Is that you if you get a Highlander card you can get forced duplicates and botch the whole thing. It deserves to have a hardcoded protection against it because it’s not an advantage over other decks to give that protection (assuming it wouldn’t botch completely) because when you build a Highlander deck you are forced to get some mediocre cards anyway in order to not get duplicates so just give at least one of the three be always unique even if it’s bad.
If cards in general not even belong in arena in my opnion.
They are design with constructed decks in mind and in theory should provide deckbuilding Challenges.
A better solution is simply exclude those cards from arena picks. They really make no Sense there.
2 Likes
I don’t even know, with wich one of you two I agree more. I do see it as a problem to be forced duplicates after getting a highlander. (It happened to me once with Dragonqueen Alexstrasza. Having a high cost vanilla is always bad, even in arena.) I don’t care how they fix it. Excluding them would be fine. Not forcing duplicates would also be fine.
1 Like
I assumed the objective of the Arena changes was to stop the incredibly high roll decks but it seems now that the mode is just modified Wild Constructed since that’s the only decks i see now. I mean it’s pretty disgusting seeing the Wild mage deck in Arena and it’s a better version because they have 3-6 copies of the broken cards in the deck now.
1 Like
There is hard coded protection for it. Just pick one of the other 2 Legendaries and don’t force yourself into hoping you never hit dupes in the other 29 picks.
2 Likes
As I said the risk of botching it (and hence forcing your hand towards your suggestion) is not deserving it, because it’s already a handicap to get bad cards in order to not duplicate them.
Someone told me “but some highlander cards are too good” which isn’t enough because some classes like Hunter are just bad even with highlander cards.
For players on their first few Arena runs, matchmaking is intentionally altered to provide an easier transition into the game mode. For matchmaking purposes, the player’s win/loss ratio is considered to have one more loss than it actually does, thus matching them against what should on average be easier opponents. The system will also prefer to match such players against each other.
The exact number of games required to be eligible for this adjustment is something that the devs are still “tweaking a little”, but as of April 2016 is “in the realm of 2 or 3 runs”.
Source: hearthstone wiki
1 Like
It’s possible that this works the same for returning players (or people who haven’t played the arena whole season or more), but it’s also possible you’re just biased
For example, it’s perfectly expected that, the more you play, the more you get matched with similarily “buffed up”, solid players/accounts, because those are the most likely to be:
a) playing as long as you are, and
b) better arena players in overall, thus contributing to the “rigged” bias.
It’s all about perspective, and assuming something is “rigged”, should be your last course of action, especially when it comes to systems which admit to the rigging of some sorts and provide detailed explanations as to how and why.
Does it make sense that the more transparent a company is that the more skeptical people are of it? I mean, perhaps…but as I said, your locus of control should be much more internal than it currently is, and accusing a system for rigging should be your last course of action, if your long-term goal is your own prosperity.
Everything else means you’re just limiting your own progress with biases made to ease the burden of psychological pain (edit: actually, that’s not why the biases are made and co-evolved with us; it’s because in certain situations they ARE the faster, and more efficient way to arrive to a correct conclusion, but wisdom and knowledge come from differentiating between when that is, and when that is NOT the case. It is most certainly NOT a part of progress using biases to protect your own ego from the pain of failure. Failure is good for progress, ego defenses are not).
I didn’t say it’s the worst but the dumbest, because it’s so easy to fix and it’s too blatant that Highlander cards are already handicapped on their own anyway (especially in badly tuned classes like Hunter).
If you want the worst part: I believe the entire drafting process is extremely random and chaotic and I’d prefer a semi-drafted format close to old Duels but even more deterministic (with bigger synergies).
Why use “always” in the same sentence as “statistical”, let alone so close to each other? There is nothing inherently “statistical” about “always”. Always means 100%, and that’s not statistics.
Statistics mean averages, standard deviations, variance…
From my perspective, if you bother to look at it that way, it’s quite sad how blatantly nonsensical your arguments are simply based on such sentence constructions, let alone when the content of those constructions is taken into account.
Please don’t make me sad.
EDIT: For those who just can’t force themselves to use what is inherently present in all of us, and that is logic, it’s impossible that the effect of paying leads to 100% of wins, because when caught on, it would lead to everyone paying and everyone winning, which is paradoxical, because there can only be one winner.