Hearthpwn

I mean, if you're incapable of answering my questions then why not do as you said in your previous post and stop? Kinda weird ya know...

Quote from scorpyon >>

Quote from iWatchUSleep >>

I mean, if you're incapable of answering my questions then why not do as you said in your previous post and stop? Kinda weird ya know...

Still waiting. But by all means, keep trying to bluster your way out of it...
This continual attempt to try and wriggle out is kinda weird, you know...

 Waiting on your own answers? Now that's a first...

I always hit rank 5 plus in standard and wild and when I have time I occasionly push to Legend. I play in tournaments and consider myself a very high level player but to each their own.

I dont think rank matters that much. If you can make you own deck, look at your opponents and realise how to counter them and not missplay that much. I suppose you are a good player

I think once you hit rank 15 you understand all the mechanics of the game. From than on it's just how much you play/how much money you invest into the game.

Good to me doesn't sound like a super high bar so I'd say if you can hit legend then you're pretty good.

if you are not rank 1 legend you are considered noob.

Quote from SilentBlackStorm >>

I just hit legend for the third time ever (I've been playing since GvG) but this is the first time I've made it to legend in back to back months.  Looks like I'm gonna finish somewhere in the 3000's.   Now I know that's not the BEST, and far from the top, but would I be considered a "good" player?  What, in your opinion, is a good rank?  

(Also, there are many different skill levels here on this forum, so don't be jerks to each other.  Just thought it'd be a fun discussion to find out what people consider to be good.)

 I guess I see it more of how much you are putting into the game.. a more 'casual/competitive' standpoint.. that said:

Ranks below legend is basically the Casual rankings.  A completely new player will be struggling to get to rank 10 and can consider themselves no longer a new player if they CAN reach rank 10.  Note 'CAN'.  Just because  aperson never does doesn't mean they CAN'T.

That's because after that point, it really is a matter of how casual you are in the game.  If all you do is play your quests and maybe a little more you will find yourself floating around the 20-12 ranks.  Folks who play more but focus on playing whatever deck they find interesting with no care of the results would be honestly just as casual a player, just with more time.  Such play will NEVER get past rank 10 and never really plans to do so. In fact, I recommend anyone who 'just wants to play the decks they like' should consider this range their home.  It's more varied than Casual and still presents a nice range to test decks with.  

Rank 5 is what, as I saw someone call it and LOVE, 'dad legend'.  If you honestly think that you are 'above average' and that time or a lack of desire to grind is holding you back, this is where you should be.  If you honestly cannot reach this rank then either you are too fundamentally too stuck on your 'special deck' to actually consider playing something that's not worthless or have a fundamental issue with playing the game that needs to be fixed.

Don't read that as "must netdeck". If you honestly MUST netdeck to reach rank 5, and the meta isn't fundamentally THAT broken (which is rarer than most rant) you should NOT have to netdeck up to rank 5 if you have a good clue on how deck design works.  

Reaching Rank 5 is the top of the 'casual' ladder.  Hitting here means you are above average as far as hearthstone players.  In real life terms you graduated from school, no honors, no specialities, just a diploma.  

Rank 5-legend is the Trial.  It requires a combination of a bit more than rank 5 and to no longer play casually. You CANNOT be a casual player and hit legend.  However, you cannot reach anything else if you can't put enough time into the game to reach this point.  You aren't going to find serious players who know enough about the game to try for top 100 or win higher end tournaments AND have so little time/willingness just to grind to legend at least once.  You'll find many who claim there's no difference between top 100 and rank 5 who've never hit top 100.

I honestly put rank 3 as the "I'm good enough for legend but THE GRIND!"  The meta changes a bit before then, so if you are flat out stuck at rank 5 then it's possible that no amount of playing will get you to legend.  But if you can reach rank 3 then it means you have the capability if you just keep going, even if you drop to rank 5 in the meanwhile.  So the difference between rank 3 and legend is how much time you have and how much yo ucan handle grind.

Reaching legend rank doesn't mean you are GOOD at the game, but it means you have the ability to prove you are.  You spend enough time into the game to have the practice in and you know enough about the game to not get stuck demanding that your murloc control priest MUST beat the meta for the game to be worthwhile.  You're at the first step in the Hall of Advanced play and are stepping in.  

So when are you good?  Personally I'd say if you can make serious attempts at the top 200, even if you can't break it in the end.  There's probably other symbols as well, such as winning tournaments or high averages in arena.  But as far as ranked, that's where I see the bar.

So basically:

Newbie <10

Casual play 20-6

Above average/Best casual : 5

"I CAN make legend": 3

Beginner in Competitive: Legend

Good: in competition for Legend rank 200+

Quote from iandakar >>

So when are you good?  Personally I'd say if you can make serious attempts at the top 200, even if you can't break it in the end.  There's probably other symbols as well, such as winning tournaments or high averages in arena.  But as far as ranked, that's where I see the bar.

 

 So, for you, "good" doesn't start until you're in the top sliver of a fraction of a percentage of all players on your server?

That seems better than just "good" to me. You need more adjectives in your life.

Quote from FortyDust >>

Quote from iandakar >>

So when are you good?  Personally I'd say if you can make serious attempts at the top 200, even if you can't break it in the end.  There's probably other symbols as well, such as winning tournaments or high averages in arena.  But as far as ranked, that's where I see the bar.

 

 So, for you, "good" doesn't start until you're in the top sliver of a fraction of a percentage of all players on your server?

That seems better than just "good" to me. You need more adjectives in your life.

I feel that 'good' isn't based on a percentage.  It's based on capability and qualities.  You can have 90% of a population be 'good' at something.  Every person who went to the world championship is far more than just 'good', which puts it at 100%.  I believe 'good' means you know and are capable of wielding all of the basic and most of the advanced features of the game.  If 100% is 'god level, no longer need to learn anything new' at the game, 'good' to me, would be 80%.  Far FAR above average.

I believe that the vast majority of people who play a game are playing poorly at a fundamental level and are only winning games and feeling successful because the ranking system quickly ships everyone who CAN play 'good' far FAR away from them.  It's why a good number of the playerbase had to literally run away from Ranked during the first few days when EVERYONE got dumped into rank 16 and was forced to play up to Legend.  

We insult ourselves by declaring 'good' at such a low level, and belittle ourselves in demanding that people MUST be at a 'good' level to be able to play the game.  A group of friends playing football in the park are technically horrible at the game, but there's no reason in the world why they would NEED to be 'good' at football to play in the park. It DOES mean that if you put them against people who have trained up enough to be 'good' at the game that they would be torn to pieces.  

What I'm doing is respecting those who HAVE put in the effort to learn this game.  It MEANS something to get to rank 5.  It MEANS something to be able to reach legend multiple months in a row, and it's not JUST "oh you have the time to play".  It also MEANS that you have far more to learn as well in order to master this game.  And you'll FEEL that difference if your 'just got into Legend' self start actually trying for rank 200.  

Whether you want to call it 'good' or 'great' or 'awesome' is semantics.  I jumped on the 'just wanted to see what people thought of things' as an invitation to put my 2 cents in.

For me its also collection dependent i believe that from rank 15 upwards you need a fully optimized deck with no compromises or substitutions.

So for me the real skill level is 15 upwards  as at this point every deck has all the cards and is top of that classes tier list.  Its then to how you pilot it that moves up the ranks.

At rank 10 you need to start teching and modding your deck, do you need two oozes etc (is murloc shaman the right deck today)  so players who make those decisions are good that hmm lots of murlocs today ill just drop an ooze and add a crab decision.

At rank 5 i think mulligan is the key.

Forr me the real barrier at much higher level is time.

Even the "not so good" players can get easy rank 5 with a tier 1 metadeck. It's a matter of how much time you can put into it. Aggro being the obvious choice when wanting to hit legend because games last shorter. They're also easier to play (generally speaking)

Either way, someone's rank does not define how good they really are.

For reference, my highest finish is Legend 800.

I would consider everyone who reaches rank 5 "good" - they have understood the game mechanics and can execute their deck well. For me, the really good (pro) players are those who reach Legend with ease (meaning they can reach it with non-Tier 1 deck) and finish at least around Legend 100.

I would say someone could consider himself good at the game if he reaches at least rank 5 consistently. To do this the player has to kinda know the meta, be able to navigate at least one deck without to many missplays and has at least a 50 % winrate with it. 

I dont think you should consider yourself a good player if you play a good amount of ranked games with good decks and never get into the rank 5 region. Rank 20 -10 is really easy to get by because players missplay so much there. 10 - 5 is already a bit tougher but a good player should be able to get it done. After 5 the real grind begins and most people know to play proper.

A good player is not determined by rank. A good player is polite and doesn't just netdeck, and makes friends from the game, a good player is the game.

It's subjective...

According to the Hearthpwn community Hunterace is a good player, and Viper is just borderline as he missed lethal.

You need a net 20 victories against players with top decks and playing seriously to reach legend. Whatever people say, if you make the climb you have to be good.

In the past Blizzard disclosed how you compared to other players,  I think that hitting rank 5 already puts you in the top 3% of players.

Bigest problem is that players take this game so seriously ... Its just a game they forgot IT and i really dont understand what they have from bigger ranks... I prefer fun sorry...