You do understand that I said more than that, right? English is your first language?
You are telling me that when you win a bunch, the matching system trys to put you against a deck that will counter your deck. That’s what you said.
So, if paladin steam rolls most of the meta, and it does, then it would need to be matched against decks it shouldn’t beat more to keep it near 50% as you described. It’s pretty basic here. It’s your argument, but the data doesn’t support it.
Nevermind the Ph.D. in exactly that topic, but keep telling us about your conspiracy theories and we’ll make more popcorn.
The main point was that deck list is a factor in the match. There’s no evidence to support this. I have explained to you how this is a testable hypothesis and how that test failed to show a difference. Because it destroyed your narrative, you have rejected the evidence instead of your belief… which, you know says more about your grasp of analysis.
Unless you’re trying to say that your hypothesis isn’t testable, then we have a different problem.
Think you should throw your ph.d in the trash bin. If it was worth something you’d know that 50% is the base line and the only reason why it’s not 80-90% is because of the matchmaking, considering how the % of favourable matchups(You should also read what I’ve written again because you seem to be either ignoring or not understanding what I’ve said). I’ve said many times that it matches you with deck that can counter yours. Simply putting a secret eater or ice block in your deck can qualify you for that, for example. Mirror matches are also fair game. Even if the matchmaking want to match you against your counter it’s not like there are always decks available. It also doesn’t match you according to your whole archetype but just separate cards from your deck. That’s why when you play random off meta decks the matchmaking often doesn’t know what to match you against and sometimes gets it wrong for a while. (For example when playing divine shield dude paladin with random cards in it +Lothraxion the Redeemed or decks with invigorating sermon)
Btw, English is not my first language, but if it’s yours I’d be a bit worried for your education system.
And I said that, used your words. Then showed how it’s not factually accurate.
Over the million or so games on HS replay it would show up as a statistically relevant event in the sample if the match was non-random based on type of deck or content.
Read this part very carefully:
If mages are 30% of decks, and match is random, you would expect every class to play against 30% mages. If deck type mattered this would not be true in large samples and you would immediately see it. If any non-random factor was applied to the match, this would be evident in large samples immediately. It’s a pretty basic concept here.
I am sorry that this simple concept is beyond your grasp, but your explanation for the match is absolute rubbish. It would needlessly over complicate the system. There’s literally zero reason to include your deck list in matching and they have stated it isn’t considered.
As far as your insults, I was genuinely asking if English was your first language. I will give your lack of comprehension a pass.
And I’m sorry that complicated concepts are beyond yours.
You fail to combine multiple factors, relevant data and understanding how programming works. I find you comprehension lacking, since you write that you’ve read what was written, but you still don’t seem to get it.
I used to write such scripts way back in university, so I understand how simple it is to implement(admittedly they were using fewer variables) That’s probably I’m a bit more vocal about what’s happening here.
If different classes have different counters, then over large samples you would see disproportionate matching between classes relative to the population play rates.
Do you dispute this idea?
And that’s nothing about programming, it’s simply how numbers actually work.
Really? Then you would have to literally rewrite the entire MMR matchings system each time you added a new card to the game. If you think it’s picking counters, then it would have to have encyclopedic knowledge of interactions and make educated guesses about how things will happen. It’s, again, a needless complication when you can just match to a better player, regardless of deck list.
That would normally be true, if we thought that all decks in the same class were the same and if you ignore the existance of tech cards.
That can easily be done with an algorithm(bot/AI). They don’t need to have it down perfectly or ever manage it, unless it gets some horribly wrong, but in the context of matchmaking it can never go wrong, and can always check the available data to reconfigure what isn’t to expectations.
The concept of needless complications is lost on you.
You’ve constructed this idea that some nefarious hidden system is actively thwarting your deck and it’s just bizarre.
A simple elo system accomplishes the same thing and has nothing to do with cards.
To accept your ideas would require actual proof beyond your anecdotes and none of that has been presented. In fact, when confronted with contradictory evidence you just move the goal posts with ai, tech cards, and other ridiculous notions to cling to your idea.
Not a single player has brought any statistical evidence that any of your assertions are valid. None.
If you have evidence beyond “this one time this happened and then this happend”, then please show us your extensive data that pervasively makes your case.
I’ve fallen in this trap too many times and wasted my time bringing things up. If you want to see it, you can search the forums or google it. It takes very little effort to find with the search function of the forum, so you can go to town. But the amount of it is a bit big to bring it here every time.
And if you are talking about the collection of anecdotes that make up the majority of these threads, that’s not actually proof of anything beyond a confirmation bias.
There is zero actual evidence on these forums and the fact that you can’t link any further proves this idea.
Uh, If i got verem point right, you’re saying that If the matchmaking IS rigged in that way, pontual differences like pocket metas and timing would stop the rigging from being immediately obvious in data?
When your search didn’t find the evidence you’re going to say it’s my problem, right? This is a dodge for sure, lol.
Except you can slice the data by those same pocket metas and see that it still doesn’t show the expected variances from normal population distribution, but yes, they are basically asserting that one or two card changes are making your match change to effectively thwart your unrestrained tyranny.
It does. You saying it doesn’t shows that you’re are so closed minded, that there is no point in linking it here and you never even tried to look for it.
Having read these threads for several years now I have seen anything that supports your position that wasn’t anecdote.
If you have something different I missed I will certainly look at it.
I am not opposed to the idea that there is something else in the match beyond elo, but I will not agree that there is absent data.
Again, the burden of proof is with the affirmative, and if you have actual affirmative proof you have the chance to share it now or we must conclude you do not have it.