As a casual player, it would be awful to get rid of the locks every 5 levels. Typically, I try to get to Diamond 5, and at that point I try a variety of decks to see if there is one or two I might get to Legend with. I have had times where I have lost almost every game at that level that day, but at least I know I am locked in.
I would think most Hearthstone players just want to have fun leveling rather than trying to be a top legend player. Losing levels is the least fun part of Hearthstone, especially if you dropped out of a rank tier (or multiple rank tiers).
I honestly fell that it’s really just a matter of skill. Granted, I do feel that the algorithm will tend to pit you against certain decks that may pose a challenge for someone to over come at times, but not to a point where it would prevent someone from reaching legend. This can be frustrating, but it doesn’t make it impossible.
When you make a mistake in lower ranks, you’re generally not punished for it. However, when making misplays between Diamond 5-1, it can cost you the match.
There’s also times when you can play perfectly, however, you opponent will play perfect as well, at that point it just comes down to a matter of who had better card draw.
I don’t feel that congestion is the what is preventing players from reaching legend.
My personal attempts to experiment with new decks in casual play often resulted in opponents conceding prematurely when the tide of the match was not in their favor. Casual play serves those looking for a laid-back gaming experience and who might not be bothered by an early exit from a match. However, such opponents may not provide the competitive rigor required for thoroughly testing decks in preparation for ranked play.
I do find floor ranks beneficial and add value to the overall experience. The old ranking system if I recall correctly also had floor ranks, however, ranks were from 20 to 1 then legend, and if memory serves me right, the floor ranks were 20, 15, 10 with no floor rank between 10-legend. As someone who plays only ranked, I have found the new ranking system a better experience overall.
And I forgot about achievements, trying to get them done in casual was very frustrating.
I agree. I wish I wasn’t stuck at Platinum, no matter how much I lose it won’t let me go back down to the fun player ranks. I could just use one of meta decks and rank up but I only play fun stuff so it’s a bit annoying/sad that at least half my matches in Plat are auto-concede or concede due to mulligan/draw yet I can’t go lower to the rank I belong. I do casual which is fine but unfortunate it doesn’t contribute to wins portrait so I’m forced to do ranked despite caring not one bit about rank.
As long as we get to keep the star bonus so i can just have an easy climb back to legend for my rewards i wouldn’t care. Going back to the old system of just a pure grind with no help to legend each month would make me immediately switch to BG’s 100% and never look at constructed. That climb was 100% not fun at all and i did it only a few times before i swore it off till the rank floor changes.
That’s the most insanely wrong reply I heard all week from a person that implies they are “pro”; I’d expect it from people who lack primary education; well unless you’re not an adult yourself in which case it’s fine.
What are you even talking about: with 50% win rate[and 2X bonus]: HALF of the games will be counted TWICE.
That means it will be roughly 2 to 1 instead of 1 to 1 (i.e. it becomes literally 66.6…%).
–
By the way: it is wrong for an EXTRA more esoteric reason, you can still progress with < 50% win rate without star bonuses. That’s because the ranks can lock to a bottom (the thread’s topic actually) [i.e. you advance because of the winning streaks (without necessarily the streaks having bonuses)] and it’s why people doing statistical-studies on it do show “how many games on avg” you need to advance rank without having 50%.
First off, with bonus stars from a higher finish a previous month, you get double or triple stars and barely need any winrate at all.
Second, even if you have zero bonus stars, there is a win streak bonus for Diamond 6 and below, where you get 2 stars per win if you win three or more in a row. Because of this you will maintain your rank long term (even without a rank floor) if your winrate averages 45.34%. Therefore it is possible to climb out of what I call the participation trophy ranks with sufficient time even with a winrate of 46-49%.
Technically yes, but this has even less of an impact than win streak bonus stars at D6 and below. I actually previously did the math here: "Brute forcing" to Legend
The TL;DR is that unless you’re a bot then you don’t have enough hours in a month to pull this off with a winrate below 46%, unless you get very lucky. And even then 46-48% winrate will require an absurdly tedious level of time commitment, again on average because luck is a factor. It’s just so much cleaner and faster to actually be above 50% winrate.
It’s kinda sad: but I think that’s the MAIN “statistical reason” some people advance ranks because they just play to much. To some extend even the actually great players may rely on that to some extend
By the way: yeah it can be near ~1,000 games on avg below 46-50% but don’t forget some people may be lucky and only need 100 or 200 games (with win-streaks) so it may be a realistic path to them.
every game is the same 3-4 meta decks. when i see another deck once every 5 million games, it feels like a miracle. removing rank locks kills deck variety entirely. NO THANKS
Personally-attacking people as “incompetent” is just a sad projection. You know nothing about them so you’re by definition on an aimless tandrum acting like that. Fix your issues before posting in forums.
If by that you mean 6.46% of the time (for 46% winrate within 100 games) then yeah. Within 200 games is 17.83%.
I’d say that as a general rule of thumb, if you play all year and make Legend once a year, you’re probably not a Legend quality player, you just got lucky that one month. If you play a LOT, then replace “once” with “twice” and “one month” with “two months.” But anyone with better performance than that is probably legit.
If you need 1K games to make legend in a month you are just not doing something right. It doesn’t take anywhere even remotely close to that many games if you know how to play the game. Even before we got all the help we have now the old days of grinding didn’t take that many games. Sure it was far more but not that many.
That’s a lot of people though [1/12 is is close to 10% of the player base]. It also explains a lot of “pros” here, who on one hand pretend to be super intelligent and on the other their only “arguments” are practically ad hominem or strawman (sometimes even worse (e.g. the “word” you don’t like me using)).
Who are you talking to? I don’t suggest to anyone to need 1K, and I certainly don’t want it for myself.