I was wondering at what rank you guys think someone counts as a good player. I personally have no solid opinion on this but I am curious as to what you guys think.
Legend under 3058.
Anything over is bad. Anything outside of legend is…well…lol.
Being a good player isn’t related to rank.
6 Likes
Fair but without playing with someone going off rank is easiest way to determine skill.
1 Like
Rank means nothing in todays game to be honest, not even top 100, just my honest opinion
8 Likes
Yeah, sad but true. You’d be amazed how often you can catch legend players (even high legend players) playing like an absolute donkey. Of course these days you can climb to legend without facing a single human, which kinda defeats the purpose.
1 Like
I started playing in mid 2019 and I first reached legend in standard by late 2020, albeit taking almost a year off. Basically after playing the game for a total of 6 months I reached legend and peaked at 38 legend in wild.
This is relevant because after that I took almost a 2 year break from Hearthstone and only started playing again 3 weeks ago and so far I’ve made it to top 300 legend in standard without really knowing anything about the current game state and having not many cards.
I think that being a good player means you can adapt quickly. When new expansions or mini sets come out and you see the forums flooded with people complaining about everything its just a sign of a bad player that can’t adapt to the new game environment and likely only achieved their rank through endless grinding or spamming whatever net deck is most popular.
To answer your question more concisely, a good player is someone who can adapt quickly to changes, doesn’t blame the game for their shortcomings and rank wise is probably in top 1000 legend in Wild and top 2800 in Standard in my opinion.
When it comes down to all ranks except very high legend, Rank is really just who plays more games.
1 Like
With bonus stars, this is not true for the most part. It’s very easy to get back to your previous ranks and beyond with this star system.
Oh, I totally agree. I am a bronze homebrew expert, but I am actually the best player the game has ever known… if I just played more games.
/s
Right? Everyone below my rank is pro, all others are scrubs. I get ya, bro, I get ya.
Not mine. Not excited about the meta and have played more BG than anything else recently.
1 Like
-
Understanding the dynamics of the meta, instead of the perspective of playing a single deck (disclaimer #1: this isn’t saying that a person who only plays one deck can’t figure it out).
Zacho -
Being able to successfully play well with multiple decks. The quicker you can pick up a deck, the better you are (disclaimer #2: again, a person who chooses because of enjoyment to play just one deck may have this skill, even if they don’t exercise it)
Hunterace -
Being able to build and optimize your own decks. No disclaimer needed, on the contrary, most of the proud homebrewers are very lackluster at the OPTIMIZE part, which requires a very methodical, statistical, and cold mindset.
Mark Mkz
This one I would disagree with, I believe Mark Mkz builds silly OTK decks and plays in uber low ranks where competition is certainly not fierce, so nothing needs to be optimized. Basically, he builds proof-of-concepts, and it takes mounds of work to go from a proof of concept to a deck that can hold its own in any given format. My understanding is he mostly does this for sh*ts and giggles and perhaps viewers/likes, but obviously don’t know his motivation.
I’d argue most unique deck archetypes that are “discovered” are pretty much crowd-sourced, its really hard to attribute a single person to the discovery. My take on this is, usually decks are built around synergies, that someone experiments with and usually puts into an existing deck archetype. After playing with it, they or their opponent realize the sysnergy is so powerful they could rebuild entirely around it. And a new deck is born.
But yea, you basically need the experimentation to get to that point, and few sweaty players (i.e. the ones who are probably best equipped to experiment well) will sacrifice 1000’s of rating points to mess around with a build.
I do this periodically when I get bored and its not uncommon for me to drop from top 100 or near top 100 to 3000 as I try different combinations of the same thing. Its incredibly satisfying when things click and you realize what that combination is and you slog your way back from 3000+ rating to sub 300 again, lol I do that sometimes. I’ve even on occasion gone 3k → sub 100 doing this and they tend to be some of the funnest moments in my experience.
2 Likes
So you disagree with the example, but not the concept?
Yes, sorry I didn’t make that clear, and I mostly disagree with Mark Mkz in particular used for that example.
I saw a guy who seemed really experienced in card games on this forum a while back post a really detailed description of the different types of deck building and as soon as I read it was like, “totally, that is totally how it is.” I wish I could find it again. IIRC he basically broke it down into three categories,
-
Inovator: guy who puts together totally wacky proof-of-concept stuff (Mark falls into this category.)
-
Refiner: guy who takes a proof-of-concept and makes it playable (usually taking a deck from t4+ to t3-t2.)
-
Optimizer: guy who knows how ot read the meta and tech the deck (taking a deck to t2-t1, but very meta dependent.)
When I muck around with builds I usually fall into the last two categories, so major props to Mark for being in 1.
But in my experience the gap from proof-of-concept to playable deck is the hardest gap to close, and the one with most uncertainty.
2 Likes
That was me, it was in some garbled rambling topic about net decking being the root of all evil.
3 Likes
Found it. 2020202020
I would say diamond 5 not many people can reach this rank it is actually hard to reach becuase unless im wrong rank floor 6 is actually the hardest rank floor in the game could be wrong.
Knowing the meta game knowing how to beat a deck how to play your deck in certain matchups and knowing what to mulligan for versus certain matchups are all traits of good players
1 Like
I am combination of all 3 as i do all of those sometimes.
I used to make my own decks alot then i stopped then i refined some lists and i think im now back to trying to create my own stuff again but im not against playing meta decks or refining them 
Edit - not all self made decks are meme, its just built different and can climb ladder.
When your RNG is better than your opponents
1 Like
Based off this I think the question could be revised. The better question would be at what point do you count as a good player? Not specifically ranked but at what point in your Hearthstone career have you reached the title of “good player.”
I don’t think rank is necessarily a measure of how good a player you are, because a good player could be at many different ranks at different months for multiple reasons. For example, I am in the lowest dumpster of standard legend right now (+10k) but I hit legend day 2 this month, so I could be at least over top 1000 if I kept tryharding. This is just because I am so fed up with the current standard meta that I mostly only play garbage homebrews for fun these days. This can be true for a lot of decent players. I am not really a pro but I think I am decent and I play a lot. That’s all you really need to reach top 1000s.
That said, anyone can reach legend if you spam a tier 1 deck a 1000 times, but it certainly is true that to end the month at the top1000s you need to be good. Is that a good measure of how good a player really is? Probably not, but at least is a sure one.