[Hearthstone] Why Ranked Play Is Horrible
Matchmaking - Hearthstone Wiki
Obviously, such a system would improve over time and not be as reliable in the early stages of Hearthstone going live. The link to HearthstoneCast is broken right now, but this has been confirmed by Blizzard devs on twitter several times. The arena matchmaking algorithm does not look at your previous. For those who don't know how their ranked matchmaking works, it's something like this: because I don't have to worry about dealing with people that have amazing cards, but being a new player I can't really make as much gold in the arena as I payed to enter. . honestly i had the same problem you did. 26 Apr I'm starting the series of articles about the Arena. I feel like the Arena is the less known game mode and it often scares off beginners. That's why my first article is going to be more theoretical than practical. I want to explain how exactly Arena works, the drafting process, what rewards can you get and answer.
NutsBet tournament in RikuRikuRiku 38 viewers New Player! Help me achieve my Japan Dream! Gameplay Blizzard dev explains how Matchmaking works!
Exposed: Hearthstone Matchmaking Algorithms
I have difficulties understanding the thought process of some of the people complaining about this. Including some people commenting in the linked battle. Do they think the system is rigged against them personally?
Or that it's arbitrarily rigged against half of the players with the other half click for it? Or do they not realize that whenever they get a bad matchup, someone else gets a good one? Confirmation bias, availability heuristic.
It's why people think they're so unlucky in this game too, when they actually have utterly average luck. If you get a streak of bad matchups and switch decks to counter How Does Arena Matchmaking Work Hearthstone yet are hit with bad matchups again, it's likely to be very frustrating and memorable.
Much more memorable than routine games against good or average matchups. So they think that that's what always happens when it's only occasional. Winning half your games feels like losing too much. Over many games, if your win rate is p you will earn around p 3 bonus stars. This assumes your odds of winning any game is independent like flipping a coin. People like Kripp and Reynad complain about how they're generally unlucky people, but considering the thousands and thousands of games they played, the chances of them being significantly far from average luck is almost impossible.
I understand when they complain about specific instances of rng, but when Reynad or someone legitimately thinks they're unlucky at this game, it's pretty How Does Arena Matchmaking Work Hearthstone to see them being so biased. It's very clearly an act, I'm not sure how you could for one second believe that they actually think they're read more unlucky.
It makes them relatable! All of the other miserable scrubs feel closer to the celebrities of Hearthstone and therefor better about themselves. It's also called "regression to the mean" or maintaining the average.
For every hot streak, you'll have a losing streak. Good timing with your win-streak stars will make the only big difference. Different decks have different ways of manifesting this average, but generally it's some form of "I drew badly while my opponent drew well" because thats the biggest deciding factor out of your control.
It means hard mulliganing for an early drop or aoe and instead drawing clunky mid drops. It means your only hope being that your opponent doesn't have hex or aoe and they have exactly what they need. Or, y'know, all the games just come down to bucc in 1 or Reno on 6. Honestly, anybody who actually believes these things should just get a decktracker.
It's pretty good at making you realize it's all make-believe. Conspiracy theories aside, that's how matchmaking is supposed to work. It tries to find someone who is around the same skill level as you, so when you reach your true MMR skill stops mattering, because both people supposedly are equally skilled, so it comes down to matchup in theory, which rarely are super one-sided.
Are there people that think their opponents are unskilled so they get outstanding RNG as a result? This level of salt would put Kripparian to shame. That'd be so complex, they'd need to have an AI that understood what was check this out for you and bad for you in any given scenario.
Join the Conversation
Sometimes it's simple Implosion for 1 under the minions power but often it'd be very complex. The system is built in such a way that it's disadvantageous for them to do such a thing.
This is just the most confirmation bias thing I've ever heard, and I can't believe people think it's real. Anywhere past rank 15, you're playing against a pool of players that is reasonably good at the game.
Sure there are bad players peppered into lower ranks at the end of the season, but everyone seems to think that they are the only person that's good so any loss is some higher power fucking them over. I installed a decktracker just for the minor edge it'd give, even if I've been playing for a year and didn't do it until last week. The benefits were astounding though, and as someone who's a fan of stats, so were the numbers. This, coupled with replays that can show me some cards that were in their hand, allows for some very useful reflection and growth potential for when I do make a mistake article source misreading Explosive Sheep How Does Arena Matchmaking Work Hearthstone 1 damage.
I've heard versions that say that aggro decks are rigged to face counters as rarely as possible. Someone in this very thread has posited that it's designed to make you keep changing decks so you buy more cards. When people want to believe that there's something out there against them it's easy to come up with ways. It's called a persecution complex, and this defect seems to be present in practically ALL humans in one form or another to varying degrees.
People will find the lamest, most convoluted excuse to justify their failure and overall mediocrity. This way they can keep being crap because they have a justification. The "system" doesn't allow them to be successful. In games with a heavy RNG mechanic the system being "rigged" is a classic. I Have heard countless tales of "action flops" and other bullshit from losing online Poker players - people that just How Does Arena Matchmaking Work Hearthstone want to work on their game because they think they're already great players.
In other games people actually spend money on that belief. So they buy a higher MMR account and get absolutely destroyed. Even after that they still can't accept it's them and buy another account. 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 here 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 How Does Arena Matchmaking Work Hearthstone 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.
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. 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:.
When I started after Naxx a lot of people were saying that Casual had no matchmaking and paired anybody with anybody. Hearthstone content and materials are trademarks and copyrights of Blizzard and its licensors. What purpose does that serve Blizzard? But more than that the MM is just so positive. At the end of the day, I believe that stats shouldn't be the only thing which dictates whether or not a card deserves to be nerfed.
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.
I think by "same mmr" he means "approximately same mmr" not exactly the same. Though Blizzard's internal stats told them that Spreading Plague was more responsible for Jade Druid's dominance in the early KFT meta, it doesn't feel nearly as bad to lose to as Ultimate Infestation does. Welcome to Reddit, the front page of the internet. It felt much better than facing couple of legendaries in Constructed when I had none.
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. How Does Arena Matchmaking Work Hearthstone 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 here do it, people will find a way to complain. 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 link 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.