Most of the Meta at the moment is mid-range decks, aggro Shaman isn't as strong as mid-range Shaman and the only other pure aggro deck is Pirate Warrior. Control Warrior and Miracle Rogue are doing quite well at the moment too.
- Registered User
Member for 6 years, 10 months, and 21 days
Last active Fri, Aug, 6 2021 15:51:23
- 0 Followers
- 119 Total Posts
- 204 Thanks
May 16, 2016Posted in: General Discussion
I pretty much agree with you: before when you faced a legendary cardback player, it was like "oh shiit I'm against a really good player, it's gonna be harder than usual !" because you knew he was good.. But that was like 2years ago, now it's pretty different, there are like 8k legend each month. Legendary cardback players are still pretty good ones, but it's not the same flavour anymoreYou do realise that 8,000 players out of the total player pool is a very small select group of people don't you?Far less than 1% of players make it to Legend each month.
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
May 11, 2021MWK posted a message on Patch + Patch Notes Coming Tomorrow, Changes For BGs & Ranked ModePosted in: News
Remind me, why are you and others still here if you do not like hearthstone? Just go to other games' fansites please <3
Mar 15, 2021Posted in: General Discussion
Well I just got the 12 wins in a row achievement, so I guess that rigging took a day off today.
I will say this thread has finally contributed something to the whole "matchmaking is rigged" merry-go-round, which is more than I can say for most threads.
This thread finally led to the proponents of the rigged theory saying that math and proof and evidence don't matter, and the only thing that matters to them is their experience playing the game. Rather than go into the "facts don't care about . . . " memes, I will say I actually think that's good progress. If you're willing to make the frank and open statement that you don't care what the reality of the situation is, and only your perception matters . . . that's actually perfectly fine.
But if you actually mean that, then live it. Don't go around calling other people shills and blind and whatever other weird insults you come up with because their perception is different or they care about objective reality. I don't have the right to tell you to disregard your perception, but you can't go back and forth between discussing what IS and what FEELS LIKE.
Of course, it has been pretty obvious from the beginning this whole thing is about feelings and perception, but at least people are admitting it now.
P.s. I got my 12th win in a row achievement after getting to 11 wins in a row five or six times and losing the twelfth game. I think it's somewhat ironic that if that experience had been had by some of the folks in this thread, they would have insisted that Blizzard rigs the game so that when you get to 11 wins, your next opponent is a counter deck, higher ranked player, whatever whatever. No allowance at all would be made for the fact that the "rigged" system would probably kick in before 11 wins in a row . . . it's just that 12th that's the magic #.
Mar 13, 2021Posted in: General Discussion
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.
Mar 12, 2021Posted in: General Discussion
Actually I know no one will bother to search, so here's the cut and paste from a thread months ago about that same bullshit video:
Is this the first time you've heard of this document? There was a huge rush of post a year or two ago when this patent first became public knowledge.
I'm typing this as I listen, and I won't hit post until I'm done with all 14 mins of the video, but so far this guy has proceeded from a premise no one has ever claimed (that matchmaking is random) and drawn one conclusion that is in no way supported by a single line of text in the document (the game picks which player "is going to have fun", the other player "is not going to have fun"). He uses the word prove after jumping two logical steps beyond what actually appears in the document.
Ohhhhh, huge ridiculous logical fallacy at 5:17. The document says a gamer's profile will carry data such that the game will recommend game modes it expects the player to enjoy (the example given is "capture the flag"). This video creator says that the relevant comparison to Hearthstone is picking a Soul Demon Hunter opponent for a Control Warrior. That is grossly dishonest. A "game mode" and a specific opponent are not remotely synonyms.
Good God, this guy has an insufferable tone. I'm having to listen to him pretend to throw up in his mouth while he goes through the whole "Blizzard matches new players with players who have items and skins they paid for, in the hopes that the new player will want those items as well and be influenced to buy them." That's old news, and has been acknowledged for years. This guy claims he's using a budget deck in wild and getting matched up against Highlander Priest, which is a more expensive deck. No allowance for how popular and successful Highlander Priest is.
Wow, ok, so at 8:00, he takes a quote from the document talking about making sure new players are exposed to whales, or "marquee players" in the words of the patent, and the whales' premium weapons, and compares this to having players in Hearthstone see rigged topdecks so that certain legendaries are drawn in an artificially timely manner and work to win the game. This is in no way what is contemplated in the text, and by the way, if we proceed from the logic that decks with more legendaries and epics are going to be stronger than budget decks (a logic I generally agree with), then one must admit, it is not necessary for their to be any MM rigging for new players to be exposed to these cards for two reasons: 1) if the new player enjoys any success at all, he will be matched against those cards naturally, and 2) as time goes on in a meta, there is a natural pressure to craft and include those cards in order to be able to win games, regardless of what level of play is being observed.
This is the fundamental issue with videos alleging "proof" of rigging from this document. The document exclusively talks about team-based games, and though it says the principles are generalized to all multiplayer games, Blizzard patented the system for games with a cooperative element specifically to have a way in which they can advertise skins and other purchasable items thru matching both teammates and opponents in non-ranked beginner-level play. In ranked play, when these premium items (like legendary cards in Hearthstone) positively affect win rates, players are naturally exposed to them without this sort of engineering. I'm not saying at all that Blizzard is too principled to engage in such activity. I'm saying the same effect occurs without any of this easily data-mined manipulation.
In any case, I'm continuing with the video, but my God, this guy is hard to listen to. I'm going to need ASMR therapy after this. And the word "proof" has never been molested and mutilated as hard as what I'm seeing today.
I like how from 8:40 - 9:20 he just stops referencing the document completely to refer to something called the "honeymoon period" where apparently it's a "fact" that when you make a new deck, you get a win streak before things "even out". No reference to the document or any other evidence, just a little throw-in there.
I also like how he just dismisses all the diagrams that don't support his point. Mostly because they all clearly refer to games that have no analogy to Hearthstone (which is true of the stuff he's referencing also, but if we can just accept his jumps between what is written and what he wants to prove, he'll get somewhere here). I'm also scared we're taking analytical proof from a guy that doesn't know the word "coefficient", but whatevs.
So minute 9 and 10 are more of the same, he's insisting that legendaries are the "items" that cause players to be matched together, and that you will have a rigged matchmaking system based on what cards you own. Of course, this completely ignores the contrapositive of this point, meaning that if what he says is true, I should be able to affect what decks I get matched against based on what legendaries I do not own. That is an easily testable hypothesis, and so anyone who purports to have "proof" without doing that work is full of it.
THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST EASILY ASSAILABLE POINT OF THE VIDEO. If Blizzard is rigging the matchmaking as he says, I should be able to track a statistically relevant increase in opponent's decks that contain legendaries (and perhaps epics, but DEFINITELY legendaries) which I do not own. If, on the other hand, I am correct and the only relevance to matchmaking my opponent's legendaries have is how they affect his winrate and MMR, then I will see an increase in the more powerful legendaries in my opponent's decks, regardless of whether I own said legendaries or not.
He continues to ignore the language of the document when it doesn't match his rhetoric. There are a few particularly egregious misstatements of the text around 12:30 when the document talks about gauging player satisfaction from things like quitting a match while it is still in progress for other players (a factor which does not translate to Hearthstone, as quitting a game before actually taking lethal damage is the outcome of a huge percentage of games and generally indicates only that one player believes he is beaten).
Anyway, his last bit about Hearthstone watching you is another "what else is new?" moment, but that's just a cherry on top of the conspiracy sundae. As with most videos that purport to "prove" something on this topic, I'm not suggesting there is proof to the contrary. I'm simply pointing out how grossly inadequate and misleading the evidence (or in this case, the interpretation of evidence) is as a source of proof.
EDIT: After 5 pages of trollery and very few arguments against what I've written, apparently this 90 seconds or so of reading requires a TL;DR summary.
TL;DR: You don't care whether the video is correct or not; you just enjoy another rant against Blizzard. If I'm wrong, read for 90 seconds and find out why this particular video is incorrect and deliberately misleading.
Mar 9, 2021Posted in: General Discussion
Working as intended. The matchmaking algorithm looks at what cards you have in your deck and wont pair you against what you teched for.
The system is designed to keep you at 50% winrate, so you probably wont see any secret mages if you have anti secret tech cards in your deck.
But if the system is designed to keep everyone at a 50% winrate... Shouldn't OP be paired with Secret Mages 50% of the time? And shouldn't the algorithm be pairing rampant Secret Mages with OP in order to keep their winrates at 50% too? 🤔🤔🤔
OP has a winrate of 3%. If the matchmaking algorithm is trying to keep their winrate at 50%, it's doing a pretty shitty job. That, or the whole "mAtcHmaKinG iS rigGeD" schtick is nonsense.
Jan 25, 2021Posted in: General Discussion
There are various reasons why control, as an archetype, isn't well-represented in Hearthstone: the game's way of keeping each player's turn fully isolated, the ability to Discover cards that no sane person would ever put in their starting 30, most of the healing/lifegain is mediocre and can't beat decks that deal more than 30 damage at once, and the resource system ensuring that both aggro and control decks have the freedom to cast whatever expensive stuff they want, given enough time. Proactive strategies are simply just better in Hearthstone than reactive ones.
Tickatus is not one of those reasons. It's a class card that sees play in a handful of decks. If you're losing to it then it sucks to be you, but every time you queue up and your opponent isn't a Warlock, then Tickatus isn't a thing you have to worry about.
Sometimes you're the hammer, sometimes you're the nail.
Dec 22, 2020Posted in: General Discussion
Blizzard themselves have said that the matchmaking ensures that the win rates overall are kept at c. 53% for each meta. Now, what the OP is saying is blah... blah... blah..
look at vicious syndicate win rates summary. All top decks (shaman right now) have a wine rate of c. 53% across all ranks, oh my this matches Blizzards statement?!
The game is rigged as the matchmaking is not random full stop. matchmaking should be based on rank and rank alone, not the internal mmr bullshit
You're completely confused about what they are saying.
The matchmaking system works to match people of equal skill which is how you get to around the 50%. If you want to be pedantic and say that's 'rigging' then fine but don't then allude to them specifically picking your matches to make you lose.
The aim of games or sports is to be competitive. A competition isn't fun if you have one person who is significantly better. This is why they have a ranking system, to group together people of similar ability levels. Some will improve, others may stagnate but its not the same system as to what you've got into your head at all.
Professional sports do a similar thing. It's why many competitions have multi tiered league systems.
You can say the league is rigging the matches but what they are doing is running a system where you move up or down according to your results and on average, most teams will sit in a tier/league that is in line with their ability.
If it was a free for all then you'd have really good, experienced players slapping up the newbies. It wouldn't be competitive.
Fifa has exactly the same system, with mmr dictating your opponents. Again, you can say this is 'rigged' but it isn't the same as it being rigged for you to lose. It's designed for you to land in the tier that you can sit in and compete at. Their weekend competition typically sees the average player sit at around 50% win rates. 40-60 is maybe fairer, then you have the really good players and the really bad players who sit above/below this. You face people with a similar rnak/win record to you so as you play more, you start to drop in win %.
Surprise surprise, their forums have also been saying the same thing as people like you got years and have been debunked over and over again, just like this thread. The problem people are inclined to believe what makes them feel better, they very often don't want to understand or actually read evidence of it states the opposite because that forces them to accept that they aren't as good or smart or whatever as they like to think they are.
It's worrying how simple so many people are in that they really struggle to grasp anything outside of really basic concepts.
This system is absolutely nothing new and it's not unfairly rigged, it's designed to remain competitive and is seen a cross lots of sports and computer games. I haven't seen one even remotely convincing argument or case to evidence its rigged in the way you seem to think.
Dec 21, 2020Posted in: General Discussion
That's why I like to use a decktracker whenever I play, just to see if this 'rigged' match up is a thing and imo it really is. I will talk about my games before the nerfs. So I play galakrond rogue, at some point most of my opponents play aggro DH which is one of the worst match ups. I even face 3 demon hunters in a row followed by 1 warrior and again DH, one priest, one shaman, 2 hunters (another bad match up) and we are back at DH once again. Sick of these aggro demon hunters I decided to switch to soul DH which has a better winrate against that deck. My opponents are: 1 hunter, 1 paladin (lol where was this pala when I was playing rogue?), 1 DH but not aggro nor soul, just OTK (again, not this match up when I play rogue), 1 druid, 1 hunter, 2 warriors. Yeah very nice to face warrior as demon hunter but not as rogue. I played these 2 decks at the same rank so no change in meta.
6 out of 11 games played as gala rogue were against aggro DH, 0 out of 7 games played as soul DH were against aggro demon hunter. I can not believe the match up is not rigged at all.
SMH. You cannot believe because you don't understand. Not to mention that this is a ridiculously small data sample.
If it was rigged. You could replicate it. So why don't you and. A few friends use the same deck at the same rank and post the tracker over ten games which shows your match ups were all the same?
I'll save you the time and tell you that they won't be, that's why you won't do it. If you did this with 5 people I guarantee not one of you would have the same series of matches against the same archetypes over 10 or 20 games.
Do you lot not think that a streamer or someone would have proved this by now? It would be SO easy to evidence, yet none of you ever do.
I would also like to know how the algorithm knows what deck you and your opponent are playing. If it wants to match you with a control warrior, how does it tell the better ketchup from a menagerie, a highlander and a control warrior? Does this system look for specific cards and assign it an archetype?
How often do you have winning streaks because the system has rigged someone else's game to lose vs your archetype? No one ever complaints they've had a win streak of 7 games and their opponents all got screwed over by this system.
Noooooo, when you have win streaks it's all because of what a great player you are.
It's incredibly frustrating. I have to believe at this point that you're either trolling or being deliberately dishonest.
Nov 26, 2020DropDeadCynical posted a message on My post about hearthpwn's news magically disappearing magically disappearedPosted in: General Discussion
I also fully endorse everyone who only wants to complain about the rewards track to go to the Hearthstone subreddit instead.
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.