Hearthpwn

Quote from Horrorwolf >>

OP: To answer your question, yes this game is 100% rigged. From MMR, to the opponent's decks you face, to the cards you draw, to your top draw,  down to the discovery pool.

 Do they use the same technology to control the weather?

One thing that needs to be said, however, is that MMR in Ranked is not transparent, as are class frequencies, deck frequencies etc.

Once a month, when you get your star bonus, you can estimate in what bracket the game has put you for the time being. When Ranked was changed with Ashes of Outlands, Blizzard said that MMR would be the primary factor until your star bonus is used up (IIRC). But I have made plenty of experience tanking my MMR and powering it up again, and feel it is constantly shifting and the ranks are irrelevant.

Last season (January), I started with a star bonus of 5, which was not unexpected. That meant, after Gold 5, I should have only faced players who were at the same rank.

Throughout the month, I have played a lot of games. I cannot say how many, since I have no deck tracker, but I completed "Reliquary Relic Query" (save 200 mana with Tae'thalan), and that alone took several dozen games, of which I might have won about 5 to 10. I know that I made very little progress in getting 500 Mage wins. And this was just one of many bad decks I forced myself playing for prolonged periods of time.

From time to time, when I was fed up with losing, I would actually play a decent deck and rank up a bit, just to get to the next rank floor. Eventually, I was close enough to get to Dia 10, and then had the idea of going up to Dia 5 again. 

I can say that I have seen plenty of decks and opponents that should not be on the ranks they were, including the bot army that was supposedly on Plat 10. Many of them could not even play a single card. Whatever it takes to reach Plat 10 nowadays, I think even the worst of all players should be able to beat an opponent who cannot play anything. It is rather hard to believe that these accounts were actually on a similar rank as me, and more believable as this being all the game could offer me as my winrate went below 10%. Likewise, it was just as hard to believe when I would see decent decks among so many bad ones. But I guess I am not alone after all in my weird undertakings.

Even during my last few games (which quickly became a lot more than just a few, thanks game), I have seen players that made "interesting" choices. Of course it is possible that they chose to run decks like Elemental Shaman (yes, I lost that one) and Reno Renathal Priest on the last few hours of the season below the rank floors just for the challenge and fun of it, but an inactive DK bot on Diamond 7 is suspicious.

Anyway, the game now deemed me good enough to give me a bonus of 9 again, for whatever reason. I can only speculate where my MMR has been throughout the month, and how many games were necessary to push it up again. The least I can say is, it weren't all that many since I lost maybe two games between Plat 5 and Dia 6.

What I mean to say with this little anecdote: Saying that matchmaking is MMR based is good and all, but when you don't really know your MMR and the acutal matchmaking mechanics and key metrics are all kept behind a curtain (with 3rd party services slightly helping it), people will inevitably come up with their own theory of what is going on. I don't think the game is rigged, but I am not surprised (just disappointed) when people believe it is.

It's true try it out, make a deck with a random card no1 uses and i guarantee you will face a deck with he same friken card in their deck! 

I think you guys are about to blow the lid on that thing. Your investigation is getting closer and closer to the truth, I can feel it! 

That changing a card changes your matchup spread is the most retarded claim of all...

If it was like that it would be in the favour of the Player and not blizzards.

You could decide who you play against just by changing a few cards. In a System like that some masterbrains would create decks that reach a 90% positive matchup spread.

Blizzard for sure matches you with certain decks or starting hands that they know will cause a loss. It prevents ppl from going on 20 game winstreaks, limits the amount of ppl in legend and keeps you playing the game. Like how you get to rank 3 diamond, you're ranking up and next thing you know you're on a losing streak and now rank 4 or 5. Now you feel compelled to keep playing to get your og rank back to retain some sense of progression. In legend I havent gone on 1 losing streak, I never lose more than 2 games in a row. You would think if you're in legend and you're facing hypothetically the best and most intelligent players in the game, you would lose more games in legend than in ranks 5 to 1, right? No because they no longer have an incentive to "de-rank" you anymore to keep you playing and motivated. Only ~25k pll make it to legend and there are plenty of decks that have high enough winrates to get there so why have the same amount of ppl reach legend over the years? Obviously persistence is key and some ppl just aren't persistent enough and the matching is not in their favor.

Quote from jjgamesworth >>

Blizzard for sure matches you with certain decks or starting hands that they know will cause a loss. It prevents ppl from going on 20 game winstreaks, limits the amount of ppl in legend and keeps you playing the game. Like how you get to rank 3 diamond, you're ranking up and next thing you know you're on a losing streak and now rank 4 or 5. Now you feel compelled to keep playing to get your og rank back to retain some sense of progression. In legend I havent gone on 1 losing streak, I never lose more than 2 games in a row. You would think if you're in legend and you're facing hypothetically the best and most intelligent players in the game, you would lose more games in legend than in ranks 5 to 1, right? No because they no longer have an incentive to "de-rank" you anymore to keep you playing and motivated. Only ~25k pll make it to legend and there are plenty of decks that have high enough winrates to get there so why have the same amount of ppl reach legend over the years? Obviously persistence is key and some ppl just aren't persistent enough and the matching is not in their favor.

 What a load of bull...

Diamond 4-1 is the most competitive after high legend, while legend lower than 500 or so is the least competitive environment.

No intentional deranking is necessary. When your MMR matches you against equal opponents,  it's natural that your winrate is close to 50% and since in the final climb to legend most people don't have extra stars, it's easy to get stuck there.

The matchmaking system is rigged. There is an AI that knows how decks perform one against the others, and it tries to keep you at 50% win rate after a certain rank. If you have a big streak, it will match you against a hard counter with a perfect draw. The AI can control which decks can climb or not.

The card draw is rigged too, they already have the Zphyrs code and they can use it to make you feel lucky and blessed by the AI drawing system.

@Baldassar

It's not bs, I've noticed that too.

Quote from InfinityRocketPlastics >>

You don't have any evidence for any of that, you're starting from your conclusion (I feel like I get unlucky too often so the game must be manipulating its RNG somehow) and working backwards from there.

 There is a lot of evidence. There is a blizzard patent for the matchmaking system where you can adjust the whole game outcome using some variables/controls to give a player higher chance of winning so that player can feel "good". The system wants everyone to feel "good".  https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160001181A1/en 

They sometimes match you against decks that may convince you to spend money to craft those decks.

In one implementation, the microtransaction engine may target particular players to make game-related purchases based on their interests. For example, the microtransaction engine may identify a junior player to match with a marquee player based on a player profile of the junior player. In a particular example, the junior player may wish to become an expert sniper in a game (e.g., as determined from the player profile). The microtransaction engine may match the junior player with a player that is a highly skilled sniper in the game. In this manner, the junior player may be encouraged to make game-related purchases such as a rifle or other item used by the marquee player.

In one implementation, when a player makes a game-related purchase, the microtransaction engine may encourage future purchases by matching the player (e.g., using matchmaking described herein) in a gameplay session that will utilize the game-related purchase. Doing so may enhance a level of enjoyment by the player for the game-related purchase, which may encourage future purchases. For example, if the player purchased a particular weapon, the microtransaction engine may match the player in a gameplay session in which the particular weapon is highly effective, giving the player an impression that the particular weapon was a good purchase. This may encourage the player to make future purchases to achieve similar gameplay results.

So please stop calling some people paranoids because everyone who took this game seriously knows how it works. It's not a game of skill for 99%, it's just following the meta created by the algorithm. Look at the top 3 decks atm. How can you say this is a game of skill and the matchmaking system is based on skill?

I think it's cool you've provided something to back up your claims. I've skimmed through the .pdf but I'm having a hard time understanding what's being explained here. Could you summarize your understanding of the whole thing? I feel that quoting a single part without explaining the general principle might be misleading. 

This is a quote from Dean Ayala from two years ago about Match Making in Arena:

• Your record with your deck is assigned a value.
• The matchmaker attempts to match you with another deck with the same value, but possibly a different record.
• If a match can't be found after some time, it will slowly expand the search range until one is found.
• They have enough data to determine how different records do against each other.

Source: https://outof.games/news/3152-dean-ayala-confirms-how-hearthstones-arena-matchmaking-works-tracked-skill-rating/

Could you explain how the quote above meshes with the matching making patent you've quoted? Now, I realize that this is a quote for Arena matchmaking but I'm assuming it's the same principle for Standard or Wild (although I'm open to be corrected). According to the wiki on fandom, Hearthstone uses different MMR for different types of game, so Standard MMR might be different than Arena MMR. 

I find Dean's quote pretty convincing and it's how I imagine a match making system would work. 

Since the meta changes with new expansion, more powerful decks reach the top with the new card synergies. This, in turn, encourages players to get a hold of the new cards. Isn't that sufficient enough a motivation to drive the game's economy? I think it is. Note that:

• MMR is gained with wins and lost with losses.^[11]
• The amount of MMR gained or lost is dependent on the MMR of your opponent.^[1][11]
• MMR adjustments are not affected by the duration of the match;^[12] or what cards are in either player's deck.^[13]
• Casual mode MMR is adjusted quickly when a player experiences a win or lose streak.^[14]
• While MMR is not used in sub-Legend Ranked matches without a Star Bonus, it is still recorded and altered after each match.^[9] It is unknown whether or not cooperative Tavern Brawls (which do not use MMR for matchmaking) affect the player's MMR.

Bolded for emphasis.

I'd be interested in what you'd have to say about this provided it's backed by data or evidence (as opposed to saying they're lying for example).

When do ppl finally stop with that 50% bullshit. They dont need any hidden mechanic to reach that ffs.

This game is 1on1!!! It will always end up with an 50% winrate in avg. 

Jesus freakin Christ just use your brain once pls...

P.s. this is not directed to any Individual but everyone who claims its rigged to keep ppl around 50%.

All you need is equally skilled opponents and those you get as long as you posses a star bonus - to lose roughly 50% of all games

The tinfoil hats brigade see conspiracy in everything... what a way to live!

Quote from Zizka >>

I think it's cool you've provided something to back up your claims....

You can read again the patent and discover that It's all about maintaining a certain emotional state of the consumer to generate the highest amount of profit, and I am not going to fight with a corporation and its drones, but think at this... They have such a patent, players are noticing patterns where they see the game being manipulated, exactly like in the patent, so it's obvious that there are higher chances of this game being manipulated, no matter how much gaslighting the drones are making.

I'll waste my time to explain you this statement, because you can't understand a document, but you want huge data proof from me.

In one implementation, the microtransaction engine may target particular players to make game-related purchases based on their interests. For example, the microtransaction engine may identify a junior player to match with a marquee player based on a player profile of the junior player. In a particular example, the junior player may wish to become an expert sniper in a game (e.g., as determined from the player profile). The microtransaction engine may match the junior player with a player that is a highly skilled sniper in the game. In this manner, the junior player may be encouraged to make game-related purchases such as a rifle or other item used by the marquee player.

So, it sounds like the algorithm gives a benefit to the junior player, to improve his skill, but in reality is this:

You have a player that spent currency, and one that didn't spent currency. The one that didn't spent currency doesn't queue in the game to get a show off game of the legendary that the algorithm wants him to buy, the player queues to enjoy the game, this is the player assumption, but the algorithm decides to punish him for not spending enough currency, of course, everything in the benefit of the player to improve the deck, skill etc...

How can you ask for data after reading just this statement of the patent? Are you serious?

I'm just trying to understand your point of view.

You have a player that spent currency, and one that didn't spent currency. The one that didn't spent currency doesn't queue in the game to get a show off game of the legendary that the algorithm wants him to buy, the player queues to enjoy the game, this is the player assumption, but the algorithm decides to punish him for not spending enough currency, of course, everything in the benefit of the player to improve the deck, skill etc...

I don't understand this paragraph. Maybe someone else could clarify or vulgarize it for me. I've read it and showed it to other people can't make sense of it.

To sum up:

1. A player spent currency and a player didn't. So this means that players are matched based on whether they spend money or not. If they did, they're matched with someone who didn't and vice-versa. What happens if both players have spent currency? They never face each other, is that it? Because I've spent currency and have faced players who have also faced currency so I'm confused.

2. The player who didn't spend money doesn't queue in a game with the legendary Blizzard wants him to buy? Don't you mean the opposite? Wouldn't exposing the non-paying customer to a missing legendary serve as an incentive to then go ahead and buy it? 

3. The player queues to enjoy the game? Which one? The one who pays or the one who doesn't? Both?

4. 

In one implementation, the microtransaction engine may target particular players to make game-related purchases based on their interests. 

How does that apply to Hearthstone? The sniper example makes sense in a FPS but what would player interest be for Hearthstone? Someone who plays control or aggro? Is that it?

This makes sense:

The microtransaction engine may match the junior player with a player that is a highly skilled sniper in the game. In this manner, the junior player may be encouraged to make game-related purchases such as a rifle or other item used by the marquee player.

I'm asking those questions to the whole community. 

 [...] because you can't understand a document [...]

I don't. I don't think you do either. I think you cherry picked bits and pieces to support your argument and are trying really hard to make the piece fit into the puzzle when it doesn't seem to. 

 so it's obvious that there are higher chances of this game being manipulated, no matter how much gaslighting the drones are making.

Let's stick to facts as opposed to insults. If you have a good argument, there's no need to resort to calling people 'drones' who disagree with your take on things. 

Quote from jjgamesworth >>

Blizzard for sure matches you with certain decks or starting hands that they know will cause a loss. It prevents ppl from going on 20 game winstreaks,

According to the game's records, my longest winstreak is 65 games.

I dunno. If the system is meant to prevent that from happening, it's doing a pretty bad job.

Quote from InfinityRocketPlastics >>

Quote from jjgamesworth >>

Blizzard for sure matches you with certain decks or starting hands that they know will cause a loss. It prevents ppl from going on 20 game winstreaks, limits the amount of ppl in legend and keeps you playing the game. Like how you get to rank 3 diamond, you're ranking up and next thing you know you're on a losing streak and now rank 4 or 5. Now you feel compelled to keep playing to get your og rank back to retain some sense of progression. In legend I havent gone on 1 losing streak, I never lose more than 2 games in a row. You would think if you're in legend and you're facing hypothetically the best and most intelligent players in the game, you would lose more games in legend than in ranks 5 to 1, right? No because they no longer have an incentive to "de-rank" you anymore to keep you playing and motivated. Only ~25k pll make it to legend and there are plenty of decks that have high enough winrates to get there so why have the same amount of ppl reach legend over the years? Obviously persistence is key and some ppl just aren't persistent enough and the matching is not in their favor.

 I aspire to the confidence that it takes to say "I lose more than 5% of the time against opponents the game thinks are as good as me, so obviously I'm being cheated somehow."

 Well it depends. What is skill based matching in Hearthstone? The game doesn't even show you the rank of the person you're playing so how do you know you're playing against players that are diamond 3 or 5. The answer is you don't. Yes you're all diamond rank any way so it doesn't really matter that much. But I never said that, I'm being cheated, I said that it may be a strategy used to keep players playing. Why would the matching system keep on matching you with secret mages and they know you just put a ton of anti secret junk on your deck. Now you'll have a guaranteed W against secret mages and That's not only not fun for the other party but it's giving you an advantage. It's better for the matching to mix things up and occasionally throw your weaknesses at you to make the experience more authentic. And I have reached legend before and currently rank 5 so obviously I'm not saying I lose and never achieved a rank because I'm being cheated by the game lol.

Quote from Dunscot >>

Quote from jjgamesworth >>

Blizzard for sure matches you with certain decks or starting hands that they know will cause a loss. It prevents ppl from going on 20 game winstreaks,

According to the game's records, my longest winstreak is 65 games.

I dunno. If the system is meant to prevent that from happening, it's doing a pretty bad job.

 

 Bro how is that even possible. 65 ranked games won in a row, how is that even possible.

Quote from Baldassar >>

Quote from jjgamesworth >>

Blizzard for sure matches you with certain decks or starting hands that they know will cause a loss. It prevents ppl from going on 20 game winstreaks, limits the amount of ppl in legend and keeps you playing the game. Like how you get to rank 3 diamond, you're ranking up and next thing you know you're on a losing streak and now rank 4 or 5. Now you feel compelled to keep playing to get your og rank back to retain some sense of progression. In legend I havent gone on 1 losing streak, I never lose more than 2 games in a row. You would think if you're in legend and you're facing hypothetically the best and most intelligent players in the game, you would lose more games in legend than in ranks 5 to 1, right? No because they no longer have an incentive to "de-rank" you anymore to keep you playing and motivated. Only ~25k pll make it to legend and there are plenty of decks that have high enough winrates to get there so why have the same amount of ppl reach legend over the years? Obviously persistence is key and some ppl just aren't persistent enough and the matching is not in their favor.

 What a load of bull...

Diamond 4-1 is the most competitive after high legend, while legend lower than 500 or so is the least competitive environment.

No intentional deranking is necessary. When your MMR matches you against equal opponents,  it's natural that your winrate is close to 50% and since in the final climb to legend most people don't have extra stars, it's easy to get stuck there.

 You don't need extra stars to reach legend, that's why I said persistence is key bro. Some ppl, after they get to rank 3 or 2, got over that hump reach legend easily. MMR matching you against equal opponents is bs, if it did why isn't it more transparent with who you're Being matched against. For God's sake you could be rank 1 one win away from legend and you could be playing against someone who only has 1 star or even rank 2. Ypu could be playing the game like a tryhard going in and not giving up and youre opponent could be more lackadaisical and more willing to quit. You don't know until you get to legend and your rank is visible and you can obviously see you're in the same percentile as your opponent.