I know everyone hates mage bla bla bla... but I’ve noticed that draw rate is not that random. This is not a mage salt thread.
ive played more than 100 games as mage in the last few days. I always redraw when mulligan doesn’t include lunacy, all 3 or 4 cards. Guess what though, lunacy is never ever drawn on turn one. Maybe twice in 100 games x 3.5 cards on average redrawn. That’s 7 cards out of 30 including the original draw
You do realize that the sample size of 100 games is pathetically irrelevant. In fact, of all the tens of thousands of games being played right now, someone has to draw the short straw and get unlucky where someone else gets Lunacy in their opening hand far more often than average. The same thing happens with pack openings where the average is 1 legendary in 20 packs but some people get much luckier and get far more legendaries than that and some people reach the pity timer. That's just how statistics work. Just because the average is 1 in 7 doesn't mean you're guaranteed to get it once every 7 games. Random is random and your 'evidence' of a sample size of 100 is more or less irrelevant. Once you've played 10,000 games, you'd almost certainly reach your 1 in 7 average, you just got off to a bad start.
Either that or you've uncovered a Blizzard conspiracy where they're watching you and making sure you only get Lunacy once every 50 games. Maybe you should call the FBI! Or nuke them from orbit! It's the only way to be sure.
First of all, drawing DoL twice in 100 games doesn't make sense statistically, since without mulligan, chances of mage pulling DoL first turn (including first draw) is around 3/30 + 1/27.
After mulligan, the chance is increased to around4/27.
Also, DoL's problem is NOT necessarily about how fast it can be drawn, because even turn 5 DoL is still rather busted. IMO, its problem is how powerful the effect is for just 2 Mana.
Are you certain you played 100 games? Have you been counting with deck tracker? It's really easy to overestimate how many games you've played in a given session in my experience.
99% sure they changed the rate once mage was decided op. I've noticed it like crazy... I've hit far more less turn 2 lunacy's in the past couple days....
While we are at it, Aldor Attendant seems to have a secret word: "This card will be in your start hand 100%, and if our servers fail to provide it 100%, then you will draw it next turn. Promise!".
And to the rest, its funny, back then, when someone reported his experiences after 20 games, all those know-it-alls creeped out under their stones and claimed, you need at least 100 matches, blah blah. Now that we actually are able to track 100 games, they find another excuse. And yes, its also my experience, that my mage enemies draw lunacy very early, while they are not always playing it that early, some wait for specific cards in their hand before they play that card.
People need to learn, that the matchmaker is manipulating the different experiences. Someone who only plays rogue will encounter complete different outcomes than someone who only plays netdeck priest. And priests who build off meta decks will also encounter totally different outcomes.
Since ever i experiment with zoo priest from time to time, and as soon my first matches are successful, because people dont expect that, i get matched against opponent decks i have NEVER EVER seen before. Suddenly they have either perfect removals _every_ _frikken_ _turn_ or taunt, taunt, taunt, taunt, taunt. Suddenly you encounter cards you almost forgot they existed. You know this will happen, after the matchmaker _suddenly_ (thats the keyword) takes very long to find an opponent. I witnessed this pattern over the span of the last years.
Mage is for unskilled players... the higher you go in the ladder the less rng you see. Random helps unskilled players because they have no brain to come up with their own strategy.
Posted by the OP, 5 days ago.
All 100 games were insta concede in casual to test drop rate smart**s. Also who told you I consider myself skilled at hearthstone?!
As with the rest of the popular "rigged" theories, easy enough to test for any freshman stat student who stayed awake in class the first few weeks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
I'm not a math whiz but the odds of drawing it on turn 1 aren't that bad. It's around 3% for it to be the very first card you draw. The next cards you draw increase that probability to around 3.8% if you draw 4 cards on turn.
The odds of NOT drawing lunacy as your first card is 1 - 1/30 = 29/30 or around 96.66%.
Odds of not getting it on the next 3 draws (turn 1 assumes you draw 4 cards total )
Card 2: 28/29
Card 3: 27/28
Card 4: 26/27
Totalling those 4 gives you a percentage of around 86.6%. So the chance of NOT drawing lunacy on turn 1 is 86.6%.
Inversely, the chance of drawing lunacy on your first hand (assuming you start without coin) is 13.3%.
This is not accounting for mulligan which should double your chances for the first 3 cards. Or the fact that player 2 gets an additional card draw.
All things considered, the chance of getting lunacy on turn 1 should be 15-20%. Which are very very nice odds.
While we are at it, Aldor Attendant seems to have a secret word: "This card will be in your start hand 100%, and if our servers fail to provide it 100%, then you will draw it next turn. Promise!".
And to the rest, its funny, back then, when someone reported his experiences after 20 games, all those know-it-alls creeped out under their stones and claimed, you need at least 100 matches, blah blah. Now that we actually are able to track 100 games, they find another excuse. And yes, its also my experience, that my mage enemies draw lunacy very early, while they are not always playing it that early, some wait for specific cards in their hand before they play that card.
People need to learn, that the matchmaker is manipulating the different experiences. Someone who only plays rogue will encounter complete different outcomes than someone who only plays netdeck priest. And priests who build off meta decks will also encounter totally different outcomes.
Since ever i experiment with zoo priest from time to time, and as soon my first matches are successful, because people dont expect that, i get matched against opponent decks i have NEVER EVER seen before. Suddenly they have either perfect removals _every_ _frikken_ _turn_ or taunt, taunt, taunt, taunt, taunt. Suddenly you encounter cards you almost forgot they existed. You know this will happen, after the matchmaker _suddenly_ (thats the keyword) takes very long to find an opponent. I witnessed this pattern over the span of the last years.
Maybe actually supply your statistical evidence of this algorithm that magically changes the RNG for the different match ups.
Provide all the evidence of it changing the order of the cards based on the decks being used.
I’m sure I’ll be able to do a statistical analysis on it.
If any such algorithm exists it would be exploitable.
If you don’t have the evidence, why would Blizzard would spend the time and money on such an algorithm?
If it’s to make games more even? Why bother? It clearly isn’t working.
Is it to make more money? How do they make money back? What’s the cost to return on designing a system like this?
This would be a huge risk for them so do this kind of matchmaking/manipulation. If found true it would throw up all sorts of legal issues, especially considering the esport scene.
If your statistical data is nothing more than gut feeling and you only notice the occasions when things seem a little odd and not the times things are working as expected. Then I’m afraid this is a classic case of confirmation bias.
Humans are terrible about understanding probability and probable outcome.
If you truly believe an algorithm or any other “rigged” or manipulated system is at play other than general rating based match making then I might suggest the tin foil hat shop on conspiracy lane.
I know everyone hates mage bla bla bla... but I’ve noticed that draw rate is not that random. This is not a mage salt thread.
ive played more than 100 games as mage in the last few days. I always redraw when mulligan doesn’t include lunacy, all 3 or 4 cards. Guess what though, lunacy is never ever drawn on turn one. Maybe twice in 100 games x 3.5 cards on average redrawn. That’s 7 cards out of 30 including the original draw
That’s crazy and by no means random.
You do realize that the sample size of 100 games is pathetically irrelevant. In fact, of all the tens of thousands of games being played right now, someone has to draw the short straw and get unlucky where someone else gets Lunacy in their opening hand far more often than average. The same thing happens with pack openings where the average is 1 legendary in 20 packs but some people get much luckier and get far more legendaries than that and some people reach the pity timer. That's just how statistics work. Just because the average is 1 in 7 doesn't mean you're guaranteed to get it once every 7 games. Random is random and your 'evidence' of a sample size of 100 is more or less irrelevant. Once you've played 10,000 games, you'd almost certainly reach your 1 in 7 average, you just got off to a bad start.
Either that or you've uncovered a Blizzard conspiracy where they're watching you and making sure you only get Lunacy once every 50 games. Maybe you should call the FBI! Or nuke them from orbit! It's the only way to be sure.
Very funny.
First of all, drawing DoL twice in 100 games doesn't make sense statistically, since without mulligan, chances of mage pulling DoL first turn (including first draw) is around 3/30 + 1/27.
After mulligan, the chance is increased to around4/27.
Also, DoL's problem is NOT necessarily about how fast it can be drawn, because even turn 5 DoL is still rather busted. IMO, its problem is how powerful the effect is for just 2 Mana.
Are you certain you played 100 games? Have you been counting with deck tracker? It's really easy to overestimate how many games you've played in a given session in my experience.
99% sure they changed the rate once mage was decided op. I've noticed it like crazy... I've hit far more less turn 2 lunacy's in the past couple days....
While we are at it, Aldor Attendant seems to have a secret word: "This card will be in your start hand 100%, and if our servers fail to provide it 100%, then you will draw it next turn. Promise!".
And to the rest, its funny, back then, when someone reported his experiences after 20 games, all those know-it-alls creeped out under their stones and claimed, you need at least 100 matches, blah blah. Now that we actually are able to track 100 games, they find another excuse. And yes, its also my experience, that my mage enemies draw lunacy very early, while they are not always playing it that early, some wait for specific cards in their hand before they play that card.
People need to learn, that the matchmaker is manipulating the different experiences. Someone who only plays rogue will encounter complete different outcomes than someone who only plays netdeck priest. And priests who build off meta decks will also encounter totally different outcomes.
Since ever i experiment with zoo priest from time to time, and as soon my first matches are successful, because people dont expect that, i get matched against opponent decks i have NEVER EVER seen before. Suddenly they have either perfect removals _every_ _frikken_ _turn_ or taunt, taunt, taunt, taunt, taunt. Suddenly you encounter cards you almost forgot they existed. You know this will happen, after the matchmaker _suddenly_ (thats the keyword) takes very long to find an opponent. I witnessed this pattern over the span of the last years.
All 100 games were insta concede in casual to test drop rate smart**s. Also who told you I consider myself skilled at hearthstone?!
As with the rest of the popular "rigged" theories, easy enough to test for any freshman stat student who stayed awake in class the first few weeks.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
Soo
Some people in this thread claim it's almost never drawn turn 1 and claim that's a proof that it's a conspiracy.
Others claim it's almost always drawn turn 1 and claim that's a proof that it's a conspiracy.
Others still claim that it was almost always drawn, but now is almost never drawn, and claim that's a proof that it's a conspiracy.
Wonderful. Glad you're all in agreement.
I'm not a math whiz but the odds of drawing it on turn 1 aren't that bad. It's around 3% for it to be the very first card you draw. The next cards you draw increase that probability to around 3.8% if you draw 4 cards on turn.
The odds of NOT drawing lunacy as your first card is 1 - 1/30 = 29/30 or around 96.66%.
Odds of not getting it on the next 3 draws (turn 1 assumes you draw 4 cards total )
Card 2: 28/29
Card 3: 27/28
Card 4: 26/27
Totalling those 4 gives you a percentage of around 86.6%. So the chance of NOT drawing lunacy on turn 1 is 86.6%.
Inversely, the chance of drawing lunacy on your first hand (assuming you start without coin) is 13.3%.
This is not accounting for mulligan which should double your chances for the first 3 cards. Or the fact that player 2 gets an additional card draw.
All things considered, the chance of getting lunacy on turn 1 should be 15-20%. Which are very very nice odds.
This calculator might be useful: https://s.stefantsov.com/hscalc.com/#c26a2
Check out "Use cases" for more detailed examples of how it works
Maybe actually supply your statistical evidence of this algorithm that magically changes the RNG for the different match ups.
Provide all the evidence of it changing the order of the cards based on the decks being used.
I’m sure I’ll be able to do a statistical analysis on it.
If any such algorithm exists it would be exploitable.
If you don’t have the evidence, why would Blizzard would spend the time and money on such an algorithm?
If it’s to make games more even? Why bother? It clearly isn’t working.
Is it to make more money? How do they make money back? What’s the cost to return on designing a system like this?
This would be a huge risk for them so do this kind of matchmaking/manipulation. If found true it would throw up all sorts of legal issues, especially considering the esport scene.
If your statistical data is nothing more than gut feeling and you only notice the occasions when things seem a little odd and not the times things are working as expected. Then I’m afraid this is a classic case of confirmation bias.
Humans are terrible about understanding probability and probable outcome.
If you truly believe an algorithm or any other “rigged” or manipulated system is at play other than general rating based match making then I might suggest the tin foil hat shop on conspiracy lane.