What are you even talking about. There are countless reddit threats you can Google right now to see countless people talking about it.
It makes perfect practical sense because they have 2 gigantic motivations to do it: a) they hit the highest rank b) they got all the rewards (they only miss “c) be even higher inside legend” but that puts you at 2 vs 1).
I’m talking about personal experience. I’m in there every month playing against them.
Are you aware there’s 25 000 - 30 000 people in Legend at the end of every month? Are you telling me that many people are saying the same thing on reddit? You’re actually telling me that a few posts on reddit can discredit both my personal experience and the fact that there’s 30 000 people playing in legend?
If so, then we’re done here.
Git gud 
Juvenile ad hominems only prove you have no arguments that work but you do you.
We’ll talk when about this when you actually hit legend and see for yourself. It’s pointless to try to argue with someone who is stubborn and clueless about the topic they’re arguing.
A lot of this becomes clear as soon as you hit legend and see who you’re matched up against.
I don’t “need” to win this argument. It doesn’t mean anything to me. I was trying to explain to you how things work, but apparently you have your own opinion how things work based on a few reddit posts from people who may or may not be honest at all.
Sorry dude your bullying doesn’t work on me. I said I’m intelligent enough, to ignore juvenile ad hominems (i.e. off topic trolling irrelevant to the topic in reality (no it doesn’t matter other bullies agree with you (yes I know it’s common to have other bullies agree with you))).
Yes, you know everything, that’s why you’re stuck where you’re stuck.
It’s impossible to learn when you think you already know all there is to know xD
Stay stuck!
As someone that repeats legend each month i can say from my experience that i don’t even attempt the climb till about the 10th of the month. Even with my star bonus i prefer to spend the least amount of time in standard as i can. I still want the free stuff each month so i do it. Every so often i play in a meta that i find fun and i will start the grind early but that has become less frequent these days.
I feel bad for the players that want to play at the highest level of the game because there’s basically no rewards for doing it any longer. Not to mention the time investment has tripled and that’s being generous.
Honestly, no, the “learning to play better” factor is significantly weaker than the “good players advance in rank” factor. I mean, if you can go a full month without a balance patch somehow, and you measured skill within Diamond 5-1 on the last day of both months yeah, it’d be higher skill in the second month. But that effect is MUCH weaker than the monthly cycle of stronger players in lower ranks powering through them while weaker players remain. The later in the month it gets the easier a rank is, period.
Overestimating the effect of surprises seems to be a recurring theme here. I mean, I’m not trying to tell you that it’s completely irrelevant, it’s just not nearly the big deal you seem to think it is.
And Carnivore gets to be right on this one. The lower Legend you go (the bigger the number), the less active players there are per number. Like from #1 Legend to #10 legend I guarantee every single one of them is still playing actively, while between #10001 Legend and #10010 idk but obviously not all ten of them.
That said, I don’t really get what congestion even has to do with the conversation. The quantity of players at or near your rank isn’t what’s important, what matters is the quality of the players at or near your rank.
If you have 2X and still don’t want to bother, I don’t know why you still play the game. 2X makes it extremely easy (since it turns even a 50% win rate to an effective 66.7%).
We’re probably both wrong now that I think about it; there’s a “law of nature”(human society actually) that will almost certainly dominate which of the 2 effects is stronger; NONE: people will gravitate to balancing out[the 2 effects] eventually because some of them will think “noobs will be more at the end” and some of them will think “noobs will be at the start” or at the very least: it’s unclear each month (unless you have good proof the balancing I describe is impossible).
There’s a good esoteric reason though I don’t flesh it out strongly every time I mention congestion. If there’s high congestion on a very small part of the ranking (practically the high Diamond ranks (and to some extend the adjacent ranks to that)) then the competition around those ranks is too abruptly switching skills of players: on one match you see a player who can easily become Legend ~500 and then you get some guy that just started playing a week ago and just managed to go Diamond 4 because he found a meme deck accidentally (me lol…).
All of this is INCREDIBLY wrong.
The more players there are very close to your rank or rating, the LESS likely that you’ll be matched with a player who’s very close to your rank or rating. It’s the LACK OF congestion that creates the possibility that you queue up and no one of a similar skill level queues up so they have to expand the search to the next level up or down.
As far as Diamond goes, this effect might as well not exist. Just in terms of what Vicious Syndicate recorded from people who have one of the trackers they collect from installed, which is PC only, from January 18-23, just six days, they recorded 238,000 games in Diamond 4-1. That’s about 1 game recorded every 2 seconds. There is no way that you’re going to queue up in Diamond and not get an opponent of similar skill. Maybe they’re technically a Legend player, but they’re going to be at your MMR which means that they’re at, not above, your level.
I get that theory, but it assumes the MMR is purely a flat number and not rank based.
If the MMR in Constructed modes is just “the Rank” then it will be the way I said it.
No, it wouldn’t. It doesn’t matter whether matchmaking is by rank or MMR or your shoe size, no matter the parameter the more people there are in queue the more accurate of a match you’re going to get.
I’m very surprised you didn’t tell me “it’s a flat number” because you would PROBABLY BE RIGHT.
If it’s just “the Rank” (i.e. just a few brackets) then I’m obviously right it would be abruptly changing skill of players due to congestion.
I’m at least PARTLY right because I friended a lot of people between bottom and diamond 10 and practically all of them were in the same Rank (so the MMR was not picking them up from e.g. “bottom diamond because they lost a lot” etc. when I was not yet diamond etc.).
…
This is literally evidence against your position, not for it. I’m telling you that Diamond is very congested and congestion increases matchmaking accuracy. Diamond matchmaking is by rank unless
in which case the matchmaking is by MMR instead.
You’re pointing to accurate, consistent matchmaking in a congested meta when your point was that it’d be inconsistent and swingy.
No listen. What happened was every single person I was playing with was inside that exact same RANK (not an abstract MMR that is hidden from us as a flat number (e.g. something in the thousands like the legend ranks are)).
That blatantly means that if you lock people into the bottom of ranks (the topic of this thread) then you’ll have situations of high congestion of people with DIFFERENT SKILLS and the skill you get(as an opponent) would be too abruptly changing.
No. There’s zero relevance there.
Do you know what a normal distribution is? Aka a bell curve? Let’s say that the actual skill of people at any given rank fits such a normal distribution. So I get that there’s variance. But here’s the key point: a sample size of 100 data points along a normal distribution has essentially the same variance as 200 data points along a normal distribution. The “congestion” aka sample size is just plain irrelevant, because any random player is just as likely to be a high or low skill outlier regardless of the density.
What I mean is that every level would be a floor. Currently, the floors are at S10, S5, G10, G5, P10, P5, D10, D5, Leg. You can still lose stars, but only until you fall all the way back to one of the floors, for example: P5 with 0 Stars. You could be at P2 with 2 stars and go on a bad losing streak and fall all the way back to P5 with 0 Stars. That can be really exasperating. I think you should only be able to fall back, in that case, to P2 and 0 Stars. There’s still a regression for losses, but the backstop is a lot more generous. It makes advancing and progressing easier, but more importantly, it makes losing streaks a lot less frustrating for players and might encourage them to continue playing rather than give up for the day.
Lol
Alrighty then. As one of those people who like to have a more care free learning experience, I have to say this is an inaccurate label. I do jump into ranked these days (well, I haven’t played in a year, but when I did) with new decks, but there was a time where I didn’t want to think about my rank as I learned. Nothing wrong with that and thus unnecessary to call people… cowards.
OK then, cowards AND newbies.
Srsly though, people are too sensitive nowadays.
Sorry, where’d you get the sensitivity from my post? I just think it’s unnecessary.