>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.
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.
There is this misconception that if you don't own all wild cards you cannot be successful. This is very wrong. You just need the 30 best cards in a deck, which often overlap a lot with standard, due to power creep. Then, you need to add 1-2 cards every expansion to your best deck. You can disenchant 99% of your wild collection, if something is not in a tier 3 deck or above now, it will never see play again.
There is also a misconception that you only need one deck to succeed.
One needs a set of decks to cover most archetypes to handle local meta fluctuations. Or the grind to the legend will be slow af and very frustrating. I'd say one needs 90+ cards with most of them being epic/legendary (hello highlanders).
Well, you can also stick to your words, I don't care - if they are true it only means the wild is stale.
There is a person happy for his goal, why have we to read a dumb comment like yours: That you are saying that legend in wild is for nolifer. Who cares about this garbage that you think.
Well, it seems that you care, because you took your time to post such a elaborate comment on it.
I really appreciate that. Thank you.
But I have to say that the crown for the dumbest post goes to a person who assumed that the wild is 'more difficult' when, in fact, it is not.
You overestimate 'variability' in wild. It's the same netdecking as in standard, just more expensive for a new player.
And one can't reliably 'play around' in standard because there are currently at least 2 decks per playable class with quite different playstyles. You would have known it if you were able to rise your eyes to the sky the standard is.