You might be right… hopefully you’re right. I even first thought exactly what you said about Hunters have low curve and will always have something to play. But then I play Hunter, and I mulligan for the curve that I’ve seen my opponents have, back to back, and like 75% of the time, I don’t get it. After that, I’m like, “how is each Hunter getting the exact hand?”
I think you’re last point is what is happening as well. However, the rng each of my opponents get vs. the rng I get, it seems too consistent.
2 Likes
The game is catered to fat whales, just deal with it.
There’s a statement floating around from blizzard about how matchmaking works. Perhaps someone will repost it.
It’s never the player, always something else that keeps you from winning. If it wasnt for rigging, im sure you would have a 90%+ win rate and be to 10 legend no doubt. It is 100% Blizzard rigging the games so people who spend money win.
5 Likes
They’re imagining some Blizzard executive fever dream where 50% of the players online at any moment are paid customers, when the truth is less than a tenth of that.
Ignore the insults. The matching isn’t good.
But, it also isn’t unfair.
I definitely believe the system considers deck composition
at some point, and no one here can bust that claim, since they don’t have Team 5’s code.
However; I also believe that the game treats every player the same.
It’s not singling anyone out to give the matches it does.
It is random in that regard.
2 Likes
Any programmers here? What difficulty are we talking about to write a matchmaking algorithm that considers players in queue’s deck composition?
Would require maintenance of a database of continually updated card vs card winrates. Not really feasible for one person to setup initially, would require a group. After that would be pretty low maintenance, but to “print” new cards in expansions would require extra steps (to add them to database).
Database would have about 13 million unique card combinations now, and would get bigger over time.
1 Like
They’ve done that.
2 Likes
Not that difficult.
But it has to be updated with every update. This could be done automatically but they would need new data and that will take some time.
And that is why the first two days after an update you can enjoy rigged free hearthstone. Because the algo needs to collect the new data first. I now only play a lot in the first 2-3 days after an update. After that the algo turns on and the fun is gone.
Halve true and serious story,well mostly true for me to be fair.
Facts. I don’t know if the Tweets and such still exist, but throughout the years, it has been explicitly stated how matchmaking works, and it’s as you can read about it on sites like Hearthstone wik (which provides actual references).
1 Like
They think the company is lying, which isn’t even reasonable.
2 Likes
And this right here is why it wouldn’t make any sense at all to waste time and resources on it.
This whole topic is so tiring.
1 Like
The algorithm you’re talking about doesn’t exist
I dunno.
People who think the game is rigged should try playing the first 2-3 days after an update. And see if the matchmaking is a similar experience as playing weeks after an update.
I think there will be a remarkable difference. You wont see counter after counter in the first 2-3 days after an update. Not even if you have a very good score.
Though i guess this can maybe also partially be explained from the meta beeing completely open in the first 2-3 days after an update.
My experience comes from BG,which is somewhat different. And my experience in the first 2 days after an update has been considerably better then my experience weeks after an update. My results have been much better as well in the first 2-3 days after an update. But maybe that is just me remembering it wrong,i cant rule that out completely.
Either way,i only play lots right after an update to adept and maximize my experience. And this has been working for me personally.
1 Like
Bottom line, if different decks faced different matchups, it’s measurable.
When you actually measure that variance, it isn’t there.
2 Likes
Imagine that. Two of the most popular decks have to face each other more often than other decks.
2 Likes
Even if they posted it you’d claim they were lying, since they have said that it doesn’t care about deck composition and you said they were lying about that too.
3 Likes
Never in the entire time I have played this game have I ever seen “counter after counter.”
Not one time. Never.
That’s pretty much everyone who has ever said it’s rigged.
You can’t logic away faith, and “it’s rigged” is faith, not reason.
2 Likes
I’ve decided to delve DEEP into this one. Vicious Syndicate reports, include the most recent ones, show how often each deck plays against every other deck in the data. So actual data results can be compared to expected results, and we can see how far they are.
I’m still in the process of computing the expected results. The first step of that was reverse engineering the popularity of deck archetypes for players who have tracker software installed. I thought I’d post those results (for Diamond 4-1) now, for funsies.
| Archetype | Class | Tracker popularity | Overall popularity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plague | DK | 5.98% | 6.99% |
| Rainbow | DK | 3.69% | 3.89% |
| Shopper | DH | 1.88% | 2.33% |
| Dragon | Druid | 0.89% | 0.89% |
| Hybrid | Druid | 4.00% | 4.00% |
| Reno | Druid | 4.79% | 3.86% |
| Token | Hunter | 12.51% | 12.91% |
| Rainbow | Mage | 2.05% | 2.00% |
| Spell | Mage | 2.58% | 2.56% |
| Aggro | Paladin | 3.65% | 3.58% |
| Handbuff | Paladin | 1.75% | 2.12% |
| Reno | Priest | 1.97% | 1.75% |
| Zarimi | Priest | 0.74% | 0.83% |
| Cutlass | Rogue | 1.20% | 1.09% |
| Excavate | Rogue | 4.82% | 3.98% |
| Pirate | Rogue | 0.72% | 0.69% |
| Reno | Shaman | 2.06% | 1.91% |
| Pain | Warlock | 0.79% | 0.99% |
| Sludge | Warlock | 1.18% | 1.40% |
| Snake | Warlock | 3.24% | 2.79% |
| Wheel | Warlock | 0.91% | 1.12% |
| Reno | Warrior | 29.12% | 24.98% |
| other | any | 9.48% | 13.34% |
(Yes, the Druid numbers are correct, I double checked.)