Blizzard is a money and active player oriented company.
They would be dumb to NOT influence some variables in the board state.
You can maximize active (and money spending) happy players with interesting matches
So you HAVE TO keep games interesting for both, the loosing and the winning player.
The matchmaking 50% winrate algorithm achives that, but possibly also a slighly influenced card draw engine who increases the possibility of drawing for key cards.
int randomNumberSoItIsTheTruth = Math.random() * cardDeck.size()
drawenCard = cardDeck.get(randomNumberSoItIsTheTruth) // a slightly higher possibility: frost nova, how lucky! cardDeck.remove(drawenCard) // frost nova if(increasedPossibilityLuckyDraw) { cardDeck.remove(drawenCard) // 2nd increased lucky draw: frost nova cardDeck.remove(drawenCard) // 3nd increased lucky draw: frost nova }
return drawenCard; // returning the stabilizing FEELGOOD lucky card to keep player happy and board state interesting for both }
He's right.
I actually dumped this code into my game and now every random card creation makes a frost nova since I won the last game I played and is trying to compensate for it.
So what i did was play freeze mage without natural novas in my deck. Being able to pull novas whenever I want got me a 80% win rate. Now the code won't ever STOP giving me frost novas. I'm already #200 in legend.
..which is why it's a stupid idea to rig game systems like this, since players find out about it and either rage (see Destiny 2) or abuse it (see Battlefield SW 2).
Unless we're talking about a system that can somehow swap the mechanics for any deck I make so it can be 100% sure it's giving me JUST the cards I want/don't want at the right time and work around every attempt I make to manipulate it to game the system into an advantage.
I have no idea if the people who keep throwing this up but refusing to work to prove it's happening are serious or not but actual new players read these threads and I don't want them getting untested conspiracies in their head.
It’s not conspiracy. I have noticed that in arena if u get 0-2. Ur 3rd game opening hand has a great chance to be 1,2,3 and going first.
Isn't the point of arena to match you against someone with the same record? So if you're facing another 0-2, this couldn't possibly be true for both sides.
It’s not conspiracy. I have noticed that in arena if u get 0-2. Ur 3rd game opening hand has a great chance to be 1,2,3 and going first.
Isn't the point of arena to match you against someone with the same record? So if you're facing another 0-2, this couldn't possibly be true for both sides.
Correct. This is also why you have a much easier time against 0-2s than 0-0s. 0-0s include decks that will eventually go 12-0 as..well, that's where we all started.
When you go to 0-2 all of the good decks are all at 2-0 so you WON'T see them. Even the new 'future 12-0' decks will not be your opponent since they are facing fellow 0-0s.
0-2 will be full of folks with bad decks and absolute newbies. If you just had some bad luck or growing pains with yoru deck (or just faced a few God Tier decks) then 0-2 would be a playground of newbie curbstomping for you.
So yes, going 0-2 then 4-2 is VERY normal for a lot of folks who are invested enough to post in forum about the game. It's a natural element of the Well Reported matchmaking system that we all know about.
Now if you want to claim that you're getting better cards then you're going to actually have to pull some data because once you argue RNG and percentages you are entering into the world of Statistics and statistics cares crap for casual observation.
This isn't to say that what you see is wrong. It IS to say that if what you see is right then you should be able to actually run a proper test to prove it. Otherwise you are up against years of folks running data sets without finding anything wrong (the same folks who found the pity timer along with the, IIRC, 2 times it broke). You don't need 1000000 data points over 2 years to prove anything. You honestly don't have to actually PROVE it exists. You just need to show enough data to show "hey, maybe there IS something here.. we need more tests."
A #(*)%#()* 30 set trial can be put into a stats test and show whether it's RNG or..maybe something more. I haven't seen ONE person actually do this since we started the game. So even one person doing so would at least warrant a thread topic.
For what its worth OP, I agree whole heartedly. And Im certain this is applied to both arena and constructed alike. I used to be a pretty good arena player, mostly getting 7+ wins etc. When I had been on a good streak with say, 10+ for three or four runs, Id suddenly run into a losing streak where I faced insanely op decks with multiple legendaries, opponent topdecking the right answer every turn etc. So me and a friend tested it.
After a good streak I began the downward slope again. So, my friend recorded the next match. First opponent I faced killed me with 13 consecutive topdecks after we both ran out of steam. I added him to my list and asked for a sceenshot of his decklist, which he happily sent me. Then, with the decklist on hand, we rewatched the match. Every...single...draw... he got the best card in his deck for that exact situation. Were talking mathematically correct answers here, fireball for a 6 toughness minion, frostbolt + ping for 4 toughness etc.
That convinced me that there is indeed an algorythm keeping things in check, to try and prevent people from achieveing too high a winrate. Why? Well, it brings in the money ofc. People pay for more runs/packs and so forth. Just think about it for a second. People call it the "tinfoil hat" theory etc, but Hearthstone is not hard math at all. Its 2 + 5, minus 3 etc etc. Basic simple math. Blizzard probably have some of the best coders and programmers in the industry. To create such an algorytm is probably very simple to those guys.
Its also why I dont do arena at all anymore, only ladder. But it seems, that I still run into these perfect draw/perfect hands, no matter how bad the odds are. And it always happens after a winstreak.
Problem is, it cant be proved cause it would take some serious hacking to their code, which is illegal. But please, dont be so naive and suggest that this is just coincidence. I dont care about losing really, just as long as the game is fair, so Im not salty at all. But I have apx 8k wins from ladder alone, which is a LOT of game through the years, and Ive played since beta. I have no doubt that such an algorythm exists, cause the odds of these things happening is like being hit by lightning ten times in a row.
Problem is, it cant be proved cause it would take some serious hacking to their code, which is illegal. But please, dont be so naive and suggest that this is just coincidence. I dont care about losing really, just as long as the game is fair, so Im not salty at all. But I have apx 8k wins from ladder alone, which is a LOT of game through the years, and Ive played since beta. I have no doubt that such an algorythm exists, cause the odds of these things happening is like being hit by lightning ten times in a row.
You can prove it, at least prove that something is afoot. It's the entire basis behind Statistics. It's why we know the pity timer exists and knew when it broke down. It's why top players knew that Yogg was overall a good dice roll which is why folks actually tried using it seriously. It's why the folks in Destiny 2 discovered the exp scam there. Because in the end it's just an algorithm and algorithms go by certain rules that it MUST follow. And so long as it follows those rules it's not running under normal natural randomness.
Which means it can be measured, tested, and sorted.
The majority of us aren't blind fancrazies. We're just people who've heard this claim since 2013. What we haven't seen is someone actually TRY to measure it, test it, sort it. We denied the pity timer until it was tested. We denied the pity timer breaking until it was tested.
We're not blind. We're just dogs waiting for a fricken bone here.
You said you tested it with your friend. Please tell me you didn't just test 1-3 games. It's just a matter of recording your games once you hit a win streak afterall and seeing how long the streak lasted and who you faced. Can we see the data you used? Do you have comparison replays from when you were starting your win streak and when you hit your win streak?
You said you experienced something that was like lightning hitting you 10 times in a row. Can we see what happened? A spreadsheet? A link to the replays? A jpg of your paper notes? SOMETHING?
what drives me crazy about this, is the fact that this tinfoil-hat-thinking is spreading around. That led us to anti-vaccine movement, for instance... I mean, that is something!
people with no education whatsoever, unable to do simple math, logic, statistics, anything really, but still convinced that THEY know better, THEY know the truth that everyone else is failing to see (doesn't matter if someone brings proof, THEY are right, others are just blind slaves of the evil system).
Today I've made my mind: I'll never try to have a discussion with them again, or prove them wrong. It's waste of time and i feel like feeding trolls. So enough.
And maybe if everyone else would stop interacting with them, they would slowly fade away.
I mean, in the past the village's fool wasn't listened to, you didn't try to reason with him... he was just ignored and pointed at as a fool. Why can't we do the same with these fools?
I wish HP added a "tinfoil hat" option in report form. Little bit nazi style, which I despise, but I'm honestly fed up.
I think its pretty random. Having an algorithm that does the things youre describing is pretty complicated and kind of unnececary. The ranking system that hearthstone had is not perfect, but it is pretty good at getting players get a 50% winrate by default. Almosy every season i rank from rank 17 to 5 in a matter of days if I have the time to play, a lot of people with good decks do this and have winrates >65%.
What happens is that at rank 5+ you will have a lot of players with a winrate above 50% and without any manipulation neccesary the average winrate will get closer to 50% every game played.
Why would they manipulate it with complex algorithms if the ladder does it almost perfectly automaticly?
Over the years I have become convinced that this game is not random in any way. From your matchup, to your card draws, to your pack openings, to the RNG within your games, all of them are weighted by blizzard towards achieving their goals of a 50 percent win rate and to inspire/reward spending.
In todays episode I decided to ladder a bit with Keleseth Rogue. I win two games then match up 3 straight games with exodia mage (ok that could be random). Each game it starts me with swashburgler (ok, we know it likes to give you a one cost in your opening hand and that is a fine enough opening) but the capper is hilarious. In all 3 games, it generates a frost nova........Now can a math guy run the odds on that? lol, how about the odds that the algorithim has decided that giving keleseth rogue a frost nova against exodia mage keeps the game interesting interesting.....far more likely.
Anyone who plays this game for a fair bit of time knows exactly what I am talking about. How many times you mulligan away your hand and get the exact same cards back? How many times after a win streak do you get the same losing matchup, even the same card order game after game? Anyone with 3 or more gold heroes actually think this game is random at all?
I... I... I don't know what to say. Have you consider that Blizzard needs to make no effort to get that 50%WR? That it is guaranteed just by the fact that in every match one player wins and the other one loses? Why would Blizzard go through so much effort to get something which is impossible to NOT achieve?
Its like the thread of everyone complaining match making places them against their counter all the time. But there is no thread of the 50% of people "complaining" that matchmaking always plays them against a deck they counter!
The mind boggling stupidity of this thread makes me weep. Y'all need to go and read about 'Skinner's Pigeons', and seriously consider, based on your beliefs of conspiracy in this game, how this sort of thinking may have bled into other more important aspects of your real life, and perhaps your obsession with victimhood.
people with no education whatsoever, unable to do simple math, logic, statistics, anything really, but still convinced that THEY know better, THEY know the truth that everyone else is failing to see (doesn't matter if someone brings proof, THEY are right, others are just blind slaves of the evil system).
I didn't tought that so many people would belive in this kind of idiotic conspiracy theories. I have a sad truth for you guys: if you lose you're worst or you're unlucky, because no one gives a shit about your games. Don't try to justify your losses with "blizzard wants me to lose", you just seem a child that doesn't accept that he lost a game. So learn to fucking play instead of making up excuses for your losses. Man this topic makes me mad for how stupid it is.
I used to think people like OP were a bit touched and whiny, but someone on these forums posted a link to rolling Stone article about a very real algorithm Activision has that purposefully puts players in unfavorable matchups to encourage spending money. I switched to a mill Rogue last season and got matched against 2 prince malchezaar decks in a row (srsly). Probably the only 2 players in existence lol
(...), but someone on these forums posted a link to rolling Stone article about a very real algorithm Activision has that purposefully puts players in unfavorable matchups to encourage spending money. (...)
Proof would be nice.
Just a question though, if one player is put in an unfavorable matchup to encourage spending money, who is the other player that is given the free win?
If losing encourages people to spend money, wouldn't it be simpler to just do nothing. As we know, one of the players inevitably has to lose.
(...), but someone on these forums posted a link to rolling Stone article about a very real algorithm Activision has that purposefully puts players in unfavorable matchups to encourage spending money. (...)
Proof would be nice.
Just a question though, if one player is put in an unfavorable matchup to encourage spending money, who is the other player that is given the free win?
If losing encourages people to spend money, wouldn't it be simpler to just do nothing. As we know, one of the players inevitably has to lose.
Still, it's a new patent (october 2017) and anyway still no proof that it's implemented. So far EVERY existing statistic proofs the opposite so... bring those counterproofs on, guys!
(...), but someone on these forums posted a link to rolling Stone article about a very real algorithm Activision has that purposefully puts players in unfavorable matchups to encourage spending money. (...)
Proof would be nice.
Just a question though, if one player is put in an unfavorable matchup to encourage spending money, who is the other player that is given the free win?
If losing encourages people to spend money, wouldn't it be simpler to just do nothing. As we know, one of the players inevitably has to lose.
It's the fault of human nature to lose to a player with a better gun/cards and assume you need the same to succeed. It's the very impetus of most FTP games.
Developed in 2015 and who knows when they started working on it. You can still implement it without a patent. The patent just keeps other companies from using it. Again, not throwing my hat in the crazy ring, but it's something to think about when buying packs.
(...), but someone on these forums posted a link to rolling Stone article about a very real algorithm Activision has that purposefully puts players in unfavorable matchups to encourage spending money. (...)
Proof would be nice.
Just a question though, if one player is put in an unfavorable matchup to encourage spending money, who is the other player that is given the free win?
If losing encourages people to spend money, wouldn't it be simpler to just do nothing. As we know, one of the players inevitably has to lose.
Still, it's a new patent (october 2017) and anyway still no proof that it's implemented. So far EVERY existing statistic proofs the opposite so... bring those counterproofs on, guys!
Ok, that read is kind of concerning. So for Hearthstone, it could for example mean that if you craft a legendary, the matchmaker will try to give you a good game with said legendary, to make you feel good about the craft? Whether stuff like that is in the game or not, the fact that they even spend money on stuff like that instead of just making good games baffles me. Time to switch to indie games exclusively perhaps?
(Edit: Thank you for linking the article. It is much better to have a link so everyone reading and discussing can have access to the same information, regardless of how easy it is to find the info by searching for it)
Wait just one second sir or madam, what you are describing are common circumstances in a random system. Long chains of single results are common. They don’t feel random to humans, but they are. You can write a simple program to guess what button someone will press out of two buttons, and it will have a rate of 70% correct guesses or better for most people. Humans don’t know what random looks like, not instinctively. Intellectually though you can’t prove that pulling the exact same cards you mulliganed is only about half as likely as any other single result so it happens fairly often. Pulling one card the same or two the same are slightly more likely than all the same, so those happen even more often. Facing the same opponent is quite common when the pool of opponents is small, and facing certain decks repeatedly in a row just after switching to a deck that’s is bad against the one you keep facing isn’t just as likely as not, but you switched based on a poor sample size, so the likelyhood that switch was a good choice Is about as likely as running into the deck it sucks against a bunch. Which makes sense. Flipping 10 heads is as likely as five heads and then five tails is a strong likely as heads and then tails five times is as likely as anything else. A lot of things you are told are random in many games, that feel random to you, are actually coded to be less random so it feels more random. Although computers can’t technically do anything random, and there is nothing that we have proven is truly random, the universe is not fully predictable but we can’t prove it is random.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Just fill your deck with one drops, that is creative deck design, right?
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
There was another thread which was closed because it descended into trolling.
But in that thread I showed how to do statistical tests to find out if the observed data fits an underlying distribution (chi-squared test).
I did a few tests on data sets (nothing conclusive) but apparently I was showing off so google it yourself if you want to know how to do it.
For what its worth OP, I agree whole heartedly. And Im certain this is applied to both arena and constructed alike. I used to be a pretty good arena player, mostly getting 7+ wins etc. When I had been on a good streak with say, 10+ for three or four runs, Id suddenly run into a losing streak where I faced insanely op decks with multiple legendaries, opponent topdecking the right answer every turn etc. So me and a friend tested it.
After a good streak I began the downward slope again. So, my friend recorded the next match. First opponent I faced killed me with 13 consecutive topdecks after we both ran out of steam. I added him to my list and asked for a sceenshot of his decklist, which he happily sent me. Then, with the decklist on hand, we rewatched the match. Every...single...draw... he got the best card in his deck for that exact situation. Were talking mathematically correct answers here, fireball for a 6 toughness minion, frostbolt + ping for 4 toughness etc.
That convinced me that there is indeed an algorythm keeping things in check, to try and prevent people from achieveing too high a winrate. Why? Well, it brings in the money ofc. People pay for more runs/packs and so forth. Just think about it for a second. People call it the "tinfoil hat" theory etc, but Hearthstone is not hard math at all. Its 2 + 5, minus 3 etc etc. Basic simple math. Blizzard probably have some of the best coders and programmers in the industry. To create such an algorytm is probably very simple to those guys.
Its also why I dont do arena at all anymore, only ladder. But it seems, that I still run into these perfect draw/perfect hands, no matter how bad the odds are. And it always happens after a winstreak.
Problem is, it cant be proved cause it would take some serious hacking to their code, which is illegal. But please, dont be so naive and suggest that this is just coincidence. I dont care about losing really, just as long as the game is fair, so Im not salty at all. But I have apx 8k wins from ladder alone, which is a LOT of game through the years, and Ive played since beta. I have no doubt that such an algorythm exists, cause the odds of these things happening is like being hit by lightning ten times in a row.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
what drives me crazy about this, is the fact that this tinfoil-hat-thinking is spreading around. That led us to anti-vaccine movement, for instance... I mean, that is something!
people with no education whatsoever, unable to do simple math, logic, statistics, anything really, but still convinced that THEY know better, THEY know the truth that everyone else is failing to see (doesn't matter if someone brings proof, THEY are right, others are just blind slaves of the evil system).
Today I've made my mind: I'll never try to have a discussion with them again, or prove them wrong. It's waste of time and i feel like feeding trolls. So enough.
And maybe if everyone else would stop interacting with them, they would slowly fade away.
I mean, in the past the village's fool wasn't listened to, you didn't try to reason with him... he was just ignored and pointed at as a fool. Why can't we do the same with these fools?
I wish HP added a "tinfoil hat" option in report form. Little bit nazi style, which I despise, but I'm honestly fed up.
I think its pretty random. Having an algorithm that does the things youre describing is pretty complicated and kind of unnececary. The ranking system that hearthstone had is not perfect, but it is pretty good at getting players get a 50% winrate by default. Almosy every season i rank from rank 17 to 5 in a matter of days if I have the time to play, a lot of people with good decks do this and have winrates >65%.
What happens is that at rank 5+ you will have a lot of players with a winrate above 50% and without any manipulation neccesary the average winrate will get closer to 50% every game played.
Why would they manipulate it with complex algorithms if the ladder does it almost perfectly automaticly?
.
The mind boggling stupidity of this thread makes me weep. Y'all need to go and read about 'Skinner's Pigeons', and seriously consider, based on your beliefs of conspiracy in this game, how this sort of thinking may have bled into other more important aspects of your real life, and perhaps your obsession with victimhood.
sad but true
idiocraty is allready here
I didn't tought that so many people would belive in this kind of idiotic conspiracy theories. I have a sad truth for you guys: if you lose you're worst or you're unlucky, because no one gives a shit about your games. Don't try to justify your losses with "blizzard wants me to lose", you just seem a child that doesn't accept that he lost a game. So learn to fucking play instead of making up excuses for your losses. Man this topic makes me mad for how stupid it is.
I used to think people like OP were a bit touched and whiny, but someone on these forums posted a link to rolling Stone article about a very real algorithm Activision has that purposefully puts players in unfavorable matchups to encourage spending money. I switched to a mill Rogue last season and got matched against 2 prince malchezaar decks in a row (srsly). Probably the only 2 players in existence lol
Proof would be nice.
Just a question though, if one player is put in an unfavorable matchup to encourage spending money, who is the other player that is given the free win?
If losing encourages people to spend money, wouldn't it be simpler to just do nothing. As we know, one of the players inevitably has to lose.
https://www.rollingstone.com/glixel/news/how-activision-uses-matchmaking-tricks-to-sell-in-game-items-w509288
I'm not saying it is or isn't in HS, but it's existence is concerning for the future of gaming in general.
Developed in 2015 and who knows when they started working on it. You can still implement it without a patent. The patent just keeps other companies from using it. Again, not throwing my hat in the crazy ring, but it's something to think about when buying packs.
Wait just one second sir or madam, what you are describing are common circumstances in a random system. Long chains of single results are common. They don’t feel random to humans, but they are. You can write a simple program to guess what button someone will press out of two buttons, and it will have a rate of 70% correct guesses or better for most people. Humans don’t know what random looks like, not instinctively. Intellectually though you can’t prove that pulling the exact same cards you mulliganed is only about half as likely as any other single result so it happens fairly often. Pulling one card the same or two the same are slightly more likely than all the same, so those happen even more often. Facing the same opponent is quite common when the pool of opponents is small, and facing certain decks repeatedly in a row just after switching to a deck that’s is bad against the one you keep facing isn’t just as likely as not, but you switched based on a poor sample size, so the likelyhood that switch was a good choice Is about as likely as running into the deck it sucks against a bunch. Which makes sense. Flipping 10 heads is as likely as five heads and then five tails is a strong likely as heads and then tails five times is as likely as anything else. A lot of things you are told are random in many games, that feel random to you, are actually coded to be less random so it feels more random. Although computers can’t technically do anything random, and there is nothing that we have proven is truly random, the universe is not fully predictable but we can’t prove it is random.
Just fill your deck with one drops, that is creative deck design, right?