Hearthpwn

Quote from Nicholasjh >>

This is hilarious, a whole thread a bout a new ranking system that doesn't mention that system once. I guess I'll go hunting. 

 

Quote from Nicholasjh >>

This is hilarious, a whole thread a bout a new ranking system that doesn't mention that system once. I guess I'll go hunting. 

 

Quote from 1xbenx1 >>

Quote from Nicholasjh >>

This is hilarious, a whole thread a bout a new ranking system that doesn't mention that system once. I guess I'll go hunting. 

 

It's still on the front page.

Quote from Windsofregnum >>

Quote from DontDirtyMyRat >>

 I should have mentioned I'm f2p.. until last month I didn't have a deck even close enough to being able to climb.. plus I was/am still learning the game. Not to mention a bunch of my battles are spent on completing quests because of being f2p..

Hey, I'm sorry my previous was a bit too harsh. It's totally ok to not reach legend/ high ranks and there can be many valid reasons to that. I just wanted to fix the misconception that you couldn't make it with a 60% winrate. Maintaining such winrate isn't that easy and the amount of games required is still quite large.  I'm a good example last month I played only 172 games on the standard ladder, so I didn't hit legend despite having a 62% winrate. This month I've played 142 games with 61% winrate so I haven't climbed higher than rank 3 and probably won't bother hitting legend this month either. (Prior to these two I hit legend 5 months in a row, so I know I can do it, if I put enough games in a month.

So players like me will benefit from the new system greatly as it it will be require less games to hit legend each month. Of course one can grind the legend ladder for ridiculous amount of games to try to hit the top ranks for the HCT points. All though no matter of games will help you, if you can't maintain a high enough winrate.

So how much will the new system reduce the amount of games required to hit legend? Let's try a mathematical approach.

Below rank 5 the winstreak bonus screws the math, but in practice it seems to take roughly the same amount of games to rank 5 from rank 16*, as it takes from rank 5 to legend, if your winrate stays the same. (*Legend players start the month at 16, so no point to think count how many more games it would take starting lower.) So let's assume the old system takes double the amount of games, that it requires from rank 5 to legend. Rank 5 to legend requires 25 stars, the amount of games required is 25/(winrate-lossrate). For example 60% winrate would be 25/(0,6-0,4)=125 games.

Old system

Winrate	Games from rank 16 to Legend	Games from rank 4 to Legend
51 %	2500	1000
52 %	1250	500
53 %	833	333
54 %	625	250
55 %	500	200
56 %	417	167
57 %	357	143
58 %	313	125
59 %	278	111
60 %	250	100
61 %	227	91
62 %	208	83
63 %	192	77
64 %	179	71
65 %	167	67
66 %	156	63
67 %	147	59
68 %	139	56
69 %	132	53
70 %	125	50
71 %	119	48
72 %	114	45
73 %	109	43
74 %	104	42
75 %	100	40
76 %	96	38
77 %	93	37
78 %	89	36
79 %	86	34
80 %	83	33

So end conclusion is that a player who hits legend each month will require 60% less games, when compared to the old system. So if we assume a guy who plays 250 ranked games a month. The prior system required him to have a 60% winrate to have a shot of just making it.

Since in the new system, no matter what rank you are you drop 20 stars with the monthly reset the above table applies, if we ignore the winstreak bonus stars. Thus with the new system a guy who plays 250 games in month, will slowly start higher and higher each month with just 55% winrate. Eventually making it to legend and then reaching that status month after month.

As a conlusion, the 60% reduction in games required reach legend makes legend achievable for much more players. The time constraint basically goes out of the window for many players, since you can slowly inch your way up each month. The skill requirement will drop a lot as well, since all of a sudden it's much more reasonable to hit legend with sub 55% winrate. Sure it takes a lot of games over many months, but with the old system such winrates required an absurd amount of games in a single month, if your winrate was between 50-55%.

If someone doubts the maths, below is a comparison of my actual games required for each of my legend runs.

• S44, 57% WR, 343 games, table prediction 357 games
• S43, 61% WR, 227 games, table prediction 208 games
• S42, 55% WR, 345 games, table prediction 500 games, not sure why this is so much of, maybe many of the losses were played while at a ranked floor
• S41, 65% WR, 165 games, table prediction 167 games
• S40, 57% WR, 319 games, table prediction 357 games
• S38, 58% WR, 256 games, table prediction 313 games, 55% winrate rank 6 and below, 62% between 1-5, so not exactly constant winrate
• S33, 57% WR, 329 games, table prediction 357 games

I don't see it as a problem. All that matters at the end of the season for competitive play is the top dogs. Essentially the top 100 Legend players. In the end, after a year or so, all that will happen is being Legend won't have the "prestige" it currently has. Then again it really isn't that big of a deal right now unless you stream and try to use it as a means to get viewers or you are trying to go professional.