Hearthstone
MMR- Matching by skill or by winrate?
I just climbed with a murloc deck from Platin 9 to Diamond 10 and encountered several Demon Hunters who just played badly. About two-thirds of them didn't read the card texts, and cleared Murloc Warleaders or Grimscale Oracles last, after taking unnecessary amounts of damage and losing minions to the extra +2 or +1 attack. One even played [Hearthstone Card (Warglaives of Azzinoth) Not Found] and cleared 4 murlocs, the Murloc Warleader last!
This made me wondering, how the Match making is done. Is the upper end of Platin still very low skilllevel, or is skilllevel just an euphemism for winrate? So instead of some weigthening algorithm, that evaluates how the player compares against decks of the same strength, MMR is just done by deck strength alone? Does anyone know more about the new MMR, and how strong decks play a role in this?
Leave a Comment
You must be signed in to leave a comment. Sign in here.
I just climbed with a murloc deck from Platin 9 to Diamond 10 and encountered several Demon Hunters who just played badly. About two-thirds of them didn't read the card texts, and cleared Murloc Warleaders or Grimscale Oracles last, after taking unnecessary amounts of damage and losing minions to the extra +2 or +1 attack. One even played [Hearthstone Card (Warglaives of Azzinoth) Not Found] and cleared 4 murlocs, the Murloc Warleader last!
This made me wondering, how the Match making is done. Is the upper end of Platin still very low skilllevel, or is skilllevel just an euphemism for winrate? So instead of some weigthening algorithm, that evaluates how the player compares against decks of the same strength, MMR is just done by deck strength alone? Does anyone know more about the new MMR, and how strong decks play a role in this?
It is mostly based on winrate alone. If the deck is too good that you can pilot it with no thought, then the skill level gets lower.
Lemushki - The one and only since the 2006 rebranding.
How would you measure skill objectively?
By comparing your winrate against the winrate overall of the deck you're piloting. For at least all the people that play meta decks, there is a lot of data to compare against. And if you really play a deck that is different to all metadecks by like 4 or more cards (just spitballing here) then by winrate alone.
This.
Measuring skill is bound to too many variables, as in, how do you define a list within an archetype? Error margin would be too high.
More likely, the people you encountered had a good MMR simply because they were playing DH, and getting good winrates despite poor skills or low attention...
We simply don't know how the mmr gets calculated and that's a good thing. Otherwise some players would exploit it to win more games.
You can't measure skill though.
As others have noted, there is no reliable way to measure skill. But I've noticed the same thing as you, specifically with Demon Hunters. Here's my theory: new players with very small collections can access far more cards for Demon Hunter than they can for other classes, and newer players are more likely to make those clumsy mistakes. I'm certainly not trying to be insulting, and I've obviously made my share of dumb moves, even after having played for years. It makes sense, however, that many inexperienced players have been climbing quickly with DH, because of how OP so many of the cards are, even after 2 rounds of nerfs.
"Be excellent to each other." -Bill and Ted
I know I'm late to the discussion but here's my take based on my experience with MMR in other games where it's a bit more transparent and my Hearthstone play experience.
I'm fairly certain that MMR is calculated using your WR vs the WR of you opponents over a number of games with a modifier for your ranking (both highest in previous season and current). I don't think it takes into account the type of deck you are playing at all.
This method of calculating MMR (WR vs opponents WR modified by ranking) ensures your MMR has a floor cap (because of the ranking modifier) and fairly accurately pits you against players of similar skill levels. However I generally find that in the lower rankings I am playing less skilled players which only propels me into the higher ranking with higher skilled opponents faster. All things considered I think its about as fair as a system can be in this type of game.
Do you have any evidence you can cite for this claim? I've never seen anything from Blizzard that suggests this, nor have I seen anyone else online claim that it's true.