Crafted deck info: -A pretty insane aggro Death Knight deck (Unholy Unholy Frost) -30 cards, no cards that affect the size of the deck during the game or before a game starts, -2 Stoneborn Generals (protagonists of this story, or antagonists, you decide) -Highest cost card except double Stoneborn Generals is some 4-mana cards such as Remorseless Winter. So, no 5-9 mana cards this deck had. 28 out of 30 cards cost 1-4 mana. -For anyone interested what was my deck like, this is the link to the longest match of the run which lasted 15 rounds. Game 7
Notes: -If I see a Stoneborn General (SG) at mulligan phase, I never keep it. -Shuffle effects, specific card draws (Taelan Fordring) and tradable cards were not involved in any of the games.
Game 1 - Won on turn 7 - SG played: 0 SG drawn: 2 - at turn 4 & 6 - Cards In Deck (CID) by the time last SG is drawn: 20 Comment: This match didn't go long enough to get to 10 mana, so I couldn't play any SG. I drew 2 of them in just 10 cards.
Game 2 - Won on turn 11 - SG played: 1 SG drawn: 1 - at turn 10 - CID: 14 Comment: Even though I was winning, SG was a nice topdeck to finish the game next turn. I found 1 SG in 16 cards. Nothing unusual here.
Game 3 - Won on turn 5 - SG played: 0 SG drawn: 1 - at turn 4 - CID: 22 Comment: I had an insane aggro opener and finished the game quick. I drew 1 SG in 8 cards.
Game 4- Won on turn 11 - SG played: 2 SG drawn: 2 - at turn 4 & 5 - CID: 19 Comment: I found 2 SGs that I couldn't play until turn 10, in just 11 cards! Yeey! They sealed the game once I played them though.
Game 5- Won on turn 7 - SG played: 0 SG drawn: 2 - at turn 3 & 6 - CID: 20 Comment: My opponent was AFK. I found them damned SGs in 10 cards. Again.
Game 6- Lost on turn 11 - SG played: 1 SG drawn: 1 - at turn 2 - CID: 25 Comment: Found one in 5 cards. Wasn't good enough to prevent my loss by the time I could play it. At this point, I was surprised I didn't draw the second SG in 11 turns.
Game 7- Won on turn 15 - SG played: 2 SG drawn: 2 - at turn 1 & 10 - CID: 16 Comment: Longest game. I was able to draw 2 SGs in 14 cards.
Game 8- Won on turn 9 - SG played: 0 SG drawn: 2 - at turn 5 & 6 - CID: 19 Comment: Both of them in 11 cards.
Game 9 - Won on turn 8 - SG played: 0 SG drawn: 2 - at turn M & 5 - CID: 21 Comment: Got one after the mulligan. Both of them in 9 cards.
Game 10 - Lost on turn 11 - SG played: 1 SG drawn: 2 - at turn 4 & 5 - CID: 21 Comment: At this point, it felt like a sick joke to draw the second SG at turn 5, in 9 cards. One of my SGs got Patchwerk'ed cuz these guys were the only minions in my hand to be discarded.
Game 11 - Lost on turn 11 - SG played: 2 SG drawn: 2 - at turn 4 & 8 - CID: 16 Comment: My beloved SGs found me in 14 cards.
I have all of the replays. What do you guys think? Is this an acceptable range of RNG? A sick joke? A bug? Is universe simulated? P.S. Guys this is an 11-game sequence played back-to-back, resulting in a 8-3 arena run. Wouldn't you at least agree that this situation can be called 'unusual' to get at least 1 of 2 copies of a card in ALL of these games and getting 2 of 2 copies of the same card in 8 games? And this card we are talking about is a card that you don't want until late game so you never keep in mulligan. The total appearance should be somewhat less than 1 in 15 cards.
One thing I know for sure now is that at least some parts of hearthstone are rigged to a degree.
Most notably - matchups. I have usually had multiple different decks and often built new ones. Somewhere around Barrens/Stormwind I noticed that the decks I face change drastically depending on what deck I'm playing. Now, it's very obvious, but I wouldn't call it a bad thing. Yeah, sometimes it can screw me over, when I'm trying to tryhard to get legend before the end of a month, but most of the times it seems harmless. If you don't believe, that matchups are rigged, I recommend performing an experiment: build/use a bunch (around 10 would be fine) of different decks (they have to be as dissimilar to each other as possible - preferably all from different classes and different archetypes), play a minimum of 10 games with each of them. At the same time, make notes of what decks/archetypes/classes you face with each. I know it's time-consuming, but an experiment like this shows perfectly what i'm talking about.
Now, card draw, I believe, is also rigged in a way. I've been playing hearthstone since launch and I can tell with a high level of certainty, that hearthstone has a way of detecting the most "core" card(s) in your deck and making you draw them earlier. Probably the most noteworthy argument is that in Highlander decks, you just "always" draw Zephrys and other highlander cards early (as in before turn 10). Sure, sometimes you don't, but I would say, that it's an expetion rather than a general rule. In your case, I suppose hearstone detected those Stoneborn Generals as "core cards" in your deck, which caused you to draw them relatively early in your games.
Game 2 - Won on turn 11 - SG played: 1 SG drawn: 1 - at turn 10 - CID: 14 Comment: Even though I was winning, SG was a nice topdeck to finish the game next turn. I found 1 SG in 16 cards. Nothing unusual here.
But what IS unusual? If the card is NOT around the middle of your deck? Because THAT would be unusual if it consistently did.
Did you try with any other card in your deck? EXACTLY! You're only interested in SG so you only think of those odds instead of all the other cards.
BTW: What is even the abnormal thing about those games? They look like some pretty insignificant dice rolls...
Would you mind sharing your data from when you did this so we can see what you've discovered?
Sure, here's a brief summary from the notes I made.
I did this between may 26-30 2022, during Voyage to the sunken city. To add a bit more context, it's worth noting, that it was not long after a balance patch with a bunch of changes. I don't really remember all of them, but I'm pretty sure it was the one in which they nerfed Aggro DH and Drek'Thar.
So, in short, I played 8 decks - 10 games with each. Here are the results:
1. Holy Paladin - faced 7 control warriors, 1 questline priest, 1 murlock warlock and 1 face hunter (i specifically wrote "face hunter" in my notes, so I guess it must have been a version without the questline)
2. Naga Priest - faced 3 mech mages, 2 mirrors (other Naga Priests), 2 Aggro Demon Hunters, 2 Ramp Druids, 1 Shaman (I didn't write an archetype name, but if I remember correctly burn shaman was the only played shaman deck at the time)
3. Control Warrior - faced 8 (!) Holy Paladins, 1 questline hunter and 1 curse warlock
8. Questline Shaman (i specifically made a meme-ish deck, although I did quite well with it) - 2 Aggro Demon Hunters, 2 mech mages, 1 thief rogue, 1 murlock warlock, 1 holy paladin, 1 questline priest, 1 naga priest, 1 mech mage
That's about it. I could include win/loss stats, but I think those are not relevant here. I'm no expert, but for me this experiment confirmed somthing I had suspected for a very long time - that specific decks face specific decks or at least archetypes more frequently.
I didn't do any experiments later, but even now it's apparent, that when playing Blood DK I face almost exclusively against aggro decks, but when playing undead priest most of my games are agianst Blood DK, Druid and other ctontrol-ish decks.
I hope I made everything clear, if not, feel free to ask me any questions you want.
So, in short, I played 8 decks - 10 games with each. Here are the results:
With your set-up, it's just exactly possible to face each class once (and only because it was pre DK). Wouldn't it be way crazier if you actually faced a full representation of the meta with each deck?
100%. Been playing off and on since early Beta and can attest this is to be true in not only my experience - but my play data.
Everything is rigged to a degree in this game so that Blizzard can maintain and manage the win experience for players.
The aspects of manipulation are as follows: 1) Matchups. 2) RNG elements. 3) Card draw sequence. 4) Discover relevance.
This is why they will never reduce the heavy amounts of supposed "RNG" aspects of the game. They claim this makes it 'fun' despite the fact that the overwhelming player majority says that not only is RNG not fun, it also removes deck building strategy and hampers the overall gameplaying experience for both players. It does not feel good for either to win by pure luck.
They will also never remove Discover as it allows losing decks to secure stolen wins by better planned, constucted and played decks.
100%. Been playing off and on since early Beta and can attest this is to be true in not only my experience - but my play data.
Everything is rigged to a degree in this game so that Blizzard can maintain and manage the win experience for players.
The aspects of manipulation are as follows: 1) Matchups. 2) RNG elements. 3) Card draw sequence. 4) Discover relevance.
This is why they will never reduce the heavy amounts of supposed "RNG" aspects of the game. They claim this makes it 'fun' despite the fact that the overwhelming player majority says that not only is RNG not fun, it also removes deck building strategy and hampers the overall gameplaying experience for both players. It does not feel good for either to win by pure luck.
They will also never remove Discover as it allows losing decks to secure stolen wins by better planned, constucted and played decks.
Would you mind sharing the relevant play data you've collected so we can see how you got to these conclusions?
Nope. Ain't nobody got time for that.
That's my opinion from my own experience from playing this game since early Beta. I have years of sample data via my tracker but I'm stating my opinion for anyone to take or leave.
If you don't agree for whatever reasons, simply state your reasons or move on.
I used to be sure that none of the RNG in the game was rigged, because, like this post, no evidence is substantial enough to warrant the conclusion that it is rigged. Nowadays, though, the idea of Blizzard pulling some ropes doesn't seem that far fetched for some reason, so I'm not sure anymore.
I think you all have a different approach to that matter than me. Yeah, I do believe, that many parts of the game are "rigged", as proved by my previous comments on this thread. However, I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing per se. The (suspected) mechanism making players draw the important cards in their decks faster, if exists, is nothing but a way to make games more interesting and reduce frustration caused by the core cards hiding in the bottom of the deck. To answer any possible questions - no, i don't have any "proof" of that, but if you've played the game for many years like me, it's just obvious, that such a hidden mechanism exists in the game. "Rigged" matchmaking also makes sense. Yall think, that it's purpose is to "make players angry" or "screw with them", but in reality, it's also a way of making the game more enjoyable. Are control mirrors very enjoyable? Is it fun to play against the same deck or archetype all the time? I really don't like playing devil's advocate, but in this case, I just have to. Many games already have stuff like this "officially". For example, in Dead By Daylight (a popular multiplayer horror game) said mechanism makes you play against different killers and on different maps more frequently. This function is greatly appreciated by the community of that game. So, in short, my point is, that "rigging" certain aspects of a game is often not a bad thing at all.
The comments here prove nothing. It’s like with all conspiracy theories: a mixture of anecdotes and personal experiences that are influenced by a lot of psychological mistakes (primacy/recency/halo effect to name a few, if you are interested in how real studies work, you can look them up) plus some data with a way to small sample size to ever be significant. To draw conclusions about matchups, you would need a) play at least hundreds better thousands of games per deck, b) adjust the data for class/deck frequency changes that happen all the time, c) include cofounders like mmr and deck wr into your calculations (since winning more leads to facing better decks resulting in less diversity the higher your mmr gets, since the amount of playable decks is reduced/losing more makes way more decks viable) and d) analysis of the data including a p-value (how likely is the data the product of pure rng), graphics and significance tests while e) that becomes very difficult since no algorithm in the world produces true randomness, that is to the date only possible with analoge randomness generators.
Since no one in such posts even complete step a) - not to speak of the whole statistics thing, for that you need to have experience from sience/maths university classes- there is no proof anywhere here. The one guy claiming he has data since beta doesn’t even share the raw data - not that it would help much, he would have to play all his games with a tracker and you would need a bunch of data about the respective metas, deck frequencies, etc pp.
The „experiment“ of playing 10 games with each deck is no experiment: sample size way to small to ever be significant, none of the data necessary to determine the „natural“ rate of a deck, not repeatable by anyone since it’s mmr dependent etc pp
You... need to read a professionally sourced book on or take a college class in statistics.
Your sample size wouldn't even be called laughable by any manner of reasonable statistical analysis... there's not even a word to describe how incomplete your data set is.
To put this into comparison, your premise, as translated to another genre, reads: "The Titanic was sunk by an iceberg, therefore all large ocean vessels sink because of icebergs."
Until several people band up, during each card expansion, to play certain specific decks and be able to provide a decent sample size of games, every "data" is useless. Now they increased the freq of releases, so it's very hard for 1 player to have thousands of games with more than one deck. So people need to cooperate to uncover the truth. Very hard to do in practice.
While i do agree with the OP, that SOMETHING is happening (otherwise changing decks would have no effect on what you're facing), it wasn't yet proven. Everything could just drop around the average after 1000 games.
So band up people, start cooperating. Let's expose what blizzard doesn't want to tell us
You people all take this thing way too seriously. It's not like we're trying to prove that Illuminati exists here. Btw, if you actually read my comments instead of making assumptions based on who knows what, or just did a little bit of research yourself, you'd know, that - and I'm not going to write another comment on this thread, because it's getting boring already - the stuff we're talking about is ABSOLUTELY NORMAL in multiplayer games. It's not a conspiracy theory. It's something developers of most games are actually quite proud of. People on both sides of this discussion - I don't care what you all believe, just go and listen to some interviews, podcasts etc. from various game developers. I understand, that the word "rigged" just sounds bad, but if you actually think RNG in multiplayer games is completely random, you need to read up on this topic.
I'm curious how people conclude that their draw was rigged. It often seems like anything that isn't an average of all values is considered rigged or ANY card being pulled was suddenly the unlikely event that proved it all.
Would it make sense to make the counter card more likely to appear from discover? It would add to the excitement, but my experience is that people tend to pull out cards that are just powerful complimentary effects, making that miracle Twisting Nether from 3 turns before a lot less sensational.
Would it make sense to match up people in accordance to their win rate and play experience? ABSOLUTELY! It's called match making and it's no secret that it's an essential part of the ladder experience, just like those people in the NFL aren't randomly picked, because an unfair match-up is a waste of all players time.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Crafted deck info:
-A pretty insane aggro Death Knight deck (Unholy Unholy Frost)
-30 cards, no cards that affect the size of the deck during the game or before a game starts,
-2 Stoneborn Generals (protagonists of this story, or antagonists, you decide)
-Highest cost card except double Stoneborn Generals is some 4-mana cards such as Remorseless Winter. So, no 5-9 mana cards this deck had. 28 out of 30 cards cost 1-4 mana.
-For anyone interested what was my deck like, this is the link to the longest match of the run which lasted 15 rounds. Game 7
Notes:
-If I see a Stoneborn General (SG) at mulligan phase, I never keep it.
-Shuffle effects, specific card draws (Taelan Fordring) and tradable cards were not involved in any of the games.
Game 1 - Won on turn 7 - SG played: 0
SG drawn: 2 - at turn 4 & 6 - Cards In Deck (CID) by the time last SG is drawn: 20
Comment: This match didn't go long enough to get to 10 mana, so I couldn't play any SG. I drew 2 of them in just 10 cards.
Game 2 - Won on turn 11 - SG played: 1
SG drawn: 1 - at turn 10 - CID: 14
Comment: Even though I was winning, SG was a nice topdeck to finish the game next turn. I found 1 SG in 16 cards. Nothing unusual here.
Game 3 - Won on turn 5 - SG played: 0
SG drawn: 1 - at turn 4 - CID: 22
Comment: I had an insane aggro opener and finished the game quick. I drew 1 SG in 8 cards.
Game 4 - Won on turn 11 - SG played: 2
SG drawn: 2 - at turn 4 & 5 - CID: 19
Comment: I found 2 SGs that I couldn't play until turn 10, in just 11 cards! Yeey! They sealed the game once I played them though.
Game 5 - Won on turn 7 - SG played: 0
SG drawn: 2 - at turn 3 & 6 - CID: 20
Comment: My opponent was AFK. I found them damned SGs in 10 cards. Again.
Game 6 - Lost on turn 11 - SG played: 1
SG drawn: 1 - at turn 2 - CID: 25
Comment: Found one in 5 cards. Wasn't good enough to prevent my loss by the time I could play it. At this point, I was surprised I didn't draw the second SG in 11 turns.
Game 7 - Won on turn 15 - SG played: 2
SG drawn: 2 - at turn 1 & 10 - CID: 16
Comment: Longest game. I was able to draw 2 SGs in 14 cards.
Game 8 - Won on turn 9 - SG played: 0
SG drawn: 2 - at turn 5 & 6 - CID: 19
Comment: Both of them in 11 cards.
Game 9 - Won on turn 8 - SG played: 0
SG drawn: 2 - at turn M & 5 - CID: 21
Comment: Got one after the mulligan. Both of them in 9 cards.
Game 10 - Lost on turn 11 - SG played: 1
SG drawn: 2 - at turn 4 & 5 - CID: 21
Comment: At this point, it felt like a sick joke to draw the second SG at turn 5, in 9 cards. One of my SGs got Patchwerk'ed cuz these guys were the only minions in my hand to be discarded.
Game 11 - Lost on turn 11 - SG played: 2
SG drawn: 2 - at turn 4 & 8 - CID: 16
Comment: My beloved SGs found me in 14 cards.
I have all of the replays. What do you guys think? Is this an acceptable range of RNG? A sick joke? A bug? Is universe simulated?
P.S. Guys this is an 11-game sequence played back-to-back, resulting in a 8-3 arena run. Wouldn't you at least agree that this situation can be called 'unusual' to get at least 1 of 2 copies of a card in ALL of these games and getting 2 of 2 copies of the same card in 8 games? And this card we are talking about is a card that you don't want until late game so you never keep in mulligan. The total appearance should be somewhat less than 1 in 15 cards.
I think it is a very small sample size and confirmation bias. As usual.
If you see a bad post on the forum use the report function under it, so I or someone else of the moderation team can take care of it!
Yes. Depending on your win rate. IS not random as you may think.
One thing I know for sure now is that at least some parts of hearthstone are rigged to a degree.
Most notably - matchups. I have usually had multiple different decks and often built new ones. Somewhere around Barrens/Stormwind I noticed that the decks I face change drastically depending on what deck I'm playing. Now, it's very obvious, but I wouldn't call it a bad thing. Yeah, sometimes it can screw me over, when I'm trying to tryhard to get legend before the end of a month, but most of the times it seems harmless. If you don't believe, that matchups are rigged, I recommend performing an experiment: build/use a bunch (around 10 would be fine) of different decks (they have to be as dissimilar to each other as possible - preferably all from different classes and different archetypes), play a minimum of 10 games with each of them. At the same time, make notes of what decks/archetypes/classes you face with each. I know it's time-consuming, but an experiment like this shows perfectly what i'm talking about.
Now, card draw, I believe, is also rigged in a way. I've been playing hearthstone since launch and I can tell with a high level of certainty, that hearthstone has a way of detecting the most "core" card(s) in your deck and making you draw them earlier. Probably the most noteworthy argument is that in Highlander decks, you just "always" draw Zephrys and other highlander cards early (as in before turn 10). Sure, sometimes you don't, but I would say, that it's an expetion rather than a general rule. In your case, I suppose hearstone detected those Stoneborn Generals as "core cards" in your deck, which caused you to draw them relatively early in your games.
But what IS unusual? If the card is NOT around the middle of your deck? Because THAT would be unusual if it consistently did.
Did you try with any other card in your deck? EXACTLY! You're only interested in SG so you only think of those odds instead of all the other cards.
BTW: What is even the abnormal thing about those games? They look like some pretty insignificant dice rolls...
Sure, here's a brief summary from the notes I made.
I did this between may 26-30 2022, during Voyage to the sunken city. To add a bit more context, it's worth noting, that it was not long after a balance patch with a bunch of changes. I don't really remember all of them, but I'm pretty sure it was the one in which they nerfed Aggro DH and Drek'Thar.
So, in short, I played 8 decks - 10 games with each. Here are the results:
1. Holy Paladin - faced 7 control warriors, 1 questline priest, 1 murlock warlock and 1 face hunter (i specifically wrote "face hunter" in my notes, so I guess it must have been a version without the questline)
2. Naga Priest - faced 3 mech mages, 2 mirrors (other Naga Priests), 2 Aggro Demon Hunters, 2 Ramp Druids, 1 Shaman (I didn't write an archetype name, but if I remember correctly burn shaman was the only played shaman deck at the time)
3. Control Warrior - faced 8 (!) Holy Paladins, 1 questline hunter and 1 curse warlock
4. Mech Mage - faced 4 Control warriors, 2 questline warriors, 1 questline priest, 1 thief rogue, 1 naga mage, 1 holy paladin
5. Curse Warlock - faced 5 Aggro Demon Hunters, 2 Ramp Druids, 1 mech paladin, 1 mech mage and 1 mirror (curse warlock)
6. Aggro DH - faced 4 Curse warlocks, 3 control warriors, 1 naga priest, 1 thief rogue and 1 questline warlock
7. Thief Rogue - faced 4 holy paladins, 2 naga priests, 2 mech mages, 1 naga mage and 1 beast hunter
8. Questline Shaman (i specifically made a meme-ish deck, although I did quite well with it) - 2 Aggro Demon Hunters, 2 mech mages, 1 thief rogue, 1 murlock warlock, 1 holy paladin, 1 questline priest, 1 naga priest, 1 mech mage
That's about it. I could include win/loss stats, but I think those are not relevant here. I'm no expert, but for me this experiment confirmed somthing I had suspected for a very long time - that specific decks face specific decks or at least archetypes more frequently.
I didn't do any experiments later, but even now it's apparent, that when playing Blood DK I face almost exclusively against aggro decks, but when playing undead priest most of my games are agianst Blood DK, Druid and other ctontrol-ish decks.
I hope I made everything clear, if not, feel free to ask me any questions you want.
With your set-up, it's just exactly possible to face each class once (and only because it was pre DK). Wouldn't it be way crazier if you actually faced a full representation of the meta with each deck?
Everything is « rigged » in hearthstone, there are special hidden rules, if there weren’t, the code would be open source.
100%. Been playing off and on since early Beta and can attest this is to be true in not only my experience - but my play data.
Everything is rigged to a degree in this game so that Blizzard can maintain and manage the win experience for players.
The aspects of manipulation are as follows: 1) Matchups. 2) RNG elements. 3) Card draw sequence. 4) Discover relevance.
This is why they will never reduce the heavy amounts of supposed "RNG" aspects of the game. They claim this makes it 'fun' despite the fact that the overwhelming player majority says that not only is RNG not fun, it also removes deck building strategy and hampers the overall gameplaying experience for both players. It does not feel good for either to win by pure luck.
They will also never remove Discover as it allows losing decks to secure stolen wins by better planned, constucted and played decks.
This.
I think you should stop playing arena , this mode is doomed. Lmao
Also, Stoneborn General sucks in current arena.
Nope. Ain't nobody got time for that.
That's my opinion from my own experience from playing this game since early Beta. I have years of sample data via my tracker but I'm stating my opinion for anyone to take or leave.
If you don't agree for whatever reasons, simply state your reasons or move on.
I used to be sure that none of the RNG in the game was rigged, because, like this post, no evidence is substantial enough to warrant the conclusion that it is rigged. Nowadays, though, the idea of Blizzard pulling some ropes doesn't seem that far fetched for some reason, so I'm not sure anymore.
I think you all have a different approach to that matter than me. Yeah, I do believe, that many parts of the game are "rigged", as proved by my previous comments on this thread. However, I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing per se. The (suspected) mechanism making players draw the important cards in their decks faster, if exists, is nothing but a way to make games more interesting and reduce frustration caused by the core cards hiding in the bottom of the deck. To answer any possible questions - no, i don't have any "proof" of that, but if you've played the game for many years like me, it's just obvious, that such a hidden mechanism exists in the game. "Rigged" matchmaking also makes sense. Yall think, that it's purpose is to "make players angry" or "screw with them", but in reality, it's also a way of making the game more enjoyable. Are control mirrors very enjoyable? Is it fun to play against the same deck or archetype all the time? I really don't like playing devil's advocate, but in this case, I just have to. Many games already have stuff like this "officially". For example, in Dead By Daylight (a popular multiplayer horror game) said mechanism makes you play against different killers and on different maps more frequently. This function is greatly appreciated by the community of that game. So, in short, my point is, that "rigging" certain aspects of a game is often not a bad thing at all.
The comments here prove nothing. It’s like with all conspiracy theories: a mixture of anecdotes and personal experiences that are influenced by a lot of psychological mistakes (primacy/recency/halo effect to name a few, if you are interested in how real studies work, you can look them up) plus some data with a way to small sample size to ever be significant. To draw conclusions about matchups, you would need a) play at least hundreds better thousands of games per deck, b) adjust the data for class/deck frequency changes that happen all the time, c) include cofounders like mmr and deck wr into your calculations (since winning more leads to facing better decks resulting in less diversity the higher your mmr gets, since the amount of playable decks is reduced/losing more makes way more decks viable) and d) analysis of the data including a p-value (how likely is the data the product of pure rng), graphics and significance tests while e) that becomes very difficult since no algorithm in the world produces true randomness, that is to the date only possible with analoge randomness generators.
Since no one in such posts even complete step a) - not to speak of the whole statistics thing, for that you need to have experience from sience/maths university classes- there is no proof anywhere here. The one guy claiming he has data since beta doesn’t even share the raw data - not that it would help much, he would have to play all his games with a tracker and you would need a bunch of data about the respective metas, deck frequencies, etc pp.
The „experiment“ of playing 10 games with each deck is no experiment: sample size way to small to ever be significant, none of the data necessary to determine the „natural“ rate of a deck, not repeatable by anyone since it’s mmr dependent etc pp
You... need to read a professionally sourced book on or take a college class in statistics.
Your sample size wouldn't even be called laughable by any manner of reasonable statistical analysis... there's not even a word to describe how incomplete your data set is.
To put this into comparison, your premise, as translated to another genre, reads: "The Titanic was sunk by an iceberg, therefore all large ocean vessels sink because of icebergs."
Until several people band up, during each card expansion, to play certain specific decks and be able to provide a decent sample size of games, every "data" is useless. Now they increased the freq of releases, so it's very hard for 1 player to have thousands of games with more than one deck. So people need to cooperate to uncover the truth. Very hard to do in practice.
While i do agree with the OP, that SOMETHING is happening (otherwise changing decks would have no effect on what you're facing), it wasn't yet proven. Everything could just drop around the average after 1000 games.
So band up people, start cooperating. Let's expose what blizzard doesn't want to tell us
You people all take this thing way too seriously. It's not like we're trying to prove that Illuminati exists here. Btw, if you actually read my comments instead of making assumptions based on who knows what, or just did a little bit of research yourself, you'd know, that - and I'm not going to write another comment on this thread, because it's getting boring already - the stuff we're talking about is ABSOLUTELY NORMAL in multiplayer games. It's not a conspiracy theory. It's something developers of most games are actually quite proud of. People on both sides of this discussion - I don't care what you all believe, just go and listen to some interviews, podcasts etc. from various game developers. I understand, that the word "rigged" just sounds bad, but if you actually think RNG in multiplayer games is completely random, you need to read up on this topic.
I'm curious how people conclude that their draw was rigged. It often seems like anything that isn't an average of all values is considered rigged or ANY card being pulled was suddenly the unlikely event that proved it all.
Would it make sense to make the counter card more likely to appear from discover? It would add to the excitement, but my experience is that people tend to pull out cards that are just powerful complimentary effects, making that miracle Twisting Nether from 3 turns before a lot less sensational.
Would it make sense to match up people in accordance to their win rate and play experience? ABSOLUTELY! It's called match making and it's no secret that it's an essential part of the ladder experience, just like those people in the NFL aren't randomly picked, because an unfair match-up is a waste of all players time.