It just means they’ve put more time into the game and that in turn does not mean they’re better or more experienced. Who knows? Maybe you’re actually better than them. One does not need to play the game for years to grasp a firm understanding of the game.
The MMR system works. If you played them, they’re at a similar skill level. If you lost, which I assume you did because of complaining about facing these ‘more experienced’ players, your MMR was adjusted lower and theirs was adjusted higher.
If you really feel like you’re being unfairly matched, just tank a bunch of games by conceding your way down to a much lower MMR. You can get the gold portrait with even a 1% win rate. It would just take a lot longer.
Wrong on both fronts actually. Higher number of games played means just that. They played more. That doesn’t mean they’re professional level players. Everyone would like to think they are, but a vast majority of players aren’t or we’d all be winning the Masters Tour.
Just as someone who has gone to school and studied their profession of choice has much better odds of landing the job than the person who worked for 20 years in an unrelated field.
This is one time I am coming down on the side of the opposition. I have played since beta, I have two gold heroes and I am thoroughly mediocre.
The gold portraits mean you have played a long time
and are no indication of skill.
Apples and oranges. Experience in a complex environment like a job makes a big difference. Experience in a simple environment like Hearthstone stops mattering after a couple hundred games, if even that much.
I think the most wins I have on a class is about 200. I still have a positive win rate against both 500 and 1000 win portraits. It does not matter. The game is fairly simple, and because of that it does not take long to figure it out.
Imagine trying to say that experience counts for nothing…
This is the level of thinking that leads to systems like this being implemented.
Someone with literally 100s of hours of practice and experience is the same as someone with maybe 2% of that experience.
So following that logic, I will say get a new job where after one month I can perform the same task as someone who has been there 5 years, I am now on the same level as that person, without exception.
When something comes up that is new to me, but something they have experienced a dozen times in that 5 years, because I can perform a task that they can perform I am to be expected to deal with this new situation without error and if I fail then it is my fault and I should penalised as though I failed that task with the 5 years experience?
Experience matters in everything where any element of choice is involved, even in an evolving discipline.
Once again, horrible, horrible logic is being used here.
Since everyone here said the same thing, I’m gonna say it just once:
Some people got golden portraits and never couldn’t leave rank 20. You can literally get a golden portrait and have the worst winrate in ranked. Also, don’t forget that arena counts towards golden portraits, meaning that you can get a golden portrait with literally zero experience in constructed games.
If you still can’t understand how mmr works, then I don’t know what can make you understand. You choose to disregard winrates (for some unknown reason), which is the basic metric for MMR systems.
No one is patronising you here, either you will understand the fundamentals of this system, or you can wait until someone else can follow this same warped train of thought and then you can stay in denial together.
Their MM system has flaws, but this one ain’t one of them. In fact, you can find similar examples in any game with MMR systems.
Your MMR adjusts based on how you do against other players. If you have a MMR of 1000 and you consistently lose to people with a MMR of 1000, your MMR will go down until you’re playing against players you can beat half the time.
So, this should be a self-correcting problem. Probably a bit rougher at the start, so give it some time.
Take me as an example: I’ve never been able to go past rank 17. As a result, I only played until rank 20 (because 20-17 doesn’t give rewards worth the frustration of losing stars). As one can imagine, fighting only 24-20 and then stopping for the rest of the month to repeat the next month etcetera meant my W/L ratio is pretty decent.
So now because of that decent W/L ratio I’m screwed because the game thinks I can compete with Legend-rank players (I got a bonus of whopping 9 stars), when I’ve never been able to go past rank 17.
I don’t know their true rank, but bonus stars are an indication of MMR. 9 bonus stars is the kind of bonus high-ranked Legend players got. Player-skill / deck quality seems to confirm this, as I’ve never seen players even close to this good with such great decks even at rank 17.
Number of games played has absolutely nothing to do with skill level. Having golden heroes just means they have been playing the game for a long time, not that they are necessarily good at it.
the way see it any casual player can be mistaken by a high ranked player if they started using top tier decks after months of playing gimmick decks like burgle rogue
with the one time rewards they added wouldnt surprise me if we had more players trying to climb right now
Only that’s hardly going to happen. As they say in the FAQ, it’s impossible to tank your MMR. I know at the moment it’s just speculation and only next month’s bonus star amount can give a good indication, but if they really made it impossible to tank your MMR it could easily take a whole year or perhaps even more before it’s finally at the proper level.
Every time you lose to someone with an MMR near yours, your MMR goes down and theirs goes up. The more games you lose, the lower your MMR goes. Just play (and lose) until you’re playing against people you can beat.