My apologies if you're 1700+ and I instaquit on you.

Dear....anyone with an MP rank of 1700 and up,

I give up. You win. I surrender. Wholesale.

I'll never fight any of you again. Ever. I can't. I just don't see the point, anymore.

Any argument about how this shouldn't be happening and how it's against the rules is all well and good. You get to preach that to me all you'd like. You have that right.

But, then, I get to make the equally valid argument that a game with 6 AI's and a VERY active MP community in game shouldn't be matching players ranked 1750 should be against players ranked 1331 [what happened to me, today].

I've lost count how many time I've seen possible solutions to this problem in the Feedback and Suggestions section. *I* even made a whole thread suggesting a possible solution to this.

In 19 months playing CH, I have still yet to beat anyone ranked above 1650, and I'm aware that this is because I'm still not skilled enough, yet. I KNOW this. I'm FULLY aware of this. Me having to face 1700's shouldn't even be an ALMOST possible scenario in a community THIS big.

I find that playing against 1700's almost always results in a blitz against me, anyway. This is one of the biggest reasons why I find Leagues extremely radioactive--I'm not that much of a sucker for punishment on my most BDSMish-esque day. I know when I'm outclassed completely and totally, and that's why I play Ranked matches only.

This shouldn't be happening in Ranked, though.

So, if you draw me in Ranked, and you find that I instaquit on you, it's no hard feelings. I just don't have it in me any more to try fighting anyone 1700 or up. It's not you, it's me.

Sorry,
Mike.

 

It's a random system. I've fought 1700+ players when I've been bellow 1k ELO. For me, it's all about the challege and learning how to work with RNG factors in my decks. It's your own personal choice and I'll respect that opinion just wanted to share my personal thoughts.

 

maybe there should be an option to face opponent with a wider range... so a player with 1700 can choose to play only with 1500+ to avoid losing too many ELO point in a single unluckyly loss without any ELO gain and a big time loss to gain ELO. and player in 1100 can choose to avoid player with 1500+ but they will not face player with 500- of course

I can Understand that not everybody like challenge of course....

 

My elo has been around 1750-1850 for the past couple of months, and I have lost to 1400 and under more times than I want to admit, in fact I think my win rate vs low elo is lower than vs high elo.
I have a few guesses why this is but that would move away from the point - you cant just insta resign without trying because you never know if you will win.
You can even take today as an example - so far I have played 4 games. I won the three vs 1500+ and lost to the 1200 elo (sure I did barely lose and would have won if the opp did not block a killing blow hit with a 6+ roll, but that beside the point ).

 

@BlackVoidDeath

You've made a good point there too. RNG has worked in my favor in that sense before too. I've gone from a high 800+ ELO to a low or mid 900+ ELO because of lucky block rolls and good draws.

 

Just a couple days ago, I at ~1300 won against one of the ~1700 big names. I actually like getting matched against these people. If I beat them, it's a major Cardhunting accomplishment on my part; if not, that's what I expected to happen anyway. And I get to see what and how the famous players play.

I find having hope that I can win is a big factor. Sometimes I wonder if high-level players would seem as difficult if I couldn't see their rating. When I lack hope, either because my opponent's highly leveled or I got off to a bad start, I play with a sort of fatalism: "Hm, just noticed they're 5 away from me. But moving away would mess up my plans. I'll just pretend I didn't notice and hope they don't have a charge; I'm probably not going to win anyway." I think the right way to go into it is to expect you can win if you're careful and make the right decisions.

As BlackVoidDeath says, it seems like lower-rated decks aren't necessarily ill-matched to higher ones. Occasionally I slip into the 1100s and 1200s and it can be surprisingly hard to get out of there; I don't know whether it's because I put in less effort against lower-elo people or whether something about my decks or playing really is worse against that range. In the case of my recent big win, I also just happened to have quite a few counters to my opponent's specific build.

 

@wereviper: TOO random. Players more than 250 above or below you shouldn't even be part of the Ranked matchmaking equation at this point; it's not like the size of CH's player base is so concentrated and small that any bigger a difference is required. There's also 6 AI's, too. Also, I have to reiterate, here--this isn't League that I'm playing [and for good reason].

@vitreo84: There's challenge [vs. Blizkenripper, vs. Hard AI missions, vs. 1500's], and then there's impossible. I'm not saying that it's impossible to beat a 1700. I'm saying that it's impossible--currently, at least--for ME to beat a 1700. I just don't have the makings, yet, it seems. It's not that I DON'T like a good challenge, I just know when I'm completely and totally outclassed, period. 1700's just have things I don't have, yet, and I'm fine with that. I'm just not ready for them. Shouldn't have to be forced to fight them before I'm even ALMOST ready to, either. Try telling the likes of @Jon and @Flaxative this, though. Pretty sure they give 1% of a CENSORED if it's not either BM staff, Forum staff, Chat staff, someone that contributes to making MM's on a regular basis, or just plain out and out someone that's posted on the forums for years. I'm 99.99999% positive that this applies with Flaxative at the very least.

@BlackVoidDeath: Luck only gets you so far vs. anyone above 1500; I seem to ESPECIALLY keep finding this out the hard way vs. any 1600. 1700? No. Just no. I don't have it, yet. I almost unilaterally get blitzed vs. 1700's, even with the best play possible with the cards I draw. I have to conclude after a 19-month losing streak against them that I still just don't have it, yet, and I shouldn't be FORCED to have it before I'm even at 1400. It's not fair to people like you [whose ratings can drop like a 1-ton weight if NOTHING goes right], and definitely isn't fair to people who have to FACE YOU when their rank clearly shows that they SHOULDN'T be facing you, yet. Even the GAME knows that they shouldn't be facing you, yet. The GAME, ITSELF undeniably knows that it screwed up. It is SUCH a complete mood killer to maybe--just maybe--have the makings of a good win streak going only to have stuff like.....THAT happen. He was just under 1800 at the time, btw.

@SceoMyntan: I'm not as good as you. Clearly. I'm trying. I promise I am, but, I'm not that good, obviously, or I'd have at least come CLOSE--ONE TIME, at least--to beating a 1700 19 months in, but, it's been a 6-3 loss or lower on my part in every single one of my matches vs. 1700's, without fail. I can't make plans before a match even starts, 'cause they inevitably collapse, at some point. I just think on the fly, and when one of my team gets AOA Pulverizing Bludgeoned on the 2nd round [or basically anything equally annoying concerning Wizards], there's only one possible outcome for me at that point. I'm sorry, but, that's the truth. Most people are the eternal optimist--I'm the eternal pessimist. While I'm not one of the dummies who pack in 18 billion Nimbuses, I do literally start each match hoping that I have the defenses to prevent such annoying things from happening. I PLAY like I'm fighting a loss, rather than plotting out a win. I seem to suck less that way. I keep finding out that I seem to play at my best if I'm playing defensively, especially.
All that being said, your average 1700 has been better cards than someone like you or I. Period. They can counter nearly every strat, crush nearly every defense and foil nearly every plan that someone of my rank [1361, as of this post] could POSSIBLY come up with. I can't depend on luck vs. a 1700. It never even ALMOST works. For me, anyway.

 

Digging into BM's personal motives is .. sketchy, to put it nicely, but otherwise, I agree that the ranked matchmaking system sometimes is loony, especially with all those GMs. I meant to post this somewhile back:



I've seen people in World Chat forget that Mom, Cardo3K, or Amy even exist because (for some reason) they're comparatively rare. Of course, the fact that they can barely keep up doesn't help. Right after CM came out, Gary started stomping, which was awesome to see -- but he's gone back to his old ways. (Mom's rough, though. I'd rather face Cardo2k, lol.) Meanwhile, no GM's deck has been updated in years, eh? Not counting card changes (Telekinesis, Elven Maneuvers, etc.) nor the addition of Cardo3K of course. Too bad an Entropic GM would likely do terribly -- unless using Legendary characters perhaps? No CM GM yet of course -- and even then, that'd be nearly the only player using Vampire or Spirit Forms due to their unfortunate welterweight status.

My reply is pointed a bit more at BM than Mikey, eh? Hm.

 

This season I'm running at an 85% win rate, I'm not loosing many games, but the last one I lost was vs a 1380 rank, so man up and face the challenge, anyone can beat anyone..

 

Realisticlly, I don't think there is not one of us that doesn't get mad at a video game such as CH...believe me I speak from experence...but just like any video game, I can get up and walk away from it. It's not real life and personally I don't see taking a game seriously. I'm not going to say I'm not frustrated when I lose left and right but I also realize that a game is not going to be the end the world. Ultimently, a game is for entertainment...life will still be here long after games are gone.

 

@Janet: No, anyone can NOT beat anyone, anything and everything is NOT possible, and you CAN'T do anything if you put your mind to it. Some of us just don't have the cards [or the skill set] to make it happen, even though some of us play Campaign way more than we play MP [mostly for the items].
If I wanted to "man up" [as if wanting to face a 1700 is a mark of a man, somehow], and go against players 300-500 rank above me, I'd play League games. I don't, because pros INFEST Leagues, and I don't have the skill to beat a 1700. That's a fact--plain and simple--that I've come to accept. I choose to play where ratings SHOULD matter, seeing as there's a matchmaking system set up that SHOULD be matching players according to relative skill levels.

Let's not play the "man" card, though. It doesn't contribute to anything.

 

http://cardhuntermeta.farbs.org/playerprofile.php?name=Gnizla

65% win rating... seem pretty good

 

Agreed.

Cards : you might not have the perfect set of, but you probably have good enough ones to make a decent deck. And your cards don't matter in fixed and quick draw leagues.
Skill set : is not a fixed thing. You can improve it. Not everybody can rise to the skills of the best, but who knows how far you can go ?
And if all else fails, you can always pray for Inactivity Timeout

 

I often fare better against the 1700s than the 1400s for some reason. Makes my rating bounce around crazily at times.

 

@rinco69 has said all that needs to be said

 

Most (about 95%) of my losses this season are vs players with 1500 or less even to a 1200 and i doing good this month.

 

I agree with @Janet that @rinco69 ended the argument re: play-or-not and can-win-or-not. However, since Janet quoted my post (and I'm still not really sure why), I just wanted to clarify something:

I really only talked about the matchmaking system. It does go wonky sometimes imo, especially considering the allow-GMs mechanic. (Well, I also talked about the BM's-motives thing. But anyway.)

Otherwise, yep, play stuff out. With the argument already ended, I'd like to advise Mikey on something. If you don't win against an opponent, (or you do win for that matter,) learn from it. "But cards and items! But they take actions I don't even understand!" Cool, 'kay. Ask about it. 1. Some players don't talk at all, or you wish they wouldn't, lol, but some will answer questions after a match, like, why did you do XYZ at that time. 2. You might also get a third party's perspective. Ask someone in World to review some of your matches. Such an observer might have insight to tell after the match (or at least after a round -- I'm not suggesting ganging up on anyone, ha ha) that'll make things click for you better. My play (ntm deckbuilding) was garbage before others intervened. $E^ D

Finally, when all else fails, Aug. 9, 2016, 3:50 p.m. #neverforget $;^ J

 

@rinco69 and @vitreo84: I stll remember that win; my first ever win vs. a 1600. Gnizla [@Janet]'s rank was actually just over 1600 when I beat him. Wasn't even 1650, let alone 1700. It was 6-5, too, so, it's not like it wasn't luck.

@Casual42, @FinalCheetah, @Janet and @Macizo: Again, I can only conclude that the people that beat you are either much luckier than me, have much better item libraries than me, are much better than me, or are some combination of the 3. Those are the ONLY logical conclusions I can come up with. I OCCASIONALLY get lucky vs 1600's, and have come dangerously close on rare occasions vs. 1650's, but vs. anyone 1700 and up has almost always been a blitz. Not even close. Always 6-3 or less in their favor, without fail. Isn't the logical conclusion that I'm just not skilled enough to have any real chance vs. 1700's?

@ParodyKnaveBob: It's not that I can't learn from anything, it's that I don't always have the items that ALLOW for hyped-up strategies. I only have 1 Blue Destruction. 1 Strongarm. 1 Vibrant Pain. Heck, in 19 months, I have a grand total of FOUR Fireball cards. FOUR. Either these items aren't so good by themselves, or I just suck at using just one of them, and need more not look like a complete idiot. Almost positive it's the latter. Keep in mind that item libraries DO play more of a part than people realize--the ones that have been playing for even longer than I have [19.5 months] had access to less condensed item libraries, and therefore had better chances of picking up more copies of the Legendaries that actually DON'T reek of "Epic".
Also, I DO play things out.....just not vs. 1700's, anymore. I already have to put up with a lacking card library on my part, and EXTREMELY skewed Ranked MP map selections [When you still look forward to Halloween in January, there's a problem]. Why in the world should I [or ANYONE, for that matter] ALSO have to put up with having to fight someone 325 rank higher than I am IN RANKED?
I mean, Matchmaking tried to make me fight Mitsuaki yesterday, for crying out loud. Their rating was 1822, mine was 1377. NO.

I have to reiterate that again, fellas; This isn't League, I'm talking about. I ONLY play Ranked. I don't play League BECAUSE I hate fighting 1700's. I just know that I'm not ready. I prefer to face those around my rank. Just for this reason [well....and also, 'cause League Maps are even worse, but, you likely know what I mean].

 

I do not denny that the match system need some change but now that bust strategies are less dominant (and legendary heavy) can do some teamd without legendaris that work well i past about 13 months before i got my first VP (anyone know that i play mostly warriors or melee), and was doing good before.

Yesterday i post a team with 5 legendaries witch 3 are boots an not are a "must be" and the other 2 is the same case are exchangeable that they arent key part of the strategy.

Know your strategy, plan for your strategy and play for it.