Hearthstone

Vaclav_sl said:

Ok, so "Very Good" OTW to Legend at 50% is complete horseshit then since you don't even get win streaks...

Click to expand...

Lord you are so dumb some times.

50% win rate is good in Hearthstone. If you are that consistent you can easily hit over 50% in the few levels above 5...

Why you equate 50% to the whole ladder is beyond me.

Like manofwar just said the higher the percentage decks you play over 5 the quicker you get Legend.

If you really think that 50% over a career is bad in this game you don't play it. Most people never make it to rank 5 in there lifetime.

The math is pretty simple. It is +25 wins to hit legend from 1 star into rank 5 (which, ignoring streaking into 5, is where you start when win streaks stop). A 70% win rate is +4 wins every 10 games (3 losses, 7 wins), so you need ~70 games. Pretty easy thing to chart out.

100% win rate: 25 games.
90% win rate: ~30 games.
80% win rate: ~40 games.
70% win rate: ~70 games.
60% win rate: 250 games.

Most people don't achieve a 70% win rate, ever. So for the average person getting to legend is a matter of grinding out games at a, usually, 51-60% win rate. I think someone figured out once that the average games to get to legend was around 500 from starting at rank 5.

It should be noted that Blizzard said anyone who has gotten to rank 5 is in the top 2% of people playing constructed. A 50% win rate+luck in getting that 50% as the occasional win streak can get you to rank 5. So 50% win rate is actually top 2% of players. Legend is 0.5% of players, so 51%+ win rate is a legend player (basically, if the sample of games is large enough).

Yea. But what kind of moron counts every game that they're playing instead of individual pairings - it's the derpiest way I've ever heard to discuss things.

I understand what you're trying to say, but it's the worst possible phrasing for it since you make it sound like "Aim for 50% and you'll get Legend" which is false, since you'll brick wall at 5. When what you're really trying to say is "Don't worry about going over 50% particularly until you're to 5 since you'll get there eventually, but once there run your best 51%+ build" rather than talking nonsense about career. [Which honestly, unless you're either explicitly copying tried and true decks or being very selective of when something counts - career at 50%+ is going to be into percents of a percent]

But regardless the entire concept of making win-rate into a single metric for a deck against the entire field versus metagaming it out into "X% vs. Y deck"/"X% vs. Z deck" - and then guesstimating the field based on that - is bizarre to me. Accepting a few pairings are going to be bad, and aiming for your bad pairings to be stuff that's less commonly played seems to be a more important mantra to me rather than focusing on overall win-rate with the meta constantly shifting, even often hour to hour.

I'd rather say "I've got a 60% win-rate vs. Rogue Oil and 80% of the people at X time play it, so I'll be making solid progress as long as both continue to be true" than say "I've got a 52% chance against the field as a whole" with no other analysis of it - it's lazy and relatively worthless to me. Perhaps less is necessary for HS, perhaps less is necessary for MTG these days - but certainly breakdowns by pairing and estimating the rate of pairings showing was how we weighed tournament worthiness of a deck in MTG days gone by.

I understand what you're trying to say, but it's the worst possible phrasing for it since you make it sound like "Aim for 50% and you'll get Legend" which is false,

Click to expand...

This is your own wording. My original statement is that a 50% win rate in Hearthstone is considered good in this game.

Top 2% is something a shit ton of people can not achieve.

Have you achieved it?

You should be aiming at 50%, because if you are good enough to get that then you are good enough to know what decks you need to play ,and at what times for the ranks above 5.

Yea. But what kind of moron counts every game that they're playing instead of individual pairings - it's the derpiest way I've ever heard to discuss things.

Click to expand...

The moron that's hit legend 4 times. I spread sheet everything I do in constructed down to the times I play decks.
It's what separates me from the 2%. I'm about a 55%-65% player depending on what season. I feel like i'm about 51% overall, and only reason I can get higher is I keep track of everything including when new over powered decks hit the scene.

And that last sentence comes down to pairings... which is what I consider more important to focus on...

I play an hour or two every other day - I could care less if I ever rank that low, practically speaking it's impossible especially since I prefer control that runs long games. I probably do hit 50%+ rate if I bothered to track every game and prune my bad matches when I'm experimenting with something before it's "ready" since I make slow but steady progress up the ladder each month. (I know it's a rare day that I don't finish my quests taking less of a win rate - and I can't recall the last time I got a non-win based quest)

It's like we're talking straight past each other...

(Hell, just on how little I play - 648 wins right now is what it's saying, 850 wins in Arena - and F2P only mind you, so zero paid arenas in there - only laddered past 20 like three months now or something, once before they started seasons and two of the recent card backs - I know it's a lifestyle for you, it's like an hour or two max to me)

Vaclav, honestly most people have no idea what you are talking about half the time. You just like to argue

You are too new to this game, you probly don't even have 1000 games played yet. You keep trying to equate it to MTG ,and it's nothing like it in any respect.

You keep track of everything in Hearthstone. The fact you think a 50% player is bad, just shows you have no idea what it takes to get to that high a level.

There is no one percentage deck you are going to play through the ladder unless it is so overpowered it can almost not be beat. Miracle Rogue Season 1, and Reynad pre nerf scientist.

50% decks will get you through the brunt of it. Zoo, Mech Mage etc.

(Hell, just on how little I play - 648 wins right now is what it's saying, 850 wins in Arena - and F2P only mind you, so zero paid arenas in there - only laddered past 20 like three months now or something, once before they started seasons and two of the recent card backs - I know it's a lifestyle for you, it's like an hour or two max to me)

Click to expand...

Allot of people on this board have been playing since Alpha. A good bit of us have over 6000 games played with the Alpha wipe over a two year period. I guarantee we average much less then 2 hours a day now.

Column_sl said:

Vaclav, honestly most people have no idea what you are talking about half the time. You just like to argue

You are too new to this game, you probly don't even have 1000 games played yet. You keep trying to equate it to MTG ,and it's nothing like it in any respect.

You keep track of everything in Hearthstone. The fact you think a 50% player is bad, just shows you have no idea what it takes to get to that high a level.

There is no one percentage deck you are going to play through the ladder unless it is so overpowered it can almost not be beat. Miracle Rogue Season 1, and Reynad pre nerf scientist.

50% decks will get you through the brunt of it. Zoo, Mech Mage etc.

Click to expand...

Pot, kettle, black and I'm not even trying to argue - and I'm not saying 50% is "bad" once you clarified you meant overall. I just think it's a goofy metric to use since it's not particularly relevant.

If there was a range/time/whatever when you knew say MechMage was 70% of the field and you had a deck that was 90% win vs. MechMage and 20% vs. every other common build would you run that or a 51% against the entire field build? You run what has the most ideal pairings for the meta. And I'm hardly new - I was in about a month after people were talking about the last wipe - so if you've got 6000 games listed on that, I've been playing nearly as long and played just over 10% as much.

There's little value in just saying "Shoot! Another loss" compared to "Ok, another loss against MechMage - they're really pushing my shit in, maybe I need to tweak something to improve my pairing in that specific matchup" or even "Ok, my pairings against MechMage are incredibly ideal right now, but I could afford to back off on hating them out to improve my bad pairings a bit". Win-rate in a vacuum does no good for helping you improve your deck. (or even sometimes your play without tweaking the deck - i.e. blowing a sweeper early)

But I suppose if you're of the sort that never brews up anything on their own I guess win-rate in a vacuum might have relevance, since you don't worry about tweaking - you just copy tweaks as someone publishes them.

That's impossible. People do play against the meta but it changes constantly. You'll never have a clear idea of how likely you are to face what. Its more important to have a deck that's capable of going over that 50% across the current meta overall and simply knowing the ins and outs of your decks and the other major ladder decks.

There was no last wipe, there was only one wipe ever.

I don't need to improve decks, there's no point. I carry 3-6 decks through a whole season, and play them when I know they will be effective in a meta that shifts every 4-6 hours.

People who equate constructed laddering to deck building are clueless. I guarantee you are not smarter then the guys that dedicate there whole day to Hearthstone, and breaking that game.
If I know playing Handlock is 65% win rate at 3 am in the morning I'm playing that deck. I'm not wasting time trying to make a deck fit when it will never be that effective.

See now you're talking like I was trying to say mostly. (Besides not valuing tweaking on your own - my circle of friends and I had broken the meta on MTG a few times so tweaking and trying to again is always going to be a drive - it's a great feeling finishing a game having someone shake your hand and tell you that they're going to have to give something similar a try when you know it was your (or mostly your) own creation)

But in the end, we're saying basically the same thing (besides you not valuing personal tweaking - but there's different opinions to that obviously)

And I guess only wipe then - I wasn't paying attention for too long before I got in. It was the only one I'd ever heard of - I assumed there had been others.

Lord Jaraxxus is bullshit.

chthonic-anemos_sl said:

Click to expand...

He sang himself into deserving that one.

Wonder how recently that was recorded - I swear I played against SamSu with something remarkably close in Arena like two weeks ago. No notes or anything but the name is memorable this far out which odds are was something where I was having a similar "bullshit" style reaction to in arena. (And yes, could be another SamSu - but can't imagine there's too many....)

Mathematically speaking would this be possible? Every deck is strong vs 3 other decks and weak against 5?

I was thinking the key to legend is being cognizant of where the glass ceiling is for each deck. I.E. Mech Mage will get you to Rank 12, but Loses hard in Rank 11 so to elevate above the pack at your rank you need to change deck types where your conditions are more favorable at each specific tier. Someone would make a badass website if they could figure out what decks are strong through what ranks, where they start and where they plateau.