Get out of gold then talk. There is not “high gold” because that’s an oxymoron.
I’m sure some of them are people, but that’s also the flavor of the month for bots because it’s so linear to play.
Again, rude and condescending. Wouldn’t want to talk to, as…well, you’re not very intelligent.
Obviously there is a point. Someone who is Gold 10 with no mmr would obviously have a higher chance of facing bots.
I am telling you, I’m playing them quite a bit and they are obviously people. How would you even know? You’re not playing them.
So, anyways, clearly your rank hasn’t made you worth talking to. But-bye.
When you consider facts be rude, then you have a maturity problem.
Says the guy who can’t beat bots?
They are everywhere. They are at legend, my dude. We are not talking about the blizzard bots here.
First, as I said, “high gold” is an oxymoron. It’s like saying I finished 26th out of thirty, but it was a high 26th. You can complain about my intellect, but nothing about gold ranking is high.
Second, yes, as I said, the bots are everywhere.
This is where it started, and then I explained it further.
And you got pissy because you didn’t like the truth.
Enjoy your bots, have a great day.
1 Like
…you really are the immature one…this is pointless.
Look, I told you my situation: I don’t have the dust or gold to upgrade my deck. You’re basically telling me to spend money to rank up so I have the “privilege” to discuss with you an issue in lower ranks. …Yeah…
What “facts”? ??? That you believeing there is no difference between Gold 10 and Gold 1, and that mmr doesn’t matter there? That’s factually wrong.
Geesh, what are, 14? Let your brain grow more before trying to “debate” on the internet.
Also, I was Diamond for nearly a year straight, have been legendary, and been playing since geesh, I dunno, at keast 2015. I have a lot experience in many areas of the game. You thinking my opinion doesn’t matter is indeed rude, condescending, and ignorant. On top of that, your initial “I don’t mean to be rude, but…” was all those things. You lack basic the intelligence to have an opinion. Be gone, child.
No one brought up your deck. I don’t even know what deck you’re playing.
I also don’t think you need to do anything.
Play at gold. I don’t care. Just don’t call it “high gold” because that’s not an accurate description.
Your mmr doesn’t change noticeably while you rank with bonus stars unless you just lose and lose and lose.
You’re playing the same player pool from bronze until you run out of stars because it’s MMR based… so there is not “high gold” because you aren’t actually playing gold players.
More insults, lol, awesome. You got really prickly about this idea that high gold isn’t a thing. Why does that make you so angry?
Great? What does this mean? Are you now trying to say your opinion is factually correct because you’ve played so much? I have a similar resume in this game. It makes very little difference here when you’re ignoring the salient points because they don’t fit your ideal.
Oh, so this is you angry about your “high gold” skillz and you’re blaming me because the bots are giving you fits.
Sounds really mature. I should learn from you, I guess.
I’m sorry you’re hard stuck. I am not. Maybe you should ask the good people here for more help with the match up instead of blaming everyone else for telling you the truth.
This is where I rolled my eyes
This is where I rolled my eyes even harder
Alright. So, what is your explanation? What is this NEW matchmaking system?
Unless the screenshot is of your data of a decent sized sample size, maybe ~1,000 games, it’s not worth the effort
Do this 10000 times, post your results and I might believe you.
Lol no you wouldn’t.
Why would you guys guess, or assume I’m unintelligent, or that I really don’t play that much. It feels like a bunch of naysayers. This game manipulates allot of things, but the n decidedly doesn’t touch others. I’m going to stick to my guns, i didn’t just bring this up because I’m butt hurt. This is what I’m noticing, and noticing since they made the matchmaking change that they even publicized. I was all gung-ho for the change when i read about it, now i’ve experienced it. Another example if that there are some meta decks i never play. I look then up and they just aren’t my style. Then after sometimes months, i’ll copy them from HSReplay and play it the first time. So i’ve played lets say (i’m making this number up) 150 games with the same 2-3 decks for lets say 3 months. Then I say well, let me try this finally just to get a feel for it and maybe learn more about it’s faults. I copy it, load it up, play a game (SAME RANK I’ve been playing for weeks, same meta, etc) then on the very first game, i play against some deck I’ve NEVER seen before. The developers have already said they manipulate the matchmaking, I’m just saying it’s not fair, at least to me, because no matter when I do personally in deck building to work against the meta, which is something I love to do… I like non-meta, or slightly tweaked anti-meta decks, they are now thwarting that. You don’t have to believe me, but I’ll stick to my guns on this. I think it’s too much, too invasive.
To clarify, I am not saying that you are unintelligent. I don’t know you that well to make a judgment regarding you overall as a person. It’s beyond my purview.
But I am judging your opening post as irrational. Again, you’re not “noticing” these things, you’re experiencing apophenia. Everyone is wrong sometimes, so it’s counterproductive to conflate criticism of a specific claim with an attack on your overall competence.
I cant believe how you keep getting upvotes for your nonsense arguments.
Its not even done on purpose,like auto support for anyone that goes against rigging.
People truly dont see why your argument is complete nonsense.
Thats why discussing this in honesty is completely pointless. People here lack the insight to understand what is brought forward anyway. They are unable to judge arguments and statements.
Which the many upvotes you keep getting for complete nonsense arguments does proof.
He’s like those character debaters that mostly just use terminology to debate for him. He doesn’t actually offer an argument unless you press him for one.
DK, specifically Plague DK, is the most popular deck overall right now. This isn’t to mention the class has three specializations, almost making it like three classes, thereby increasing the odds even further of running into them.
I wonder if there’s an argument to be made that if there aren’t things in a game you don’t like (and that others do), it isn’t a very good game.
Essentially, all art is subjective, and it only becomes generally “good” or “bad” if some sort of majority agree on it. However, there is nuance to it all. You can be like, “Well, it’s a bad game for people who like this… but for people who like this, it’s a good game…”. Then of course, you can argue that it’s just a poorly designed game from a technical aspect, but when it works, it’s fun.
So, if someone liked every game in the world except the majority’s favorite game, I suppose there is something to look at there. So, yeah, there’s an argument to be made everywhere, every time, all at once.
To clarify, I am suggesting that if someone sees no problems in a game, that probably means other players see many. A balance needs to be struck so as players of different tastes can play and have fun.
1 Like
Um, well, clearly the content, syntax, and format of your written statements demonstrates marked deficits in those areas.
It is neither and assumption nor a guess when you’ve written enough here to confirm it.
Does not mean many or a great deal.
We know and we know.
It’s much easier to avoid than to confront, so just keep your magical beliefs.
Hmm, well, what if someone is just that much better at a game, so they always win, thus see no problem? Should the game be changed so that person can’t win as much? Even if the reason they are winning is purely because they are smarter? Can predict the meta better than anyone else? So, what? You add in RNG to hold them down, since they can’t consistently counter RNG?
I’d say good for that someone.
No.
Are you asking that if a smarter player should be made to lose?
I’m getting confused at this point.
Are you trying to assert there should be no RNG?
But the allegation isn’t RNG is in the game or more rng is added to the game, it’s that players are being specifically and intentionally targeted to lose.
If people are that much better at the game, they keep climbing until they reach the top. That’s why the top is very often the same players… they are that much better than us. The game does nothing to stop them from climbing other than making skill based matches.
The problem isn’t the match, it’s that people don’t even know enough to know how unskilled they are in a wider sense in this game. They don’t even see the small choice that wins the game four turn later, all they saw was their opponent “got lucky.”
Seriously, if there was a significant flaw in the HS match allgo, like that it matched people based on cards in their deck, I am 100% certain someone would have already published an exposé with a deep dive and lots of data… just like they did with magic.
4 Likes
This is an argument I have never seen a good rebuttal to. Not to mention how easy it’d be to spot these anomalous matchmaking occurrences by data aggregates. But, then again, those aggregates are in on it.