You shouldn’t feel cheated because you’re not being cheated. It’s really not a hard concept.
And how do you know exactly? Again you cant prove i might be wrong and thats visa versa.
1 Like
Again, he did not say that. He said you don’t want the little guy to face random matchmaking because as a bottom 10% player, 90% of players are better than him and he will have a really bad time losing ~9/10 games if his opponents are completely random. You want the little guy to face other little guys and the big guy to face other big guys. This isn’t about making big guys lose against little guys through forced losses, it’s about making sure they don’t face each other at all while the skill discrepancy exists between them.
Matchups were not mentioned at all. He specifies in the video that the big guy represents a very skilled player and the little guy represents an unskilled or new player. An MMR system wants to match the wrestlers (players) by weight class (player skill) so that the big guy (expert) and the little guy (novice) don’t end up against each other. Looking at deck type would be more akin to trying to match the wrestlers up by the colour of their trunks in this analogy.
2 Likes
Because you can’t cheat everyone, since for you to lose someone else has to win. Because there’s precisely zero reason to cheat you and not your opponent instead. Because hundreds of millions of games don’t show the slightest hint of anything any rigging whiner has ever whined about despite seven years of whining.
Because, simply, you’re only as good as you are, and the problem is how good you are isn’t as good as how good you think you are.
But sure, go on blaming others for your own failures. I bet that works out great for everything else in your life.
3 Likes
I am selfreflected enough to blame no one. Ive been at highet ranks and i am f2p theres nothing to loose for me or else. Its just a fact (in my opinion) the matchmaker is not working in the way, you believe it is. Period. Theres evidence and observations that i might be right and nothing that just omes out of thin air.
We live in a world were presidents can start wars based on a lie, were we have wallstreet crashes were thousands lost their homes because of a lie. So anything is possible Son.
I wish everything was like a fairytale especially when it comes to this vidoegame space where people can hide the harsh reality of the bad outside world but right now at this moment the greed and those lies that come with that are also in this product.
And like i said in the post that got me a ban, the truth hurts and people tend to avaoid pain rather then face and accept the truth with all consequences that comes with it.
Getting your illusion destroyed by some random people on the internets, not going to happen right ?
So why can’t you provide any of that evidence?
Yo
you can’t even write properly.
Check your ego already.
Am i the only crazy one that thinks that this thread is circling to nowhere?
You debate junkies 
1 Like
No. I’ve been feeling the same thing.
I’m just sad about it, and perhaps even a bit cope, because I started off optimistic.
1 Like
Nah, it’s been seven years or so of the same nonsensical arguments for why it must be rigged and yet never providing any actual evidence.
Yeah my ego is fine nothing you should worry about, sure yo go for my gramma since this is not my native language.
Please put me allready on ignore like you announced when i said am done arguing with you but here you are again for more you little honeybee 
I like this quote alot
"People simply feel that they are indisputably right about all things. Ironically I find it humourous that nothing is proven fact.
We could in fact simply be living a horribly cruel nightmarish joke. Asleep being used as a battery for powering a spaceship in the design of a pyramid being driven by a alien who’s name is set."
Actually you can’t. Once you enter the security line up, you will be detained for questioning if you choose to leave (after you go past the passport check.)
I think there is a much simpler way to “rig” a system to protect low-skilled players that uses nothing other than an estimate of MMR:
-
let MMR1 and MMR2 represent the MMR values of two players in a proposed matchmaking that can be rejected or allowed
-
if
(max(MMR1,MMR2) - min(MMR2,MMR1)) / min(MMR1,MMR2) < thresholdthen allow the matchmaking, otherwise reject, where threshold is a parameter that can be tuned to “protect” low-rated players.
This uses nothing sophisticated other than an estimate of player skill (MMR) which is already available, but creates a system that allows for larger differences in MMR only for higher skill levels.
Can you definitely say blizzard doesn’t do something like this? It’s an obvious way to allow more variance in skill in higher rated games and less in lower rated games.
You can use abs() or absolute functions instead of the min/max business. I think your formula will produce unintended results if MMR values can be negative.
If you meant this to give a positive result no matter the rating, you can rewrite this as |max MMR / min MMR|
(The || means absolute value)
1 Like
I’m just putting you on Ignore, Bee. You’re a presumptuous person, judgmental and toxic. I won’t be updated by your posts anymore, deal with it and move on.
Get “Schooled”, go home.
It’s not irrelevant. Trying to make Legend the first time without playing a netdeck is like trying to build a car before you know how to drive. Do you want to get actual advice, or do you just want us to support you with positivity as you continue to fail?
—
For Elchar (and anyone else interested):
So I coded another simulation, this time for 300 rounds, twelve current Standard archetypes, actual winrates (as per HSReplay), implementation of both bonus stars and ranking floors (unable to lose stars), and odds of archetype selection proportional to current popularity (also per HSR). It took my phone over half an hour to calculate a single Sheets workbook.
Anyway, here’s the results from the solo run:
https://i.imgur.com/xzbV68F.png
You can see where the ranking floors are in the graph of you know to look for them. After 300 games not one soul is still in Bronze (where you can’t lose stars at all). The highest ranked player is not quite Legend, but Diamond 1 with 1 star (3 ranks away).
It does seem to me that bonus stars make a pretty big difference in upsetting the pattern I was talking about in my OP. If you pick up a bit of steam the forward acceleration really helps break through the counter deck wall, which is why you pretty much don’t see the clumping in this graph at all. I was hoping to see whether or not there’d still be clumping in Diamond 5-1, but it takes way more than 300 rounds for Diamond to get populated enough to interesting in terms of patterns, and I would need to either get better hardware or develop a more computing-efficient methodology in order to progress further down the rabbit hole.
Also there’s some clumping in the graph, but it’s not the repeating pattern clumping of the OP. instead it’s bad decks clumping to Silver because they’re bad. Although to be fair to those decks, in the real Ranked ladder there’s lots of garbage-tier homebrew to beat up on in Silver rank, so they don’t do so poorly IRL.
2 Likes
See the thing is I wasn’t looking for advice about what deck I was playing; Bee pulled that little snippet from me mentioning that Mutanous often seems to yank exactly what you don’t want too often at times.
This has become a long string of presumption of my playstyle or what I do to climb vs what I was complaining about.
If I needed advice I would’ve posted properly about the deck I was playing and trying to climb with not getting there.
My lack of getting legend since game launch is more due to having a lack of time for long play sessions to power through past Diamond 5.
Oh.
Well I can see how that might have been confusing. I mean, that is, I feel, the normal kind of presumptuous.
How do they calculate those bonus stars that are awarded next month by the way?
Heres your Proof black on white:
The matchmaking system and method described in detail herein may be used in any genre of multiplayer video game, without limitation (Heartstone)*
The system may dynamically update analytical processes based on statistical or otherwise observed data related to gameplay at any given time. In this manner, the system may continually tune the matchmaking process based on observations of player behavior, gameplay quality, and/or other information.
0019]
In another example, if a player has been performing poorly (e.g., getting killed at a rate higher than the player’s historical rate), the scoring engine may dynamically adjust one or more coefficients to match the player in a game that will improve the player’s performance. For example, the player may be matched with easier opponents, matched with teammates that historically resulted in better match outcomes, and/or placed in a game that is more tailored to the player’s preferences (e.g., players that play in games more closely aligned with their preferences tend to perform better).
0035]
For example, in one implementation, the system may include a microtransaction engine that arranges matches to influence game-related purchases. For instance, the microtransaction engine may match a more expert/marquee player with a junior player to encourage the junior player to make game-related purchases of items possessed/used by the marquee player. A junior player may wish to emulate the marquee player by obtaining weapons or other items (cards) used by the marquee player.