Anecdotal evidence is not especially convincing to anyone who doesn't have the same expereince.
If you really think it is the case and want to persuade folks then you need to do some controlled testing. Log every game you play and make notes. Encourage others to do the same. Calculate the odds and margins of error on the sample size and see if you can make a significant finding.
Just to give you an idea for experimental design that you could use, you could pick a pair of decks and alternate between them every game, choosing a hard counter for each to see how many times it shows up in one matchup vs the other.
Which would then need to be compared to the likelyhood of a match against that hard counter (as well as a rating as to how hard of the counter the match was) with such a small set of archetype decks being played, it's no wonder people run into their counter so much, afterall that is the point of the meta, to view what is being played and try to counter it.
Which would then need to be compared to the likelyhood of a match against that hard counter (as well as a rating as to how hard of the counter the match was) with such a small set of archetype decks being played, it's no wonder people run into their counter so much, afterall that is the point of the meta, to view what is being played and try to counter it.
The likely-hood problem is taken care of by alternating decks. Example:
Handlock - hard counter hunter
Hunter - hard counter priest
Then you just have to test if you encounter priests more often as a handlock or as a hunter. If you encounter them significantly more often as a hunter, you would have pretty good evidence that something strange is going on.
Of course it's a ridiculous hypothesis as someone else pointed out, because for every bad match-up you have someone else has a good one, and since you play people near your rank you probably have similar win %s meaning the idea that Blizzard is favoring one of you over the other is pretty dumb.
But anyways, that would be a simple way to prove it if this was indeed a thing.
Would be nice to ban all these aggro players. Kinda ask myself how the meta would be then 4Head
And also, this is definitely just bad luck. People do not play always the same deck for each season. They chance sometimes even every game and finally end up playing the cancer hunter again DansGame
So the game is somehow rigged to keep your win rate at bay around 50%. whenever you happen to keep winning you get a row of losses. There are some ways to keep your win rate at bay. Firstly find hard matchup. Secondly give you a bad starting hand. Bad starting hand might just lose you the game.
Whoever says its not rigged - think about it. Its not in blizz intention to give you easy legend after copying some of the pro gamers decks. They need you to buy packs to craft new and new decks trying to find the one good deck to get to legend. Its blizzard and money has allways been number 1 priority for them. To code a game find you hard counters and bad starting hands is easier to code AI oponents who you face every adventure.
The question now is how to beat the system. Is it coded that you have to play x amount of games to reach legend? Or is there another goal you need to reach before the game allows your win rate to increase and reach legend.
thats so not true and just because you copy anothers legend deck doesnt guarante become legend yourself. you still need skill
in october i got legend the first time (never tried before) with a winratio of 62% from rank 5 to legend in 109 games.
I agree there is skill involved in this game but I would not consider myself a total noob or a player without a skill. However theres tons of luck in card draw involved as well. I have reached 12 wins in arena and have over 2500 wins total(it might not be much but its still something). It would be intresting to know what happened before you get such a great run to legend. Was the deck your best deck you play most of the times or were you trying something new. How many wins you had that season to reach rank 5? Maybe even time of the day you are playing.
well i know people with trash talk me because it was secret paladin, but you also played that deck so - without saying you are bad or i'm better then you - you still have room for improvements ;)
i didnt track my stats while getting to 5, because it wasnt worthwhile, it was just a walk in the park, people just didnt know how to play against secret pally. but from rank 4 upwards, it was quite a struggle
there was no real time of day i played, just random
sometimes the system feels rigged, sometimes i feel like there is a hidden camera or sth because nothing works ... but then you have days, were "the stars align" and everything works out in your favor. its just selective perception, that makes you feel, that you are "never lucky" ^^
I did not come here to see who of us is better player. If you are so skilled player and so pro why dont you start streaming and making money out of you pro skills. Anyways. Another theory of mine is the luck is based of your money spending in HS. If its no secret how much do you spend in HS.
wow dude did I in any case insult you? people here sometimes are pathetic
well then go waist you time playing 5 hours a day without accomplishing shit
Its rigged for sure. This season I decided to play more as usual and try to reach legend rank. Previous seasons I have reached up to rank 3 with just playing when I felt like it. My main deck was my own version of secredin. Reached 500 wins with it last season and decided its a waste of time to play paladin as its already golden. So this season with new cards from LOE and many new good decks I started to try new classes to play.
At first I checked https://www.reddit.com/r/CompetitiveHS/ daily and made a copy of decks that has reached legend this season - makes sense if someone reaches legend with a deck its possible for others also. Some of the decks I played: face druid, dreadsteed+reno warlock, midrange hunter, zoo, reynard new zoo and last I played my last seasons secredin. I did not play them couple of hours and then switched to new deck. Those decks I played workdays 4-5 hours and on some weekend days 7-8 hours. That is a lot of hours playing over the month
All of those decks are supposed to be able to reach at least rank 5 to get the golden epic at the end of the season. However this was not the case. At the start of the season I got to rank 7 and then bounced back to rank 10. any new try gets me to rank 7 or 8 and then bounces back to 10 or 11. Even my old trusty secredin keeps bouncing with winning streaks and then back with a losing streak.
So the game is somehow rigged to keep your win rate at bay around 50%. whenever you happen to keep winning you get a row of losses. There are some ways to keep your win rate at bay. Firstly find hard matchup. Secondly give you a bad starting hand. Bad starting hand might just lose you the game.
Whoever says its not rigged - think about it. Its not in blizz intention to give you easy legend after copying some of the pro gamers decks. They need you to buy packs to craft new and new decks trying to find the one good deck to get to legend. Its blizzard and money has allways been number 1 priority for them. To code a game find you hard counters and bad starting hands is easier to code AI oponents who you face every adventure.
The question now is how to beat the system. Is it coded that you have to play x amount of games to reach legend? Or is there another goal you need to reach before the game allows your win rate to increase and reach legend.
No, you just found exactly which part of the ladder you were suited to be at. That's the system working exactly as it should. As someone else said, just because someone got legend with a deck doesn't mean everyone will. You just don't strike me as the brightest bulb in the lot.
Just wanted to pop in and say its not just op that has been seeing this. A few streamers most notable Reynad has commented on the "rigged" match making. Athene has made a few youtube videos and there are also been a few post on reddit but non hitting the front page afaik.
On top of this there seems to be "some" data to back up the claim a few people have been tracking decks faced against sorted by deck with very different track records seen over the same season.
In the end off the day we can never know unless Blizzard comes out and says something but from a game design pov it would make sense. First off all we know that Blizzard tracks an insane amount of stats everything from % winning with X card in the deck to % winning of X class vs Y class at different levels off play. (Remember the old buzzard nerf was based around hunters winrate vs mage, druid and rogue at low levels off play)
On top of that we also know that most ratings systems tries to get everybody a 50/50 win record. There are very few games where this is not the case and thb it makes perfect sense to have a 50/50 system. Its not fun loosing 20 times and in a row and while you will always have the top end and bottom end with more or less then 50/50 then the majority of match making systems can get like 99% a 50/50 winrate.
If we add that together then it would make sense if blizzard would code the match making system in such a way that when you got up to maybe 60-70% winrate with a deck you would get alot of bad match ups to bring your winrate down abit. It would ofc not always happen since it also tries to make sure you have fast que times and there are only so many people that plays at about the same level and a ton of other factors but it could be an explanation.
Again we dont know, could be bad luck, humans only remember when things go against them and so on. Just wanted to say that its not just the OP and it would not just be blizzard out to get people but Blizzard making a system to make sure more people have fun with the game which would be quite smart.
Or it's the ladder system working as intended. You're supposed to find a rank where you end up roughly 50/50 and you are playing against people of similar skill level to your own. It's just that most people think they are better than they actually are and fool themselves into thinking the system is rigged.
You also have to consider the meta fluctuations as you move up and down ranks, time of day meta fluctuations, and people teching against what they see a lot of in the current meta to try and get a head of other people. Case in point, average players always think they are better than they actually are. There is a theorem on this that I can't remember the name of off hand.
You also have to consider the meta fluctuations as you move up and down ranks, time of day meta fluctuations, and people teching against what they see a lot of in the current meta to try and get a head of other people. Case in point, average players always think they are better than they actually are. There is a theorem on this that I can't remember the name of off hand.
What you are suggesting is probably the Dunning-Kruger effect. However, it's not a theorem, as it is not mathematically proven.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
People who refuses to play aggro out of principle are even worse than people who play exclusively aggro.
One should seek to become a complete player and play all archetypes, including ones that he despises for whatever irrational reasons.
Same thing happens to me. Playing hunter, facing shamans at rank 5 most of the time. When I decide to switch to priest, suddenly not facing them anymore.
There is no reason to choose hero first unless they use that data to find a matchup.
Think about it. what other versus game do you choose hero/character first... ie online fighting games .. nope choose after being paired. dota is multiplayer but still you choose after matched up.
Ask those blizz devs on twitter about it. tell them to make choosing hero AFTER matchup before mulligan. easy fix they will never do because then they cant rig the ladder.
everyone gets 30 sec to choose their Hero AFTER finding a matchup. Then you would see much different results.
You also have to consider the meta fluctuations as you move up and down ranks, time of day meta fluctuations, and people teching against what they see a lot of in the current meta to try and get a head of other people. Case in point, average players always think they are better than they actually are. There is a theorem on this that I can't remember the name of off hand.
What you are suggesting is probably the Dunning-Kruger effect. However, it's not a theorem, as it is not mathematically proven.
Yep you got it and yea theorem was the wrong word. I always forget the actual name.
Think about it. what other versus game do you choose hero/character first... ie online fighting games .. nope choose after being paired. dota is multiplayer but still you choose after matched up.
So, how does it work in SFV again? From what I heard, you don't even have a character select screen. You do the character selection in your profile, way before you queue anything.
I wonder what's with all these ultra low post accounts though. Alts?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
People who refuses to play aggro out of principle are even worse than people who play exclusively aggro.
One should seek to become a complete player and play all archetypes, including ones that he despises for whatever irrational reasons.
Just to give you an idea for experimental design that you could use, you could pick a pair of decks and alternate between them every game, choosing a hard counter for each to see how many times it shows up in one matchup vs the other.
Which would then need to be compared to the likelyhood of a match against that hard counter (as well as a rating as to how hard of the counter the match was) with such a small set of archetype decks being played, it's no wonder people run into their counter so much, afterall that is the point of the meta, to view what is being played and try to counter it.
The likely-hood problem is taken care of by alternating decks. Example:
Handlock - hard counter hunter
Hunter - hard counter priest
Then you just have to test if you encounter priests more often as a handlock or as a hunter. If you encounter them significantly more often as a hunter, you would have pretty good evidence that something strange is going on.
Of course it's a ridiculous hypothesis as someone else pointed out, because for every bad match-up you have someone else has a good one, and since you play people near your rank you probably have similar win %s meaning the idea that Blizzard is favoring one of you over the other is pretty dumb.
But anyways, that would be a simple way to prove it if this was indeed a thing.
Would be nice to ban all these aggro players. Kinda ask myself how the meta would be then 4Head
And also, this is definitely just bad luck. People do not play always the same deck for each season. They chance sometimes even every game and finally end up playing the cancer hunter again DansGame
Just remember the good times!
and just because you copy anothers legend deck doesnt guarante become legend yourself. you still need skill
People who refuses to play aggro out of principle are even worse than people who play exclusively aggro.
One should seek to become a complete player and play all archetypes, including ones that he despises for whatever irrational reasons.
Same thing happens to me. Playing hunter, facing shamans at rank 5 most of the time. When I decide to switch to priest, suddenly not facing them anymore.
There is no reason to choose hero first unless they use that data to find a matchup.
Think about it. what other versus game do you choose hero/character first... ie online fighting games .. nope choose after being paired. dota is multiplayer but still you choose after matched up.
Ask those blizz devs on twitter about it. tell them to make choosing hero AFTER matchup before mulligan. easy fix they will never do because then they cant rig the ladder.
everyone gets 30 sec to choose their Hero AFTER finding a matchup. Then you would see much different results.
Sometimes I wish it could just roll out something different... a Blizzard Developer perhaps.
People who refuses to play aggro out of principle are even worse than people who play exclusively aggro.
One should seek to become a complete player and play all archetypes, including ones that he despises for whatever irrational reasons.
I have not played sf5. but thats alsoa f2p game now.. so maybe they are also going to use the stats in matchup . in sf4 it wasnt like that
Please tell me how to get SFV for free. It isn't worth $70 for an incomplete game, but for free I am more than willing to give it a shot.
People who refuses to play aggro out of principle are even worse than people who play exclusively aggro.
One should seek to become a complete player and play all archetypes, including ones that he despises for whatever irrational reasons.
There's a whole bunch of similar threads already, which are more recent than this one. No reason to bump a 8-month old thread.
I used to be a control player like you, then I took a quick shot to the knee.
How did you know how the characters are chosen but not know that you earn fight money to unlock characters? that makes it f2p
People who refuses to play aggro out of principle are even worse than people who play exclusively aggro.
One should seek to become a complete player and play all archetypes, including ones that he despises for whatever irrational reasons.