This is, I believe, only the second time I've ever posted here. I've read a dozen threads on this topic, but have refrained from commenting because it seems so utterly hopeless trying to convince people of painfully-obvious facts. THERE IS NO RNG MANIPULATION OF THE KIND BEING DISCUSSED HERE. Period. Slice of pi did a great job of explaining the fundamental flaws in the conspiracy argument. I'll only add one more: lawsuits.
Blizzard/ Activision is a publicly-traded company worth somewhere in the vicinity of $20 BILLION. They have stated publicly that they do not adjust/ tamper with the RNG. Do you understand the risk they are taking if they are lying about this? Numerous institutional investors (mutual funds, etc.) have invested in the company. If it were revealed that they WERE manipulating the RNG, the stock price would crash and every one of those investors would be suing them for providing false information that artificially inflated the stock price. And, by the way, the SEC would be on these guys in a heartbeat. All it would take is one angry ex-employee whistle blower to inflict massive financial to the company. For absolutely no meaningful economic benefit.
I realize this description doesn't match with the picture of corporations pushed forth by dumb Hollywood movies, but the truth is they are incredibly cautious in real life. They have no interest in making Bubba lose once again to a Galakrond rogue.
Where did they make this announcement?
I have listened to/read numerous statements regarding their game design theory and implementation and have never seen them say they don't manipulate RNG, in fact I have seen them often say that they do. Most recently I came across Rob Pardo talking about how they skewed the 'random' rewards in World of Warcraft away from true randomness to more frequently give the player what they needed.
I have often seen them refer to 'weighted' RNG in their discussions in regards to discover mechanics always with the goal of improving the player experience.
Blizzard likes to use generic terms like 'fun' and 'player engagement' when discussing manipulating their matchmaker to push toward that 50 percent win rate.
It is common practice in the industry, whether it be candy crush, clash royale, or whatever f2p game you are discussing that the games are engineered to encourage spending. What would get them into more trouble with investors, influencing match results or failing to do so at the cost of profits?
Overall, your stance seems pretty sure of yourself for one so naive......or disingenous.......
There is no perfect randomness.i mean... computers cannot generate a 100% random number.they follow algorithms.dig it if u want .. but in IT .. "random" is actually impossible.
Maybe from diamond rank 5 and above. Until that rank i played like 30 or so matches with 76% winrate until i reached rank 3 2 stars and hit a wall. Back to rank 5 no stars and already switched decks to counter the full aggro meta but they went poof all of sudden. Alreay tried 3 deck that would have easily gotten me at least a 60% winrate but the system must be forcing me to go down the overall winrate. So until i reached the system threshold of around 50 im doomed to remain at 42% just to compensate my previous 76%.
Maybe from diamond rank 5 and above. Until that rank i played like 30 or so matches with 76% winrate until i reached rank 3 2 stars and hit a wall. Back to rank 5 no stars and already switched decks to counter the full aggro meta but they went poof all of sudden. Alreay tried 3 deck that would have easily gotten me at least a 60% winrate but the system must be forcing me to go down the overall winrate. So until i reached the system threshold of around 50 im doomed to remain at 42% just to compensate my previous 76%.
I have no doubts of this
Full aggro meta. Even if every game you played up to rank 3 diamond was FULL AGGRO, do you just assume your 30 opponents represent the entire remaining player base? The amount of people queuing and playing at any given time might just be a bit higher. And why suddenly at rank 3:2 stars did the game decide your win rate was too high? Were all your wins up to rank 3 planned by AI as well to offset other players high win rates? Are you actually suggesting that nobody can reach legend with a comparable win rate to 76%? How exactly is the system "forcing you down"? Matchup, mulligan, draws, rng effects, internet connection, bad weather, food poisoning???? Can you be more specific?
Maybe from diamond rank 5 and above. Until that rank i played like 30 or so matches with 76% winrate until i reached rank 3 2 stars and hit a wall. Back to rank 5 no stars and already switched decks to counter the full aggro meta but they went poof all of sudden. Alreay tried 3 deck that would have easily gotten me at least a 60% winrate but the system must be forcing me to go down the overall winrate. So until i reached the system threshold of around 50 im doomed to remain at 42% just to compensate my previous 76%.
I have no doubts of this
Full aggro meta. Even if every game you played up to rank 3 diamond was FULL AGGRO, do you just assume your 30 opponents represent the entire remaining player base? The amount of people queuing and playing at any given time might just be a bit higher. And why suddenly at rank 3:2 stars did the game decide your win rate was too high? Were all your wins up to rank 3 planned by AI as well to offset other players high win rates? Are you actually suggesting that nobody can reach legend with a comparable win rate to 76%? How exactly is the system "forcing you down"? Matchup, mulligan, draws, rng effects, internet connection, bad weather, food poisoning???? Can you be more specific?
It is called a frustration plateau, like in candy crush where they keep you stuck on a level for days until you buy a power up.
read this if you want to understand how these things work.
I have listened to/read numerous statements regarding their game design theory and implementation and have never seen them say they don't manipulate RNG, in fact I have seen them often say that they do. Most recently I came across Rob Pardo talking about how they skewed the 'random' rewards in World of Warcraft away from true randomness to more frequently give the player what they needed.
I have often seen them refer to 'weighted' RNG in their discussions in regards to discover mechanics always with the goal of improving the player experience.
Blizzard likes to use generic terms like 'fun' and 'player engagement' when discussing manipulating their matchmaker to push toward that 50 percent win rate.
It is common practice in the industry, whether it be candy crush, clash royale, or whatever f2p game you are discussing that the games are engineered to encourage spending. What would get them into more trouble with investors, influencing match results or failing to do so at the cost of profits?
Overall, your stance seems pretty sure of yourself for one so naive......or disingenous.......
First off, can the "disingenuous" crap: I have no more connection to Blizzard than you do one of its competitors. Accusing me of being in on the vast, shadowy conspiracy to keep you from achieving the 85% win rate you so clearly deserve because of your awesome Hearthstone skill just shows that you're not capable of a reasoned argument. As for naive, trust me: I know more about how corporations behave than you do.
As for manipulating matchmaking see: http://www.hearthpwn.com/news/2177-is-matchmaking-rigged-max-mccall-explains-the, in which McCall clearly states that the MMR "doesn’t know what deck you’re playing, what deck you just played with or against, or anything else, except for your rating." The article is a few years old now, but that fact changes nothing. If this were a lie, Blizzard would still be liable, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars in fines, attorney fees, and out-of-court settlements. Clear enough for you? (Of course it won't be.)
As for investors, what they want is accurate information and a safe investment. In their view, if you're rigging the matchmaking, say so. If you're not, say so. But saying one thing and doing another? That ticks them off. And Hell hath no fury like an investment firm lied to. In addition, the marginal profit Blizzard would make by rigging the system is trivial compared to their total profits, and absolutely not worth the risk to market share or reputation. This isn't about Blizzard being "nice guys": honesty here is about cold, hard cash.
I have listened to/read numerous statements regarding their game design theory and implementation and have never seen them say they don't manipulate RNG, in fact I have seen them often say that they do. Most recently I came across Rob Pardo talking about how they skewed the 'random' rewards in World of Warcraft away from true randomness to more frequently give the player what they needed.
I have often seen them refer to 'weighted' RNG in their discussions in regards to discover mechanics always with the goal of improving the player experience.
Blizzard likes to use generic terms like 'fun' and 'player engagement' when discussing manipulating their matchmaker to push toward that 50 percent win rate.
It is common practice in the industry, whether it be candy crush, clash royale, or whatever f2p game you are discussing that the games are engineered to encourage spending. What would get them into more trouble with investors, influencing match results or failing to do so at the cost of profits?
Overall, your stance seems pretty sure of yourself for one so naive......or disingenous.......
First off, can the "disingenuous" crap: I have no more connection to Blizzard than you do one of its competitors. Accusing me of being in on the vast, shadowy conspiracy to keep you from achieving the 85% win rate you so clearly deserve because of your awesome Hearthstone skill just shows that you're not capable of a reasoned argument. As for naive, trust me: I know more about how corporations behave than you do.
As for manipulating matchmaking see: http://www.hearthpwn.com/news/2177-is-matchmaking-rigged-max-mccall-explains-the, in which McCall clearly states that the MMR "doesn’t know what deck you’re playing, what deck you just played with or against, or anything else, except for your rating." The article is a few years old now, but that fact changes nothing. If this were a lie, Blizzard would still be liable, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars in fines, attorney fees, and out-of-court settlements. Clear enough for you? (Of course it won't be.)
As for investors, what they want is accurate information and a safe investment. In their view, if you're rigging the matchmaking, say so. If you're not, say so. But saying one thing and doing another? That ticks them off. And Hell hath no fury like an investment firm lied to. In addition, the marginal profit Blizzard would make by rigging the system is trivial compared to their total profits, and absolutely not worth the risk to market share or reputation. This isn't about Blizzard being "nice guys": honesty here is about cold, hard cash.
Disingenous is the correct word, but it is funny how upset you get. I love that a brand new account just appears who has the same certainty and makes the same arguments as the 5k post accounts who went noticeably silent. Who again is going to sue them based on an interview from 2017? Blizzard just updated their matchmaker to make it more 'fun' 'engaging' or whatever euphamism blizzard is currently using for rigged.
Investors want profits, corporations exist, blizzard is currently going to court over their loot box systems, they give symposiums on how to use the matchmaker to maximize 'engagement'. You hang your argument on the dire consequences on what would happen if everyone found out. Bruh, the cat is out of the bag, it has been for Candy Crush, it is for EA, it is for Activision. The current state of matchmaking and game balance is an obvious attempt to stimulate spending, to believe anything else is foolishness. But it's ok bud, I know you are scared of this happening again
Disingenous is the correct word, but it is funny how upset you get. I love that a brand new account just appears who has the same certainty and makes the same arguments as the 5k post accounts who went noticeably silent. Who again is going to sue them based on an interview from 2017? Blizzard just updated their matchmaker to make it more 'fun' 'engaging' or whatever euphamism blizzard is currently using for rigged.
Investors want profits, corporations exist, blizzard is currently going to court over their loot box systems, they give symposiums on how to use the matchmaker to maximize 'engagement'. You hang your argument on the dire consequences on what would happen if everyone found out. Bruh, the cat is out of the bag, it has been for Candy Crush, it is for EA, it is for Activision. The current state of matchmaking and game balance is an obvious attempt to stimulate spending, to believe anything else is foolishness. But it's ok bud, I know you are scared of this happening again
"Brand new account?" Look at my profile, genius. Do you see the place where it says "Member for 4 years?" That means I was here while you were in kindergarten. Or is it your deranged belief that I'm a "sleeper account" that only now, because you're onto us, has been turned on? ("Attention, Blizzard control. This is secret agent #3546, aka TallStranger. For the next two weeks, make sure that username tinfoilhatilluminati draws nothing but control Priests who rope every turn. We gotta get this guy off our tail. He knows too much.")
Notable you didn't address the specific quote from McCall. Probably because it's beyond your understanding. Let me type slower, so you can follow. Suppose I invest millions of dollars in a company that advertises its products as 100% natural. Company does well, so I'm happy. THEN, a senior manager comes out and admits that this claim is completely untrue, and always has been. Stock price plummets, and the feds start an investigation (false advertising, securities fraud, etc.). My investment loses 3/4 of its value overnight. Do you know how fast I'd be suing?
All it would take is one former Blizzard employee to reveal this fact to devastate the company. Those are facts. I'm sorry they don't line up with your fever swamp delusions about how big companies actually operate, but those of us with experience in the real world know better.
That said, I can't blame the others for giving up. You can't have a logical argument with someone who a) can't provide real evidence for his claim and b) insists his opponent prove a negative. They're better off trying to argue with their toaster.
Disingenous is the correct word, but it is funny how upset you get. I love that a brand new account just appears who has the same certainty and makes the same arguments as the 5k post accounts who went noticeably silent. Who again is going to sue them based on an interview from 2017? Blizzard just updated their matchmaker to make it more 'fun' 'engaging' or whatever euphamism blizzard is currently using for rigged.
Investors want profits, corporations exist, blizzard is currently going to court over their loot box systems, they give symposiums on how to use the matchmaker to maximize 'engagement'. You hang your argument on the dire consequences on what would happen if everyone found out. Bruh, the cat is out of the bag, it has been for Candy Crush, it is for EA, it is for Activision. The current state of matchmaking and game balance is an obvious attempt to stimulate spending, to believe anything else is foolishness. But it's ok bud, I know you are scared of this happening again
"Brand new account?" Look at my profile, genius. Do you see the place where it says "Member for 4 years?" That means I was here while you were in kindergarten. Or is it your deranged belief that I'm a "sleeper account" that only now, because you're onto us, has been turned on? ("Attention, Blizzard control. This is secret agent #3546, aka TallStranger. For the next two weeks, make sure that username tinfoilhatilluminati draws nothing but control Priests who rope every turn. We gotta get this guy off our tail. He knows too much.")
Notable you didn't address the specific quote from McCall. Probably because it's beyond your understanding. Let me type slower, so you can follow. Suppose I invest millions of dollars in a company that advertises its products as 100% natural. Company does well, so I'm happy. THEN, a senior manager comes out and admits that this claim is completely untrue, and always has been. Stock price plummets, and the feds start an investigation (false advertising, securities fraud, etc.). My investment loses 3/4 of its value overnight. Do you know how fast I'd be suing?
All it would take is one former Blizzard employee to reveal this fact to devastate the company. Those are facts. I'm sorry they don't line up with your fever swamp delusions about how big companies actually operate, but those of us with experience in the real world know better.
That said, I can't blame the others for giving up. You can't have a logical argument with someone who a) can't provide real evidence for his claim and b) insists his opponent prove a negative. They're better off trying to argue with their toaster.
Keep going with your fake scenario. King is still in business, EA is still in business. Blizzard will still be in business. I am just hoping to keep kids from falling for the manipulative tactics they use that you are so motivated to cover up.
Disingenous is the correct word, but it is funny how upset you get. I love that a brand new account just appears who has the same certainty and makes the same arguments as the 5k post accounts who went noticeably silent. Who again is going to sue them based on an interview from 2017? Blizzard just updated their matchmaker to make it more 'fun' 'engaging' or whatever euphamism blizzard is currently using for rigged.
Investors want profits, corporations exist, blizzard is currently going to court over their loot box systems, they give symposiums on how to use the matchmaker to maximize 'engagement'. You hang your argument on the dire consequences on what would happen if everyone found out. Bruh, the cat is out of the bag, it has been for Candy Crush, it is for EA, it is for Activision. The current state of matchmaking and game balance is an obvious attempt to stimulate spending, to believe anything else is foolishness. But it's ok bud, I know you are scared of this happening again
"Brand new account?" Look at my profile, genius. Do you see the place where it says "Member for 4 years?" That means I was here while you were in kindergarten. Or is it your deranged belief that I'm a "sleeper account" that only now, because you're onto us, has been turned on? ("Attention, Blizzard control. This is secret agent #3546, aka TallStranger. For the next two weeks, make sure that username tinfoilhatilluminati draws nothing but control Priests who rope every turn. We gotta get this guy off our tail. He knows too much.")
Notable you didn't address the specific quote from McCall. Probably because it's beyond your understanding. Let me type slower, so you can follow. Suppose I invest millions of dollars in a company that advertises its products as 100% natural. Company does well, so I'm happy. THEN, a senior manager comes out and admits that this claim is completely untrue, and always has been. Stock price plummets, and the feds start an investigation (false advertising, securities fraud, etc.). My investment loses 3/4 of its value overnight. Do you know how fast I'd be suing?
All it would take is one former Blizzard employee to reveal this fact to devastate the company. Those are facts. I'm sorry they don't line up with your fever swamp delusions about how big companies actually operate, but those of us with experience in the real world know better.
That said, I can't blame the others for giving up. You can't have a logical argument with someone who a) can't provide real evidence for his claim and b) insists his opponent prove a negative. They're better off trying to argue with their toaster.
Keep going with your fake scenario. King is still in business, EA is still in business. Blizzard will still be in business. I am just hoping to keep kids from falling for the manipulative tactics they use that you are so motivated to cover up.
Hahaha yeah. Good comparison... When I hit a frusteration wall, first thing I want to do is buy more packs... Oh wait. No one had EVER said that... Personally, I spend when I'm enjoying the game and want to play more decks... Which I'm guessing is the business model.
Micro transactions work, because you can progress a little bit, for a little bit of money. This doesn't even come close to applying in Hearthstone... You spend and have a vast array of decks, or you don't... That's it.
Did you happen to note that 2 of the top decks are DH (the new set they just gave away) and Face Hunter (so budget it's ridiculous)... After that, the top decks are Highlander... Spending a few bucks will not get you a Highlander deck... Are you seriously suggesting that Blizzard's plan is to get F2P players frustrated, so they spontaneously go out and spend $120 for the 10k dust they would need to make one of the other decks? That isn't how frustration based pay walls work, and suggesting otherwise is downright stupid.
Might be time to recharge the tinfoil in your hat. I think it's leaking.
Blizzard should just tone down or restrict the "generated by' bullshit. Players are clearly not enjoying it as much as Blizzard thinks we should. It's the massive card generation that gives players the notion that something sketchy is going on. Discover as a mechanic is completely over-used and under-statted.
The thing with dice roll mechanics in a digital game is that one side WILL find the results to be bullshit. If you roll high your opponent finds it bullshit. If you roll low then YOU find it bullshit. If you pay a mana cost or other restriction for the flexibility then fine, but right now it's under-statted to the point where classes are just doing it at no cost, passively.
If it means early another HOF for a bunch of cards, so be it.
Blizzard needs to bring back actual limitations in classes.
Blizzard should just tone down or restrict the "generated by' bullshit. Players are clearly not enjoying it as much as Blizzard thinks we should. It's the massive card generation that gives players the notion that something sketchy is going on. Discover as a mechanic is completely over-used and under-statted.
The thing with dice roll mechanics in a digital game is that one side WILL find the results to be bullshit. If you roll high your opponent finds it bullshit. If you roll low then YOU find it bullshit. If you pay a mana cost or other restriction for the flexibility then fine, but right now it's under-statted to the point where classes are just doing it at no cost, passively.
If it means early another HOF for a bunch of cards, so be it.
Blizzard needs to bring back actual limitations in classes.
This. RNG forgamesake is fine, but right now RNG is game swinging in terms of how much of it goes on. There's quite a few cards that can easily give you a victory you had no right to have.
Oh this debate about randomness - of course they control it. They may not control what card you get next from a deck of 30 but they control what archetype you will play against...
I play hl mage, blizzard matches me with priest 75% of the time, I then switch to hl priest oh guess what suddenly I’m playing against murlocs paladin 75% of the time. This way most players win 1 game and lose 3, which keeps the meta at 52% best, which makes people play more buy more decks etc
It's a zero sum game dude. For every player who has a bad matchup, the other player has a good one. It is therefore impossible that most players have a bad matchup the majority of the time. Take off the tin foil hat and try to enjoy the game
Just saw early on in this thread someone mention something about a ~70% winrate over about 70 games.
Firstly, the sample needs to be bigger, though 70 is much better than, say, 10.
Secondly, the environment in which those wins happens matters, perhaps more than anything else. If you've played 70 games in a season, but a lot of those were games against soft opponents (either skillwise, or deck-choice wise, or both), then it's not a true reflection of the winrate of your chosen deck in a truly competitive environment. Now, I'm not going to go and commit a No True Scotsman fallacy here - you a 'truly competitive environment' doesn't have to just be diamond 5+ or anything like that - but it has to be way more than the soft games you get early on in a seasonal grind.
It actually reminds me when someone had built some sort of clearly suboptimal deck, but was boasting about the ~80% winrate they had with it. The raw winrate is only an accurate metric when the data is from the intended environment. That 80% winrate is a fair thing to claim if you only ever intend the deck to be played in lower tiers and casual games. It's almost meaningless if you're trying to talk about the deck's effectiveness in a competitive environment.
I find the raw stats on HSReplay is a good reference point. Yes, there'll be some bad players bringing a deck's winrate down, and some good players bringing it up - but I'm pretty sure the skill level of a player might only add a ~5% buffer to those figures; maybe ~10% if they're exceptional.
It's a zero sum game dude. For every player who has a bad matchup, the other player has a good one. It is therefore impossible that most players have a bad matchup the majority of the time. Take off the tin foil hat and try to enjoy the game
Shhhhh. You're making sense. You must be part of the conspiracy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Where did they make this announcement?
I have listened to/read numerous statements regarding their game design theory and implementation and have never seen them say they don't manipulate RNG, in fact I have seen them often say that they do. Most recently I came across Rob Pardo talking about how they skewed the 'random' rewards in World of Warcraft away from true randomness to more frequently give the player what they needed.
I have often seen them refer to 'weighted' RNG in their discussions in regards to discover mechanics always with the goal of improving the player experience.
Blizzard likes to use generic terms like 'fun' and 'player engagement' when discussing manipulating their matchmaker to push toward that 50 percent win rate.
It is common practice in the industry, whether it be candy crush, clash royale, or whatever f2p game you are discussing that the games are engineered to encourage spending. What would get them into more trouble with investors, influencing match results or failing to do so at the cost of profits?
Overall, your stance seems pretty sure of yourself for one so naive......or disingenous.......
There is no perfect randomness.i mean... computers cannot generate a 100% random number.they follow algorithms.dig it if u want .. but in IT .. "random" is actually impossible.
Maybe from diamond rank 5 and above. Until that rank i played like 30 or so matches with 76% winrate until i reached rank 3 2 stars and hit a wall. Back to rank 5 no stars and already switched decks to counter the full aggro meta but they went poof all of sudden. Alreay tried 3 deck that would have easily gotten me at least a 60% winrate but the system must be forcing me to go down the overall winrate. So until i reached the system threshold of around 50 im doomed to remain at 42% just to compensate my previous 76%.
I have no doubts of this
Full aggro meta. Even if every game you played up to rank 3 diamond was FULL AGGRO, do you just assume your 30 opponents represent the entire remaining player base? The amount of people queuing and playing at any given time might just be a bit higher. And why suddenly at rank 3:2 stars did the game decide your win rate was too high? Were all your wins up to rank 3 planned by AI as well to offset other players high win rates? Are you actually suggesting that nobody can reach legend with a comparable win rate to 76%? How exactly is the system "forcing you down"? Matchup, mulligan, draws, rng effects, internet connection, bad weather, food poisoning???? Can you be more specific?
It is called a frustration plateau, like in candy crush where they keep you stuck on a level for days until you buy a power up.
read this if you want to understand how these things work.
https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/RaminShokrizade/20130626/194933/
First off, can the "disingenuous" crap: I have no more connection to Blizzard than you do one of its competitors. Accusing me of being in on the vast, shadowy conspiracy to keep you from achieving the 85% win rate you so clearly deserve because of your awesome Hearthstone skill just shows that you're not capable of a reasoned argument. As for naive, trust me: I know more about how corporations behave than you do.
As for manipulating matchmaking see: http://www.hearthpwn.com/news/2177-is-matchmaking-rigged-max-mccall-explains-the, in which McCall clearly states that the MMR "doesn’t know what deck you’re playing, what deck you just played with or against, or anything else, except for your rating." The article is a few years old now, but that fact changes nothing. If this were a lie, Blizzard would still be liable, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars in fines, attorney fees, and out-of-court settlements. Clear enough for you? (Of course it won't be.)
As for investors, what they want is accurate information and a safe investment. In their view, if you're rigging the matchmaking, say so. If you're not, say so. But saying one thing and doing another? That ticks them off. And Hell hath no fury like an investment firm lied to. In addition, the marginal profit Blizzard would make by rigging the system is trivial compared to their total profits, and absolutely not worth the risk to market share or reputation. This isn't about Blizzard being "nice guys": honesty here is about cold, hard cash.
Disingenous is the correct word, but it is funny how upset you get. I love that a brand new account just appears who has the same certainty and makes the same arguments as the 5k post accounts who went noticeably silent. Who again is going to sue them based on an interview from 2017? Blizzard just updated their matchmaker to make it more 'fun' 'engaging' or whatever euphamism blizzard is currently using for rigged.
Investors want profits, corporations exist, blizzard is currently going to court over their loot box systems, they give symposiums on how to use the matchmaker to maximize 'engagement'. You hang your argument on the dire consequences on what would happen if everyone found out. Bruh, the cat is out of the bag, it has been for Candy Crush, it is for EA, it is for Activision. The current state of matchmaking and game balance is an obvious attempt to stimulate spending, to believe anything else is foolishness. But it's ok bud, I know you are scared of this happening again
https://www.pcgamesn.com/hearthstone/blizzard-job-listing
"Brand new account?" Look at my profile, genius. Do you see the place where it says "Member for 4 years?" That means I was here while you were in kindergarten. Or is it your deranged belief that I'm a "sleeper account" that only now, because you're onto us, has been turned on? ("Attention, Blizzard control. This is secret agent #3546, aka TallStranger. For the next two weeks, make sure that username tinfoilhatilluminati draws nothing but control Priests who rope every turn. We gotta get this guy off our tail. He knows too much.")
Notable you didn't address the specific quote from McCall. Probably because it's beyond your understanding. Let me type slower, so you can follow. Suppose I invest millions of dollars in a company that advertises its products as 100% natural. Company does well, so I'm happy. THEN, a senior manager comes out and admits that this claim is completely untrue, and always has been. Stock price plummets, and the feds start an investigation (false advertising, securities fraud, etc.). My investment loses 3/4 of its value overnight. Do you know how fast I'd be suing?
All it would take is one former Blizzard employee to reveal this fact to devastate the company. Those are facts. I'm sorry they don't line up with your fever swamp delusions about how big companies actually operate, but those of us with experience in the real world know better.
That said, I can't blame the others for giving up. You can't have a logical argument with someone who a) can't provide real evidence for his claim and b) insists his opponent prove a negative. They're better off trying to argue with their toaster.
Keep going with your fake scenario. King is still in business, EA is still in business. Blizzard will still be in business. I am just hoping to keep kids from falling for the manipulative tactics they use that you are so motivated to cover up.
Hahaha yeah. Good comparison... When I hit a frusteration wall, first thing I want to do is buy more packs... Oh wait. No one had EVER said that... Personally, I spend when I'm enjoying the game and want to play more decks... Which I'm guessing is the business model.
Micro transactions work, because you can progress a little bit, for a little bit of money. This doesn't even come close to applying in Hearthstone... You spend and have a vast array of decks, or you don't... That's it.
Did you happen to note that 2 of the top decks are DH (the new set they just gave away) and Face Hunter (so budget it's ridiculous)... After that, the top decks are Highlander... Spending a few bucks will not get you a Highlander deck... Are you seriously suggesting that Blizzard's plan is to get F2P players frustrated, so they spontaneously go out and spend $120 for the 10k dust they would need to make one of the other decks? That isn't how frustration based pay walls work, and suggesting otherwise is downright stupid.
Might be time to recharge the tinfoil in your hat. I think it's leaking.
Hey @ChrisRex, finally someone with a brain :)
Blizzard should just tone down or restrict the "generated by' bullshit. Players are clearly not enjoying it as much as Blizzard thinks we should. It's the massive card generation that gives players the notion that something sketchy is going on. Discover as a mechanic is completely over-used and under-statted.
The thing with dice roll mechanics in a digital game is that one side WILL find the results to be bullshit. If you roll high your opponent finds it bullshit. If you roll low then YOU find it bullshit. If you pay a mana cost or other restriction for the flexibility then fine, but right now it's under-statted to the point where classes are just doing it at no cost, passively.
If it means early another HOF for a bunch of cards, so be it.
Blizzard needs to bring back actual limitations in classes.
This. RNG forgamesake is fine, but right now RNG is game swinging in terms of how much of it goes on. There's quite a few cards that can easily give you a victory you had no right to have.
Oh this debate about randomness - of course they control it. They may not control what card you get next from a deck of 30 but they control what archetype you will play against...
I play hl mage, blizzard matches me with priest 75% of the time, I then switch to hl priest oh guess what suddenly I’m playing against murlocs paladin 75% of the time. This way most players win 1 game and lose 3, which keeps the meta at 52% best, which makes people play more buy more decks etc
Very interesting statistic. If most players win 1 and lose 3, who wins these extra 2 though???
maths is not one of your strengths surely SirJohn13 so no further comment
It's a zero sum game dude. For every player who has a bad matchup, the other player has a good one. It is therefore impossible that most players have a bad matchup the majority of the time. Take off the tin foil hat and try to enjoy the game
Honestly not going to explain the maths behind it but it’s quite simple, really - your logic is “if I always win, then EVERYONE else always loses“
Just saw early on in this thread someone mention something about a ~70% winrate over about 70 games.
Firstly, the sample needs to be bigger, though 70 is much better than, say, 10.
Secondly, the environment in which those wins happens matters, perhaps more than anything else. If you've played 70 games in a season, but a lot of those were games against soft opponents (either skillwise, or deck-choice wise, or both), then it's not a true reflection of the winrate of your chosen deck in a truly competitive environment. Now, I'm not going to go and commit a No True Scotsman fallacy here - you a 'truly competitive environment' doesn't have to just be diamond 5+ or anything like that - but it has to be way more than the soft games you get early on in a seasonal grind.
It actually reminds me when someone had built some sort of clearly suboptimal deck, but was boasting about the ~80% winrate they had with it. The raw winrate is only an accurate metric when the data is from the intended environment. That 80% winrate is a fair thing to claim if you only ever intend the deck to be played in lower tiers and casual games. It's almost meaningless if you're trying to talk about the deck's effectiveness in a competitive environment.
I find the raw stats on HSReplay is a good reference point. Yes, there'll be some bad players bringing a deck's winrate down, and some good players bringing it up - but I'm pretty sure the skill level of a player might only add a ~5% buffer to those figures; maybe ~10% if they're exceptional.
Shhhhh. You're making sense. You must be part of the conspiracy.