Just going off of my memory I believe I've seen different percentages when finishing at the same ranks in multiple seasons. That said I also believe they have different percentages depending on your rank+stars achieved at that rank so that may have accounted for the variance. I've never seen another update on the percentages from Blizz other than Brode mentioning he wanted them to be displayed better or something along those lines. Him bringing it up leads me to believe that they are updated seasonally though. Why mention it otherwise?
Also, iirc, Blizz said that the percentages represent only players that have played at least one game in that season. So inactive accounts shouldn't be included.
Just going off of my memory I believe I've seen different percentages when finishing at the same ranks in multiple seasons. That said I also believe they have different percentages depending on your rank+stars achieved at that rank so that may have accounted for the variance. I've never seen another update on the percentages from Blizz other than Brode mentioning he wanted them to be displayed better or something along those lines. Him bringing it up leads me to believe that they are updated seasonally though. Why mention it otherwise?
Also, iirc, Blizz said that the percentages represent only players that have played at least one game in that season. So inactive accounts shouldn't be included.
Thanks. I was asking because there doesn't seem to have been any update about the system for over two years. The chart that Frozen Inferno posted is really old.
The main reason I'm interested is to find out what the different ranks really mean. For instance, some people act as though rank 5 is easy and the absolute minimum (and imply that those who don't/can't reach rank 5 are inferior), while others have never even gotten close. Whose experience is more typical? According to the charts, it's the latter, but I'm not sure if I can trust those old charts.
@Ehronatha; Yeah, the lack of real updates has made things a bit foggy but I also have noticed they change throughout the season so the in-game values are likely correct. I don't believe Rank 5 is actually typical either, which is why you can probably generally ignore the snobbery; if we're talking high-level analysis then maybe you could argue it's kind of the bare minimum, but it's not really grounds for one person being better than another.
I think sub-R5 comes with a lot of stigmas for a couple reasons. It's easy-ish to grind with a Tier 1 deck, and you don't need to have even a 50% winrate due to how win streaks work; it's kind of the baseline for more serious players mostly because it's where most people end up plateauing who may have had the list be the reason they're there. It's a mixed bag, but in the end I think people who consistently and easily reach R5 are probably much better at the game than people give them credit for.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Articles I suggest every player reads to improve at the game;
Thanks. I was asking because there doesn't seem to have been any update about the system for over two years. The chart that Frozen Inferno posted is really old.
The main reason I'm interested is to find out what the different ranks really mean. For instance, some people act as though rank 5 is easy and the absolute minimum (and imply that those who don't/can't reach rank 5 are inferior), while others have never even gotten close. Whose experience is more typical? According to the charts, it's the latter, but I'm not sure if I can trust those old charts.
Guy, you are speaking on a forum almost dedicated for people focusing on power play, learning from peer and people discussing statistics to see if that one card change between to almost identical pro player deck make for a better match-up against a particular meta deck.
Our kind of person tend to have a wold view biased on the competitive side compared to most people who either just netdeck or don't even know/care that there are website/forum full of decks and advice.
For me the frozen inferno distribution chart it is still true, It is not a stat but when you start to play on higher rank you will start to meet back the same people because they play around the same time of the day as you and that there just isn't that many people playing at your rank. Which is isn't true in the lower ranks.
One more thing is due to the facts that the monthly card back is obtained only in ranked 20, lots of people play until rank 20 then go casual and arena.
Actually I would like to see frozen inferno graph with a separation between rank 25-21 and 20 to 15. I think we would that the ranks are not a Gaussian distribution like it should be.
I'm guilty of hitting 20 and going casual unless I have a quest with a deck I like to play ranked with. I used to grind out the lower levels, but I find I enjoy the game more when I'm not trying to push win streaks. So, now I just make sure I get the card back, and I'm typically content with a common or rare gold out of a chest.
Thanks. I was asking because there doesn't seem to have been any update about the system for over two years. The chart that Frozen Inferno posted is really old.
The main reason I'm interested is to find out what the different ranks really mean. For instance, some people act as though rank 5 is easy and the absolute minimum (and imply that those who don't/can't reach rank 5 are inferior), while others have never even gotten close. Whose experience is more typical? According to the charts, it's the latter, but I'm not sure if I can trust those old charts.
I don't think that graph will help you much without knowing other information as well. It shows only 2% of players making it to rank 5+, but how many players in a season actually try to make it to rank 5+ and how many people actually play enough games to even make it possible to reach those ranks?
For example: If 50% of players are trying to make it to rank 5+ and only 2% make it, then it makes it sound pretty hard, but if only 2% are trying and all of those 2% actually make it (I'm exaggerating obviously) then it would mean it was pretty easy. If someone only plays 2 games during a season then you can't count them as someone who tried and didn't make it. You'll need more information than just what is on that graph.
I'd love to see distribution by games played that month on ranked ladder. Looks like what we have is based on at least 1 game played that month (and possibly outdated.) What about this breakdown based on players who played at least 5 games on ladder; 10 games; 20 games; 50 games.
I don't think there is much chance Blizz will release those stats, but I'd be curious to see them.
It seems like these numbers were generated around September 2014 and then left untouched.
Are they ever updated or have they ever been updated?
Do the numbers include inactive accounts?
What about Standard/Wild?
Basically, do those numbers mean anything?
Which numbers are you referring to?
If you are referring to the numbers on the Hpwn frontpage it is a distribution for decks only on this site and has no connection to in game stuff.
You mean this?
Just going off of my memory I believe I've seen different percentages when finishing at the same ranks in multiple seasons. That said I also believe they have different percentages depending on your rank+stars achieved at that rank so that may have accounted for the variance. I've never seen another update on the percentages from Blizz other than Brode mentioning he wanted them to be displayed better or something along those lines. Him bringing it up leads me to believe that they are updated seasonally though. Why mention it otherwise?
Also, iirc, Blizz said that the percentages represent only players that have played at least one game in that season. So inactive accounts shouldn't be included.
@Ehronatha; Yeah, the lack of real updates has made things a bit foggy but I also have noticed they change throughout the season so the in-game values are likely correct. I don't believe Rank 5 is actually typical either, which is why you can probably generally ignore the snobbery; if we're talking high-level analysis then maybe you could argue it's kind of the bare minimum, but it's not really grounds for one person being better than another.
I think sub-R5 comes with a lot of stigmas for a couple reasons. It's easy-ish to grind with a Tier 1 deck, and you don't need to have even a 50% winrate due to how win streaks work; it's kind of the baseline for more serious players mostly because it's where most people end up plateauing who may have had the list be the reason they're there. It's a mixed bag, but in the end I think people who consistently and easily reach R5 are probably much better at the game than people give them credit for.
Articles I suggest every player reads to improve at the game;
MTG/Hearthstone biases to avoid
Reframing negative Hearthstone experiences to improve at the game
Who's the Beatdown?
I'm guilty of hitting 20 and going casual unless I have a quest with a deck I like to play ranked with. I used to grind out the lower levels, but I find I enjoy the game more when I'm not trying to push win streaks. So, now I just make sure I get the card back, and I'm typically content with a common or rare gold out of a chest.
I'd love to see distribution by games played that month on ranked ladder. Looks like what we have is based on at least 1 game played that month (and possibly outdated.) What about this breakdown based on players who played at least 5 games on ladder; 10 games; 20 games; 50 games.
I don't think there is much chance Blizz will release those stats, but I'd be curious to see them.
Main NA, but also play Asia and EU
no, i believe it's still fairly accurate because i reached rank 15 last season and the pop up said 17.5% just like in the pic.
It's still the same. I finished rank 5 last season and had the top 2% just like frozen infernos pic.