A 20 hours of platinum ranked experience and consecutive thoughts

[ithilglin]

First who am I as a olayer ?

I am not an hardcore magic player, but i've played MTG video game occasionnaly since the solo one on Windows 95. I understand that randomness is part of the game, and i enjoy for waht MTG is : a game in which you try to make the best of the cards you own in deck building and in play.

And I enjoy games in which I can actually play with my opponent, not whatching him crusshing me without me able to do anything, or the reverse, even, of course if I do enjoy most easy victories. But yet, some of my best game experiences so far were losses.

As i don(t work for the moment, i have nothing better to do most of the day, so I decided to go hardcore on Arena (in terms of gaming hours), for a few weeks. I bought a few gems to buy the new extension bundle, manage to arrive at platinum in ranked standard quite easily with my cards from previous extensions, and then I get stucked, as usual. As I played more, I managed to build a better deck and use the tokens I had to craft missing cards.

So here is my return of experience, of the last couple of days.

And i uploaded Arena Tutor to track my stats. Here they are for a deck used purely in platinum ranked standard in the current season :

49 winrate, 78 wins, 80 losses and 19 hours of game play.

But.

For the 120 first games, and 16 hours played I had a winrate about 55%, with 1 winning streaks of 10 games, and another of 7, and no higher losses streak than five i managed ot get to 1 victory to diamond, a few defeats dropped me back to platinum 2 and then back to 1 victory to diamond, and then started the descent into hell.

The last 30 games and 3 hours gamed was a nightmare and it dropped me back to platinum 3. Bad luck can happen but it seems pretty unlikely.

Here are some maths for thougts : a 10 winning streak at 55% winrate is 0.25 % chances
A 7 winning streak at the same winrate is 1,52%.

What are the odds ofthis happenning. and then a losses streak starting precisely at 1 win to diamond ?

And what are the odds that I would experience that the very same day that another player that I no nothing about complains about their susspicion of an algorithm used by WOTC ?

You would understant if I have some doubts...

And it would be naive to believe that WoTC would put the resources needed for maintaining such a game as a free to play without incentives to put real money in it. And this is fair, because no one would imagine to play tabletop MTG without putting money in buying cards. But if they do use an algorithm, this is, indeed, unfait. And this is technically possible, just by comparing their respective winrate stats, you actually can make matching players which favors one above another... And thoses things happen you know, a few years ago, major french car constructors, 100 years old welle established companies were caught using a progrem to manipulate the market prices of their spare parts...

And as a gaming experience, no matter if it is because of bad luck, or because of some trickery of WoTC, this is not good, just not good. I am human and the doubt that i now have is really giving me a bitter taste feeling.

Especially when i put this in perspective with my gaming experience itself and the current state of meta with the insane domination of mono red aggro. But the truth is it is almost impossible to make a perfect balanced game. You will always have a few decks with 1 or 2 % more winrate, and event if it does not seems so much, a 58% winrate would win a majority of 3 games almost 62 % of the time, when a 55% would do the same about 57,5 % of the time. 3% difference in winrate is already 4.5 % difference in a row of 3 games, and it's only becoming a greater gap the more you play. With the number of cards and possible decks in MTG, it is just impossible to avoid that a few of them would have this little advantage which cumulates.

And even if i do personnaly prefer longer games than the aggro ones, it is preferable that those dominant decks are quick ones. Because as far as i love some of the late game combo i have seen, a 15 minutes game in which you actually play 3 minutes and wait for the combos of your oppenent triggering the rest of time is only fun once or twice (yes Atraxia, I'm talking about you, but not only you, it's not always about you !!) Such decks are just a nightmare in the current way ranked is implemented, when you need dozens of game to actually climb the ladder, no matter what your chance against it are. With a winrate above 50 %, a deck will alwways have more chances to climb the ladder in 4 games of 5 minutes after conceading than in one 20 minutes game. you need ti beat control decks, if you don't wipe them out with aggro.

And i don't how WoTC could change that without totally changing their ranked system, and imho, I don't think they relly want to do it. The current system is, indeed, the better incentive to have cow milk buying boosters in order to build the dominant decks...

So I will try ti reach diamond in the current season, but as I will go back to work in may, i am not sure if I would continue to play once I would have less time.

[magnumaniac]

It is called variance. Winning / losing streaks will happen with any game that has a random draw element to it. Conspiracy theories about algorithms and rigged games are just that - theories with no evidence to support them.

[BEEN]

Originally posted by magnumaniac:

It is called variance. Winning / losing streaks will happen with any game that has a random draw element to it. Conspiracy theories about algorithms and rigged games are just that - theories with no evidence to support them.

vArIaNcE bRo

[ithilglin]

Originally posted by magnumaniac:

It is called variance. Winning / losing streaks will happen with any game that has a random draw element to it. Conspiracy theories about algorithms and rigged games are just that - theories with no evidence to support them.

yes, i know

and i has said i am human, and i can experience frustration, so i can deal with it by screaming and driving ly neighbors crazy, throwing or breaking things or posting a long post on a forum...

I think we can agree that the latter is the better

[DontMisunderstand]

If you're looking at it that way... at a 50% win rate, the probability of getting to diamond at all would be 0.000006%. And that's rounding up.

That's the wrong way to look at it though. For a large enough number of reasons that it tires me out thinking about explaining them all.

[ZAP]

The Windows 95 version is better. People still play it, Shandalar Manalink 3.0

[magnumaniac]

Originally posted by ithilglin:

Originally posted by magnumaniac:

It is called variance. Winning / losing streaks will happen with any game that has a random draw element to it. Conspiracy theories about algorithms and rigged games are just that - theories with no evidence to support them.

yes, i know

and i has said i am human, and i can experience frustration, so i can deal with it by screaming and driving ly neighbors crazy, throwing or breaking things or posting a long post on a forum...

I think we can agree that the latter is the better

Definitely better. Maybe it is my poker experience, but you learn to avoid getting frustrated by bad luck (Tilt as it is known), otherwise you end up losing a lot of money :)

Take a break, chill out, and go back when you are a bit calmer.

[ithilglin]

Originally posted by DontMisunderstand:

If you're looking at it that way... at a 50% win rate, the probability of getting to diamond at all would be 0.000006%. And that's rounding up.

That's the wrong way to look at it though. For a large enough number of reasons that it tires me out thinking about explaining them all.

Originally posted by magnumaniac:

Originally posted by ithilglin:

yes, i know

and i has said i am human, and i can experience frustration, so i can deal with it by screaming and driving ly neighbors crazy, throwing or breaking things or posting a long post on a forum...

I think we can agree that the latter is the better

Definitely better. Maybe it is my poker experience, but you learn to avoid getting frustrated by bad luck (Tilt as it is known), otherwise you end up losing a lot of money :)

Take a break, chill out, and go back when you are a bit calmer.

yep, that's the whole point, issues in my personnal life made me stay at home for a few months so when i started to stress with the game this post was precisely a way to chill out and above all getting rid of bad thoughts by writting them down.

And it worked, the pleasure to play and the ability to accept bad luck is back.

[ithilglin]

Originally posted by DontMisunderstand:

If you're looking at it that way... at a 50% win rate, the probability of getting to diamond at all would be 0.000006%. And that's rounding up.

That's the wrong way to look at it though. For a large enough number of reasons that it tires me out thinking about explaining them all.

don't bother, as I said above, the topic was just a way to chill out by expressing negative ideas i had after a very bad streak and very very frustrating because it happened when i was close to diamond, after an exceptionnalyt lucky one which increased the frustration feeling and above all because it was just boring losses, bad games after bad games with nothing I could do.. Losing does not bother me, nor to stay in platinum with my limited set of cards as long as my games are interisting

[Winter Wolf]

If they made a brandspanking new Shandalar Id be on that train for years.

[ʍolɟ ǝɥʇ ǝsɹǝʌǝɹ]

EOMM makes more sense. but could be other biases.

[ChaffyExpert]

People are always complaining about the shuffler being rigged, but there is no proof.

Your winrate is very low.

[ithilglin]

Originally posted by ChaffyExpert:

People are always complaining about the shuffler being rigged, but there is no proof.

Your winrate is very low.

As I explained above, i just needed to use this post to get rid of stupid thoughts after a bad streak, writting them down was a way to dispel them. i don't really think WoTC uses an algoriithm, but i saw the topic abpit it after the bad streak so my brain just found the hypothesis convenient momentaraly.

My winrate is perfectly fine for the few cards i have for the moment. And by definition, as long as you are above 50% your are above the average player. A 55% is pretty decent against decks about the same level than yours.

I managed to get to diamond with a deck of my own and not by stupidly copying a deck from the meta, i enjoy playing it, that's fine for me.

[Namdoolb]

Originally posted by ChaffyExpert:

People are always complaining about the shuffler being rigged, but there is no proof.

Your winrate is very low.

I mean.... objectively speaking that's incorrect.

The average winrate across all matches played on arena is 50%, by definition. So 55% is above the average.

It may not look to be far above the average, but the variance is quire deceptive. Indeed a winrate of over 60% in Bo1 would be indicative of extreme skill (or more likely extreme luck).

[DontMisunderstand]

Originally posted by Namdoolb:

Originally posted by ChaffyExpert:

People are always complaining about the shuffler being rigged, but there is no proof.

Your winrate is very low.

I mean.... objectively speaking that's incorrect.

The average winrate across all matches played on arena is 50%, by definition. So 55% is above the average.

It may not look to be far above the average, but the variance is quire deceptive. Indeed a winrate of over 60% in Bo1 would be indicative of extreme skill (or more likely extreme luck).

The thing about luck is that having an extreme amount is significantly less likely. There is a mathematical limit to winrates due to mana mechanics. My own calculations (starting with only a single assumption that I feel is fairly representative of the reality of the game) suggest that mathematical limit is around 64%. Of course it does take a lot of skill to reach significant winrates like that, both as a deckbuilder and as a player. Not to toot my own horn, but the data does bear out my prediction for that mathematical limit... the top performing pro players generally sit near the winrate I suggest, well within the variance expected of this level of randomness.

[ithilglin]

Originally posted by DontMisunderstand:

Originally posted by Namdoolb:

I mean.... objectively speaking that's incorrect.

The average winrate across all matches played on arena is 50%, by definition. So 55% is above the average.

It may not look to be far above the average, but the variance is quire deceptive. Indeed a winrate of over 60% in Bo1 would be indicative of extreme skill (or more likely extreme luck).

The thing about luck is that having an extreme amount is significantly less likely. There is a mathematical limit to winrates due to mana mechanics. My own calculations (starting with only a single assumption that I feel is fairly representative of the reality of the game) suggest that mathematical limit is around 64%. Of course it does take a lot of skill to reach significant winrates like that, both as a deckbuilder and as a player. Not to toot my own horn, but the data does bear out my prediction for that mathematical limit... the top performing pro players generally sit near the winrate I suggest, well within the variance expected of this level of randomness.

I agree, and it was more or less the thoughts I wanted to share but i made the mistake to write them when i was frustrated after a very very bad streak and it get lost in the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ you start to think about in those moments. And the fact that the topic about the lawsuit against WoTC for cheating was at the top of the forum didn't help and i went further into plotters mode...Yeah, Tymora was definitley playing with me that day^^

But one should take my post as a return of experience about what players without the best decks or best skills can experiment in this game.

The current ranking system is great to set players by levels, but i feel it frustrating in some ways. According to untapped the winrate of the best dacks are for the moment around 56%, and it is calculated on thousands of games so those are significant for eliminating the luck part which always be higher for single players (based on 220 games on the current season, the winrate of my current deck fluctuated between 63% and 51% cumulative but with streaks up to 75% and down to 30 %.
With an average around 55% at best and such variance, climbing the ladder becomes very frustrating and time consuming but it is the only existing way to compete against players of your level. It is still interisting on a single match, but I think that a ranking sytem in each level of ranked could improbe game experience, especially for new players : it is normal not to be able to climb the ladder when you start to play but if you can see rankings among players who have the same level than you, I think it could lower the frustration.