty much speculation. I'd say average is 5k with above average being around 5.5k maybe.
It's hard to say I think, you need to play a lot of games to get to 6k+ and not everyone has had much time to play that much. I know for sure I can get to 8k+, I just don't have the time :)
It's hard to say I think, you need to play a lot of games to get to 6k+ and not everyone has had much time to play that much. I know for sure I can get to 8k+, I just don't have the time :)
I bet that you could also get to top 100 legend if you had more time xD
I have 5.5 k mmr but 20 first place and 60 4th place the reason why it is low despite too many winnings is before the last patch I was getting 15 point from getting first place after 4,5 k mmr I was able to raise it to 4900 after so many games before the patch. Also time to time I get 8th place due to going afk or forgetting game at alt tab.
If you're already above 4.3k you're already average. 5k puts you probably in way above average range.
Why?
People tend to forget the amount of bads that are in this game. A lot of people, and we know this for a fact because we were told that a vast majority of the players doesn't even reach rank 18 (prior to various ladder reworks), absolutely suck at Hearthstone. We all start at 4k. Now pick a lower 4k rating of your choice, one that you think is quite bad, like 4,3k and you'd probably guess correctly by assuming that the majority of people are below that rank.
I have 5.5 k mmr but 20 first place and 60 4th place the reason why it is low despite too many winnings is before the last patch I was getting 15 point from getting first place after 4,5 k mmr I was able to raise it to 4900 after so many games before the patch. Also time to time I get 8th place due to going afk or forgetting game at alt tab.
Yeh - I was also a closed beta person and hit that ceiling around 5.5K MMR. I was getting less than 20 points for a 1st place finish. Hard to climb that way.
Now I'm over 6K, but the gap is widening between myself and the top 200. I don't think I'll grind for it anymore (in particular because I lost about 400 points right after the patch exploring with the new heroes). But if I hit it because I really enjoy the mode, then thats cool.
average points gained per game would've been a better indication of skill, as different players spend different amount of time on the game.
No, the existing MMR is way better. 'Avarage points gained per game' would give advantages to players with low game counts that run hot. Blizzard made a great explanation of the MMR:
It's hard to say I think, you need to play a lot of games to get to 6k+ and not everyone has had much time to play that much. I know for sure I can get to 8k+, I just don't have the time :)
Uuuuhm you know for sure? I don’t think so. At 8k+ people are tryharding to get at least top 4 and are not as bad as 6k people are. I’m sitting at 6200+ and even now it’s sometimes insane what people come up with.
But I would add some hefty caveats: 1) The skill ceiling in BG is (contentiously) a lot lower than other competitive games (like OW or SC2) and instead RNG plays a big part. 2) In BG, you can creep MMR just for playing loads and not sucking, whereas in other competitive games your MMR is entirely based on skill (playtime and skills aren't always correlated.)
But I would add some hefty caveats: 1) The skill ceiling in BG is (contentiously) a lot lower than other competitive games (like OW or SC2) and instead RNG plays a big part. 2) In BG, you can creep MMR just for playing loads and not sucking, whereas in other competitive games your MMR is entirely based on skill (playtime and skills aren't always correlated.)
Might want to skew everything down 2-3k. I don't recall exactly, but doesn't it start at 4k? There are a lot of people sub 2k, which I think is the "bronze" range.
I play at 7k and it took a hell of a lot of work to get there but I know I'm far from the best. To climb you have to get over trying to push a gimmick. You pick up what suits you best at that moment and you invest into the future at the right times. Tons of luck that has to go right for the best outcomes as well as praying your opponents do not get too lucky.
Just a question; what kind of rating is viewed as good, mediocre, very good, and the like? I know I'm certainly not the best, but it's good to know rough benchmarks [though I'm still increasing, now I handled yesterday's huge slump] :) One issue with just the MMR visible, not any kind of actual ranking :P
I'm really curious myself. I've been sitting around 5.7k and I have no clue whether that's reasonable or not, but I think it's decent.
Nice, better than me! I'm at around 5-5.1k without preorder, though not been there long, and had a steady rise since stabilizing post-change (as the meta suddenly shifted to 'you're unlikely to get synergy, as everyone's fighting over pieces of it. Go menagerie and if you see non-beasts are open, or you can manage murlocs somehow...' [Managed murlocs once with George, got hatedrafted out of the adapters so couldn't break past second - usually I see them far too fragile, as no hyena/junky, and crashing out early lategame (so 6th-8th, turn 10ish) more often than other strats]). Had a few issues the other day after the changes and dropped 400 or so rating, and I know I'm not that great. Like with MTG drafts, I'm weak at reading signals, so will probably never be top-tier! Hard to tell what's open in the smallish window sometimes, and swapping plans more than once is... risky (counting the transition from early jank to synergy as a change). Looks like top 200 EU is 8.5k-6.5k or so? Would love to see a rough ranking, like 'in the top 1000/2000/3000' etc.. Presuming that there's a lot more in 6-6.5k than 6.5k+ :)
Yeah, it'd be really interesting to see. I've been playing without preorder too. I'm curious how much of a difference 3 choices make.
On the leaderboards, for the top 200, the bottom of the list is around 6300-6500 depending on the region. So, if you can make 6k+, you're very good. If you can make 6300+, you're fighting for top 200 in that region.
Beyond that, it's pretty much speculation. I'd say average is 5k with above average being around 5.5k maybe.
It's hard to say I think, you need to play a lot of games to get to 6k+ and not everyone has had much time to play that much. I know for sure I can get to 8k+, I just don't have the time :)
stuck at 5.1k rn without any preorders or anything
I bet that you could also get to top 100 legend if you had more time xD
I have 5.5 k mmr but 20 first place and 60 4th place the reason why it is low despite too many winnings is before the last patch I was getting 15 point from getting first place after 4,5 k mmr I was able to raise it to 4900 after so many games before the patch. Also time to time I get 8th place due to going afk or forgetting game at alt tab.
If you're already above 4.3k you're already average. 5k puts you probably in way above average range.
Why?
People tend to forget the amount of bads that are in this game. A lot of people, and we know this for a fact because we were told that a vast majority of the players doesn't even reach rank 18 (prior to various ladder reworks), absolutely suck at Hearthstone. We all start at 4k. Now pick a lower 4k rating of your choice, one that you think is quite bad, like 4,3k and you'd probably guess correctly by assuming that the majority of people are below that rank.
Yeh - I was also a closed beta person and hit that ceiling around 5.5K MMR. I was getting less than 20 points for a 1st place finish. Hard to climb that way.
Now I'm over 6K, but the gap is widening between myself and the top 200. I don't think I'll grind for it anymore (in particular because I lost about 400 points right after the patch exploring with the new heroes). But if I hit it because I really enjoy the mode, then thats cool.
average points gained per game would've been a better indication of skill, as different players spend different amount of time on the game.
At this early stage, Battlegrounds ranking has a lot more to do with the amount you play than how good you are.
Eventually, that will reverse, but we're not there yet.
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
No, the existing MMR is way better. 'Avarage points gained per game' would give advantages to players with low game counts that run hot. Blizzard made a great explanation of the MMR:
https://playhearthstone.com/en-us/blog/23239989/
Uuuuhm you know for sure? I don’t think so. At 8k+ people are tryharding to get at least top 4 and are not as bad as 6k people are. I’m sitting at 6200+ and even now it’s sometimes insane what people come up with.
and getting 6k+ didn’t take a lot of games to me.
Based on other Blizz game ladders, I think of it like this:
Bronze: < 4,500.
Silver: 4,500-5,499.
Gold: 5,500-6,499.
Platinum: 6,500-7,499.
Diamond: 7,500-8,499.
Masters: 8,500-9,499.
Grandmaster: 9,500+
But I would add some hefty caveats: 1) The skill ceiling in BG is (contentiously) a lot lower than other competitive games (like OW or SC2) and instead RNG plays a big part. 2) In BG, you can creep MMR just for playing loads and not sucking, whereas in other competitive games your MMR is entirely based on skill (playtime and skills aren't always correlated.)
Might want to skew everything down 2-3k. I don't recall exactly, but doesn't it start at 4k? There are a lot of people sub 2k, which I think is the "bronze" range.
I play at 7k and it took a hell of a lot of work to get there but I know I'm far from the best. To climb you have to get over trying to push a gimmick. You pick up what suits you best at that moment and you invest into the future at the right times. Tons of luck that has to go right for the best outcomes as well as praying your opponents do not get too lucky.
7k+ I’d consider good and plays frequently, if you play infrequently and get lucky you could be 6k+ easy.
presidentdennyou have to be playing random cards to be sub 4k imo, but assuming the spread is the same as for standard, I'd say
75% are <5k
17.5% are 5k- sub 7k
5.5% 7k- sub 8k
2% 8k- sub 9k
0.5% 9k+
this is as of now, as the numbers are inflating, for example the top 200 near release were sub 8k-9k, but it's 10k-13k now
assuming 10m players are playing battlegrounds the top 200 are in the 0,00002%