⚙
Learn More
Artwork
Cosmetics
Related Cards
Card Pool
✕
✕
PopCard Settings
Click on the buttons to change the PopCard background.
Elements settings
Click on the button to hide or unhide popcard elements.
Click on the buttons to change the PopCard background.
Click on the button to hide or unhide popcard elements.
Not sure where you're getting this top 10-15 % figure for the 11 star bonus, but that is completely wrong so far as I know. It's not even close to being the top 10-15%. The 11 star bonus is officially relegated to "high legend" players and I know players that consistently finish in the top 500-1k for standard NA legend that do not receive it, as well as players that have finished below 400 in wild NA legend and not received it. Bear in mind that the top 1,000 players in legend in either format represent less than 1 percent of the player base actively participating in said formats, at least if the statistics we've been provided by Blizz in the past are anything to go by. There is no way in hell that 10-15 % of all players in either standard or wild are top 1k legend. Now I have heard of people with extremely high MMR retaining an 11 star bonus after consistently ending the month very high in legend (top 10-top 100) and then taking it easy for a few months, but they still had to achieve very high legend to get it in the first place. If you have some sort of evidence of players receiving the 11 star bonus despite having never achieved high legend, as well as a reputable source for this random 10-15 % figure, I would be very interested to see those. Otherwise all of the information we've been provided to date by Blizzard suggests that the 11 star bonus is strictly for players that end the month in "high legend" (at least sub 500 in NA in either bracket from what I've been told), which is a sub one percent fraction of players on ladder in each respective region.
More people reaching legend also means that people get more rewards for free on average, so going back to the old system, as someone here suggested, would actively reduce the entire playerbase's average amount of packs (not to mention that the rewards were increased as well).
Regarding the easiness of reaching legend, I personally FEEL that it's a lot easier now and it seems to be when I look at my data. That being said, it's true that you still need to understand the meta and how your decks works in said meta. You need to execute your game plan, make the right decisions, and discovering more cards makes it more difficult to pilot your deck because every discovery is another decision that could go horribly wrong...
One more thing to mention: When more people reach higher ranks, you will naturally play against slightly weaker players on average because you suddenly don't have to beat Thijs-level of players and instead the decent to good top 30k players, who are obviously no pros.
So overall, you need fewer games to get there and your average opponent will probably be slightly weaker, but the meta can still be rather complex. It has become easier imo.
I was talking about top10-15% of players within legend, not from the overall playerbase. As for how this translates to end-of-month ranks I can only speak from personal experience in the EU server. I have achieved the 11x bonus quite a few times, I think my worse finish where I got it was ~2200 and my best finish where I didn't get it was ~2500. I remember a month after finishing at ~2500 and only getting a 10x bonus I didn't feel like grinding to legend so I stopped playing standard after reaching d5 (but with a quite decent WR up to then). Guess what, next month I got the 11x again, despite not even making legend.
As for wild, I got the 11x for the first time two months ago by finishing in top550. Again EU. A friend of mine who made legend on the very last day and after meme-ing and losing a lot had a ~5000 rank, that's how I estimate that the top10-15% of legend players get the 11x bonus
That makes a lot more sense, thanks for clarifying. Fascinating that you've finished as low as 2200 and still received the 11 star bonus. The only explanation I can come up with is that a particularly large number of people made legend in EU that month. I understand that more people play in EU than NA and that consequently more people are in legend, but I don't believe there is such a large discrepancy that NA has less than 1/4th of the players in legend that EU does (which would account for you receiving the 11 star bonus at 2200 when a friend of mine in NA does not receive it at 500). With that said, based on what you're telling me I think it's safe to say that the margins for receiving the 11x are a bit inflated in EU relative to NA. Out of curiosity, where do you typically finish in standard while still getting the bonus?
600 legend here (wild). Never have gotten more than 10 stars
I've only gotten the 11x bonus 5 times and on 2 different accounts. Once I was ~2200, once ~2000, twice ~1500 and once d5 as described
I've also seen people on my friend list being at ~30000 legend rank in EU. What's the worst legend rank you remember seeing in NA out of curiosity?
I think the lowest I've seen for NA was around 21,000, although I'm sure it's possible there have been lower and someone on the forum has seen it. Thanks for sharing which ranks you got 11x with, that's very interesting. I don't play standard much anymore, but I do have friends that get decently high legend in standard fairly consistently and they haven't gotten the 11x bonus even as high as 500 as I mentioned. Were those times you got it recent, or right around the time a particular expansion dropped? That would help to explain why you got it relatively low, unless there are just way more standard legend players in EU than there are in NA every month.
the real climb doesnt start until legend anyway
This lines up with everything I've seen and what I've been told about wild legend in NA. I'd be interested to hear whether you get 11 stars if you happen to end the month around 400
I've been playing HS for a bit more than a year, so these all recent. I think the first one was September 2020
Strange flex, also this has been the case for many years already.
Now try to climb top 300 legeny
Again, that conclusion does not follow from the premises. A highly skilled player who does not care to invest the time is not going to get there under either system. A moderately skilled player who is determined to hit legend will hit legend under either system, even if slightly more time was required under the old system. There may be a tiny sliver of the population for whom the small amount of extra time would have made the difference, but I maintain that that number is negligible. Further, those people could have made it by being more determined (committing more time) just as easily as by having more skill (as if "skill" is some fixed amount for any given person).
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
Its not easier skill wise, just easier time wise. Not having to grind an extra 5 to 10 hours to reach Legend is awesome. It takes the same winrate to get there, so I like the faster climb.
So anytime we can save time, lol, thats a good thing.
Sorry, but I don't see how my conclusion doesn't logically follow from the premises I established. It's quite simple: you needed to win more games with an above 50 percent winrate in the old system to attain legend than you do now. As such, greater consistency (and consequently skill) was required to attain legend. As I've said before, it's not that it took more time, it's why it took more time. You are correct in that, if it were simply a matter of time and there were no other factors that impacted the climb in the old system relative to the new (i.e. consistency and the number of games for which consistency is necessary), then one could safely assert that the skill required to make said climb has not changed. However, as I've established several times now, that is not the case.
You have not established that at all, so I guess we're done here.
At issue is whether or not it can be done, not how long it takes.
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
Ok, can you provide some sort of reasoning as to why you think I haven't established that? I cited a very simple statistic (26 games from rank 5 to get legend in the old system as opposed to 16 games from Diamond 5 in the new system) that gives my argument a factual basis. So far as I can tell, your counter-argument to this point hasn't even addressed that at all. You seem stuck on the idea that time is the only criterion for success on ladder and the climb to legend and that skill is relatively inconsequential, but you can't seem to support that rationale with anything other than conjecture. If you can't support your opinion with anything other than your opinion or even directly address my argument, I think it's safe to say that it's hard to attribute credibility to your objections to my points.
Because your statistic is not relevant. There is no limit to the number of games you can play in your attempt to reach legend, so it does not matter how long it takes. Two players of differing skill levels (or playing different speeds of decks) may take different amounts of time to get there, but they will both get there. So, back to my original point, reaching legend (which is a binary state, not a time-based spectrum) is not a good indicator of skill and never was.
Go back and read my first post to remind yourself what you're actually arguing against.
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
try to create a new account without any card collection and bonus stars .... and lets talk again LUL
But it is relevant, because it represents a separation/difference between the old system and the new. I'm not sure where the disconnect is here, but what I've saying for the last several comments is that the skill floor for attaining legend in the old system is higher relative to the skill floor for attaining it in the new system. I never said that it was impossible back in the day or that there was a limit on the number of games you could play to get there. So it absolutely matters how long it takes, if how long it takes is directly correlated to how consistent (read: skilled) a player has to be to get to legend. Greater consistency was required in the old system to reach legend, as is demonstrated by my statistic, so it follows that greater skill was required. This is the crux of everything I've been saying and you don't seem to understand or be capable of addressing that, lol. So once again, you have not addressed my argument. As for whether reaching legend in and of itself is a good indicator of skill, that is an entirely different conversation to the one we have been having. I have clearly been making the case that more skill was required to get to legend in the old system than is now required in the new system, not that legend is "a good indicator of skill". You directly argued against this viewpoint when you wrote "But the skill needed hasn't changed", and you have been actively arguing against it in your last several posts. So it's more than a bit disingenuous to now claim that you were never really opposed to the premise that legend was harder in the old system and that you were just saying that "legend is not a good indicator of skill" the entire time.