So I was wondering, do you also wear your tinfoil hat in public? I imagine it could be quite dangerous as the sunlight's reflection could potentially blind drivers. Do you have like some special sort of coating that you apply to it to prevent reflection, or do you only wear it when there's no sun shining?
Teching Hungry Crab is so bad actually, you increase your winrate against Murloc Shaman for a few %, but you decrease every other matchup also, so in the end, unless you met like 70% murloc deck, you're going to hurt your overall winrate.
That is the thing. He did see 70% shamans. Until he made the change.
He made the correct change and the game punished him for it with very simple rules. There's not conspiracy... That's how a matchmaking works (in every online game with matchmaking), it's not just trying to find you the closest fastest opponent.
Have you not noticed that tier 1 decks and absolute meme decks have trouble finding an opponent quickly sometimes? Well that's just another rule, if possible the matchmaking won't put you against someone that cannot win or cannot lose. Playing odd paladin in Wild sometimes takes me a full minute to find an opponent, switching to a regular tier 2-3 deck and it happens instantly, at the same time of the day of course.
But yeah, let's just scream tinfoil hat, make fun of it, blizzard conspiracy, lololol. Tinfoil hat team has no argument to prove their point, other than "did you make calculations ? Because I will not do it, you're so wrong lol"
People are actually, genuinely idiotic to think the matchmaking does not have rules based on cards and decks that are being played.
You are very convincing!
Just like those flat earth people on Tv, where you genuinely believe they are that paranoid/delusional, and not just pretending.
You put so much effort into writing nonesense, it’s actually quite impressive.
You keep saying you have proof, but that this “proof” is really just consistent confirmation bias. Just because you continue to feel this way, does not make it so. And no one will ever take your “I remember this happening over and over, so it must be true, even though I never tracked it” as any kind of proof, sorry.
Be prepared for “tinfoil hat” idiotic comments bro.
But, as a statistician, I can attest that it does seem awfully suspicious when it happens with 60-70% consistency. Numbers don't lie, but no one is going to spend time compiling these types of stats on a stupid game. Oh well. I feel ya mate.
oh dear god thank you for this. haven't laughed that hard today.
Teching Hungry Crab is so bad actually, you increase your winrate against Murloc Shaman for a few %, but you decrease every other matchup also, so in the end, unless you met like 70% murloc deck, you're going to hurt your overall winrate.
That is the thing. He did see 70% shamans. Until he made the change.
He made the correct change and the game punished him for it with very simple rules. There's not conspiracy... That's how a matchmaking works (in every online game with matchmaking), it's not just trying to find you the closest fastest opponent.
Have you not noticed that tier 1 decks and absolute meme decks have trouble finding an opponent quickly sometimes? Well that's just another rule, if possible the matchmaking won't put you against someone that cannot win or cannot lose. Playing odd paladin in Wild sometimes takes me a full minute to find an opponent, switching to a regular tier 2-3 deck and it happens instantly, at the same time of the day of course.
But yeah, let's just scream tinfoil hat, make fun of it, blizzard conspiracy, lololol. Tinfoil hat team has no argument to prove their point, other than "did you make calculations ? Because I will not do it, you're so wrong lol"
People are actually, genuinely idiotic to think the matchmaking does not have rules based on cards and decks that are being played.
You are very convincing!
Just like those flat earth people on Tv, where you genuinely believe they are that paranoid/delusional, and not just pretending.
You put so much effort into writing nonesense, it’s actually quite impressive.
You keep saying you have proof, but that this “proof” is really just consistent confirmation bias. Just because you continue to feel this way, does not make it so. And no one will ever take your “I remember this happening over and over, so it must be true, even though I never tracked it” as any kind of proof, sorry.
What is nonsense about what I said? Can you tell me why it's non sense? Just tell me, don't prove me. I never said me remembering something was some kind of proof, I know my English is bad but I didn't say anything like that.
The comparison with flat earth people really hurts me as an astronomy lover, it's funny how the insults are consistently on one side of the discussion and I still haven't gotten any kind of counter argument regarding my claims, only that it is "nonsense" and my proof isn't really a proof, which is exactly why I refused to provide it, because it will indeed not be considered a scientifically serious proof (rightfully so) , you will say "you just played 200 games, you got unlucky, you cheated the numbers, blablabla, non sense flat earth" and it's also why I said "do it yourself and see" you will never do it, because you don't want to see. It must be because you are right, as it is known with insults and lack of argument or experimentation. You are on the flat earth side in this debate my friend.
so much bullshit in this thread when i tech in order to try to build the most optimal deck to counter each matchup for the masters qualifiers and train with it on ladder, i always managed to play against the targeted deck
hunter for example mossy horror/unleash the hounds/tunnel blaster vs aggro/token druid big game hunter vs mage harrison/dire frenzy/savanah vs warrior
I think because those cards you mentioned are the ones that counter various tribes. For example, Mossy counters all minions with damage <= 2, BGH counters such Big minions with different tribes, Harrison not only counters weapons of Warrior but also Paladin and Rogue. However, Hungry Crab falls into another category as a "Murloc-eater", which counters only Murlocs. I think that this beast has a different algorithm implemented when matchmaking happens.
I think because those cards you mentioned are the ones that counter various tribes. For example, Mossy counters all minions with damage <= 2, BGH counters such Big minions with different tribes, Harrison not only counters weapons of Warrior but also Paladin and Rogue. However, Hungry Crab falls into another category as a "Murloc-eater", which counters only Murlocs. I think that this beast has a different algorithm implemented when matchmaking happens.
yah your prob right. that sux imo cuz that defeats the whole point of teching vs a deck. thx for thoughts.
Why the hell would you play a hungry crab anyway? I've been grinding the ladder for the last couple days and I barely see Murloc shaman, it's not that popular of a deck. Deck tracker has me seeing 3 and I don't remember seeing any on my tablet.
Go test it. Right now. Play 100 games, make a very obvious tech card change, play another 100 game. See what happens and STFU.
What is obvious to me, is that people talking about confirmation bias, are extremely casual netdeckers who don't ever do changes in their deck and play 3 games a week. So you have never actually seen how the matchmaking system works. THIS is confirmation bias.
While I am neither a casual player nor netdecker, I can attest to playing techs in decks. I have played hundreds of games with tech options and the rate does not change. I have hsreplay with hundreds of games for proof if you would like to see my different versions of various decks and the same rate of shamans/rogues/warriors or whatever I was teching for. Of course, I take more notice of who I am playing against when I have a tech in because that's the point. There are so many confounding variables to take into consideration when explaining why you aren't facing as many Shamans. It's not some Blizzard Conspiracy or techs would never be valuable and no one would ever run them. They work, you just haven't been facing shamans like you were before BUT NOT BECAUSE BLIZZARD HATES YOU.
only tech card that is worth it is silence. sometimes ooze depending on the meta, like when there was bomb warrior and waggle rogue. if u tech just against one type of deck then u wont meet that deck. its how it goes
omg settle down you guys. of course my opinion forms my beliefs, just as yours do. I dont really know what the answer is. do you? If so, please share it. I made the original post. I am participating in the back and forth b.s, going on between some on here. but I would like to know what the reason, if any is. Please respond. thx.
Go test it. Right now. Play 100 games, make a very obvious tech card change, play another 100 game. See what happens and STFU.
What is obvious to me, is that people talking about confirmation bias, are extremely casual netdeckers who don't ever do changes in their deck and play 3 games a week. So you have never actually seen how the matchmaking system works. THIS is confirmation bias.
Serious talk now, ok?
1- Why Blizzard will create tech cards if they intention are never match vs the target of this techs? Just don't make the tech cards in the first place.
2- Crab is a VERY SPECIFIC tech card, have many classes running weapons for Ooze but only shaman in Standard uses murlocks and shaman is far away from rule the meta now, it is obvious the crab will fail to find the target deck, the only thing odd are the many before you put the tech, happens sometimes but is an exception and not the rule, before rogue nerfs many people uses Harrison and Ooze and this don't make warriors and rogues disappear.
3- You understand the work needed in terms of computing to make a rigged match system? And the work don't turn in nothing beneficial to Blizzard? Why they lose time and effort in a thing like that, don't make any sense.
It is only bad luck, the simple answer is much more boring than the conspiration theorys but is the true in almost all of the cases.
Go test it. Right now. Play 100 games, make a very obvious tech card change, play another 100 game. See what happens and STFU.
What is obvious to me, is that people talking about confirmation bias, are extremely casual netdeckers who don't ever do changes in their deck and play 3 games a week. So you have never actually seen how the matchmaking system works. THIS is confirmation bias.
a) 100 games is a laughable sample size. But you haven't even played that. More like 10
b) You know, there are people like HSreplay who do a lot of stats thing, do you really think they wouldn't notice that kind of rigging? Or in your conspiracy world they are working for Blizzard, right?
Teching Hungry Crab is so bad actually, you increase your winrate against Murloc Shaman for a few %, but you decrease every other matchup also, so in the end, unless you met like 70% murloc deck, you're going to hurt your overall winrate.
That is the thing. He did see 70% shamans. Until he made the change.
He made the correct change and the game punished him for it with very simple rules. There's not conspiracy... That's how a matchmaking works (in every online game with matchmaking), it's not just trying to find you the closest fastest opponent.
Have you not noticed that tier 1 decks and absolute meme decks have trouble finding an opponent quickly sometimes? Well that's just another rule, if possible the matchmaking won't put you against someone that cannot win or cannot lose. Playing odd paladin in Wild sometimes takes me a full minute to find an opponent, switching to a regular tier 2-3 deck and it happens instantly, at the same time of the day of course.
But yeah, let's just scream tinfoil hat, make fun of it, blizzard conspiracy, lololol. Tinfoil hat team has no argument to prove their point, other than "did you make calculations ? Because I will not do it, you're so wrong lol"
People are actually, genuinely idiotic to think the matchmaking does not have rules based on cards and decks that are being played.
You are very convincing!
Just like those flat earth people on Tv, where you genuinely believe they are that paranoid/delusional, and not just pretending.
You put so much effort into writing nonesense, it’s actually quite impressive.
You keep saying you have proof, but that this “proof” is really just consistent confirmation bias. Just because you continue to feel this way, does not make it so. And no one will ever take your “I remember this happening over and over, so it must be true, even though I never tracked it” as any kind of proof, sorry.
What is nonsense about what I said? Can you tell me why it's non sense? Just tell me, don't prove me. I never said me remembering something was some kind of proof, I know my English is bad but I didn't say anything like that.
The comparison with flat earth people really hurts me as an astronomy lover, it's funny how the insults are consistently on one side of the discussion and I still haven't gotten any kind of counter argument regarding my claims, only that it is "nonsense" and my proof isn't really a proof, which is exactly why I refused to provide it, because it will indeed not be considered a scientifically serious proof (rightfully so) , you will say "you just played 200 games, you got unlucky, you cheated the numbers, blablabla, non sense flat earth" and it's also why I said "do it yourself and see" you will never do it, because you don't want to see. It must be because you are right, as it is known with insults and lack of argument or experimentation. You are on the flat earth side in this debate my friend.
The problem is that your "proof" aren't forms of proof:
1. Anecdotal evidence - "I have noticed this is the case. I have played games with and without tech and have noticed the difference."
2. Burden of Proof - "You have to do the test for me, and if you don't, then by default I'm correct."
If you want to prove your findings, then you need to do the 200 matches with and without the techs in. Then, you have to document your results and publish them here. Without that, your facts aren't facts. They're just the ramblings of a conspiracy theorist.
Which is why you're compared to a flat-earther. They use the same type of arguments as "proof".
i.e. "I have noticed that the Earth is flat. I have travelled and did not see any evidence that there is any curve whatsoever" and "You should believe me until you have gone up into space and see the curve with your own eyes. If you don't do that, by default I am correct"
I saw this post last week, but didn’t have time to respond to it. I’ll do that now: when you go into a game, the only variable that affects who your opponent will be is your skill rating.
Matchmaking works as follows:
We use a formula to assess player skill. After every game, the formula looks at if you won or lost and uses your current rating, your opponent’s rating, and your rating history to generate your new rating. We call this rating MMR for short. In casual and at Legend rank, we pair players with similar MMRs. In Ranked below legend, we pair people with similar star ranks instead of similar MMRs. Your rating is the only input that the matchmaker receives. It doesn’t know what deck you’re playing, what deck you just played with or against, or anything else, except for your rating.
When you press ‘play’ you enter a queue for your chosen game mode. The matchmaker looks at your MMR and compares it to the MMR of everyone else in the queue. If it finds someone else with the same MMR as you, it pairs you into a game. If it doesn’t, it will wait a few seconds and look again. The second time, it doesn’t look just for someone with your MMR; it will also look for someone with an MMR that’s almost the same as yours. If it still doesn’t find a match, it waits another few seconds and looks again. The bound for what MMRs are considered a good match keep widening the longer you’re in the queue; this is to ensure that you don’t have to wait too long to play. Usually a match is found so quickly that the widening bounds never really matter. After the game, your rating is updated, and the process is repeated the next time you queue up.
I realize some won't accept this and are convinced the game is rigged. I'll listen if an analysis of 100K+ matchups by a statistics collection site by unbiased competent people show there is statistically significant matchup bias.
For the record I fell out with Blizzard during WoW days and told them I'd never give them money ever again (I haven't). So I wouldn't consider myself part of their fanbase :)
1- Why Blizzard will create tech cards if they intention are never match vs the target of this techs? Just don't make the tech cards in the first place.
2- Crab is a VERY SPECIFIC tech card, have many classes running weapons for Ooze but only shaman in Standard uses murlocks and shaman is far away from rule the meta now, it is obvious the crab will fail to find the target deck, the only thing odd are the many before you put the tech, happens sometimes but is an exception and not the rule, before rogue nerfs many people uses Harrison and Ooze and this don't make warriors and rogues disappear.
3- You understand the work needed in terms of computing to make a rigged match system? And the work don't turn in nothing beneficial to Blizzard? Why they lose time and effort in a thing like that, don't make any sense.
It is only bad luck, the simple answer is much more boring than the conspiration theorys but is the true in almost all of the cases.
So I was wondering, do you also wear your tinfoil hat in public? I imagine it could be quite dangerous as the sunlight's reflection could potentially blind drivers. Do you have like some special sort of coating that you apply to it to prevent reflection, or do you only wear it when there's no sun shining?
You are very convincing!
Just like those flat earth people on Tv, where you genuinely believe they are that paranoid/delusional, and not just pretending.
You put so much effort into writing nonesense, it’s actually quite impressive.
You keep saying you have proof, but that this “proof” is really just consistent confirmation bias. Just because you continue to feel this way, does not make it so. And no one will ever take your “I remember this happening over and over, so it must be true, even though I never tracked it” as any kind of proof, sorry.
oh dear god thank you for this. haven't laughed that hard today.
If the matchmaking isn't rigged it can be proved the same way that if it's rigged. This isn't about unicorns and gods, go away, troll.
What is nonsense about what I said? Can you tell me why it's non sense? Just tell me, don't prove me. I never said me remembering something was some kind of proof, I know my English is bad but I didn't say anything like that.
The comparison with flat earth people really hurts me as an astronomy lover, it's funny how the insults are consistently on one side of the discussion and I still haven't gotten any kind of counter argument regarding my claims, only that it is "nonsense" and my proof isn't really a proof, which is exactly why I refused to provide it, because it will indeed not be considered a scientifically serious proof (rightfully so) , you will say "you just played 200 games, you got unlucky, you cheated the numbers, blablabla, non sense flat earth" and it's also why I said "do it yourself and see" you will never do it, because you don't want to see. It must be because you are right, as it is known with insults and lack of argument or experimentation. You are on the flat earth side in this debate my friend.
I don't know man, back when murloc paladin was a thing, I had double angry crab, was still facing a lot of paladins.
so much bullshit in this thread
when i tech in order to try to build the most optimal deck to counter each matchup for the masters qualifiers and train with it on ladder, i always managed to play against the targeted deck
hunter for example
mossy horror/unleash the hounds/tunnel blaster vs aggro/token druid
big game hunter vs mage
harrison/dire frenzy/savanah vs warrior
I think because those cards you mentioned are the ones that counter various tribes. For example, Mossy counters all minions with damage <= 2, BGH counters such Big minions with different tribes, Harrison not only counters weapons of Warrior but also Paladin and Rogue.
However, Hungry Crab falls into another category as a "Murloc-eater", which counters only Murlocs. I think that this beast has a different algorithm implemented when matchmaking happens.
yah your prob right. that sux imo cuz that defeats the whole point of teching vs a deck. thx for thoughts.
What makes this "probably" right? just because it confirms your bias?
Why the hell would you play a hungry crab anyway? I've been grinding the ladder for the last couple days and I barely see Murloc shaman, it's not that popular of a deck. Deck tracker has me seeing 3 and I don't remember seeing any on my tablet.
While I am neither a casual player nor netdecker, I can attest to playing techs in decks. I have played hundreds of games with tech options and the rate does not change. I have hsreplay with hundreds of games for proof if you would like to see my different versions of various decks and the same rate of shamans/rogues/warriors or whatever I was teching for. Of course, I take more notice of who I am playing against when I have a tech in because that's the point. There are so many confounding variables to take into consideration when explaining why you aren't facing as many Shamans. It's not some Blizzard Conspiracy or techs would never be valuable and no one would ever run them. They work, you just haven't been facing shamans like you were before BUT NOT BECAUSE BLIZZARD HATES YOU.
only tech card that is worth it is silence. sometimes ooze depending on the meta, like when there was bomb warrior and waggle rogue. if u tech just against one type of deck then u wont meet that deck. its how it goes
omg settle down you guys. of course my opinion forms my beliefs, just as yours do. I dont really know what the answer is. do you? If so, please share it. I made the original post. I am participating in the back and forth b.s, going on between some on here. but I would like to know what the reason, if any is. Please respond. thx.
Serious talk now, ok?
1- Why Blizzard will create tech cards if they intention are never match vs the target of this techs? Just don't make the tech cards in the first place.
2- Crab is a VERY SPECIFIC tech card, have many classes running weapons for Ooze but only shaman in Standard uses murlocks and shaman is far away from rule the meta now, it is obvious the crab will fail to find the target deck, the only thing odd are the many before you put the tech, happens sometimes but is an exception and not the rule, before rogue nerfs many people uses Harrison and Ooze and this don't make warriors and rogues disappear.
3- You understand the work needed in terms of computing to make a rigged match system? And the work don't turn in nothing beneficial to Blizzard? Why they lose time and effort in a thing like that, don't make any sense.
It is only bad luck, the simple answer is much more boring than the conspiration theorys but is the true in almost all of the cases.
a) 100 games is a laughable sample size. But you haven't even played that. More like 10
b) You know, there are people like HSreplay who do a lot of stats thing, do you really think they wouldn't notice that kind of rigging? Or in your conspiracy world they are working for Blizzard, right?
That sounds like what a gambler would say in the casino lol
The problem is that your "proof" aren't forms of proof:
1. Anecdotal evidence - "I have noticed this is the case. I have played games with and without tech and have noticed the difference."
2. Burden of Proof - "You have to do the test for me, and if you don't, then by default I'm correct."
If you want to prove your findings, then you need to do the 200 matches with and without the techs in. Then, you have to document your results and publish them here. Without that, your facts aren't facts. They're just the ramblings of a conspiracy theorist.
Which is why you're compared to a flat-earther. They use the same type of arguments as "proof".
i.e. "I have noticed that the Earth is flat. I have travelled and did not see any evidence that there is any curve whatsoever" and "You should believe me until you have gone up into space and see the curve with your own eyes. If you don't do that, by default I am correct"
Ah another one of these threads claiming matchmaker bias (against you and in favor of your opponent because reasons).
From https://www.hearthstonetopdecks.com/matchmaking-works-tyrandespecial-promotions-max-mccall-yong-woo/
(the bold is my emphasis)
I realize some won't accept this and are convinced the game is rigged. I'll listen if an analysis of 100K+ matchups by a statistics collection site by unbiased competent people show there is statistically significant matchup bias.
For the record I fell out with Blizzard during WoW days and told them I'd never give them money ever again (I haven't). So I wouldn't consider myself part of their fanbase :)
.
^ This guy gets it
plays mage check.
Playing some kind of khadgar mage for wanting khadgar check.
mage has plethora of ways to deal with fish people check.
As for getting qued into murloc shaman often? *shrug puts hat on*
Teching crabs is bad because there isnt an overabundance of it. During Pirate era hearthstone, crabs felt good.
Do or do not. There is no try.