This video addresses many of the weighted RNG aspects that are featured in hearthstone that many people deny exist. I think the maker of this video does a great job of laying it out.
Is this the first time you've heard of this document? There was a huge rush of post a year or two ago when this patent first became public knowledge.
I'm typing this as I listen, and I won't hit post until I'm done with all 14 mins of the video, but so far this guy has proceeded from a premise no one has ever claimed (that matchmaking is random) and drawn one conclusion that is in no way supported by a single line of text in the document (the game picks which player "is going to have fun", the other player "is not going to have fun"). He uses the word prove after jumping two logical steps beyond what actually appears in the document.
Ohhhhh, huge ridiculous logical fallacy at 5:17. The document says a gamer's profile will carry data such that the game will recommend game modes it expects the player to enjoy (the example given is "capture the flag"). This video creator says that the relevant comparison to Hearthstone is picking a Soul Demon Hunter opponent for a Control Warrior. That is grossly dishonest. A "game mode" and a specific opponent are not remotely synonyms.
Good God, this guy has an insufferable tone. I'm having to listen to him pretend to throw up in his mouth while he goes through the whole "Blizzard matches new players with players who have items and skins they paid for, in the hopes that the new player will want those items as well and be influenced to buy them." That's old news, and has been acknowledged for years. This guy claims he's using a budget deck in wild and getting matched up against Highlander Priest, which is a more expensive deck. No allowance for how popular and successful Highlander Priest is.
Wow, ok, so at 8:00, he takes a quote from the document talking about making sure new players are exposed to whales, or "marquee players" in the words of the patent, and the whales' premium weapons, and compares this to having players in Hearthstone see rigged topdecks so that certain legendaries are drawn in an artificially timely manner and work to win the game. This is in no way what is contemplated in the text, and by the way, if we proceed from the logic that decks with more legendaries and epics are going to be stronger than budget decks (a logic I generally agree with), then one must admit, it is not necessary for their to be any MM rigging for new players to be exposed to these cards for two reasons: 1) if the new player enjoys any success at all, he will be matched against those cards naturally, and 2) as time goes on in a meta, there is a natural pressure to craft and include those cards in order to be able to win games, regardless of what level of play is being observed.
This is the fundamental issue with videos alleging "proof" of rigging from this document. The document exclusively talks about team-based games, and though it says the principles are generalized to all multiplayer games, Blizzard patented the system for games with a cooperative element specifically to have a way in which they can advertise skins and other purchasable items thru matching both teammates and opponents in non-ranked beginner-level play. In ranked play, when these premium items (like legendary cards in Hearthstone) positively affect win rates, players are naturally exposed to them without this sort of engineering. I'm not saying at all that Blizzard is too principled to engage in such activity. I'm saying the same effect occurs without any of this easily data-mined manipulation.
In any case, I'm continuing with the video, but my God, this guy is hard to listen to. I'm going to need ASMR therapy after this. And the word "proof" has never been molested and mutilated as hard as what I'm seeing today.
I like how from 8:40 - 9:20 he just stops referencing the document completely to refer to something called the "honeymoon period" where apparently it's a "fact" that when you make a new deck, you get a win streak before things "even out". No reference to the document or any other evidence, just a little throw-in there.
I also like how he just dismisses all the diagrams that don't support his point. Mostly because they all clearly refer to games that have no analogy to Hearthstone (which is true of the stuff he's referencing also, but if we can just accept his jumps between what is written and what he wants to prove, he'll get somewhere here). I'm also scared we're taking analytical proof from a guy that doesn't know the word "coefficient", but whatevs.
So minute 9 and 10 are more of the same, he's insisting that legendaries are the "items" that cause players to be matched together, and that you will have a rigged matchmaking system based on what cards you own. Of course, this completely ignores the contrapositive of this point, meaning that if what he says is true, I should be able to affect what decks I get matched against based on what legendaries I do not own. That is an easily testable hypothesis, and so anyone who purports to have "proof" without doing that work is full of it.
THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST EASILY ASSAILABLE POINT OF THE VIDEO. If Blizzard is rigging the matchmaking as he says, I should be able to track a statistically relevant increase in opponent's decks that contain legendaries (and perhaps epics, but DEFINITELY legendaries) which I do not own. If, on the other hand, I am correct and the only relevance to matchmaking my opponent's legendaries have is how they affect his winrate and MMR, then I will see an increase in the more powerful legendaries in my opponent's decks, regardless of whether I own said legendaries or not.
He continues to ignore the language of the document when it doesn't match his rhetoric. There are a few particularly egregious misstatements of the text around 12:30 when the document talks about gauging player satisfaction from things like quitting a match while it is still in progress for other players (a factor which does not translate to Hearthstone, as quitting a game before actually taking lethal damage is the outcome of a huge percentage of games and generally indicates only that one player believes he is beaten).
Anyway, his last bit about Hearthstone watching you is another "what else is new?" moment, but that's just a cherry on top of the conspiracy sundae. As with most videos that purport to "prove" something on this topic, I'm not suggesting there is proof to the contrary. I'm simply pointing out how grossly inadequate and misleading the evidence (or in this case, the interpretation of evidence) is as a source of proof.
EDIT: After 5 pages of trollery and very few arguments against what I've written, apparently this 90 seconds or so of reading requires a TL;DR summary.
TL;DR: You don't care whether the video is correct or not; you just enjoy another rant against Blizzard. If I'm wrong, read for 90 seconds and find out why this particular video is incorrect and deliberately misleading.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
Is this the first time you've heard of this document? There was a huge rush of post a year or two ago when this patent first became public knowledge.
I'm typing this as I listen, and I won't hit post until I'm done with all 14 mins of the video, but so far this guy has proceeded from a premise no one has ever claimed (that matchmaking is random) and drawn one conclusion that is in no way supported by a single line of text in the document (the game picks which player "is going to have fun", the other player "is not going to have fun"). He uses the word prove after jumping two logical steps beyond what actually appears in the document.
Ohhhhh, huge ridiculous logical fallacy at 5:17. The document says a gamer's profile will carry data such that the game will recommend game modes it expects the player to enjoy (the example given is "capture the flag"). This video creator says that the relevant comparison to Hearthstone is picking a Soul Demon Hunter opponent for a Control Warrior. That is grossly dishonest. A "game mode" and a specific opponent are not remotely synonyms.
Good God, this guy has an insufferable tone. I'm having to listen to him pretend to throw up in his mouth while he goes through the whole "Blizzard matches new players with players who have items and skins they paid for, in the hopes that the new player will want those items as well and be influenced to buy them." That's old news, and has been acknowledged for years. This guy claims he's using a budget deck in wild and getting matched up against Highlander Priest, which is a more expensive deck. No allowance for how popular and successful Highlander Priest is.
Wow, ok, so at 8:00, he takes a quote from the document talking about making sure new players are exposed to whales, or "marquee players" in the words of the patent, and the whales' premium weapons, and compares this to having players in Hearthstone see rigged topdecks so that certain legendaries are drawn in an artificially timely manner and work to win the game. This is in no way what is contemplated in the text, and by the way, if we proceed from the logic that decks with more legendaries and epics are going to be stronger than budget decks (a logic I generally agree with), then one must admit, it is not necessary for their to be any MM rigging for new players to be exposed to these cards for two reasons: 1) if the new player enjoys any success at all, he will be matched against those cards naturally, and 2) as time goes on in a meta, there is a natural pressure to craft and include those cards in order to be able to win games, regardless of what level of play is being observed.
This is the fundamental issue with videos alleging "proof" of rigging from this document. The document exclusively talks about team-based games, and though it says the principles are generalized to all multiplayer games, Blizzard patented the system for games with a cooperative element specifically to have a way in which they can advertise skins and other purchasable items thru matching both teammates and opponents in non-ranked beginner-level play. In ranked play, when these premium items (like legendary cards in Hearthstone) positively affect win rates, players are naturally exposed to them without this sort of engineering. I'm not saying at all that Blizzard is too principled to engage in such activity. I'm saying the same effect occurs without any of this easily data-mined manipulation.
In any case, I'm continuing with the video, but my God, this guy is hard to listen to. I'm going to need ASMR therapy after this. And the word "proof" has never been molested and mutilated as hard as what I'm seeing today.
I like how from 8:40 - 9:20 he just stops referencing the document completely to refer to something called the "honeymoon period" where apparently it's a "fact" that when you make a new deck, you get a win streak before things "even out". No reference to the document or any other evidence, just a little throw-in there.
I also like how he just dismisses all the diagrams that don't support his point. Mostly because they all clearly refer to games that have no analogy to Hearthstone (which is true of the stuff he's referencing also, but if we can just accept his jumps between what is written and what he wants to prove, he'll get somewhere here). I'm also scared we're taking analytical proof from a guy that doesn't know the word "coefficient", but whatevs.
So minute 9 and 10 are more of the same, he's insisting that legendaries are the "items" that cause players to be matched together, and that you will have a rigged matchmaking system based on what cards you own. Of course, this completely ignores the contrapositive of this point, meaning that if what he says is true, I should be able to affect what decks I get matched against based on what legendaries I do not own. That is an easily testable hypothesis, and so anyone who purports to have "proof" without doing that work is full of it.
THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST EASILY ASSAILABLE POINT OF THE VIDEO. If Blizzard is rigging the matchmaking as he says, I should be able to track a statistically relevant increase in opponent's decks that contain legendaries (and perhaps epics, but DEFINITELY legendaries) which I do not own. If, on the other hand, I am correct and the only relevance to matchmaking my opponent's legendaries have is how they affect his winrate and MMR, then I will see an increase in the more powerful legendaries in my opponent's decks, regardless of whether I own said legendaries or not.
He continues to ignore the language of the document when it doesn't match his rhetoric. There are a few particularly egregious misstatements of the text around 12:30 when the document talks about gauging player satisfaction from things like quitting a match while it is still in progress for other players (a factor which does not translate to Hearthstone, as quitting a game before actually taking lethal damage is the outcome of a huge percentage of games and generally indicates only that one player believes he is beaten).
Anyway, his last bit about Hearthstone watching you is another "what else is new?" moment, but that's just a cherry on top of the conspiracy sundae. As with most videos that purport to "prove" something on this topic, I'm not suggesting there is proof to the contrary. I'm simply pointing out how grossly inadequate and misleading the evidence (or in this case, the interpretation of evidence) is as a source of proof.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
This isn't proof. This is a 3 year old patent that the video maker has decided to read and interpret as they wish in order to fit a set of pre-determined ideas about Hearthstone, all of which can easily be attributed to variance, and used create a 10 min+ video about it by reading the text very. very. slowly.
Like some of the video comments state, I also have honeymoon periods with decks, but I'm also as likely to go 0-4 and delete the list in frustration. I come on Hearthpwn and see people ranting about facing 6 Demon Hunters in a row when I'm consistently getting a mix of six or seven different classes. Different people have different experiences, which is literal variance.
The Salt thread is full of this shit. It's the same with every digital card game in existence, since 2000-whatever when people started insisting the Magic the Gathering Online shuffler was "bugged" because they didn't draw their fourth land before turn 7.
It's not because Blizzard hates you. It's not because you're being targeted to buy more packs. It might be because you're being targeted to buy a campaign, that's very possible under the terms of the patent, but then that's just to do with the cards in your opponent's deck at the start of the game, they still need to play reasonably to win, but... It could also be because you have a weakness at the game you're not prepared to address.
But, ultimately, it's just variance. You'll have good days, you'll have bad days. And that's why the same players consistently get Legend / get invited to tournaments / win games on stream / whatever.
What I am not sure that they actually factor some things in. I make it very clear I despise the Priest class because I don't play it and I generally concede whenever I get matched against them.
Somehow, that doesn't change matchmaking in any way, and I still get matched with them extremely frequently, even when I'm conceding multiple games in a row to them.
Don't know if you're playing Standard or Wild, but if it's the latter then Priest is generally a very popular class because a) Raza/Shadowreaper and b) Rez Priest, a deck which sometimes just autowins and basically plays itself. This makes variance much more likely than something like "game pairs you against class you hate to make it seem OP so you buy packs".
Also, don't auto-concede against priest. Sometimes their deck does nothing and you just crush them. Game might be slower but you'll still win, and that's why you're here, right? :)
So you have experience casting doubt on accusations made against your clients?
Sure. It always helps when the witness has an agenda and can't be truthful on the stand.
It's REALLY nice when they can only tell half the story without exposing their own lies. When the jury hears the other side of the story, they write him off pretty quick, and rightfully so.
And the final nail in the coffin always comes when the witness completely overreaches. When he starts to claim he can prove something that he can't. Because juries are generally reasonable people, and can see that crap for what it is.
But I know where you're trying to go. Lawyers twist the truth and obfuscate and all that. But surely if that's what I'm doing, rather than just pointing out legitimate problems with the video, you can show the jury where I'm wrong.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
So you have experience casting doubt on accusations made against your clients?
Sure. It always helps when the witness has an agenda and can't be truthful on the stand.
It's REALLY nice when they can only tell half the story without exposing their own lies. When the jury hears the other side of the story, they write him off pretty quick, and rightfully so.
And the final nail in the coffin always comes when the witness completely overreaches. When he starts to claim he can prove something that he can't. Because juries are generally reasonable people, and can see that crap for what it is.
But I know where you're trying to go. Lawyers twist the truth and obfuscate and all that. But surely if that's what I'm doing, rather than just pointing out legitimate problems with the video, you can show the jury where I'm wrong.
I am just trying to understand the motivations behind your mountains of words.
Wow, Shadowrisen wrote a much more detailed ripping-apart of the video in half the time to took me to post my response about variance. I'm legit impressed, good job. :D
My motivation behind the mountain of words (Jesus people, read a book if that's a "mountain" to you) is to illustrate the dishonesty in the video. I wrote an even bigger "mountain" about Zeddy Hearthstone in my own thread because he's an even more dishonest content creator.
Pretty simple.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
My motivation behind the mountain of words (Jesus people, read a book if that's a "mountain" to you) is to illustrate the dishonesty in the video. I wrote an even bigger "mountain" about Zeddy Hearthstone in my own thread because he's an even more dishonest content creator.
Pretty simple.
So you believe that blizzard does not employ these mechanisms that Activision has patented to increase revenue?
My motivation behind the mountain of words (Jesus people, read a book if that's a "mountain" to you) is to illustrate the dishonesty in the video. I wrote an even bigger "mountain" about Zeddy Hearthstone in my own thread because he's an even more dishonest content creator.
Pretty simple.
So you believe that blizzard does not employ these mechanisms that Activision has patented to increase revenue?
It's not a matter of belief. Of course they employ them. That has long been acknowledged.
But, you clearly haven't read my post. The point was that the video creator lied and misled his audience about the nature of those mechanisms. He claimed the document said things it very clearly didn't, he ignored the parts of the document that refuted his rhetoric, and at times, he departed from the document and any other evidence to just make accusations with absolutely no basis.
As I VERY clearly stated, none of the above "proves" Blizzard doesn't rig things. But likewise, what he claims as proof rarely even rises to the level of evidence, and doesn't at all support his theories.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
I don't know for sure it's all variance, but it's amazing how you never get credit for admitting the lack of knowledge.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
My motivation behind the mountain of words (Jesus people, read a book if that's a "mountain" to you) is to illustrate the dishonesty in the video. I wrote an even bigger "mountain" about Zeddy Hearthstone in my own thread because he's an even more dishonest content creator.
Pretty simple.
So you believe that blizzard does not employ these mechanisms that Activision has patented to increase revenue?
It's not a matter of belief. Of course they employ them. That has long been acknowledged.
But, you clearly haven't read my post. The point was that the video creator lied and misled his audience about the nature of those mechanisms. He claimed the document said things it very clearly didn't, he ignored the parts of the document that refuted his rhetoric, and at times, he departed from the document and any other evidence to just make accusations with absolutely no basis.
As I VERY clearly stated, none of the above "proves" Blizzard doesn't rig things. But likewise, what he claims as proof rarely even rises to the level of evidence, and doesn't at all support his theories.
So just to be 100 percent clear, because as you can see, I don't seem to always comprehend your message. Is it your position that Blizz/Activision does rig outcomes in hearthstone to stimulate spending?
Ok, that's fair. I'll try to cover it all real quick.
You use the word "rig" and I have to be careful with that word. The video creator starts by talking about how matchmaking isn't "random", but we know it's not random. We know there's some sort of matchmaking rating that is supposed to have people playing folks on or around the same rank of the ladder, and this MMR even affects non-ranked matches. So it is "rigged" in that way.
But, if you mean "rigged" in the way the video creator seems to, that Blizzard puts people against others who have legendaries they don't own, so as to encourage people to craft more legendaries (and therefore buy more packs), I don't "believe" one way or the other. I just know that if that's true, it would be VERY easy to prove. As a matter of fact, you could run an easy experiment (over time, I realize it would take a while).
Play a few hundred games on an account that owns Kayn, Malicia, and Ilgynoth (sp?), the main legendaries from Soul Demon Hunter decks. Record what percentage of the time you match up against Soul Demon Hunter decks. Then disenchant those legendaries and play a few more hundred games. If you see a significant uptick in percentage of matches against Soul Demon Hunter, that wouldn't be proof positive, but it would be VERY STRONG evidence in favor of what the content creator believes.
I realize that takes effort, but in the grand scheme of things, it would be an easy experiment. Absent some evidence like that, we have no reason to believe such "rigging" takes place. Again, it's not a matter of what I believe. It's what we have evidence and/or proof for. And the video claims to be able to prove a lot of stuff, without even coming close.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
My problem with all this is that this sort of meddling would be childishly simple to prove by the folks like VS that have trackers for thousands of game. It would be a simple matter to see if a certain card topdecked more often than another, or if a matchup was generated more often than random chance would indicate.
It's fine to speculate, but why buy into conspiracy theories when the proof is so easy to acquire?
Also, with the proof being to easy to come by, wouldn't Activision be fools to endanger the credibility of their game by doing these things?
I think the financial benefit of rigging matches would be FAR overshadowed by the potential losses that would occur should that rigging come to light. Therefore, even without proof, I don't buy into the idea the game is rigged.
I didn't even really touch on the whole "topdecking stuff right at the right time" thing. That was completely off the wall.
But yes, that would be even easier to prove.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T658vTvoRs
This video addresses many of the weighted RNG aspects that are featured in hearthstone that many people deny exist. I think the maker of this video does a great job of laying it out.
bli$$ards psychology team: 243 men
their dev team: 5 men
Is this the first time you've heard of this document? There was a huge rush of post a year or two ago when this patent first became public knowledge.
I'm typing this as I listen, and I won't hit post until I'm done with all 14 mins of the video, but so far this guy has proceeded from a premise no one has ever claimed (that matchmaking is random) and drawn one conclusion that is in no way supported by a single line of text in the document (the game picks which player "is going to have fun", the other player "is not going to have fun"). He uses the word prove after jumping two logical steps beyond what actually appears in the document.
Ohhhhh, huge ridiculous logical fallacy at 5:17. The document says a gamer's profile will carry data such that the game will recommend game modes it expects the player to enjoy (the example given is "capture the flag"). This video creator says that the relevant comparison to Hearthstone is picking a Soul Demon Hunter opponent for a Control Warrior. That is grossly dishonest. A "game mode" and a specific opponent are not remotely synonyms.
Good God, this guy has an insufferable tone. I'm having to listen to him pretend to throw up in his mouth while he goes through the whole "Blizzard matches new players with players who have items and skins they paid for, in the hopes that the new player will want those items as well and be influenced to buy them." That's old news, and has been acknowledged for years. This guy claims he's using a budget deck in wild and getting matched up against Highlander Priest, which is a more expensive deck. No allowance for how popular and successful Highlander Priest is.
Wow, ok, so at 8:00, he takes a quote from the document talking about making sure new players are exposed to whales, or "marquee players" in the words of the patent, and the whales' premium weapons, and compares this to having players in Hearthstone see rigged topdecks so that certain legendaries are drawn in an artificially timely manner and work to win the game. This is in no way what is contemplated in the text, and by the way, if we proceed from the logic that decks with more legendaries and epics are going to be stronger than budget decks (a logic I generally agree with), then one must admit, it is not necessary for their to be any MM rigging for new players to be exposed to these cards for two reasons: 1) if the new player enjoys any success at all, he will be matched against those cards naturally, and 2) as time goes on in a meta, there is a natural pressure to craft and include those cards in order to be able to win games, regardless of what level of play is being observed.
This is the fundamental issue with videos alleging "proof" of rigging from this document. The document exclusively talks about team-based games, and though it says the principles are generalized to all multiplayer games, Blizzard patented the system for games with a cooperative element specifically to have a way in which they can advertise skins and other purchasable items thru matching both teammates and opponents in non-ranked beginner-level play. In ranked play, when these premium items (like legendary cards in Hearthstone) positively affect win rates, players are naturally exposed to them without this sort of engineering. I'm not saying at all that Blizzard is too principled to engage in such activity. I'm saying the same effect occurs without any of this easily data-mined manipulation.
In any case, I'm continuing with the video, but my God, this guy is hard to listen to. I'm going to need ASMR therapy after this. And the word "proof" has never been molested and mutilated as hard as what I'm seeing today.
I like how from 8:40 - 9:20 he just stops referencing the document completely to refer to something called the "honeymoon period" where apparently it's a "fact" that when you make a new deck, you get a win streak before things "even out". No reference to the document or any other evidence, just a little throw-in there.
I also like how he just dismisses all the diagrams that don't support his point. Mostly because they all clearly refer to games that have no analogy to Hearthstone (which is true of the stuff he's referencing also, but if we can just accept his jumps between what is written and what he wants to prove, he'll get somewhere here). I'm also scared we're taking analytical proof from a guy that doesn't know the word "coefficient", but whatevs.
So minute 9 and 10 are more of the same, he's insisting that legendaries are the "items" that cause players to be matched together, and that you will have a rigged matchmaking system based on what cards you own. Of course, this completely ignores the contrapositive of this point, meaning that if what he says is true, I should be able to affect what decks I get matched against based on what legendaries I do not own. That is an easily testable hypothesis, and so anyone who purports to have "proof" without doing that work is full of it.
THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST EASILY ASSAILABLE POINT OF THE VIDEO. If Blizzard is rigging the matchmaking as he says, I should be able to track a statistically relevant increase in opponent's decks that contain legendaries (and perhaps epics, but DEFINITELY legendaries) which I do not own. If, on the other hand, I am correct and the only relevance to matchmaking my opponent's legendaries have is how they affect his winrate and MMR, then I will see an increase in the more powerful legendaries in my opponent's decks, regardless of whether I own said legendaries or not.
He continues to ignore the language of the document when it doesn't match his rhetoric. There are a few particularly egregious misstatements of the text around 12:30 when the document talks about gauging player satisfaction from things like quitting a match while it is still in progress for other players (a factor which does not translate to Hearthstone, as quitting a game before actually taking lethal damage is the outcome of a huge percentage of games and generally indicates only that one player believes he is beaten).
Anyway, his last bit about Hearthstone watching you is another "what else is new?" moment, but that's just a cherry on top of the conspiracy sundae. As with most videos that purport to "prove" something on this topic, I'm not suggesting there is proof to the contrary. I'm simply pointing out how grossly inadequate and misleading the evidence (or in this case, the interpretation of evidence) is as a source of proof.
EDIT: After 5 pages of trollery and very few arguments against what I've written, apparently this 90 seconds or so of reading requires a TL;DR summary.
TL;DR: You don't care whether the video is correct or not; you just enjoy another rant against Blizzard. If I'm wrong, read for 90 seconds and find out why this particular video is incorrect and deliberately misleading.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
you're the lawyer right?
Yes
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
So you have experience casting doubt on accusations made against your clients?
This isn't proof. This is a 3 year old patent that the video maker has decided to read and interpret as they wish in order to fit a set of pre-determined ideas about Hearthstone, all of which can easily be attributed to variance, and used create a 10 min+ video about it by reading the text very. very. slowly.
Like some of the video comments state, I also have honeymoon periods with decks, but I'm also as likely to go 0-4 and delete the list in frustration. I come on Hearthpwn and see people ranting about facing 6 Demon Hunters in a row when I'm consistently getting a mix of six or seven different classes. Different people have different experiences, which is literal variance.
The Salt thread is full of this shit. It's the same with every digital card game in existence, since 2000-whatever when people started insisting the Magic the Gathering Online shuffler was "bugged" because they didn't draw their fourth land before turn 7.
It's not because Blizzard hates you.
It's not because you're being targeted to buy more packs.
It might be because you're being targeted to buy a campaign, that's very possible under the terms of the patent, but then that's just to do with the cards in your opponent's deck at the start of the game, they still need to play reasonably to win, but...
It could also be because you have a weakness at the game you're not prepared to address.
But, ultimately, it's just variance. You'll have good days, you'll have bad days. And that's why the same players consistently get Legend / get invited to tournaments / win games on stream / whatever.
Don't know if you're playing Standard or Wild, but if it's the latter then Priest is generally a very popular class because a) Raza/Shadowreaper and b) Rez Priest, a deck which sometimes just autowins and basically plays itself. This makes variance much more likely than something like "game pairs you against class you hate to make it seem OP so you buy packs".
Also, don't auto-concede against priest. Sometimes their deck does nothing and you just crush them. Game might be slower but you'll still win, and that's why you're here, right? :)
Sure. It always helps when the witness has an agenda and can't be truthful on the stand.
It's REALLY nice when they can only tell half the story without exposing their own lies. When the jury hears the other side of the story, they write him off pretty quick, and rightfully so.
And the final nail in the coffin always comes when the witness completely overreaches. When he starts to claim he can prove something that he can't. Because juries are generally reasonable people, and can see that crap for what it is.
But I know where you're trying to go. Lawyers twist the truth and obfuscate and all that. But surely if that's what I'm doing, rather than just pointing out legitimate problems with the video, you can show the jury where I'm wrong.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
I am just trying to understand the motivations behind your mountains of words.
Wow, Shadowrisen wrote a much more detailed ripping-apart of the video in half the time to took me to post my response about variance. I'm legit impressed, good job. :D
Apparently it's because I'm a lawyer.
My motivation behind the mountain of words (Jesus people, read a book if that's a "mountain" to you) is to illustrate the dishonesty in the video. I wrote an even bigger "mountain" about Zeddy Hearthstone in my own thread because he's an even more dishonest content creator.
Pretty simple.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
Please, can you provide the link to your thread about Zeddy?
Zeddy Thread
Watch out for fanboys.
EDIT: And if you thought this post was too long to read, you won't like the Zeddy one. I had two videos to deal with on that one.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
So you believe that blizzard does not employ these mechanisms that Activision has patented to increase revenue?
It's not a matter of belief. Of course they employ them. That has long been acknowledged.
But, you clearly haven't read my post. The point was that the video creator lied and misled his audience about the nature of those mechanisms. He claimed the document said things it very clearly didn't, he ignored the parts of the document that refuted his rhetoric, and at times, he departed from the document and any other evidence to just make accusations with absolutely no basis.
As I VERY clearly stated, none of the above "proves" Blizzard doesn't rig things. But likewise, what he claims as proof rarely even rises to the level of evidence, and doesn't at all support his theories.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
Sorry for the double post, but re: Arcengal
I don't know for sure it's all variance, but it's amazing how you never get credit for admitting the lack of knowledge.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
So just to be 100 percent clear, because as you can see, I don't seem to always comprehend your message. Is it your position that Blizz/Activision does rig outcomes in hearthstone to stimulate spending?
Ok, that's fair. I'll try to cover it all real quick.
You use the word "rig" and I have to be careful with that word. The video creator starts by talking about how matchmaking isn't "random", but we know it's not random. We know there's some sort of matchmaking rating that is supposed to have people playing folks on or around the same rank of the ladder, and this MMR even affects non-ranked matches. So it is "rigged" in that way.
But, if you mean "rigged" in the way the video creator seems to, that Blizzard puts people against others who have legendaries they don't own, so as to encourage people to craft more legendaries (and therefore buy more packs), I don't "believe" one way or the other. I just know that if that's true, it would be VERY easy to prove. As a matter of fact, you could run an easy experiment (over time, I realize it would take a while).
Play a few hundred games on an account that owns Kayn, Malicia, and Ilgynoth (sp?), the main legendaries from Soul Demon Hunter decks. Record what percentage of the time you match up against Soul Demon Hunter decks. Then disenchant those legendaries and play a few more hundred games. If you see a significant uptick in percentage of matches against Soul Demon Hunter, that wouldn't be proof positive, but it would be VERY STRONG evidence in favor of what the content creator believes.
I realize that takes effort, but in the grand scheme of things, it would be an easy experiment. Absent some evidence like that, we have no reason to believe such "rigging" takes place. Again, it's not a matter of what I believe. It's what we have evidence and/or proof for. And the video claims to be able to prove a lot of stuff, without even coming close.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
My problem with all this is that this sort of meddling would be childishly simple to prove by the folks like VS that have trackers for thousands of game. It would be a simple matter to see if a certain card topdecked more often than another, or if a matchup was generated more often than random chance would indicate.
It's fine to speculate, but why buy into conspiracy theories when the proof is so easy to acquire?
Also, with the proof being to easy to come by, wouldn't Activision be fools to endanger the credibility of their game by doing these things?
I think the financial benefit of rigging matches would be FAR overshadowed by the potential losses that would occur should that rigging come to light. Therefore, even without proof, I don't buy into the idea the game is rigged.
Galavant Animation
I didn't even really touch on the whole "topdecking stuff right at the right time" thing. That was completely off the wall.
But yes, that would be even easier to prove.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.