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.
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.
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.
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.
A 50% win rate helps create a sense of fairness and equal opportunity for players. When players feel they have a reasonable chance of winning, they are more likely to continue playing, invest time in the game, and potentially become long-term customers. Satisfied and engaged players contribute to the game’s community and help sustain its player base.
Many games have competitive or esports scenes where skilled players compete against each other. A 50% win rate ensures that matches are competitive, which can attract a larger audience and create a more exciting and engaging viewing experience. This, in turn, can lead to increased interest, sponsorships, and revenue for the game company.
Maintaining a balanced win rate contributes to a positive player experience. When players feel that matches are fair and they have a chance to win, they are more likely to enjoy the game and have a positive perception of the company. This can lead to higher player satisfaction, positive word-of-mouth recommendations, and potentially increased player acquisition.
A balanced win rate can create a more competitive environment, leading to increased player engagement and motivation to invest in the game’s economy. Players may be more inclined to spend money on items or upgrades that enhance their gameplay experience.
If this is true, why come here? It’s keeping the game fair, so what’s the complaint?
If the “system” or “algorithm” are modifying games, how does this enter the competitive scene? They are bringing decks and put on a set chart. They aren’t clicking “Play” and entering randomly into matches. Or, if you’re saying all this affects card draw, then I would imagine there’s a huge legality there as they can essentially choose the winner.
Let’s say this is true, however, most of the conspiracy theorists are unhappy. They lose a game or a few and come here. So, again, why complain when it’s all part of the conspiracy you all lean on?
Not once have I heard any conspiracy theorist express this. Not a single time along with any evidence (not hearsay or a handful of games) to support their theories.
For the record (if it isn’t already obvious), I don’t believe in any system or algorithm outside generic mmr based matchmaking. If the devs wanted to achieve everything on this list, they just need to create a balanced game experience by adjusting cards and their power level/creep, which they won’t do because they believe it sells cards/packs/expansions etc. I get the frustration of losses especially when they happen frequently. I think we’ve all been on those lose streaks before. Just walk away or do what you did, make a deck no one has played against to shake things up. It’s hard to strategize against the unknown, so you won some games.
Overall, a 50% win rate benefits the game company by promoting player satisfaction, engagement, retention, and community-building. It helps create a positive reputation, attract new players, and potentially generate revenue through in-game purchases and competitive events.
I could provide more examples to show how a 50% win rate benefits the game company, but I believe you understand the idea now, so I’ll end here.
Matching players with opponents of perceived equal ability.
It doesn’t need to do anything else. An approximate 50% win rate is achieved organically for almost every regular player using this basic system and does not need to be forced (top and bottom performing outliers will exist, for example, professional players who invest a lot of time into improving their ability and players who’s motivation is making a meme strategy work one time rather than consistently winning games, since both of these groups cannot reliably and consistently be given a fair opponent every game).
The algorithm only applies to ladder play. Tournaments are a closed environment where the algorithm doesn’t need to do its job.
In fact, tournaments are basically the only gameplay that rewards skill a little bit more. Ranked ladder is just a luck show where most games are mainly decided by the matchmaking algorithm trying to squeeze everyone into the 50% winrate “ideal” mark.
Every game is a bad matchup for someone. It doesn’t matter what deck you are using. Why would blizzard need to create a system of finding counters when that’s just the natural way ALL decks function?
To be singled out by the game to feed you bad matchups, the system has to be arbitrarily giving other players good matchups, but that’s nonsense because people only ever think the game is rigged against them personally.
It literally does not do that. It has no need to.
You are correct it isn’t random though, it’s choosing from people queueing at that moment that are closest to your current rank / MMR.
That’s not a random selection of players with the full distribution of available decks.
It’s just trying to get you into a game fast, it’s not trying to give you variety.
So how exactly does that explain players getting back to legend each month? At a 50% win rate i would be hard pressed to get back to legend but i do each month and it’s basically a joke to do so.
I reach legend very quickly every month also. But matchmaking in D5 to legend is different, its based solely on rank and not MMR. Once you reach legend you get matched only by MMR, and the system is able to find counters to your deck much more consistently because the pool of players is a lot bigger when matching by MMR than when it matches you exclusively by rank.
Perhaps… But we’ve all seen some politicians who seem to honestly believe that they’re very smart, perhaps not even realising what ignorant tripe comes out of their mouths and their true mental capacity. They probably sincerely believe they climbed to their ranks due to skill and hard work, not some others factors (e.g. being more equal than you — and more ‘politically correct’ at that). Who knows, maybe it happened to you — or you managed to game the system?
Just play a face aggro deck. There’s no real counters to it besides a bad draw and other aggro players. Of course a good 75% of them play badly so they are easy pickings as well.
I never said it was hard work. First of all a 10 star bonus is a ticket to easy mode on a ladder climb. From d5-legend it’s just about playing as many matches as you can quickly and any good face deck is the best for doing that. Work smarter not harder.
Lol ofcourse there are good counters to aggro right now. Warlock, warrior and priest control decks are just a very good example of it. All of them have very good winrates against mostly all aggro decks in the format right now.
Arcane hunters WORST match is against itself(which makes sense). Priest, Warrior and Warlock aren’t even the worst. The win % is still in the 60%+ range. I wouldn’t call those “bad” numbers.
Oh, 10 is not even that great, try 11 — or, better, the old system without stars, with a considerably longer journey from Rank 5 (no more win streaks) to Legend.
Oh, I think the pieces of your puzzle are starting to come together.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jenlSf2E8o
‘Me am smart’. Of course, ‘turn 7 lethal’ probably sounds laughable nowadays, but no matter…
They probably sincerely believe they climbed to their ranks due to skill and hard work, not some others factors (e.g. being more equal than you — and more ‘politically correct’ at that). Who knows, maybe it happened to you — or you managed to game the system?