They nerfed cards to try to lower the dominant decks strength in the Meta. They are not controlling who peoples opponents are or the draws they receive in opening hands. Otherwise, the pros wouldn't consistently reach Legend, right? They would get stuck losing with terrible draws at Rank Blizzard achieves that win rate by building good balanced cards and classes. And when 1 deck starts outperforming, that's when they nerf cards. And Blizzard does change some randomness elements in the game, just like the loot crates for Diablo 3, they change the rates of rares, epics, and legendaries that people get from opening packs.
The fact that some people get 2 legendaries in a pack while others get none is just variance. I'm not using your own words against you, I'm holding you accountable for the things you said yourself. Surely not fun when it highlights your hypocracy, but that is not my fault. You can't claim in one sentence how things work and then turn around and say that you didn't claim anything, and are just doing a "technical analyzation".
You didn't analyze anything by the way, you're just throwing out unsupported superstition. You're probably not familiar with the correlation falacy post hoc ergo proter hoc , but to put it simple: Just because pack opening has a bad luck prevention mechanic, does not imply or prove that somewhere else a bad luck prevention mechanic exists.
How good are you, really?
But, assuming as I do that Blizzard is not skewing the random selection of cards or anything like that, game results should still not be truly random: Playing over a period of hours, the number of players queueing and the proportion of inexperienced players will vary over that time, which may cause the skill level of opponents to vary as well at a given rank. Players with different usual play times may have different preferences about deck choice, especially at higher ranks where players respond to what they perceive as the "meta. I get fatigued and make more mistakes, or I might have a trend toward more alert if drinking coffee or less alert if drinking wine over the course of a few hours.
Last edited by Lysenko on May 3, For anyone saying there is no MMR in Hearthstone: It's well-known that MMRs are used for legend matchmaking, and it's also obvious that an MMR must be maintained for players who are ranking up. What we don't know completely is how that MMR is used in matchmaking. The article quoted up above by Tze quotes Max McCall, one of Hearthstone's game designers, stating that MMR is used for legend matchmaking but not used for ranked vs.
Based on Blizzard's prior discussion of Battle. This is an oversimplification, because they've also indicated that if no good-enough match is available, a player may be bumped into future matchmaking cycles for a time to try to find one. My personal experience playing with awful homemade decks at the bottom of Legend suggests that at a given MMR I am consistently matched with the same sub-legend rank.
However, I was finding that at a given level in Legend I was consistently matched against, say, rank 2. It's actually a big problem at higher MMRs in Dota. It's definitely true to an extent. Actually playing at a high level is generally a series of suboptimal plays that happen to have an edge against the optimal play or the counter to the optimal ad nauseum. Just as an obvious hearthstone example, control warrior is a good choice when your opponents are playing the best decks because it has an edge versus aggro shaman and pirate warrior, but it's a bad choice when your opponents aren't playing the best decks because the other viable decks have an edge against it.
Of course in mobs and hearthstone you're still going to win a lot more than you lose at low levels when you're a high level player because you just do everything better than they do, but high level strategies still aren't the best choice at low levels. Well to be fair in team games, MOBA's especially this can be a problem. If you're playing in trash tier those fancy more effective tactics you picked from watching high elo streamers usually won't work because your teammates have no clue what you're trying to do.
The correct thing to here then would be to communicate properly and adapt your tactics. Instead most people just rage and blame the system. Doesn't mean there's not a grain of truth to it though: Top tier play emphasizes a push for the lane. Some guy watches this and tries the same thing but, unlike in top tier play where they throw down vision, this guy does it blindly and dies. You still have a strong enough effect on the game to move up. ELO hell has been proven a myth over and over again. I believe the only thing shown to have any effect is picking a core over support, and the only effect there is how quickly you move up.
ᐅ Hearthstone ladder matchmaking
Typing at wam helps when sorting out strategies during the brief pre-game in every situation. Who's going where, teaming with who, what we should watch for, etc. Even just those simple details tends to make team-based experiences infinitely better. There is a little bit of that problem in HS at times, where you're focusing on playing against the meta and reading snapshots, but then never coming up against what you've perceived the meta to be, and seeing a different meta, but you still should be able to rise above that assuming you're not trying to counter freeze mages in a meta that's bad for control warriors.
I don't think I've seen anyone make a case against the casual system, it's the ladder system people bitch about the most. Yeah, I think casual is fine.
- lithuanian dating site free.
- catchy subject lines for dating sites!
- Why is the MMR so fake? Matchmaking is rigged!?
The problem is the fact that non-legend ranked games go exclusively by rank and not MMR. In particular, it's a combination of 3 different factors:. The combination of 1 and 3 is what results in ladder being awful for the first half of the month if you're not a legend-tier player, because all the players who are good enough to be legend are now much lower rank. The combination of 1 and 3 is terrible because it results in the awful "new player experience" that a lot of people talk about where even rank 20 is filled with netdecks.
If ladder used MMR instead of just rank, matchmaking would be fine. People talk about the new player experience being awful and I think it often is in ranked, but it's actually pretty fine in casual. I've introduced some people to the game recently and watched them play their clunky, home-made, mostly-F2P decks in casual decks and get matched against other decks of similar quality pretty consistently with barely a netdeck in sight.
It's only a problem when you play ranked,. People have complained about casual, but that's because Blizzard hadn't explained how casual matchmaking works before. The complaint had been that casual is terrible for new players when an experienced players jumps there once in a blue moon to try something fancy, and only faces meta decks. Clearly that's a false assumption if it uses MMR, but since that was never apparent it was an easy mistake to make. This is my beef personally.
It wouldn't be as big a deal if ranks weren't flushed down the toilet once a month, but this all but guarantees you're going to meet with all the people dumped out of legend for the first week or so as the grind begins anew. Doesn't matter how you do it, people will find a way to complain.
Top players say climbing the ladder has become demotivating, if not outright impossible.
That pretty much sums up video game development. My only complain about the current matchmaking process is that it does not have a way to take into account either collection size or time played. Currently, it would match a brand new rank 20 player with a rank 20 beta player with most of the collection who is just hovering that rank to farm wins. But on average for every time a person loses to a rank 20 hoverer they're going to get an insta-concede to a rank 20 hoverer. While that isn't good for fun, it has no effect on your ladder progression.
Sure, I can see that. I didn't really mean the complaints about the matchmaking in general, just the ones claiming it to be rigged. I'd ignore collection size and time played and focus more on "Wins with the specific class you're currently using" and possibly "Level of the specific class you're current using" which is a readily available stat.
It seems to me that a better system would be to have deck-specific values. Whenever you create a new deck, that deck starts with your general score, but gets updated as you play. That way, you could be fairly matched with your stronger and your weaker decks.
This is a scenario I had 2 days ago I meet 9 pirate deck when I played shaman. Soon as I switch to my control warrior I meet 4 control decks in row, two jade druids one Reno mage and one murloc paladin. I switch back to shaman, aggro shaman is the first.
- online dating and valentines day.
- What the hell is going on with Hearthstone's matchmaking? | PC Gamer.
- Blizzard dev explains how Matchmaking works ! : hearthstone;
How is it rigged? Did certain cards trigger it?
Does the system read your deck as a whole and try and pit you against poor matchups? And if it's pitting you against poor matchups, what of the other people? They're getting great match ups, apparently. Are they getting them all the time in the opposite way the supposedly persecuted people get all bad runs? Again, what is the point? The belief is Blizzard tries to give you bad matchups to force you sto switch decks which requires getting more cards.
Of course how they give everyone a bad matchup is beyond me.