yes but he was talking about diamond to legend climb
You do realize that the 3rd party sites you referenced dig quite deeply into the queue data across the board, right?
It would have been painfully obvious a long, long time ago if there were any kind of manipulation to what decks queue into in order to force your imaginary 50% win rate.
Since it hasnât been seen at that level of analysis, itâs pretty easy to dismiss your claims here.
The matchup spreads of each class look the same on a large scale, therefore it is not being used as part of matchmaking logic.
If it were, there wouldnât be a tier list anyway, as the matchmaking system would be equalizing them all, based on your theory. It wouldnât matter what you queued as, because the game would be trying to force counter queues in your favor as much as against. But again, we know that isnât true.
There is no matchmaking rigging going on.
4 Likes
because you said so without any proof? despite they already do it in their other games? lmao
2 Likes
You need to provide actual proof of it happening. You did not, not have you provided any even slightly compelling evidence.
Thereâs nothing that suggests it is happening other than your awful âdataâ, thatâs proof enough.
And it doesnât matter what happens in other games, if people were able to find evidence and prove it in those, but not here, that suggests that it isnât happening here.
Matchmaking manipulation is very obvious to 3rd party tracking.
3 Likes
Because thatâs not how proof Works mate. Canât prove a negative
3 Likes
then why does he talks like he just did that LMAO
I mean, Iâm still skeptical, mainly because my tracker roughly gravitates towards the same pie chart for both Quest Hunter and Quest Shaman, so thereâs that.
But I thought about it because I sometimes like to think about unprovable theoretical stuff. We know Blizz obviously knows expected winrates of decks, so maybe if they canât match you well by MMR, they correct with deck match up? So you end up playing against a lower mmr player, but with a better deck against yours, in the way that youâre expected to find the edge and make it a close game.
1 Like
I donât believe you.
Youâll eventually get the matchups. I did this and thought the same thing but after 7 or so games, youâll see the matchup. I purposely made a deck to tech against Quest Mage but I never saw one after that haha. However, if I stuck it out I wouldâve come across one (I changed decks again).
Not to argue or start a 30-post âHe said, we said, she saidâ but if that were the case, as a friend of mine at work brought up talking about it; could we not, at Diamond 5, lose X amount of matches in a row, to be allowed 12-15 wins, with streak (and no bonus, of course), to then hit legend?
I wish we could find some kind of communication medium and hard-lined âproofâ like you said between whatâs âtin foil conspiracyâ and the depth of the game.
The only thing I can think of is some sort of truth, is a old Wild theory I tested, right after Jade Druid was rampant but Frozen Throne and Gadget were both in Wild. Jade Druid everywhere. I play Geist, Jade Druid is gone and I face every other archetype (Relative). Geist counters Jade in harsh fashion.
So I ask you if this still exists, or was that âvery odd, very specific set of circumstancesâ tin-foil conspiracy?
Yes. I believe that a business that sells a product would have a vested interest in seeing that product be popular with its customers. This can be done through various forms of market manipulation.
Hereâs some interesting research I just googledâŚ
"Gaming companies are enlisting the help of behavioral psychologists using state of the art research and data to make their games as addictive as possible.
Reinforcement in video games is usually fast and frequent when you start playing.
âYou levelled up! here is a reward!â
Receiving a reward every time you level up is known as a âfixed reinforcement ratio of oneâ.
This is manipulated a huge number of ways to keep you playing, such as:
- Extending the time it takes to level up, therefore, increasing play time for the same reward.
- Changing the reward rate from âfixedâ to âvariableâ â this means you no longer get a reward every time you level up, or win a game, but at random intervals.
Unsurprisingly, it is also the one most commonly used in video games.
However, this isnât to say that variable reinforcement is the only method used in how video games are designed to be addictive.
A number of developers combine variable rewards with constant rewards, to keep you coming back for more.
For example, in World of Warcraft (and most MMOs), you can always see your progress towards your next level. That way youâre still being rewarded for your effort, although you havenât achieved that next level â yet.
A staggering number of popular mobile games such as Farmville and Candy Crush punish you for not playing the game.
(This is) referred to this as avoidance, meaning you perform a behavior to avoid the negative outcome.
In Farmville, your crops will die if they are not harvested, even when you arenât playing.
For example, you might plant some crops that take 4 hours to ripen.
If you donât log back onto the game within 4 hours of them ripening, the crops will wither and die.
The only way to avoid this is to spend real money on âunwithering toolsâ, or to make sure youâre always logging into the game every day."
(back to me)
If you think for ONE SECOND that Activision Blizzard isnât doing âsomethingâ to keep you playing, and paying, then you are out of your MIND.
You think your match-ups arenât analyzed? You think (like the OP stated, and back to the topic) they donât know how many of X class you have faced? Or what class you are using? Or what classes have favorable match ups?
You think they wanât you to shut the game off?
Some people do stop playing when they get tilted, some people buy more packs to âshow them they can win tooâ!!
You think people havenât spend money and/or dust to craft the Warlock quest?
And if youâre still unclear of my points or are still asking âBUT WHY??â
The answer is money⌠and stop thinking itâs anything but that answer, because youâre wrong.
âBut you have no proof!â
I need to give you PROOF to explain why people like money?
Go away with that nonsense.
4 Likes
Lions love to eat people which is why earth is a zoo run by lions.
I need to give you PROOF to explain why lions love meat?
Go away with that nonsense.
3 Likes
I just won two games in a row, then lost one, won one, lost two, won one, and lost two. After that I won three in a row.
The odds of that happening are like 1 in 4000. Rigged!
Mostly because what you are demanding is like people saying:
âYou canât prove that aliens donât exist, therefore they are based on these blurry videos!â
You are right, it canât be proven that aliens donât exist, but the evidence that they are here is very weak, with many plausible explanations to the contrary.
Here with hearthstone, thereâs no evidence that rigged matchmaking is happening, and plenty of evidence supporting the theory that it is not.
Sure, it canât definitively prove that matchmaking rigging isnât happening at some level, but if it is, it certainly isnât something that you found here that no one else knew about.
Thereâs no compelling reason for blizzard to add more logic to their matchmaking system other than current matchmaking ratings. The goal is to get you into games quickly, and every additional logic step slows it down.
Thereâs a risk in adding more logic to it as well, since when the community learns of any underlying rules in the system, they can start to exploit it in order to gain a competitive advantage.
2 Likes
I think this is pretty generous, the vast amount of public data that is collected refutes every claim of rigging that Iâve personally seen on these forums. For example, if matchmaking artificially pitted decks against their counters, there would be significant variations in Deck A matchups vs Deck B matchups where both matches are drawing from the same pool of players (something that happens in entry legend for example). But itâs not the case.
Btw if you rigger conspiracy supporters want to prove it, you can go look at that data for your âproofâ.
2 Likes
Oh, I agree with that fully.
Thereâs the tiny chance of a subtle minor rule or two in there we havenât figured out, but overall the chances of major matchmaking rigging deciding to keep you at a 50% win rate almost definitively does not exist.
1 Like
It happens everytime: you change class, the opponentâs class changes.
Not sure why (since I win/lose the same way), but it happens
Iâd hope so given how many classes there are. It happens to me too when I donât change classes 
1 Like
Geist was actually the First card i purposefully teched in my decks. Do i NEED Geist? I asked myself.
The answer was, to no surprise, yes. I won many games thanks to Geist. The same happened when the expansion came out and robes. Tou can actually look at my post history, where i recall How much i was winning against Quest Mage and Warlock since teching in robes.
Just like, play more guys. The order where tou face the matchs donât matter. You teched in robes and faced three Paladins? That proves nothing, donât delude yourself. You wanna mass proof teching Works? ALL the top decks by blizzard run spell tech.
matchmaking does seem to be some what dependent on what cards are in your deck. (sorry no numbers on this one). It doesnât eliminate matchups but changes the ratios of seeing certain other classes and decks.
Wasnât always like this though. In the past you could counter the meta by adjusting your deck to beat it, but now your matchups change if your deck changes so you just get screwed either way.
Its an opinion, not trying to prove a case in court just sharing my thoughts based on my experiences with the game.