Yeah cool, those statements can also be proven by the method I posted.
No it cannot because matchmaking rigging is inividual i hope you can understand what it means unlike the other poster who couldnt understand this basic thing
Ah so other aggro players face kazakusan at normal meta rates?
If you play kazakusan druid majority of your opponents will consist of other kazakusan druids because thats the best counter the game can find you due to lack of mozaki mage players
Yeah so you can use the method I posted to prove that, because it looks at say kaza druid, and shows you what matchups you get compared to the average player.
You cannot because the matchmaking algorithm is inividual it depends if you won or lost last games and also on your recent win rates
So if you play kazakusan druid and lose you wonât get matched against kaza druid?
Yes thats typically what the game does if you play kazakusan druid and lets say face 2 kazakusan druids in row and lose the games it will give you something else till you get like 1 win and then its back to druids or mozaki mages etc, if you go back and forth you usally just face more druids overall
So in effect, all classes end up pretty much facing the same mix of decks because it gets smoothed out by the algorithm? So the data doesnât pick it up?
The data cant pick it up because its inividual but like i said in my earlier posts you can test it yourself with the examples i provided
Right so itâs basically indistinguishable from, say a system that matched based on rank and MMR.
That is indeed sinister.
1 Like
It would because (these will be figurative numbers)
Say an average result for classes in the meta was the following:
18% druid
11% hunter
10% paladin
11% shaman
7% demon hunter
9% rogue
12% warrior
8% warlock
9% mage
5% priest
When you cue into a match the spread could actually be
35% druid
10% hunter
5% paladin
6% shaman
8% demon hunter
8% rogue
7% warrior
3% warlock
10% mage
8% priest
And
1% druid
12% hunter
15% paladin
16% shaman
6% demon hunter
10% rogue
17% warrior
13% warlock
8% mage
2% priest
As you can see every percent averages the total percent for the meta, but when you cue into a match it is drastically different and data sites collect way more data averages than just 2 random samplings.
The hypothesis is that the games in the historical data set were rigged, with matchups influenced by the class or deck being played.
Therefore there will be variance between the average meta, and the decks faced by individual classes.
Both data sets being compared are in the historical data set.
If you want to compare what youâre queueing into right now, wait a couple of weeks and that too will be in the dataset.
1 Like
Is this an April foolâs joke?
You seriously canât be this challenged.
It doesnât matter if it is individual or not because what you are describing would affect all players equally over time and therefore show in data trends over time for each deck. If the deck gets âcounterâ then it will look suspicious in exactly the way that Elchar asked you to look at.
Youâre so wrong it makes my head hurt. If you have a degree from a university, you should ask for a refund.
I am not saying the game is or isnât rigged, but what you describe is laughable.
2 Likes
No, itâs inividual
It actually reminds me of that pre marvel madness superhero film where one guy has the ability to be invisible but only if no-one is looking.
1 Like
You can have the same results when you test it yourself, but youre obviously not doing it because you know im right so you just keep typing instead
I tested and even if I only use a mirror I reappear immediately.
2 Likes
AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
No.
I track all my games. Youâre wrong. It doesnât happen. I donât see âcountersâ I see a meta that has more of some decks and less of others.
Idk what sort of bronze meme land you live in, but my ladder is nothing like what you describe.
2 Likes
Yeah thats why i face 5 control warriors in row playing zoo warlock, youre just ignorant and lying
When you play a tier D bad deck, you have like 90% chance to face a counter. Your experiment is irrelevant.