They don’t neuter anything, and the data isn’t significant enough to verify or disprove. It’s slight bumps in probability either for or against. Whatever is needed. View it as a slider in video game settings. It’s adjusted based on the meta.
It’s the main reason Blizzard isn’t quick to nerf. Plenty happens behind the scenes to adjust gameplay. The only time a nerf is needed, is when the problem cards are very obvious, and the probability adjustment would be obvious as well. If everyone is playing certain problem cards, then it’s more likely to get noticed if they were to tinker with them behind the scenes.
Maybe I misunderstood what is being asserted but I thought it was that Blizzard have changed the matchmaking percentages and it is detectable at player level. Anything like that would be (very) obvious with a large data set and some analysis.
If we're saying that the changes are only very slight, so they wouldn't show up in targeted analysis of 100,000s/millions of games then a) it seems impossible for a player to tell based on their few games, and b) not really worth the manipulation in the first place.
I respectfully take an alternative view on all of this - I am more than happy to change my opinion if there is statistically significant evidence though :)
The reason it is so easy to conceal, is because the same "evidence" that is used to "prove" it exists, also "proves" it doesn't.
If I am matched against 5 Aggro Paladin's while playing Exodia Mage, and I decide to switch to Control Warlock ... and I suddenly stop seeing Aggro ... you can look at that and say "obviously, you were due for a change" ... " or you can look at it and say "the game changed my matchmaking" ... and neither argument can be proven true, because they both are reasonable to believe.
Last month I made a concerted effort to play 3 different deck archetypes as equally as possible. I played at the same times, switching decks every 5 games. When I reached a total of 100 games played with each deck, I looked at the matchups, and each deck had dramatically different results, with either a mirror match, or direct counter match being the most dominate matchup, and the best possible matchup being the least played (of the top decks). I am sorry, I don't have the screenshots here right now at work ... but each one showed a deviation of around 15% or more.
While 300 games is a "small sample" for actual statistics, its a lot of games for one person to play in a month under controlled conditions. And it should be enough games to at least see similar graphs ... not ones that are completely different, but all 3 follow the same deviations.
Exactly how it is being done ... I have no idea. But I have zero doubt it is being done.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I wanna glide down, over Mulholland I wanna write her, name in the sky I wanna free fall, out into nothin' Gonna leave this, world for awhile
I do have the same problem, I've been playing fungalmancer warlock and managed to get to rank 10, but now the only thing I face is murloc paladin, and I can't beat that ever. Any decks that people can think of that counter murloc pali, I would love to know.
I'm very aware of the decks and as I can build them or I have played a lot against, I know all the cards and possible strategies, I also have to say that I have the feeling that every deck I choose to use I'm more often against the best counter decks, I don't want to seem paranoid or say conspiranoics things about blizzard but I cannot help having this feeling
Same here. I went on insane losing streaks because if this counter matchup bullshit. I only started climbing when I finally used my own ramp druid and stopped using meta decks. Maybe there's a message here.
cube is getting countered and kings is too weak vs aggro. big priest is a high roll deck,. your skill doesn't matter. maybe try the control warlock or DK mage? i found both decks good climbers, and these have a higher skill ceiling then average netdecks, so should be good for you :)
The reason it is so easy to conceal, is because the same "evidence" that is used to "prove" it exists, also "proves" it doesn't.
If I am matched against 5 Aggro Paladin's while playing Exodia Mage, and I decide to switch to Control Warlock ... and I suddenly stop seeing Aggro ... you can look at that and say "obviously, you were due for a change" ... " or you can look at it and say "the game changed my matchmaking" ... and neither argument can be proven true, because they both are reasonable to believe.
Last month I made a concerted effort to play 3 different deck archetypes as equally as possible. I played at the same times, switching decks every 5 games. When I reached a total of 100 games played with each deck, I looked at the matchups, and each deck had dramatically different results, with either a mirror match, or direct counter match being the most dominate matchup, and the best possible matchup being the least played (of the top decks). I am sorry, I don't have the screenshots here right now at work ... but each one showed a deviation of around 15% or more.
While 300 games is a "small sample" for actual statistics, its a lot of games for one person to play in a month under controlled conditions. And it should be enough games to at least see similar graphs ... not ones that are completely different, but all 3 follow the same deviations.
Exactly how it is being done ... I have no idea. But I have zero doubt it is being done.
It wouldn’t be hard. They could group decks based on mana cost, then have code look at that and the rank. I think it’s way deeper though. I think they have multiple swing/tech cards in the code, and they compare these against others. I’ve noticed with top tier decks with tech, that I rarely see my answers early game. Even after an aggressive mulligan. Blizzard wants to keep everyone as close to 50% as possible. Makes too much sense.
The reason it is so easy to conceal, is because the same "evidence" that is used to "prove" it exists, also "proves" it doesn't.
If I am matched against 5 Aggro Paladin's while playing Exodia Mage, and I decide to switch to Control Warlock ... and I suddenly stop seeing Aggro ... you can look at that and say "obviously, you were due for a change" ... " or you can look at it and say "the game changed my matchmaking" ... and neither argument can be proven true, because they both are reasonable to believe.
Last month I made a concerted effort to play 3 different deck archetypes as equally as possible. I played at the same times, switching decks every 5 games. When I reached a total of 100 games played with each deck, I looked at the matchups, and each deck had dramatically different results, with either a mirror match, or direct counter match being the most dominate matchup, and the best possible matchup being the least played (of the top decks). I am sorry, I don't have the screenshots here right now at work ... but each one showed a deviation of around 15% or more.
While 300 games is a "small sample" for actual statistics, its a lot of games for one person to play in a month under controlled conditions. And it should be enough games to at least see similar graphs ... not ones that are completely different, but all 3 follow the same deviations.
Exactly how it is being done ... I have no idea. But I have zero doubt it is being done.
It wouldn’t be hard. They could group decks based on mana cost, then have code look at that and the rank. I think it’s way deeper though. I think they have multiple swing/tech cards in the code, and they compare these against others. I’ve noticed with top tier decks with tech, that I rarely see my answers early game. Even after an aggressive mulligan. Blizzard wants to keep everyone as close to 50% as possible. Makes too much sense.
And this is why some people get Legend with 70%+ wr?? And it has nothing to do with the fact that almost everyone is using the same decks?? Also Ben Brode stated that they don’t manipulate the Matchmaking in that direction. ( The benefit for Blizz seems not relevant to me) I trust him with this one , it would be awful for his ,and Blizzards reputation if a rigged system would be discovered.
And 300 games are actually not that small of a sample size,but pls keep in mind to make a relevant statistic, those games should be played in one day, preferably a couple hours. The meta changes to fast ( two days ago my buddy faced 30% aggro Paladin, now Priest is on the rise again) for one guy to make a relevant sample size over a couple days/ 300 games .
The meta has changed drastically since the nerfs, and you may not have adjusted to keep up. If you're still trying to play the same decks, with the same game plan as you were before the nerfs, you're in for some pain.
You might just be catching awful RNG. I was 4 last season, and I seem stuck at 13 now. I've been just trying shit out in Casual, because I'm still not sure what the hell the meta is doing. HSReplay provides absolutely no evidence that Evolve Shaman should be doing as well as it always does against no matter what deck I'm running, but I chalk that up to not having that great a handle on my new decks yet.
....or maybe I'm just getting hosed by RNG, too. I really can't tell.
I just keep watching my stats in HDT and the trends on HSReplay, but nothing has seemed to add up since the nerfs. Some days I'm running with WRs in the 60s, other days it's in the 30s. I really can't seem to pin it down, and my overall WR since the patch is 50. Just treading water.
The one thing that seems certain is that Kingsbane is pretty much dead. I outrun it with Murloc Paladin every time I don't draw my deck upside down, but YMMV.
HDT tells me that my Cubelock is my best deck since the patch, running 62%, but the games are so long that it really doesn't feel that productive.
I also had more issues climbing this season as usually. I normally make it above rank 5 without any issue, but this time I was struggling a lot to get even to rank 10.
In the end I tried a my own adaptation of a Secret Mage at it works quite well.
It happened many times but I always had the firm idea that was just the RNG, now I feel that any of my decks can make it
There is no true RNG in this game. Everything has increased or decreased probability. The behind the scenes is out of whack right now.
Could you link us to the source? Do you have any kind of proof or is it just your stomach feelings?
Just years of playing the game and seeing the pattern. I’m not the only one that’s noticed. You can search plenty on the topic. It’s not game breaking or anything, but it does have its annoyances when big nerfs like this come out. Everyone wondered why the didn’t nerf cube..it’s because they did it behind the scenes.
The reason it is so easy to conceal, is because the same "evidence" that is used to "prove" it exists, also "proves" it doesn't.
If I am matched against 5 Aggro Paladin's while playing Exodia Mage, and I decide to switch to Control Warlock ... and I suddenly stop seeing Aggro ... you can look at that and say "obviously, you were due for a change" ... " or you can look at it and say "the game changed my matchmaking" ... and neither argument can be proven true, because they both are reasonable to believe.
Last month I made a concerted effort to play 3 different deck archetypes as equally as possible. I played at the same times, switching decks every 5 games. When I reached a total of 100 games played with each deck, I looked at the matchups, and each deck had dramatically different results, with either a mirror match, or direct counter match being the most dominate matchup, and the best possible matchup being the least played (of the top decks). I am sorry, I don't have the screenshots here right now at work ... but each one showed a deviation of around 15% or more.
While 300 games is a "small sample" for actual statistics, its a lot of games for one person to play in a month under controlled conditions. And it should be enough games to at least see similar graphs ... not ones that are completely different, but all 3 follow the same deviations.
Exactly how it is being done ... I have no idea. But I have zero doubt it is being done.
It wouldn’t be hard. They could group decks based on mana cost, then have code look at that and the rank. I think it’s way deeper though. I think they have multiple swing/tech cards in the code, and they compare these against others. I’ve noticed with top tier decks with tech, that I rarely see my answers early game. Even after an aggressive mulligan. Blizzard wants to keep everyone as close to 50% as possible. Makes too much sense.
And this is why some people get Legend with 70%+ wr?? And it has nothing to do with the fact that almost everyone is using the same decks?? Also Ben Brode stated that they don’t manipulate the Matchmaking in that direction. ( The benefit for Blizz seems not relevant to me) I trust him with this one , it would be awful for his ,and Blizzards reputation if a rigged system would be discovered.
And 300 games are actually not that small of a sample size,but pls keep in mind to make a relevant statistic, those games should be played in one day, preferably a couple hours. The meta changes to fast ( two days ago my buddy faced 30% aggro Paladin, now Priest is on the rise again) for one guy to make a relevant sample size over a couple days/ 300 games .
i never said the loaded probability definitively wins or loses games. Good players will always negate some bad odds and RNG. It’s not 100% of the time.
Blizzard doesn’t have to worry because it can’t be disproved or proved. I wouldn’t think it would hurt anything if it came out. Again, it’s the easiest way to balance the game. I know lots of good players that have been hovering at 50% since nerfs. I have as well. These aren’t net deckers either. Matchmaking has been painfully obvious.
The reason it is so easy to conceal, is because the same "evidence" that is used to "prove" it exists, also "proves" it doesn't.
If I am matched against 5 Aggro Paladin's while playing Exodia Mage, and I decide to switch to Control Warlock ... and I suddenly stop seeing Aggro ... you can look at that and say "obviously, you were due for a change" ... " or you can look at it and say "the game changed my matchmaking" ... and neither argument can be proven true, because they both are reasonable to believe.
Last month I made a concerted effort to play 3 different deck archetypes as equally as possible. I played at the same times, switching decks every 5 games. When I reached a total of 100 games played with each deck, I looked at the matchups, and each deck had dramatically different results, with either a mirror match, or direct counter match being the most dominate matchup, and the best possible matchup being the least played (of the top decks). I am sorry, I don't have the screenshots here right now at work ... but each one showed a deviation of around 15% or more.
While 300 games is a "small sample" for actual statistics, its a lot of games for one person to play in a month under controlled conditions. And it should be enough games to at least see similar graphs ... not ones that are completely different, but all 3 follow the same deviations.
Exactly how it is being done ... I have no idea. But I have zero doubt it is being done.
It wouldn’t be hard. They could group decks based on mana cost, then have code look at that and the rank. I think it’s way deeper though. I think they have multiple swing/tech cards in the code, and they compare these against others. I’ve noticed with top tier decks with tech, that I rarely see my answers early game. Even after an aggressive mulligan. Blizzard wants to keep everyone as close to 50% as possible. Makes too much sense.
And this is why some people get Legend with 70%+ wr?? And it has nothing to do with the fact that almost everyone is using the same decks?? Also Ben Brode stated that they don’t manipulate the Matchmaking in that direction. ( The benefit for Blizz seems not relevant to me) I trust him with this one , it would be awful for his ,and Blizzards reputation if a rigged system would be discovered.
And 300 games are actually not that small of a sample size,but pls keep in mind to make a relevant statistic, those games should be played in one day, preferably a couple hours. The meta changes to fast ( two days ago my buddy faced 30% aggro Paladin, now Priest is on the rise again) for one guy to make a relevant sample size over a couple days/ 300 games .
i never said the loaded probability definitively wins or loses games. Good players will always negate some bad odds and RNG. It’s not 100% of the time.
Blizzard doesn’t have to worry because it can’t be disproved or proved. I wouldn’t think it would hurt anything if it came out. Again, it’s the easiest way to balance the game. I know lots of good players that have been hovering at 50% since nerfs. I have as well. These aren’t net deckers either. Matchmaking has been painfully obvious.
Well that’s your opinion, i can say I haven’t discovered any abnormal MM rng . I think the game still kinda balances itself by the matchup triangle. We don’t play against bots that blizzard is spawning when we que with our deck ,some guy on the other side is winning,or if not is probably complaining about MM ^^
Btw I have 64% with my own OTK pally on rank 3 atm.
It happened many times but I always had the firm idea that was just the RNG, now I feel that any of my decks can make it
There is no true RNG in this game. Everything has increased or decreased probability. The behind the scenes is out of whack right now.
Could you link us to the source? Do you have any kind of proof or is it just your stomach feelings?
Just years of playing the game and seeing the pattern. I’m not the only one that’s noticed. You can search plenty on the topic. It’s not game breaking or anything, but it does have its annoyances when big nerfs like this come out. Everyone wondered why the didn’t nerf cube..it’s because they did it behind the scenes.
Then it’s sadly just BS. You noticing a pattern is nothing in the grand scheme of 70 million players playing the game. Unless you find 50 million topics then it’s just a useless stomach feeling.
Show us some proof. Or live in a world where anyone can claim anything to be true.
Luckily there is always one guy on the other side who is winning when you are losing so don’t worry about the system ;) Worry about your current luck and game play.
.
The reason it is so easy to conceal, is because the same "evidence" that is used to "prove" it exists, also "proves" it doesn't.
If I am matched against 5 Aggro Paladin's while playing Exodia Mage, and I decide to switch to Control Warlock ... and I suddenly stop seeing Aggro ... you can look at that and say "obviously, you were due for a change" ... " or you can look at it and say "the game changed my matchmaking" ... and neither argument can be proven true, because they both are reasonable to believe.
Last month I made a concerted effort to play 3 different deck archetypes as equally as possible. I played at the same times, switching decks every 5 games. When I reached a total of 100 games played with each deck, I looked at the matchups, and each deck had dramatically different results, with either a mirror match, or direct counter match being the most dominate matchup, and the best possible matchup being the least played (of the top decks). I am sorry, I don't have the screenshots here right now at work ... but each one showed a deviation of around 15% or more.
While 300 games is a "small sample" for actual statistics, its a lot of games for one person to play in a month under controlled conditions. And it should be enough games to at least see similar graphs ... not ones that are completely different, but all 3 follow the same deviations.
Exactly how it is being done ... I have no idea. But I have zero doubt it is being done.
I wanna glide down, over Mulholland
I wanna write her, name in the sky
I wanna free fall, out into nothin'
Gonna leave this, world for awhile
I do have the same problem, I've been playing fungalmancer warlock and managed to get to rank 10, but now the only thing I face is murloc paladin, and I can't beat that ever. Any decks that people can think of that counter murloc pali, I would love to know.
So do i homie, i average rank 10 but now i stuck at 18. What happen? Shit happen
cube is getting countered and kings is too weak vs aggro.
big priest is a high roll deck,. your skill doesn't matter.
maybe try the control warlock or DK mage? i found both decks good climbers, and these have a higher skill ceiling then average netdecks, so should be good for you :)
The meta has changed drastically since the nerfs, and you may not have adjusted to keep up. If you're still trying to play the same decks, with the same game plan as you were before the nerfs, you're in for some pain.
You might just be catching awful RNG. I was 4 last season, and I seem stuck at 13 now. I've been just trying shit out in Casual, because I'm still not sure what the hell the meta is doing. HSReplay provides absolutely no evidence that Evolve Shaman should be doing as well as it always does against no matter what deck I'm running, but I chalk that up to not having that great a handle on my new decks yet.
....or maybe I'm just getting hosed by RNG, too. I really can't tell.
I just keep watching my stats in HDT and the trends on HSReplay, but nothing has seemed to add up since the nerfs. Some days I'm running with WRs in the 60s, other days it's in the 30s. I really can't seem to pin it down, and my overall WR since the patch is 50. Just treading water.
The one thing that seems certain is that Kingsbane is pretty much dead. I outrun it with Murloc Paladin every time I don't draw my deck upside down, but YMMV.
HDT tells me that my Cubelock is my best deck since the patch, running 62%, but the games are so long that it really doesn't feel that productive.
Git guud.
Top deck is cheat
I also had more issues climbing this season as usually.
I normally make it above rank 5 without any issue, but this time I was struggling a lot to get even to rank 10.
In the end I tried a my own adaptation of a Secret Mage at it works quite well.
Good luck for everyone!
Haha als the netdeckers can't adapt to the new meta circumstances :DD
Luckily there is always one guy on the other side who is winning when you are losing so don’t worry about the system ;) Worry about your current luck and game play.
Use lift if you can't climb ladder.
Check out my entry for this week's Card Design Competition. Vote for it if you like it.