This forum is filled with people unable to get past platinum rank. Some get stuck at gold or silver. They don’t post seeking advice, they claim the game is preventing them from advancing.
So why do these players exist? Even without bonus stars, every single player should be able to reach Diamond rank because of win streaks if an algorithm was truly handing out wins and losses to keep players close to 50%.
My 1st question is how could you possibly know that from D5 to Legend the supposed 50% algorithm is not in effect? 2nd, why would they use an algorithm to keep everyone close to 50% everywhere except D5 > Legend?
Anybody here play any offline CCG’s? I played quite a bit of Magic back in the day and traveled to dozens of events, not to mentions hundreds of local FNM (Friday night magic) tournaments. I’ve played Meta decks and counter Meta decks. Stacked sideboards for certain matchups and also played sideboards with nothing for other popular matchups.
My point being that you and your friends will have all faced different amounts of each deck by the end of the night. Sure, W/L/D record plays a part in that, but nobody is crying about rigged MM.
I really don’t understand why some people think a MMR system couldn’t produce the results they see. Or more basically, why a MMR system isn’t able to get the majority of players close to a 50% win rate over a long enough period of time?
Arcane hunter is just one aggro deck, there are others that struggle a lot against the control decks. Also, you said warrior is not a bad matchup for arcane hunter lol, when i play warrior i beat arcane hunters like 80% of the time. And if you take the other top tier aggro deck in the format, which is mech rogue, it struggles a lot specially against warrior and priest. Warlock is also a tough matchup to mech rogue, despite not as tough as warrior and priest.
The algorithm is in effect from D5 to legend, it is just not as efficient as in other ranks because the pool of players inside D5-D1 is much smaller than if you open up the range and match exclusively by MMR, like when you have bonus stars or when you are at legend.
They probably match by rank outside legend when you have no more star bonuses in order to make it a little easier for players to reach legend nowadays. I dont know since when you play the game, but before the star bonus system was implemented, it was a lot harder to reach legend because you would be matched by MMR through the entire grind to legend, and a lot of players used to complain about that.
Again, it’s not trying to do this. It would be stupidly obvious to every deck tracker ever and it would have been called out day 1.
The existence of this algorithm would effectively make it impossible to climb to rank 1, which is BS because new people do this all the time, not just streamers/content creators.
There’s exactly zero evidence that this is a thing beyond your feelings, and plenty that suggest it isn’t.
No it wouldn’t be impossible to reach rank 1. It just takes a huge amount of hours of playtime by a decent above average player that is able to get his winrate a little above 50% and gets to legend in the first or second days of the month.
The system does not put everyone exactly into 50%. Very good players will be able to get around 53-54% in the long run and thats what makes them climb in high ranks. Im not saying this from my own experience only, i have a couple of friends also that are usually inside 1k that also have the exact same opinion and self-experience about how ladder matchmaking works.
If you think your matches are all random and you’re just being matched by simple winrate patterns all the time, you are probably just someone who loves to fool yourself about living in a beautiful and pristine bubble.
Yeah, you won’t be. You lack facts, evidence, proof…
You know, all the things that you need to make a wild assertion like “the matchmaking system has an algorithm trying to find your deck’s hard counters”
It doesn’t do that. It would be well documented everywhere if it did, not just your random conspiracy theory post of the day.
This thread was started by someone who also believes that MM is rigged to keep them close to 50%.
Except they also believe that 50% is being maintained with the help of
Best I can tell from your replies in this thread FireHtz, you wouldn’t agree with this since you mentioned “very good players” which implies skill. So I’d be curious to hear your opinion on it. If you don’t agree with OP, why? How are you certain it works the way you say and not how he says?
What do you mean?? I agree with him on the matter that MM works with the only goal of making players sit around 50% winrate in general. Also, it certainly takes decks composition into consideration as any active player who has a reasonable amount of games played with a bunch of different decks can easily testify. People that believe it doesn’t take your deck in consideration for matching are just the ones that are blind simply because they do not wish to see…
Yes, I managed to do the same once, by creating an unusal tactic and made it to D1 from D5 in one row. I was really happy. Couldn’t imagine how far can I go with a non meta deck which has it’s own strategy. But nowdays… I think this would be much more hard because of the controlled randomness combined by the unbalance. Yes, the game is analizing your deck before choose opponent… I am sure of that because made a lot of testing for days… But still… if you can defeat most of the meta… then you will be able to rank up. It is not easy… but it is possible.
To further support my strategy, I purposely created an Automaton Priest deck today to complete a “play 3 games as Priest” quest. I expected to face very aggressive decks, and as anticipated, I lost all three games before turn 6.
After that, I switched back to the Shaman deck on the first post, played three games, and won all of them with zero effort.
Patent #9789406. It’s in regards to matchmaking but the literature describes ascertaining “items” in player decks compared to items in their collections upon queueing for matchmaking for the purpose of in-game purchases tailored to player card collection (this is clearly seen with the Twist bundles). It also describes pairing players with smaller collections intentionally being match made with players who have more complete collections.
Although it doesn’t exactly describe matchmaking players based on class, the technology is there right now to do so. Does Blizzard have the internal resources to do R&D on meta decks in order to rig matchmaking? Ehhhhh conceivably. Do they have a reason to? I’m not so sure, but maybe, and it’s in the literature verbatim which I will quote below. I mean after all, it was proudly Blizzard’s way to ‘do what traditional card games couldn’t do before.’ Who’s to say that it is limited strictly to card mechanics?
Other things it includes is a layman’s explanation of MMR, another system in place that accounts for win/ loss streaks (it’s dynamic), and other numerous matchmaking qualities.
“identify an in-game item that is of potential interest to a first player, but not yet possessed by the first player for gameplay in a multi-player game…”
“The analytics and feedback engine may analyze game data to determine satisfying types of gameplay that should be provided through the matchmaking process. For example, the analytics and feedback engine may determine whether given combinations of role types (e.g., sniper, run-and-gunners, etc.) lead to satisfying gameplay. Such analysis may be performed for specific portions of a game (e.g., a game level) and/or generally for a game.”
“first player in a profile associated with the first player in the multi-player game and a utility of the in-game item to a particular level of the multi-player game; identify a second player that possesses the in-game item;”
And so on. The only way to really describe the breadth of the patent is to look at the patent itself; hence, why I provided the patent number.
Parents don’t mean anything, just that they own the rights to it.
It’s not in use.
Microsoft also had a patent for the Kinect that could tell how many people were watching Netflix to lock you out if you had too many people watching.
And yes, it’s possible to do this. That doesn’t mean it’s being done.
It doesn’t even make sense to put common filters like that into hearthstone matchmaking… it would be too easily manipulatable.
The more things the matchmaking system is looking for, and the more it’s understood, the more manipulatable it is.
Anything that Blizz were using other than just rank/MMR would stick out BOLDLY to the large aggregate data sites like HSR/VS. they’ve got many years of data without this showing up. Every deck sees a similar proportion of other decks as the rest of them.
If the matchmaking were trying to find hard counters, you’d never see crazy tier 1 decks because the system would automatically be finding their bad matchups to make their stats look worse.
You’d never see decks that were just bad in the meta (like warlock was), because it would have a different meta than every other deck.
None of the patterns of matchmaking, deck balancing, etc even HINTS toward matchmaking having an invisible hand in shaping things.
It doesn’t, it’s just more confirmation bias, like the entire premise of this thread.
Couldn’t imagine how far can I go with a non meta deck which has it’s own strategy. 
But nowdays… I think this would be much more hard because of the controlled randomness combined by the unbalance. Yes, the game is analizing your deck before choose opponent… I am sure of that because made a lot of testing for days… But still… if you can defeat most of the meta… then you will be able to rank up. It is not easy… but it is possible.