I'd love some proof to, but just to make a point, let's assume you're right and your idea holds weight.
I have the following questions;
What is your hypothesis? Would it be correct to say that it is: "Hearthstone has a matchmaking system that tries to lower the chance that decks including specific tech-cards matches up against the decks that they are intended to counter."?
If so, what would you say motivates them to arrange such a system? I argue that it would just lower the incentive to craft tech cards if it's not working out. You may say it's because they want the expensive tier 1 decks to be mandatory to craft, but I'd maintain that people would still craft these decks as long as they're posted on Hearthpwn, reddit or twitter or whatever. Wouldn't blizzard make more money on tech cards actually working? That way the meta changes more and people will need to try out more decks. Blizzard has nothing to win on a stale meta as people would only build one or two decks.
My second point is the risk involved from such a move from Blizzard. It's pretty easy to test using a quantitative method as you did. Requires fairly low effort, especially if many are doing it. Even more considering various meta reports and third party stat trackers. If Blizzard would be found out that they're rigging the ladder, that would be HUGE and may just destroy a huge part of the community, especially the competitive scene (which I would say is what keep Hearthstone alive). It seems like a huge risk for a low benefit and I see this being sort of a defeater for any conspiracy theory. It just makes no sense, at least for me. But someone can provide more proof and data about this, on a much larger scale as well, then I'd definitely be willing to trust that data and wonder if there's something weird going on from Blizzards side.
Also, data like that wouldn't necessarily conclude that Blizzard made this intentionally, we'd need more proof for that. It might as well originate from an unintentional glitch in the game, or whatever.
I think the benefits for Blizzard having the ability to alter win rates based on decks and card composition is obvious. To adjust win rates in arena, and variety to the experience, they adjust the rate certain draft options appear. This is known, and they did this because people disliked the experience of facing mage after mage with flamestrike, for example.
Since they can't adjust card draft options in constructed, it seems reasonable that they might adjust match ups. The harder it is to climb with one deck, the more likely players are to try different decks. If you have a tech card that works really well against what you are facing, you don't have incentive to craft other tech cards, buy more packs etc.
I don't have proof, but I'd like to try out the OP's experiment and see if I get similar results. I would also encourage others to do the same.
Just upload your screenshots and deck tracker data man, if you're really into math you should know how to justify a proof.
EDIT: Math doesn't usually need "evidence" (in this case screenshots, deck tracker data, etc) because it concludes stuff based on statements that are known to be true. But this is stat, which within the mathematical domain is sort of an oddball. You can't just type stuff like "I got this data by playing 75 games with 2 tech cards and 75 games with 3 tech cards". Upload your evidence to eliminate all doubt.
This being said, I think it's OK if they try not to match you against decks you're specially prepared for. Think of it this way:
1. Player A has several tech cards against Player B's deck.
2. If Blizzard matches them up, Player B will naturally be at a disadvantage.
3. So instead, Blizzard tries to match Player A against another player (let's call him C) such that A and C don't have that much advantage against each other.
It would also make sense for your climb from rank 5 to legend to be more difficult, simply because it's full of high-level play already. To get from rank 5 to legend, it should take more than just knowing how to counter one build. You have to know how to face them all.
Your inclusion of multiple cubelock tech cards might have been interpreted by the system as an attempt to get the most of cubelock matchups, so it tries to compensate by lowering the probability that you'll play against a cubelock deck. If it didn't, everyone would play anti-cubelock in the hopes of getting an easy win. In turn, this will make people play cubelock less and less, until it eventually loses popularity.
For someone who supposedly has 15 years of experience in statistics, your analysis is very rudimentary
Let's suppose Blizzard did rig the system: how would they make an algorithm for that? One that tracks all the meta decks and changes your matchups based on what specific cards you've put in your deck? Really?
What would even be the purpose of such a system? We are talking about a multi-billion dollar company here. You really think they would take the risk to get found out they are rigging their game that is getting taken competitively seriously by a lot of people? And for what? I fail to see how they would make more money off this game by making the players more pissed off.
Let's be honest here: I've played this game for a long time, and I've had similar experiences to this, where you feel that for one session the entire game is against you by matching you up against decks that completely counter you. But there have probably been just as many sessions where I got very lucky and matched up against decks which mine completely countered. I can remember at least three win streaks to legend I had where this was the case. That's called confirmation bias: you remember everything that supports your theory, but conveniently forget everything that might undermine it. Are you seriously saying you never had a run of games where your matchups were perfect? Come on man.
in summary: take off your tin foil hat. It's called luck.
I'd love some proof to, but just to make a point, let's assume you're right and your idea holds weight.
I have the following questions;
What is your hypothesis? Would it be correct to say that it is: "Hearthstone has a matchmaking system that tries to lower the chance that decks including specific tech-cards matches up against the decks that they are intended to counter."?
If so, what would you say motivates them to arrange such a system? I argue that it would just lower the incentive to craft tech cards if it's not working out. You may say it's because they want the expensive tier 1 decks to be mandatory to craft, but I'd maintain that people would still craft these decks as long as they're posted on Hearthpwn, reddit or twitter or whatever. Wouldn't blizzard make more money on tech cards actually working? That way the meta changes more and people will need to try out more decks. Blizzard has nothing to win on a stale meta as people would only build one or two decks.
My second point is the risk involved from such a move from Blizzard. It's pretty easy to test using a quantitative method as you did. Requires fairly low effort, especially if many are doing it. Even more considering various meta reports and third party stat trackers. If Blizzard would be found out that they're rigging the ladder, that would be HUGE and may just destroy a huge part of the community, especially the competitive scene (which I would say is what keep Hearthstone alive). It seems like a huge risk for a low benefit and I see this being sort of a defeater for any conspiracy theory. It just makes no sense, at least for me. But someone can provide more proof and data about this, on a much larger scale as well, then I'd definitely be willing to trust that data and wonder if there's something weird going on from Blizzards side.
Also, data like that wouldn't necessarily conclude that Blizzard made this intentionally, we'd need more proof for that. It might as well originate from an unintentional glitch in the game, or whatever.
Exactly what i always said!
Why would they risk running a rigged system,when people could find out what’s happening? For example,what happens to all the Warloc players? Do they have longer que time ? Nah Only negative press for Blizzard if such a thing would be confirmed.
The effort of running such a cheating system would be immense. There’s just no way .
Even if he had supplied proof, I doubt the claim of being statistician. You'd understand that the sample size is not only small but absolutely minuscule - to such a degree that, what you "experienced" is utterly pointless in even mentioning.
Secondly, you'd understand that game by game you have a hugely varied range that "could" be experienced coupled with an even simpler notion of there being 50/50 chance or your opponent being 1.) A cubelock or 2.) Not a cubelock - without accounting for other classes and without accounting for variations in cubelocks, which there are. Without the "Cubelock" playing their whole deck, you would have zero means of tracking the variance in their deck. So your "theory" would fall flat unless it was solely tracking Defias Cleaner affecting encounters into Warlock.
I could carry on with the innumerable variables but really any adult on the forum will likely see how frivolous this post is. I'd rate that the poster is simply salty and trying to take an approach that attacks to some degree without trying to come across as salty. I mean, mentioning dominance alone shows the whole thing up, it's not "dominant" on ladder at all.
While i understand people who are skeptical about your claims since there are no clear evidence to support your statements, i personally believe them. I did this kind of thing for myself back when pirate warriors were the big thing, as soon as i added 2 golakkas and bunch of taunts/weapon removals just so i could have some fun screwing them over - boom, can't queue into them at all (well maybe not entirely "at all", but i had to concede like 15 matches in a row to finally found pw), as soon as i switched to my regular deck without golakkas - 2 of the first three games were pw. Had similiar experiences when i added secret eaters and 1 kezan because i was sick of secret decks - suddenly i don't queue into mages and paladins like at all and even hunters who i met didnt run a single secret...
I'm sure blizzard is doing these matchmaking "adjustments" so people who getting countered by tech cards "did not feel too bad" about being screwed over by tech cards too often (sounds like excuse blizzard might give right? Not that they will ever admit it).
Or maybe its just me and my tinfoil hat speaking. I'm too lazy to actually do experiment myself, set up deck tracker for it... too much of a bother.
Easiest proof to this not being rigged is any rigged system can be exploited. And the question “why bother riggging?”.
If this was true you could just make a deck with normally a particular bad popular matchup such as Control Warlock or Cub lock, put in the tech card so the algorithm didn’t match you and work your way up the ladder with ease not having to face that match up.
So when you make rank 1 with your exploit of this “rigged” system. Let us know.
Activision already have a patent for such a matchmaking system I don't see a reason why they would not use it in such a game like heartstone. because no matter what, you cannot provide certain evidence to rigged rng without the data you get from Blizzard. also there is no legal penalty for using such tricks, It would only decrease their reputation so that kind of risk easily can be taken in order to generate more money and to provide more challenging ranking system.
I think the benefits for Blizzard having the ability to alter win rates based on decks and card composition is obvious. To adjust win rates in arena, and variety to the experience, they adjust the rate certain draft options appear. This is known, and they did this because people disliked the experience of facing mage after mage with flamestrike, for example.
Since they can't adjust card draft options in constructed, it seems reasonable that they might adjust match ups. The harder it is to climb with one deck, the more likely players are to try different decks. If you have a tech card that works really well against what you are facing, you don't have incentive to craft other tech cards, buy more packs etc.
I don't have proof, but I'd like to try out the OP's experiment and see if I get similar results. I would also encourage others to do the same.
I'm talking about this specific case regarding tech cards decreasing the chance that you face the deck you tech against. According to metastats and vicious syndicate, Murloc paladin is slightly unfavored to Cube by a few percentages. The OP put in a tech card to slightly increase the win rate, to perhaps a more 50/50 situation. How would it then make sense for this to reduce his chances to face Cube from 66% to 4%? Wouldn't it rather be that 66% that should be addressed by Blizzard if their goal was to add "variety to the experience"?
Adding a tech card would suddenly change the favor of that matchup and result in immediate varity to the experience. A rigged system that instead matches you to an unfavorable opponent would pretty much mean that the tech card is void and the deck you're up against has a huge advantage on you. This would only mean that tier 1 decks are staying strong, since teching against them has no effect. If anything, this system only reduces variety.
You also mention that people are more likely to try different decks if they can't make a difference with tech cards. You have to keep in mind that the match making consists of two parties with this argument. If a given decks win rate is lowered by other decks teching against you, that deck is no longer as viable as it used to be., meaning that those players will try other decks or craft new cards if the tech is efficient enough. What is the point of trying new decks if the game is rigged to keep the decks that are on top unchallenged?
I still argue that a living meta that is adjusted by itself by people cycling tech cards or archetypes makes a ton more sense then rigging matchmaking if you want variety and people crafting and trying new decks. Intentionally rigging it to create staleness and aim for 50% win rates will just slow the meta down, leading to people playing the same decks and not buying packs, reduced interest in the game, more complaints from the community and the huge risk in having this conspiracy leaked.
Wow this is really interesting considering something I've experienced playing a mill-shaman (yes, a mill-shaman) in wild a few days ago. I played with hsdecktracker so luckily I still have the statistics available. When I first made the deck I put in skulking geist in case any jade druids decided my fatigue tactic wasn't going to work. After 11 games and no jade druids I decided to remove skulking geist and I put in the darkness for some good 'ol memes. Can you guess what my first opponent after that change was playing? That's right, a goddamn jade druid. I thought it was just a stupid coincidence at first, but after reading this I've become very suspicious and interested to see if these things are actually tied together. I don't really know how to share statistics from hsdecktracker here but maybe they're available on HSReplay.net?
I used 26 matches as my standard candle. (No pun unintended)
Trial 1 : 3.8% chance of facing cubelock
Trial 2: 4.0% chance of facing cubelock
Trial 3: 4.2% chance of facing cubelock
Average: With deck holding 3 silences, instead of 2.....the chance of facing cubelock was 4.0%
OPPOSITION EXPERIMENT:
I took the Defias Cleaner out, and put my knife juggler back in.
Again standard candle of 26 games at Rank 5:
Trial 1: 73.2 % chance of facing cubelock
Trial 2: 57.6% chance of facing cubelock
Trial 3: 69.2% chance of facing cubelock
Average 66.6% chance of facing cubelock.
Remember, this is a sampling of over 150 games, 75 WITH a 3rd Silence (No Cubelocks), and 75 with only 2 Silences (Many Cubelocks)
Please try to be more rigorous in your experiments :
1) Decktracker proof of your measurements would add credibility to your claims
2) You say that each trial is 26 games, then 75 games in 3 trials : so, either 25 or 26, what is it exactly ?
3) The difference in percentages cannot match a integer number of cubelocks faced, so this does not make any sense.
- 3.8% x 26 = 0.988 cubelocks, 4% x 26 = 1.04 cubelock, 4.2% x 26 = 1.092 cubelocks. Please explain to me how you can have different percentages among those trials if you actually faced 1 cubelock each time ?
- 73.2% x 26 = 19.032 games, 57.6% x 26 = 14.976 games, 69.2%x26 = 17.992 games. Ok, those seem more likely just a rounding error, because they are not different percentages for the same base value.
4) Please consider alternating decks as a better experiment. Indeed, each player tend to stick to its favorite deck, and play at different times that others. Thus, there can be a bias depending on WHEN you play. It could be possible that most cubelock players play from 2 PM to 5 PM, and most pallys players play from 5 PM to 8 PM, thus introducing errors in your measures. A more accurate way would thus be to alternate each game by doing 1 game with silence, 1 game without, 1 game with, ... This would greatly reduce this possible error.
As for 3 first trials, when you concade your mmr drops, facing you in a next game with player with similar mmr aka someone who lost a few last times, like you did. Cubewarlocks rather are not losing many times in a row, so after first few concades they were probably removed from your pool of opponents. At least thats what i would like to think, becouse I can't explain the trails 4-6. Another thing what people always forgot is matchmaking is not random. It's by definition match making SYSTEM. It folows programmed rules. As example it can look like this: mmr=days_of_experience*card_in_your_collection*champion_lvl*dust_worth_of_current_deck/current_lose_streak. Don't overreact it's an example, but blizz asked players in a poll what they would like to match making system to consider and deck dust worth was there as an option. So my point is that match making is a complex system with many variables and your observation is just a look at its work and this match making algorithm is definitely not perfect.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Why should Cleaner make so much of a difference, while Spellbreakers seem to be irrelevant?
If meta was really rigged, i expect it to be so in a logical way, based on mechanics and statistical counters. that is: if silence > rig.
I wouldn't even bother rigging the meta with code based on exceptionally situational cards.
Even if he had supplied proof, I doubt the claim of being statistician. You'd understand that the sample size is not only small but absolutely minuscule - to such a degree that, what you "experienced" is utterly pointless in even mentioning.
Secondly, you'd understand that game by game you have a hugely varied range that "could" be experienced coupled with an even simpler notion of there being 50/50 chance or your opponent being 1.) A cubelock or 2.) Not a cubelock - without accounting for other classes and without accounting for variations in cubelocks, which there are. Without the "Cubelock" playing their whole deck, you would have zero means of tracking the variance in their deck. So your "theory" would fall flat unless it was solely tracking Defias Cleaner affecting encounters into Warlock.
I could carry on with the innumerable variables but really any adult on the forum will likely see how frivolous this post is. I'd rate that the poster is simply salty and trying to take an approach that attacks to some degree without trying to come across as salty. I mean, mentioning dominance alone shows the whole thing up, it's not "dominant" on ladder at all.
Where's your "mathematical proof"?
Where's your raw data?
I call BS.
No self-respecting statistician will make wild claims without providing evidence that can be scrutinized.
Bad players whine.
Good players adapt.
While i understand people who are skeptical about your claims since there are no clear evidence to support your statements, i personally believe them. I did this kind of thing for myself back when pirate warriors were the big thing, as soon as i added 2 golakkas and bunch of taunts/weapon removals just so i could have some fun screwing them over - boom, can't queue into them at all (well maybe not entirely "at all", but i had to concede like 15 matches in a row to finally found pw), as soon as i switched to my regular deck without golakkas - 2 of the first three games were pw. Had similiar experiences when i added secret eaters and 1 kezan because i was sick of secret decks - suddenly i don't queue into mages and paladins like at all and even hunters who i met didnt run a single secret...
I'm sure blizzard is doing these matchmaking "adjustments" so people who getting countered by tech cards "did not feel too bad" about being screwed over by tech cards too often (sounds like excuse blizzard might give right? Not that they will ever admit it).
Or maybe its just me and my tinfoil hat speaking. I'm too lazy to actually do experiment myself, set up deck tracker for it... too much of a bother.
Simple confirmation bias that’s all.
Easiest proof to this not being rigged is any rigged system can be exploited. And the question “why bother riggging?”.
If this was true you could just make a deck with normally a particular bad popular matchup such as Control Warlock or Cub lock, put in the tech card so the algorithm didn’t match you and work your way up the ladder with ease not having to face that match up.
So when you make rank 1 with your exploit of this “rigged” system. Let us know.
1: To prove something like that, you need a MUCH larger sample size, so many that it is impossible to play then all by yourself.
2: You could have pulled those numbers out of a hat.
Editor of the Heartpwn Legendary Crafting Guide:
https://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/card-discussion/205920-legendary-tier-list-crafting-guide
Activision already have a patent for such a matchmaking system I don't see a reason why they would not use it in such a game like heartstone. because no matter what, you cannot provide certain evidence to rigged rng without the data you get from Blizzard. also there is no legal penalty for using such tricks, It would only decrease their reputation so that kind of risk easily can be taken in order to generate more money and to provide more challenging ranking system.
Threads like these makes me realize how anti-vaxers and flat earthers can exist.
How can a statistician think that's a good sample size? LOL that's like using 100 people for the census.
Came here for a proof, found only a story with numbers that doesn't adds up.
"I used 26 matches as my standard candle. (No pun unintended)
Trial 1 : 3.8% chance of facing cubelock
Trial 2: 4.0% chance of facing cubelock
Trial 3: 4.2% chance of facing cubelock"
What does it even mean? how can you have a 0,2% gaps in sample of 26 matches? it's literally impossible.
At the very least you should show us your calculations or show us the data, your percentages make no sense.
Wow this is really interesting considering something I've experienced playing a mill-shaman (yes, a mill-shaman) in wild a few days ago. I played with hsdecktracker so luckily I still have the statistics available. When I first made the deck I put in skulking geist in case any jade druids decided my fatigue tactic wasn't going to work. After 11 games and no jade druids I decided to remove skulking geist and I put in the darkness for some good 'ol memes. Can you guess what my first opponent after that change was playing? That's right, a goddamn jade druid. I thought it was just a stupid coincidence at first, but after reading this I've become very suspicious and interested to see if these things are actually tied together. I don't really know how to share statistics from hsdecktracker here but maybe they're available on HSReplay.net?
btw Activision plays most likely plays part on this.
As for 3 first trials, when you concade your mmr drops, facing you in a next game with player with similar mmr aka someone who lost a few last times, like you did. Cubewarlocks rather are not losing many times in a row, so after first few concades they were probably removed from your pool of opponents. At least thats what i would like to think, becouse I can't explain the trails 4-6. Another thing what people always forgot is matchmaking is not random. It's by definition match making SYSTEM. It folows programmed rules. As example it can look like this: mmr=days_of_experience*card_in_your_collection*champion_lvl*dust_worth_of_current_deck/current_lose_streak. Don't overreact it's an example, but blizz asked players in a poll what they would like to match making system to consider and deck dust worth was there as an option. So my point is that match making is a complex system with many variables and your observation is just a look at its work and this match making algorithm is definitely not perfect.