Seeing as legend is the apex of Hearthstone, if we follow the logic of the people who make this claim, we can make certain inferences about the rest of the ladder. If legend is a no skill grind, then what is the rest of the hearthstone? Absolute trash?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My legendary count excluding adventure legendaries, dupes and old murk eye: 40
First of all, the very premise "legend is a no skill grind".
Unskilled player can never make it to legend. It is required quite a lot of skill AND the patience to reach that point. As you progress to ladder you can feel that your opponents get stronger with each rank (at least that is true for me).
So rest of the ladder are either not that skilled player or/and not that patient players. That is what i think atleast. Or maybe it is just my excuse to not consider myself as "Absolute trash" since i never reached legend.
Getting to Legend is all about perserverance,luck with RNG, and a bit of knowledge.
It takes time to get those last 5 ranks. I've only gotten as high as 4 myself once before, but I actually reached 5 this past Monday this month so I figured I'd give it a whirl.
Fact is you encounter the same exact decks as you would on your climb, but it's more about what you get in your hand now because no one makes misplays really at 5 and up. I've been battling back and forth between 4&5 for 3 days now. Up,down,up,down,up,down... it's actually quite exhausting.
Getting to Legend is all about perserverance,luck with RNG, and a bit of knowledge.
It takes time to get those last 5 ranks. I've only gotten as high as 4 myself once before, but I actually reached 5 this past Monday this month so I figured I'd give it a whirl.
Fact is you encounter the same exact decks as you would on your climb, but it's more about what you get in your hand now because no one makes misplays really at 5 and up. I've been battling back and forth between 4&5 for 3 days now. Up,down,up,down,up,down... it's actually quite exhausting.
Unless it's the first few days of the season or something, people rank 1-5 (even legend, realistically) missplay all the time. There's the occasional game that's simply decided before the first card is played but ~70% of the time, I can think back and identify one play by myself or my opponent that caused the game to go the way it did.
The problem is that we don't see all the little plays adding up because we have incomplete information. We tend to get to the end and think "man, I made no obvious terrible plays, I couldn't have won that no matter what" when in reality the little decisions snowball. I have a friend/coworker that gets rank 2-5 every season and when we sit down together we make very different choices turn to turn. Both are generally "good" plays, the key is seeing the better one.
If you have a decent friend, try co-op playing and discuss each turn. You'll be surprised how often you come up with different plays the other didn't see and how much better games go.
Often people lack to understant that you can explain reaching legend by more than one reason.
It doesn't have to be ONLY skill. Nor is it ONLY grind.
Yes, in reality you can explain it through multiple factors, including but not limited to: - How well you generally play (duh) - How deep your collection is - What class you generally play (example, Priest =/= Shaman) - How strong your deck is - How RNG decides your matchups, especially during the rank 5 -> legend grind. - How well you can adapt to the meta ...
See, you don't have to be narrow minded and "pick" only one side, it's better to take a broader look.
Grinding to legend is a funny phenomenon... it is both skill and perseverance. The more skill, the less time it takes
If you're below average, anywhere from really awful to just below average, then you'll never reach it.
If you're average-ish, then you can reach Rank 5, but will probably never reach legend as in the higher ranks you play against other players that are at least average and you need to be better than these average players, so you will always be swimming between R2 and R6.
If you're above average you could possibly make it, but it takes you so much time that you probably never will. Most of these players love to tell themselves that they are good enough but just don't have the time to grind.
If you're well above average then you can probably make it, but it still takes a lot of time. It really depends on your attitude to the game if you want to try.
If you're really good, then you can make it every month, within a manageable number of games but you still may not try every month
If you're pro, then you can make it every month without trying really hard
So what does that say about the rest of the ladder? That it's filled by players ranging from (well) below average to really good players who don't try to reach legend.
Well, AI can make it to legend, with a lot of grinding since they play non-stop.
But if an AI can do it, i'd say it's mostly grinding. Skill help to reach it faster, learning how to beat the meta/what is the meta at each rank help going faster.
I'd say arena involve more skill even tho luck is important.
Rank 20 to 5: equally skilled players, whose main difference is the amount of time they've played (which in turn makes a difference in turn of meta knowledge). Slightly harder as you rank up, due to up-to-date knowledge, but they play with the same skill. Everyone with time can reach rank 5.
Rank 5 to 1: to progress above 5 you have to win more than you lose against people who misplay a lot less (mistakes are made, tho). The difference between advancing and being forever struggling at rank 5 is in the player skill. Totally on the skill. Win more than 50% or fallback to 6 and reach back to 5 using win streaks.
Legend: while ranking up, you will face low legend players. This is a lottery, sometimes they are trying new/fun decksdecks and you just overrun them. Good legend ranks are rarely matched against people going up, specially as the season advances.
I reached legend few times, it takes both time and some skill. The harder aspect is to control the nerves while ranking, avoid tilting and these things that can really ruin your work. Once you get this under control, you just need some experience with the meta and skill enough to avoid most of your misplays (there is always mistakes, just lower your rate to an acceptable level).
This is just my opinion and no offense is intended.
the majority of the people making that claim are all the salty rank 20s who can't get to rank 10 in any given season because they pretend and lie to themselves that hs is %100 luck which is absolutely not true it just helps them accept the fact they are in the lower end of rankings of players and receive less rewards.
anybody whos gone from rank 3-legend understands this.
just ignore all the negative nancys those are just butt hurt children that are to stubborn to accept the truth. unfortunately these forums are littered with them and it doesn't seem like they even read the posts that challenge their logic.
Rank5->legend is a brainless grind but everyone who has enough knowledge about the game to reach rank5 constantly without much effort are capable of getting to legend also.
Different case are these people who struggle to reach rank10 in any given season.
80% Luck, 20% Knowledge. No skill is involved in this game, sorry to drop the facts.
Agreed. Every capable HS player can deal with Rank 5 at the determined moment. But since that point you need a lot of free time to continue.
Also you need massive patience to deal with the same decks and the same matches, over and over again. The game experience changes to an automated Candy Crush-like gameplay, it's understandable some people get bored in Rank 3. Everyone who has been there knows that.
Just a bit of statistics: you need to earn approximately 25 stars to get legend. Without insane streak, you need at last 50% WR to do it. But:
With 51%, it will take 1250 games (you earn 2 stars for each 100 games).
With 55%, it will take only 250 games (10 stars for each 100 games).
With 60 % it falls to 125 games, and with 65% you need less than hundred games.
The different between 51%-65% is only skill (the luck is irrelevant given enough games), so you can get legend even with 51%, but you should grind more than 1000 games for it, whereas skilled player can do it way more efficiently.
Thought, even a skilled player should play many games to get it (I don't believe anyone have far more than overall 65% in these ranks)
I don't play beyond rank 5 really, since it is very time-consuming. Somewhat due to the winstreaks missing, but really more due to the players being a lot better - both at play decision making, but also at playing decks more based on the meta. I suspect that trend only grows stronger as one progresses. If we assume a flat 50% winrate it would take you (on average) an extremely long time to reach legend from rank 5. We can safely assume almost all players who reach legend are good at the game.
Obviously HS isn't like chess, but it has its complexities and nuances that average players will miss out on.
Making Legend is more about knowledge and time than skill. Knowledge of matchups and certain nuanced card interactions can change a 55% win ration to a 58%, and that makes a huge difference in the grind from R5 to R1. But the fact remains that a 51% winrate will get anyone to legend, given enough games. This can't be disputed. You can argue that being a good player shortens the amount of games needed. You can argue that getting a 51% winrate isn't something that everyone can do. It doesn't change the math behind it. People on this forum seem to think that "average" players are decided around rank 5, which is silly considering that rank 10 puts you in the top ~8-12% of players for the season. Rank 10! That's still considered noob town to some people on this forum.
But skill on the ladder? I don't see it and I doubt I could be convinced. Coming from years of competitive MTG, there are no requirements for skillfulness in ranked HS. At this point I have to make a decision: to tell you that I've hit legend and be called a Face Shaman player, or tell you I've never hit legend and be compared to a virgin talking about sex. I choose neither, because neither of those add to or take away from my point. Hearthstone is a casual CCG. Just because Blizzard wants it to be competitive doesn't mean that it is, excluding the basic definition of competition, that is to say people competing. I can compete at tic-tac-toe. It's not meant to be ridiculously complex (which is where skill comes from in luck-based games like CCGs). Cards like Yogg Saron exist. This game is a ton of RNG and casual goodness.
I don't mean to take away from legend players. If it's an accomplishment to you to reach legend, then that's great for you! But it's nowhere near as difficult as, say, top 8'ing a Legacy open in MTG, or winning a PTQ or even making it to day 2 in the Invitational. And this is because Hearthstone is much less complex and skill based than MTG.
I could see an argument for skill in Arena. I personally dislike limited formats, but the ability to craft a deck and adapt from game-to-game is certainly skillful. It's nowhere near MTG-level, as you only pick from 3 cards (also no stack, smaller decks mean less precision when deckcrafting and tuning, no sideboard etc) and play just those.
Seeing as legend is the apex of Hearthstone, if we follow the logic of the people who make this claim, we can make certain inferences about the rest of the ladder. If legend is a no skill grind, then what is the rest of the hearthstone? Absolute trash?
My legendary count excluding adventure legendaries, dupes and old murk eye: 40
$$$ spent on this game: 0
Check out my card collection: http://www.hearthpwn.com/members/MCFUser175154/collection
HS is a fun and free card game.
That is enough for me.
most people play close to correct
First of all, the very premise "legend is a no skill grind".
Unskilled player can never make it to legend. It is required quite a lot of skill AND the patience to reach that point. As you progress to ladder you can feel that your opponents get stronger with each rank (at least that is true for me).
So rest of the ladder are either not that skilled player or/and not that patient players. That is what i think atleast. Or maybe it is just my excuse to not consider myself as "Absolute trash" since i never reached legend.
Getting to Legend is all about perserverance,luck with RNG, and a bit of knowledge.
It takes time to get those last 5 ranks. I've only gotten as high as 4 myself once before, but I actually reached 5 this past Monday this month so I figured I'd give it a whirl.
Fact is you encounter the same exact decks as you would on your climb, but it's more about what you get in your hand now because no one makes misplays really at 5 and up. I've been battling back and forth between 4&5 for 3 days now. Up,down,up,down,up,down... it's actually quite exhausting.
YOU ARE NOT PREPARED!!
Its an unwinnable argument. People insist everyone plays the game the same and its just rng and volume that separates players.
Often people lack to understant that you can explain reaching legend by more than one reason.
It doesn't have to be ONLY skill. Nor is it ONLY grind.
Yes, in reality you can explain it through multiple factors, including but not limited to:
- How well you generally play (duh)
- How deep your collection is
- What class you generally play (example, Priest =/= Shaman)
- How strong your deck is
- How RNG decides your matchups, especially during the rank 5 -> legend grind.
- How well you can adapt to the meta
...
See, you don't have to be narrow minded and "pick" only one side, it's better to take a broader look.
Have fun playing :)
No skill casual play.
"Put your face in the light!" - Tirion Fordring
Grinding to legend is a funny phenomenon... it is both skill and perseverance. The more skill, the less time it takes
So what does that say about the rest of the ladder? That it's filled by players ranging from (well) below average to really good players who don't try to reach legend.
Well, AI can make it to legend, with a lot of grinding since they play non-stop.
But if an AI can do it, i'd say it's mostly grinding. Skill help to reach it faster, learning how to beat the meta/what is the meta at each rank help going faster.
I'd say arena involve more skill even tho luck is important.
I ser 3 tiers:
Rank 20 to 5: equally skilled players, whose main difference is the amount of time they've played (which in turn makes a difference in turn of meta knowledge). Slightly harder as you rank up, due to up-to-date knowledge, but they play with the same skill. Everyone with time can reach rank 5.
Rank 5 to 1: to progress above 5 you have to win more than you lose against people who misplay a lot less (mistakes are made, tho). The difference between advancing and being forever struggling at rank 5 is in the player skill. Totally on the skill. Win more than 50% or fallback to 6 and reach back to 5 using win streaks.
Legend: while ranking up, you will face low legend players. This is a lottery, sometimes they are trying new/fun decksdecks and you just overrun them. Good legend ranks are rarely matched against people going up, specially as the season advances.
I reached legend few times, it takes both time and some skill. The harder aspect is to control the nerves while ranking, avoid tilting and these things that can really ruin your work. Once you get this under control, you just need some experience with the meta and skill enough to avoid most of your misplays (there is always mistakes, just lower your rate to an acceptable level).
This is just my opinion and no offense is intended.
Have fun :)
Greatness, at any cost.
the majority of the people making that claim are all the salty rank 20s who can't get to rank 10 in any given season because they pretend and lie to themselves that hs is %100 luck which is absolutely not true it just helps them accept the fact they are in the lower end of rankings of players and receive less rewards.
anybody whos gone from rank 3-legend understands this.
just ignore all the negative nancys those are just butt hurt children that are to stubborn to accept the truth. unfortunately these forums are littered with them and it doesn't seem like they even read the posts that challenge their logic.
Let's be honest. Each facet of the game highlights one quality:
Ranked mode =====> Patience,
Arena =====> Adaptability
Creating new decks =====> Cleverness,
Having fun with the game =====> Intelligence.
Just a bit of statistics: you need to earn approximately 25 stars to get legend. Without insane streak, you need at last 50% WR to do it. But:
With 51%, it will take 1250 games (you earn 2 stars for each 100 games).
With 55%, it will take only 250 games (10 stars for each 100 games).
With 60 % it falls to 125 games, and with 65% you need less than hundred games.
The different between 51%-65% is only skill (the luck is irrelevant given enough games), so you can get legend even with 51%, but you should grind more than 1000 games for it, whereas skilled player can do it way more efficiently.
Thought, even a skilled player should play many games to get it (I don't believe anyone have far more than overall 65% in these ranks)
I don't play beyond rank 5 really, since it is very time-consuming. Somewhat due to the winstreaks missing, but really more due to the players being a lot better - both at play decision making, but also at playing decks more based on the meta. I suspect that trend only grows stronger as one progresses. If we assume a flat 50% winrate it would take you (on average) an extremely long time to reach legend from rank 5. We can safely assume almost all players who reach legend are good at the game.
Obviously HS isn't like chess, but it has its complexities and nuances that average players will miss out on.
Making Legend is more about knowledge and time than skill. Knowledge of matchups and certain nuanced card interactions can change a 55% win ration to a 58%, and that makes a huge difference in the grind from R5 to R1. But the fact remains that a 51% winrate will get anyone to legend, given enough games. This can't be disputed. You can argue that being a good player shortens the amount of games needed. You can argue that getting a 51% winrate isn't something that everyone can do. It doesn't change the math behind it. People on this forum seem to think that "average" players are decided around rank 5, which is silly considering that rank 10 puts you in the top ~8-12% of players for the season. Rank 10! That's still considered noob town to some people on this forum.
But skill on the ladder? I don't see it and I doubt I could be convinced. Coming from years of competitive MTG, there are no requirements for skillfulness in ranked HS. At this point I have to make a decision: to tell you that I've hit legend and be called a Face Shaman player, or tell you I've never hit legend and be compared to a virgin talking about sex. I choose neither, because neither of those add to or take away from my point. Hearthstone is a casual CCG. Just because Blizzard wants it to be competitive doesn't mean that it is, excluding the basic definition of competition, that is to say people competing. I can compete at tic-tac-toe. It's not meant to be ridiculously complex (which is where skill comes from in luck-based games like CCGs). Cards like Yogg Saron exist. This game is a ton of RNG and casual goodness.
I don't mean to take away from legend players. If it's an accomplishment to you to reach legend, then that's great for you! But it's nowhere near as difficult as, say, top 8'ing a Legacy open in MTG, or winning a PTQ or even making it to day 2 in the Invitational. And this is because Hearthstone is much less complex and skill based than MTG.
I could see an argument for skill in Arena. I personally dislike limited formats, but the ability to craft a deck and adapt from game-to-game is certainly skillful. It's nowhere near MTG-level, as you only pick from 3 cards (also no stack, smaller decks mean less precision when deckcrafting and tuning, no sideboard etc) and play just those.
PSN: RoStGy
The game is what you make of it, depending on the deck you decide to play.