That's how true RNG works. You *could* play a thousand games and not see him.
Chances of that are astronomically low. Hard mulligan when going first is 3/27 = 1/9 probability to have it. Probability of not having it 1000 times in a row is (1/9)^1000 = 5.7212451947729489548872575566539e-955
So there is 955 leading zeroes on that probability. Number of atoms in the observable universe is about 10^82 in comparison (83 digits).
The odds are low, not 0. Yes they are extremely astronomically low, and it's likely that it would never happen even if you had 1,000,000,000 games running every second since the beginning of the universe, but that's not the point. There's nothing *stopping* it from happening
The point to statistics and declaring RNG is not to flat out ignore every single event as "it's just RNG." Yes, if I play the casino and get snake eyes 500 out of 500 times then I COULD be unlucky but statistically, it's time to go "something might be off." Thus there's a point in statistics when you can declare that what you found is very odd compared to what should happen.
It's not enough ALONE to declare rigged but it IS the point when you go"perhaps we need to run more tests and not just say we're being salty." 1000 times without a barnes is very much that point. It's declaring the line between "just lucky/unlucky" and "umm.. that looks odd" which is how we found out about the pity timer (and when the timer broke) along with believing that things like the card draw has NOT been mettled with.
If the math folks here are being interpreted correctly though, 11% is NOT that point. Or am I wrong in that, been a while since I messed with Stats.
Most of Generation Z is just O2 waste. Take a look at the WoW history, especially PvP system where Blizzard did hidden nerfs several times. for For Blizzard "balance" is not only nerfing the OP things or vice versa in gaming enviroment. They destroyed many fantastic functions in WoW to prevent good skilled players from dominating the game since these players could do fantastic things by using those fantastic functions. Keeping the bad/average skilled players motivated is the main goal of Blizzard.
HS and WoW are completely different games with completely different gaming concepts and mechanics but the goal of Blizzard is same. I don't think that they do permanent hidden nerfs but I strongly doubt that Blizzard is not manipulating the RnG system of Hearthstone. They may be using a possibility reducing/increasing system which manipulates the RnG parameters temporarely/situationally.
You are comparing apples to oranges. Please do yourself and us a big favour and stop making a fool out of yourself by crying about younger peoples. Not publishing every single tiny nerf in one game isnt the same, as silently rigging the chances of one single card in a different game. Specially because it would easyly be traceable and did not happen a single time before this theory was written down.
Please tell us. What is more likely? You beeing slightly unlucky or Blizzard "silently" rigging the percentages of a card for the very first time in 4 years? And all of that based on less then 100 games... you must be a comedian.
If you can explain to me why Blizzard beeing the devil himself is more likely than you beeing a grumpy little piece of an older generation... i will stop wasting your precious oxygen
You are clearly unable to understand the point(s) of post you replied. Read it over and over again till you at least particularly understand it.
I wrote that I don't think that they do permanent nerfs in terms of reducing the chance of getting a card but temporare/situational ones. I'll give a very simplified expample: A balance mechanism can reduce a player's/account's chance of getting a key card (like Reno, Sea Naga, Raza or Barnes) at the start by let's say 50%, if this player achieves a WR of 70% in last 20 games or a 8+ win streak etc. and such RnG adjustments can be done card-based as well as account-based. Alghorithmic parameters can be much more complex, I just gave a very simple example.
However, I'm not saying that Blizzard is definetly doing something like that. I'm saying that it seemed odd to me (just like post below yours emphasized) and it wouldn't surprise me if Blizzard is doing something like that.
By the way, I'm not crying about anything, calling a critism "crying" sounds more crying and you damage only yourself when you insult other people.
Not the 11% are problematic. The horribly low amount of games are the problem.
If i create a new deck and win my first 15 games it wouldnt be an unbeatable deck never the less. I might even say that my winrate is 100% and hope to get famous on heartpwn. Still it would only be anecdotal evidence. If something out of the norm happens to you doesnt mean the norm has changed.
If you look at a group of 100 dead people and one of them died because he got attacked by a shark, that doesnt mean that you have a 1% chance to die in a sharkattack. But if none of those 100 died by a sharkattack, you can absolutely safely say that it is impossible to die by a sharkattack... oh wait...
The issue is the result people are trying to get from a single test, as if the question is "Is it random or rigged" is going to be answered from one sequence. the very concept of saying "it's impossible" or "it IS rigged" is a misuse of statistics and has nothing to do with what you are doing by taking a sample in the first place.
To use your shark example, Right now there's a 1 in 3,748,067 chance of getting killed by a shark. Now if you are in a beach wondering if there's a 'shark problem' you ARE allowed to take a small sample of say 100 and see how they did in one year.
Now let's say 1 person did die by a shark. Compared to the overall statistics that's actually a major break from statistics given the superlow chance of getting killed normally. So do we say "OMG It's rigged?" @()#@) NO! Neither do we say "you were unlucky." What do you say? "This is statistically significant and works against the theory that there's no additional risk of getting killed by a shark by being here." Which should lead you to want to make another sample, perhaps bigger to see if you can repeat the process or if you were just unlucky.
If, after several tests you can keep netting 1 in 100, it may be time to start pulling the big guns, get an official board researching the situation, put some real money in. Again we haven't PROVEn there's a shark problem, but we HAVE shown that putting money into the situation isn't being foolish.
And that's the problem with what we keep doing here. Yes it's a stupid small amount of games. But it's enough to get a number down compared to what's being tested. So instead of just putting on a tin foil hat or mocking it, run a test of significance on it. If it breaks the test then we don't go slamming Blizzard or ignoring it. We then go "Ok, can we get a few more people to test this thing?" The point of the initial sample, small or not, is to see if it's worthwhile enough to put more effort into it.
Sidenote, the discussion over whether Blizzard would want to do this really isn't helping. You can craft a reason easily for the company to think it's a good or bad idea. You don't even need to craft one since it's VERY much possible for:
it to be a profitable idea to rig it, but Blizzard can't figure out the code and so hasn't bothered
it to be a stupid idea that doesn't help but Blizzard did it anyway because they are idiots
it to be an idea Blizzard considered but found that it doesn't really boost sales
it to be a profitable idea but Blizzard thought it was unethical and, surprise, NOT EVERY COMPANY IS RUN BY DR. EVIL!
or any number of permutations.
It's not relevant. Blizzard can do it. There are logical situations where they have or have not done it. Playing theorycraft gets you nowhere. The point is to find out IF they did it, no matter the reason. That CAN be found out and a simple 'one guy doing 100 trials' is a decent start so long as it's just a start.
So can we confirm whether the OP's sample is significant compared to random chance? If so, can we get a few people to at least TRY to do a few more tests? If not, can we put this thing to rest?
Not the 11% are problematic. The horribly low amount of games are the problem.
If i create a new deck and win my first 15 games it wouldnt be an unbeatable deck never the less. I might even say that my winrate is 100% and hope to get famous on heartpwn. Still it would only be anecdotal evidence. If something out of the norm happens to you doesnt mean the norm has changed.
If you look at a group of 100 dead people and one of them died because he got attacked by a shark, that doesnt mean that you have a 1% chance to die in a sharkattack. But if none of those 100 died by a sharkattack, you can absolutely safely say that it is impossible to die by a sharkattack... oh wait...
The issue is the result people are trying to get from a single test, as if the question is "Is it random or rigged" is going to be answered from one sequence. the very concept of saying "it's impossible" or "it IS rigged" is a misuse of statistics and has nothing to do with what you are doing by taking a sample in the first place.
To use your shark example, Right now there's a 1 in 3,748,067 chance of getting killed by a shark. Now if you are in a beach wondering if there's a 'shark problem' you ARE allowed to take a small sample of say 100 and see how they did in one year.
Now let's say 1 person did die by a shark. Compared to the overall statistics that's actually a major break from statistics given the superlow chance of getting killed normally. So do we say "OMG It's rigged?" @()#@) NO! Neither do we say "you were unlucky." What do you say? "This is statistically significant and works against the theory that there's no additional risk of getting killed by a shark by being here." Which should lead you to want to make another sample, perhaps bigger to see if you can repeat the process or if you were just unlucky.
If, after several tests you can keep netting 1 in 100, it may be time to start pulling the big guns, get an official board researching the situation, put some real money in. Again we haven't PROVEn there's a shark problem, but we HAVE shown that putting money into the situation isn't being foolish.
And that's the problem with what we keep doing here. Yes it's a stupid small amount of games. But it's enough to get a number down compared to what's being tested. So instead of just putting on a tin foil hat or mocking it, run a test of significance on it. If it breaks the test then we don't go slamming Blizzard or ignoring it. We then go "Ok, can we get a few more people to test this thing?" The point of the initial sample, small or not, is to see if it's worthwhile enough to put more effort into it.
Sidenote, the discussion over whether Blizzard would want to do this really isn't helping. You can craft a reason easily for the company to think it's a good or bad idea. You don't even need to craft one since it's VERY much possible for:
it to be a profitable idea to rig it, but Blizzard can't figure out the code and so hasn't bothered
it to be a stupid idea that doesn't help but Blizzard did it anyway because they are idiots
it to be an idea Blizzard considered but found that it doesn't really boost sales
it to be a profitable idea but Blizzard thought it was unethical and, surprise, NOT EVERY COMPANY IS RUN BY DR. EVIL!
or any number of permutations.
It's not relevant. Blizzard can do it. There are logical situations where they have or have not done it. Playing theorycraft gets you nowhere. The point is to find out IF they did it, no matter the reason. That CAN be found out and a simple 'one guy doing 100 trials' is a decent start so long as it's just a start.
So can we confirm whether the OP's sample is significant compared to random chance? If so, can we get a few people to at least TRY to do a few more tests? If not, can we put this thing to rest?
Most people don't collect the data carefully enough to put it to the test,
Data you need:
Was I going first or second? Did I get Barnes [replace with 1 specific card you run as a 1-of works too] before the mulligan? Record the number of times this happened. Chance to have it should be 3/30 = 1/10 = 10% going first, 4/30 = 13.33% going second.
If not, did I get it from the mulligan after changing M cards? Chance for this is M/27 going first, M/26 going second.
I also derived the formula for drawing it after a certain number of cards.
Once you have enough data you can do a chi-squared test seeing if the observed values match the expected values. You need to treat all the cases separately though.
Most people don't collect the data carefully enough to put it to the test,
Data you need:
Was I going first or second? Did I get Barnes [replace with 1 specific card you run as a 1-of works too] before the mulligan? Record the number of times this happened. Chance to have it should be 3/30 = 1/10 = 10% going first, 4/30 = 13.33% going second.
If not, did I get it from the mulligan after changing M cards? Chance for this is M/27 going first, M/26 going second.
I also derived the formula for drawing it after a certain number of cards.
Once you have enough data you can do a chi-squared test seeing if the observed values match the expected values. You need to treat all the cases separately though.
Thanks for the issue.
And that's the point though. It's not that we can't figure it out or that we need 10000000000000 tests under perfect conditions. We just need someone willing to take it seriously, at least to get something to chew over.
Most people don't collect the data carefully enough to put it to the test,
Data you need:
Was I going first or second? Did I get Barnes [replace with 1 specific card you run as a 1-of works too] before the mulligan? Record the number of times this happened. Chance to have it should be 3/30 = 1/10 = 10% going first, 4/30 = 13.33% going second.
If not, did I get it from the mulligan after changing M cards? Chance for this is M/27 going first, M/26 going second.
I also derived the formula for drawing it after a certain number of cards.
Once you have enough data you can do a chi-squared test seeing if the observed values match the expected values. You need to treat all the cases separately though.
That's how true RNG works. You *could* play a thousand games and not see him.
Chances of that are astronomically low. Hard mulligan when going first is 3/27 = 1/9 probability to have it. Probability of not having it 1000 times in a row is (1/9)^1000 = 5.7212451947729489548872575566539e-955
So there is 955 leading zeroes on that probability. Number of atoms in the observable universe is about 10^82 in comparison (83 digits).
Probability of HAVING IT 1000 times in a row is (1/9)^1000.
Probablility of NOT having it 1000 times in a row is (8/9)^1000 = 7.0 e-52. That is ONLY 52 zeroes. Though it remains highly unlikely, please stop providing false maths to exagerate your point.
That's how true RNG works. You *could* play a thousand games and not see him.
Chances of that are astronomically low. Hard mulligan when going first is 3/27 = 1/9 probability to have it. Probability of not having it 1000 times in a row is (1/9)^1000 = 5.7212451947729489548872575566539e-955
So there is 955 leading zeroes on that probability. Number of atoms in the observable universe is about 10^82 in comparison (83 digits).
Probability of HAVING IT 1000 times in a row is (1/9)^1000.
Probablility of NOT having it 1000 times in a row is (8/9)^1000 = 7.0 e-52. That is ONLY 52 zeroes. Though it remains highly unlikely, please stop providing false maths to exagerate your point.
You are correct, my bad. It was early morning when I made the post.
If my maths is right this time, (8/9) ^ 1000 is about the same probability as winning the UK National Lottery (1 in 13,983,816) 7 weeks in a row.
That's how true RNG works. You *could* play a thousand games and not see him.
Chances of that are astronomically low. Hard mulligan when going first is 3/27 = 1/9 probability to have it. Probability of not having it 1000 times in a row is (1/9)^1000 = 5.7212451947729489548872575566539e-955
So there is 955 leading zeroes on that probability. Number of atoms in the observable universe is about 10^82 in comparison (83 digits).
Probability of HAVING IT 1000 times in a row is (1/9)^1000.
Probablility of NOT having it 1000 times in a row is (8/9)^1000 = 7.0 e-52. That is ONLY 52 zeroes. Though it remains highly unlikely, please stop providing false maths to exagerate your point.
You are correct, my bad. It was early morning when I made the post.
If my maths is right this time, (8/9) ^ 1000 is about the same probability as winning the UK National Lottery (1 in 13,983,816) 7 weeks in a row.
1/9 is incorrect anyway, I corrected my probabilities earlier in the thread. Actual probability is 6/30 going first or 8/30 going second assuming you mulligan everything if you don't get Barnes. Split this down the middle since it is equally likely you go first or second, so call the probability 7/30.
Chances of this not happening 1000 times in a row is (23/30)^1000. Chance of winning UK lottery is 1/13983816.
So find N such that
(23/30)^1000 = (1/13983816)^N
1000 log (23/30) = N log(1/13983816)
N = 1000 * log (23/30)/log(1/13983816)
I make that N > 16 so it's less likely than winning the lottery 16 weeks in a row. (When I calculated 7 with odds of 1/9, I was not correct, raised the wrong probability to the power N).
EDIT: But that could happen right, millions of people play the lottery and many buy multiple tickets, so it is in fact more likely that someone wins the lottery 16 times in a row.
However, the probability is also the same as the lotto machine repeating the same set of numbers 16 times in a row. I think people may get suspicious then. (I do know about the Bulgarian lottery where the same numbers came up twice in the space of 5 days, that wasn't consecutively though since they had a draw a day, and it was twice, not 16 times).
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
i agree, barnes literally cannot be drawn
Just play woecleaver warrior. At least you can tutor your recruit card in that (forge of souls).
Look at this thing and let me know what you think!
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
I've had several runs where I have to stop and go look at my deck to verify he's even in the deck. 'Yup, I guess he's in there.'
Galavant Animation
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.