So Im at D10 floor, playing my home brew deck like usual. I have faced so many aggro wpn rouges the past 2 days, and just lose by turn 5 or 6.
I love to deck build, and especially love to counter the meta with home brew lists. Its my favorite part of the game in fact!!
So I make decks to beat wpn Rogue, except, as soon as I do, I never see them anymore. And if I switch back, suddenly there they are again!!
I have seen this type of matchmaking for my entire HS experience, and Im starting to get annoyed by it.
I believe if Im facing a certain deck, I should be able to build a counter and face it. But it seems like Blizzard doenst like this and that sux.
I wonder what the reasoning is behind this?
Does anyone else see this happening?
I know i can just play an aggro deck and beat them at their own game, but I dont enjoy aggro at all. In fact, I prefer old school control matches the most, where resources, fatigue, value, and decision making all play a huge part in a game. If I play aggro, I am bored after 2 games.
Why cant I just face wpn Rogue with my counter deck? If this was chess, and I knew my opponents opening choice, I could prepare accordingly. Same with any other game or sport. Team A, has a weakness here, so we are going to exploit that.
Instead, Team A never shows up for the game, and you have to beat a ddeck that your weak too cuz your tecked for wpn rogue.
Anyone else notice this and can offer ideas or suggestions?
I write this cuz I love the game and want to see it continue to stay on top, but its getting harder and harder to enjoy the game with all the weird matchmaking idiosyncrisies, and all the incredible RNG deciding so many games.
Putting in or removing certain cards shouldnt change the decks you face in ranked play imo. The pocket meta should be consistent.
You are right, there is a blizzard employee assigned to every player. They watch you 24/7 to see what changes you make to your decks and decipher what you are trying to counter. Then they create a deck to counter you and make a new account to match up against you. This is an immoral practice to force pack purchases, blizzard needs to be held accountable!
I notice this kind of matchmaking actually. I'll make some crazy homebrew deck and literally face someone with something similar the very next match. For instance, how many control decks with Elysiana do you encounter every month these days? Maybe 1? That's the kind of deck I would make and then face it.
Same goes for building a counter-meta deck like you experienced. Quite annoying. It happens so often it almost can't be a coincidence.
You are right, there is a blizzard employee assigned to every player. They watch you 24/7 to see what changes you make to your decks and decipher what you are trying to counter. Then they create a deck to counter you and make a new account to match up against you. This is an immoral practice to force pack purchases, blizzard needs to be held accountable!
OP, I'm on your side on all accounts here, there definitely would seem like there is something working behind the scenes to make the matchups happen this way, but is it really happening, or do we just think it is?
I have to admit, I have experienced this before as well. I mean, if I make up something weird that definitely isn't popular at the moment, and then my first game queued up is against almost the same thing... Or if you play a ton of games and then switch decks, suddenly facing different classes entirely... it really feels like there is something there. But for what purpose?
It certainly hasn't happened enough to make me start a tinfoil hat argument over it. There are enough people on this forum that think the game is programmed to do this for their own personal suffering, but I feel like it might be another reason and the only explanation anyone can come up with is that Blizzard is "keeping us at 50% win rate".
Anyway, until Blizzard openly comes out and explains how they've programmed the matchmaking, it will always be a topic for debate and everyone will think they're right.
They keep tabs on decks, cards and player winrates and they will pair you up to the perfect opponent to keep your WR balanced. It is like this ever since the game started.
You really need a large sample size to give any credence to this hypothesis. It’s just confirmation bias. You play a few games that aren’t weapon rogue and suddenly they’re gone! Well I got news for you: sometimes, there are things called coincidences. You need to play 100+ games with weapon tech and then 100+ games without weapon tech, record the data, and THEN maybe you’ll have at least somewhat relevant data that isn’t just confirmation bias or conspiracy theory because you’re not winning. In fact, 100 might not be enough because there are still anomalies relatively likely to happen with 100 data points, so you should really play 1000+ if you wanted to be sure
You really need a large sample size to give any credence to this hypothesis. It’s just confirmation bias. You play a few games that aren’t weapon rogue and suddenly they’re gone! Well I got news for you: sometimes, there are things called coincidences. You need to play 100+ games with weapon tech and then 100+ games without weapon tech, record the data, and THEN maybe you’ll have at least somewhat relevant data that isn’t just confirmation bias or conspiracy theory because you’re not winning. In fact, 100 might not be enough because there are still anomalies relatively likely to happen with 100 data points, so you should really play 1000+ if you wanted to be sure
Thankfully I play since Beta and have used a tracker for the most part. But uncovering the data may be difficult I have played hundreds of decks over time against a even greater pool of decks and we have to take into consideration the metas and whatnot and nobody wants to do that.
But it has happened way too many times over the times to be merely a coincidence, also it's standard game design in competitive multiplayer games to try keeping players at 50%WR for balance reasons, but ELO systems alone do not work for Hearthstone due card variance. You can easily notice the absence of the system in tournament settings, as fine tuning your decks to beat what you think the meta will be or even flat out play anti-meta decks actually works.
And now a very small sample size that I can comment about: One of the decks I played the most this season was Tickatus Warlock for a total of 73 games. Two versions: 59 Games with the first one and 14 with the second one(I dropped it due bullshit).
The 1.0 build was more balanced and featured very little healing, the main goal was to beat down your opponent with midrangy dudes like Void Drinker and had the Corrupt Package
The 2.0 version featured Miniset cards and way more healing and removal, plus two Acidic Swamp Ooze, dropping the midrange dudes and not going for the infinite value with the Envoy Rustwix package, although the card was played by itself.
Version 1.0 with a solid 29-30W/L with a kinda even class distribution with Shaman leading at 17% and Priest at the bottom with 3%. Usually control at very low end of the spectrum, kudos to Warlock decks at 7%
Then Version 2.0 comes along with the abysmal 4-10 W/L. Warlock shot up to 33% with ALL OF THEM being infinite Rustwix, Warrior increased from 14% to 20% with a mix of Big Warrior and ETC Combo, those 3 decks don't care about healing, removal or Tickatus and easily outlast me, Rogues did have an increase to 13% from 5%, but all good control matchups dropped to 0%, no mages or priests. You know who else dropped to 0%? Paladins dropped to 0% from 10% despite being the most powerful class with multiple high tier decks, the Paladin matchup is THE BEST ONE for this deck, 62% according to HSReplay. Since there are so few matches I will list it. Warlock: 5/14 Warrior: 3/14 Druid: 2/14 Rogue: 2/14 Shaman: 1/14 Hunter: 1/14 DH: 1/14
Ah, speaking of Paladins, Warlocks always competing for the top spot on my charts 9%(Rogues being the top at 12%) and 13%(Druids with 17%) for Pure Paladin and Ramp Paladin respectively, over 100 games combined
You really need a large sample size to give any credence to this hypothesis. It’s just confirmation bias. You play a few games that aren’t weapon rogue and suddenly they’re gone! Well I got news for you: sometimes, there are things called coincidences. You need to play 100+ games with weapon tech and then 100+ games without weapon tech, record the data, and THEN maybe you’ll have at least somewhat relevant data that isn’t just confirmation bias or conspiracy theory because you’re not winning. In fact, 100 might not be enough because there are still anomalies relatively likely to happen with 100 data points, so you should really play 1000+ if you wanted to be sure
Thankfully I play since Beta and have used a tracker for the most part. But uncovering the data may be difficult I have played hundreds of decks over time against a even greater pool of decks and we have to take into consideration the metas and whatnot and nobody wants to do that.
But it has happened way too many times over the times to be merely a coincidence, also it's standard game design in competitive multiplayer games to try keeping players at 50%WR for balance reasons, but ELO systems alone do not work for Hearthstone due card variance. You can easily notice the absence of the system in tournament settings, as fine tuning your decks to beat what you think the meta will be or even flat out play anti-meta decks actually works.
And now a very small sample size that I can comment about: One of the decks I played the most this season was Tickatus Warlock for a total of 73 games. Two versions: 59 Games with the first one and 14 with the second one(I dropped it due bullshit).
The 1.0 build was more balanced and featured very little healing, the main goal was to beat down your opponent with midrangy dudes like Void Drinker and had the Corrupt Package
The 2.0 version featured Miniset cards and way more healing and removal, plus two Acidic Swamp Ooze, dropping the midrange dudes and not going for the infinite value with the Envoy Rustwix package, although the card was played by itself.
Version 1.0 with a solid 29-30W/L with a kinda even class distribution with Shaman leading at 17% and Priest at the bottom with 3%. Usually control at very low end of the spectrum, kudos to Warlock decks at 7%
Then Version 2.0 comes along with the abysmal 4-10 W/L. Warlock shot up to 33% with ALL OF THEM being infinite Rustwix, Warrior increased from 14% to 20% with a mix of Big Warrior and ETC Combo, those 3 decks don't care about healing, removal or Tickatus and easily outlast me, Rogues did have an increase to 13% from 5%, but all good control matchups dropped to 0%, no mages or priests. You know who else dropped to 0%? Paladins dropped to 0% from 10% despite being the most powerful class with multiple high tier decks, the Paladin matchup is THE BEST ONE for this deck, 62% according to HSReplay. Since there are so few matches I will list it. Warlock: 5/14 Warrior: 3/14 Druid: 2/14 Rogue: 2/14 Shaman: 1/14 Hunter: 1/14 DH: 1/14
Ah, speaking of Paladins, Warlocks always competing for the top spot on my charts 9%(Rogues being the top at 12%) and 13%(Druids with 17%) for Pure Paladin and Ramp Paladin respectively, over 100 games combined
Your data for v 1.0 seems reasonable, but 14 games is not nearly a large enough sample size to make a conclusion. You also lied/exaggerated about not facing rogues. Previously, you stated about rogues, that if you added weapon tech, you would "never see them anymore." 2/14 is FAR from never, and is even HIGHER than when you didn't have weapon tech, so your original argument and the point of this post is completely invalidated. The fact that you didn't go against your best matchups is just a coincidence and could be due to a meta shift or you just got unlucky, since it's only 14 games. Plus, you should take mmr into account. If you are losing repeatedly, you will change the types of decks you see, facing other decks which also might be greedy with lower win rates. Prime example of this is Markmckz, who just stays at a rank floor and faces meme decks all the time.
Edit: Realized you are not the OP. But you are defending the OP, so the argument still stands, but I retract the statement that you were the one to say you never faced rogues.
Careful with judging the match-ups when the meta changes over time. You've likely faced a lot of slow warlock decks right after the races came out, because everybody wanted to try out rustwix. I think treant druid has steadily become more and more popular, so no wonder if that one will eventually pop up more than anything (what I face the most atm at least). 2/14 is pretty high when there are 10 classes to choose, so definitely not an indicator of no rouges.
I've also had the feeling that once you add a deck counter card, the target stops turning up or I don't draw the card against them, but I also feel that the supermarket que I choose is the slowest and the lane I switch to during traffic jam suddenly stops moving.
You really need a large sample size to give any credence to this hypothesis. It’s just confirmation bias. You play a few games that aren’t weapon rogue and suddenly they’re gone! Well I got news for you: sometimes, there are things called coincidences. You need to play 100+ games with weapon tech and then 100+ games without weapon tech, record the data, and THEN maybe you’ll have at least somewhat relevant data that isn’t just confirmation bias or conspiracy theory because you’re not winning. In fact, 100 might not be enough because there are still anomalies relatively likely to happen with 100 data points, so you should really play 1000+ if you wanted to be sure
Thankfully I play since Beta and have used a tracker for the most part. But uncovering the data may be difficult I have played hundreds of decks over time against a even greater pool of decks and we have to take into consideration the metas and whatnot and nobody wants to do that.
But it has happened way too many times over the times to be merely a coincidence, also it's standard game design in competitive multiplayer games to try keeping players at 50%WR for balance reasons, but ELO systems alone do not work for Hearthstone due card variance. You can easily notice the absence of the system in tournament settings, as fine tuning your decks to beat what you think the meta will be or even flat out play anti-meta decks actually works.
And now a very small sample size that I can comment about: One of the decks I played the most this season was Tickatus Warlock for a total of 73 games. Two versions: 59 Games with the first one and 14 with the second one(I dropped it due bullshit).
The 1.0 build was more balanced and featured very little healing, the main goal was to beat down your opponent with midrangy dudes like Void Drinker and had the Corrupt Package
The 2.0 version featured Miniset cards and way more healing and removal, plus two Acidic Swamp Ooze, dropping the midrange dudes and not going for the infinite value with the Envoy Rustwix package, although the card was played by itself.
Version 1.0 with a solid 29-30W/L with a kinda even class distribution with Shaman leading at 17% and Priest at the bottom with 3%. Usually control at very low end of the spectrum, kudos to Warlock decks at 7%
Then Version 2.0 comes along with the abysmal 4-10 W/L. Warlock shot up to 33% with ALL OF THEM being infinite Rustwix, Warrior increased from 14% to 20% with a mix of Big Warrior and ETC Combo, those 3 decks don't care about healing, removal or Tickatus and easily outlast me, Rogues did have an increase to 13% from 5%, but all good control matchups dropped to 0%, no mages or priests. You know who else dropped to 0%? Paladins dropped to 0% from 10% despite being the most powerful class with multiple high tier decks, the Paladin matchup is THE BEST ONE for this deck, 62% according to HSReplay. Since there are so few matches I will list it. Warlock: 5/14 Warrior: 3/14 Druid: 2/14 Rogue: 2/14 Shaman: 1/14 Hunter: 1/14 DH: 1/14
Ah, speaking of Paladins, Warlocks always competing for the top spot on my charts 9%(Rogues being the top at 12%) and 13%(Druids with 17%) for Pure Paladin and Ramp Paladin respectively, over 100 games combined
Your data for v 1.0 seems reasonable, but 14 games is not nearly a large enough sample size to make a conclusion. You also lied/exaggerated about not facing rogues. Previously, you stated about rogues, that if you added weapon tech, you would "never see them anymore." 2/14 is FAR from never, and is even HIGHER than when you didn't have weapon tech, so your original argument and the point of this post is completely invalidated. The fact that you didn't go against your best matchups is just a coincidence and could be due to a meta shift or you just got unlucky, since it's only 14 games. Plus, you should take mmr into account. If you are losing repeatedly, you will change the types of decks you see, facing other decks which also might be greedy with lower win rates. Prime example of this is Markmckz, who just stays at a rank floor and faces meme decks all the time.
My argument was not over weapon removal makes rogues go away, it is over that the matchmaking is biased.
I agree that 14 games is too little, however I do have thousands of games registered spanning years here to backup this claim, however I won't bother compiling and analyzing all this data, it requires too much time and I need a HSReplay Premium subscription to get things that I either deleted or archived.
but here a quick freebie I analyzed here, the day I changed decks was already two weeks into the Miniset and I played some games with both and then switched to a Fel Demon DH, all of them had the odds stacked against them with mix of bad and neutral matchups to balance out.
1.0 : DH(W), Hunter(L), DH(L), Hunter(W), Druid(W), DH(W) 2.0(Only Losses this day): Warrior, Druid, Rogue, Warlock, Warlock, Warlock Fel Demon DH(Currently at 57% with 56 games): Paladin(Null), Paladin(W), Shaman(L), Rogue(L), DH(W), Warlock(L), Warlock(W), Mage(W), Warlock(L), Druid(W), Paladin(W), Paladin(L), Shaman(W), Mage(L).
We can even watch the replays to list out archetypes, important card interactions and opening hands of each match to further analyze the matter. Did my bad MU lose because of brick hands, lack of key cards? Did I win my bad MU because I drew well, had the key cards? Who knows.
You really need a large sample size to give any credence to this hypothesis. It’s just confirmation bias. You play a few games that aren’t weapon rogue and suddenly they’re gone! Well I got news for you: sometimes, there are things called coincidences. You need to play 100+ games with weapon tech and then 100+ games without weapon tech, record the data, and THEN maybe you’ll have at least somewhat relevant data that isn’t just confirmation bias or conspiracy theory because you’re not winning. In fact, 100 might not be enough because there are still anomalies relatively likely to happen with 100 data points, so you should really play 1000+ if you wanted to be sure
Thankfully I play since Beta and have used a tracker for the most part. But uncovering the data may be difficult I have played hundreds of decks over time against a even greater pool of decks and we have to take into consideration the metas and whatnot and nobody wants to do that.
But it has happened way too many times over the times to be merely a coincidence, also it's standard game design in competitive multiplayer games to try keeping players at 50%WR for balance reasons, but ELO systems alone do not work for Hearthstone due card variance. You can easily notice the absence of the system in tournament settings, as fine tuning your decks to beat what you think the meta will be or even flat out play anti-meta decks actually works.
And now a very small sample size that I can comment about: One of the decks I played the most this season was Tickatus Warlock for a total of 73 games. Two versions: 59 Games with the first one and 14 with the second one(I dropped it due bullshit).
The 1.0 build was more balanced and featured very little healing, the main goal was to beat down your opponent with midrangy dudes like Void Drinker and had the Corrupt Package
The 2.0 version featured Miniset cards and way more healing and removal, plus two Acidic Swamp Ooze, dropping the midrange dudes and not going for the infinite value with the Envoy Rustwix package, although the card was played by itself.
Version 1.0 with a solid 29-30W/L with a kinda even class distribution with Shaman leading at 17% and Priest at the bottom with 3%. Usually control at very low end of the spectrum, kudos to Warlock decks at 7%
Then Version 2.0 comes along with the abysmal 4-10 W/L. Warlock shot up to 33% with ALL OF THEM being infinite Rustwix, Warrior increased from 14% to 20% with a mix of Big Warrior and ETC Combo, those 3 decks don't care about healing, removal or Tickatus and easily outlast me, Rogues did have an increase to 13% from 5%, but all good control matchups dropped to 0%, no mages or priests. You know who else dropped to 0%? Paladins dropped to 0% from 10% despite being the most powerful class with multiple high tier decks, the Paladin matchup is THE BEST ONE for this deck, 62% according to HSReplay. Since there are so few matches I will list it. Warlock: 5/14 Warrior: 3/14 Druid: 2/14 Rogue: 2/14 Shaman: 1/14 Hunter: 1/14 DH: 1/14
Ah, speaking of Paladins, Warlocks always competing for the top spot on my charts 9%(Rogues being the top at 12%) and 13%(Druids with 17%) for Pure Paladin and Ramp Paladin respectively, over 100 games combined
Your data for v 1.0 seems reasonable, but 14 games is not nearly a large enough sample size to make a conclusion. You also lied/exaggerated about not facing rogues. Previously, you stated about rogues, that if you added weapon tech, you would "never see them anymore." 2/14 is FAR from never, and is even HIGHER than when you didn't have weapon tech, so your original argument and the point of this post is completely invalidated. The fact that you didn't go against your best matchups is just a coincidence and could be due to a meta shift or you just got unlucky, since it's only 14 games. Plus, you should take mmr into account. If you are losing repeatedly, you will change the types of decks you see, facing other decks which also might be greedy with lower win rates. Prime example of this is Markmckz, who just stays at a rank floor and faces meme decks all the time.
My argument was not over weapon removal makes rogues go away, it is over that the matchmaking is biased.
I agree that 14 games is too little, however I do have thousands of games registered spanning years here to backup this claim, however I won't bother compiling and analyzing all this data, it requires too much time and I need a HSReplay Premium subscription to get things that I either deleted or archived.
but here a quick freebie I analyzed here, the day I changed decks was already two weeks into the Miniset and I played some games with both and then switched to a Fel Demon DH, all of them had the odds stacked against them with mix of bad and neutral matchups to balance out.
1.0 : DH(W), Hunter(L), DH(L), Hunter(W), Druid(W), DH(W) 2.0(Only Losses this day): Warrior, Druid, Rogue, Warlock, Warlock, Warlock Fel Demon DH(Currently at 57% with 56 games): Paladin(Null), Paladin(W), Shaman(L), Rogue(L), DH(W), Warlock(L), Warlock(W), Mage(W), Warlock(L), Druid(W), Paladin(W), Paladin(L), Shaman(W), Mage(L).
We can even watch the replays to list out archetypes, important card interactions and opening hands of each match to further analyze the matter. Did my bad MU lose because of brick hands, lack of key cards? Did I win my bad MU because I drew well, had the key cards? Who knows.
If you are claiming that blizzard has coded a way to rig your draw to make it so you lose a certain percentage of matchups, you're crazy. Blizzard could barely code Zephrys to work, let alone an entire card game where every card drawn is coded like Zephrys, in that it's drawn based on the likelihood that it is great for whatever situation you're in. As for what matchup's you get, it's based on mmr. Win percentage matters, archetype does not. I have days where I play 10 secret mages in a row and some days where I face hardly any at all using the same deck. Why? because there happen to be other decks that are winning at the same rate as I am besides secret mage.
You really need a large sample size to give any credence to this hypothesis. It’s just confirmation bias. You play a few games that aren’t weapon rogue and suddenly they’re gone! Well I got news for you: sometimes, there are things called coincidences. You need to play 100+ games with weapon tech and then 100+ games without weapon tech, record the data, and THEN maybe you’ll have at least somewhat relevant data that isn’t just confirmation bias or conspiracy theory because you’re not winning. In fact, 100 might not be enough because there are still anomalies relatively likely to happen with 100 data points, so you should really play 1000+ if you wanted to be sure
Thankfully I play since Beta and have used a tracker for the most part. But uncovering the data may be difficult I have played hundreds of decks over time against a even greater pool of decks and we have to take into consideration the metas and whatnot and nobody wants to do that.
But it has happened way too many times over the times to be merely a coincidence, also it's standard game design in competitive multiplayer games to try keeping players at 50%WR for balance reasons, but ELO systems alone do not work for Hearthstone due card variance. You can easily notice the absence of the system in tournament settings, as fine tuning your decks to beat what you think the meta will be or even flat out play anti-meta decks actually works.
And now a very small sample size that I can comment about: One of the decks I played the most this season was Tickatus Warlock for a total of 73 games. Two versions: 59 Games with the first one and 14 with the second one(I dropped it due bullshit).
The 1.0 build was more balanced and featured very little healing, the main goal was to beat down your opponent with midrangy dudes like Void Drinker and had the Corrupt Package
The 2.0 version featured Miniset cards and way more healing and removal, plus two Acidic Swamp Ooze, dropping the midrange dudes and not going for the infinite value with the Envoy Rustwix package, although the card was played by itself.
Version 1.0 with a solid 29-30W/L with a kinda even class distribution with Shaman leading at 17% and Priest at the bottom with 3%. Usually control at very low end of the spectrum, kudos to Warlock decks at 7%
Then Version 2.0 comes along with the abysmal 4-10 W/L. Warlock shot up to 33% with ALL OF THEM being infinite Rustwix, Warrior increased from 14% to 20% with a mix of Big Warrior and ETC Combo, those 3 decks don't care about healing, removal or Tickatus and easily outlast me, Rogues did have an increase to 13% from 5%, but all good control matchups dropped to 0%, no mages or priests. You know who else dropped to 0%? Paladins dropped to 0% from 10% despite being the most powerful class with multiple high tier decks, the Paladin matchup is THE BEST ONE for this deck, 62% according to HSReplay. Since there are so few matches I will list it. Warlock: 5/14 Warrior: 3/14 Druid: 2/14 Rogue: 2/14 Shaman: 1/14 Hunter: 1/14 DH: 1/14
Ah, speaking of Paladins, Warlocks always competing for the top spot on my charts 9%(Rogues being the top at 12%) and 13%(Druids with 17%) for Pure Paladin and Ramp Paladin respectively, over 100 games combined
Your data for v 1.0 seems reasonable, but 14 games is not nearly a large enough sample size to make a conclusion. You also lied/exaggerated about not facing rogues. Previously, you stated about rogues, that if you added weapon tech, you would "never see them anymore." 2/14 is FAR from never, and is even HIGHER than when you didn't have weapon tech, so your original argument and the point of this post is completely invalidated. The fact that you didn't go against your best matchups is just a coincidence and could be due to a meta shift or you just got unlucky, since it's only 14 games. Plus, you should take mmr into account. If you are losing repeatedly, you will change the types of decks you see, facing other decks which also might be greedy with lower win rates. Prime example of this is Markmckz, who just stays at a rank floor and faces meme decks all the time.
My argument was not over weapon removal makes rogues go away, it is over that the matchmaking is biased.
I agree that 14 games is too little, however I do have thousands of games registered spanning years here to backup this claim, however I won't bother compiling and analyzing all this data, it requires too much time and I need a HSReplay Premium subscription to get things that I either deleted or archived.
but here a quick freebie I analyzed here, the day I changed decks was already two weeks into the Miniset and I played some games with both and then switched to a Fel Demon DH, all of them had the odds stacked against them with mix of bad and neutral matchups to balance out.
1.0 : DH(W), Hunter(L), DH(L), Hunter(W), Druid(W), DH(W) 2.0(Only Losses this day): Warrior, Druid, Rogue, Warlock, Warlock, Warlock Fel Demon DH(Currently at 57% with 56 games): Paladin(Null), Paladin(W), Shaman(L), Rogue(L), DH(W), Warlock(L), Warlock(W), Mage(W), Warlock(L), Druid(W), Paladin(W), Paladin(L), Shaman(W), Mage(L).
We can even watch the replays to list out archetypes, important card interactions and opening hands of each match to further analyze the matter. Did my bad MU lose because of brick hands, lack of key cards? Did I win my bad MU because I drew well, had the key cards? Who knows.
If youare claiming that blizzard has coded a way to rig your draw to make it so you lose a certain percentage of matchups, youre crazy. Blizzard could barely code Zephrys to work, let alone an entire card game where every card drawn is coded like Zephrys, in that it's drawn based on the likelyhood that it is great for whatever situation youre in.
God no, not only it is impossible to do, but dumb too.
What I meant is that by analyzing each game you can have a better grasp of the matchmaking algorithm, for instance, you have a good ELO/WR and the game will try to pair you with a bad matchup because it wants you to lose, but you win anyway. Why is that? Here some options:
*In an attempt to even out, the game matched you with a worse player WRwise and you outplayed him. *You were matched against an even skilled player, he was unlucky and had a bad hand and/or missed key cards *You were matched against an even skilled player, but on this ocasion you had your key cards to play out the matchup
Now, if you analyze every game and every piece of data available and observe stuff like this very frequently, it possible to tell that the matchmaking is trying to match you with opponents that will drive yours and theirs WR to 50%. AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT GAMEPLAY ITSELF IS RIGGED, the game don't choose your draws, the randomizer algorithm is very good actually.
Funny cuz when I play ranked, I pretty much just face the meta... When aggro DH was tier one I played control warrior, 29% were DH in 55 games. When Evolve shaman was everywhere, guess what I faced with my galakrond deck?
You really need a large sample size to give any credence to this hypothesis. It’s just confirmation bias. You play a few games that aren’t weapon rogue and suddenly they’re gone! Well I got news for you: sometimes, there are things called coincidences. You need to play 100+ games with weapon tech and then 100+ games without weapon tech, record the data, and THEN maybe you’ll have at least somewhat relevant data that isn’t just confirmation bias or conspiracy theory because you’re not winning. In fact, 100 might not be enough because there are still anomalies relatively likely to happen with 100 data points, so you should really play 1000+ if you wanted to be sure
Thankfully I play since Beta and have used a tracker for the most part. But uncovering the data may be difficult I have played hundreds of decks over time against a even greater pool of decks and we have to take into consideration the metas and whatnot and nobody wants to do that.
But it has happened way too many times over the times to be merely a coincidence, also it's standard game design in competitive multiplayer games to try keeping players at 50%WR for balance reasons, but ELO systems alone do not work for Hearthstone due card variance. You can easily notice the absence of the system in tournament settings, as fine tuning your decks to beat what you think the meta will be or even flat out play anti-meta decks actually works.
And now a very small sample size that I can comment about: One of the decks I played the most this season was Tickatus Warlock for a total of 73 games. Two versions: 59 Games with the first one and 14 with the second one(I dropped it due bullshit).
The 1.0 build was more balanced and featured very little healing, the main goal was to beat down your opponent with midrangy dudes like Void Drinker and had the Corrupt Package
The 2.0 version featured Miniset cards and way more healing and removal, plus two Acidic Swamp Ooze, dropping the midrange dudes and not going for the infinite value with the Envoy Rustwix package, although the card was played by itself.
Version 1.0 with a solid 29-30W/L with a kinda even class distribution with Shaman leading at 17% and Priest at the bottom with 3%. Usually control at very low end of the spectrum, kudos to Warlock decks at 7%
Then Version 2.0 comes along with the abysmal 4-10 W/L. Warlock shot up to 33% with ALL OF THEM being infinite Rustwix, Warrior increased from 14% to 20% with a mix of Big Warrior and ETC Combo, those 3 decks don't care about healing, removal or Tickatus and easily outlast me, Rogues did have an increase to 13% from 5%, but all good control matchups dropped to 0%, no mages or priests. You know who else dropped to 0%? Paladins dropped to 0% from 10% despite being the most powerful class with multiple high tier decks, the Paladin matchup is THE BEST ONE for this deck, 62% according to HSReplay. Since there are so few matches I will list it. Warlock: 5/14 Warrior: 3/14 Druid: 2/14 Rogue: 2/14 Shaman: 1/14 Hunter: 1/14 DH: 1/14
Ah, speaking of Paladins, Warlocks always competing for the top spot on my charts 9%(Rogues being the top at 12%) and 13%(Druids with 17%) for Pure Paladin and Ramp Paladin respectively, over 100 games combined
Your data for v 1.0 seems reasonable, but 14 games is not nearly a large enough sample size to make a conclusion. You also lied/exaggerated about not facing rogues. Previously, you stated about rogues, that if you added weapon tech, you would "never see them anymore." 2/14 is FAR from never, and is even HIGHER than when you didn't have weapon tech, so your original argument and the point of this post is completely invalidated. The fact that you didn't go against your best matchups is just a coincidence and could be due to a meta shift or you just got unlucky, since it's only 14 games. Plus, you should take mmr into account. If you are losing repeatedly, you will change the types of decks you see, facing other decks which also might be greedy with lower win rates. Prime example of this is Markmckz, who just stays at a rank floor and faces meme decks all the time.
My argument was not over weapon removal makes rogues go away, it is over that the matchmaking is biased.
I agree that 14 games is too little, however I do have thousands of games registered spanning years here to backup this claim, however I won't bother compiling and analyzing all this data, it requires too much time and I need a HSReplay Premium subscription to get things that I either deleted or archived.
but here a quick freebie I analyzed here, the day I changed decks was already two weeks into the Miniset and I played some games with both and then switched to a Fel Demon DH, all of them had the odds stacked against them with mix of bad and neutral matchups to balance out.
1.0 : DH(W), Hunter(L), DH(L), Hunter(W), Druid(W), DH(W) 2.0(Only Losses this day): Warrior, Druid, Rogue, Warlock, Warlock, Warlock Fel Demon DH(Currently at 57% with 56 games): Paladin(Null), Paladin(W), Shaman(L), Rogue(L), DH(W), Warlock(L), Warlock(W), Mage(W), Warlock(L), Druid(W), Paladin(W), Paladin(L), Shaman(W), Mage(L).
We can even watch the replays to list out archetypes, important card interactions and opening hands of each match to further analyze the matter. Did my bad MU lose because of brick hands, lack of key cards? Did I win my bad MU because I drew well, had the key cards? Who knows.
If youare claiming that blizzard has coded a way to rig your draw to make it so you lose a certain percentage of matchups, youre crazy. Blizzard could barely code Zephrys to work, let alone an entire card game where every card drawn is coded like Zephrys, in that it's drawn based on the likelyhood that it is great for whatever situation youre in.
God no, not only it is impossible to do, but dumb too.
What I meant is that by analyzing each game you can have a better grasp of the matchmaking algorithm, for instance, you have a good ELO/WR and the game will try to pair you with a bad matchup because it wants you to lose, but you win anyway. Why is that? Here some options:
*In an attempt to even out, the game matched you with a worse player WRwise and you outplayed him. *You were matched against an even skilled player, he was unlucky and had a bad hand and/or missed key cards *You were matched against an even skilled player, but on this ocasion you had your key cards to play out the matchup
Now, if you analyze every game and every piece of data available and observe stuff like this very frequently, it possible to tell that the matchmaking is trying to match you with opponents that will drive yours and theirs WR to 50%. AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT GAMEPLAY ITSELF IS RIGGED, the game don't choose your draws, the randomizer algorithm is very good actually.
you know why the average win rate is 50% because only one person can win each match. Somebody has to lose. So the higher mmr players with win percentage higher than 50 will climb ranks, including in legend, and play players with similar mmr to drive one of the players mmr down. You know who doesn’t have 50% win rate? Rank 1 legend. The players that hit rank 1 legend have extremely high mmr and win rate, even after playing other players with very high mmr and win rate. If you are stuck at 50% win rate, it probably means you are playing other players who are stuck at 50% win rate. If you have higher than 50% win rate, you will face people with higher win rates so one of those players goes closer to 50%. One player will always get closer to 50%. The loser of the match. Whether that’s based on skill, match up, or draw is irrelevant because it’s based purely on win rate, which is often decided based on the best decks of a current meta, but not always.
Once upon a time, I worked as a debt collector. We had bets among the collectors about how many busy signals in a row someone could get (I know, I know, it's a boring job). I won hundreds of dollars on a bet that we'd eventually see a 15 streak, and not only did it happen, it happened several times.
If you don't get the point, stop posting your interpretations of statistics in this forum.
If you do get the point, you'll know that one can experience short-term streaks that defy all logic based on expected values over long-term iterative processes. In English, that means that if you toss a coin a million times, the results will be fairly close to 500k heads and 500k tails, but that doesn't change the fact that you'll repeatedly see "impossible" streaks of heads and tails in a row.
When you post 14 games, or 40 games for that matter, it's not that it doesn't mean much. It means absolutely nothing.
This topic has reared its head countless times in this forum . . . and the fact that no one has actually done what it takes to make a statistical argument speaks volumes. It would not require millions of games, but it WOULD require approximately 2-3 weeks during a relatively stable meta during which many games would have to be played with two decks. Rejecting a null hypothesis that the matchups are similarly distributed while playing two different decks wouldn't be that difficult if in fact the matchmaking is rigged. But until someone actually does it, rehashing this with different deck archtypes is contributing nothing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
Once upon a time, I worked as a debt collector. We had bets among the collectors about how many busy signals in a row someone could get (I know, I know, it's a boring job). I won hundreds of dollars on a bet that we'd eventually see a 15 streak, and not only did it happen, it happened several times.
If you don't get the point, stop posting your interpretations of statistics in this forum.
If you do get the point, you'll know that one can experience short-term streaks that defy all logic based on expected values over long-term iterative processes. In English, that means that if you toss a coin a million times, the results will be fairly close to 500k heads and 500k tails, but that doesn't change the fact that you'll repeatedly see "impossible" streaks of heads and tails in a row.
When you post 14 games, or 40 games for that matter, it's not that it doesn't mean much. It means absolutely nothing.
This topic has reared its head countless times in this forum . . . and the fact that no one has actually done what it takes to make a statistical argument speaks volumes. It would not require millions of games, but it WOULD require approximately 2-3 weeks during a relatively stable meta during which many games would have to be played with two decks. Rejecting a null hypothesis that the matchups are similarly distributed while playing two different decks wouldn't be that difficult if in fact the matchmaking is rigged. But until someone actually does it, rehashing this with different deck archtypes is contributing nothing.
Well said. I also think that if the test were going to be accurate, not only would they need to be in a stable meta, but the 2 decks would have to have very similar win rate overall (or even conceding so they are the same) to keep the mmr equal.
You are right, there is a blizzard employee assigned to every player. They watch you 24/7 to see what changes you make to your decks and decipher what you are trying to counter. Then they create a deck to counter you and make a new account to match up against you. This is an immoral practice to force pack purchases, blizzard needs to be held accountable!
there are algorythms wich decides what will be your chances to win your next game,so your overall to be at 50% , but ofcourse is not the front of the blizzard newspaper cause brain deads like u should stay that way.but if a brain dead like you would read the terms and policy of the company , you would find out that what you are mocking is really happening.enough,go back to sleep now.
You are right, there is a blizzard employee assigned to every player. They watch you 24/7 to see what changes you make to your decks and decipher what you are trying to counter. Then they create a deck to counter you and make a new account to match up against you. This is an immoral practice to force pack purchases, blizzard needs to be held accountable!
This must be it! But now im a little bit worried, so mabye you can clarify. Is this employee also watching me, when i dont play Hearthstone. I mean, since you said 24/7.
:O
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So Im at D10 floor, playing my home brew deck like usual. I have faced so many aggro wpn rouges the past 2 days, and just lose by turn 5 or 6.
I love to deck build, and especially love to counter the meta with home brew lists. Its my favorite part of the game in fact!!
So I make decks to beat wpn Rogue, except, as soon as I do, I never see them anymore. And if I switch back, suddenly there they are again!!
I have seen this type of matchmaking for my entire HS experience, and Im starting to get annoyed by it.
I believe if Im facing a certain deck, I should be able to build a counter and face it. But it seems like Blizzard doenst like this and that sux.
I wonder what the reasoning is behind this?
Does anyone else see this happening?
I know i can just play an aggro deck and beat them at their own game, but I dont enjoy aggro at all. In fact, I prefer old school control matches the most, where resources, fatigue, value, and decision making all play a huge part in a game. If I play aggro, I am bored after 2 games.
Why cant I just face wpn Rogue with my counter deck? If this was chess, and I knew my opponents opening choice, I could prepare accordingly. Same with any other game or sport. Team A, has a weakness here, so we are going to exploit that.
Instead, Team A never shows up for the game, and you have to beat a ddeck that your weak too cuz your tecked for wpn rogue.
Anyone else notice this and can offer ideas or suggestions?
I write this cuz I love the game and want to see it continue to stay on top, but its getting harder and harder to enjoy the game with all the weird matchmaking idiosyncrisies, and all the incredible RNG deciding so many games.
Putting in or removing certain cards shouldnt change the decks you face in ranked play imo. The pocket meta should be consistent.
You are right, there is a blizzard employee assigned to every player. They watch you 24/7 to see what changes you make to your decks and decipher what you are trying to counter. Then they create a deck to counter you and make a new account to match up against you. This is an immoral practice to force pack purchases, blizzard needs to be held accountable!
I notice this kind of matchmaking actually. I'll make some crazy homebrew deck and literally face someone with something similar the very next match. For instance, how many control decks with Elysiana do you encounter every month these days? Maybe 1? That's the kind of deck I would make and then face it.
Same goes for building a counter-meta deck like you experienced. Quite annoying. It happens so often it almost can't be a coincidence.
lmao!! awesome bro!1
OP, I'm on your side on all accounts here, there definitely would seem like there is something working behind the scenes to make the matchups happen this way, but is it really happening, or do we just think it is?
I have to admit, I have experienced this before as well. I mean, if I make up something weird that definitely isn't popular at the moment, and then my first game queued up is against almost the same thing... Or if you play a ton of games and then switch decks, suddenly facing different classes entirely... it really feels like there is something there. But for what purpose?
It certainly hasn't happened enough to make me start a tinfoil hat argument over it. There are enough people on this forum that think the game is programmed to do this for their own personal suffering, but I feel like it might be another reason and the only explanation anyone can come up with is that Blizzard is "keeping us at 50% win rate".
Anyway, until Blizzard openly comes out and explains how they've programmed the matchmaking, it will always be a topic for debate and everyone will think they're right.
They keep tabs on decks, cards and player winrates and they will pair you up to the perfect opponent to keep your WR balanced. It is like this ever since the game started.
You really need a large sample size to give any credence to this hypothesis. It’s just confirmation bias. You play a few games that aren’t weapon rogue and suddenly they’re gone! Well I got news for you: sometimes, there are things called coincidences. You need to play 100+ games with weapon tech and then 100+ games without weapon tech, record the data, and THEN maybe you’ll have at least somewhat relevant data that isn’t just confirmation bias or conspiracy theory because you’re not winning. In fact, 100 might not be enough because there are still anomalies relatively likely to happen with 100 data points, so you should really play 1000+ if you wanted to be sure
Thankfully I play since Beta and have used a tracker for the most part. But uncovering the data may be difficult I have played hundreds of decks over time against a even greater pool of decks and we have to take into consideration the metas and whatnot and nobody wants to do that.
But it has happened way too many times over the times to be merely a coincidence, also it's standard game design in competitive multiplayer games to try keeping players at 50%WR for balance reasons, but ELO systems alone do not work for Hearthstone due card variance. You can easily notice the absence of the system in tournament settings, as fine tuning your decks to beat what you think the meta will be or even flat out play anti-meta decks actually works.
And now a very small sample size that I can comment about:
One of the decks I played the most this season was Tickatus Warlock for a total of 73 games. Two versions: 59 Games with the first one and 14 with the second one(I dropped it due bullshit).
The 1.0 build was more balanced and featured very little healing, the main goal was to beat down your opponent with midrangy dudes like Void Drinker and had the Corrupt Package
The 2.0 version featured Miniset cards and way more healing and removal, plus two Acidic Swamp Ooze, dropping the midrange dudes and not going for the infinite value with the Envoy Rustwix package, although the card was played by itself.
Version 1.0 with a solid 29-30W/L with a kinda even class distribution with Shaman leading at 17% and Priest at the bottom with 3%. Usually control at very low end of the spectrum, kudos to Warlock decks at 7%
Then Version 2.0 comes along with the abysmal 4-10 W/L. Warlock shot up to 33% with ALL OF THEM being infinite Rustwix, Warrior increased from 14% to 20% with a mix of Big Warrior and ETC Combo, those 3 decks don't care about healing, removal or Tickatus and easily outlast me, Rogues did have an increase to 13% from 5%, but all good control matchups dropped to 0%, no mages or priests. You know who else dropped to 0%? Paladins dropped to 0% from 10% despite being the most powerful class with multiple high tier decks, the Paladin matchup is THE BEST ONE for this deck, 62% according to HSReplay. Since there are so few matches I will list it.
Warlock: 5/14
Warrior: 3/14
Druid: 2/14
Rogue: 2/14
Shaman: 1/14
Hunter: 1/14
DH: 1/14
Ah, speaking of Paladins, Warlocks always competing for the top spot on my charts 9%(Rogues being the top at 12%) and 13%(Druids with 17%) for Pure Paladin and Ramp Paladin respectively, over 100 games combined
Your data for v 1.0 seems reasonable, but 14 games is not nearly a large enough sample size to make a conclusion. You also lied/exaggerated about not facing rogues. Previously, you stated about rogues, that if you added weapon tech, you would "never see them anymore." 2/14 is FAR from never, and is even HIGHER than when you didn't have weapon tech, so your original argument and the point of this post is completely invalidated. The fact that you didn't go against your best matchups is just a coincidence and could be due to a meta shift or you just got unlucky, since it's only 14 games. Plus, you should take mmr into account. If you are losing repeatedly, you will change the types of decks you see, facing other decks which also might be greedy with lower win rates. Prime example of this is Markmckz, who just stays at a rank floor and faces meme decks all the time.
Edit: Realized you are not the OP. But you are defending the OP, so the argument still stands, but I retract the statement that you were the one to say you never faced rogues.
Careful with judging the match-ups when the meta changes over time. You've likely faced a lot of slow warlock decks right after the races came out, because everybody wanted to try out rustwix. I think treant druid has steadily become more and more popular, so no wonder if that one will eventually pop up more than anything (what I face the most atm at least). 2/14 is pretty high when there are 10 classes to choose, so definitely not an indicator of no rouges.
I've also had the feeling that once you add a deck counter card, the target stops turning up or I don't draw the card against them, but I also feel that the supermarket que I choose is the slowest and the lane I switch to during traffic jam suddenly stops moving.
My argument was not over weapon removal makes rogues go away, it is over that the matchmaking is biased.
I agree that 14 games is too little, however I do have thousands of games registered spanning years here to backup this claim, however I won't bother compiling and analyzing all this data, it requires too much time and I need a HSReplay Premium subscription to get things that I either deleted or archived.
but here a quick freebie I analyzed here, the day I changed decks was already two weeks into the Miniset and I played some games with both and then switched to a Fel Demon DH, all of them had the odds stacked against them with mix of bad and neutral matchups to balance out.
1.0 : DH(W), Hunter(L), DH(L), Hunter(W), Druid(W), DH(W)
2.0(Only Losses this day): Warrior, Druid, Rogue, Warlock, Warlock, Warlock
Fel Demon DH(Currently at 57% with 56 games): Paladin(Null), Paladin(W), Shaman(L), Rogue(L), DH(W), Warlock(L), Warlock(W), Mage(W), Warlock(L), Druid(W), Paladin(W), Paladin(L), Shaman(W), Mage(L).
We can even watch the replays to list out archetypes, important card interactions and opening hands of each match to further analyze the matter. Did my bad MU lose because of brick hands, lack of key cards? Did I win my bad MU because I drew well, had the key cards? Who knows.
If you are claiming that blizzard has coded a way to rig your draw to make it so you lose a certain percentage of matchups, you're crazy. Blizzard could barely code Zephrys to work, let alone an entire card game where every card drawn is coded like Zephrys, in that it's drawn based on the likelihood that it is great for whatever situation you're in. As for what matchup's you get, it's based on mmr. Win percentage matters, archetype does not. I have days where I play 10 secret mages in a row and some days where I face hardly any at all using the same deck. Why? because there happen to be other decks that are winning at the same rate as I am besides secret mage.
God no, not only it is impossible to do, but dumb too.
What I meant is that by analyzing each game you can have a better grasp of the matchmaking algorithm, for instance, you have a good ELO/WR and the game will try to pair you with a bad matchup because it wants you to lose, but you win anyway. Why is that? Here some options:
*In an attempt to even out, the game matched you with a worse player WRwise and you outplayed him.
*You were matched against an even skilled player, he was unlucky and had a bad hand and/or missed key cards
*You were matched against an even skilled player, but on this ocasion you had your key cards to play out the matchup
Now, if you analyze every game and every piece of data available and observe stuff like this very frequently, it possible to tell that the matchmaking is trying to match you with opponents that will drive yours and theirs WR to 50%. AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT GAMEPLAY ITSELF IS RIGGED, the game don't choose your draws, the randomizer algorithm is very good actually.
Funny cuz when I play ranked, I pretty much just face the meta... When aggro DH was tier one I played control warrior, 29% were DH in 55 games. When Evolve shaman was everywhere, guess what I faced with my galakrond deck?
you know why the average win rate is 50% because only one person can win each match. Somebody has to lose. So the higher mmr players with win percentage higher than 50 will climb ranks, including in legend, and play players with similar mmr to drive one of the players mmr down. You know who doesn’t have 50% win rate? Rank 1 legend. The players that hit rank 1 legend have extremely high mmr and win rate, even after playing other players with very high mmr and win rate. If you are stuck at 50% win rate, it probably means you are playing other players who are stuck at 50% win rate. If you have higher than 50% win rate, you will face people with higher win rates so one of those players goes closer to 50%. One player will always get closer to 50%. The loser of the match. Whether that’s based on skill, match up, or draw is irrelevant because it’s based purely on win rate, which is often decided based on the best decks of a current meta, but not always.
Here’s a link for those of you who don’t know how matchmaking works
https://hearthstone.gamepedia.com/Matchmaking#Matchmaking_ratings
Once upon a time, I worked as a debt collector. We had bets among the collectors about how many busy signals in a row someone could get (I know, I know, it's a boring job). I won hundreds of dollars on a bet that we'd eventually see a 15 streak, and not only did it happen, it happened several times.
If you don't get the point, stop posting your interpretations of statistics in this forum.
If you do get the point, you'll know that one can experience short-term streaks that defy all logic based on expected values over long-term iterative processes. In English, that means that if you toss a coin a million times, the results will be fairly close to 500k heads and 500k tails, but that doesn't change the fact that you'll repeatedly see "impossible" streaks of heads and tails in a row.
When you post 14 games, or 40 games for that matter, it's not that it doesn't mean much. It means absolutely nothing.
This topic has reared its head countless times in this forum . . . and the fact that no one has actually done what it takes to make a statistical argument speaks volumes. It would not require millions of games, but it WOULD require approximately 2-3 weeks during a relatively stable meta during which many games would have to be played with two decks. Rejecting a null hypothesis that the matchups are similarly distributed while playing two different decks wouldn't be that difficult if in fact the matchmaking is rigged. But until someone actually does it, rehashing this with different deck archtypes is contributing nothing.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
Well said. I also think that if the test were going to be accurate, not only would they need to be in a stable meta, but the 2 decks would have to have very similar win rate overall (or even conceding so they are the same) to keep the mmr equal.
there are algorythms wich decides what will be your chances to win your next game,so your overall to be at 50% , but ofcourse is not the front of the blizzard newspaper cause brain deads like u should stay that way.but if a brain dead like you would read the terms and policy of the company , you would find out that what you are mocking is really happening.enough,go back to sleep now.
This must be it! But now im a little bit worried, so mabye you can clarify. Is this employee also watching me, when i dont play Hearthstone. I mean, since you said 24/7.
:O