legend is just a grind, but the problem is that hearthstone is a relatively easy game to play. anyone that has a mind for strategy/card games and a little bit of game experience can play just as well as anyone in the tournaments. the different between the absolute best players and say 50% of all hearthstone players is probably no more than a 5% win rate
Theres no RNG to legend. You have to play ATLEAST (what the pros do) 100 games. For most people, it's take 200+ (it took me 250 games last season). You're playing a large enough sample that it's not pure RNG deciding who gets to legend or not.
The biggest thing to remember for legend are:
1) you are going to have to play over 100-150+ games (most likely 200+)
2) you are going to lose 4.5 out of every 10 games you play.
If you want an online card game that requires more skill than rngstone you should try out Hex. But when it comes to hearthstone the community will only believe you are good if you can show that legend symbol. If you want to make legend then just spend all day everyday playing and you will get there even if your average and you have a good deck. The game is predicated on rng to make every game feel different but also to make up for the lack of depth and skill involved. Until a sideboard system is added and there is like a tournament mode like most of other card games this game will be casual only no matter what "pros" say.
A more truthful propositon would be: "Having attained the legend status does not mean you are good at the game." - Which is different from "legend is a no skill grind" because some people attain legend while mastering a deck.
I know a lot of bad players who mindlessly grind legend for no good reason only to never get nowhere near top 100 because they piloted decks like Pirate Warrior and Midrange Hunter to legend. I have no respect for them, but I suspect when you do these things you are not seeking the respect of legend players, you are seeking to have an advantage over players who have never reached legend.
Of course, there are people who are bad enough that its really hard for them to get anywhere near legend, and some of them are among those who say "legend is a no skill grind", but all of that is irrelevant to the truth of the matter, which is that you don't have to be good at the game to get legend, all you have to do is learn a deck that does most of the work for you.
I've been watching StrifeCro playing C'Thun Control Warrior a bit recently (I've also played quite a bit of the same deck, but at much lower ranks). I was barely making progress with the deck at about rank 12. I watched him at rank 3, and I realized he simply had a much deeper understanding of the deck and matchups - despite playing less than 10 games with it at that point in his stream. He'd make small decisions (like using a Slam to kill something and then armor up in the mirror instead of playing Twin Emp) that I simply would not have made. He really understood when he needed tempo from the deck and when he needed pure value. Now, StrifeCro is clearly better than even your average legend player, but it was very educational. So yes, skill does count, for at least something.
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.
Rubbish! There are a lot (vast majority?) of very casual HS players who have played for a long time and have a decent collection, but never pass rank 18. The reasons vary, though, but not bothering to look up good decks and study pro players is probably the most important one. Others just play for those odd super-combos and weird self-made decks and don't care about climbing.
I've been watching StrifeCro playing C'Thun Control Warrior a bit recently (I've also played quite a bit of the same deck, but at much lower ranks). I was barely making progress with the deck at about rank 12. I watched him at rank 3, and I realized he simply had a much deeper understanding of the deck and matchups - despite playing less than 10 games with it at that point in his stream. He'd make small decisions (like using a Slam to kill something and then armor up in the mirror instead of playing Twin Emp) that I simply would not have made. He really understood when he needed tempo from the deck and when he needed pure value. Now, StrifeCro is clearly better than even your average legend player, but it was very educational. So yes, skill does count, for at least something.
This is absolutely true. I'd consider myself a "good" player - I hit legend in most seasons where I have the time, maybe 1 out of every 2 or 3 months, occasionally with non-meta or non tier-list decks to try to challenge myself. But when I watch top players like StrifeCro, MrYagut, or Zetalot, it's clear that they're on a completely different level. And it's not just knowledge, it's skill. They aren't just recognizing the opponent's deck better or knowing how to play around stuff better, they're genuinely seeing plays and combinations that I would never see or evaluating the game better and making a play that I saw but would have viewed as poor.
I've been an "elite" player at a couple of other games, and hearthstone was a lot more difficult for me than a lot of the games I've played. Maybe I simply don't have an aptitude for card games, but to me it has always seemed like there's a relatively high skill cap.
Getting legend is a grind but it does take skill. To say hearthstone isn't a skill based game is also BS. There is a reason why the pros are where they are and we aren't, to say otherwise is delusional else everyone would be a pro and be at tournaments. There is RNG in every game, every single game, but skill too, knowing when to play certain things, planning ahead, knowing what opponents can do, it is a lot of info even for an aggro deck.
To those who are tired of HS, try Shadowverse, it's a CCG like HS but different and amazing.
With 60 % it falls to 125 games, and with 65% you need less than hundred games.
When single game takes on average 10 minutes, because there's quite a lot of fatigue games in current meta, then you have to play over 20 hours to reach legend from Rank 5. Reaching rank 5 early is also harder, so if you have 10 days left, you still need to play 2 hours a day to reach legend in the end. 60% is actually a good win ratio and it's hard to get more in stable meta. You need your own, anti-meta deck to get better results.
My goal every month is rank 5 and I manage to get it by simply doing dailies in standard between 10th and 20th every month. Last month I got to rank 3 without even trying, but Patron warrior helped, countering well most popular decks.
The main enemy in Hearthstone is RNG. It's your real opponent. Every play should be taken in consideration of next moves. If you are often counting on topdeck that 1 in 10 cards, that means that you played bad, or your deck is not that good. Then you are complaining about RNG, but it's your fault that you relied too much on some cards, or played game in mind that these cards will be in your hand in next few turns.
Aggro and Zoo decks are so popular, because RNG has least effect on them. The only concern in this deck is balancing board presence against AOE. Harder decks require to consider a lot of things and take hero HP as a resource to stall the game and at later turns stabilize the board.
And the last thing is that playing against bad players all the time won't give you any skill. You will not even learn how to play current deck, and at some point you will be unable to progress higher. Hearthstone takes time and requires a lot of learning. Watching streams of legend players is probably the most useful way to learn how to play.
That's exactly what I tried to say. I think getting 55% at high ranks is fine enough, but with 55% you will need 250 games.
About your other arguments: playing more aggressive decks, my average time for game is around 7 minutes. I think the reasons players play aggro decks is the fact that they are cheaper and faster, not the RNG effect. In fact, those aren't the most consistent decks (except Zoo and Face Shamans, there are not many aggro decks in competitions. And most of the Pros even prefer the mid-range Shaman on the face one).
Part of the needed skill in this game is handling the RNG. Just like poker, you need to know what is the probability to any scenario, and what will be it's effect.
As a F2P player I currently plays zoo, which is the only competitive deck I can craft (and I lacks 2 possessed villagers, 1 forbidden ritual and sea giant). Right now, I took it to rank 3, which is my overall highest rank. (I have 71% WR since rank 5 but it is only 21 games, not large enough sample)/
Getting legend is a grind but it does take skill. To say hearthstone isn't a skill based game is also BS. There is a reason why the pros are where they are and we aren't, to say otherwise is delusional else everyone would be a pro and be at tournaments. There is RNG in every game, every single game, but skill too, knowing when to play certain things, planning ahead, knowing what opponents can do, it is a lot of info even for an aggro deck.
To those who are tired of HS, try Shadowverse, it's a CCG like HS but different and amazing.
Every single game requires some skill, of course (even walking requires some hey?). But speaking about skill in a game where luck decides 80% of the matches outcomes is utterly stupid. The "pros" are where they are because they play 20x more games in a season than the average legend player and are paid for it. They get invited to tournaments because of their famous names so the companies sponsoring the tournaments would get more viewers->$$$$$$$$$$
You also pointed out that that skill = knowing when to play certain things, knowing what opponent can do, planning ahead. Yes, this is correct but once you are on certain "SKILL" level and KNOW this stuff, you cant get any better.
Every single legend player could challenge kolento, thijs or any "pro-player" to a bo5 and it would be 50/50 match, just because they are both EQUALLY SKILLED (they both know the same stuff everyone knows on this level).
Yes, this game requires some "skill" until certain point and after this point, you cant improve in anyway. This kind of "skill" is not skill, it is the same as learning to walk and then claiming "hey i am really skilled walker" (lets leave the sprint walkers out of this, it is however a sport not a luck based computer game)
Not a chance IMO. I've been legend a bunch of times, top 100, and gotten legend with every deck archetype as well as homebrewed decks, and there is no way I'd be 50/50 with either of those players. I've watched them stream and they're on a totally different level than me. They make at least 2-3 different decisions each game than me that I'd either never see or wouldn't evaluate as the best play, and it's blatantly obvious that their plays are the correct one when viewed later in the game.
Getting legend is a grind but it does take skill. To say hearthstone isn't a skill based game is also BS. There is a reason why the pros are where they are and we aren't, to say otherwise is delusional else everyone would be a pro and be at tournaments. There is RNG in every game, every single game, but skill too, knowing when to play certain things, planning ahead, knowing what opponents can do, it is a lot of info even for an aggro deck.
To those who are tired of HS, try Shadowverse, it's a CCG like HS but different and amazing.
Every single game requires some skill, of course (even walking requires some hey?). But speaking about skill in a game where luck decides 80% of the matches outcomes is utterly stupid. The "pros" are where they are because they play 20x more games in a season than the average legend player and are paid for it. They get invited to tournaments because of their famous names so the companies sponsoring the tournaments would get more viewers->$$$$$$$$$$
You also pointed out that that skill = knowing when to play certain things, knowing what opponent can do, planning ahead. Yes, this is correct but once you are on certain "SKILL" level and KNOW this stuff, you cant get any better.
Every single legend player could challenge kolento, thijs or any "pro-player" to a bo5 and it would be 50/50 match, just because they are both EQUALLY SKILLED (they both know the same stuff everyone knows on this level).
Yes, this game requires some "skill" until certain point and after this point, you cant improve in anyway. This kind of "skill" is not skill, it is the same as learning to walk and then claiming "hey i am really skilled walker" (lets leave the sprint walkers out of this, it is however a sport not a luck based computer game)
Not a chance IMO. I've been legend a bunch of times, top 100, and gotten legend with every deck archetype as well as homebrewed decks, and there is no way I'd be 50/50 with either of those players. I've watched them stream and they're on a totally different level than me. They make at least 2-3 different decisions each game than me that I'd either never see or wouldn't evaluate as the best play, and it's blatantly obvious that their plays are the correct one when viewed later in the game.
You cant say that certain play was the best play because of something that happened later in the game, opponent could have drew otherwise and this "best play" could have been a terrible one. I have also got to legend over 20 times with all kinds of decks (numerous top100 season finishes) and i have also watched their streams and sometimes they make a play and i am like "this was really bad play" and later this play proved to be a terrible one.
Kolento miscalculates hes mana on numerous of hes youtube videos also, mistakes that i would never do. Does this mean im on "totally different level" than him?
No it does not. It just means that any player who has the knowledge of reaching legend every season indeed has 50/50 chance against him since this game revolves purely around luck. Even a rank10 player could win him 3-0, just because of luck.
Getting legend is a grind but it does take skill. To say hearthstone isn't a skill based game is also BS. There is a reason why the pros are where they are and we aren't, to say otherwise is delusional else everyone would be a pro and be at tournaments. There is RNG in every game, every single game, but skill too, knowing when to play certain things, planning ahead, knowing what opponents can do, it is a lot of info even for an aggro deck.
To those who are tired of HS, try Shadowverse, it's a CCG like HS but different and amazing.
Every single game requires some skill, of course (even walking requires some hey?). But speaking about skill in a game where luck decides 80% of the matches outcomes is utterly stupid. The "pros" are where they are because they play 20x more games in a season than the average legend player and are paid for it. They get invited to tournaments because of their famous names so the companies sponsoring the tournaments would get more viewers->$$$$$$$$$$
You also pointed out that that skill = knowing when to play certain things, knowing what opponent can do, planning ahead. Yes, this is correct but once you are on certain "SKILL" level and KNOW this stuff, you cant get any better.
Every single legend player could challenge kolento, thijs or any "pro-player" to a bo5 and it would be 50/50 match, just because they are both EQUALLY SKILLED (they both know the same stuff everyone knows on this level).
Yes, this game requires some "skill" until certain point and after this point, you cant improve in anyway. This kind of "skill" is not skill, it is the same as learning to walk and then claiming "hey i am really skilled walker" (lets leave the sprint walkers out of this, it is however a sport not a luck based computer game)
Not a chance IMO. I've been legend a bunch of times, top 100, and gotten legend with every deck archetype as well as homebrewed decks, and there is no way I'd be 50/50 with either of those players. I've watched them stream and they're on a totally different level than me. They make at least 2-3 different decisions each game than me that I'd either never see or wouldn't evaluate as the best play, and it's blatantly obvious that their plays are the correct one when viewed later in the game.
You cant say that certain play was the best play because of something that happened later in the game, opponent could have drew otherwise and this "best play" could have been a terrible one. I have also got to legend over 20 times with all kinds of decks (numerous top100 season finishes) and i have also watched their streams and sometimes they make a play and i am like "this was really bad play" and later this play proved to be a terrible one.
Kolento miscalculates hes mana on numerous of hes youtube videos also, mistakes that i would never do. Does this mean im on "totally different level" than him?
No it does not. It just means that any player who has the knowledge of reaching legend every season indeed has 50/50 chance against him since this game revolves purely around luck. Even a rank10 player could win him 3-0, just because of luck.
Kolento mastered the game. He can stream some mistakes and it doesn't change that fact, and plus, streaming is like exhibition - sure, nobody in their right mind would try hard all the time to protect against mistakes. I bet he doesn't lose sleep over ay of those mistakes...llol
Getting legend is a grind but it does take skill. To say hearthstone isn't a skill based game is also BS. There is a reason why the pros are where they are and we aren't, to say otherwise is delusional else everyone would be a pro and be at tournaments. There is RNG in every game, every single game, but skill too, knowing when to play certain things, planning ahead, knowing what opponents can do, it is a lot of info even for an aggro deck.
To those who are tired of HS, try Shadowverse, it's a CCG like HS but different and amazing.
Every single game requires some skill, of course (even walking requires some hey?). But speaking about skill in a game where luck decides 80% of the matches outcomes is utterly stupid. The "pros" are where they are because they play 20x more games in a season than the average legend player and are paid for it. They get invited to tournaments because of their famous names so the companies sponsoring the tournaments would get more viewers->$$$$$$$$$$
You also pointed out that that skill = knowing when to play certain things, knowing what opponent can do, planning ahead. Yes, this is correct but once you are on certain "SKILL" level and KNOW this stuff, you cant get any better.
Every single legend player could challenge kolento, thijs or any "pro-player" to a bo5 and it would be 50/50 match, just because they are both EQUALLY SKILLED (they both know the same stuff everyone knows on this level).
Yes, this game requires some "skill" until certain point and after this point, you cant improve in anyway. This kind of "skill" is not skill, it is the same as learning to walk and then claiming "hey i am really skilled walker" (lets leave the sprint walkers out of this, it is however a sport not a luck based computer game)
Not a chance IMO. I've been legend a bunch of times, top 100, and gotten legend with every deck archetype as well as homebrewed decks, and there is no way I'd be 50/50 with either of those players. I've watched them stream and they're on a totally different level than me. They make at least 2-3 different decisions each game than me that I'd either never see or wouldn't evaluate as the best play, and it's blatantly obvious that their plays are the correct one when viewed later in the game.
You cant say that certain play was the best play because of something that happened later in the game, opponent could have drew otherwise and this "best play" could have been a terrible one. I have also got to legend over 20 times with all kinds of decks (numerous top100 season finishes) and i have also watched their streams and sometimes they make a play and i am like "this was really bad play" and later this play proved to be a terrible one.
Kolento miscalculates hes mana on numerous of hes youtube videos also, mistakes that i would never do. Does this mean im on "totally different level" than him?
No it does not. It just means that any player who has the knowledge of reaching legend every season indeed has 50/50 chance against him since this game revolves purely around luck. Even a rank10 player could win him 3-0, just because of luck.
Apparently you must just be on a totally different level than the rest of us haha. I'll be the first to admit that I miscalculate my mana, my damage, or miss lethal relatively often. It happens to everyone (well, apparently not you) but I don't know anyone that does not make mistakes. I remember Kibler (who had the best winrate in the entire starladder tournament and is an EXTREMELY accomplished MTG player) made a simple arithmetic error in the arena tournament at blizzcon. It happens.
Of course sometimes even the best make mistakes or miss obvious plays, and sometimes I make better decisions than them over a small sample size. But over a lage set of games, in general, their decisions are going to be better. Considering they're also "entertainers" and have to talk, interact with fans/chat, and generally be interesting, it's very impressive how few errors they make.
If I don't legend before the 20th of the month I tend to mess around with "fun" decks because the remaining ten days is a cancerfest of aggro (simply face in a thinly veiled disguise).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look, I want to tell you something because you're very dear to me. And I hope you understand that it comes from the bottom of my damaged, damaged heart. You are the finest piece of ass I've ever had and I don't care who knows it. I am so glad that I got to roam those hillsides.
As someone who is top 100 legend, (jakaso27#1154) becoming legendary has little to do with just playing a lot. Sure, you have to play a lot to become legend rank, but once you get to rank 5, you need to play well. Almost any deck can get to legend if you play well, (I climbed to rank 5 with my own reno rougue on my second account without buying adventures), but people don't understand how difficult it is to play perfectly. Someone asked Kolento "how do you play without ever misplaying" and he himself said that for someone to make the optimal play every turn in a control matchup is nearly impossible, never mind never misplaying. Even in tournaments you see misplays as simple as missing lethal, never mind the fact that in every single game, there is at least a turn or two when someone might argue that the play that was made was incorrect. As for people saying "zoo is cancer, aggro is cancer," etc. On legend ladder, 90% of the games you play are against control/midrange. There are no true aggro decks left that are consistently effective after rank 5, except xixo's aggro shaman. Zoo hasn't been great on ladder (especially the leeroy version) for at least a month. If you play control decks and lose to zoo, that is a problem with your mulligan or your play decisions (if you want help I'll spectate you). When I first started playing more seriously I was stuck at around rank 5 until I really worked on mulligans and decisions, as I bet 75% of you are.
Also, the whole concept that "I am unlucky, or this guy is lucky" is ridiculous. Sure, you can be unlucky for a game or two or even 5 but eventually it evens out.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
legend is just a grind, but the problem is that hearthstone is a relatively easy game to play. anyone that has a mind for strategy/card games and a little bit of game experience can play just as well as anyone in the tournaments. the different between the absolute best players and say 50% of all hearthstone players is probably no more than a 5% win rate
I've never been to Legend and I don't really care. It's only a card back to me.
Theres no RNG to legend. You have to play ATLEAST (what the pros do) 100 games. For most people, it's take 200+ (it took me 250 games last season). You're playing a large enough sample that it's not pure RNG deciding who gets to legend or not.
The biggest thing to remember for legend are:
1) you are going to have to play over 100-150+ games (most likely 200+)
2) you are going to lose 4.5 out of every 10 games you play.
If you want an online card game that requires more skill than rngstone you should try out Hex. But when it comes to hearthstone the community will only believe you are good if you can show that legend symbol. If you want to make legend then just spend all day everyday playing and you will get there even if your average and you have a good deck. The game is predicated on rng to make every game feel different but also to make up for the lack of depth and skill involved. Until a sideboard system is added and there is like a tournament mode like most of other card games this game will be casual only no matter what "pros" say.
A more truthful propositon would be: "Having attained the legend status does not mean you are good at the game." - Which is different from "legend is a no skill grind" because some people attain legend while mastering a deck.
I know a lot of bad players who mindlessly grind legend for no good reason only to never get nowhere near top 100 because they piloted decks like Pirate Warrior and Midrange Hunter to legend. I have no respect for them, but I suspect when you do these things you are not seeking the respect of legend players, you are seeking to have an advantage over players who have never reached legend.
Of course, there are people who are bad enough that its really hard for them to get anywhere near legend, and some of them are among those who say "legend is a no skill grind", but all of that is irrelevant to the truth of the matter, which is that you don't have to be good at the game to get legend, all you have to do is learn a deck that does most of the work for you.
I've been watching StrifeCro playing C'Thun Control Warrior a bit recently (I've also played quite a bit of the same deck, but at much lower ranks). I was barely making progress with the deck at about rank 12. I watched him at rank 3, and I realized he simply had a much deeper understanding of the deck and matchups - despite playing less than 10 games with it at that point in his stream. He'd make small decisions (like using a Slam to kill something and then armor up in the mirror instead of playing Twin Emp) that I simply would not have made. He really understood when he needed tempo from the deck and when he needed pure value. Now, StrifeCro is clearly better than even your average legend player, but it was very educational. So yes, skill does count, for at least something.
Rubbish! There are a lot (vast majority?) of very casual HS players who have played for a long time and have a decent collection, but never pass rank 18. The reasons vary, though, but not bothering to look up good decks and study pro players is probably the most important one. Others just play for those odd super-combos and weird self-made decks and don't care about climbing.
Editor of the Heartpwn Legendary Crafting Guide:
https://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/card-discussion/205920-legendary-tier-list-crafting-guide
Getting legend is a grind but it does take skill. To say hearthstone isn't a skill based game is also BS. There is a reason why the pros are where they are and we aren't, to say otherwise is delusional else everyone would be a pro and be at tournaments. There is RNG in every game, every single game, but skill too, knowing when to play certain things, planning ahead, knowing what opponents can do, it is a lot of info even for an aggro deck.
To those who are tired of HS, try Shadowverse, it's a CCG like HS but different and amazing.
99% of the skill is shown in 1% of the plays
that 1% is all the margin that separates the mediocre from the consistent legendary players
Skill is applied knowledge. So yeah, it is skill, lol.
Regular NA Arena Leaderboard player.
Reached #1 in NA arena leaderboard in May 2018 with a 9.07 average!
I've been playing for 2 years and never got past rank 11. Am I retarded ?
Custom cards :
CLASSES : Alchemist (CCC#5 | Phase V) | Chef (CCC#4)
EXPANSIONS : Year of the Scorpion (Year Comp)
A game. Where skill is irrelevant, because it's a fucking game.
Make the Card: The biggest thread on the site!
My mandibles which are capable of pressing down and tearing, my talons which are known to intercept and hold.
If I don't legend before the 20th of the month I tend to mess around with "fun" decks because the remaining ten days is a cancerfest of aggro (simply face in a thinly veiled disguise).
Look, I want to tell you something because you're very dear to me. And I hope you understand that it comes from the bottom of my damaged, damaged heart. You are the finest piece of ass I've ever had and I don't care who knows it. I am so glad that I got to roam those hillsides.
As someone who is top 100 legend, (jakaso27#1154) becoming legendary has little to do with just playing a lot. Sure, you have to play a lot to become legend rank, but once you get to rank 5, you need to play well. Almost any deck can get to legend if you play well, (I climbed to rank 5 with my own reno rougue on my second account without buying adventures), but people don't understand how difficult it is to play perfectly. Someone asked Kolento "how do you play without ever misplaying" and he himself said that for someone to make the optimal play every turn in a control matchup is nearly impossible, never mind never misplaying. Even in tournaments you see misplays as simple as missing lethal, never mind the fact that in every single game, there is at least a turn or two when someone might argue that the play that was made was incorrect. As for people saying "zoo is cancer, aggro is cancer," etc. On legend ladder, 90% of the games you play are against control/midrange. There are no true aggro decks left that are consistently effective after rank 5, except xixo's aggro shaman. Zoo hasn't been great on ladder (especially the leeroy version) for at least a month. If you play control decks and lose to zoo, that is a problem with your mulligan or your play decisions (if you want help I'll spectate you). When I first started playing more seriously I was stuck at around rank 5 until I really worked on mulligans and decisions, as I bet 75% of you are.
Also, the whole concept that "I am unlucky, or this guy is lucky" is ridiculous. Sure, you can be unlucky for a game or two or even 5 but eventually it evens out.