Seriously people, this thing about having to play minimum 30 arenas to compete in the arena ranking at the end of the month is bullshit. I want to compete too, but I don't have enough time to play so many runs. When you are good at arena, each run takes a lot of time. If you average exactly 7 wins at arena you have to play 300 arena matches during a month to be on that list and that is insane, at least for someone like me, I don't have so much time to play Hearthstone, I'm not Kripparrian.
But the problem is that it took me a lot of time (at least for me). Also, I want to play other games from time to time (apart from Hearthstone, I'm playing Star Wars Battlefront currently now), so yeah, it is a real problem. Ok, some of you would say that why the f..k I care about this, but the thing is that I'm a very competitive person and I would like to see me on the Top 100 Arena Leaderboard at least once. :P
I agree that 30 is a lot for a month, but I don't know how much we want to lower the amount of arena runs to base rankings off of (because the more games played the more accurate the rankings will be). 15 seems a little low to me as that is only roughly 150 games for NA. Maybe instead of lowering the amount needed to qualify it would be better to lengthen the amount of time you have to complete them. Maybe do arena rankings every two months and keep the same 30 run requirement.
I agree that 30 is a lot for a month, but I don't know how much we want to lower the amount of arena runs to base rankings off of (because the more games played the more accurate the rankings will be). 15 seems a little low to me as that is only roughly 150 games for NA. Maybe instead of lowering the amount needed to qualify it would be better to lengthen the amount of time you have to complete them. Maybe do arena rankings every two months and keep the same 30 run requirement.
I agree that 30 is a lot for a month, but I don't know how much we want to lower the amount of arena runs to base rankings off of (because the more games played the more accurate the rankings will be). 15 seems a little low to me as that is only roughly 150 games for NA. Maybe instead of lowering the amount needed to qualify it would be better to lengthen the amount of time you have to complete them. Maybe do arena rankings every two months and keep the same 30 run requirement.
I like this suggestion, personally I usually play 30 or more runs in a month anyways, but I understand not everyone can do that, I only play Hearthstone and sometimes LoL, also I am currently unemployed and have been so for the last 4 months so I have lots of time on my hands, not everyone do :P
It is highly unfortunate that Blizzard has decided to destroy arena by making it Standard tho....if it's as bad as I'm afraid it will be I'll probably be quitting Hearthstone, I've already pretty much completely stopped playing constructed, arena is all that is bringing me back to the game.
What is Hearthstone to you? A fun and semi-competitive game with wacky effects and crazy RNG outcomes or just a card game you wanna grind as many wins you can get as fast as possible in?
It is highly unfortunate that Blizzard has decided to destroy arena by making it Standard tho....if it's as bad as I'm afraid it will be I'll probably be quitting Hearthstone, I've already pretty much completely stopped playing constructed, arena is all that is bringing me back to the game.
Good and bad can be said about the Arena going standard, and I had a knee jerk reaction when learning about it. But they are right on one thing: Before you could hope to create a mech deck or a beast deck. Nowadays you a lucky if you can stick 3 mech in the same deck.
Before you could take some risks taking a few good and some (a little) subpar mech betting on your chance to find a few more latter and have the synergies between your cards make up for it. Currently it is not possible. Even drafting 3 jade card in the first 10 do not give you a good chance to find some more later on.
The only thing that make really feel bad about that change is if some class get some broken ass common card in a expansion those cards won't be diluted by the sheer amount of cards already there.
30 arenas or 300 games seems very reasonable to me, its just one arena a day on average. The top 100 players on the constructed leaderboard easily play over 300 games a month.
Going for top 100 in constructed or arena should be something special and reserved for the dedicated few.
There is also a lot of variance. I had 7.6 average after 10 wins, 6.7 after 15, 6.4 after 20. I'm heading down to my usual 6.0-6.2 average. Would be unfair to other players if 15 was the requirement because I might stop at 6.7 and hope for the best, since 6.5 was the bottom for NA.
streamers are already playing on multiple accounts, trying to be on the top in every region, etc. with lower game requirement the arena rank would be meaningless. you would only need a good win streak on your 57th account and thats it.
this system is bad though, I can agree with you in that. they should have a real time online chart anyway. its 2017... they give us only the top 100 and only at the middle of the month... lame.
I do understand your point but it would not be accurate if they don't have a lot of matches. You have to be really good to have a good percent after 30 runs while after 15 you have to of course be good but then it will be more about luck
My oppinion might be influenced by my first ever 12 wins this week, but here we go:
a. I´ve played more arenas this year than I use to last year, but thats still like 5 or 6 in two months. That said, I´d like to see how I compare to other people, track my progress, etc, so a comparisson would be very nice.
b. I undestand the 30 games requirement for the ranking. I think people will already play 30 games on multiple accounts to be on the leaderboard this month. The guys from Tempostorm talked about this issue on THIS ARTICLE. Therefore, I do not think the "less games per month" or "more months per 30 games" is not an optimal sollution.
My oppinion is that the sollutiion to the issue is to improve the ingame access to satistics: a permanent list with all the average of all players, regardless of number of arenas played, in wich you can compare yourself with all other guys, filter people who played the same amound of arenas as you, compete for win rate and other stuff.
This sollution would not invalidade the montly ranking for those who play more than 30 games, and all rewards (blizz points for championships, future cardbacks, head petting and/or special fistbumps) should be given considering this 30-arena treshold, which I most likelly will never reach #feelsbadman.
edit: I understand that this is the most expensive sollution possible, in terms of man-hours for the guys at Blizzard. A much more simpler and worst sollution would be at least display for each player their winrate, both general and inside the month, so that the community can work more suboptimal forum-based sollutions.
Of course, cardgames, by definition, have an inherent probabilistic carachteristic, in the drawing process. Heartstone arena has some more added, namelly:
- Card drafting
- Opponent "choosing"
- Ingame random effects.
There is a trade-off between statistical accuracy and effort to measure: if you want a better measure of the best player, it would require you to force people to play more than 100, 1.000 or 10.000 runs to determine the best. This is more accurate, but unfeaseble. Thats exactly why I suggested that all official rewards on the ranking keep tied to the 30-run minimum, which I think is kind of OK (Blizz must have gathered data on runs/month to determine it...).
I understand that having my 5-runs/month record would be statistically insignificant, but I just find it to be cool for the sake of my own personal use, and, in the case of this particular february in which I got a 12-win and a 11-win, for to brag on the interwebs.
You need to have a larger number of runs to have a statistically valid sample. 30 runs is probably still not enough, but you can't push that number much higher without exceeding what is reasonable for someone who is serious about "ranking". Considering to be among the top ranks you need to average closer to 7 wins a run, that means you need to play 10 matches a day to meet the minimum. That's about 2-3 hours, and really isn't all that unreasonable for someone trying to get the top rank. Assuming you're not the number 1 person, your time played will be significantly less in order to hit that 30 run minimum.
Yep. 30 seems good, and I agree with the guy that said there should be a semestral/annual ranking, which should consist of at least 6*30=180 or 12*30=360 runs, to see who REALLY shinnes.
That said, filthy casuals as myself and the OP should be able to follow our own statistically insignificant averages ingame. Everyone can track on pen-and-paper (or Excel) their results, but its kind of frustrating to do so, especially when we know blizzard has the data already (and I don´t have memory of every arena I played to this day, in order to reach my 222 wins).
Seriously people, this thing about having to play minimum 30 arenas to compete in the arena ranking at the end of the month is bullshit. I want to compete too, but I don't have enough time to play so many runs. When you are good at arena, each run takes a lot of time. If you average exactly 7 wins at arena you have to play 300 arena matches during a month to be on that list and that is insane, at least for someone like me, I don't have so much time to play Hearthstone, I'm not Kripparrian.
This month, I have played 6 arena runs so far:
Hunter = 7-3 (Rewards: 180 gold, 1 MSG pack)
Hunter = 12-2 (Rewards: 320 gold, 1 golden common, 1 MSG pack)
Rogue = 6-3 (Rewards: 130 gold, 1 MSG pack)
Rogue = 4-3 (Rewards: 55 gold, 1 common, 1 MSG pack)
Hunter = 7-3 (Rewards: 160 gold, 1 rare, 1 MSG pack)
Priest = 9-3 (Rewards: 255 gold, 1 common, 1 MSG pack)
But the problem is that it took me a lot of time (at least for me). Also, I want to play other games from time to time (apart from Hearthstone, I'm playing Star Wars Battlefront currently now), so yeah, it is a real problem. Ok, some of you would say that why the f..k I care about this, but the thing is that I'm a very competitive person and I would like to see me on the Top 100 Arena Leaderboard at least once. :P
You should probably start recording your runs and put them on youtube or something.
I know that doing 1 run every day is just not feasable for people with alternate lives than hearthstone. I think 15 is a good number.
I like to make cards and discuss game balance.
I enjoy when "No similar decks were found."
My latest deck: http://www.hearthpwn.com/decks/1366184-scholomance-charge-rez-priest-wild
300 matches
I agree that 30 is a lot for a month, but I don't know how much we want to lower the amount of arena runs to base rankings off of (because the more games played the more accurate the rankings will be). 15 seems a little low to me as that is only roughly 150 games for NA. Maybe instead of lowering the amount needed to qualify it would be better to lengthen the amount of time you have to complete them. Maybe do arena rankings every two months and keep the same 30 run requirement.
What is Hearthstone to you?
A fun and semi-competitive game with wacky effects and crazy RNG outcomes or just a card game you wanna grind as many wins you can get as fast as possible in?
30 arenas or 300 games seems very reasonable to me, its just one arena a day on average. The top 100 players on the constructed leaderboard easily play over 300 games a month.
Going for top 100 in constructed or arena should be something special and reserved for the dedicated few.
There is also a lot of variance. I had 7.6 average after 10 wins, 6.7 after 15, 6.4 after 20. I'm heading down to my usual 6.0-6.2 average. Would be unfair to other players if 15 was the requirement because I might stop at 6.7 and hope for the best, since 6.5 was the bottom for NA.
4x Top 150 arena player
#95 June 2017 6.80, #108 Aug 2017 7.67, #127 Feb 2018 Wildfest 7.7, #33 Nov 2018 7.53
HCT Challenger Finals qualifier: 2018 Season 1, 2, 3
streamers are already playing on multiple accounts, trying to be on the top in every region, etc. with lower game requirement the arena rank would be meaningless. you would only need a good win streak on your 57th account and thats it.
this system is bad though, I can agree with you in that. they should have a real time online chart anyway. its 2017... they give us only the top 100 and only at the middle of the month... lame.
'I'm a very competitive person, I've played 6 arena runs in 22 days' :')
I do understand your point but it would not be accurate if they don't have a lot of matches. You have to be really good to have a good percent after 30 runs while after 15 you have to of course be good but then it will be more about luck
Taz'dingo! Ye-e-es!
Rank last season: Legend rank 5477
My oppinion might be influenced by my first ever 12 wins this week, but here we go:
a. I´ve played more arenas this year than I use to last year, but thats still like 5 or 6 in two months. That said, I´d like to see how I compare to other people, track my progress, etc, so a comparisson would be very nice.
b. I undestand the 30 games requirement for the ranking. I think people will already play 30 games on multiple accounts to be on the leaderboard this month. The guys from Tempostorm talked about this issue on THIS ARTICLE. Therefore, I do not think the "less games per month" or "more months per 30 games" is not an optimal sollution.
My oppinion is that the sollutiion to the issue is to improve the ingame access to satistics: a permanent list with all the average of all players, regardless of number of arenas played, in wich you can compare yourself with all other guys, filter people who played the same amound of arenas as you, compete for win rate and other stuff.
This sollution would not invalidade the montly ranking for those who play more than 30 games, and all rewards (blizz points for championships, future cardbacks, head petting and/or special fistbumps) should be given considering this 30-arena treshold, which I most likelly will never reach #feelsbadman.
edit: I understand that this is the most expensive sollution possible, in terms of man-hours for the guys at Blizzard. A much more simpler and worst sollution would be at least display for each player their winrate, both general and inside the month, so that the community can work more suboptimal forum-based sollutions.
Of course, cardgames, by definition, have an inherent probabilistic carachteristic, in the drawing process. Heartstone arena has some more added, namelly:
- Card drafting
- Opponent "choosing"
- Ingame random effects.
There is a trade-off between statistical accuracy and effort to measure: if you want a better measure of the best player, it would require you to force people to play more than 100, 1.000 or 10.000 runs to determine the best. This is more accurate, but unfeaseble. Thats exactly why I suggested that all official rewards on the ranking keep tied to the 30-run minimum, which I think is kind of OK (Blizz must have gathered data on runs/month to determine it...).
I understand that having my 5-runs/month record would be statistically insignificant, but I just find it to be cool for the sake of my own personal use, and, in the case of this particular february in which I got a 12-win and a 11-win, for to brag on the interwebs.
30 runs is already a low sample size. Actually we did see that some people abused the system by doing runs of 30's to optimize their ranking.
Maybe they should also maintain a seasonal or yearly arena record as well.
> i have no time for games
> I am very competitive
> proceeds to blame Team 5
You need to have a larger number of runs to have a statistically valid sample. 30 runs is probably still not enough, but you can't push that number much higher without exceeding what is reasonable for someone who is serious about "ranking". Considering to be among the top ranks you need to average closer to 7 wins a run, that means you need to play 10 matches a day to meet the minimum. That's about 2-3 hours, and really isn't all that unreasonable for someone trying to get the top rank. Assuming you're not the number 1 person, your time played will be significantly less in order to hit that 30 run minimum.
Yep. 30 seems good, and I agree with the guy that said there should be a semestral/annual ranking, which should consist of at least 6*30=180 or 12*30=360 runs, to see who REALLY shinnes.
That said, filthy casuals as myself and the OP should be able to follow our own statistically insignificant averages ingame. Everyone can track on pen-and-paper (or Excel) their results, but its kind of frustrating to do so, especially when we know blizzard has the data already (and I don´t have memory of every arena I played to this day, in order to reach my 222 wins).
"no time for games"
"wants to be in top 100"
lol k. Let's find you a participation medal.
How about this. I only have time for 1 arena run a month. It got me 12-0. I'm the best arena player in the world easy gg.