|
So Blizzard announced what I suspect to be true, about the ladder distribution. Most players are at the bottom and very few at the top. But the discrepancy is bigger than I thought. An enormous amount of players don't manage to get rank 15 in ladder, as the image below shows.
I actually feel a little better knowing that, I reached rank 11 with less than 100 matches in a month. While I though I was doing "average", I actually let 90% of players behind, playing "few games" compared to many people.
The question I ask is: why Blizzard makes such kind of ranking? When people see a rank from 25 to 1, will naturally think the rank 12 as the "middle", where an average player shoul be. Also, frustration about performance is a major reason for people abandoning a game.
They could have done a rank from 10 to 1, where higher ranks had "subranks", like 4.5 to 4.1, and 1.10 to 1.1. Or used a lot more "stars", I don't know, there must be a better way to display the ranking.
What also worries is: when players get a lot frustrated from not getting higher ranks they may abandon the game, shrinking the player database and bringing to bottom some players which were at the top, doing a snowball effect which may do something like what I think happened to starcraft 2.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2dFXFUN.png)
Link: http://us.battle.net/hearthstone/en/blog/15955974
EDIT: now I'm a bit more convinced this simulation about arena distribution may be very close to real:
http://www.liquidhearth.com/forum/hearthstone/457079-computer-simulation-to-understand-arena-results
I guess it's possible that Blizzard releases the Arena distribution either, so we may confirm.
|
Not sure how accurate this is. Last season i got like rank 15, but only because i played very few games. Previous seasons i would get to high ranks and legend. Also, i doubt every single of the 2 million player base plays a single game the entire season. When i got to rank 15, i went 11-1, but because i didn't play ranked for the rest of the season, i didn't advance any higher. Still kinda cool though, to know that potentially I am in the top few % in the world, thanks for the information :D
|
A little misleading.
You have to further break it down to people who actually try to climb the ladder that season and people who have access to all the legendaries. I would like to see the data from that pool of players.
I have all the cards and I can get to rank 5 in any season if I try, but I'm probably a middling player at best -- exactly as good as I think I am.
(The best I've gotten is rank 2. I can't get those last couple wins.)
Nice try, Blizzard.
edit: Almost by definition, if you have a 51%+ win rate, you can get to rank 5 if you play enough games. This is because of win streaks. If you take all the people who play many games a season and have all the cards, my guess is that the true 51st percentile is around rank 5. (I think.)
|
On September 20 2014 21:40 Qwicker wrote:
Not sure how accurate this is. Last season i got like rank 15, but only because i played very few games. Previous seasons i would get to high ranks and legend. Also, i doubt every single of the 2 million player base plays a single game the entire season. When i got to rank 15, i went 11-1, but because i didn't play ranked for the rest of the season, i didn't advance any higher. Still kinda cool though, to know that potentially I am in the top few % in the world, thanks for the information :D
Yes, there are a lot of casual players in the rank, we do not have a separated rank to check your skills among the hardcore players.
But I think I'm more likely to be considered a casual player than a hardcore, so to me, and to many people, this information is pretty relevant.
On September 20 2014 21:40 Qwicker wrote:
i doubt every single of the 2 million player base plays a single game the entire season
I guess this chart counts only people with at least one ranked game in the season.
|
If this is true that hearthstone is extremly casual game where players don't give a fuck about ladder system at all.
|
On September 20 2014 22:06 Solmyr wrote:
If this is true that hearthstone is extremly casual game where players don't give a fuck about ladder system at all.
See I would go with this as I hardly give a shit about the game, liked it for about 1-2 weeks and got to rank 14 before I got bored and just did nothing but Arena with common cards the second my hero turned level 20.
I don't even play the game anymore, just enjoy watching Kirpp stream the game.
|
the guys who can build potential legendary decks sit at 20 with their golden shaman and warlock bots..
blizzard: make a graph about the bot distribution please
oh wait, ban and wipe all the bot accounts instead.
|
How many of those 75% in the bottom are people between 25 and 20, who have to litterally lose 100% of their games not to advance? It would be much more interesting if those accounts were excluded, as these also include people who are de facto inactive, who only bother with arena, who play once every two weeks and so on.
What is the proportion between 20(or 19)-15 and 15-10? That might be interesting.
|
completely irrelevant. this basically just shows activity. anybody could get to a high rank if they play enough games and have a healthy brain. i would argue that anybody with a decent card pool could make it to legendary if they play enough, all you need is 51% winrate from rank 5 onwards.
|
With a 51% win rate you need something like 750 games on average to reach Legend starting at rank 5, so not really feasible. And many people are not capable of keeping a 50%+ win rate at rank 15 let alone even reaching rank 5 and then winning more than half their games for 750 games in a row against much stronger opponents. If you go to more casual websites you'll see plenty of people who struggle in sub-10 ranks and who do have "healthy brains". It's generally the argument of frustrated players who can't reach Legend that the only thing that matters in Hearthstone is amount of games played.
|
Well, ofc it's even harder now to climb since not all the people are spending money in this game. Before Naxxramas i got to rank 6 with the Dr.Draw basic only priest deck, with the exact same deck, i can't pass rank 16 atm, how's that? The belchers are incredibly annoying and this game is on it's way to become a pay2win game. That's why i did quit playing on ranked. I'd rather play 4-5 games / month in casual, just to relax myself than being salty on the ladder everytime i see belcher and KT.
/spit Blizzard.
|
On September 21 2014 01:03 Cade)Flayer wrote:
With a 51% win rate you need something like 750 games on average to reach Legend starting at rank 5, so not really feasible. And many people are not capable of keeping a 50%+ win rate at rank 15 let alone even reaching rank 5 and then winning more than half their games for 750 games in a row against much stronger opponents. If you go to more casual websites you'll see plenty of people who struggle in sub-10 ranks and who do have "healthy brains". It's generally the argument of frustrated players who can't reach Legend that the only thing that matters in Hearthstone is amount of games played.
i was in legend last season and am in rank 2 right now (and was around those ranks in the few seasons before that). i don't mean to brag, just saying that inability to reach legendary is not a motivation for me to say what i said. in fact, i think the very fact that i DID reach legendary supports my point. i consider myself a decent, but not amazing HS player, and while i did invest quite a lot of time into getting legend last season, it's not like i stopped doing anything else. i'd say i played 2-3 hours a day on average. and yeah it's not feasible to play that much for many people; hence why i said in theory anybody could reach it if they played a sufficient amount of games. i also specified that you need to have a decent card pool (or i guess one competitive deck) to be able to do it, which i'm sure many of the more casual players don't have. they also by definition don't invest a lot of time into HS or they wouldn't be casual.
|
This kind of backs up my [semi] crazy theory of of most people dont care about the esport aspect of the game
If we do have ~20 million accounts and only ~50k highest avg we have had outside of last years blizzcon tourny(and its blizzcon so it will always have more viewers)
Im guessing most of that 75% dont care about the competitive aspect of this game, because I feel people who do care about it and watch it are atleast past rank 15 from the general consensus that I have seen.
Just a theory and a trend I noticed, would be nice to see what ranks actually do watch HS
|
This is a perfect example of using statistics in a misleading way to try and prove a point. Not saying the statistics themselves are inaccurate but you are pretty gullible if you bought the tagline, "you're better than you think".
You won't get a good sense of how skilled you really are unless you are able to see the rank distribution of players who have played a comparable number of hours as yourself.
|
''You are NOT better than you think''
"You are Not your Legendaries''
''You are not your playing second with the coin and descent drops in your hand''
''You are not getting anything better just because you bought decks''
''You are Not your Twitch audience ''
''you are not your Aggro deck when we want Control to win ''
''you are not your Control deck when we want Aggro to win''
''You are not your Pretending you're having fun''
we are blizzard and here's our false statistic pat on back to ''comfort'' your torment !
''YOU Have to give Up ''
''YOU Have to give Up ''
|
Dude if you are tormented by hearthstone why bothered coming here ?
|
i bother to come and agree with the people that also wrote before me with a fight club twist whats your problem duderino ?
|
On September 20 2014 21:54 MrSexington wrote:
edit: Almost by definition, if you have a 51%+ win rate, you can get to rank 5 if you play enough games. This is because of win streaks. If you take all the people who play many games a season and have all the cards, my guess is that the true 51st percentile is around rank 5. (I think.)
With 51% winrate, you'd eventually reach Legend- you can have less than 50% winrate and still hit rank 5. If you have, say, 45% winrate but you manage to get a lot of your wins in a row, the winstreak will make you win stars faster than you lose them, and you could eventually reach rank 5.
|
On September 21 2014 04:06 Zato-1 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2014 21:54 MrSexington wrote:
edit: Almost by definition, if you have a 51%+ win rate, you can get to rank 5 if you play enough games. This is because of win streaks. If you take all the people who play many games a season and have all the cards, my guess is that the true 51st percentile is around rank 5. (I think.) With 51% winrate, you'd eventually reach Legend- you can have less than 50% winrate and still hit rank 5. If you have, say, 45% winrate but you manage to get a lot of your wins in a row, the winstreak will make you win stars faster than you lose them, and you could eventually reach rank 5.
Not all "51% winrates" are equal. 50% wins at rank 20-15 is way easier than 50% wins at rank 5-1.
|
Time to break into the top 0,5% this month. *cracks neck as Eye of the Tiger music plays in the background*
In all seriousness, though, if only I had the mental stamina... I can't play my best for more, than 5 games. And one bad beat or something tilts me quite a lot.
Oh, and screw you, Blizzard. I'm not better than I think. I don't give a fuck about the others, I'm as bad as I think if I can't win.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
