Hearthpwn

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.

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.

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.

Quote from Sevasmios >>

 Apologies if I wasn't very clear in my response. I wasn't saying that there weren't win streaks in the old system, I was saying there weren't massive win streaks like there are now (i.e. 22 stars for winning a single match), and unequivocally there were no win streaks or star bonuses past rank 5. If I recall correctly you would only get 1 bonus star if you won 3 plus matches in a row for each win, so you could only progress by 2 stars a win, and never past rank 5. That's 26 games where you need a greater than 50 percent WR to progress, as opposed to 16 past Diamond 5 now, and you can carry a star bonus past Diamond 5. And in the old old system everyone got reset to rank 15 every month regardless of where they placed the season prior. I think it's also worth noting that ranked floors are far easier to come by in the new system: 10 in total as opposed to 5 in the old system. All of which is to say, the new system is easier to progress through (provided you have a decent star bonus of course) and more forgiving towards losses and inconsistency. As such, it is reasonable to make the case that, notwithstanding the enormous changes in HS's meta and how the game is played since the new system was put it place (which is another conversation in itself), greater skill was required to attain legend in the old system than is now required in the new. 

 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).

Quote from Sevasmios >>

Quote from FortyDust >>

 But the skill needed hasn't changed. I'm not convinced the time investment was so much greater in the old days that any determined, reasonably capable player would have failed to hit legend because the clock ran out. Thus, determination is the most important factor, with skill and time in a tie for distant second.

 Ok, so I do disagree that the skill required hasn't changed. I stated my reasoning as to why that would be the case in my initial reply to you (greater consistency required in the old system since there were no massive star bonuses or win streaks). If you have some sort of counterargument entailing why that would not be the case I'd be interested to hear it. With that said, I think it's pretty hard to appraise the value of a relatively esoteric concept like determination against more quantifiable things like time and skill. All are important to hit legend, I have a hard time accepting the premise that determination, abstract as it is, is exponentially more pertinent to the achievement than time or skill. I don't see much use in deliberating over that though, that's pretty philosophical and virtually impossible to definitively establish one way or the other. We can agree that determination is important, as are time and skill. I would be interested to hear specifically why you think, in terms of skill, the climb to legend now is exactly the same as it was in the old days.

 You are not remembering the old system accurately. There were win streaks, and your starting rank at the beginning of a season was determined by your highest rank in the previous season, which is equivalent to the bonus stars of the current system.

Quote from Sevasmios >>

Quote from FortyDust >>

Quote from Sevasmios >>

So I don't know that it's safe to say that skill was not as important as time in the old system, although this is definitely subjective. Time is certainly less of an issue now with the star bonus. And I think you are perhaps misrepresenting or misunderstanding precisely what made the climb so much more difficult in the old days. It wasn't just that it took more time, it was why it took more time. You had to play and win more games and win those games more consistently to get to legend than you do now (provided you have a good star bonus, of course). As such, skill was far more impactful in the old system with regard to who reached legend and how quickly it was reached than it is now. So I would hardly characterize legend in the old system as trivial, given how the grindy nature of it was actually favorable to more skilled players attaining high rank due to the greater consistency that was required. 

 I think my point is that, under either system, determination is the critical component. If you want to reach Legend, you can, and could before, and most people are not likely to get there by accident either way unless they've already done so and started at a high rank (old system) or have a lot of bonus stars (new system), in which case it doesn't matter because they have already achieved the goal in question.

 If that was that you meant, then yes, I tend to agree that actually wanting to hit legend is generally necessary to hit legend. You could say that about pretty much any pursuit in any area of life but sure, it holds here. And I agree that generally getting there doesn't happen on accident. I still think it's important to note, however, that determination is not the sole prerequisite for getting there. You can't just get legend because you want to get legend: you have to reach a certain level of proficiency with your deck and with the game overall, and not everyone can necessarily do that. Some people just aren't that good at card games, and of course many more don't have the time or don't want to spend the time necessary to achieve legend. I'm sure you know this as well, I just wanted to clarify bc it sort of sounds like you're saying all you need to hit legend is determination. 

 But the skill needed hasn't changed. I'm not convinced the time investment was so much greater in the old days that any determined, reasonably capable player would have failed to hit legend because the clock ran out. Thus, determination is the most important factor, with skill and time in a tie for distant second.

Quote from Sevasmios >>

So I don't know that it's safe to say that skill was not as important as time in the old system, although this is definitely subjective. Time is certainly less of an issue now with the star bonus. And I think you are perhaps misrepresenting or misunderstanding precisely what made the climb so much more difficult in the old days. It wasn't just that it took more time, it was why it took more time. You had to play and win more games and win those games more consistently to get to legend than you do now (provided you have a good star bonus, of course). As such, skill was far more impactful in the old system with regard to who reached legend and how quickly it was reached than it is now. So I would hardly characterize legend in the old system as trivial, given how the grindy nature of it was actually favorable to more skilled players attaining high rank due to the greater consistency that was required. 

 I think my point is that, under either system, determination is the critical component. If you want to reach Legend, you can, and could before, and most people are not likely to get there by accident either way unless they've already done so and started at a high rank (old system) or have a lot of bonus stars (new system), in which case it doesn't matter because they have already achieved the goal in question.

Quote from Nargacuga15 >>

 You know Priest is like one of the easiest classes to grind with right now in standard?

 Priest games are always very long, so I would not entirely agree. Many games at a slightly lower win rate will climb much faster than a small number of games at a slightly higher win rate.

Quote from The_Gentleman_Rexxar >>

With the right amount of time on your hands, everyone can hit legend playing the dominant tier 1 deck. It is really not a challenge. 

 This has always been true.

To the thread in general: One thing to remember is that there are more Hearthstone players now than there were in years past, so it stands to reason that there would be more people reaching Legend. I'm not saying it's as "hard" as it used to be, but skill has never been as important as time spent playing on that climb.

So any meaning you may have assigned to Legend rank in the past was always more about free time than ability, which to me makes the achievement fairly trivial, like a Perfect Attendance award in high school.