"I have been convinced" or "I have noticed" is not going to be enough evidence to support your claims. You need a large sample size, and you need to analyze the data and compare it to the expected outcome of a completely random order.
I do believe you could be right in that some of the randomness is weighted in particular areas though.
For instance the chances of opening a legendary I believe is equal to 1/(200-[cards revealed since last legendary]) (replace 200 with 50 or 5 for epic or rare). This would make it highly unlikely to get a legendary in your first pack, but guarantee it within 40 packs. I don't have much inclination to test this though, but it should be testable given the number of streams of card openings there are. Problem is, my theory requires the order of card openings, not just the result; so it is quite the meticulous task to verify/falsify.
I believe there are algorithms attempting to make everyone get close to 50% winrate in Casual and Arena (also known as MMR). This isn't some malicious thing to do in a game. It's just creates a more fair experience for everyone. Even though there might be algorithms, you shouldn't discount that it could just be random though. Ranbomness is not uniform. There will be ebbs and flows. If you feel there is an algorithm intentionally trying to hurt you, chances are you are going to get an opposite effect another day where every game just feels like it's smooth sailing.
The suggestion that 3 Frost Novas in a row is somehow the reason of some ploy does seem a bit of a reach. Considering the AI's in the game, I don't see how something like that would be anything other than complete randomness. You ask for the odds of 3 Frost Novas. It is 1/([mage cards]*[mage cards]*[mage cards]); while unlikely, this does happen. To put meaning to it, you're going to need much more data. I doubt you'll find anything of value. For example, the odds of getting a Vaporize, followed by a Shatter, and finally a Flamestrike in this exact sequence, is the same probability. It just feels more random.
Likewise with mulligan, if it was skewed in any direction on average, it shouldn't be the most difficult thing to verify/falsify if you gather the data. A more difficult thing to verify, is if even if it is uniformly random on average, are there weights in place to give you higher mana cost cards some amount of the time, while other times not. It would be almost impossible to see if such things were from a pseudorandom sequence, or based on other variables. I'm going to go with not. It seems just too complicated for something you could achieve in simpler ways; by nudging everyone to ~50% win ratio for example.
For instance the chances of opening a legendary I believe is equal to 1/(200-[cards revealed since last legendary]) (replace 200 with 50 or 5 for epic or rare). This would make it highly unlikely to get a legendary in your first pack, but guarantee it within 40 packs. I don't have much inclination to test this though, but it should be testable given the number of streams of card openings there are. Problem is, my theory requires the order of card openings, not just the result; so it is quite the meticulous task to verify/falsify.
It was difficult to verify, but the community actually did the job, and it was confirmed. Blizzard even gave a compensation prize for players who opened packs while the famed "pity timer" was bugged.
When something as difficult to prove like this got confirmed, it continues to puzzle me that so many players think draws, who goes first and counterteched decks are rigged, when noone has come up with any statistical evidence with a remotely adequate sample size.
About the 50% winrate... yes it is "rigged", but only so you will move up in ranks as you win games, and face togher opponents, who also won games to move up the ranks. If you don't like that, you should play vs AI instead.
I also found this pretty amuzing: In this video, from 2.12.20 Sjow faces a turn 2 or 3 10-10 vs a tempo priest 3 games in a row. Yes, the odds are pretty slim, but as the combo included duplicates, draws and discovers, far from impossible!
For instance the chances of opening a legendary I believe is equal to 1/(200-[cards revealed since last legendary]) (replace 200 with 50 or 5 for epic or rare). This would make it highly unlikely to get a legendary in your first pack, but guarantee it within 40 packs. I don't have much inclination to test this though, but it should be testable given the number of streams of card openings there are. Problem is, my theory requires the order of card openings, not just the result; so it is quite the meticulous task to verify/falsify.
It was difficult to verify, but the community actually did the job, and it was confirmed. Blizzard even gave a compensation prize for players who opened packs while the famed "pity timer" was bugged.
Oh, I didn't know this was actually confirmed. I have only heared of the "pity timer" which seemed like an unfinished idea. Do you have a link to any of the work people have done on the math for the drop rates? Sounds like an interesting read.
OP you don't even know what random means, what you described fits perfectly into its definition. You took <1% of your games into account, of course the stats are gonna be skewed.
For instance the chances of opening a legendary I believe is equal to 1/(200-[cards revealed since last legendary]) (replace 200 with 50 or 5 for epic or rare). This would make it highly unlikely to get a legendary in your first pack, but guarantee it within 40 packs. I don't have much inclination to test this though, but it should be testable given the number of streams of card openings there are. Problem is, my theory requires the order of card openings, not just the result; so it is quite the meticulous task to verify/falsify.
It was difficult to verify, but the community actually did the job, and it was confirmed. Blizzard even gave a compensation prize for players who opened packs while the famed "pity timer" was bugged.
Oh, I didn't know this was actually confirmed. I have only heared of the "pity timer" which seemed like an unfinished idea. Do you have a link to any of the work people have done on the math for the drop rates? Sounds like an interesting read.
We need to get a whistleblower inside Blizzard to confirm these theories.
Why haven't any of you guys taken up the work of say count 1000 Primordial Glyph rolls? Or play 1000 games With and without secretkeeper at differen ranks to see if you are matched more or less vs mage and hunter? Or just go to sites like https://hsreplay.net/ and see if you find something suspicious in cases with a good sample size? Or see if buying packs improve matchups with the same deck?
Nope, just a lot of accusations, and being hellbent that your 4 games sample size and "feeling that something is wrong" is bulletproof evidence.
For instance the chances of opening a legendary I believe is equal to 1/(200-[cards revealed since last legendary]) (replace 200 with 50 or 5 for epic or rare). This would make it highly unlikely to get a legendary in your first pack, but guarantee it within 40 packs. I don't have much inclination to test this though, but it should be testable given the number of streams of card openings there are. Problem is, my theory requires the order of card openings, not just the result; so it is quite the meticulous task to verify/falsify.
It was difficult to verify, but the community actually did the job, and it was confirmed. Blizzard even gave a compensation prize for players who opened packs while the famed "pity timer" was bugged.
Oh, I didn't know this was actually confirmed. I have only heared of the "pity timer" which seemed like an unfinished idea. Do you have a link to any of the work people have done on the math for the drop rates? Sounds like an interesting read.
Thanks. (I guess I could have searched; sorry). That pretty much says the same thing I have found as well. I just see the "pity timer" being thrown around so much. It's not a very accurate description of what is actually happening.
If winrates were weighted in the way you're suggesting -- where your success is actively damaged by weighting -- it would be next to impossible for professional players or even just high-ranked players to rise above others. Literally... the existence of players who succeed over others disproves the idea of skewed ranking... unless you think Blizzard is favoring pros... but how would they have even become pros then?
Incidentally there are hoards of logical reasons for bad luck in ladder. Constantly matching against a powerful deck would make sense since those are usually popular, and as people have complained about in identical other threads, sure sometimes you try to pick a deck that counters it and get matched against counters to THAT... but that's how that works too; everyone is trying to counter what each other are playing, which is always a rat race where one deck replaces another constantly.
If you are unable to rise in winrate or in ranking (one or the other must rise), then you are not improving as a player. Blaming statistics with alternate explanations instead of blaming the only consistent factor in your games (you) and improving your play is not going to help you win games.
They make the game popular by streaming blizzard wants them to be good ;)
The game is clearly rigged. I had a positive win rate and then I lost a game because I ended up playing against my deck counter AND I had bad draws.
I also made some bad plays during the game, but it doesn't prove anything, clearly Blizzard is unhappy with my positive win rate and is trying to pull me to rank 5, where everyone in the game is, with a perfect 50% win rate.
Implementing a superintelligent 50% win rate algorithm would consume so much freaking time and maintenance costs that every senior developer would say: No I don't do it. If we don't do an algorithm we will probably end up at 50% anyhow ;)
A Junior Developer would implement a 50% winrate algorithm which is only correct in 50% of the times ;)
I think you might be misunderstanding some fundamental stuff about the game:
1. 50% winrate matchmaking means that they're trying to match every player with an opponent equal in skill (or winrate) to him, which will result in many players reaching their plateau (or max rank) where they will hover around 50% winrate. At that point, it's well within the realm of possibility to randomly get 3 favorable and then 3 unfavorable matchups in a row. Many occurrences like these can lead to tilt if you're not aware it's all part of the system that is ensuring everyone has a fair match. If you think you're getting screwed over by matchmaker, you need to play more games to shake off the variance or you've actually reached your plateau and need to find a way to improve.
2. RNG has the same effect on everyone, you're just as lucky (and unlucky) as anyone else. Every time you get lucky, the opponent gets unlucky. Toss a coin 10 times and it's possible you'll win 7 tosses. Toss it a 1000 times, it's almost impossible you'll win 700 tosses, you're gonna win ~500. Same goes for HS, you need to track RNG over a bigger amount of games to really notice you're not getting shafted. The odds of drawing keleseth is the same for everyone, you just naturally notice it more when the opponent draws it than when he doesn't. Biases have a huge effect on how people see statistics, it's good to look them up in order to have a less skewed view on the whole topic.
3. After you understand how matchmaking works and that RNG has the same odds for everyone, the only thing that's left is player skill. It's not really surprising that the same people are always on the top of the ladder, they play enough games so that their skill can have a significant effect on their winrate.
This kind of posts just makes people look like they're salty players that need something to justify their losses. Blizzard is not intrested in your winrate. The matchmaking "keeps people At 50% winrate" by matching people with similar winrate, but i hit legend every season, so my winrate is higher than 50% and the same is for a lot of other people. So you can stop cry on "bad blizzard than wants me to lose" and learn lo play the game. This conspiracy theories posts make no sense to me.
This is an argument that will never end in this card game or any future one. Unless they publicly reveal the code, many players will insist it's rigged, others will say they just have a selective memory. In the end the truth doesn't matter. You know what the game is like by now and they aren't going to change it. Either play it or don't. The only way it would ever change is if they started losing money, but at the moment even the people who hate the game are paying 100+ dollars every year to keep up with it, so why change anything?
If you want a card game with no matchmaking system, stick to physical card games where you can control your shuffling.
I'm just saying, look how often each class you play or play against gets their optimal 1 drop on turn one. Mana Wyrm, Nothshire Cleric, etc all have very high rates of being in the opening hand, seemingly higher than is statistically likely. How hard would it be to "weight" certain cards to maintain game flow? How hard would it be to turn said weight off in the event of a win streak?
True even if the odds for a specific scenario ( mulligans etc.) are 1 to 100 Millions statisticly it should happen every day to someone.
Smoking less weed seriously helps man!
...The problem is not the problem, the problem is your attitude to the problem.
"I have been convinced" or "I have noticed" is not going to be enough evidence to support your claims. You need a large sample size, and you need to analyze the data and compare it to the expected outcome of a completely random order.
I do believe you could be right in that some of the randomness is weighted in particular areas though.
For instance the chances of opening a legendary I believe is equal to 1/(200-[cards revealed since last legendary]) (replace 200 with 50 or 5 for epic or rare). This would make it highly unlikely to get a legendary in your first pack, but guarantee it within 40 packs. I don't have much inclination to test this though, but it should be testable given the number of streams of card openings there are. Problem is, my theory requires the order of card openings, not just the result; so it is quite the meticulous task to verify/falsify.
I believe there are algorithms attempting to make everyone get close to 50% winrate in Casual and Arena (also known as MMR). This isn't some malicious thing to do in a game. It's just creates a more fair experience for everyone. Even though there might be algorithms, you shouldn't discount that it could just be random though. Ranbomness is not uniform. There will be ebbs and flows. If you feel there is an algorithm intentionally trying to hurt you, chances are you are going to get an opposite effect another day where every game just feels like it's smooth sailing.
The suggestion that 3 Frost Novas in a row is somehow the reason of some ploy does seem a bit of a reach. Considering the AI's in the game, I don't see how something like that would be anything other than complete randomness. You ask for the odds of 3 Frost Novas. It is 1/([mage cards]*[mage cards]*[mage cards]); while unlikely, this does happen. To put meaning to it, you're going to need much more data. I doubt you'll find anything of value. For example, the odds of getting a Vaporize, followed by a Shatter, and finally a Flamestrike in this exact sequence, is the same probability. It just feels more random.
Likewise with mulligan, if it was skewed in any direction on average, it shouldn't be the most difficult thing to verify/falsify if you gather the data. A more difficult thing to verify, is if even if it is uniformly random on average, are there weights in place to give you higher mana cost cards some amount of the time, while other times not. It would be almost impossible to see if such things were from a pseudorandom sequence, or based on other variables. I'm going to go with not. It seems just too complicated for something you could achieve in simpler ways; by nudging everyone to ~50% win ratio for example.
It was difficult to verify, but the community actually did the job, and it was confirmed. Blizzard even gave a compensation prize for players who opened packs while the famed "pity timer" was bugged.
When something as difficult to prove like this got confirmed, it continues to puzzle me that so many players think draws, who goes first and counterteched decks are rigged, when noone has come up with any statistical evidence with a remotely adequate sample size.
About the 50% winrate... yes it is "rigged", but only so you will move up in ranks as you win games, and face togher opponents, who also won games to move up the ranks. If you don't like that, you should play vs AI instead.
I also found this pretty amuzing: In this video, from 2.12.20 Sjow faces a turn 2 or 3 10-10 vs a tempo priest 3 games in a row. Yes, the odds are pretty slim, but as the combo included duplicates, draws and discovers, far from impossible!
Editor of the Heartpwn Legendary Crafting Guide:
https://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/card-discussion/205920-legendary-tier-list-crafting-guide
Oh, I didn't know this was actually confirmed. I have only heared of the "pity timer" which seemed like an unfinished idea. Do you have a link to any of the work people have done on the math for the drop rates? Sounds like an interesting read.
We need to get a whistleblower inside Blizzard to confirm these theories.
OP you don't even know what random means, what you described fits perfectly into its definition. You took <1% of your games into account, of course the stats are gonna be skewed.
Editor of the Heartpwn Legendary Crafting Guide:
https://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/card-discussion/205920-legendary-tier-list-crafting-guide
hahahaah this is a joke right
makig weird theorys because you have not enough skills
This is the greatest bullcrap i ever see on Heartpwn
Please just go delete your hearstone account and play pokemon or something blegh
The game is clearly rigged. I had a positive win rate and then I lost a game because I ended up playing against my deck counter AND I had bad draws.
I also made some bad plays during the game, but it doesn't prove anything, clearly Blizzard is unhappy with my positive win rate and is trying to pull me to rank 5, where everyone in the game is, with a perfect 50% win rate.
Implementing a superintelligent 50% win rate algorithm would consume so much freaking time and maintenance costs that every senior developer would say: No I don't do it. If we don't do an algorithm we will probably end up at 50% anyhow ;)
A Junior Developer would implement a 50% winrate algorithm which is only correct in 50% of the times ;)
I think you might be misunderstanding some fundamental stuff about the game:
1. 50% winrate matchmaking means that they're trying to match every player with an opponent equal in skill (or winrate) to him, which will result in many players reaching their plateau (or max rank) where they will hover around 50% winrate. At that point, it's well within the realm of possibility to randomly get 3 favorable and then 3 unfavorable matchups in a row. Many occurrences like these can lead to tilt if you're not aware it's all part of the system that is ensuring everyone has a fair match. If you think you're getting screwed over by matchmaker, you need to play more games to shake off the variance or you've actually reached your plateau and need to find a way to improve.
2. RNG has the same effect on everyone, you're just as lucky (and unlucky) as anyone else. Every time you get lucky, the opponent gets unlucky. Toss a coin 10 times and it's possible you'll win 7 tosses. Toss it a 1000 times, it's almost impossible you'll win 700 tosses, you're gonna win ~500. Same goes for HS, you need to track RNG over a bigger amount of games to really notice you're not getting shafted. The odds of drawing keleseth is the same for everyone, you just naturally notice it more when the opponent draws it than when he doesn't. Biases have a huge effect on how people see statistics, it's good to look them up in order to have a less skewed view on the whole topic.
3. After you understand how matchmaking works and that RNG has the same odds for everyone, the only thing that's left is player skill. It's not really surprising that the same people are always on the top of the ladder, they play enough games so that their skill can have a significant effect on their winrate.
I'm, 99% sure that brawl does 50/50 to choose winning player than rolls again for surviving minion.
Piloted Shredder, Knife Juggler, Mad Scientist, Dr. Boom
Need to be removed from this game
This kind of posts just makes people look like they're salty players that need something to justify their losses. Blizzard is not intrested in your winrate. The matchmaking "keeps people At 50% winrate" by matching people with similar winrate, but i hit legend every season, so my winrate is higher than 50% and the same is for a lot of other people. So you can stop cry on "bad blizzard than wants me to lose" and learn lo play the game. This conspiracy theories posts make no sense to me.
This is an argument that will never end in this card game or any future one. Unless they publicly reveal the code, many players will insist it's rigged, others will say they just have a selective memory. In the end the truth doesn't matter. You know what the game is like by now and they aren't going to change it. Either play it or don't. The only way it would ever change is if they started losing money, but at the moment even the people who hate the game are paying 100+ dollars every year to keep up with it, so why change anything?
If you want a card game with no matchmaking system, stick to physical card games where you can control your shuffling.
I'm just saying, look how often each class you play or play against gets their optimal 1 drop on turn one. Mana Wyrm, Nothshire Cleric, etc all have very high rates of being in the opening hand, seemingly higher than is statistically likely. How hard would it be to "weight" certain cards to maintain game flow? How hard would it be to turn said weight off in the event of a win streak?
Op doesn't understand how randomness works