Hearthpwn

Quote from Sherman1986 >>

Quote from HeilKise >>

Quote from Sherman1986 >>

Quote from Shadowrisen >>

It's not though, Sherman.  Let's assume you wanted to test something like the theory that putting anti-weapon tech in your deck decreases the likelihood that you'd see weapon-reliant opponents.

Pick a time period where you've got a few weeks before the next rotation or set of bans, whatever, just pick a stable meta.  Preferably during a time when there's a popular deck like weapon rogue, bomb warrior, or evolve shaman (all of which are very weapon-dependent).

Play some amount of games with a deck with no anti-weapon cards.  Record opponent's deck choices.  The more games the better, but if someone even did 200, that would at least be worth talking about.

Repeat with anti-weapon cards in deck.

If someone would give me the data from that simple an experiment, I'LL DO THE ACTUAL STAT WORK!  Collecting the data is the hard part, you just have to convert to percentages and run thru a simple one tail test.  Traditionally (for those stat majors about to jump down my throat), this would call for a two-tail test, but because no one is really concerned that you get MORE matchups against weapon reliant decks by putting in anti-weapon cards, one tail will get it done.

Pick a confidence interval and either reject the hypothesis that the matchups are random or don't.  At least there'd be something to talk about at that point.

I don't want to be annoying and thanks for the long explanation, Shadowrisen, I really appreciate it, but what would happen if the supposed algorithm is very well designed and, for example, only rigs the game to certain players on a certain period of time?

 Imagine to pay for an algorithm with this spects just for the match making of a card game. I not need to go very deep to tell you right now that this wont be easy to make and it would be very prizy. At that point you will get the same result with a full "all is random" matchmaking.

We are talking about Blizzard, dude, everything is possible. And Hearthstone is not just a card game, it is THEIR card game.

If I were them, had no morals and wanted to trick people, I would do exactly that. :P

XD

 At this point i will asume that you are just trolling a little bit like the guy that said "all the game is rigged because of company profit" (because by that logic every single card game that exist is rigged). Because you just understand how stupid would be create such a IA just for "prevent people for run anti-meta decks and get matched with aggro rogue but just for a period of time and just a random number of people so no one will notice this"

Quote from HeilKise >>

Quote from Sherman1986 >>

Quote from HeilKise >>

Quote from Sherman1986 >>

Quote from Shadowrisen >>

It's not though, Sherman.  Let's assume you wanted to test something like the theory that putting anti-weapon tech in your deck decreases the likelihood that you'd see weapon-reliant opponents.

Pick a time period where you've got a few weeks before the next rotation or set of bans, whatever, just pick a stable meta.  Preferably during a time when there's a popular deck like weapon rogue, bomb warrior, or evolve shaman (all of which are very weapon-dependent).

Play some amount of games with a deck with no anti-weapon cards.  Record opponent's deck choices.  The more games the better, but if someone even did 200, that would at least be worth talking about.

Repeat with anti-weapon cards in deck.

If someone would give me the data from that simple an experiment, I'LL DO THE ACTUAL STAT WORK!  Collecting the data is the hard part, you just have to convert to percentages and run thru a simple one tail test.  Traditionally (for those stat majors about to jump down my throat), this would call for a two-tail test, but because no one is really concerned that you get MORE matchups against weapon reliant decks by putting in anti-weapon cards, one tail will get it done.

Pick a confidence interval and either reject the hypothesis that the matchups are random or don't.  At least there'd be something to talk about at that point.

I don't want to be annoying and thanks for the long explanation, Shadowrisen, I really appreciate it, but what would happen if the supposed algorithm is very well designed and, for example, only rigs the game to certain players on a certain period of time?

 Imagine to pay for an algorithm with this spects just for the match making of a card game. I not need to go very deep to tell you right now that this wont be easy to make and it would be very prizy. At that point you will get the same result with a full "all is random" matchmaking.

We are talking about Blizzard, dude, everything is possible. And Hearthstone is not just a card game, it is THEIR card game.

If I were them, had no morals and wanted to trick people, I would do exactly that. :P

XD

 At this point i will asume that you are just trolling a little bit like the guy that said "all the game is rigged because of company profit" (because by that logic every single card game that exist is rigged). Because you just understand how stupid would be create such a IA just for "prevent people for run anti-meta decks and get matched with aggro rogue but just for a period of time and just a random number of people so no one will notice this"

Why it is stupid? Can you elaborate, please?

Quote from Sherman1986 >>

Quote from HeilKise >>

Quote from Sherman1986 >>

Quote from HeilKise >>

Quote from Sherman1986 >>

Quote from Shadowrisen >>

It's not though, Sherman.  Let's assume you wanted to test something like the theory that putting anti-weapon tech in your deck decreases the likelihood that you'd see weapon-reliant opponents.

Pick a time period where you've got a few weeks before the next rotation or set of bans, whatever, just pick a stable meta.  Preferably during a time when there's a popular deck like weapon rogue, bomb warrior, or evolve shaman (all of which are very weapon-dependent).

Play some amount of games with a deck with no anti-weapon cards.  Record opponent's deck choices.  The more games the better, but if someone even did 200, that would at least be worth talking about.

Repeat with anti-weapon cards in deck.

If someone would give me the data from that simple an experiment, I'LL DO THE ACTUAL STAT WORK!  Collecting the data is the hard part, you just have to convert to percentages and run thru a simple one tail test.  Traditionally (for those stat majors about to jump down my throat), this would call for a two-tail test, but because no one is really concerned that you get MORE matchups against weapon reliant decks by putting in anti-weapon cards, one tail will get it done.

Pick a confidence interval and either reject the hypothesis that the matchups are random or don't.  At least there'd be something to talk about at that point.

I don't want to be annoying and thanks for the long explanation, Shadowrisen, I really appreciate it, but what would happen if the supposed algorithm is very well designed and, for example, only rigs the game to certain players on a certain period of time?

 Imagine to pay for an algorithm with this spects just for the match making of a card game. I not need to go very deep to tell you right now that this wont be easy to make and it would be very prizy. At that point you will get the same result with a full "all is random" matchmaking.

We are talking about Blizzard, dude, everything is possible. And Hearthstone is not just a card game, it is THEIR card game.

If I were them, had no morals and wanted to trick people, I would do exactly that. :P

XD

 At this point i will asume that you are just trolling a little bit like the guy that said "all the game is rigged because of company profit" (because by that logic every single card game that exist is rigged). Because you just understand how stupid would be create such a IA just for "prevent people for run anti-meta decks and get matched with aggro rogue but just for a period of time and just a random number of people so no one will notice this"

Why it is stupid? Can you elaborate, please?

 Yeah sure: Because them the algorithmn wont work for nothing. How much time "works" on each player? Its totally random? can be 1 hour or all day or whatever set time? How many players choose? It literally compare every single player that is on searching for a match at same time and select a random number of people and put them against people that is not running weapons in their decks? I dont belive you understand how this will affect the search time and how little will affect the player experience. IF something like this even exist in the game it literally affects your chances to get mateched against "Aggro Rogue" in a 0%. Of the hundreds or thousands of players that search for a match at same time you need to "win the lottery" and them you need to win the lottery againt for being selected for more than 2 hours to actually notice something.

@ 3nnui

But you just took like 10 steps back from "proof has been given" to "given what I assume about the company's strategy, it makes sense they would do this"

That's perfectly fine if you're content to stop there.  Just stop supporting folks who stick with the first statement . . . it is a blatant lie.

@ Sherman

Well I was testing one of several claims that have been made, but each person who has claimed it is obviously talking about their account, so do it on one of those and presumably you'd have one of the active test cases.

Besides, there would have to be some coherent selection mechanism.  One halfway coherent guess that I actually give some credit to is the idea that by spending more money on packs and such, certain accounts might buy themselves into "preferential treatment" status.  That's certainly possible, though again, since everyone else uses anecdotes, I'll join in and mention that one of my two accounts is completely f2p and one is probably in the top 10 money spenders in the entire US, and I can't tell a bit of difference.  So maybe it's something else.  But we could test that too.

Regardless, I wasn't promising results, I was just saying it's not all that difficult to test a theory.

Quote from HeilKise >>

Quote from Sherman1986 >>

Quote from HeilKise >>

Quote from Sherman1986 >>

Quote from HeilKise >>

Quote from Sherman1986 >>

Quote from Shadowrisen >>

It's not though, Sherman.  Let's assume you wanted to test something like the theory that putting anti-weapon tech in your deck decreases the likelihood that you'd see weapon-reliant opponents.

Pick a time period where you've got a few weeks before the next rotation or set of bans, whatever, just pick a stable meta.  Preferably during a time when there's a popular deck like weapon rogue, bomb warrior, or evolve shaman (all of which are very weapon-dependent).

Play some amount of games with a deck with no anti-weapon cards.  Record opponent's deck choices.  The more games the better, but if someone even did 200, that would at least be worth talking about.

Repeat with anti-weapon cards in deck.

If someone would give me the data from that simple an experiment, I'LL DO THE ACTUAL STAT WORK!  Collecting the data is the hard part, you just have to convert to percentages and run thru a simple one tail test.  Traditionally (for those stat majors about to jump down my throat), this would call for a two-tail test, but because no one is really concerned that you get MORE matchups against weapon reliant decks by putting in anti-weapon cards, one tail will get it done.

Pick a confidence interval and either reject the hypothesis that the matchups are random or don't.  At least there'd be something to talk about at that point.

I don't want to be annoying and thanks for the long explanation, Shadowrisen, I really appreciate it, but what would happen if the supposed algorithm is very well designed and, for example, only rigs the game to certain players on a certain period of time?

 Imagine to pay for an algorithm with this spects just for the match making of a card game. I not need to go very deep to tell you right now that this wont be easy to make and it would be very prizy. At that point you will get the same result with a full "all is random" matchmaking.

We are talking about Blizzard, dude, everything is possible. And Hearthstone is not just a card game, it is THEIR card game.

If I were them, had no morals and wanted to trick people, I would do exactly that. :P

XD

 At this point i will asume that you are just trolling a little bit like the guy that said "all the game is rigged because of company profit" (because by that logic every single card game that exist is rigged). Because you just understand how stupid would be create such a IA just for "prevent people for run anti-meta decks and get matched with aggro rogue but just for a period of time and just a random number of people so no one will notice this"

Why it is stupid? Can you elaborate, please?

 Yeah sure: Because them the algorithmn wont work for nothing. How much time "works" on each player? Its totally random? can be 1 hour or all day or whatever set time? How many players choose? It literally compare every single player that is on searching for a match at same time and select a random number of people and put them against people that is not running weapons in their decks? I dont belive you understand how this will affect the search time and how little will affect the player experience. IF something like this even exist in the game it literally affects your chances to get mateched against "Aggro Rogue" in a 0%. Of the hundreds or thousands of players that search for a match at same time you need to "win the lottery" and them you need to win the lottery againt for being selected for more than 2 hours to actually notice something.

When I was talking about a certain period of time, I wasn't talking about hours, but days or even weeks. And the result would be the same: to control the game experience of the players, just from time to time.

Quote from Shadowrisen>>

@ 3nnui

But you just took like 10 steps back from "proof has been given" to "given what I assume about the company's strategy, it makes sense they would do this"

That's perfectly fine if you're content to stop there.  Just stop supporting folks who stick with the first statement . . . it is a blatant lie.

@ Sherman

Well I was testing one of several claims that have been made, but each person who has claimed it is obviously talking about their account, so do it on one of those and presumably you'd have one of the active test cases.

Besides, there would have to be some coherent selection mechanism.  One halfway coherent guess that I actually give some credit to is the idea that by spending more money on packs and such, certain accounts might buy themselves into "preferential treatment" status.  That's certainly possible, though again, since everyone else uses anecdotes, I'll join in and mention that one of my two accounts is completely f2p and one is probably in the top 10 money spenders in the entire US, and I can't tell a bit of difference.  So maybe it's something else.  But we could test that too.

Regardless, I wasn't promising results, I was just saying it's not all that difficult to test a theory.

Thank you for your polite answer, Shadowrisen, and yeah, I was thinking exactly about that (when money is involved, you get some kind of "preferential treatment"). Again, I'm not telling the game is rigged, neither that I'm right, only just sharing some thoughts. :)

@Sherman1986

I dont to sound repetitve but exactly how it can be consider "control the game experience" if is random, not for everyone and is not "active" every time? - We are not talking about a secret rule that gift 2 +4 cards to a player in a UNO match of 4 players. We are talking about hundred of different players with different decks that runs different cards searching for a match in different 1v1 scenarios. Also, if it works for Days or Weeks that means that you can never be matched against aggro rogue if you are the loterry winner if you keep playing decks with swamp ooze? that sounds very easy to prove to me specially because it wont just affect Aggro rogue but you cant be matched against Warrior neither because they also have Weapon. So for a day or two someone will avoid 2 classes on ladder? cant imagine that happening.

So it wont work like that most certanly. Them how? It compares all the IDs of you cards and prevents any match between a deck that contains Swamp Ooze and the other minion that takes the enemy weapon and the ID of every single deck that runs the rogue weapon? for one or two days in a row?  that seems even more easy to prove. Aggro Rogue wont be one of the strongest decks in the meta with Token Druid if that was the case. People play against aggro rogue a lot of times every time and against Token druid too. But you know what other classes are popular right now? Mage and Priest (and in a minor chance Paladin). That is the actual reason why people feel like after go for a "anti rogue deck" for example they dont find that much rogue.

There are 4 decks being heavy played a lot on ladder 3 of them have nothing to do with weapons.  If you switch to a anti rogue deck you will lose almost every single match agains token druid, mage and priest because you run 4 cards in your deck that are useless against non-weapon decks. You will notice every time that you miss the bullet with your anti-meta deck than the times that you actually get the match that you want. Its that simple.

I seriously doubt you can back that statement up with evidence, but in a thread like this, what else is new?

Quote from Shadowrisen >>

I seriously doubt you can back that statement up with evidence, but in a thread like this, what else is new?

 imagine someone that is on favor of "the game is rigged" given any evidence at all that is not a link of a video that has nothing to do with what we are talking. Instead of ask us to prove that their are wrong and call us "Blizzard Fan Boys"

OH GOD THE BRAINLETS ARE HERE RUN WHILE YOU STILL CAN THINK AHHHHH

I'm sure it's entirely coincidental, but it feels like whenever I swap decks to try and counter the decks I keep facing over and over, I only get matched against other decks.

Case in point, today I fought seven rogues as prime warlock, with just a couple games against priest and secret mage. Then when I swapped decks to enrage warrior, I stopped getting challenged by rogues.

Quote from Kathranis >>

I'm sure it's entirely coincidental, but it feels like whenever I swap decks to try and counter the decks I keep facing over and over, I only get matched against other decks.

Case in point, today I fought seven rogues as prime warlock, with just a couple games against priest and secret mage. Then when I swapped decks to enrage warrior, I stopped getting challenged by rogues.

 Yup, that is incredibly annoying.  Would be interesting to see someone do some research on that perception and see if there's any legitimacy to it or if it just is unpleasant enough to stick out in the memory moreso than when it goes the other way.

I don't know about anyone else, but stimulus money made my day as a debt collector absolutely wonderful.  Ten hours straight of racking in commissions.  I am celebrating.