Matchmaking does NOT seem Random to me (with explanation)

Emphasis on look. And not too well. The difference between true random and something acting like random will always be the difference between, well…something authentic, and something desperately pretending to be authentic.

Cards that based on the programming, know how to scan hand. Others that know how to scan deck. Others to scan and remove certain copies of cards, highest cost, lowest cost, and so on.

Now, they can scan search, and do everything with your deck…but it’s still random folks!

Let’s put it this way: if this were a street hustler wanting you to place money on a shell game like that…RUN AWAY!

Interesting how the deniers can post stuff like this over and over, and get a free pass from the mods to do so.

This.

Something the deniers can’t really answer with the “muh patent is never used argument” is why wouldn’t they? Given this company’s track record of scummy decisions that prioritize money above everything else, NOT using something they see as a money making avenue makes no sense whatsoever.

The same company who posted record profits, then promptly fired a ton of their staff…seriously ISN’T using a scummy matchmaking patent to line their pockets.

I’d sooner believe kotick donated his golden parachute to feed starving orphans.

The plain wording of the patent says otherwise.

And of course, you have data to support your claim…which first sentence in the quote naturally undercuts your entire point.

They fed lower ranked people to whales in diablow immoral payportal keep paying mortals, which also showed the final form of the patent. In fact, the guy who paid to win so much he literally couldn’t matchmake any more.

Note one of the more common (now) talking points early post dates: and see how often it’s getting spammed.

…and the predictable concern trolling form pro company posters.

All news outlets are propaganda. Just look at who (or what scummy mega corp) owns a particular news outlet and one can see the agenda at play (especially when they all parrot the same talking points).

Even when you read and quote the patent…the deniers will pretend the plain wording of it doesn’t mean exactly what it’s saying.

I still love how they tried “muh cod patent” even after it was directly quoted to them from the patent that those were examples and that patent wasn’t limited to cod.

Nevermind, the deniers STILL post this falsehood.

Here’s debunking, straight from the source:

While aspects of the invention may be described herein with reference to various game levels or modes, characters, roles, game items, etc. associated with a First-Person-Shooter (FPS) game, it should be appreciated that any such examples are for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to be limiting. The matchmaking system and method described in detail herein may be used in any genre of multiplayer video game, without limitation

2nd paragraph after “summary of invention”

And if the deniers can be this blatantly dishonest about a basic fact of their argument, it calls into question what else they are being dishonest about. Especially when:

Everyone should read the patent. It’s right there. Only the deniers insist there’s “nothing to see here.”

Holy Light, I remember the “MUH CONSPIRACY THEORIST!” spam on that one. In fact, how interesting that’s the go to response from those defending the company.

Like:

Source: dude, trust me.

And that’s the denier position: “it’s just not…mmhk!”

Meanwhile, a plain reading of the patent shows (especially in light of how actiblizz has used it in other games lately) its doing exactly what they said it would.

Read it for yourself.

3 Likes

I mean you sold me on motive and capability, and sure sometimes it (and traffic) seem rigged against me. I am just wondering why it doesn’t show up in the public data or my own tracked experiences.

It does appear on large samples, not on personal samples, you are 1 milion out of 60 k of daily users / or 1 out of 550 k / month, your sample is like a fart in a hurricane.
The system isnt rigged (designed against someone), the design is meant to adjust win rates of decks, aka balance, but people tend to take it personal ( coping, frustration etc.) due to casualties resulted from matchmaking.

Can you show me where it appears on large samples? When I look at hsreplay data, it appears all of the decks with a large sample size face the same mix of decks as the avg meta.

1 Like

You will have to ask Blizzard for actual statistics.
HSreplay / other trackin sites only contain small samples due to games being recorded only by the users of their 3rd party program. All the casual players that dont use it might be the largest sample, and only Blizzard has access to that.
Also, im assuming that most of the users of the 3rd party programs are advantaged and theoretically do have a bigger win rate than those without so the 3rd party samples might be skewed / show only the upper echelon of the stats.
Hence why i look at the people throwing stats like the new HS god with a smile :wink:

Ahh so the half a million or so games recorded are not a big enough sample. Fascinating.

It’s funny though that individual deck matchups just happen to balance out so closely too the average meta each month.

1 Like

That doesn’t prove much on an individual level. E.g. if they favor some players and disfavor other players the “total” will show that average; it’s practically impossible to investigate that as a 3rd party; that’s because you have no clue if your users of your 3rd party app are of one player-type or the other and you’ll have no clue what Blizzard’s goals are [to even know what a “player type” is specifically].

[Something that might help:] Theoretically you could study variances PER DECK[of a single player] PER TOTAL; some kind of “suspicious lopsided matchups on multiple individual decks”; I don’t know if any third party site collects that.

1 Like

Hsreplay has this data, it’s what I’m asking about.

If the number of games is in the number bilions, half a milion is nothing.
It would matter if the number was in like a few milions, but if you do combination of 60 k daily users, averaged between all the modes, the number should should be at least 100 milions or more, so yeah, i think 500 k games arent a big enough sample.

All the third party sites should have source data, to produce something like that.

I don’t know if they actually produce the results though.

[I could do it, if I had INDIVIDUAL players data(*multiplied by thousands of players/all of the available ones). It’s nothing complicated for anyone with very basic stats knowledge or at least some studying for a few hours to fresh their stats up]

That’s actually not true at all. The quality of the sample size correlates to the number of decks being played, not the population size (total # games). You can see this by flipping a coin 500,000 times, and comparing it to a billion flips. The outcome % will be very close.

1 Like

They do produce the results. That’s the point. You can go see the population of decks in the entire sample size, and compare it to decks faced by say… warlock deck b. They track very closely (within a % or so typically)

Not sure if you understand what I could calculate. I would get individual decks by individual players and compare them against the same deck by other individual players.

I know if you just sum them up the third party sites find nothing blatant; I want to look more closely; if MULTIPLE certain players have bad or good luck non-randomly.

Sure if you want to see if the game is rigged against specific players that works.

Your analogy doesnt work, read again what i said, and no, it’s not like flipping coins where you have 2 options only, it’s multiple choice results, which is math.

Quality of sample is a product of inputs (heads, tails) and sample size.

Not the population size.

Flipping a coin a quadrillion times does not reduce the quality of a 500,000 sample size when there are 2 possibilities. You do not need to know the population size to calculate your sample size’s margin of error.

If you think otherwise feel free to quote the formula :slight_smile:

1 Like

Another example for you, the discovery of the higgs boson met a 5 sigma criteria - margin of error less than 0.00003%.

It is impossible to know the number of particle collisions that occur in the universe. How could they calculate this error margin if population size was part of the calculation?

Bud, if you wanna show off, you might wanna do it in some other place not in the HS forum, and again you are not reading what i said, and keep yapping a theory that has absolutely nothing to do with what i told you.
Hint : You should read about Heisenberg.

I am unable to assist you further.

Yes, some players made an account and won the lottery. Whatever they play, they are luckier than most of the other players. It sucks, but it’s the reality we have to accept.

It’s either play a rigged card game, or play a forgotten, bad card game. There is no other option, like not playing a card game.

Life can be cruel.