I'm not saying this is rigged, but game developers already revealed that there are plenty of games that are rigged to make you feel better. One of the examples they used;
You fight a boss, but the boss has an invisible 20% damage buff. You get your ass kicked, but the 2nd attempt it 'only' has an invisible 15% damage buff. After that 10%. After that they give you a 40% damage reduction bonus when below 30% health. You remember you took those couple of hits you thought would kill you but you barely came through? Yeah, that might've been intended. After a couple of attempts you finally take down the boss and feel more sense of a victory than when you would've killed it straight away, while never knowing you actually got helped a bit.
So yes, it is definitely possible that some games are rigged to give players a sense of achievement and willing to continue on instead of giving up. If that's the case here? I don't know. I personally doubt it, but you're free to change my mind with any hard evidence.
I'm not saying this is rigged, but game developers already revealed that there are plenty of games that are rigged to make you feel better. One of the examples they used;
You fight a boss, but the boss has an invisible 20% damage buff. You get your ass kicked, but the 2nd attempt it 'only' has an invisible 15% damage buff. After that 10%. After that they give you a 40% damage reduction bonus when below 30% health. You remember you took those couple of hits you thought would kill you but you barely came through? Yeah, that might've been intended. After a couple of attempts you finally take down the boss and feel more sense of a victory than when you would've killed it straight away, while never knowing you actually got helped a bit.
So yes, it is definitely possible that some games are rigged to give players a sense of achievement and willing to continue on instead of giving up. If that's the case here? I don't know. I personally doubt it, but you're free to change my mind with any hard evidence.
The problem is that if you rig PvP games, you screw someone over to make someone else feel better. It is a zero-sum game, and nothing is gained, with a high risk that the player being screwed over makes you lose more than you win.
MMR is a very fair matchmaking system, but it is also designed to try to make you have a 50% winrate by giving you better or worse opponents. That is not the same as deciding which decks you will face and ingame RNG, though.
Amazement. For everything a first agree with this author. Probably enlightenment struck and a more critical approach as a result. And indeed rigging is taking place on a more illusive deeper level. The target audience must be served.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
That's why I like to use a decktracker whenever I play, just to see if this 'rigged' match up is a thing and imo it really is. I will talk about my games before the nerfs. So I play galakrond rogue, at some point most of my opponents play aggro DH which is one of the worst match ups. I even face 3 demon hunters in a row followed by 1 warrior and again DH, one priest, one shaman, 2 hunters (another bad match up) and we are back at DH once again. Sick of these aggro demon hunters I decided to switch to soul DH which has a better winrate against that deck. My opponents are: 1 hunter, 1 paladin (lol where was this pala when I was playing rogue?), 1 DH but not aggro nor soul, just OTK (again, not this match up when I play rogue), 1 druid, 1 hunter, 2 warriors. Yeah very nice to face warrior as demon hunter but not as rogue. I played these 2 decks at the same rank so no change in meta.
6 out of 11 games played as gala rogue were against aggro DH, 0 out of 7 games played as soul DH were against aggro demon hunter. I can not believe the match up is not rigged at all.
Bear in mind that 10 games is also a small sample size, you need around 100 to say that you have a big enough sample representing 1 player.
Everyone here is talking about MMR as if it is the only matchmaking tool. Are you all forgetting that as soon as you run out of bonus stars, you're matched on rank and not MMR?
Anyway, I agree with OP, game is not rigged and never has been. People are being so imaginative when it comes to describing the complicated systems Blizzard has set up to determine which deck you're playing, which deck would be a counter to it, when and for how long you're allowed to have a win streak... And the rigging "theory" can be adopted to fit all scenarios. It mostly goes like this:
"Packs bought with real money give more legendaries than those bought with gold, because Blizzard wants you to spend money on the game!"
*Opens minimum amount of legendaries in packs bought with real money*
"Blizzard has realised you're a whale and want you to spend more money on packs , which is why you didn't get any legendaries!"
I think a lot of people here would do good to read up on Karl Popper's theory on falsification.
First of all, there is no reason to believe that the matchups of Hearthstone are rigged. Why? Because millions of games have been recorded by tools like hsreplay, and if such mechanics were present, they would have been discovered a long time ago.
You're overlooking something on hsreplay...have you ever noticed how every single deck out there cycles up and down...that's not normal to see a win rate spike one day and then plummet the next. Some of that may be due to bad match-ups driving the win rates up or down, but who pits those bad match-ups to drive down a win rate after it spikes? Answer: Blizzard
Take a look at any deck enjoying a high-win rate for a little too long...it won't be long before it takes a dive. That's Blizzard trying to level out the win rates so that one deck doesn't end up getting a consistently high win rate day after day week after week. Call it "balance" or "rigged"... it's the same in my book.
Blizzard themselves have said that the matchmaking ensures that the win rates overall are kept at c. 53% for each meta. Now, what the OP is saying is blah... blah... blah..
look at vicious syndicate win rates summary. All top decks (shaman right now) have a wine rate of c. 53% across all ranks, oh my this matches Blizzards statement?!
The game is rigged as the matchmaking is not random full stop. matchmaking should be based on rank and rank alone, not the internal mmr bullshit
Really? Same thing with games like clash Royale, right?
I have proofs, I always play with deck tracker. 3/4 season ago (when quest mage was tier 1) I faced (from 3 diamond) only aggo decks, 0 priest. Ok, so I switched to secret mage, and? Only priest deck. The % of priest and lock when I played quest mage: 5%. The % when I played secret mage: 42%. Same rank, same season.
In this meta again! I play Reno priest, and now I am at d3. Guess? Only combo decks. I switched to aggro druid, and guess again? Only Reno decks.
Why if there are so many aggro decks I never face them when I play Reno priest? Why if there are many combo decks to counter Reno priest I never face them when I play aggro? I mean, I face them, but the % are absolutely unbalanced if I play aggro or control decks
Blizzard themselves have said that the matchmaking ensures that the win rates overall are kept at c. 53% for each meta. Now, what the OP is saying is blah... blah... blah..
look at vicious syndicate win rates summary. All top decks (shaman right now) have a wine rate of c. 53% across all ranks, oh my this matches Blizzards statement?!
The game is rigged as the matchmaking is not random full stop. matchmaking should be based on rank and rank alone, not the internal mmr bullshit
You must be sitting in the table with the special kids.
Blizzard has stated that the goal of card balance is to keep every deck below a certain winrate.
The only way matchmaking is "rigged" is the balance between finding an opponent as close to your rank as possible and finding an opponent fast.
First of all, there is no reason to believe that the matchups of Hearthstone are rigged. Why? Because millions of games have been recorded by tools like hsreplay, and if such mechanics were present, they would have been discovered a long time ago.
You're overlooking something on hsreplay...have you ever noticed how ever single deck out there cycles up and down...that's not normal to see a win rate spike one day and then plummet the next. Some of that may be due to bad match-ups driving the win rates up or down, but who pits those bad match-ups to drive down a win rate after it spikes? Answer: Blizzard
Take a look at any deck enjoying a high-win rate for a little too long...it won't be long before it takes a dive. That's Blizzard trying to level out the win rates so that one deck doesn't end up getting a consistently high win rate day after day week after week. Call it "balance" or "rigged"... it's the same in my book.
Oh my God, Blizzard should never have said that using the MMR system is a way to ensure a winrate of 50% for all players, because BOY have people been misunderstanding and misusing that concept.
The ENTIRE POINT of an MMR system is that people will naturally land on a winrate of 50% without Blizzard doing ANYTHING. Blizzard is NOT going to make you lose if you win to much. Your MMR will just rise and you're going to face better players. If you're not quite at that level yet, you will fall back to where you were before. It really is *that* simple.
Blizzard's goal isn't that everyone has a winrate of 50% - the goal is that everyone has fun by playing people on a similar skill level, and a winrate of ~50% is an indication of that. Unless you're the kind of person that prefers to play football with kindergarteners just so you can steamroll them, an MMR system is really the best way to ensure a balanced matchup.
Speaking of balance... The idea that Blizzard is targeting certain decks through matchmaking is absolutely ludicrous (and quite hilarious, to be honest). Winrates rise and fall depending on the meta that develop from day to day. People a constantly trying to get an advantage by countering the meta, and other people will be trying to counter those trying to counter the meta, and round and round it goes.
Once again, the 50% winrate is not the goal, BALANCE is, and all decks having a ~50% winrate is an indication of balance. In an ideal meta, no deck would be dominant, thus all decks would have a 50% winrate. Again, naturally. Without Blizzard doing ANYTHING.
The problem is of course that balance is hard to achieve. So do Blizzard rig balance through matchmaking? No, they use NERFS. If Blizzard could matchmake themselves out of balance issues, then we would NEVER have nerfs, because there would be no balance issues.
It is baffling to me how people cannot see that a 50% winrate means that the game is balanced on all levels of play. It is in our, the PLAYERS' interests that generally, both people and decks have a winrate of ~50%. Let me cut it out in stone, once more for those in the back:
A 50% WINRATE IS NOT THE GOAL IN ITSELF - BALANCE IS
So if someone gives you something that looks and smells like shit but says with scientific accuracy it is actually chocolate. Would you go ahead and eat it?
HS is rigged. Its just that obvious to people who actually play the game.
So if someone gives you something that looks and smells like shit but says with scientific accuracy it is actually chocolate. Would you go ahead and eat it?
HS is rigged. Its just that obvious to people who actually play the game.
no, I've been playing the game and it's not in any way obvious to me, quite the opposite
in fact its not obvious to 99% of people who play it game, it seems to be only obvious to 1% vocal minority who don't understand basic stuff behind Probability theory, anyone who actually paid attention in math class will see there is nothing rigged about matchmaking
lol, anyone with a brain who is not shilling knows its rigged
Thank you for your this informative and logically convincing post /S.
About MMR, it is the eyes seeing. The whole point of MMR is that it will intend to pull you towards a 50% winrate. The very top players will have a winrate significantly lower and the worst ones lower.
Starcraft 2 also used a MMR matchmaking system, and if you play enough games and has a pretty stable level of play, your winrate will end up very close to 50%, only by matching you against better or worse players. Note that SC2 is a much more skill intensive game where it even a few 100 points of MMR makes a match extremely difficult to win.
I am also not surprised the anecdotal evidence crowd had finally showed up, as usual without any documentation of course.
Well deck trackers are not accurate people who use them are specific type of players even the sample size they collect is big that doesn't change the fact. Also they have impact on the game you can calculate the impact of deck tracker but you cannot control the player profile who uses deck trackers.
You just gave me the idea to create a thread where people can share their all time stats (as recorded by HSreplay). I don't know what exactly can be gained from that, but it could be interesting, right?
Btw, my opinion in the subject matter is that matchmaking isn't rigged and Blizzard has no need to rig it.
I decided to play non-highlander mage for the first time in months just as a change of pace and the very first two matches I'm up against are secret mages running counterspell in their decks.....something I haven't seen in god knows how long and OF COURSE, I manage to run into it the second I play a spell heavy deck
Blizzard themselves have said that the matchmaking ensures that the win rates overall are kept at c. 53% for each meta. Now, what the OP is saying is blah... blah... blah..
look at vicious syndicate win rates summary. All top decks (shaman right now) have a wine rate of c. 53% across all ranks, oh my this matches Blizzards statement?!
The game is rigged as the matchmaking is not random full stop. matchmaking should be based on rank and rank alone, not the internal mmr bullshit
You're completely confused about what they are saying.
The matchmaking system works to match people of equal skill which is how you get to around the 50%. If you want to be pedantic and say that's 'rigging' then fine but don't then allude to them specifically picking your matches to make you lose.
The aim of games or sports is to be competitive. A competition isn't fun if you have one person who is significantly better. This is why they have a ranking system, to group together people of similar ability levels. Some will improve, others may stagnate but its not the same system as to what you've got into your head at all.
Professional sports do a similar thing. It's why many competitions have multi tiered league systems.
You can say the league is rigging the matches but what they are doing is running a system where you move up or down according to your results and on average, most teams will sit in a tier/league that is in line with their ability.
If it was a free for all then you'd have really good, experienced players slapping up the newbies. It wouldn't be competitive.
Fifa has exactly the same system, with mmr dictating your opponents. Again, you can say this is 'rigged' but it isn't the same as it being rigged for you to lose. It's designed for you to land in the tier that you can sit in and compete at. Their weekend competition typically sees the average player sit at around 50% win rates. 40-60 is maybe fairer, then you have the really good players and the really bad players who sit above/below this. You face people with a similar rnak/win record to you so as you play more, you start to drop in win %.
Surprise surprise, their forums have also been saying the same thing as people like you got years and have been debunked over and over again, just like this thread. The problem people are inclined to believe what makes them feel better, they very often don't want to understand or actually read evidence of it states the opposite because that forces them to accept that they aren't as good or smart or whatever as they like to think they are.
It's worrying how simple so many people are in that they really struggle to grasp anything outside of really basic concepts.
This system is absolutely nothing new and it's not unfairly rigged, it's designed to remain competitive and is seen a cross lots of sports and computer games. I haven't seen one even remotely convincing argument or case to evidence its rigged in the way you seem to think.
The goal is not balance, it is player engagement. That means they want a mediocre player to be able to climb with the same 50 percent win rate that a good player does. That way he can think he is good and keeps playing. They even want to bad players to be able to climb and win half their games. That is why they introduce so much 'weighted RNG' into the game. So they can control the outcomes, maintain player engagement and stimulate spending with progress gates. This is common practice in video games. Blizzard holds patents in the stimulating spending. They acquired KING which is mostly known for making a fake rigged game that stimulates spending.
Hearthstone is rigged, from the matchmaking, to the RNG, to the card draw......if you look into the question on your own, you will reach no other conclusion. On sites like this there are blizzard community managers whose actual job is to make you think this is an actual game and encourage you to spend money on it. Don't be taken in by the shillary.
The goal is not balance, it is player engagement. That means they want a mediocre player to be able to climb with the same 50 percent win rate that a good player does. That way he can think he is good and keeps playing. They even want to bad players to be able to climb and win half their games. That is why they introduce so much 'weighted RNG' into the game. So they can control the outcomes, maintain player engagement and stimulate spending with progress gates. This is common practice in video games. Blizzard holds patents in the stimulating spending. They acquired KING which is mostly known for making a fake rigged game that stimulates spending.
Hearthstone is rigged, from the matchmaking, to the RNG, to the card draw......if you look into the question on your own, you will reach no other conclusion. On sites like this there are blizzard community managers whose actual job is to make you think this is an actual game and encourage you to spend money on it. Don't be taken in by the shillary.
You see the thing is, all of this stuff you mention here, all of this, will happen naturally if you play enough games, without spending a single penny on actually writing these rigging mechanism, which btw would have to be really complicated.
Also how are going to engage a player to play more games if you make him lose, what is the point of that? And why is aggro so prevalent? Why some decks sometimes emerge with such high winrates that they have to nerf cards? If those rigging mechanism were in place, then if anyone would start winning too many games they should be then getting bad rng and start losing.
I actually checked my hs deck tracker btw, I have almost 5k games recorded I believe, and guess what, I faced each class roughly between 10-13% of time, over 4 or 5 years that I've been keeping track, which is pretty even spread if you ask me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm not saying this is rigged, but game developers already revealed that there are plenty of games that are rigged to make you feel better. One of the examples they used;
You fight a boss, but the boss has an invisible 20% damage buff. You get your ass kicked, but the 2nd attempt it 'only' has an invisible 15% damage buff. After that 10%. After that they give you a 40% damage reduction bonus when below 30% health. You remember you took those couple of hits you thought would kill you but you barely came through? Yeah, that might've been intended. After a couple of attempts you finally take down the boss and feel more sense of a victory than when you would've killed it straight away, while never knowing you actually got helped a bit.
So yes, it is definitely possible that some games are rigged to give players a sense of achievement and willing to continue on instead of giving up. If that's the case here? I don't know. I personally doubt it, but you're free to change my mind with any hard evidence.
The problem is that if you rig PvP games, you screw someone over to make someone else feel better. It is a zero-sum game, and nothing is gained, with a high risk that the player being screwed over makes you lose more than you win.
MMR is a very fair matchmaking system, but it is also designed to try to make you have a 50% winrate by giving you better or worse opponents. That is not the same as deciding which decks you will face and ingame RNG, though.
Editor of the Heartpwn Legendary Crafting Guide:
https://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/card-discussion/205920-legendary-tier-list-crafting-guide
Amazement. For everything a first agree with this author. Probably enlightenment struck and a more critical approach as a result. And indeed rigging is taking place on a more illusive deeper level. The target audience must be served.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Bear in mind that 10 games is also a small sample size, you need around 100 to say that you have a big enough sample representing 1 player.
Everyone here is talking about MMR as if it is the only matchmaking tool. Are you all forgetting that as soon as you run out of bonus stars, you're matched on rank and not MMR?
Anyway, I agree with OP, game is not rigged and never has been. People are being so imaginative when it comes to describing the complicated systems Blizzard has set up to determine which deck you're playing, which deck would be a counter to it, when and for how long you're allowed to have a win streak... And the rigging "theory" can be adopted to fit all scenarios. It mostly goes like this:
"Packs bought with real money give more legendaries than those bought with gold, because Blizzard wants you to spend money on the game!"
*Opens minimum amount of legendaries in packs bought with real money*
"Blizzard has realised you're a whale and want you to spend more money on packs , which is why you didn't get any legendaries!"
I think a lot of people here would do good to read up on Karl Popper's theory on falsification.
lol, anyone with a brain who is not shilling knows its rigged
You're overlooking something on hsreplay...have you ever noticed how every single deck out there cycles up and down...that's not normal to see a win rate spike one day and then plummet the next. Some of that may be due to bad match-ups driving the win rates up or down, but who pits those bad match-ups to drive down a win rate after it spikes? Answer: Blizzard
Take a look at any deck enjoying a high-win rate for a little too long...it won't be long before it takes a dive. That's Blizzard trying to level out the win rates so that one deck doesn't end up getting a consistently high win rate day after day week after week. Call it "balance" or "rigged"... it's the same in my book.
Blizzard themselves have said that the matchmaking ensures that the win rates overall are kept at c. 53% for each meta. Now, what the OP is saying is blah... blah... blah..
look at vicious syndicate win rates summary. All top decks (shaman right now) have a wine rate of c. 53% across all ranks, oh my this matches Blizzards statement?!
The game is rigged as the matchmaking is not random full stop. matchmaking should be based on rank and rank alone, not the internal mmr bullshit
Really? Same thing with games like clash Royale, right?
I have proofs, I always play with deck tracker. 3/4 season ago (when quest mage was tier 1) I faced (from 3 diamond) only aggo decks, 0 priest. Ok, so I switched to secret mage, and? Only priest deck. The % of priest and lock when I played quest mage: 5%. The % when I played secret mage: 42%. Same rank, same season.
In this meta again! I play Reno priest, and now I am at d3. Guess? Only combo decks. I switched to aggro druid, and guess again? Only Reno decks.
Why if there are so many aggro decks I never face them when I play Reno priest? Why if there are many combo decks to counter Reno priest I never face them when I play aggro? I mean, I face them, but the % are absolutely unbalanced if I play aggro or control decks
You must be sitting in the table with the special kids.
Blizzard has stated that the goal of card balance is to keep every deck below a certain winrate.
The only way matchmaking is "rigged" is the balance between finding an opponent as close to your rank as possible and finding an opponent fast.
Oh my God, Blizzard should never have said that using the MMR system is a way to ensure a winrate of 50% for all players, because BOY have people been misunderstanding and misusing that concept.
The ENTIRE POINT of an MMR system is that people will naturally land on a winrate of 50% without Blizzard doing ANYTHING. Blizzard is NOT going to make you lose if you win to much. Your MMR will just rise and you're going to face better players. If you're not quite at that level yet, you will fall back to where you were before. It really is *that* simple.
Blizzard's goal isn't that everyone has a winrate of 50% - the goal is that everyone has fun by playing people on a similar skill level, and a winrate of ~50% is an indication of that. Unless you're the kind of person that prefers to play football with kindergarteners just so you can steamroll them, an MMR system is really the best way to ensure a balanced matchup.
Speaking of balance... The idea that Blizzard is targeting certain decks through matchmaking is absolutely ludicrous (and quite hilarious, to be honest). Winrates rise and fall depending on the meta that develop from day to day. People a constantly trying to get an advantage by countering the meta, and other people will be trying to counter those trying to counter the meta, and round and round it goes.
Once again, the 50% winrate is not the goal, BALANCE is, and all decks having a ~50% winrate is an indication of balance. In an ideal meta, no deck would be dominant, thus all decks would have a 50% winrate. Again, naturally. Without Blizzard doing ANYTHING.
The problem is of course that balance is hard to achieve. So do Blizzard rig balance through matchmaking? No, they use NERFS. If Blizzard could matchmake themselves out of balance issues, then we would NEVER have nerfs, because there would be no balance issues.
It is baffling to me how people cannot see that a 50% winrate means that the game is balanced on all levels of play. It is in our, the PLAYERS' interests that generally, both people and decks have a winrate of ~50%. Let me cut it out in stone, once more for those in the back:
A 50% WINRATE IS NOT THE GOAL IN ITSELF - BALANCE IS
So if someone gives you something that looks and smells like shit but says with scientific accuracy it is actually chocolate. Would you go ahead and eat it?
HS is rigged. Its just that obvious to people who actually play the game.
no, I've been playing the game and it's not in any way obvious to me, quite the opposite
in fact its not obvious to 99% of people who play it game, it seems to be only obvious to 1% vocal minority who don't understand basic stuff behind Probability theory, anyone who actually paid attention in math class will see there is nothing rigged about matchmaking
Thank you for your this informative and logically convincing post /S.
About MMR, it is the eyes seeing. The whole point of MMR is that it will intend to pull you towards a 50% winrate. The very top players will have a winrate significantly lower and the worst ones lower.
Starcraft 2 also used a MMR matchmaking system, and if you play enough games and has a pretty stable level of play, your winrate will end up very close to 50%, only by matching you against better or worse players. Note that SC2 is a much more skill intensive game where it even a few 100 points of MMR makes a match extremely difficult to win.
I am also not surprised the anecdotal evidence crowd had finally showed up, as usual without any documentation of course.
Editor of the Heartpwn Legendary Crafting Guide:
https://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/card-discussion/205920-legendary-tier-list-crafting-guide
Well deck trackers are not accurate people who use them are specific type of players even the sample size they collect is big that doesn't change the fact. Also they have impact on the game you can calculate the impact of deck tracker but you cannot control the player profile who uses deck trackers.
You just gave me the idea to create a thread where people can share their all time stats (as recorded by HSreplay). I don't know what exactly can be gained from that, but it could be interesting, right?
Btw, my opinion in the subject matter is that matchmaking isn't rigged and Blizzard has no need to rig it.
I decided to play non-highlander mage for the first time in months just as a change of pace and the very first two matches I'm up against are secret mages running counterspell in their decks.....something I haven't seen in god knows how long and OF COURSE, I manage to run into it the second I play a spell heavy deck
THAT'S why the game feels rigged.
You're completely confused about what they are saying.
The matchmaking system works to match people of equal skill which is how you get to around the 50%. If you want to be pedantic and say that's 'rigging' then fine but don't then allude to them specifically picking your matches to make you lose.
The aim of games or sports is to be competitive. A competition isn't fun if you have one person who is significantly better. This is why they have a ranking system, to group together people of similar ability levels. Some will improve, others may stagnate but its not the same system as to what you've got into your head at all.
Professional sports do a similar thing. It's why many competitions have multi tiered league systems.
You can say the league is rigging the matches but what they are doing is running a system where you move up or down according to your results and on average, most teams will sit in a tier/league that is in line with their ability.
If it was a free for all then you'd have really good, experienced players slapping up the newbies. It wouldn't be competitive.
Fifa has exactly the same system, with mmr dictating your opponents. Again, you can say this is 'rigged' but it isn't the same as it being rigged for you to lose. It's designed for you to land in the tier that you can sit in and compete at. Their weekend competition typically sees the average player sit at around 50% win rates. 40-60 is maybe fairer, then you have the really good players and the really bad players who sit above/below this. You face people with a similar rnak/win record to you so as you play more, you start to drop in win %.
Surprise surprise, their forums have also been saying the same thing as people like you got years and have been debunked over and over again, just like this thread. The problem people are inclined to believe what makes them feel better, they very often don't want to understand or actually read evidence of it states the opposite because that forces them to accept that they aren't as good or smart or whatever as they like to think they are.
It's worrying how simple so many people are in that they really struggle to grasp anything outside of really basic concepts.
This system is absolutely nothing new and it's not unfairly rigged, it's designed to remain competitive and is seen a cross lots of sports and computer games. I haven't seen one even remotely convincing argument or case to evidence its rigged in the way you seem to think.
The goal is not balance, it is player engagement. That means they want a mediocre player to be able to climb with the same 50 percent win rate that a good player does. That way he can think he is good and keeps playing. They even want to bad players to be able to climb and win half their games. That is why they introduce so much 'weighted RNG' into the game. So they can control the outcomes, maintain player engagement and stimulate spending with progress gates. This is common practice in video games. Blizzard holds patents in the stimulating spending. They acquired KING which is mostly known for making a fake rigged game that stimulates spending.
Hearthstone is rigged, from the matchmaking, to the RNG, to the card draw......if you look into the question on your own, you will reach no other conclusion. On sites like this there are blizzard community managers whose actual job is to make you think this is an actual game and encourage you to spend money on it. Don't be taken in by the shillary.
You see the thing is, all of this stuff you mention here, all of this, will happen naturally if you play enough games, without spending a single penny on actually writing these rigging mechanism, which btw would have to be really complicated.
Also how are going to engage a player to play more games if you make him lose, what is the point of that? And why is aggro so prevalent? Why some decks sometimes emerge with such high winrates that they have to nerf cards? If those rigging mechanism were in place, then if anyone would start winning too many games they should be then getting bad rng and start losing.
I actually checked my hs deck tracker btw, I have almost 5k games recorded I believe, and guess what, I faced each class roughly between 10-13% of time, over 4 or 5 years that I've been keeping track, which is pretty even spread if you ask me.