Matchmaking Algorithm

So there are two things that are generally accepted to be a part of all or almost all known matchmaking systems:

  1. the system will try to find opponents of equal skill by finding players of equal rank/MMR.
  2. the system will prioritize not taking too much time to find you an opponent, so it will slowly widen the range of ranks/MMRs it will match you with as queue time goes on.

If you believe there is an additional factor or factors that are part of Hearthstone’s matchmaking system, please explain what these factors are and I will help design experiments to test for these parameters.

1 Like

noone talking about MMR that is expected and genuine

“Hearthstone is rigged! With Proof?” by youtuber Hearthstone Tips by Kris O Five discusses legal documented patents that factually exist pertaining to MICROTRANSACTION INCREASING manipulation techniques pertaining to among other things matchmaking manipulation.

If you don’t want to see it keep your eyes closed with fingers in your ears going na na na na.

You can still enoy the epic duel simulator that is hearthstone. Its like watching a yugioh episode. Blizzard is the heart of the cards.

Nothing can be proven to be certain only uncertain. Black Crow Fallacy.

I have hands

I hate some people

I am of unknowable disposition

Therefore, it’s right to assume i’m a murderer.

Oh right: that’s not How science works at all! The capacity to do something, even interest in It, won’t prove that you did something, specially If there are no final proofs

1 Like

sigh this patent, again? 1) Owning a patent and actually utilizing it are not the same thing, and shows a gross misunderstanding of how companies mainly use patents as an arms race to stifle competition. 2) If this patent IS being utilized in Hearthstone matchmaking, we can actually test for it. Once the post-nerf meta has settled and we’ve gotten a data report, we can zero in on a deck that has the results of one specific matchup be heavily influenced by the drawn rate of a particular card. We then build that deck but replace that specific card with something else and see if we get matched up against that particular matchup more frequently than expected.

??? Sorry, I’m a little confused, are you referring to the Raven Paradox? I fail to see how that is relevant here. The Raven Paradox deals with statements of “all X have attribute Y” and whether or not data of non-X, non-Y objects count as supporting evidence.

If you’re trying to say that we cannot prove rigging to be true or false 100%, then you’re technically correct, but nobody is trying to do that. It’s like cigarettes’ and cancer. Sure, you can’t PROVE they’re linked with the same level of certainty of a mathematical proof, but there is a mountain of correlating evidence that is statistically significant.

An example that happened to me today. I have played 95 games in the past week without seeing a single Flare card. I built a Secret Rogue to play today and my first two games out of the gate I had a Flare card played against me. This happens over and over. There is no way HS uses true Random to match make.

2 Likes

Why are so many people convinced that unlikely things can’t happen?

If the media says you just experienced an every hundred year storm, you know unlikely things can happen.

If it is the 25th every hundred year storm that has happened in your lifetime, you don’t believe the media any more.

1 Like

Or you believe the climate scientists who told you it would happen, but maybe you’re not possessed of such cognizant capabilities.

What a shock that conspiracist thinking extends to all areas of your life, eh?

How many Secret decks were you running before?

I don’t believe in any HS conspiracy theories. HS is running a game with the goal of maximizing profit and trying to force each participant to as close to a 50% win rate as possible. HS does this with their matchmaking. Whatever the matchmaking system is, it is not pure random. It is not a conspiracy against anyone, it is a calculated system based on HS goals, not random.

5 Likes

There is no “forcing” a 50% win rate. That’s what the ladder does. No, the matching isn’t random - that would lead to dramatically unfair matchups as someone’s first game might be against a top 10 legend player. You do realize why they don’t do it like that, right?

And that it’s not underhanded, or cheating, to do that?

And that it’s not newsworthy to proclaim that matching isn’t random, which nobody thinks it is?

2 Likes

Except…you clearly do. Your original post is making the (as of now) unsubstantiated claim that the Hearthstone matchmaking algorithm checks your decklist before determining who to match you up against.

To the best of my knowledge, no data aggregate site has noticed that secret rogues have been facing a greater number of Hunters (the class with Flare) than expected. So you believe something for which there is currently insufficient evidence to accept.

Start not roping every turn with face hunter before crying for the game being “rigged” you degenerate

Admission is the first step. At least you agree that it is possible. (and in their interest to do so).

I agree that it is evidence that manipulation is doable and profitable. Whether that would interest a small indie company it is hard to say…

Not even that. I surely admit that If there was a interest (which there is none comproved, btw) It would be in their interest.

I’m not even getting on How It would be possible, because people on the rigging side think programming is magic

The patent shows invested time and interest and legal protection of matchmaking manipulation techniques. It is an area of interest, something desirable that if shown effective at increasing game revenues could and would be implemented by some businesses in that field.

Whether it, or others like it, are be used by hearthstone is not known for certain and for all intensive purposes cannot be known unless they admit it (which they are under no current legal obligation to do so).

correlation is not causation, didn’t think I said it was.

Raven paradox thank you. Nothing can be proven true only more or less likely to be true. It accounts for any unknown exception. Any conclusion drawn from repeated tested observation is more and more likely to be true but never absolute. (Every time you saw a crow ((did the experiment)) it was black, therefore… science. It can be easily disproved by one counterexample, but no number of observations will prove it certain.
Any belief to an extent requires a leap.

just saw your post about wanting inputs to try and test the matchmaking out.
No current ideas, but sounds awesome. Well worded and clean.

I have been saying this since 2013.

1 Like

Tide goes in tide goes out. Coincidence? i think not!

Yes, the patent shows this.

This evidence I have not seen.