QUOTE by blizzard poster in the link note this isnt written by me the quote is written by blizzard member:
A: Since each player starts at the bottom of the ladder at start, we want fair matches for everyone (aka. win-rate close to 50%). At that time, your progression on ladder is protected by your star bonus, thus your net expected gain will be positive through the ladder. Once other players run out of star bonuses, matching by rank will allow for good players, or players who want to push themselves a bit, to be able to progress to a higher rank.
SOURCE:
For these who can’t understand it means that above diamond rank the system won’t let you have much higher than 50%ish winrate, ( obviously you can get 55%ish because people make mistakes ) anyone who claims they have 60-70% winrate etc are either low rank or played less then 20 games
A simple test can be done by anyone: Play control deck for 30+ games, and then play aggro deck for 30+ games and you will see your matchups will be entirely different.
Ofc, they can. For example, imagine their fictive mmr at 1500, then they play a deck they ae compatible with and have a 1900 mmr strengh in practice. After 40+ games the mmr will perhaps adjust, so that they gain a 50% winrate.
However, statistically soem decks are played more frequently at certain ranks. So even if your mmr is adjusted, you may land up in a favourable meta and your winrate increases, despite facing stronger opponents.
This point shows that you either did not read my post or are trolling. I guess the latter.
In fact, I have debunked your statement, and as personal anecdote i had clibled with face hunte last yeat with a 70% winrate fom bronze to legend with 9 or 10 bonus stars at that time…
Why are you lying? the system won’t let you have over 55% winrate
I’m simply quoting blizzard, i’m pretty sure blizzard know more about the game than you do.
That’s not what they mean. What they mean is that in an ideal balanced environment they try to (not always) create, win rate should be about 50% since everyone’s skill and power level is similar.
They were proven wrong in another thread with that number, so they moved the goal posts. When more proof was given, they moved the goal posts to be “doesn’t apply at lower ranks”. When more proof was given, they continued to move goal posts.
None of this really matters anyway, as this person is clearly trolling on this topic and has been for quite some time.
Except that you treat it like some Magic or like they reach the 50% by checking decks and things like that.
In practice if you use a mmr system most players gonna already have the tendency to have 50% winrate.
In fact the system is rigged but not in the way the tin foil hat group want people to believe.
If they just put better players as your mmr increases most gonna in fact reach a point were they have around 50% winrate.
It’s done. They not need to check anyone’s deck.
Also climb to legend with more than 60% winrate is actually Very possible.
You just need to be a high legend player because the meta there is just crazy.
It feels like a entirely different hearthstone were people are doing too many different things trying to break the game every single second.
like any mmr system, the more you win, the more you will be matched with better players. when you stop winning much more than you are losing (aka you have reached your skill level) you will stop climbing.
guess at what point you are winning about as much as you lose? Think reeeeeeeally hard what it means to lose about as much as you win.
does that sound “about 50%” to you?
Now, imagine you simply reach the top end of that climb (so top of the ladder) and you are STILL better than the average person there . You will still win more than 50%, but you can’t climb any higher.
and that is ofc disregarding short streaks of 20-30 , or even 100, games.
100 is a very small number to get an actual average. Most automated tests run tens of thousands of rolls to get an average as an example, exactly because variance exists in such quantities as “i had 70% in my legend climb in 40 games”.
While the Op’s claim makes virtually no sense to me, I have neither seen nor read anythng that would dissuade me from eight years of observation.
I believe the matching is completely impartial.
I will likely never believe it isn’t weighted to some degree.
There’s a system made to provide everyone fair matches which is called MMR.
Meanwhile on the forum, idiot players : “YOU SEE, THAT’S THE PROOF THE GAME IS RIGGED”.
Well, if for you, that’s called rigging the game, then yes, the game is rigged and everyone knows it since the beginning. You’re now free to uninstall.
It never claims to find you a “counter deck”. It finds you an opponent with a higher MMR that now goes with your increased MMR.
Not that complicated…
If you win more, your number goes up and you face opponents with higher numbers as well.
If you lose more, your number goes down and you face opponents with lower numbers as well.
This is simple matchmaking, and helps keep people who perform extremely well from consistently playing against far worse players and vice versa. There’s nothing anywhere at all that says anything AT ALL about cherrypicking specific decks that you will lose to. The system of facing better-performing opponents as you win more already balances out winrates. They don’t need to counter-queue you into anything.
