because lots of people started playing anti DH decks just like you because there were lots of DH. So you start hitting more non DH
You really only hear what you want to hear to reinforce your view, don’t you?
It. Was. An. Example.
I could try to offer other examples or try but you’ve obviously already made up your mind.
If it were purely MMR, with matching decided by absolutely nothing else except how much you’ve been winning, then you’d see much greater differences in winning percentages and outliers. Personally, I believe Blizzard adds more controls to keep people getting lucky and running massive win records.
1 Like
blizz already stated that it’s to improve player experience…
1 Like
If some websites can serve you “personalized” ads, why can’t the game, but the other way around?
If some customer support websites respond to you with a bot, why can’t the game?
1 Like
No, you wouldn’t.
If it were purely MMR, then a good player would win a few games, climb in MMR, and then start facing other players at high MMR - in other words, facing better players, which of course will lower that player’s win rate.
And a bad player would lose a few games, their MMR would lower, and soon they face other bad players and their win ratio gets up again.
So as long as you win more than you lose, you climb in MMR which reduces your win ratio. As long as you lose more, you drop and therefore your win ratio climbs.
In the end, it will settle for all players at approximately 50%.
No need to rig anything. The system settles itself.
Source?
1 Like
1 Like
lol how is that unbelievable? They have the software to do just that (if they wanted to) … To say they don’t is burying your head in the sand.
3 Likes
That is an explanation of how the MMR system works on the new ranked ladder. We are discussing the existence of a matchmaking system that uses class and deck into account. Nothing in that post you referenced mentions types of deck or class, so it is completely irrelevant.
Why? The whole point of an MMR system is to get the bulk of players to a point where they’re winning roughly half their games. With nothing else added, you would only see outliers at the very top and very bottom of the playerbase.
1 Like
[citation needed]
See? That’s the thing. Picking a random opponent with the same MMR is still easier and faster than picking a random opponent who has a counter to your specific deck, who has the same MMR, and who happens to be online at the time.
Also, the big question that everyone of these conspiracy theorists seem to avoid, how on earth would something decide if you’re on the winning side or losing side of that 50%? Because if someone loses, another person wins? How is that decided if you’re one of the lucky ones? At what rank does this thing kick in effect, and how is that decided? Because the OP is at Diamond 5. I’m at Gold 10. What’s the difference? Why are we affected at different ranks? Because I hit counters to my decks all the time. Why did he “get lucky”?
2 Likes
This meta is just really bad. We’d see how things are once the nerfs happen tomorrow.
The fewer controls you have, the higher the chance of outliers. Hearthstone is not a 100% player skill driven game, it’s a mix of skill, luck, and deck choice. Therefore, if your only control is going off of skill, you leave tons of room for error by not accounting for luck and deck choice.
Again, if your only control is MMR, you’d get crazy outliers where there’d be massive winning records because of sheer luck and deck choice being totally unaccounted for. In the current meta, for example, if class/deck wasn’t factored in at all, it wouldn’t even be that statistically improbable for someone to face only DHs from Diamond 5 to legend because they make up such a large percentage.
I think we can all agree that Blizzard does not want players either winning too much or too little. It’s why controls like MMR and the ranking system are things. Why is it so impossible to believe that they might have added in additional controls to increase the odds of players facing a variety of classes or of facing classes/decks with a high win percentage against your class/deck style when you’re winning a ton?
I’m not talking about them analyzing every single card choice and perfectly matching you against your kryptonite deck, I’m talking basic stuff like “when X class with Y deck style (aggro, control, midrange, what have you) has a low winning record (let’s say, sub 45%) against certain classes utilizing C deck style, increase the odds of matching against those classes/decks whenever X class wins 3+ matches in a row.”
The same thing would work when you lose a lot and your MMR tanks such that you have an increased likelihood of going against classes/decks that your deck has higher odds of beating.
It’s not all that different than utilizing MMR and it adds another control to minimize outliers and keep players from both losing and winning too much.
2 Likes
Both luck and deck choice are self-correcting factors (“good” decks vary based on meta, and good/bad draws in a random system will balance out over time. You are vastly overestimating the likelihood of outlier events based on… what, exactly? Because you haven’t provided any evidence beyond “I think this is how it is, therefore it is like this.”
Again, what makes you think this? Good luck gets balanced with bad, and a deck’s strength is often the result of the meta it plays in. The same deck can be a non-entity at one point and very strong at another simply because of how the rest of the meta shapes up.
Because there is no good reason to believe that there is an added benefit to a more complex system. You keep saying a less regulated system would have more outliers, but are yet to provide a good reason why the greater number of outliers would be high enough to be a) noticeable, or b) problematic. If an MMR system works well enough (and there’s no evidence that it doesn’t) any extra controls beyond player skill have to provide considerable benefit to be justified. I don’t see it.
What I do see is that people never complain about rigged games following a ten-game win streak, and that the people who most loudly complain about the rigged system keep on playing despite it. This tells me all I need to know about the"evidence" that the system is rigged.
3 Likes
and the guys who belelieve in this myth cant explain why low tier decks get a win rate lower than 50%
there are decks out there with 40% win rate and lower and they never been able to explain it
1 Like
Thanks for the link, RedSpade.
The text disproves all your claims, so that saves me a lot of effort.
And what claim did I make?
Pays a lot to learn to read.
1 Like
The added benefit comes from continued consumer interaction. By prolonging the climbing experience the player accumulates more gold and therefore will spend in the shop. This translates to more opportunities to make cash transactions with “special offers”. Come on man…that’s Marketing 101.
How much money do you need as justification??
1 Like
I get that non-sequiturs about Evil Corporate Practices are a popular deflection with the “gAmE Is rIGgEd” crowd, but you still failed to explain how “prolonging the climbing experience” encourages players to stick around rather than quitting because the last experience is frustrating. Because (and I can’t believe I have to keep repeating this), normal people do not stick around playing a rigged game. If the system is unfair (or even fair but highly challenging) people just quit. Your argument is that Blizzard is motivated to keep people around so that they spend more money actively undermines your claim that the system is rigged.
1 Like
Oh, I don’t know, maybe:
since the orignal context of your quote (which you conveniently left out) was:
But I already discredited that claim before since that link you provided only talks about the MMR, and not class, decks, or whatever. Yep, pays to read.
2 Likes