Created an off meta deck to confuse the matchmaking system

Multiplayer Discussion
26

I’m not him, but allow me to offer my version of this story, i.e. an opponent’s perspective, anyway: ‘Trogg no stupid! Trogg make you stupid! Smash!’

Or perhaps, if said opponent has at least learnt how to create your typical topics on the forum, ‘Me no stupid, me netdeck gud deck, why I lose? Seriously? This is just stupid! Ridiculous!’

Ah, here comes yet another self-annointed (sic… that’s this game’s orthography, by the way, not mine) conspiracy theory basher, probably thinking themselves so smart for it.

This forum is repetitive, as some people have aptly noted, and I’ll have to resort to yet another self-citation:

Or a shorter version, for those who don’t like to read much:

Indeed, I’d like to hear who’s conspiring with whom. Blizzbots on the ladder with each other? :rofl:

Ooh, a would-be maths guru? Please, indulge me and point out what distribution you assumed, what statistic you used (if you know what it is) and your estimate of confidence intervals to back up those particular figures. Or have you just made them up because of your opinion and feeling?

Ridiculous I say. Ridiculous! Or perhaps something else is?

That’s a repetition already, much has been said, so instead I’ll point out the following: this topic provides evidence of an obvious conspiracy by some forums members to defame the topic-starter as a conspiracy theorist. Ha!

1 Like
27

If you’re not a blizzard shill, you’re a conspiracy theorist, right? :smile_cat: I’d like to know how I can get a nice office set up at HQ too! I’ll work for packs! And I’ll come on here to shill it up hardcore!
By the way, knowing what we know now as a society, I dare say many a “conspiracy theory” from days gone by, have now been rigorously validated. So there’s that. Commander David Fravor might have a thing or two to say about that!

1 Like
28

Shhhhhh…Quiet. That’s the inside joke the rest of us already know.

1 Like
29

And other way around, if you don´t believe in so called “own experience” or “feelings” of “this game is rigged” brigade and demand to back up their claims by some veryfiable data, you are a blizzard shill, right? :yawning_face:

30

That’s correct. The shills are all about town. I see them in my neighbour hood too.
I will give you two examples from recent memory.

Last week, I was doing some fairly standard yard work on my fairly extensive property, which is surrounded by a wrought iron fence, and is monitored by around the clock surveillance.
See, I have this crazy pollinator garden that I constructed. It’s a monarch way station and registered pollinator project stopover point for migratory butterflies. Though it is a perennial garden, it does require some maintaining here and there. I do have to sort through weeds and such.
Anyway, as I was doing this, I noted a car drive down my street. Not once, but twice! I found this to be quite queer and knew something was suspicious. I assumed it was a blizzard employee, monitoring me once again.
I quickly purchased 5000 runestones forthwith. I did not note the car drive by again. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

Later the same day, I had to get some groceries. Where I come from, we eat food and the food has to be purchased from any number of purveyors endemic to my upper class neighborhood. While I was shopping for food, I noted an elderly couple next to me. They were perusing the many stalks of celery that were available. What I found to be strange, was that that both politely glanced my way and said hello.
We ended up purchasing the same type of celery! What are the odds of that? Ha! More blizzard employees monitoring my every move, I knew I had to rush home to make another online purchase.
I’d rather be safe than sorry!

2 Likes
31

Or, more generally, if you’re not with us, you’re certainly with Hank, you vile Hankist! Whoever on Azeroth that Hank is. :rofl:

Lookee who’s here, High Justice Hearthstone has graced us with their presence and demands evidence. I say, and I demand a sandwich!

Secret de Polichinelle?

How dare they! That’s most ridiculous. :roll_eyes:

You must denounce such wrongdoings by this company immediately, lest you become a shill, too, and Boba Fett condemns you. :rofl:

PS

Which reminds me:

Yeah, those crazy kayfabe conspiracy nuts…

No need to go that far, even.

1 Like
33

Does anyone know why the guy, SparkyElf, or whatever is referencing his own posts, which to be frank does not make much sense, all the time? Is this some kind of narcissistic disorder or what?

34

Anyone with even rudimentary searching skills would know the answer — usually found in older posts by one SparkyElf. For example:

But not everyone is gifted with reading or comprehension skills equally. Some delve into the intricacies of quantum theory, others cannot fathom the importance of bathing, table manners and basic literacy.

The honesty of some can be refreshing, though:

:grinning: No wonder. Well, at least they’ve learnt how to play this deceptively simple game and… express themselves on the forum — it could also be considered a start. :smirk:

35

And this is EXACTLY the problem we have.

The lack of understanding or ability to understand the flawed logic.

If matchmaking is determined based on the deck you play as you suggest, it must also be determined for the other player unless you think you’re special.

In every “rigged against me” claim, there must be an exact and equal “rigged for me” scenario for someone else.

In your case, if the matchmaking can’t determine your deck and does something weird, you must also admit it has to do the opposite for your opponent.

Start with this basic logic and go from there and you should, logically, find why your conclusions can’t work in the grand scheme of things.

To put it another way, it’s logically impossible for someone to “more often than not put me against a direct counter” because that means someone else has to experience the EXACT opposite. Mages purposefully going against a direct Shaman counter must ALSO mean Shamans purposefully go against non-counters Mages.

Like someone said above, it’s pretty ironic that this didn’t occur to you. Of course it didn’t, because if it had, you wouldn’t have ever made the original post.

The entire point of me telling you to understand your opponent’s perspective was for you to realize that you HAVE to be on the other end of things as well. At all other points in time when you find a match, YOU have to be the opponent that experiences the opposite. It can’t be true for you AND the opponent at the same time that “more often than not, the game matches me against my direct counters”. It’s logically and statistically impossible.

The fact that you couldn’t see it from your opponent’s perspective is ironic because you haven’t realized that you also are the opponent at the same time.

1 Like
36

Right? And yet it is still much more than all those rigged guys combined :person_shrugging:

37

Even when matched against a direct counter you aren’t due to automatically lose. EVERY match is winnable up to a point. Play to your outs and stop worrying about why you got matched against a specific deck/class. That is a defeatist mindset and will lead you to lose games you could have won.

38

Hello, Captain Obvious.

And what’s the problem here? Isn’t this forum rife with all this cheap swaggering, “I, I’m here, this is I, I’m legendary, look at me! Watch my hips moving!”

https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/hearthstone_gamepedia/images/5/55/Mailbox_Dancer_full.jpg

It would mean that rigging breaks, nothing more.

Yes, it is possible, and an abstract counterexample is trivial to construct. For instance, consider a half of players winning 60% of their games on average, the other half — 40%. Then you rig the matchmaking, so that everyone has 50% win rate. Can you say everyone has been treated by the rigging equally?

Yeah, yeah, if, say, a chess grandmaster is matched against amateurs and wins only half of the matches, as opposed to the expected value of about 99%, something is definitely as rigged in his favour as the other way around by that ‘logic’, because he’s also the opponent. :rofl: Oh, and, just to be clear, the notion is wrong.

But you still lose, say, 9 out of 10.

It’s not an eye-opener, what you said, and I’d generally agree… However, when climbing, some people decide that by conceding and playing another game in that time instead, they will rank up faster than by taking their chances in an occasional bad match-up. It could also be a functional strategy in some circumstances.

39

This isn’t obvious to these people. That much has been made abundantly clear time and time again on these very forums.

There’s a “me” mentality when it comes to rigging complaints. “It’s rigged against me” claims outnumber the “It’s rigged for me” claims, would you not agree?

I already demonstrated it’s not obvious in a previous thread. I made a table of statistics and asked rigged claimers to fill in the blanks. If Mage has 10 games against Shaman, how many games does Shaman have against Mage? The obvious answer of “10” was not obvious to them. In fact, some of them rejected the idea.

So, no, not obvious at all to many people unfortunately.

2 Likes
40

Narcissism

I typically ignore them unless they have something meaningful to add to the conversation.

1 Like
41

Or perhaps a “we’re all a priori equal” mentality in the opposing camp?

And what’s so surprising about it?

You’re more likely to complain if someone robs you than if someone gives you a gift, aren’t you?

Besides, I’d hypothesise that those in whose favour the game might be rigged lack the capacity to realise it, because ‘Me am smart’.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jenlSf2E8o
I got a feeling I already said this somewhere (these discussions do get repetitive, see, for example: Why did I have this win rate if the matchmaking is rigged? - #120 by SparkyElf-2852 — looks like we’re going for another round about some points), but I can’t readily find the post.

Either there’s a gap in my education or there is no such thing. :grinning: A statistic is a function of a sample by definition, what’s the point of a table there? :thinking:

42

For those gentlemen who requested me to consider the opponent’s perspective, here’s how I understand it.

The system is trying to make sure players have a 50% win rate by doing a few noticeable things: 1) mulliganing the same starting cards, 2) drawing the biggest cards first, and 3) matching against direct counters.

We can’t do much about 1 and 2, but I think we can do something to outsmart 3. My idea is that the system selects opponents with a win rate above 50% and uses tactics that make it hard for them to win. However, because I’m using a deck that is not easily predictable, the system can’t effectively use tactic 3 against me. They can only use tactics 1 and 2, which isn’t a big problem.

As a result, the system has to pair me with players who have a win rate higher than 50% and ensure that these players end up losing. Therefore, I’ve won most of my matches.

43

That’s essentially Optimotron.

And that’s some kind of internal deck tracker.

I suppose I should also remind you of Zephrys-like functionality for potential deck manipulation (e.g. ‘wish for a perfect card’ from your deck and subtly put it to the bottom), ensuring you don’t draw your winning cards… until the next game, like this: Oh, There You Are.

44

Matchmaking is never random. And it also takes your decks into consideration for match-ups.
I constantly face a very different sample of opponents as soon as i change decks. While playing some decks i hardly ever play against warlocks for example (which is by far the most popular class in the game right now, specially at legend), and when i play some other decks i play against warlocks for the vast majority of the time. Also, my sample size is not too small since i’m able to play hundreds of matches with different decks in a week or so, and i’ve always experienced very different matchmaking patterns depending on the decks i play. It’s extremely clear that the system is at least very suspicious, and over the years i’ve come to the conclusion that its only goal is just to make everyone squeezed into the 50% winrate mark over the long run, which maximizes players constant interest in continuously playing the game to try to break that unbreakable system wall. Interest in the game would decrease a lot if good players ended up winning too much like they should, and bad players ended up losing too much like they also should if matchmaking was totally random and independent of deck composition.

1 Like
45

That’s perfect! Now share your data, please.

3 Likes
46

Here’s another big question for the conspiracy theorist:

WHY would a system such as you crazily suggest exist? What’s the purpose for any player to stay at a 50% winrate? Money? I can tell you, I’m not checking how often I win to see if I want to purchase a skin or two (I don’t buy skins for the record).

Essentially, all these “theories” seem to support not continuous gameplay or some way to skew players to spend more money, but to give someone reason for all their losses, which is why you come here with the opposite, winning, to somehow support these theories.

1 Like