First off, the word “meta” makes me cringe as so many times player advice is based around it. But that’s not the point here.
A lot of players talk about the local meta around the rank they are playing. However, since we all know that the matchmaking is geared toward limiting your success (win streaks; can’t be winning too much, right?) how can there be a local meta? The meta (decks you go up against) are specific to the deck(s) you are playing. I’ve tried teching against this faux local meta, but as others on various threads have noted on other threads (namely salt thread, but overs as well) your matchups change as you change your deck. You can tech against a variety of decks since you can’t have a good matchup every game, but in no way can you tech against a specific deck with any consistency.
we all know that the matchmaking is geared toward limiting your success (win streaks; can’t be winning too much, right?) how can there be a local meta? The meta (decks you go up against) are specific to the deck(s) you are playing.
in no way can you tech against a specific deck with any consistency.
lmao
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look, I want to tell you something because you're very dear to me. And I hope you understand that it comes from the bottom of my damaged, damaged heart. You are the finest piece of ass I've ever had and I don't care who knows it. I am so glad that I got to roam those hillsides.
The meta itself is "netdeck if you're brainless, homebrew if you don't care about a meta very much". That's how the meta is and always will be.
Decks work based on synergies, both small and large. Interconnected systems. The Heal Zoo deck came out of nowhere. People don't discover enough on their own because most people don't experiment enough on their own, which is why the brainless among us make this game feel so stale. The meta itself is dependent on discovery. If people aren't going out of their way to try out combinations that they're curious about, independent of what they've already seen, new systems/archetypes/combinations will never see the light of day. The "local meta" exists so long as win rates ebb and flow. A portion of the ladder can feel still/stagnant, so long as the people piloting decks in that area of the ladder are doing poorly or kept down by stronger contenders. People only witness so much of the same deck based on their skill and the deck they're piloting. Because of this, a "local meta" can be observed. It's just a matter of the health of the habitat that those who are reporting a "local meta" reside within. And just like every neighborhood, the ladder's stated "local meta" is ever changing, which is to be expected.
Well, i faced 14 mages in almost 150 games from rank 5 to legend (and some legend games). A friend of mine was crying about control mage and said this is the only deck he face. I thought he was exaggerating, so i watched him play 3 games and the 3 was control mage. He is at rank 20. So, looks like some decks are more popular on some ranks.
50% win rate target is a well known design goal; goal is to push up to 50% those that are below it and push down to 50% those that are above it.
For Casual indeed, not for Ranked.
In Ranked, you are matched against people with the same rank, it's as simple as that.
And it's obvious that there are local metas. At rank 20 you just don't face the same decks as in Legend. A few months ago I started playing a F2P account in NA and faced a top meta even paladin, but I still won as the guy obviously didn't know how to play the deck. Aside from that one exception I mostly faced homebrew decks from people like me that didn't have the cards; you wouldn't face these decks in Legend.
And when you watch videos from streamers in high legend they keep playing against strange decks such as Kingsbane Rogue that you nearly never see on ladder, because the meta is different.
50% win rate target is a well known design goal; goal is to push up to 50% those that are below it and push down to 50% those that are above it.
Yes, but this goal is not achieved by rigging matchmaking, as OP seems to think; Blizzard only intervenes through nerfs and new cards. In fact, it is often because a local meta does indeed exist that most decks do not have a winrate much above 50% - if an abundance of people a playing a certain deck, people will start to play one that counters it. This also explains why you can climb with a deck one day and only lose the next - people have begun to counter the deck you were playing.
50% win rate target is a well known design goal; goal is to push up to 50% those that are below it and push down to 50% those that are above it.
Can you cite a source on this? In principle, I think it makes sense as a goal for Blizzard (i.e. to have a perfectly balanced game), but the statements I've seen from them more often sound something like "we want the strength and popularity of classes to ebb and flow" - basically a conceit that it's not possible for perfect balance, so it's better to keep the meta dynamic.
White I agree the phrase 'local meta' is largely BS, it's not at all for the reason you cited. There is nothnig fixed about matchmaking on ladder - if you hadn't noticed you get lucky in matchmaking as often as you get unlucky, though either can go in streaks. My view is people get drawn into using the 'meta' or 'local meta' phrase when trying to justify their losses, but on an individual level there is no way you are playing enough games to get a feel for the real meta. For this you simply have to look at the stat tracking sites - your last 30 games could follow it, or not even remotely...the sample size is far too small.
since we all know that the matchmaking is geared toward limiting your success
The meta (decks you go up against) are specific to the deck(s) you are playing.
your matchups change as you change your deck.
This cannot be true.
Every matchup involves two players. If blizzard was somehow rigging the matchmaking to ensure that every player was queuing into an unfavorable matchup, then nobody would ever get into a game. Every time you are "rigged" into an unfavored game, your opponent has technically been "rigged" into a favorable game. Using that logic; it would only make sense that for every game you were unfavored, you would also match into a game as the favored player. Therefore, you would have roughly 50% favored/unfavored matchmaking experience.
OR we can just Occam's Razor the shit out of that theory and just say "there is no rigged matchmaking".
Also, if rigging was happening, how is it that any player could have a winrate of over 50%? Many of the best ranked players have upwards of a 60% winrate. This is largely due to the fact that they a) are very familiar with the decks they are playing with/against, and b) they tech their decks against the meta.
Real-world example: Recently, a streamer played a new version of zoolock that seems promising. The ladder exploded with zoolocks after that. Instead of playing the flavor-of-the-week deck, find it's natural counter-deck, and farm the shit out of them.
Sites like HSReplay.net let you clearly see that there is indeed a meta that is always evolving, not only on a macro level but also within rank groups and even within ranks itself. The "autocorrection" of trying to pair favorable/unfavorable decks to maintain a 50% winrate overall might play a part in it but since different classes/decks have different popularity I'd assume it's effect is limited as the Blizzard algorithms can't always pair the matchup it "wants".
Pocket metas exist at certain ranks. Typically the majority of decks found pre rank 5 will be aggressive sub optimal lists in a vacuum due to the 'winstreak system' in place. Post five when that is no longer relevant you will find less creativity and more consistency as the game tends to slows down as people aim to substantially increase their winrate with tier 1 competitive decks.
The main problem with teching for local metas is people cannot tell you about them as they will not always be correct as what people play in terms of quantity shifts from day to day. Only real way to properly assess your "rank meta" is through playing.
This is one aspect of the game where lazyness is severely punished.
Now as far as the Blizzard forced 50% winrate algorithm is concerned I can't say that I firmly believe in something like that but I am not ruling it out by any stretch of the imagination.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Experienced Deckbuilder, Legend Player, Wild Expert, TCG Veteran and Contributing Author toWildHS & Vicious Syndicate. Any and all support is greatly appreciated as it helps me make further quality content. 🐺 ➣Twitter ➣Decks ➣Patreon
First off, the word “meta” makes me cringe as so many times player advice is based around it. But that’s not the point here.
A lot of players talk about the local meta around the rank they are playing. However, since we all know that the matchmaking is geared toward limiting your success (win streaks; can’t be winning too much, right?) how can there be a local meta? The meta (decks you go up against) are specific to the deck(s) you are playing. I’ve tried teching against this faux local meta, but as others on various threads have noted on other threads (namely salt thread, but overs as well) your matchups change as you change your deck. You can tech against a variety of decks since you can’t have a good matchup every game, but in no way can you tech against a specific deck with any consistency.
What point are you actually trying to make? It can't be what you put in the title, since every single tracker available to this game proves that there's a different meta as you climb.
Also, you do realise that if matchups change to make it less favourable to you, then Blizzard is favouring the other 50%? Why are you in the wrong 50%?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I wasn't planning on going for a run today. But those cops came out of nowhere.
Rank 20-25: you can progress with homebrew/beginner deck as long as it's marginally stronger than your basic free deck. You will encounter occasional netdeckers but many don't know how to play their deck.
Ranks 15-20: starting to see more netdecks, but many decks are still homegrown (although much better optimized)
Ranks 5-15: mostly netdecks (you'll see the same decks over an over, with occasional weird one thrown in)
Legend: you'll see a reoccurrence of meme decks since many people no longer care about rank
As for your conclusion that the game messes with your matchmaking to balance win rates, you should take off your tinfoil hat. That would be unnecessarily complicated and useless. In case you haven't noticed it yet, the matchmaking formula is simply: opponent within the same rank as you (+/- a couple stars).
It is hilarious to me that people actually believe your matchups change when you change decks. I mean absolutely hilarious. Do people not realize you are playing against a real person, so when you get a bad matchup, its a good one for your opponent? Why did this evil Blizzard algorithm not screw your opponent over?
First off, the word “meta” makes me cringe as so many times player advice is based around it. But that’s not the point here.
A lot of players talk about the local meta around the rank they are playing. However, since we all know that the matchmaking is geared toward limiting your success (win streaks; can’t be winning too much, right?) how can there be a local meta? The meta (decks you go up against) are specific to the deck(s) you are playing. I’ve tried teching against this faux local meta, but as others on various threads have noted on other threads (namely salt thread, but overs as well) your matchups change as you change your deck. You can tech against a variety of decks since you can’t have a good matchup every game, but in no way can you tech against a specific deck with any consistency.
Citation needed. Thanks
Local meta exists if you consider (large) groups of ranks. Legend meta is different from 1-4 which is different from 6-10 etc.
You can check statistics from sites eg Vicious Syndicate.
Then again, worth considering a tech? Maybe not. But even slight changes in frequency can lead to a sensibly different meta over time.
lmao
Look, I want to tell you something because you're very dear to me. And I hope you understand that it comes from the bottom of my damaged, damaged heart. You are the finest piece of ass I've ever had and I don't care who knows it. I am so glad that I got to roam those hillsides.
where did i left my tin foil hat... brb
The meta itself is "netdeck if you're brainless, homebrew if you don't care about a meta very much". That's how the meta is and always will be.
Decks work based on synergies, both small and large. Interconnected systems. The Heal Zoo deck came out of nowhere. People don't discover enough on their own because most people don't experiment enough on their own, which is why the brainless among us make this game feel so stale. The meta itself is dependent on discovery. If people aren't going out of their way to try out combinations that they're curious about, independent of what they've already seen, new systems/archetypes/combinations will never see the light of day. The "local meta" exists so long as win rates ebb and flow. A portion of the ladder can feel still/stagnant, so long as the people piloting decks in that area of the ladder are doing poorly or kept down by stronger contenders. People only witness so much of the same deck based on their skill and the deck they're piloting. Because of this, a "local meta" can be observed. It's just a matter of the health of the habitat that those who are reporting a "local meta" reside within. And just like every neighborhood, the ladder's stated "local meta" is ever changing, which is to be expected.
Come visit my Card Emporium. Strange things, you will find inside...
Come take the test, if you're daring. Feel free to show me your results in a message.
Well, i faced 14 mages in almost 150 games from rank 5 to legend (and some legend games). A friend of mine was crying about control mage and said this is the only deck he face. I thought he was exaggerating, so i watched him play 3 games and the 3 was control mage. He is at rank 20. So, looks like some decks are more popular on some ranks.
This is obviously a bait but even data shows rank one's and legend's meta is different https://www.vicioussyndicate.com/vs-data-reaper-report-99
i play cubelock and lose 5 games in a row then i play odd paladin and get my stars back wash rinse repeat
For Casual indeed, not for Ranked.
In Ranked, you are matched against people with the same rank, it's as simple as that.
And it's obvious that there are local metas. At rank 20 you just don't face the same decks as in Legend. A few months ago I started playing a F2P account in NA and faced a top meta even paladin, but I still won as the guy obviously didn't know how to play the deck. Aside from that one exception I mostly faced homebrew decks from people like me that didn't have the cards; you wouldn't face these decks in Legend.
And when you watch videos from streamers in high legend they keep playing against strange decks such as Kingsbane Rogue that you nearly never see on ladder, because the meta is different.
Yes, but this goal is not achieved by rigging matchmaking, as OP seems to think; Blizzard only intervenes through nerfs and new cards. In fact, it is often because a local meta does indeed exist that most decks do not have a winrate much above 50% - if an abundance of people a playing a certain deck, people will start to play one that counters it. This also explains why you can climb with a deck one day and only lose the next - people have begun to counter the deck you were playing.
Can you cite a source on this? In principle, I think it makes sense as a goal for Blizzard (i.e. to have a perfectly balanced game), but the statements I've seen from them more often sound something like "we want the strength and popularity of classes to ebb and flow" - basically a conceit that it's not possible for perfect balance, so it's better to keep the meta dynamic.
White I agree the phrase 'local meta' is largely BS, it's not at all for the reason you cited. There is nothnig fixed about matchmaking on ladder - if you hadn't noticed you get lucky in matchmaking as often as you get unlucky, though either can go in streaks. My view is people get drawn into using the 'meta' or 'local meta' phrase when trying to justify their losses, but on an individual level there is no way you are playing enough games to get a feel for the real meta. For this you simply have to look at the stat tracking sites - your last 30 games could follow it, or not even remotely...the sample size is far too small.
This cannot be true.
Every matchup involves two players. If blizzard was somehow rigging the matchmaking to ensure that every player was queuing into an unfavorable matchup, then nobody would ever get into a game. Every time you are "rigged" into an unfavored game, your opponent has technically been "rigged" into a favorable game. Using that logic; it would only make sense that for every game you were unfavored, you would also match into a game as the favored player. Therefore, you would have roughly 50% favored/unfavored matchmaking experience.
OR we can just Occam's Razor the shit out of that theory and just say "there is no rigged matchmaking".
Also, if rigging was happening, how is it that any player could have a winrate of over 50%? Many of the best ranked players have upwards of a 60% winrate. This is largely due to the fact that they a) are very familiar with the decks they are playing with/against, and b) they tech their decks against the meta.
Real-world example: Recently, a streamer played a new version of zoolock that seems promising. The ladder exploded with zoolocks after that. Instead of playing the flavor-of-the-week deck, find it's natural counter-deck, and farm the shit out of them.
TL;DR - There is no rigged matchmaking.
Sites like HSReplay.net let you clearly see that there is indeed a meta that is always evolving, not only on a macro level but also within rank groups and even within ranks itself. The "autocorrection" of trying to pair favorable/unfavorable decks to maintain a 50% winrate overall might play a part in it but since different classes/decks have different popularity I'd assume it's effect is limited as the Blizzard algorithms can't always pair the matchup it "wants".
Can't be since low legend MMR overlaps those ranks.
Pocket metas exist at certain ranks. Typically the majority of decks found pre rank 5 will be aggressive sub optimal lists in a vacuum due to the 'winstreak system' in place. Post five when that is no longer relevant you will find less creativity and more consistency as the game tends to slows down as people aim to substantially increase their winrate with tier 1 competitive decks.
The main problem with teching for local metas is people cannot tell you about them as they will not always be correct as what people play in terms of quantity shifts from day to day. Only real way to properly assess your "rank meta" is through playing.
This is one aspect of the game where lazyness is severely punished.
Now as far as the Blizzard forced 50% winrate algorithm is concerned I can't say that I firmly believe in something like that but I am not ruling it out by any stretch of the imagination.
What point are you actually trying to make? It can't be what you put in the title, since every single tracker available to this game proves that there's a different meta as you climb.
Also, you do realise that if matchups change to make it less favourable to you, then Blizzard is favouring the other 50%? Why are you in the wrong 50%?
I wasn't planning on going for a run today. But those cops came out of nowhere.
Local meta is definitely there:
Rank 20-25: you can progress with homebrew/beginner deck as long as it's marginally stronger than your basic free deck. You will encounter occasional netdeckers but many don't know how to play their deck.
Ranks 15-20: starting to see more netdecks, but many decks are still homegrown (although much better optimized)
Ranks 5-15: mostly netdecks (you'll see the same decks over an over, with occasional weird one thrown in)
Legend: you'll see a reoccurrence of meme decks since many people no longer care about rank
As for your conclusion that the game messes with your matchmaking to balance win rates, you should take off your tinfoil hat. That would be unnecessarily complicated and useless. In case you haven't noticed it yet, the matchmaking formula is simply: opponent within the same rank as you (+/- a couple stars).
Seems odd to preface your complaints about a perceived lack of local meta with a disregard for the use of the word and advice being given about meta.
It is hilarious to me that people actually believe your matchups change when you change decks. I mean absolutely hilarious. Do people not realize you are playing against a real person, so when you get a bad matchup, its a good one for your opponent? Why did this evil Blizzard algorithm not screw your opponent over?