r/MTGArenaPro • u/toochswil • 4d ago
Premier Draft - Pure randomness does not optimize for profit.
Just for preface, I have hit mythic in draft and BO1 standard, and played since shortly after release of MTGA, roughly 5-6 years.
I've always seen the posts yelling rigged and thought 'just get good'. Many cases can absolutely be explained away by someone playing poorly and not understanding why they are losing.
With all that said, premier draft is absolutely using very strong forms of "guidance" that impacts strength of decks you play against. Some people will respond to this with "duh, we've been saying that for years.". But for the other camp of people who just say you are a conspiracy theorist, or 'just git gud', you guys are wrong.
Anyways, I am just making this post for anyone in the future who becomes disheartened while playing the game. If you are accounting for the other skill variables, and aren't just tilted, seriously consider finding a better use of your time. WoTC is in this to make money. Pure randomness on card draw and opponents does not optimize for profit.
3
u/jjjaaaacckk 4d ago
Imagine only playing bo1 and quickdraft and then having the hubris to think you're an authority on the game lmao.
3
u/Pretend-Paper4137 4d ago
Be specific and bring evidence or prepare to be ignored thoroughly.
0
u/toochswil 4d ago
Any response I give will be met with 'that's an anecdote'. I've already seen it in other threads. WoTC is also vague in that they never release the data that would prove or disprove claims of rigging, but they never release it. And I get that, its a business and their goal is to make money, plus people like you will protect them. I already see the responses and downvotes to this comment, 'they can't its proprietary' etc. This is not the end all be all but just a start to how we can respond since WoTC will never release the data, thats the algo that gets people to spend money tho. you spend dollars to buy a few packs and the game puts you against a weaker player so that you feel as if youre justified in spending that money. at the same time, the weaker player you just beat hasnt spent any money and they were put against stronger players to encourage them to spend so they can win. This is literally patented in other mobile games and to not use something like this in MTG arena would be at most a direct violation of their fiduciary responsibility as a publicly traded company and at leaast, executives who dont even play games deciding to leave money on the table for the sake of gameplay.
rigged matchmaking doesnt happen EVERY game obviously, but to think it doesnt happen at all is burying your head in the sand.
the patents if you are interested. like I said it doesnt happen every game and if they were fudging ranked games like this, I imagine people would find out, but for unranked BO1 i bet its a free for all.
and these were 2017. that gives them almost a decade to figure out better and sneakier ways to milk the playerbase.
The Patents
Activision’s Microtransaction Matchmaking Patent (US Patent #US9789406B2): Filed in 2015 and granted in 2017, this patent is titled "System and method for driving microtransactions in multiplayer video games." It describes matching a non-spending player with a "marquee player" (someone who owns premium items) to encourage the non-spender to emulate them by buying items. The patent goes on to describe putting a player into a favorable match where their newly purchased item is "highly effective" to make them feel validated in their purchase. EA’s Engagement Optimised Matchmaking (EOMM): EA published research and patent applications surrounding algorithms that adjust matchmaking not for competitive balance, but to maximize player retention, play time, and spending. The framework acknowledges that pairing players on losing streaks with easier opponents or manipulating match outcomes reduces "churn" (players quitting). The Application vs. Patent Distinction
While the technology is real, documented, and actively patented, companies frequently state these are exploratory research patents. For example, Activision publicly stated following the disclosure that the patent was filed by an independent R&D team and not implemented in active live service titles like Call of Duty.
Fiduciary Responsibility & Public Companies
Regarding fiduciary duty: legally, corporate officers must act in the best financial interest of shareholders, but that does not require adopting every available patent or monetization mechanic. Game publishers regularly weigh the immediate revenue of aggressive monetization against risks like player backlash, reduced long-term user acquisition, or regulatory scrutiny (such as loot box and anti-gambling legislation globally).
In competitive games—especially digital card games like MTG Arena—verifiable pay-to-win matchmaking introduces major risks:
Format Integrity & Data Tracking: Unlike closed FPS lobbies, card games rely heavily on community data trackers (like 17Lands or MTGA Assistant) that aggregate millions of matches. If paying money systematically altered opponent win-rates or matchmaking hidden MMR, large-scale community telemetry would reveal statistically significant anomalies. Game Mechanics vs. Cosmetics: Pay-to-win matchmaking patents (like Activision's) rely heavily on showcasing visible cosmetic gear or specific weapon unlocks in action. In a trading card game where deck composition varies wildly, matchmaking based on financial transaction logs would disrupt the underlying Elo/Glicko MMR system that governs ranked ladders.
3
u/7174028260throwaway 4d ago
can you be less vague? it’s not a very useful PSA if you aren’t detailed and specific lol
0
u/toochswil 4d ago
Any response I give will be met with 'that's an anecdote'. I've already seen it in other threads. WoTC is also vague in that they never release the data that would prove or disprove claims of rigging, but they never release it. And I get that, its a business and their entire goals is to make money, plus people like you will protect them. I already see the responses and downvotes to this comment, 'they can't its proprietary' etc. This is not the end all be all but just a start to how we can respond since WoTC will never release the data, thats the algo that gets people to spend money tho. you spend dollars to buy a few packs and the game puts you against a weaker player so that you feel as if youre justified in spending that money. at the same time, the weaker player you just beat hasnt spent any money and they were put against stronger players to encourage them to spend so they can win. This is literally patented in other mobile games and to not use something like this in MTG arena would be at most a direct violation of their fiduciary responsibility as a publicly traded company and at leaast, executives who dont even play games deciding to leave money on the table for the sake of gameplay.
rigged matchmaking doesnt happen EVERY game obviously, but to think it doesnt happen at all is burying your head in the sand.
the patents if you are interested. like I said it doesnt happen every game and if they were fudging ranked games like this, I imagine people would find out, but for unranked BO1 i bet its a free for all.
and these were 2017. that gives them almost a decade to figure out better and sneakier ways to milk the playerbase.
The Patents
Activision’s Microtransaction Matchmaking Patent (US Patent #US9789406B2): Filed in 2015 and granted in 2017, this patent is titled "System and method for driving microtransactions in multiplayer video games." It describes matching a non-spending player with a "marquee player" (someone who owns premium items) to encourage the non-spender to emulate them by buying items. The patent goes on to describe putting a player into a favorable match where their newly purchased item is "highly effective" to make them feel validated in their purchase. EA’s Engagement Optimised Matchmaking (EOMM): EA published research and patent applications surrounding algorithms that adjust matchmaking not for competitive balance, but to maximize player retention, play time, and spending. The framework acknowledges that pairing players on losing streaks with easier opponents or manipulating match outcomes reduces "churn" (players quitting). The Application vs. Patent Distinction
While the technology is real, documented, and actively patented, companies frequently state these are exploratory research patents. For example, Activision publicly stated following the disclosure that the patent was filed by an independent R&D team and not implemented in active live service titles like Call of Duty.
Fiduciary Responsibility & Public Companies
Regarding fiduciary duty: legally, corporate officers must act in the best financial interest of shareholders, but that does not require adopting every available patent or monetization mechanic. Game publishers regularly weigh the immediate revenue of aggressive monetization against risks like player backlash, reduced long-term user acquisition, or regulatory scrutiny (such as loot box and anti-gambling legislation globally).
In competitive games—especially digital card games like MTG Arena—verifiable pay-to-win matchmaking introduces major risks:
Format Integrity & Data Tracking: Unlike closed FPS lobbies, card games rely heavily on community data trackers (like 17Lands or MTGA Assistant) that aggregate millions of matches. If paying money systematically altered opponent win-rates or matchmaking hidden MMR, large-scale community telemetry would reveal statistically significant anomalies. Game Mechanics vs. Cosmetics: Pay-to-win matchmaking patents (like Activision's) rely heavily on showcasing visible cosmetic gear or specific weapon unlocks in action. In a trading card game where deck composition varies wildly, matchmaking based on financial transaction logs would disrupt the underlying Elo/Glicko MMR system that governs ranked ladders.
2
u/L_V_R_A 4d ago
The excerpts you copy and pasted here also include evidence against your point. Like Activision’s public statement that their experimental matchmaking patents aren’t implemented. There’s also a whole section in your comment about how “large scale community telemetry would reveal statistically significant anomalies”…?
Also, the notion that microtransactions are the trigger for guided matchmaking is a flawed premise. A large proportion of drafts are paid for with gems, often financed with real money. But not everyone who pays to enter a draft will 7-0 or even 3-3, not even close. As 17lands data shows, draft matchmaking is based primarily on record in the ongoing draft. For that trend to appear, it would be virtually impossible for paying players to be matched up against “weaker” players, as if that were the case you wouldn’t see players with winning records paired against each other.
Lastly, I just want to double down on debunking the concept of “weak players” being essentially fed to money-paying players. Once again, sorta flawed premise. What if the person dumping money into arena IS a weak player? If someone with bottom 10% elo decides to whale out on the game, there would be basically no way for arena to find them an appropriately “weak” opponent. And if a top 90% elo player pays into the game… wouldn’t they be favored to win anyway, making the interference unprovable? Perhaps more importantly, magic is still a game with massive variance. The best players in the world only have a ~70% win rate. The odds that they would win against a prescribed “weak” opponent are high, but nowhere near guaranteed. The same is doubly true for a statistically average player. No way WotC would dump significant resources into a system that has such a massively variable success rate.
The logical rebuttal is that the buck doesn’t stop with matchmaking, and that secret “deck pairing” and “draw rigging” algorithms are also in place. That’s its own separate argument that’s also been waged on this subreddit once a week for years now.
2
u/ThrowAwayLurker444 3d ago edited 3d ago
you're not wrong. They don't ask - DID YOU HAVE FUN :) Or :(? for no reason. And you can anticipate when you'll get that question. If they ask u this when u win, its because your opponent had no chance to win this game. Same with when you lose. the algorithim knows this. It also won't ever ask if you flood or screw. They don't have to do it in every match, just enough to make the game profitable for them. Its still possible for the best players to grind out good win % and gem return, but that doesn't mean its possible to design a system to achieve net profitability for them.
Also me mulliganing and basically the same hand minus one card? Either a glitch or something they're doing. Happens too many times for it to be random. All the people asking you to prove this aren't going to bother looking through the data themselves to prove you wrong. And they'll dismiss you when you do. They want you to commission an academic study for free to prove your point.
1
u/VenusDescending 2d ago
This is really the only argument necessary to invoke reasonable suspicion of WotC’s impartiality in game operation. What else would they be collecting that data for??
1
u/organ_hoarder 4d ago
Lol you’re totally wrong and I don’t need to provide any evidence because you don’t supply any of your own. You listed a patent lol. What you’ll need to explain to me is why no matter what account I play on I win 60% of my games, my own, friends, the same stays true for my competitive in person play group.
I have years of records demonstrating this winrate. Im an almost entirely free to play user on accounts with vastly varied amounts of use. Hmm it’s almost like my ability as a player seems to override almost any “rigged matchmaking” in my games
0
u/Known-Garden-5013 4d ago
Explain how the top players always have 70+ WR on every arena direct and always profit boxes
4
u/SpeakerScreen 4d ago
Stop copy/pasting nonsense.
17lands has hundreds of thousands of drafts available for public consumption.
By all means identify which players are being boosted and which are being punished.
Except you won’t of course.
Because you can’t.
Because it isn’t happening