Hearthpwn

it should be harder and the rewards should be much better

Quote from FortyDust >>

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.

 Well, if you have nothing else to do, maybe it does not matter how long it takes. Most people though have a life. So no, you are wrong.

Quote from Sevasmios >>

 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.

 My original statement -- the one you chose to snipe at in the first place -- was never about how long it takes. It was only about the possibility. "Can this player reach legend, yes or no?" Not "How long will it take this player to reach legend?"

You took it upon yourself to reframe the discussion in terms of consistency and time, and then you insisted that you were right and I was wrong even though we weren't even talking about the same thing. You continually tell me I'm not addressing your points, even though your points have nothing to do with my original statement. You are, in effect, cheating at debate like the shadiest politician, and I'm very tired of talking to you.

Quote from FortyDust >>

Quote from Sevasmios >>

 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.

 My original statement -- the one you chose to snipe at in the first place -- was never about how long it takes. It was only about the possibility. "Can this player reach legend, yes or no?" Not "How long will it take this player to reach legend?"

You took it upon yourself to reframe the discussion in terms of consistency and time, and then you insisted that you were right and I was wrong even though we weren't even talking about the same thing. You continually tell me I'm not addressing your points, even though your points have nothing to do with my original statement. You are, in effect, cheating at debate like the shadiest politician, and I'm very tired of talking to you.

 Apologies for the delayed response, I wasn't notified that you had responded for some reason. As I've established in the post you responded to, you took it upon yourself to directly disagree with my argument that legend was harder to achieve within the old system than the new. I literally quoted you doing so. So as far as I'm concerned this is pretty cut and dried. There is no "cheating" on my end, just you attempting to act as if an argument in which you could not come up with valid counter-points/rebuttals to any of my points, did not happen. I won't deny that my argument may not have had everything to do with your original comment, but the conversation we were having did develop to the point that we ended up talking about something that wasn't completely aligned with your original comment. That's how conversations work sometimes; sometimes topics change. So yeah, that's all to say I don't blame you for wanting to be done with this conversation, given how unfavorably it has developed for you.