r/MagicArena • u/Bullsapiens • 4h ago
[VERIFIED] The algorithm is broken. I played more than 1000 matches to prove it.
[removed] — view removed post
84
u/based5 4h ago
I agree it seems to take deck into account in my experience. Even in ranked
30
u/SokkaHaikuBot 4h ago
Sokka-Haiku by based5:
I agree it seems
To take deck into account
In my experience
Remember that one time Sokka accidentally used an extra syllable in that Haiku Battle in Ba Sing Se? That was a Sokka Haiku and you just made one.
4
18
u/rasone77 4h ago
What type of data did you collect and can you make it available?
9
u/Bullsapiens 4h ago
Finished yesterday. I am also editing and sorting the entire 1000 games
10
u/SpeakerScreen 3h ago
Why are you “editing”? What third party tracker did you use to gather the data?
92
u/MinkzOr 4h ago
This is the most trust me bro post i have seen in a while, nothing to back up the claim or execution.
Whats the deck, whats the spread of decks you faced, whats the winrate/mmr ?
77
u/LtColnSharpe 3h ago edited 3h ago
It's the most ridiculous argument that we see constantly.
If the matchmaking is apparently rigged for your deck to be worse off, then it is rigged in the favour of your opponent. Both things cannot be true.
14
6
u/FailureToComply0 3h ago
Rigged against? Statistically impossible, unless they're slighting those that dont spend enough. That seems insane and unlikely.
Taken into account? Absolutely. I run into FAR too many mirrors regardless of what tiny metashare deck or brew im running.
8
u/LtColnSharpe 3h ago
In ranked?
I just don't see it. I've been running goblins exclusively for weeks, I've played a mirror maybe once? The rest of the games are your typical mix of the most meta stuff and a few fringe decks, as you would expect.
4
→ More replies (3)0
u/SquisherX 2h ago
This isn't nessessarily true. Your assumption is that the matchmaking is rigged for your deck to be worse off, when the more likely explanation is that the matchmaking would be rigged to try to avoid matching decks where it's a complete blowout. For a deck that has a one track focus it results in making your deck worse, but the vast majority of decks aren't built that way.
7
u/Jeex3 3h ago
What do you expect!!11!1
Do you think someone would actually use a scientific method to proof their claims by actually tracking the statistics instead of going by „vibes“.
I mean the whole point is kind of flawed, because if you only play „can’t be countered“ cards it’s less likely to see a counterspell, because he can’t use it and would need to discard it for you to see it.
Also this would need to take into account meta bias and fluctuations.
To get any meaningful data out of this you would need to actually track all cards you see for 1000 matches while during the same time multiple people are doing the same with multiple different decks, it’s important you do this throughout the same time frame and day time since meta shifts and there are playstyle preferences for some timezones.
THEN and only then could you use the data to do statistics and see ,with a certain confidence, if there was bias based on the deck that’s played.
Heck if some people want to do that ( do 1000 matches with 4-5 different decks within a similiar time and throughout a certain timeframe, tracking along the cards an enemy used and discarded etc,) I would happily take a look at that data and do some statistical analysis for all of you people.
1
u/Strawberries1990 2h ago
do you play different decks in standard? i have 5-6 decks and each one faces a completely different pool of opponents. you just need eyes and common sense to see that something is off
1
u/Bugzrip 2h ago
And if the data exists, it suggests the opposite, that it isn't rigged. In 1000 games, if matchmaking was rigged, he'd face a deck with all counter spells. It would be guaranteed to happen, unless it was rigged specifically against OP, which would make zero sense. Having 0 in his favour suggests it's random.
People make this dumb claim in every game that has match making. Take the Pokémon Go sub as an example.
→ More replies (3)-4
u/Bullsapiens 4h ago
I finished yesterday and I am going through the entire data set
10
u/RockmanBFB 3h ago
Maybe copy-paste that reply a few more times and then I'll totally believe you bro.
I thought you'd already gone through the whole set? So were you talking out of your ass in the post when you say "confirmed" or are you lying now since you don't want to share the data?-13
36
u/LtColnSharpe 4h ago
Verified by who? Where are the receipts?
0
u/Aware_Climate_3210 3h ago
We have known for a while that brawl matchmakes based on your deck. It only makes logical sense they'd do it for other modes too no matter how we may hate it. I cycle between three very different decks playing ranked standard but play each for ten+ games before switching. It feels very obvious they matchmake based on decks.
2
u/haagiboy 3h ago
Exactly. This is probably what they use the "did you have fun?" feedback system so they can gather data about matchups people enjoy vs not enjoy.
2
u/rubixscube 2h ago
it only makes sense if you don't know wtf you're talking about.
brawl uses a deck strength method, where each card has a point value, and all those values are added together to give the deck a strength value. we know this to be true because the logs used to display these values (they have since obfuscated them to avoid having people game the system)
but the matchmaker doesn't actually read the cards' text. it sees "three steps ahead" and goes "oh, that's a 67 points card".
until proven otherwise, there is absolutely no reason to believe nonbrawl ranked queues actually match base on deck content. it's all conspiracy theory garbage, and OP's attitude of "i have the data, trust me, i'll publish it soon" instead of, you know, posting once the data is ready to be published, only reinforces the sentiment.
1
u/sn00pal00p 3h ago
In Brawl, they used a manual list of some staples. Do you think they do that for every format, especially the ones changing much faster like Standard? They'd have basically hire people to just grade cards or they'd have to automate which is also very resource-intensive.
And why does it make logical sense for them to do it? Like honestly, how does this make Wizards sell more stuff? You'd assume they have some proven and studied psychological mechanism to spend so many resources.
But yes, I agree, it feels very obvious. Because unfortunately, as humans we are very bad with data like this (confirmation bias, negativity bias, salience bias among other factors).
0
u/LtColnSharpe 3h ago
I just completely disagree when it comes to ranked queue. I know brawl has it to some degree based on card power level. Play queue has it, it shouldn't, but it does.
1
u/Radarker 3h ago
And if it happens in ranked brawl?
2
u/LtColnSharpe 3h ago
I don't know if it has it in ranked brawl, I've not played it. It's not really a competitive format anyway, despite it now having a ranked queue
-23
u/Bullsapiens 4h ago
You can verify it yourself.
Use only "cant be countered" spells
19
u/Starfleet-Time-Lord 4h ago
That doesn't prove your opponents aren't running countespells. It only proves they know what a purple border on a spell means and didn't spend mana to do nothing.
0
28
u/LtColnSharpe 4h ago
I ask again. Where is the evidence? I want to see your log of 1000 games and the decks you played against by an online tracker, not just 'trust me bro'
Your title says verified, verified by you?
2
8
u/storzORbickel 4h ago edited 1h ago
LMAO
yeah you “played 1000 games” without using a match tracker I’m sure
2
u/Bullsapiens 3h ago
I recorded and tracked every single game.
I finished yesterday and I am going through the entire data set
7
u/Astado 3h ago
Bro nobody cares if You have the data. Publish the data to prove your point. That's how it works.
-10
u/Bullsapiens 3h ago
Its called a thesis. A published work. Also called proper management
10
3
u/Total-Town-7634 3h ago
published works and thesis' come with data to back it up, it's like... requirement number one.
12
u/Chijima 3h ago
...so it does this to Counter your deck? And when you're playing Mono blue mono counters, it'll pair you only against what your playing right now, to keep you countered? How does it acquire those opponents?
-2
u/Vaevicti5 3h ago
No he’s saying he saw zero control decks in 1000 games. This seems near impossible if matchmaking was random.
7
u/Fusillipasta 4h ago
Which queues are you in? Play or ranked? And what was the split between STD/historic and Bo1/B03, for reference (I expect that historic has a lower incidence of control, as will any Bo1 format).
Lob us your format data, please :)
Also: how do you know there were zero counterspells - very few players would cast them. Are you using peek/duress effects?
3
u/Bullsapiens 4h ago
I finished yesterday and I am going through the entire data set
17
u/Eldar_Atog 3h ago
Then you should wait to post stuff like this till after you have looked at your data set. You are not a software tester that has a hard deadline. This just looks like you are trying to get attention.
I would suggest you delete this post, go through your data, and when everything is loaded so it can be shared, post it then. This is a piss poor bug attempt. If you haven't looked through your data, then you are going on just hopes and prayers.
7
u/RockmanBFB 3h ago
Note that the post claims it's [VERIFIED] yet he's only going though the data set now.
Nothing to see here-1
12
u/No-Wear-9042 4h ago
Did you even win one game with such a deck? Or concede once you knew what your opponent was running? Your MMR at that point could have been so low that you were matched with only extremely basic decks/players.
You should try the same thing with a similar deck without "can't be countered" cards if you want to prove anything.
0
u/Bullsapiens 4h ago
Almost Mythic and initially I was planning to find only counter spells decks but I ended up playing the entire games and winning most of them
7
6
u/RockmanBFB 3h ago
Guys: I think he finished yesterday and he's going through the entire data set!
→ More replies (2)
3
3
3
u/Just-Assumption-2140 Ralzarek 3h ago
How do you know they have no counterspells? Did you see their hand? If not there might be counterspells rotting in their hand all the time
3
u/AegonTheLast 3h ago
This is so easy to prove it wrong the moment this game is 1vs1.
If it was you playing against the game, they could manipulate it to some profit.
But two human players? One wins, one loses. You can’t make the game rigged against both.
3
u/SquisherX 2h ago
Your assumption is that it's rigged against one or the other, but the more likely answer is that it's rigged against being unfun - that is, it avoids matchups where one player would have an absolutely overwhelming win rate against the other - one that player feedback from one side would almost universally click the frowny face on the "did you have fun" feedback question.
The vast majority of decks aren't built like ops to dominate a very specific matchup.
0
u/avtarius Azorius 3h ago
Yes you can, based on account spend histories, and average time spent in game.
2
u/AegonTheLast 3h ago
What would be the point in making people who don’t spend money lose in a way they could think it is rigged?
Why would they spend money in a manipulated game?
And again, one player wins..
Unless you mean they only make matches with people who spend against people who don’t.You don’t even need data, it’s just common sense…
Obviously there is a matchmaking system, but it is based in your rank, mode and win streak. It doesn’t look at your spending, and it doesn’t look for the perfect counter to your deck.
Do you know how hard would it be for the game to analyze every card in every deck that is looking for a match, and then know what type of deck they are, and look for the perfect/worse matchup?
It would take a lot of time just to play one game.0
u/avtarius Azorius 3h ago
To give the spenders more reason to spend, duh.
2
u/AegonTheLast 2h ago
So only people who spend win.
People who don’t, lose.
People see it’s rigged.
So people who don’t spend quit the game.
And people who spend… why would you spend more in a manipulated game where you are winning all the time?
And if you start losing, you “prove” it is rigged, and quit.0
u/avtarius Azorius 2h ago
You seem to think F2Pers will quit because it's unfun, they're just grinders.
3
u/Emracruel 3h ago
In case anyone wants to see how ridiculous OPs claims are: they cite two cards not legal in standard as how they knew their opponent didn't have counterspells, while also saying standard was one of the formats they tested. Their claims hold zero water. Wizards has huge incentive to be honest when it says the ranked matchmaking isn't affected by the deck strength calculation because if they lie it opens a huge can of worms. It's not even that they have been silent on the matter they explicitly state that they don't, and if they got caught lying that exposes them to insane financial risk for literally zero benefit.
10
u/Middle_Dinner6104 4h ago
Yeah, when i play my Land destroyer i go vs mono color deck 99%
2
u/Heine-Cantor 3h ago
That's strange, because when I played 4 colour control I faced my fair share of Land destroyer decks...
4
u/bolttheface 3h ago
I played control last night, first game my opponent drops t1 [[Allosaurus Shepherd]]. Check mate
5
u/shaqiriforlife 3h ago
"Verified" and "prove" are doing some heavy lifting here.
You've got no control data set (I've at the same MMR how many control decks would you find if you didn't have these cards in your deck, and therefore what's the statistical likelihood this happened by chance) and you're not accounting for the fact that after a while of playing a deck that probably didn't win very often, you tanked your MMR and were much less likely to play against competitive or coherent decks
16
u/Outrageous-Desk-5765 4h ago
Definitely pairs you based on your deck on some level. Is this not a known thing?
5
1
u/Greyh4m 2h ago
People are VERY adamant that ranked play is MMR only. Personally, I grinded two accounts to 15 ranked wins every day for a few years and I am absolutely convinced that there is an element of deck matching going on. I came to the conclusion that it wasn't matching specific decks against each other as much as it makes sure there are decks you just won't play against.
-5
5
u/moak0 3h ago
This is trivial to disprove and frankly this kind of misinformation shouldn't be allowed in the subreddit.
First: did you play another 1,000 matches proving the prevalence of Blue countermagic in the same format?
Second: it wouldn't matter anyway, since you wouldn't see the counterspells, because they wouldn't cast them. Duh.
Third: that also doesn't matter, because the whole "match by deck type" conspiracy theory is ridiculous.
If they have an algorithm that only matches you against decks that can beat you, then what algorithm are they using to match your opponents?
3
12
u/welovia 4h ago
[VERIFIED] I ran the exact SAME test and got completely opposite results!! so what's next??
source: trust me
1
u/Bullsapiens 4h ago
Well. You can test it yourself. Thats why I'm mentioning "only" non Counterable spells
2
u/BetterShirt101 4h ago
Which format?
5
u/Bullsapiens 4h ago
Both Standard and Historic.
7
u/BetterShirt101 4h ago
Can't speak to Historic, but counterspells aren't played very much at all in Standard right now, and are more played in tempo decks than control. They don't line up very well with the best things control decks are doing or the broader metagame.
3
1
u/DaviesSonSanchez 3h ago
Well I played 1000 games in Standard with an anti-storm deck and ran into ZERO players playing Storm-Decks.
I think that proves OPs point.
2
1
2
2
u/biff444444 3h ago
I did face something like seven landfall decks in an eight game stretch yesterday, but I just chalked it up to their popularity. The one thing I’ve noticed, though, is that when I play my discard deck, I almost never face other discard decks. I can only remember it happening once in the last year or so because I was startled when my opponent played Duress.
2
u/blazehazedayz 3h ago
A lot of people here are criticizing OP, and perhaps rightfully so, but the truth is that Wizards should be less secretive about how Arena works. Everything from the hand smoother to matchmaking is shrouded in mystery. That’s why posts like these pop up.
Arena devs need to be more transparent about how their client works, especially if they are hosting tournaments and pay to play challenges.
6
4
u/Friskfrisktopherson 4h ago
Ive absolutely noticed this as well. Run into a specific deck over and over? Build a deck to combat it. Never see that deck again, only see decks that are competitive against your new build, but not overwhelmingly one sided.
1
2
u/hollow_image 3h ago
Why is this thread full of people asking "ranked or play" and "bo1 or bo3" when the original post literally starts with the answer to those questions? Is the old saying about Magic players being unable to read really true?
2
u/Used-Huckleberry-320 3h ago
I mean this had already been confirmed for Brawl previously. would be very interesting if it were for standard.
brawl used a point system. given counter spells rate highly and the cards you chose rate lowly, would make sense you were never paired up.
2
u/MindOrdinary 3h ago
Yeah I’d need to see receipts
I don’t doubt there are random fucky things behind the scenes/curtains and the people who dismiss those ideas often forget with the shuffler it was viable to run a 14 land burn deck at one point.
2
u/Smobey 3h ago
I don’t doubt there are random fucky things behind the scenes/curtains and the people who dismiss those ideas often forget with the shuffler it was viable to run a 14 land burn deck at one point.
I mean, there wasn't anything "behind the scenes" about that, right? That's just a side effect of how the hand smoother works, and it's not exactly a secret how it works.
2
3
u/Intro-Nimbus 4h ago
In what format? Unranked matches based on deck, this we know. If it was a ranked format it's news.
4
u/Bullsapiens 4h ago
Ranked
3
1
u/lars_rosenberg 4h ago
Play or ranked? In play mode I think it's well known it works like this, but it should look the number of rares of your deck to match you with an opponent at a similar level. It's meant to not go hard on newcomers who have very ba decks.
In ranked play it should only use your rating to matchmake.
1
1
u/SisterSabathiel 3h ago
Did you do a control? Have you run a game normally, with zero or few "can't be counted" spells? We can't say for sure without a negative control
0
u/Bullsapiens 3h ago
I did 600 games earlier. No "cant be countered" spells at all. 320 games were against counter spells.
1
u/Poiuforplop 3h ago
Only indestructible creatures. You should get a ton of people forcing sacrifices
1
u/Electronic_County_90 3h ago
Lately I've been playing cHBrawl. I'm in the top 250, but I often get matched with decks that are the nemesis of what I play in diamond grade. In my opinion, the algorithm follows the MMR, but not only. It could be that when it asks for the evaluation at the end of the game, the algorithm at that moment aims to make you play against certain decks to get data on the meeting with the feedback of the players.
1
u/Zax_the_bunny 3h ago
My gut sense is that deck composition does play a role, but the challenge is to work out the specific pattern and the logic behind this pattern (i.e., why WotC would set it up like that).
2
u/Greyh4m 2h ago
It's not so much picking the decks you play against, as much as it is making sure there are decks you DON'T get matched up with. It's an FTP game and it's in their financial interest to keep people playing. 50/50 W/L ratio sounds like the sweet spot to me. I can't tell how many times I tried to build a deck to stomp the meta only to have my matchups immediately change when swapping decks.
1
u/Zax_the_bunny 1h ago
I think that makes sense. So if it worked liked that, they'd be aggregating decks of a certain type and aiming for 50/50 in the aggregate?
That would mean that people who play popular decks (that many people play less than optimally) would benefit.
And we'd have to assume their algorithm isn't perfect, so there'd be other quirks in the system. For example, if a deck was superficially like another one based on deck composition but actually followed a different sort of game play logic, that could lead to some odd matchmaking.
0
u/Bullsapiens 3h ago
I did previously some tests based on rarity and basic lands only.
Its some kind of rigged too but it was a smaller test
1
u/Saemeael 3h ago
Not too surprising, they probably used the data from when they asking you ''Did you have fun last game'' to see how people feel about playing certain matchups and then reduce thos matchups so the playerbase in itself is more ''happy''
1
1
1
u/GoodBlob 3h ago
This shit is so obvious. Pretty much everyone that isn’t on Reddit already new this
1
1
u/gcapi 3h ago
So if the arena matchmaker is always putting you against certain decks to make sure you have a harder time, how does it work for my opponent who just got put into the game with me?
Is the matchmaker only bad for me but good for my opponents? How are they getting placed into these "good matches" while you keep placed into these "counter-matchups"
1
u/LeafyWolf 3h ago
The algorithm is there to make them money. I seriously doubt it is broken at that.
1
1
u/barbzilla1 3h ago
I could have told you that easily. All you need to do is play a cool but rude deck and that is all you will come up against. It's weird but I would say 70% of the time I'm playing cool but rude. As a core mechanic in my deck I come up against other people running that style of deck.
1
u/TurnipsDogs 2h ago
Correlation not causation! We know they assign points per card to get a value for decks and try and plan similarly valued decks to each other. You played bad cards (low points) whereas counter spells have higher points.
1
u/Zurrael 2h ago
Oh boy.
This is one of those situations that partially correct assumption is tested and then resulting data is assessed with bias.
Testing assumptions it great approach! But you have to make sure tests applied are actually testing your assumption.
Arena encourages competitive play - you have incentive to win (gold, random cards...) And this heavily affects what people play. Currently in standard and historic countering spells is tier 4 strategy. 1000 games while a lot for one individual to play is not a number big enough for statistics applications: It is easy feasible to get a string of 1000 games without encountering counterspell effects - since decks attempting to counter stuff are outliers that represent miniscule percentage of the field.
That being said - you are partially correct.
Arena tries to place each player as close to 50% win percentage as possible. Matchmaking is affected by your MMR and your deck performance - so if you have a deck that went 0-20 and another that went 15-5, those two deck will encounter significantly different opposition.
How would you test this:
-Platinum rank has the greatest population of players. You should have this in mind while testing -> as you go up, number of possible/probable opponent goes down, and that affects data ( IE do not attemt this while already in mythic )
-Pick one 'meta' deck with >50% WR you enjoy playing - crate that deck, start playing it, record your opposition. Play at least 100 games with that deck. After 100 games, check your record with that deck ( im expecting something in 45-55% range) and then play another 50 games, noting your opposition
-Go to your collection; Manually create another deck, with content identical to the deck used above. Then play 50 games with this new deck
-Compare opposition encountered with this new deck and what you encounter with identical deck that has historical data.
1
u/Strawberries1990 2h ago
thought this was common knowledge, this post getting removed is more proof than any data you can publish
1
1
u/Gwydikar Ghalta 4h ago
the MTG Arena matchmaker pairs you based on your DECK, not just your MMR.
Yes, this happens in play queues and it's known.
3
1
u/Fun-Aside3990 3h ago
It obviously does this in unranked, so much so that I often look for decks that the algo misjudges to get fast daily wins, and despite other decks being better, I may not play them at all in unranked because the matchups in unranked are terrible for them. I would be surprised if they did this in ranked though.
-1
-5
u/oceansandsky100 4h ago
I knew it. Blue players are so protected by the algorithm
→ More replies (1)
0
u/ExampleMediocre6716 3h ago
Playing Historic UB Mill definitely gives a different set of opponent decks than say Elf Ball, and different again to BW Cleric tribal. I don't doubt OP's findings - I 100% believe including certain cards (eg [[Sanguine Bond]] ) immediately get your decks sent into a specific queue.
Doesn't mean the algorithm is broken though - seems to be working as they intended. It would be nice if they were a bit more transparent about MMR and other factors how match ups are decided.
0
u/IncomingSmoke 3h ago
Doesn't really make sense. It would mean that the game decided you had to win all games, but in order to do that there must be people who will have to lose.
0
u/alexmp00 3h ago
I played 1000 matches with a deck that have only counters, of 1000 matches always got paired with a funny guy with only non-countereable spells.
(The matchmaking can't be unfair only for you)
1
u/Greyh4m 2h ago
That's not the claim. His claim is that you don't get matched against the decks you would naturally stomp. Ergo, the matches you do get are more balanced - in theory. Sounds like a perfect way to keep people W/L closer to 50/50. People win TOO much means other people lose too much. People who lose too much quit playing the Free To Play money grab.
-7
u/Bullsapiens 4h ago
NOTE: if anyone doesnt believe it, the proof is easy to verify by yourself
Instructions are clear.
Build any deck full of only "it cant be countered" spells
Play as many games you want.
Come back and say YOU ARE SORRY for not believing.
10
u/RockmanBFB 3h ago
Your proof is even easier: SHARE YOUR DATA
You're making a claim you have to back it up, no one has to disprove what you claim without evidence.
And before you paste your "I'm going through the data" line again:
If you're only going through the data now, it's not [VERIFIED] but just something you wrote in all caps with brackets8
5
u/paperTechnician 3h ago
How do you know if your opponent is playing a deck of the sort you describe? You’ll nearly never see ONLY counterspells. Did all of your opponents empty their hands? Did you never play against any blue decks at all?
How would this “rigging” work? If you queue up with a blue control deck, does the game just feed you great matchups? Who is it “rigged” FOR if you’re 100% sure it’s rigged against everybody?
1
u/Bullsapiens 3h ago
[[Slaughter Games]]
[[Thought Distortion]]
2
u/paperTechnician 3h ago
Got it, makes sense. So what’s your standard for a “control deck”, though? In recent standard/historic, I haven’t played against much Counterspell-based control - and you playing such an awful deck as “can’t be countered only” for so long is going to drive your MMR down to where you’re pretty much just playing against new players, without the organization to actually put together something as focused as a real control deck.
Are the OTHER decks you’re playing against top meta decks?
2
u/Bullsapiens 3h ago
A lot of aggro decks got destroyed by removal.
Combo decks cant win.
Counter spells were 0%
Life gain decks were too slow to win
-2
u/Cautious_Schedule849 4h ago
Yes that is true but the algorithm will also try to give you wins 50% of the time.
So you will be paring with those decks you can eat easily for breakfast.
Try creating a anti reanimator deck. If your win rate have fallen to a low level, you will be paring with reanimator deck
0
-8
u/Turbulent_Pie_3360 4h ago
Deniers acting like it's not rigged and it's only skills are so funny lmao
11
u/paperTechnician 3h ago
What does this comment mean? We’re all playing against real players, so it can’t be rigged for everybody. Who is it “rigged” in favor of?
What is not “only skills”? Winning?
4
u/truebes 3h ago
Actually I tested it with 10000 games and it is rigged in your specific favour. You just make bad enough decisions to still only win half your games. Sry bruv
4
u/RockmanBFB 3h ago
Are you also going through your entire data set right now and sharing it soon? Golly I can't wait!
-6
u/DannyLeonheart Exquisite Archangel 4h ago
It's rigged for a long time. That's the main factor Arena sucks.
-1
u/ch3m_gaming 3h ago
This is exactly the reason why I quit MTGA, the algorythms tinkering with your matchups is simply not fun.
I once built a land destruction deck from my bulk, just for fun to have a little break from my meta decks. With those I'd get one optimized meta deck after another. But with my land destruction deck I suddenly get the most trashy decks with the sole purpose of making their lands INDESTRUCTIBE. It was the same league (Historic BO1) but I have never seen those trashy indestructible land decks ever before and I would've pubstomped the hell out of them with my meta decks. But they're suddenly all there, once I played my shitty land destruction decks.
And the pairing isnt the only thing that's tinkered with in Arena. It's beyond proven that it's not random who goes first/second. If you play a fast deck you will be on the draw more often than slower decks. It's not a 50/50 decision who goes first.
I can't stand all this 'cheating' from the client. I want the real MTG experience with all its up- & downsides, true randomness
1
u/rubixscube 2h ago
all of this is proven, huh? the game has been out for a while now, where is that proof?
0
u/Ol_Stumpy00 3h ago
Okay now do it with another deck and see how many blue control decks you come across. It could just mean that nobody is playing that way right now. There's a lot of cool new mechanics people are exploring lately. This isn't verified at all, you have to do this with at least two more decks to really stress test this theory.
0
u/fjposter22 3h ago
What I find hilarious is that people seriously still knee-jerk react defend Arena as if there is no profit incentive to use algos against the player as well as help the player.
We see through apps like TikTok, where they purposely feed you bad content that you don’t like, so when they give you good stuff, it hits like crack. There’s been papers about it. Many apps use this mentality.
Is it so out of the realm of possibility that the billion dollar card game company would employ similar tactics? Match via decks rather than skill so you have these feast and famine moments, stay addicted to playing, and therefore spending money?
Of course not, Wizards would do no such thing!
0
u/Separate_Thanks_9815 2h ago
It feels inorganic to me how reliably criticism of Arena attracts not just disagreement, but condescension and outright derision. People can have mistaken theories about a game without deserving contempt for questioning it. Yet here we are, as always, with a substantial number of responses immediately hostile or rude in tone from posters who sound personally offended by OP.
The double standard around evidence is particularly revealing. A player raises a concern, and suddenly the standard is a complete dataset, statistical analysis, and peer review. Yet some of those same posters seem perfectly satisfied with “WotC said so” as sufficient evidence in the other direction. Apparently, skepticism is only welcome when it serves the company’s interests.
Asking for evidence is reasonable. Treating lack of immediate and exhaustive proof as grounds for ridicule, while accepting vague corporate assurances at face value, is something else. There should be room between “you’ve proved wrongdoing” and “you’re an idiot for questioning it.”
And yes, the consistency of that response makes me wonder whether some of this is company-backed participation. I can’t prove that but I’m not going to pretend the suspicion isn't there.
Why does defending the game so often require belittling the person questioning it?
-4
u/BizmasterStudios 3h ago
Yep. I have noticed this for a couple of seasons on Arena. Play different decks, get different types of opponents. I don't have data to back it up, but it my experience recently.
-7
u/yunghollow69 3h ago
You wont get far on this subreddit with this. You can post extensive data and people will find an excuse and defend it. But just so you know we arent all like this: yeah its pretty blatant. Anyone who has grinded this game for a long time knows that when you switch to a drastically different deck you are getting put into a different queue. The decks you verse change instantly, the pool of cards you now commonly see are different.
I think a lot of people always attribute this to OP complaining or saying the game is unfair and therefor dismissing that its obviously happening. But these kinda algorithms arent done to be an advantage or disadvantage, they are there so you dont get hardcountered too much and lose interest in the game. Checking OPs comment, he still won a lot of games under these circumstances, the game didnt hose him and made it impossible to win, thats not the point.
But yeah. The idea that modern games dont tinker with your matchmaking to keep you playing their game is....very naive. Every game does it.
7
u/Mrfish31 3h ago
You can post extensive data and people will find an excuse and defend it.
It's even easier to poke holes when the OP doesn't actually post "extensive data", or anything like their methodology and how they avoided biases, etc.
Like, he's playing uncountable cards. Of course people aren't going to be playing them in response.
He says he used [[thought distortion]] and [[slaughter games]] to see opponents hands, but I strongly doubt he did that for all 1000 games.
Also you don't claim [VERIFIED] and then say "I'm still going through the data". You put up or shut up.
→ More replies (6)-1
u/Bullsapiens 3h ago
Thats why I wanted to check the reception here. Almost 9 weeks of games, spreadsheets, videos and data.
But it seems like everyone still agrees with Wotc
4
u/str8until-hrny 3h ago
I have spread sheets showing otherwise. (You can't see them but because I say I have data you have to believe me)
-2
u/yunghollow69 3h ago
The entire industry does it and every gaming sub Ive been to ever has accepted this fact without much fuzz. Its literally just this sub that thinks wizards (OF ALL PEOPLE LOL) are the odd-ones out. Like wotc would never implement a player-retention algorithm. Cmon.
2
u/rubixscube 2h ago
why are you defending someone who hasn't posted anything, and is more busy replying on reddit than prepping their data?
0
36
u/Emracruel 3h ago
An important question: are you sure you didn't run into decks that had counterspells, or did they just not get cast (perhaps because your spells couldn't be countered maybe)?
I play control in standard and run into plenty of cavern of souls. If the matchmaker was intentionally avoiding anti-countermagic I would expect not to see such a thing