Searched the forums before posting; idea isn't posted before
Hi Community,
Today I decided to have some fun on ladder with a crazy/ fun Astral communion Druid. It was very easy for me to climb to higher ranks as I went from rank 6 to rank 10 without much of a hassle. I literally only faced Warriors and Shamans in about 1 hour of playing the game (props to the one guy who played a greedy Evolve Shaman with Pantry Spiders and Big Time Racketeers though).
Anyhow, this was not a very diverse experience for me, and I read on this forum many people agree with me. The solution I propose offers an addition to matchmaking without an often suggested banning of cards/ classes.
What if, in addition to the current algorithm, a formula is added that remembers your previous opponent's classes, and lowers the odds of queuing into that class again. It would reset every time you launch Hearthstone. To demonstrate this in numbers:
Match 1 - Equal probabilities of queuing into any class. In bold is the class you end up against.
Priest: 11% Warlock: 11% Mage: 11%
Hunter: 11% Paladin: 11% Warrior: 11%
Rouge: 11% Shaman: 11% Druid: 11%
Match 2 - Because we queued into warrior previous game, the odds of all other classes increase with 1%. Odds for queuing into warrior again lowers to 4%. This means we can still queue into a warrior, the odds are just slimmer.
Priest: 12% Warlock: 12% Mage: 12%
Hunter: 12% Paladin: 12% Warrior: 4%
Rouge: 12% Shaman: 12% Druid: 12%
Match 3 - We queued into a mage last time. Because this happened, all other classes gain 1 more percentage of you queuing into them. Also Warrior (match 1) gains a percentage again. Probability of Mage now drops from 12% to 4%.
Priest: 13% Warlock: 13% Mage: 4%
Hunter: 13% Paladin: 13% Warrior: 5%
Rouge: 13% Shaman: 13% Druid: 13%
I think it's now clear how this would go on. I firmly believe banning cards- or classes is not a viable option for this game. By lowering probabilities but still keeping odds open I believe we prevent this issue, and avoid running in the same classes over and over.
With this implementation, it would appear for the player as if classes are in fact more equally played.. Or am I missing something?
The first Shaman might differ a bit from the second Shaman, and the first pirate warrior may differ from the next dragon warrior. However, that doesn't mean these decks don't share at least half of the cards.
With this implementation, it would appear for the player as if classes are in fact more equally played.. Or am I missing something?
The first Shaman might differ a bit from the second Shaman, and the first pirate warrior may differ from the next dragon warrior. However, that doesn't mean these decks don't share at least half of the cards.
Doesn't matter, any class with good amount of variety in their cards can have multiple archetypes that may or may not share cards. Pirate warrior is much more similar to aggro shaman than it is to control warrior.
Any ideas to "improve matchmaking" should not be suggested for ranked mode. The only good improvements in that area are to make people closer in ranks play each other. This system will arbitrarily put into matchups you didn't design your deck around. What if I made a deck to counter the meta? Oh well fuck me because the meta found out I played against it too much. This would be a nightmare at top 100 ranks. Ranked mode should match you with people near your rank. That's it. Otherwise the whole idea of a ranked system goes out the window.
If you want to suggest your idea for casual mode go for it though.
Please don't try to back up your idea by using people's discussions about the meta. Completely missing the target. Those people want a balanced game, not a game that fixes the bad meta by taking you out of it. This is a really bad idea for ranked mode. I'm sorry man. I hope other people will convince you but I've said my piece. It doesn't look like you really understand ranked mode and just want to have fun. I get that but then maybe you shouldn't take ranked mode seriously.
It can't be done like that.. unless you're ok with waiting 20 minutes for a match.
The reason you play against so many warriors and shamans is because they are the most played classes, you cant just assign probabilities as you wish, you need to consider the amount of people playing each class.
You can't have 11% of the match-up being against hunter or paladin because only 1% of the game population use them.
If you have 1000 people waiting in queue, and 600 of them are either warriors or shamans how can your matchmaker decide who will get matched against one of less played classes and who will be matched against warrior or shaman?
With this implementation, it would appear for the player as if classes are in fact more equally played.. Or am I missing something?
The first Shaman might differ a bit from the second Shaman, and the first pirate warrior may differ from the next dragon warrior. However, that doesn't mean these decks don't share at least half of the cards.
Doesn't matter, any class with good amount of variety in their cards can have multiple archetypes that may or may not share cards. Pirate warrior is much more similar to aggro shaman than it is to control warrior.
Any ideas to "improve matchmaking" should not be suggested for ranked mode. The only good improvements in that area are to make people closer in ranks play each other. This system will arbitrarily put into matchups you didn't design your deck around. What if I made a deck to counter the meta? Oh well fuck me because the meta found out I played against it too much. This would be a nightmare at top 100 ranks. Ranked mode should match you with people near your rank. That's it. Otherwise the whole idea of a ranked system goes out the window.
If you want to suggest your idea for casual mode go for it though.
Please don't try to back up your idea by using people's discussions about the meta. Completely missing the target. Those people want a balanced game, not a game that fixes the bad meta by taking you out of it. This is a really bad idea for ranked mode. I'm sorry man. I hope other people will convince you but I've said my piece. It doesn't look like you really understand ranked mode and just want to have fun. I get that but then maybe you shouldn't take ranked mode seriously.
You make some valid points (Pirate warrior sharing more cards with aggro shaman than with control warrior)
However, there are other points in your comment I disagree with- or need to explain further. What I am suggesting is an addition to the current matchmaking system. So, first the algorithm matches you with someone of similar ranks and MMR, then finally it looks at the classes. Also, a meta is a meta. Even with this system in place, eventually you will still end up playing the one class more than the other, because of your first match. For the sake of easy overview, I made all classes have equal probability for the first match (11%). However, a more accurate distribution would be:
Hunter: 1% Paladin: 1% Warrior: 20%
Mage: 13% Priest: 11% Warlock: 14%
Rouge: 7% Shaman: 24% Druid: 9%
With such percentages (which are also fictional but are more representable for the first match for the game in its current state), you would still be able to tech against a certain meta.
Although I appreciate your constructed feedback on the matter over what I'm saying next, I don't appreciate your conclusion of "please don't try to back up your idea" and "You don't understand ranked".
Obviously the problem is, when the majority of the ladder in your rank range is one class, what do they get queued with, when the other half eventually gets low probability of getting that one class? Eventually noone is going to queue against <<shaman>> and they will be eternally waiting for a game. It also sidesteps "playing the meta" because you have some guarantee to not face something continuously, while that actually might be the meta at the moment. Same reason why I'd be opposed to being able to ban classes on ladder. It's not a tournament, you can play 500+ games with 1 deck. Avoiding certain matchups should not be a thing. The only real solution is having more viable decks, and a less polarized meta. Fingers crossed for Un'goro.
Like I said in the previous 'spoiler' in this post, I appreciate the feedback. After reading your comment I feel like highlighting something. The system I am describing works with probabilities in addition to the current matchmaking. Odds are going to be that you still cue into the same class 5 times in a row, it's just less likely.
Also, in the previous spoiler, I clarify that the percentages I am describing in the initial post (equal 11%) aren't accurate. There will still be a meta even if this is implemented, and I do not have anything against the purpose/ principles of a meta.
This implementation would not give Shamans a eternal waiting queue as they would run into someone who hasn't played against a Shaman for a while, or someone who happens to be 'unlucky' with his percentages. I don't think the wait would increase with more than 5 seconds.
It can't be done like that.. unless you're ok with waiting 20 minutes for a match.
The reason you play against so many warriors and shamans is because they are the most played classes, you cant just assign probabilities as you wish, you need to consider the amount of people playing each class.
You can't have 11% of the match-up being against hunter or paladin because only 1% of the game population use them.
If you have 1000 people waiting in queue, and 600 of them are either warriors or shamans how can your matchmaker decide who will get matched against one of less played classes and who will be matched against warrior or shaman?
Hi there! In the previous two spoilers of this post I am explaining what you're asking as well. Probabilities of 11% weren't accurate but deliberately chosen to show off the theory of my system. Also, in the second spoiler I talk about waiting lines; Also for those playing the meta classes waiting lines should not increase by >5 seconds.
Because without spoiler tags this post would become chaotic, I decided to reply/ give clarifications to the comments this way.
Spoiler 1: Reply to Gabugga Spoiler 2: Reply to Nevr3000 Spoiler 3: Reply to GMAIon
If you start with a pool of people running a certain distribution of decks/classes, you can't change the chance of queuing up, as you'd not be able to do it for everyone in the pool. If you try to make it a better more balanced experience for one person, somebody else will need to face all those shamans/warriors.
I don't think there is any way of this working for that reason, but if I'm overlooking something, feel free to point it out to me.
Searched the forums before posting; idea isn't posted before
Hi Community,
Today I decided to have some fun on ladder with a crazy/ fun Astral communion Druid. It was very easy for me to climb to higher ranks as I went from rank 6 to rank 10 without much of a hassle. I literally only faced Warriors and Shamans in about 1 hour of playing the game (props to the one guy who played a greedy Evolve Shaman with Pantry Spiders and Big Time Racketeers though).
Anyhow, this was not a very diverse experience for me, and I read on this forum many people agree with me. The solution I propose offers an addition to matchmaking without an often suggested banning of cards/ classes.
What if, in addition to the current algorithm, a formula is added that remembers your previous opponent's classes, and lowers the odds of queuing into that class again. It would reset every time you launch Hearthstone. To demonstrate this in numbers:
I think it's now clear how this would go on. I firmly believe banning cards- or classes is not a viable option for this game. By lowering probabilities but still keeping odds open I believe we prevent this issue, and avoid running in the same classes over and over.
Please, let me know your opinions and comments!
Anyone?
But the fact is; classes are not equally played.
With this implementation, it would appear for the player as if classes are in fact more equally played.. Or am I missing something?
The first Shaman might differ a bit from the second Shaman, and the first pirate warrior may differ from the next dragon warrior. However, that doesn't mean these decks don't share at least half of the cards.
stb already Nerf.
you cannot blame match making system when you try gimmick deck.
even you face aggro, I think you can remove stb using hero power. No the big deal. The problem is you deck.
flawless system. More rock, paper, scissor meta if blizzard using you system.
It can't be done like that.. unless you're ok with waiting 20 minutes for a match.
The reason you play against so many warriors and shamans is because they are the most played classes, you cant just assign probabilities as you wish, you need to consider the amount of people playing each class.
You can't have 11% of the match-up being against hunter or paladin because only 1% of the game population use them.
If you have 1000 people waiting in queue, and 600 of them are either warriors or shamans how can your matchmaker decide who will get matched against one of less played classes and who will be matched against warrior or shaman?
Spoiler 2: Reply to Nevr3000
Spoiler 3: Reply to GMAIon
This won't work because maths.
If you start with a pool of people running a certain distribution of decks/classes, you can't change the chance of queuing up, as you'd not be able to do it for everyone in the pool. If you try to make it a better more balanced experience for one person, somebody else will need to face all those shamans/warriors.
I don't think there is any way of this working for that reason, but if I'm overlooking something, feel free to point it out to me.
Cheers.
Should you craft/disenchant (Golden) Sylvanas or Ragnaros?
Find out in the: ULTIMATE dust guide for Hall of Fame cards
I agree that something needs to be done. When you have 6 games straight of nothing but Shamans...it gets boring fast.
And this happens WAY too often.