at least 600,000 people are participating in the format in NA alone if Blizzards cited figures for the statistical percentage of players in legend is even remotely accurate
This is an unsanctioned use of statistical energy.
You extrapolate statistics valid for Standard mode to Wild. I'd say percentage of legends is higher in Wild at least by an order of magnitude, with Wild legend players at 2-3k rating having to play Diamond or even Platinum players. This means there is a way more opportunities to play positive-sum game in Wild in general - where players can get stars without making other player lose them (cuz they are legends already and don't care lol).
Proof: https://youtu.be/ovvrC5SF-cY - here is an abomination of a Wild player (Ignite APM OTK mage) at rating ~1500 having to play vs Diamond I player.
Currently in Standard one cannot get a Diamond opponent even residing at 20k legend.
Last month - seemengly not a popular one - I could have been easily matched against low Diamond when playing at 15k legend.
So: if your extrapolations are correct - and they are not - there are like 12-15 MILLIONS of standard players. Which is probably bit far from true. But even if not - well, Standard still vastly outnumbers Wild so it is not be considered seriously from a financial standpoint.
This is an interesting argument, but ultimately neither of us have anything concrete to go off of other than the figures that Blizz has most recently cited for the percentage of the player population that resides in legend. And so far as I know, those figures applied to populations across all formats, not just standard; they are an aggregation of data from the entire player base, not just standard. Unless you have some source that says otherwise? It is also worth noting that in China, which is the most populous region for HS, there are considerably more legend players in wild than there are in standard. So even if your exceedingly speculative argument were correct, it would not necessarily apply outside of NA.
Really I think you would need to cite some sort of evidence to support assertions like the percentage of legend players in wild being an order of magnitude higher than it is in standard. Your matchmaking idea doesn't prove anything of the sort. If anything, it indicated that the overall player population in NA wild is smaller than that of NA standard, which makes complete sense when we consider how many more players are in standard legend than in wild in NA. But it doesn't prove that the number of players in wild legend is representative of the larger proportion of that formats base relative to standard in any way: that doesn't follow.
Also, why exactly shouldn't there be 12-15 million standard players worldwide? Do you have any source that corroborates your skepticism regarding that number?
>And so far as I know, those figures applied to populations across all formats
Also they were collected for previous ranking system, without threshold ranks. There are estimations that current ranking system results in 10x more legend players. I tend to agree with that. So now it's like 5% for a large player base - this is important.
>It is also worth noting that in China, which is the most populous region for HS, there are considerably more legend players in wild than there are in standard.
The only source I've seen on this topic states there is an equality in numbers there. Other 3 regions have like 10:1 proportion. But again those numbers are all questionable because Blizzard doesn't share statistics.
>But it doesn't prove that the number of players in wild legend is representative of the larger proportion of that formats base relative to standard in any way: that doesn't follow.
And now goes an interesting part. Because it can lead to a research.
Question 1: is it possible to reach legend with flat 50% chance to win (not to be confused with winrate)?
Answer 1: Yes, it is. It can take quite some time until a streak happens. Still it's around 200 games from D5 to legend. Could be more, could be less. This abstract model can be easily verified with a simple computer program.
Actually with patience even lower chances to win are feasible.
Question 2: what will be the final ranks of 2 players if they only play ranked games with each other and have 50% chance to win?
Answer 2: both of them will be legends.
Question 3: what is the ratio of legends in 2-player scenario?
Answer 3: 100%.
2-people groups are actually the hardest to progress - one's wins are others' losses after all - but they are good for illustration. And still correct: extreme case example is where first player gets his 16 win streak first and his opponent stays at D5 without losing stars, then 2nd player get his 16 wins - voila, in 32 rigged games they are both legends.
If there are more people then it is easier to get a big fraction of them to legends because losses are duluted in ever growing fraction of legends. So, given time all of them become legends. That's why seasons exist.
So, the smaller the group the bigger is the fraction of legends there in a given amount of time.
Reality is a bit more complex - some ppl stop playing seriously after reaching legend, some ppl don't have time to play that many games, and of course not everybody has a competitive deck to grind legend... But if we assume that's Wild community is a bit more dedicated than the Standard one - then again it should result in bigger fraction of legends there.
@ Sevasmios and same_midaisun Just start your own topic will ya? You are trying too hard to take over a topic of someone who just wanted to share his joy of being legend for the first time.
>And so far as I know, those figures applied to populations across all formats
Also they were collected for previous ranking system, without threshold ranks. There are estimations that current ranking system results in 10x more legend players. I tend to agree with that. So now it's like 5% for a large player base - this is important.
>It is also worth noting that in China, which is the most populous region for HS, there are considerably more legend players in wild than there are in standard.
The only source I've seen on this topic states there is an equality in numbers there. Other 3 regions have like 10:1 proportion. But again those numbers are all questionable because Blizzard doesn't share statistics.
>But it doesn't prove that the number of players in wild legend is representative of the larger proportion of that formats base relative to standard in any way: that doesn't follow.
And now goes an interesting part. Because it can lead to a research.
Question 1: is it possible to reach legend with flat 50% chance to win (not to be confused with winrate)?
Answer 1: Yes, it is. It can take quite some time until a streak happens. Still it's around 200 games from D5 to legend. Could be more, could be less. This abstract model can be easily verified with a simple computer program.
Actually with patience even lower chances to win are feasible.
Question 2: what will be the final ranks of 2 players if they only play ranked games with each other and have 50% chance to win?
Answer 2: both of them will be legends.
Question 3: what is the ratio of legends in 2-player scenario?
Answer 3: 100%.
2-people groups are actually the hardest to progress - one's wins are others' losses after all - but they are good for illustration. And still correct: extreme case example is where first player gets his 16 win streak first and his opponent stays at D5 without losing stars, then 2nd player get his 16 wins - voila, in 32 rigged games they are both legends.
If there are more people then it is easier to get a big fraction of them to legends because losses are duluted in ever growing fraction of legends. So, given time all of them become legends. That's why seasons exist.
So, the smaller the group the bigger is the fraction of legends there in a given amount of time.
Reality is a bit more complex - some ppl stop playing seriously after reaching legend, some ppl don't have time to play that many games, and of course not everybody has a competitive deck to grind legend... But if we assume that's Wild community is a bit more dedicated than the Standard one - then again it should result in bigger fraction of legends there.
I will reply sequentially.
The figures I cited (https://outof.cards/hearthstone/666-hearthstone-releases-ranked-play-distribution-for-the-first-time-in-5-years) were collected at the end of 2019 shortly prior to the introduction of the new ranked system. There most certainly were "threshold ranks" if you are referring to ranked floors, namely rank 5, 10, 15, and 20. It is possible that this information does not entirely accurately reflect ranked distribution now, but it is the best/most reliable source we have. And unless you have a source for that 5 percent you're claiming for legend, that is sheer speculation and may not be even remotely accurate as far as I'm concerned.
I tried to make sense of your "research" but I just don't see how anything you said would prove that a larger proportion of players in wild are legend relative to standard. In fact, it even looks like you directly contradict yourself via this pair of statements (one after the other no less): "
If there are more people then it is easier to get a big fraction of them to legends because losses are duluted in ever growing fraction of legends. So, given time all of them become legends. That's why seasons exist.
So, the smaller the group the bigger is the fraction of legends there in a given amount of time."
First you state that if there are more people participating in a format, more people should achieve legend with relative ease. Next you state if there are less people participating in a format more people should have achieved legend. This doesn't make any sense. Are more people in legend when more people are participating, or are more people in legend when less people are participating? Bc you appear to have made the case for both. I think you are attempting to assert that bc you claim it is more difficult to achieve legend when there are less people, a larger proportion of that player base would have achieved legend, but so far as I can tell you have no statistics or empirical information with which you can substantiate such a claim, just somewhat convoluted logic. So I guess what I'm saying is, if you can't support anything you're saying with any evidence, it is essentially hearsay that you can't prove one way or the other. And the fact that several claims you've made so far (Blizz's cited numbers for ranked percentiles only applying to the standard format, no "threshold ranks" in the previous iteration of HS' ranked system, equal numbers of standard and wild legend players in China) have been blatantly incorrect doesn't exactly lend legitimacy to your argument/opinion.
Just my 2 cents. Today I reached two times D1 *** and lost to the final boss to get to Legend for the first time.
I really wanted to uninstall..
Happened to me also, but the third time did the trick
Gz man. I fell to D2 after that. Can't really do much against Pirate Warrior when they play back to back Defias Cannoneer even with a nearly refined Libram Pally
Just my 2 cents. Today I reached two times D1 *** and lost to the final boss to get to Legend for the first time.
I really wanted to uninstall..
I feel ya. I had that with the old system where you needed to get 5 stars. Got to D1 5stars 5 times in a row. Each time I fell back and never reached legend... very frustrating.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is an interesting argument, but ultimately neither of us have anything concrete to go off of other than the figures that Blizz has most recently cited for the percentage of the player population that resides in legend. And so far as I know, those figures applied to populations across all formats, not just standard; they are an aggregation of data from the entire player base, not just standard. Unless you have some source that says otherwise? It is also worth noting that in China, which is the most populous region for HS, there are considerably more legend players in wild than there are in standard. So even if your exceedingly speculative argument were correct, it would not necessarily apply outside of NA.
Really I think you would need to cite some sort of evidence to support assertions like the percentage of legend players in wild being an order of magnitude higher than it is in standard. Your matchmaking idea doesn't prove anything of the sort. If anything, it indicated that the overall player population in NA wild is smaller than that of NA standard, which makes complete sense when we consider how many more players are in standard legend than in wild in NA. But it doesn't prove that the number of players in wild legend is representative of the larger proportion of that formats base relative to standard in any way: that doesn't follow.
Also, why exactly shouldn't there be 12-15 million standard players worldwide? Do you have any source that corroborates your skepticism regarding that number?
>And so far as I know, those figures applied to populations across all formats
Also they were collected for previous ranking system, without threshold ranks. There are estimations that current ranking system results in 10x more legend players. I tend to agree with that. So now it's like 5% for a large player base - this is important.
>It is also worth noting that in China, which is the most populous region for HS, there are considerably more legend players in wild than there are in standard.
The only source I've seen on this topic states there is an equality in numbers there. Other 3 regions have like 10:1 proportion. But again those numbers are all questionable because Blizzard doesn't share statistics.
>But it doesn't prove that the number of players in wild legend is representative of the larger proportion of that formats base relative to standard in any way: that doesn't follow.
And now goes an interesting part. Because it can lead to a research.
Question 1: is it possible to reach legend with flat 50% chance to win (not to be confused with winrate)?
Answer 1: Yes, it is. It can take quite some time until a streak happens. Still it's around 200 games from D5 to legend. Could be more, could be less. This abstract model can be easily verified with a simple computer program.
Actually with patience even lower chances to win are feasible.
Question 2: what will be the final ranks of 2 players if they only play ranked games with each other and have 50% chance to win?
Answer 2: both of them will be legends.
Question 3: what is the ratio of legends in 2-player scenario?
Answer 3: 100%.
2-people groups are actually the hardest to progress - one's wins are others' losses after all - but they are good for illustration. And still correct: extreme case example is where first player gets his 16 win streak first and his opponent stays at D5 without losing stars, then 2nd player get his 16 wins - voila, in 32 rigged games they are both legends.
If there are more people then it is easier to get a big fraction of them to legends because losses are duluted in ever growing fraction of legends. So, given time all of them become legends. That's why seasons exist.
So, the smaller the group the bigger is the fraction of legends there in a given amount of time.
Reality is a bit more complex - some ppl stop playing seriously after reaching legend, some ppl don't have time to play that many games, and of course not everybody has a competitive deck to grind legend... But if we assume that's Wild community is a bit more dedicated than the Standard one - then again it should result in bigger fraction of legends there.
@ Sevasmios and same_midaisun Just start your own topic will ya? You are trying too hard to take over a topic of someone who just wanted to share his joy of being legend for the first time.
I will reply sequentially.
The figures I cited (https://outof.cards/hearthstone/666-hearthstone-releases-ranked-play-distribution-for-the-first-time-in-5-years) were collected at the end of 2019 shortly prior to the introduction of the new ranked system. There most certainly were "threshold ranks" if you are referring to ranked floors, namely rank 5, 10, 15, and 20. It is possible that this information does not entirely accurately reflect ranked distribution now, but it is the best/most reliable source we have. And unless you have a source for that 5 percent you're claiming for legend, that is sheer speculation and may not be even remotely accurate as far as I'm concerned.
There are consistently considerably more wild players in legend than there are in standard in China according to what information I could find on the topic (https://www.reddit.com/r/hearthstone/comments/ey7ufy/china_wild_legend_players_outnumber_standard_for/ https://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-game-modes/wild-format/240135-wild-legend-players-outnumber-standard). Not sure what source you saw that stated the numbers were equal, but I couldn't find anything of the sort. Also, do you have any source of information that supports your claim that the ratio of standard to wild legend players is "10:1" in other regions? Bc, having seen standard legend numbers peak at around 25-30,000 and wild legend numbers peak at around 6,000 in NA, I am fairly confident that that figure is not even remotely correct.
I tried to make sense of your "research" but I just don't see how anything you said would prove that a larger proportion of players in wild are legend relative to standard. In fact, it even looks like you directly contradict yourself via this pair of statements (one after the other no less): "
If there are more people then it is easier to get a big fraction of them to legends because losses are duluted in ever growing fraction of legends. So, given time all of them become legends. That's why seasons exist.
So, the smaller the group the bigger is the fraction of legends there in a given amount of time."
First you state that if there are more people participating in a format, more people should achieve legend with relative ease. Next you state if there are less people participating in a format more people should have achieved legend. This doesn't make any sense. Are more people in legend when more people are participating, or are more people in legend when less people are participating? Bc you appear to have made the case for both. I think you are attempting to assert that bc you claim it is more difficult to achieve legend when there are less people, a larger proportion of that player base would have achieved legend, but so far as I can tell you have no statistics or empirical information with which you can substantiate such a claim, just somewhat convoluted logic. So I guess what I'm saying is, if you can't support anything you're saying with any evidence, it is essentially hearsay that you can't prove one way or the other. And the fact that several claims you've made so far (Blizz's cited numbers for ranked percentiles only applying to the standard format, no "threshold ranks" in the previous iteration of HS' ranked system, equal numbers of standard and wild legend players in China) have been blatantly incorrect doesn't exactly lend legitimacy to your argument/opinion.
Just my 2 cents. Today I reached two times D1 *** and lost to the final boss to get to Legend for the first time.
I really wanted to uninstall..
Happened to me also, but the third time did the trick
Gz man. I fell to D2 after that. Can't really do much against Pirate Warrior when they play back to back Defias Cannoneer even with a nearly refined Libram Pally
I feel ya. I had that with the old system where you needed to get 5 stars. Got to D1 5stars 5 times in a row. Each time I fell back and never reached legend... very frustrating.