Blizzard is literaly rigging the system

[Amarys]

If you think that is true you clearly have no idea how such systems work. Blizzard would have to actually obtain your cards as parameters taken into account during matchmaking - I assure you that is not the case.

What you said about striving to keep everyone at a 50% win ratio is true tho. Each time you win a game, you are going to get matched with players that have also won more games. This in turn will cause you to play against players that are playing highest win ratio meta decks.

Many complex algorithms were written for such gameplay systems that are used in the industry.

Well it is the case actually. It's funny really. I usually play 100% self created custom decks so when I create a new one, the algorithm doesn't know what to do with it so I get matched up with other random decks and some common meta ones at first. As I keep playing and winning, it learns the weakness of that decks (by seeing what cards are generally in the decks that beat me) and it's gonna match me up vs those more and more. Say like now I'm rank 5 diamond wild and it started matching me up vs pirate and bomb warriors and weapon oriented DHs as well as kingslayer rogues. I added anti weapon cards into my deck and started beating them so now I'm seeing around 80% secret mages.

I mean it's personal experience sure but many other players have noticed like even on this thread.. and one Youtuber even found a patent from Blizzard for exactly such a scummy system.

[LoreFreak]

If you understand data sciene you should realize that you can't possibly draw such an assumption.

As for cards being a parameter that determines your opponents during matchmaking... try to break down the logic of such system. Do you realize what they would have to do? Each card would have to be considered and you'd have to determine countless conditionals.

In theory, they could have an adjustable system in place that for example scans if you have X (lets say 15 for argument's sake) cards out of 30 of a specific meta deck and IF you do, you get matched against a different meta deck that 'counters' it as you put it but such implemented logic would cause way too many issues and would have to be adjusted. No way they are doing this. At least not how you describe it.

As you win more games in a row, you are simply getting matched with higher WR players and it is much more likley these players are playing top meta decks.

[Arazen]

Deck-based matchmaking is a thing in other card games, so it wouldn't be surprising to find it in Hearthstone as well.

[Nynax]

If you understand data sciene you should realize that you can't possibly draw such an assumption.

As for cards being a parameter that determines your opponents during matchmaking... try to break down the logic of such system. Do you realize what they would have to do? Each card would have to be considered and you'd have to determine countless conditionals.

In theory, they could have an adjustable system in place that for example scans if you have X (lets say 15 for argument's sake) cards out of 30 of a specific meta deck and IF you do, you get matched against a different meta deck that 'counters' it as you put it but such implemented logic would cause way too many issues and would have to be adjusted. No way they are doing this. At least not how you describe it.

As you win more games in a row, you are simply getting matched with higher WR players and it is much more likley these players are playing top meta decks.

So I don't play HS, but it sounds like Evolve Shaman is a top meta deck? And deenman is claiming that the moment she switches up her deck she stops getting matched with that specific top meta deck. Even if people in the meta are consistently changing, it wouldn't be a 100% 180 across all players all at once, to the point that you never see it again. At the very least there would be stragglers, making the matchups (for example) 1-in-10, then 1-in-20, then 1-in-30 until you stop seeing that meta in a natural progression. But for her to be able to consistently demonstrate "flipping a switch" by changing deck types, that is kinda suspicious.

And I'm usually one to tell people RNG is RNG when they cry about loot.

[Aleksej89]

If this was true then evolve shamans would never play against their counters?

So whoever plays evolve shaman would always have extremely high win rate?

[Nynax]

If this was true then evolve shamans would never play against their counters?

So whoever plays evolve shaman would always have extremely high win rate?

That's a good point. However, it probably means that they never play against hard counters. If the goal is a 50% win rate, and the system spots a particular deck has a hard counter to another deck type it might avoid that specific matchup in favor of a "balanced" game. So in practice, you never get to experience a game where you stomp but you also never get stomped. However if you are tired of struggling against a specific deck and make a change to try to win more often against it....then the system just doesn't let you become their stomp and gives you something else to struggle against.

[Marakara]

I doubt blizz is matchmaking different archetypes so that you'll face ones that are good against whatever deck you're playing. If you deviated from the cookie cutter build that would be kinda hard to implement.

What's more likely is that the matchmaking sets you up with players around the same dust/rare count as the deck you're playing, which is different than the one you were running before that was in the same bracket as the evolve shaman. Other card games use similar systems (MTG:Arena off the top of my head)

[deenman]

If anyone wants to do some extensive testing on this pls feel free,personaly i dont have the patience or the nerve to even try...i guess its posible this was one big coincidence,i have seen extreme mathematical outcomes in hs so who knows for sure,but i just felt really defeated and sick after the day i had with these games....again this was my experience:

7-8 ish evolve shamans in a row...

made an extremly anti evolve priest deck

had around 20 ish games with the priest deck and faced zero evolve (mind you this was in of itself extremly weird considering more than 50% of the games i run in to these days are evolve shaman as anyone im sure can atest to)

swaped to a different deck/class...and boom...evolve shaman

could be an extreme councidence,but it just felt disgusting to experience

- - - Updated - - -

I doubt blizz is matchmaking different archetypes so that you'll face ones that are good against whatever deck you're playing. If you deviated from the cookie cutter build that would be kinda hard to implement.

What's more likely is that the matchmaking sets you up with players around the same dust/rare count as the deck you're playing, which is different than the one you were running before that was in the same bracket as the evolve shaman. Other card games use similar systems (MTG:Arena off the top of my head)

i dont rly think it would be hard to do,all cards have codes,blizz has all the win rate stats,they can easily blacklist certain cards vs other cards

[Marakara]

i dont rly think it would be hard to do,all cards have codes,blizz has all the win rate stats,they can easily blacklist certain cards vs other cards

Then who would win? Why would the evolve shaman be receiving beneficial winrates whereas OP is receiving bad matchups? What happens when you're running multiple anti-counters in the same deck? I'm not saying its impossible to code, but the more simpler explanation is what I put

Further, people would be exploiting this by now by running one anti-tech of their hardest counter (which most people do anyway) and never running into their counters.

[Amarys]

The goal IS 50% win rate, because that's the goal of ANY rating system.

And it happens naturally, Blizzard doesn't NEED to rig it in some way. There's no point, everyone playing in a ranked system will gravitate toward 50% win rate because that's the point of a ranked system.

This is just people trying to come up with reasons why they're actually much better players but are being "cheated" somehow by a "50% conspiracy" that always steals their wins.

This is just false. If matchmaking was fair, good players would get to legend day one and stop playing for a month. It's actually pretty clear when you play a lot of games. If you keep winning, you'll soon just start getting chain matched against a direct counter. Like OP with hes shamans, every time I win a couple of times, it's a chain of aggro secret mages again. Oddly only happens when I play my rogue. Last month I got maybe 40% rate of mages on average when I was playing my rogue. I don't wanna exaggerate and say it was 80% but I refuse to believe that most wild players play aggro mage. That deck is garbage against popular priest and warlock decks and loses to druids too most of the time.

Then I started playing a cube warlock deck and suddenly not a single mage. Only priests and token druids. I mean it isn't that obvious at first but just try it. Get to rank 10 diamond at least.. preferably 5 or legend and just play a lot of games without switching a deck. Then start playing another deck and notice that you'll start facing a lot of counters to it and not the ones that countered your old deck any more.

This also motivates players to buy more card packs to get dust to craft cards that help with those counters.

[Amarys]

This is literally just a creation of your mind.

It doesn't even make sense, there's no reason to even do it. Your proposed reason doesn't even make sense because how would handing all your opponents wins do what you're claiming? (That is, keeping people out of high ranks. If you keep losing, you know your opponents are winning, right?) And how does the rigging system finally choose who to "allow" to rank up, and when?

Besides, even your initial claim is nonsense, because good players do rank up very quickly. You know when they stop ranking up quickly? When they get to a rank where they start consistently facing other players at their skill level. /mindBlown

So you think counter decks have anything to do with skill? In an ideal world yea, at least the meta decks should be able to beat all other meta decks when played well but that's not the case.

So my claim is that if you make a deck that beats most decks with at least 70% win chance and only loses to 2 decks that aren't very popular, how is the system gonna balance it into a 50% win rate? Like I don't care how skilled a res priest is, he isn't gonna win vs my mill rogue deck. Skill doesn't really matter here. The only way to do it just through throwing counter decks your way.

[Twoddle]

Blizzard matchmaking is corrupt in all their games not just Hearthstone.

[Rennadrel]

Why do you think I uninstalled months ago? Blizzard has not only forced the game into a pay to be competitive state unless you have a shit ton of time to farm gold, which I don't and the price of a full game for card packs is stupid as fuck.

[Lord Pebbleton]

I am not one to believe in conspiracies, but the theory has merit tbf. I also noticed a similar pattern back when I used to play constructed. I would annihilate everyone with my secret rogue, then after winning 10 matches I started getting counters only. I remember it clearly because I stopped playing constructed altogether for a long time, since I was getting frustrated that it was not fun anymore.

I think there was a similar thing with Fifa? Where your players would be slightly slower if you won too many rounds in a row or if you scored too often right off the bat. Might have been debunked tho, I barely acknowledge that Fifa exists. Imagine paying money to play virtual football

[KrayZ33]

I just don't see the problem or understand how this is "rigged" and not just the way to do it?

A ranking and rating system is supposed to remove the luck of the draw and measure your skill.
If you win a lot of games, the system is supposed to give you an enemy you start having trouble with. You are supposed to overcome that challenge. Usually, this involves measuring up against a player AND his deck, not just one part of it.

The way you guys portray it is weird however. Because the game wouldn't match you with a good player, it would only match you with a specific deck.
When you win 10 games in a row, the game tries to find a good player since it has to be a challenge so that you might lose some games to get the perfect 50% score..
At the same time however, that other player can't be on a 10 game winstreak himself AND have the correct counter-deck, because that would just give him the 11th win. Why would the system reward him but not you?

So in the end you are fighting enemies with a counter-deck that are on a losing streak and worse than you?
That means you win games until you are put up against your counter, or you lose games until you get an enemy that you counter?
And at that point you have to ask yourself... why would a system like that even be in place? Because that's just how it would've ended up like if there is no such system in place.

[Lothaeryn]

I am not one to believe in conspiracies, but the theory has merit tbf. I also noticed a similar pattern back when I used to play constructed. I would annihilate everyone with my secret rogue, then after winning 10 matches I started getting counters only. I remember it clearly because I stopped playing constructed altogether for a long time, since I was getting frustrated that it was not fun anymore.

I think there was a similar thing with Fifa? Where your players would be slightly slower if you won too many rounds in a row or if you scored too often right off the bat. Might have been debunked tho, I barely acknowledge that Fifa exists. Imagine paying money to play virtual football

There was literally a patent that Activision created for their games a few years back for a system designed to matchmake players against premium accounts to directly influence their purchasing decisions.

It worked like this:

Player A doesn't have gun x, player B, D, and F do.

Player A will never see players C and E until they either 1: Play through players B,D and F. or 2: Buy gun X from the store, which then makes them a part of the priority queue to direct counter players C and E.

Its fucking evil as shit, and honestly from what people are describing here, it sounds exactly like it.

[Eapoe]

Who knows if this is real or not? There’s definitely enough circumstantial evidence to make people suspect some sliver of truth in it.
I never got into Hearthstone, but I played Overwatch from when it started until I finally gave it up for good about 4 months ago. Judging from the matchmaking in that game I can definitely add my 2 cents that I believe in some of the match making shenanigans. After climbing so high on a win streak, I definitely would start to notice a change in ability from the players I played against and with. It seemed like suddenly I would be placed with teammates on a losing streak, or the dreaded thrower, while my opponents suddenly seemed to start playing like Masters. Then the reverse would happen, where I would lose so many and then I would get the opposite of what I described, with games where my team wouldn’t even let the enemy out of their base. Obviously I can not prove this was happening, it definitely just seemed odd that out of all the seasons I played this was a recurring theme in my games. Blizzard has even stated that they have certain ways to determine matchmaking in Overwatch, so I wouldn’t be surprised if their other games also have this.
Look at WoW. In rated BGs you start at zero rating. After your team wins 2-4 games in a row your rating is around 700 and you’re facing teams rated 1400-1800. That’s not putting you against same skilled teams players, that’s forcing you into your place.
Blizzard won’t even tell people how the system works.

It’s situations like these that give some credit to people’s theories about skewed match making and rigged systems.

[sam86]

There was literally a patent that Activision created for their games a few years back for a system designed to matchmake players against premium accounts to directly influence their purchasing decisions.

It worked like this:

Player A doesn't have gun x, player B, D, and F do.

Player A will never see players C and E until they either 1: Play through players B,D and F. or 2: Buy gun X from the store, which then makes them a part of the priority queue to direct counter players C and E.

Its fucking evil as shit, and honestly from what people are describing here, it sounds exactly like it.

stupid from me i never connected activision with blizz doing that no idea why, i know that ea do that since ages

[BeepBoo]

Games shouldn't be designed to target 50% win rates, they should be designed to give you a 50% chance of winning in every match and it should be constantly trying to pinpoint your exact skill level in order to match you against the correct players of equal skill.

Anyone can make a garbage system that feeds you faceroll victories and crushing losses. That will get you to 50/50, but it doesn't feel anywhere near the same as if you had 10 games against people who were of equal skill and you came out with 5 losses and 5 wins.

I 100% see blizzard as going the easy route to break win-streaks by recognizing counter decks and feeding you those, though.

[Ragnarohk]

While I do share some sentiments here, I doubt it's rigged. The shit show that would be unleashed if it were somehow proven to be true would sink the game to the bottom of the mariana trench. I want to believe Blizz is smarter than that.