50% Winrate

Play Mode Discussion
I see this mentioned a lot on the forum and have some suspicions about it myself, but is it a proven fact or just one of those things people surmise, then refer to as if it's fact?

To clarify, I mean games being arranged so that the average player maintains a winrate of ~50%.

UPDATED

Thanks all. The question has been answered. No, this is not a proven fact, just a conspiracy theory with little apparent basis. Just because something is repeated ad nauseum does not mean it's true. Who knew?
02/04/2019 06:46 AMPosted by Streak
I see this mentioned a lot on the forum and have some suspicions about it myself, but is it a proven fact or just one of those things people surmise, then refer to as if it's fact?

To clarify, I mean games being arranged so that the average player maintains a winrate of ~50%.


Not true. It would be impossible to reach legend if it were, and thousands of people do every month.

Decks tend to average out closer to a 50% win rate overall, as the meta tends to adapt to them and pull them back down. It isn't blizzards doing (unless a nerf happens, but those are obvious moves).

Nothing is going on behind the scenes to keep you down. It is relatively easy to go on large win streaks with decks that are tuned for the meta. You see it happen pretty often at high legend, where a new deck archetype shows up and flys to 1st place, then is adapted to and goes back to a more reasonable win rate.

Every instance of people claiming this is just anecdotal. There has never been any evidence of matchmaking/card draw RNG being manipulated by the game to maintain a certain win rate.
It's a conspiracy theory, nothing more.

The fact is that any and every matchmaking system aims to put people at a roughly 50% when they've reached their skill cap simply by nature of them going up against opponents with the same level of performance as them. Obviously you have RNG, decks with good/bad matchups that will affect this, but the idea remains the same.

The game doesn't "feed" wins and losses to players to even out their winrate.
02/04/2019 06:46 AMPosted by Streak
I see this mentioned a lot on the forum and have some suspicions about it myself, but is it a proven fact or just one of those things people surmise, then refer to as if it's fact?

To clarify, I mean games being arranged so that the average player maintains a winrate of ~50%.


I choose a slightly contrary answer for you.
Let your game data tell you if it is true or not.
However, your data collection should be of adequate sample size and range, and with correct interpretation.
A number of people have made claims about forced winrates on the ladder, but rarely back it up with anything except anecdotal evidence and a reference to a patent from a few years back that supposedly (but in reality does not) includes the technology needed to rig games. Your games aren't being rigged so rest easy :P.
OK, I figured it was more theory than fact. Thanks.
02/04/2019 07:08 AMPosted by Reaver
02/04/2019 06:46 AMPosted by Streak
I see this mentioned a lot on the forum and have some suspicions about it myself, but is it a proven fact or just one of those things people surmise, then refer to as if it's fact?

To clarify, I mean games being arranged so that the average player maintains a winrate of ~50%.


I choose a slightly contrary answer for you.
Let your game data tell you if it is true or not.
However, your data collection should be of adequate sample size and range, and with correct interpretation.


I've actually done that, on a small scale. Tracked my wins/losses over the course of 100 games.

The winrate was around 50%, which seemed normal. The only thing that piqued my curiosity was that there were a lot of alternating streaks of wins and losses, each consisting of 5-7 games.

The pattern of streaks made me wonder about a forced winrate, but there are other valid, and more likely explanations.The one I consider most likely:

The win streaks come early in the day, when I am sharper and the less experienced players are on. The loss streaks come later in the day, when I am less focused and the better players are logged in.

Although I didn't specifically track the times of play, that would explain the alternating streaks since my play schedule does go morning/night/morning/night.
02/04/2019 07:08 AMPosted by Reaver
...

I choose a slightly contrary answer for you.
Let your game data tell you if it is true or not.
However, your data collection should be of adequate sample size and range, and with correct interpretation.


I've actually done that, on a small scale. Tracked my wins/losses over the course of 100 games.

The winrate was around 50%, which seemed normal. The only thing that piqued my curiosity was that there were a lot of alternating streaks of wins and losses, each consisting of 5-7 games.

The pattern of streaks made me wonder about a forced winrate, but there are other valid, and more likely explanations.The one I consider most likely:

The win streaks come early in the day, when I am sharper and the less experienced players are on. The loss streaks come later in the day, when I am less focused and the better players are logged in.

Although I didn't specifically track the times of play, that would explain the alternating streaks since my play schedule does go morning/night/morning/night.


Thus, the data does reveal the answer you seek.
However, the whole data collecting/interpretation process is tedious and complex.

As you indicate from your example that from the data, you say that things seems normal. It is the same case for me. Currently at 48% WR but had achieved my desired ladder rank for the month. I had strings of 5-8 wins and losses in-between 3 decks that I uses.

If collectively more players shares their game data, then the final conclusion on the topic can be more clearer.
The thing that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is a confirmaton bias thing and not actual rigged mmr is that any time this thread is made, the one who makes the assertion is sometims stuck at rank 15, other times at 10 , other times in 5 etc.

That simply means that these people meet their skill ceiling and then interpret the 50% winrate that is naturally "forced" as rigged matchmaking.Meanwhile there are people that never get hardstuck at ranks 15 , 10 and sail through these ranks.

The above is not consistent with rigged mmr and is consistent with a normal elo mmr system.
02/04/2019 06:46 AMPosted by Streak
I see this mentioned a lot on the forum and have some suspicions about it myself, but is it a proven fact or just one of those things people surmise, then refer to as if it's fact?

To clarify, I mean games being arranged so that the average player maintains a winrate of ~50%.


Most of Blizzard's games use an MMR that tries to have everyone, cumulatively at a 50/50 win rate. This should not suggest that games are rigged or that individuals cannot achieve higher win rates.

In Ranked, a player is matched against a player at or near their rank.

Casual uses an MMR with a goal to match players of similar skill. The game will not force a player to lose. If a player keeps winning, then they will begin to be matched up against stronger players. If a player keeps losing, then they will begin to be matched up with easier opponents. Eventually, there is a balance. There is nothing stopping a player from winning way more than 50% of their games.

Arena, a player is matched against opponents by wins/losses.
...the one who makes the assertion...

Except that this thread does not make the assertion. It simply asks whether there is proof of this or just something people say on the forum.
02/04/2019 08:54 AMPosted by Streak
...the one who makes the assertion...

Except that this thread does not make the assertion. It simply asks whether there is proof of this or just something people say on the forum.


It’s something people say, and they’re wrong.

The point of matchmaking is to give fair matches. That means if you don’t change in skill level, you will be facing similarly-skilled opponents after while. Once you’re there, you’ll end up winning about half your games. That’s how matchmaking works, and the whole point.

What it doesn’t do is decide you’ve won too much, and make you lose. That’s a conspiracy theory aimed at re-fluffing the ego of people who can’t accept that their current skill level is lower than what they think it should be, so there must be some outside agent denying their rightful place among the stars. It’s total bunk, plenty of people climb the ladder. They tend to spend more time working on improving their play than whining about losing, though.
02/04/2019 08:54 AMPosted by Streak
Except that this thread does not make the assertion. It simply asks whether there is proof of this or just something people say on the forum.


Yeah, and the people who say this on the forum make the assertion, not this particular post, i refer to this part

02/04/2019 06:46 AMPosted by Streak
I see this mentioned a lot on the forum
if you are curious open your HS data on your computer, you will see
you don't host the totality of files.

When you search how files you host and how files you don't have on your data, you didn't see this topic with the same eye probably.
And if you are more curious DL unity and apply on the soft some strange HS files, you can bet with some true/false value for get equivalent missed files and you probably laugh yellow
When you play someone of same skill level of course it will come down to card draw, deck matchups etc.

A lot of HS tournaments are won on who has the best lineup bs opponents lineups, card draw etc.

People that complain about forced winrate have issues believing that they are playing against someone of the same skill level and constantly blame rng.

It is never their fault that they lose. The system is just against them and then alone!

;)
Nope, sorry...wrong...50% win rate? not here...I know I'm lousy at this game, have been since beta...
I think it will be very hard to prove that players maintain a 50% win rate. There are just too many variables: match making, skill level, mulligan, RNG, etc, etc.
I never lose a game ... .

On topic: What do you mean by arranged? On casual you get matched against stronger opponents if you win. If that's arranging than yes.
Anybody can score better than chance at coin flipping if they're allowed to throw away experiments that come out poorly.
Lets be adults for a brief moment. Any individual, even a novice at the game with average intelligence and foresight can see that the win rate is skewed towards 50%. There are games in which you will not win. period. And if the draws were random, you should always have at least a slim chance of winning. The draws make it as such. 10 wins and 10 losses are common streaks in the current meta. Certain games could be plaid by the top 100 players in the world working as one brain and there is no win condition. Moreover.. ah sorry i lost my train of thought for a moment.. just lost to a deathrattle malygos rogue who completed his combo at 9 mana with 21 cards left in the deck. (im currently on a 5 game win streak with this deck, soon to be 5-5 to be sure) Like i was saying ,certain games are unwinable, the draw is prefabricated and the AI matchmaking system actually changes the losing or winning condition of whoever is favored to counteract skill. Case and point: I was playing the old shudderwock version a while back vs a control warlock. it was an aggro version i made so it was minion based. gnomeferatu plaid at 2. When he lost the minion battle due to lack of skill on his end, second copy of gnomeferatu given before i drew my last card, which was Shudderwock, so it was burnt. The system not only influences winnings and losses, it also gives the opponent the winning condition (assuming you are marked for a loss and thus skewed towards 50%) at the correct time as often as possible such that even if you are more skilled than the opponent, the draw is straight forward and idiot proof. IRREFUTABLE PROOF: THE SYSTEM ALSO CHANGES YOUR OPPONENT'S DECKS THAT YOU GET MATCHED UP AGAINST IN AN AI MANNER IF YOU WIN TOO MANY GAMES IN ORDER TO NEGATE YOUR SKILL LEVEL. CASE AND POINT: I play Big priest very well and i kept on getting matched up with unfavored aggro decks. Still, i won over 10 games consecutively. AI matchmaking system kicks in, suddenly every deck i face is no longer aggro but rather is a combo deck and literally every single card required for their combo is drawn sequentially without missing a beat. ZERO PERCENTILE CHANCE OF WINNING ALL OF THE SUDDEN. WHAT SKILL ARE WE REFERRING TO? WHERE'S THE SKILL INVOLVED? If you just observe some of the draws as a player, it is irrefutable. full board of small minions vs drawing defile or hellfire, mountain giant into hunter's mark or polymorth draw, etc. The list goes on and on. Not always, but more often than mathematically acceptable, the board swing draws are too often and too drastic to be random. My final point is: Can certain matchups be swayed with skill? Yes. However, certain games are unwinable. And they are preordained to be that way when you click the play button. period. By any amount of combined brainpower, pro or otherwise. And besides, think about it from a monetary standpoint. What reason would blizzard have to not skew games towards 50%? If all current acceptably active players constantly increased their skill as one should by playing more and more, what need is there to buy card packs and craft new decks? if everyone eventually reached legend and had a solid 3 or 4 deck list to play with without a star penalty, why spend 69.99$ to maybe get 2500 essence on a bad day to potentially craft another legendary and a half? Of course it's skewed towards 50% folks. It is a capricious matchmaking system. This is a reply and not a complaint by the way. If i was in charge at blizzard i'd make it the same way. After all, it is a business, and profits must be maximized. LoL. Common sense... nothing more nor less.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum