Just spending my time a little better, than replying to your ill thought out logic. There are very little counter arguments to stuff that just doesn't make sense.

You first point, didn't relate to anything I said at all. You can have a better win rate, if you play one game than win, than if someone plays 1000 games, and wins 999. yeah... well done. What does that have to do with me saying, you can get to legend by either, playing 200 games, and winning 150 of them

Or by playing 1000 games, and winning 400 of them just winning 400 of them in a better order.

Their's a reason, well renowned, and respected games like chess, use an ELO system. A reason that I could lay out in a perfectly explained argument, and you would dismiss for the sake for an argument, so yeah, you are the definition of a waste of time.

You can climb to legend just via time, once you are an above average player. Which takes away the point of there being legend at all.

Getting extra stars, doesn't promote skill, it promotes winning at the right time.

You can win 10 games, out of 20, with 1 win, 1 loss, 1 win, 1 loss. And you will be at 1 star.

But you can win 10 games out of 20, with 5 wins, followed by 5 losses, followed by 5 wins, followed by 5 losses.

And be at 6 stars.

Same win %, and it has nothing to do with skill, just luck.

If you play enough games, you will end up at some point, queuing into 5 good match-ups, or have 5 lucky draws, in a row, and thus gains stars.

In an elo system, you can only truly climb, by beating people that are better than you, and if you lose to someone worse than you, you will drop more.