Trending Games | Wizard101 | World of Warcraft | Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn | Pirate101

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,899,534 Users Online:0
Games:751  Posts:6,268,248
Blizzard Entertainment | Play Now
TCG | Genre:Fantasy | Status:Final  (rel 03/11/14)  | Pub:Blizzard Entertainment
PVP:Yes | Distribution:Download | Retail Price:Free | Pay Type:Free | Monthly Fee:Free
System Req: PC Mac | Out of date info? Let us know!

Hearthstone: Heroes of Warcraft Forum » General Discussion » The matchmaking system ensures that you will win about half of your games--regardless of whether you pay or not

2 Pages 1 2 » Search
27 posts found
  Quizzical

Guide

Joined: 12/11/08
Posts: 13576

 
OP  3/22/14 3:45:29 PM#1

So could someone please explain to me how that constitutes "pay to win"?  Pay to get into higher ranked matches, yes.  Pay to have a slightly higher winning percentage on the way to those higher ranked matches, yes.  But pay to win?  With the difference between paying a ton of money and paying nothing amounting to a difference between winning maybe 55% and 45% of your matches if you don't play very much--and a smaller gap if you play a lot?  That's not what "pay to win" has traditionally meant?

Yes, yes, someone who pays a bunch of money and has a deck that consists mostly of rare or better cards does have a huge advantage over someone using only basic cards.  I get that.  But the ranking system ensures that they'll only infrequently play each other unless the player with vastly superior cards is quite bad at the game so as not to quickly rank up.

For what it's worth, if you assume that your win probability in each match is independent of each other, the win probability that will on average keep you at the same rank is about 45.3398%.  So you'll tend to win about that percentage of your matches in equilibrium, and more than that when below your equilibrium rank and ranking up.  That's really not all that far away from 50%.

 

  DamonVile

Hard Core Member

Joined: 11/22/05
Posts: 4909

3/22/14 3:48:35 PM#2
I find it's not a good idea to ask stupid irrational people to explain themselves. If you actually understand them...it makes you one of them.
  User Deleted
3/22/14 3:58:03 PM#3
Originally posted by DamonVile
I find it's not a good idea to ask stupid irrational people to explain themselves. If you actually understand them...it makes you one of them.

Hence why I usually have a bottle of Coca Cola handy and a bag of popcorn... when shit starts getting stupid I just sit back and enjoy... unless it is between two women in which case I may curse myself for not having packed dried mud and a inflatable swimming pool.

  thinktank001

Elite Member

Joined: 12/13/08
Posts: 1908

3/23/14 8:26:40 PM#4
Originally posted by Quizzical

Yes, yes, someone who pays a bunch of money and has a deck that consists mostly of rare or better cards does have a huge advantage over someone using only basic cards.  I get that.  But the ranking system ensures that they'll only infrequently play each other unless the player with vastly superior cards is quite bad at the game so as not to quickly rank up.

 

What good is an MMR that is based on expected wins and losses if a portion of the player base manipulates it to achieve their desired matches?

 

I think the better question is why base an MMR on wins/losses if the main reward is (gold) and has nothing to do with a players MMR?

  Quizzical

Guide

Joined: 12/11/08
Posts: 13576

 
OP  3/23/14 8:33:48 PM#5
Originally posted by thinktank001
Originally posted by Quizzical

Yes, yes, someone who pays a bunch of money and has a deck that consists mostly of rare or better cards does have a huge advantage over someone using only basic cards.  I get that.  But the ranking system ensures that they'll only infrequently play each other unless the player with vastly superior cards is quite bad at the game so as not to quickly rank up.

 

What good is an MMR that is based on expected wins and losses if a portion of the player base manipulates it to achieve their desired matches?

 

I think the better question is why base an MMR on wins/losses if the main reward is (gold) and has nothing to do with a players MMR?

And how exactly do you manipulate it except by losing games that you could have won?

  TheHavok

Apprentice Member

Joined: 7/13/04
Posts: 2429

"Free crack and everybody gets laid."

3/23/14 8:49:11 PM#6

I really don't know the mechanics behind Blizzard's matchmaking system, but I will give you the reason why I stopped playing HS: 

1) I consistently started running into people having multiple legendaries in their deck. My deck just simply wasn't as good.

2) I realized I needed to buy more decks to get better cards or craft them.

3) To get decks the 'free' way, you need to do dailies. Dailies can be fine but at the same time, a chore, especially if you are forced to play a class you don't enjoy.  Even then, you have to save up a lot to get legendaries and epic cards.

4) I realized I was logging in ONLY to do the dailies...something I didn't even WANT to do in the first place. For that reason, I stopped logging in.

At first, I had a lot of fun just playing my Warlock deck in ranked. This is what I wanted to do. But what's the point of climbing the ladder when you know you are at such a big disadvantage?  Eventually running into opponents that just had much better cards became too frustrating.  Now that the game is officially released, I might check it out again but we'll see..

  Quizzical

Guide

Joined: 12/11/08
Posts: 13576

 
OP  3/23/14 9:38:18 PM#7
Originally posted by TheHavok

But what's the point of climbing the ladder when you know you are at such a big disadvantage?

The problem is that you assume that you're supposed to climb the ladder.  That's not necessarily the case, or at least not as far as you think it is.  You're supposed to get to your equilibrium rank and then win about 45% of your subsequent games as you hover around there.  You probably win more than 45% while ascending to your equilibrium.

Yes, your equilibrium rank does depend on your cards.  The 45% figure after reaching equilibrium does not unless you're one of the top handful of players in the game.

  Wizardry

Elite Member

Joined: 8/27/04
Posts: 6829

Perhaps tomorrow will be better.

3/24/14 10:35:10 PM#8

The ranking system does NOT take into account cards only who is winning.

You can climb up the ranks with inferior cards based on good skill and knowledge.Eventually your skill will not carry you past the really good decks.The game/match system will never account for who has good decks,not until the very high ranks where obviously everyone has a solid deck or three.

Also you are missing two other points.You are looking at it only in one sense ,the one that players are matched equal,it ALSO stops you from moving into the GOAL ranks which is the upper echelon of Legendary for example.

Then there is the OTHER factor,when playing to quickly get gold to enter Arena you get there much quicker with a better deck,whilst the other players struggle and take hundreds of games to get that 150 gold.Not including bonus quests,150 gold would take 45 wins ,a poor deck that might be as i said more than a 100 games.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Napolianboo#p/u/15/rCYLLQCNc1w
Samoan Diamond

  thinktank001

Elite Member

Joined: 12/13/08
Posts: 1908

3/25/14 1:51:27 AM#9
Originally posted by Quizzical

And how exactly do you manipulate it except by losing games that you could have won?

 

Yep you got it.

 

Their current MMR is a flawed design that assumes players only motivation is winning, but the fact is the main motivation for most players will be gold accumulation.  I really wish they would open up practice mode to gold from wins and all dailies.  

 

  Axxar

Hard Core Member

Joined: 12/09/08
Posts: 2041

"See how I reward those who fail me!"

3/25/14 2:55:42 AM#10

This is why I don't mind the game is Pay to Win. As long as you don't care about having a high rank, I still find it enjoyable to play opponents even if they have better cards than me, because I still have a good chance of winning as the system generally only matches me with such opponents if they play worse than me.

"Tiny clown, he got wet. I was talking to a psychic and I can't sleep in the ozone. There are too many different peanuts, looking sad.

  sportsfan

Advanced Member

Joined: 8/20/12
Posts: 376

3/25/14 3:05:32 AM#11
Originally posted by Wizardry

The ranking system does NOT take into account cards only who is winning.

You can climb up the ranks with inferior cards based on good skill and knowledge.Eventually your skill will not carry you past the really good decks.The game/match system will never account for who has good decks,not until the very high ranks where obviously everyone has a solid deck or three.

Also you are missing two other points.You are looking at it only in one sense ,the one that players are matched equal,it ALSO stops you from moving into the GOAL ranks which is the upper echelon of Legendary for example.

Then there is the OTHER factor,when playing to quickly get gold to enter Arena you get there much quicker with a better deck,whilst the other players struggle and take hundreds of games to get that 150 gold.Not including bonus quests,150 gold would take 45 wins ,a poor deck that might be as i said more than a 100 games.

I am Always interested in what Wizardry has to say about a Blizzard game as I know from his past history he is one of those avid haters of the company.

"... whilst the other players struggle and take hundreds "(sic) of games to get that 150 Gold..." LOL

On average you gain 60 Gold per day by doing ONE daily and 6 wins. For the average player that's about 90 minutes fun card games per day.

That's 1800 Gold per month. That's 18 FREE booster packs per month.

In Magic that would set you back 70 dollars, in HS that's simply free.

I am going to near Gold cap within a few months after playing for around 6 months in beta.

That's 20.000 Gold or .. the equivalent of 200 booster packs for ... free. In that other Card game that would set me back ... 800 dollars...

 

LOL

  Vrika

Elite Member

Joined: 10/03/05
Posts: 2079

3/25/14 3:47:05 AM#12

When I play, one of the important things in game is to try to be better, and improve my skills. If I lose to someone, I want to be able to think that he was a better player, or had spent more time with the game, but that if I play more and practice I can improve, be better, and beat him one day.

But If I see that I'm already better than the player I lost to in everything that matters to me - skill and time spent in game - and that the other player won because he's better than me at using credit card. I lose my motivation to try to improve until I can beat him, because credit card usage is not something I want to excel in.

  Quizzical

Guide

Joined: 12/11/08
Posts: 13576

 
OP  3/30/14 2:02:44 PM#13
Originally posted by thinktank001
Originally posted by Quizzical

And how exactly do you manipulate it except by losing games that you could have won?

 

Yep you got it.

 

Their current MMR is a flawed design that assumes players only motivation is winning, but the fact is the main motivation for most players will be gold accumulation.  I really wish they would open up practice mode to gold from wins and all dailies.  

 

I've probably played in a little shy of 200 ranked matches.  In that time, I've seen one player immediately forfeit upon the game starting, one go AFK the entire match, and a couple leave the game.  So that's a rate of about 2% of players "throwing" matches--even if we assume that the thrown matches were intentional and not accidents such as computer trouble.

  Quizzical

Guide

Joined: 12/11/08
Posts: 13576

 
OP  3/30/14 2:09:16 PM#14
Originally posted by Wizardry

Also you are missing two other points.You are looking at it only in one sense ,the one that players are matched equal,it ALSO stops you from moving into the GOAL ranks which is the upper echelon of Legendary for example.

Then there is the OTHER factor,when playing to quickly get gold to enter Arena you get there much quicker with a better deck,whilst the other players struggle and take hundreds of games to get that 150 gold.Not including bonus quests,150 gold would take 45 wins ,a poor deck that might be as i said more than a 100 games.

Since when is being ranked highly the goal?  I thought the goal was to have fun.  The matchmaking system pushing for relatively even matches is certainly geared toward that.

----

If you have a strong deck, you get to high ranks and then win about 45% of your matches, or perhaps 50% if you can pretty consistently stay rank 5 or better.  To go over 50% consistently, you have to be one of the top handful of players in the game so that the game can't find suitable opponents for you.  If you don't have a strong deck, then you don't get to high ranks, but just win about 45% of your matches right from the start.

So maybe someone who pays a bunch makes gold from wins 10%-20% faster than someone who doesn't.  But most gold from playing ranked mode comes from dailies, not from direct wins, so the gold-making speed per match for someone who pays a ton of real-life money is probably only a single-digit advantage over someone who plays for free.

And that's ranked mode only.  If your goal is to play a lot in the arena, then you don't have any card advantage while in the arena (and hence no loot advantage), so that further diminishes the advantage of paying money.

  Solar_Prophet

Elite Member

Joined: 11/10/13
Posts: 677

WAAAGH!

3/30/14 2:18:26 PM#15

All CCGs, computerized or not, have an aspect of pay to win. In order to get better cards, you need to buy booster packs. That's simply how companies which produce them make their money; the chance at a rare and powerful card keeps people shelling out seven bucks (or however much a booster pack is these days) a pop. Hearthstone is actually one of the few which attempts to minimize this aspect by providing other ways to obtain better cards. Yes it's pay to win, but much less so than other digital / tabletop CCGs.

Of course this is Blizzard we're talking about here, so irrational hatred is to be expected.

MMORPG's are thriving. There are hundreds available today, with different settings, mechanics, and even payment models to suit anyone's gaming needs. If you can't find one to call your own, then the problem isn't the genre... it's YOU.

  Sephastus

Advanced Member

Joined: 6/15/09
Posts: 409

3/30/14 2:22:40 PM#16

Quizz, it's the same situation that happens in every game where you are only going up against other players: How do you have fun? By making someone else feel NOT fun (them loosing). Whenever there is a no-coop way to win, there will be winners and loosers, and when the difference between a winner and a looser is how much money someone put into something, it quickly looses its fun factor. If Hearthstone had a story mode, then there might be some hope for it, depending on how repeatable it is... but as it stands the only "goal" in Hearthstone as it stands, is to get more gold to get better cards. And getting gold for free can only be done by manipulating the system... loosing on purpose to go down in ranks, then winning several matches in a row (since you get bonus gold for getting more than 3 in a row).

 

As it stands, HS is a waste of time, and possibly money, if you spend anything on it.

 

  Quizzical

Guide

Joined: 12/11/08
Posts: 13576

 
OP  3/30/14 3:07:01 PM#17
Originally posted by Sephastus

Quizz, it's the same situation that happens in every game where you are only going up against other players: How do you have fun? By making someone else feel NOT fun (them loosing).

May I suggest that if you think losing about half of the time makes a game intrinsically not fun, then PVP isn't for you?

  Sephastus

Advanced Member

Joined: 6/15/09
Posts: 409

3/30/14 4:01:56 PM#18
Originally posted by Quizzical
Originally posted by Sephastus

Quizz, it's the same situation that happens in every game where you are only going up against other players: How do you have fun? By making someone else feel NOT fun (them loosing).

May I suggest that if you think losing about half of the time makes a game intrinsically not fun, then PVP isn't for you?

You have made a correct assumption. PvP is not for me. I never said it was. However, I would like to ask you, do you like loosing? Is it pleasurable to you? Or instead do you feel defeated?

 

Personally, I enjoy card games, and have spent countless hours making decks and developing strategies. When these don't work, I try others and so on. However, within Heartstone, it is not about "strategy", but more about how much gold you have been able to spend. The Legendary cards are way too out of whack, and they have been designed that way to push the players to attempt to get these. I don't blame blizzard for this, since they do need to make money, but that doesn't justify the game for me. I would rather have a physical card that I own, and gains/looses value, and of which I have full control to sell to someone else down the line. HS is just a cash dump where you own nothing, and by the next expansion, all your precious gold that you have earned/bought and changed into cards has absolutely no value...

 

Hence my prior opinion (which you can take or leave): Hearthstone is a waste of time, and/or money, if you decide to spend any.

  Quizzical

Guide

Joined: 12/11/08
Posts: 13576

 
OP  3/30/14 4:19:30 PM#19
Originally posted by Sephastus
Originally posted by Quizzical
Originally posted by Sephastus

Quizz, it's the same situation that happens in every game where you are only going up against other players: How do you have fun? By making someone else feel NOT fun (them loosing).

May I suggest that if you think losing about half of the time makes a game intrinsically not fun, then PVP isn't for you?

You have made a correct assumption. PvP is not for me. I never said it was. However, I would like to ask you, do you like loosing? Is it pleasurable to you? Or instead do you feel defeated?

If you dislike PVP, then why are you arguing that a PVP game ought to do... well... something or other differently, in which case you'd still dislike it because it's still PVP?

  Sephastus

Advanced Member

Joined: 6/15/09
Posts: 409

3/31/14 6:59:34 AM#20
Originally posted by Quizzical
Originally posted by Sephastus
Originally posted by Quizzical
Originally posted by Sephastus

Quizz, it's the same situation that happens in every game where you are only going up against other players: How do you have fun? By making someone else feel NOT fun (them loosing).

May I suggest that if you think losing about half of the time makes a game intrinsically not fun, then PVP isn't for you?

You have made a correct assumption. PvP is not for me. I never said it was. However, I would like to ask you, do you like loosing? Is it pleasurable to you? Or instead do you feel defeated?

If you dislike PVP, then why are you arguing that a PVP game ought to do... well... something or other differently, in which case you'd still dislike it because it's still PVP?

My likes or dislikes aside, my points are valid, and that is what you neglect (refuse) to acknowledge. Its the same as rejecting a doctor's suggestion only because he is not a specialist in your problem. Certain things are definitely a general knowledge situation, and many, like me, have played, and enjoy TCGs, and can see a cash dump a mile away.

2 Pages 1 2 » Search