Hearthpwn

Quote from Pizzacats >>

Quote from Shed >>

I understand what you are talking about, what you seem to fail to understand is that I'm not trying prove that it works that anyway and that it LIKELY works that way, it's impossible to 100% absolutely prove it without looking into the code, even with a bajillion games worth of data it is still just anecdotal evidence.

I understand the gist of discussions and you are using quite a lot of casual fallacies yourself, if you go back and read your posts you realize that you are simply trying to discredit me with these fallacies. You are threading in the "you can't prove god does not exist, therefore it exists" realm

Tackle the subject at hand and prove me otherwise with actual game design arguments and logistics as to why such system is not into the game instead of grass iguanas and red herrings. See you tomorrow.

 The burden of proof goes to the accuser. I do not work for blizzard, I do not have to prove anything.  If you want to prove that you are right, that's on you.   And I'm not asking for "a bajillion games"  If you had even 1000 games that proved this hypothesis, it would be quite credible, and beyond anecdotal evidence of 30-50 games.

As for the "you can't prove god doesn't exist, therefore it exists." statement, it's quite literally the opposite of that analogy.  I am saying you can't prove it exists.  No therefore needed.  Except in this case, I never even said you can't prove match making rigging isn't happen.  It is definitely possible to prove it with enough data. It is definitely possible Blizzard gathers archetype information.  However, it is not my job to prove that, it is the job of the person who accuses that such is the case.  If you wanted to prove that god existed, it would be the job of the person who claimed that he existed  to do so.  SO no, you are literally taking my argument the opposite of what it actually means, another fallacy.

 Well, I brought up enough information on the matter that should bring everyone to the same page.

Like I said before there is no proving without looking up the code. But everything points towards it's likelihood:

*One of the core features of the system is the ability to predict outcomes correctly.
*It's necessary for the deck to be taken into consideration if the system wants to offer fair matches.
*The lack of such feature would lead to exploitation of the system, which in turn would lead to an unbalance on the system. https://win.gg/news/7500/riot-created-pro-player-accounts-to-be-disabledafter-unfair-mmr-gains
*I explained a similar implementation for League of Legends, if you are too good you are paired with bad teammates to keep balance. https://leagueoflegends.fandom.com/wiki/Matchmaking
*The system does match you with different difficulties to prevent staleness.
*Not having it also lead to some extreme cases of bad player experience(caused by coincidence), which could be prevented otherwise.

AND AGAIN I'M NOT SAYING THAT GAMES ARE RIGGED FOR YOU TO LOSE OR TO BUY PACKS OR ANY SORT OF TINFOIL HAT TALK. If it is rigged for you to lose, someone else is winning. I'M TELLING THE SYSTEM IS BIASED DUE IT'S OWN NATURE, IT SLIGHTLY TIPS THE ODDS EITHER SIDE SOMETIMES TO MATCH YOU AGAINST BETTER/WORSE PLAYER OR MATCHUPS.
To further elaborate on that, picture this: You click play and the game starts to look for a match, it chooses a 60-40 match against you. That opponent either have a better skill rating with a neutral matchup, a neutral skill rating with better matchup or slightly better skill rating and matchup. It simply runs the calculations and give you a random guy based on the odds.

Now regards to OP post, deck A and deck B have different matchups, thus the pool of fair matchups is different, playing a counter deck slightly offsets your chance of finding the one you are countering. It's the nature of the game, most of the time it's fine, sometimes you are on the short end of the stick, sometimes your opponent is.

Quote from Shed >>

Quote from Pizzacats >>

Quote from Shed >>

I understand what you are talking about, what you seem to fail to understand is that I'm not trying prove that it works that anyway and that it LIKELY works that way, it's impossible to 100% absolutely prove it without looking into the code, even with a bajillion games worth of data it is still just anecdotal evidence.

I understand the gist of discussions and you are using quite a lot of casual fallacies yourself, if you go back and read your posts you realize that you are simply trying to discredit me with these fallacies. You are threading in the "you can't prove god does not exist, therefore it exists" realm

Tackle the subject at hand and prove me otherwise with actual game design arguments and logistics as to why such system is not into the game instead of grass iguanas and red herrings. See you tomorrow.

 The burden of proof goes to the accuser. I do not work for blizzard, I do not have to prove anything.  If you want to prove that you are right, that's on you.   And I'm not asking for "a bajillion games"  If you had even 1000 games that proved this hypothesis, it would be quite credible, and beyond anecdotal evidence of 30-50 games.

As for the "you can't prove god doesn't exist, therefore it exists." statement, it's quite literally the opposite of that analogy.  I am saying you can't prove it exists.  No therefore needed.  Except in this case, I never even said you can't prove match making rigging isn't happen.  It is definitely possible to prove it with enough data. It is definitely possible Blizzard gathers archetype information.  However, it is not my job to prove that, it is the job of the person who accuses that such is the case.  If you wanted to prove that god existed, it would be the job of the person who claimed that he existed  to do so.  SO no, you are literally taking my argument the opposite of what it actually means, another fallacy.

 Well, I brought up enough information on the matter that should bring everyone to the same page.

Like I said before there is no proving without looking up the code. But everything points towards it's likelihood:

*One of the core features of the system is the ability to predict outcomes correctly.
*It's necessary for the deck to be taken into consideration if the system wants to offer fair matches.
*The lack of such feature would lead to exploitation of the system, which in turn would lead to an unbalance on the system. https://win.gg/news/7500/riot-created-pro-player-accounts-to-be-disabledafter-unfair-mmr-gains
*I explained a similar implementation for League of Legends, if you are too good you are paired with bad teammates to keep balance. https://leagueoflegends.fandom.com/wiki/Matchmaking
*The system does match you with different difficulties to prevent staleness.
*Not having it also lead to some extreme cases of bad player experience(caused by coincidence), which could be prevented otherwise.

AND AGAIN I'M NOT SAYING THAT GAMES ARE RIGGED FOR YOU TO LOSE OR TO BUY PACKS OR ANY SORT OF TINFOIL HAT TALK. If it is rigged for you to lose, someone else is winning. I'M TELLING THE SYSTEM IS BIASED DUE IT'S OWN NATURE, IT SLIGHTLY TIPS THE ODDS EITHER SIDE SOMETIMES TO MATCH YOU AGAINST BETTER/WORSE PLAYER OR MATCHUPS.
To further elaborate on that, picture this: You click play and the game starts to look for a match, it chooses a 60-40 match against you. That opponent either have a better skill rating with a neutral matchup, a neutral skill rating with better matchup or slightly better skill rating and matchup. It simply runs the calculations and give you a random guy based on the odds.

Now regards to OP post, deck A and deck B have different matchups, thus the pool of fair matchups is different, playing a counter deck slightly offsets your chance of finding the one you are countering. It's the nature of the game, most of the time it's fine, sometimes you are on the short end of the stick, sometimes your opponent is.

Why would you implement a complicated system like that when randomness will achieve the same thing with luck evening out over time?

There are only factors in matchmaking, your rank/mmr and which opponents are available at the time you queue up. Blizzard knows that a very important part of the playability of their games is minimizing waiting time. Taking all kinds of weird factors into account will make you have to wait longer for your games, and it would usually fail at finding what it was looking for anyway...

It's actually a great video, if you approach it to learn something and not to use it for a completely unrelated end.

It takes quite a while into the video to even get to Matchmaking, the first bit is all about the purpose of any skill ranking system (bronze thru master league, legend ranks, whatever).

The first part is all about the conundrum game designers face when designing any sort of ranking system.  In HS, people refer to the overall problem as "ladder anxiety", but that term covers a couple of different issues.  The first is just that some players really don't want to be told how shit they are, and designing a ranking system needs to consider whether or not players are going to quit when they're put in "bronze league" or whatever the equivalent in your game is.  I could make comments about folks who draw conclusions that their losing streaks must be the result of rigged MM, but they sort of write themselves, so I'll move on.

Ironically at the 7:00 mark, Menke specifically mentions pigeon-holing rating systems and design philosophy into purposes they were never meant to achieve.

An interesting point directly after is Menke claims that a good ranking system by definition should often successfully predict the outcome of a game between two players.  That is, if the ranking system is doing its job, #1 legend should beat #20 legend a very high percentage of the time.  I can't keep going into that much detail or we'll be here all day, but that particular point was relevant because the idea of being "predictive" and the idea of being rigged are not synonymous.

Quite a few minutes of statistical discussion in no way related to the topic at hand, except I find it hilarious that at 13:09, there's a point on the PowerPoint slide which says "Don't apply without understanding, lots of subtleties".  Draw your own conclusions.

 

The first remotely relevant moment to the topic at hand is at 16:25, a fact which makes me heavily doubt that those who quote this video actually watched it, since otherwise, why would you not tell people that?  Anyway, Menke frankly acknowledges the obvious truth that matchmaking isn't just about taking two ELO ratings that are close together and throwing people into a match.  He lists all sorts of factors one MIGHT want to incorporate into MM systems, including an interesting one, veterancy of player, that I hadn't really considered.  The possibility that matching older players against each other might yield a social benefit.  A lot of these are rendered moot in HS by the fact that we can't communicate with opponents during a game, but as it is important to remember, this presentation is in no way pointed at Hearthstone, and frequently diverges into topics that have no relevance to HS based on specific design choices.

If you notice I'm going blow by blow even when it doesn't pertain to this topic, I decided to do this post because Fowler asked for it and he has been remotely human to me in the past.  However I don't want to hear BS from folks who say I skipped parts of the video, so I'm doing it all.  Anyway, several minutes of completely unrelated discussion to games that have different modes like capture-the-flag, etc. and how that can segment the player base.

At 22 minutes, there's a wonderful segment on the pitfalls of designing new abilities (or cards) in game and having a skill gap make the new ability look broken when in fact, it's an issue of only a few of the player base knowing how to fully use the new ability.  Again, not relevant, but interesting.  Some shit about playing with friends in team games, again, not relevant.

And as we hit the 30 minute mark, we're still talking about progression or leveling systems.  Again, irrelevant.  If you notice we're halfway thru the video and haven't even remotely touched on anything that sounds like rigging a MM system . . . you're a great noticer.  No shade on the video, the subject matter is great.  It's just that the folks that posted this vid here have lied to you.

Minutes 30-40 are entirely dominated by a discussion of what skill-based MM does to win rates and progression thru "ranks" or whatever the game sets up to mark progression in the game.  The only real relevance one finds to our topic here is when Menke briefly and in a "duh" sort of moment completely demolishes the arguments about "rigging" the system to maintain close to 50% win rates.  In point of fact, the 50% win rate is a side effect of almost every correctly-constructed MM system, though there are different results that can be achieved in terms of WHEN each caliber of player reaches a 50% equilibrium.  There is a lot of relevance to ANOTHER argument had on these forums, that being the whole "it doesn't take skill to hit legend" trope.  Menke talks about how in most cases, the skill rankings are only going to have true relevance in showing accurate disparities between players at the very top of the spectrum.  That is to say, a D 5 player and a D 3 player may be evenly matched, but there's probably a legit difference in skill between #100 legend and #2.

The presentation ends at 42 minutes, another fact that you would think the posters of the video would let you know if they had actually watched it, thereby reducing the amount of material you'd have to watch.  The questions that follow are tech based for the most part and I saw no direct applicability to this topic.

 

If you made it this far and are suddenly very confused, if you're asking yourself, "wait a minute, you mean these guys posted an hour long video that in no way, shape, or form pertained to their own point?" you get a gold star!  They just lied to you.

 

TL;DR:  Just believe what they told you about the video.  You need to be led.

 

 

EDIT:  Good luck claiming the pre-release Kise.  I have made good on the offer once before, and I would do it again if anyone is actually successful in claiming it.

 

 

 

Quote from Shed >>

Quote from Pizzacats >>

Quote from Shed >>

I understand what you are talking about, what you seem to fail to understand is that I'm not trying prove that it works that anyway and that it LIKELY works that way, it's impossible to 100% absolutely prove it without looking into the code, even with a bajillion games worth of data it is still just anecdotal evidence.

I understand the gist of discussions and you are using quite a lot of casual fallacies yourself, if you go back and read your posts you realize that you are simply trying to discredit me with these fallacies. You are threading in the "you can't prove god does not exist, therefore it exists" realm

Tackle the subject at hand and prove me otherwise with actual game design arguments and logistics as to why such system is not into the game instead of grass iguanas and red herrings. See you tomorrow.

 The burden of proof goes to the accuser. I do not work for blizzard, I do not have to prove anything.  If you want to prove that you are right, that's on you.   And I'm not asking for "a bajillion games"  If you had even 1000 games that proved this hypothesis, it would be quite credible, and beyond anecdotal evidence of 30-50 games.

As for the "you can't prove god doesn't exist, therefore it exists." statement, it's quite literally the opposite of that analogy.  I am saying you can't prove it exists.  No therefore needed.  Except in this case, I never even said you can't prove match making rigging isn't happen.  It is definitely possible to prove it with enough data. It is definitely possible Blizzard gathers archetype information.  However, it is not my job to prove that, it is the job of the person who accuses that such is the case.  If you wanted to prove that god existed, it would be the job of the person who claimed that he existed  to do so.  SO no, you are literally taking my argument the opposite of what it actually means, another fallacy.

 Well, I brought up enough information on the matter that should bring everyone to the same page.

Like I said before there is no proving without looking up the code. But everything points towards it's likelihood:

*One of the core features of the system is the ability to predict outcomes correctly.
*It's necessary for the deck to be taken into consideration if the system wants to offer fair matches.
*The lack of such feature would lead to exploitation of the system, which in turn would lead to an unbalance on the system. https://win.gg/news/7500/riot-created-pro-player-accounts-to-be-disabledafter-unfair-mmr-gains
*I explained a similar implementation for League of Legends, if you are too good you are paired with bad teammates to keep balance. https://leagueoflegends.fandom.com/wiki/Matchmaking
*The system does match you with different difficulties to prevent staleness.
*Not having it also lead to some extreme cases of bad player experience(caused by coincidence), which could be prevented otherwise.

AND AGAIN I'M NOT SAYING THAT GAMES ARE RIGGED FOR YOU TO LOSE OR TO BUY PACKS OR ANY SORT OF TINFOIL HAT TALK. If it is rigged for you to lose, someone else is winning. I'M TELLING THE SYSTEM IS BIASED DUE IT'S OWN NATURE, IT SLIGHTLY TIPS THE ODDS EITHER SIDE SOMETIMES TO MATCH YOU AGAINST BETTER/WORSE PLAYER OR MATCHUPS.
To further elaborate on that, picture this: You click play and the game starts to look for a match, it chooses a 60-40 match against you. That opponent either have a better skill rating with a neutral matchup, a neutral skill rating with better matchup or slightly better skill rating and matchup. It simply runs the calculations and give you a random guy based on the odds.

Now regards to OP post, deck A and deck B have different matchups, thus the pool of fair matchups is different, playing a counter deck slightly offsets your chance of finding the one you are countering. It's the nature of the game, most of the time it's fine, sometimes you are on the short end of the stick, sometimes your opponent is.

 A lot of this comes across as very 'God of the gaps'. 

I don't understand, so therefore I insert explanation X which suits me and/or my agenda. I'm not directing this at you specifically, more of a general point on threads like these. 

If you aren't qualified or experienced in a particular subject or don't have enough information/data to accurately draw a conclusion then.... Well don't... If that conclusion warps your perspective on the subject or people involved then it's always better to seek further information or credible evidence and until then, just don't assert whatever explanation you, a lay person, has come up with.

If I discuss/debate with a theist, I can almost guarantee that one of the first things they do is to ask how I explain the origin of the universe. If I say "I don't know" they seem to think this is some form of 'gotcha' moment and they proudly then boast that they do know. 

No, you don't know, in fact, I'm sure you actually understand the subject less than an average high school student, let alone the thousands upon thousands of people who have spent decades investigating and researching this.

I'd happily listen to the arguments from soembody with credible experience in game design but it's never, ever that. When you listen to game designers discuss this, they typically raise many perspectives, challenges and points that I as an ignorant person had no idea about. I'm fully aware of the limitations of my knowledge and so prefer to save any concrete assertions, especially when it relates to the competence or moral compass of another person. All we have these days is people point fingers at each other, name calling and getting absolutely no where because nobody brings any evidence or credible data to the table. 

All the big brains in here.......Put weapon hate in your decks, and you will see less weapon based decks. 

 

In Wild put 2 Chief inspectors in your deck and you hardly every see a Secret Mage

Quote from Foshizzel17 >>

All the big brains in here.......Put weapon hate in your decks, and you will see less weapon based decks. 

 

In Wild put 2 Chief inspectors in your deck and you hardly every see a Secret Mage

 THATS MY POINT!! as soon as a I teck in cards to beat it, I dont see it, BUT, that makes my deck weaker to all the other ones. 

Quote from P4dge >>

Quote from Shed >>

Quote from Pizzacats >>

Quote from Shed >>

 I'd happily listen to the arguments from soembody with credible experience in game design but it's never, ever that. When you listen to game designers discuss this, they typically raise many perspectives, challenges and points that I as an ignorant person had no idea about. I'm fully aware of the limitations of my knowledge and so prefer to save any concrete assertions, especially when it relates to the competence or moral compass of another person. All we have these days is people point fingers at each other, name calling and getting absolutely no where because nobody brings any evidence or credible data to the table. 

 .....'nobody brings credible data to the table.' 

Isn't that the problem. Blizzard carefully hides the inner workings of MMR and matchmaking system. Throws some red meat for the masses to chew on and happily watch 'debates' on fora like these. Only an independent investigation would bring light to bare. But that doesn't happen. So nobody can bring anything to the table. Any comment to the contrary (a fanboys habit) is utterly rubbish. Not opening up is morally corrupt, but that fact is a public secret.

Quote from Hooghout >>

Quote from P4dge >>

Quote from Shed >>

Quote from Pizzacats >>

Quote from Shed >>

 I'd happily listen to the arguments from soembody with credible experience in game design but it's never, ever that. When you listen to game designers discuss this, they typically raise many perspectives, challenges and points that I as an ignorant person had no idea about. I'm fully aware of the limitations of my knowledge and so prefer to save any concrete assertions, especially when it relates to the competence or moral compass of another person. All we have these days is people point fingers at each other, name calling and getting absolutely no where because nobody brings any evidence or credible data to the table. 

 .....'nobody brings credible data to the table.' 

Isn't that the problem. Blizzard carefully hides the inner workings of MMR and matchmaking system. Throws some red meat for the masses to chew on and happily watch 'debates' on fora like these. Only an independent investigation would bring light to bare. But that doesn't happen. So nobody can bring anything to the table. Any comment to the contrary (a fanboys habit) is utterly rubbish. Not opening up is morally corrupt, but that fact is a public secret.

 Like every single company about the MMR and Matchmaking in almost any game. Like you DONT want to people know how exactly the system work because them they can actually use the system to get profit. Every system can be exploided if you know exactly how it works (or most of them) that is specially truth for programs. Even if you see people talking about the system and guessing right or wrong you dont go and tell them if they are right or wrong about it. I never ever seem any company explaining how their game works. Gacha games companies dont tell you if the % on the rolls are exactly those that show or there are other numbers/factors invol, he only thing that you know usally is pity count down or increase % chances per try and stuff like that for put a simple example.

hearthstone is rigged.

shadowverse is rigged

legends of runeterra is rigged

autochess is rigged

after spending a lot of time on the internet you see the same things puked out everyday, i can go on. but i'm not this debate is stupid.

lol, the day between post 87 and 88 faked me into thinking someone had actually listened to that post I made on the "proof" video.

 

Silly me.

Quote from parishbishop >>

Quote from Foshizzel17 >>

All the big brains in here.......Put weapon hate in your decks, and you will see less weapon based decks. 

 

In Wild put 2 Chief inspectors in your deck and you hardly every see a Secret Mage

 THATS MY POINT!! as soon as a I teck in cards to beat it, I dont see it, BUT, that makes my deck weaker to all the other ones. 

Big brain plays: choose an archetype that smothers a popular deck, but put in "scarecrow" tech cards against the decks you want to avoid. I promise you it won't work.

I posted a video about how it works. Say you face rogue 5/10 games, and curse the matchmaking. Then you tech hard against rogue, and maybe even change decks, but how likely is it that your next 5/10 games will also be against rogue, when hsreplay tells you it should really be closer to 1/5 games at your rank? Spoiler: it is not very likely, but the matchmaking will "feel" rigged against you.

I actually quite enjoy navigating the metagame as a part of hearthstone. I have been disappointed many times when decks I like to play have been overtaken or just lose too much to the top dogs of the moment, but I see no reason to blame rigging for this.

 

Quote from 3nnu1 >>

KEA Proposes Unfair Matchmaking To Raise 'Player Engagement' & Monetization - YouTube

Josh Menke presents Blizzard's matchmaking and ranking system - YouTube

Skill, Matchmaking, and Ranking Systems Design - YouTube

https://investor.activision.com/news-releases/news-release-details/activision-blizzard-completes-king-acquisition-becomes-largest

https://www.overthinkingit.com/2013/09/05/candy-crush/

https://www.usgamer.net/articles/activision-was-granted-a-patent-that-could-encourage-more-in-game-purchases#:~:text=According to a new report,utilize computer algorithms to matc

Anyone who does any research into the subject will be confronted with the reality that the matchmaker is fine tuned to drive player engagement. That means they try to keep all of their players playing. They found a long time ago that players can become demoralized if they lose too much. Later on they found out that frustrating players can drive them to spend. 

This means that the matchmaker is set to keep you playing AND to frustrate you. So if you don't play much, or you lay off for a long period of time, the game will try to set you up to win. It also means that if you play a lot without spending, then the matchmaker and game RNG will bend towards helping you lose. This is just good business.

King is the maker of candy crush, candy crush is a game notorious for being rigged to stimulate spending. Activision bought king. 

Activision also patented a system of showing you an in game item you don't have to get you to buy it. If you win against it it would hardly make you think you need it. Therefore there is a strong incentive for blizzard to program the game to increase your chances of losing against cards you don't have at certain points of your play. If it did it all the time, you would stop playing. Figuring out when to do it (like progress gates such as right before you reach legend) is standard procedure in fremium games. 

Two of the links describe how blizzard tries to keep players rating by engineering wins for them. Just remember if they are engineering for one player to win, then they are also engineering for another to lose.

At this point it is pure foolishness to think that the game is not rigged, they all are, it is just a fact of business. The people on  this forum who continue to deny it are either willfully obtuse or shills. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Both a long video of josh menke AND the patent were already discussed in this thread, and no, neither of them proves the OP whatsoever. It might prove they are matching players of higher or equal skill to control wins and losses, but says nothing about archetype and tech manipulation. If you want to prove the op, you need data, not generalized match making info.

 

3nnui was the first person to hold out that patent video as proof of something.

I took 8 pages of abuse trying to show him otherwise.

And round and round we go.

These threads are the best.  Different people post different theories of how the game is rigged.  They could all say match making is rigged, but they don't all agree on exactly how it's rigged.  Meanwhile, each theory is quite easily disproved.  Some examples...

1-I played against deck 'A' 5 games in a row, switched decks to counter deck 'A' and didn't play it again.

          One time I played against odd pally 4 games in a row.  I switched decks for a better matchup and 2 of the next 4 was not only against odd pally, but the other 2 were also aggro decks.  Having watched plenty of streamers ranking up over the years as well, I have witnessed them switch decks countless times and be rewarded with good matchups.

2-After crafting a new deck or playing after a long break, you will be queued into good matchups.

         I honestly don't know how people can believe this is something beyond confirmation bias.  This would have been easily confirmed years ago.

3-The game is rigged to keep everyone at 50% win rate.

        The methods they use to do this don't seem to be agreed upon.  Deck archtypes?  Individual card choices?  Deck manipulation?  All of the above?  The time span involved isn't usually mentioned either.  Some will claim that their 5 game win streak is always met with a 5 game losing streak, but literally anybody who hasn't experienced the same thing is a counter argument to that.  Just when does RIGGED GAMEPLAY take effect to keep me at 50% anyway?  Hours or days?  Seasons or expansions?  I suppose anything close to 50% over any time interval would support their argument, but I've watched many a streamer quickly rank up over the years at the start of a month/expansion with records over 75% win rate.  I guess this form of rigged gameplay is only active at certain times???

There's a guy in the "nothing to see here" thread who said he conceded 38 times before he found a secret mage after putting anti-secret cards in his deck . . . and also MM is rigged to keep you at 50%

Quote from Shadowrisen >>

There's a guy in the "nothing to see here" thread who said he conceded 38 times before he found a secret mage after putting anti-secret cards in his deck . . . and also MM is rigged to keep you at 50%

 thx for sharing that post. I saw it too and was gonna do the same thing. cheers.

I put together a hunter deck with flares and eaters of secrets and two of the first 3 games were against secret mage . . . but I'm not a hypocrite, so I'm not going to post an anecdote as if it proves something.

They would swear I'm lying anyway

Quote from TheFubar >>

These threads are the best.  Different people post different theories of how the game is rigged.  They could all say match making is rigged, but they don't all agree on exactly how it's rigged.  Meanwhile, each theory is quite easily disproved.  Some examples...

1-I played against deck 'A' 5 games in a row, switched decks to counter deck 'A' and didn't play it again.

          One time I played against odd pally 4 games in a row.  I switched decks for a better matchup and 2 of the next 4 was not only against odd pally, but the other 2 were also aggro decks.  Having watched plenty of streamers ranking up over the years as well, I have witnessed them switch decks countless times and be rewarded with good matchups.

2-After crafting a new deck or playing after a long break, you will be queued into good matchups.

         I honestly don't know how people can believe this is something beyond confirmation bias.  This would have been easily confirmed years ago.

3-The game is rigged to keep everyone at 50% win rate.

        The methods they use to do this don't seem to be agreed upon.  Deck archtypes?  Individual card choices?  Deck manipulation?  All of the above?  The time span involved isn't usually mentioned either.  Some will claim that their 5 game win streak is always met with a 5 game losing streak, but literally anybody who hasn't experienced the same thing is a counter argument to that.  Just when does RIGGED GAMEPLAY take effect to keep me at 50% anyway?  Hours or days?  Seasons or expansions?  I suppose anything close to 50% over any time interval would support their argument, but I've watched many a streamer quickly rank up over the years at the start of a month/expansion with records over 75% win rate.  I guess this form of rigged gameplay is only active at certain times???

 You present no evidence, just conjecture that says we are all wrong, so dont preach to the choir bro,  move on or come back with data if that matters to you so much. I dont care to do the math or anything like that, so if you do, good on you, please share.  However,  MY EXPERIENCE PLAYING THE GAME is what matters. thats why I made the post to begin with. I wanted to talk about it, and vent at the same time. The game is designed to keep winrates as close to 50% as possible apparently, as I am learning.  THAT SUX FOR ME CUZ I HOME BREW DECK BUILD and like to counter the meta or a class I am seeing over and over smash it. iTS AN UNFAIR EXPERIENCE to tech against a deck , never face it, and be weaker to everything else.  I WANT THE EXPERIENCE OF BEATING A DECK WITH SKILL AND FORETHOUGHT, not just be at the mercy of RNG and shitty matchmaking. Ranked mode is ranked mode, not Casual. Lets drop the MMR/50%winrate thing, and let me counter that weapon Rogue at least once or twice. LOL 

I know with enough games played , eventually I would see a different class or deck that crushing me. The whole point is the feeling and vibe we all get playing this wonderful game. I guess I expect to much of the MMR to allow me the experience of home brew deck building to beat the meta Im facing, rather than have to play a meta deck and miss out on the part I love the most about this game, deck building. 

Never mind, I just started playing Valheim so Im good now. Ill build a Hearth out of Stone myself thank you very much. 

If you want to rank up you need the patience of 1million donkeys,winning 3 losing 2,and all these with the Tier 1 decks,dont even think to play something else.

Yes matchmaking is out of order right now,i dont enjoy the game anymore.

But to waste my time is good and is also free...

Even on poker we use our brain,cards e.t.c,but i count you on you blizzard even the brainless can hit legend:)

Lol your game is a joke for people with zero iq:)