⚙
Learn More
Cosmetics
Related Cards
Card Pools
✕
×
PopCard Settings
Click on the buttons to change the PopCard background.
Elements settings
Click on the button to hide or unhide popcard elements.
Click on the buttons to change the PopCard background.
Click on the button to hide or unhide popcard elements.
These threads are always a lot of fun, I'll admit. It always devolves into a bunch of nonsense between the hearthstone equivalent of flat-earthers and people who have at least a bare understanding of how chance and statistics work.
It's amazing how much these people really resemble flat-earthers, antivax, qanon etc etc. The pattern is eerily similar. Just make a frankly preposterous point that goes against logic and actual objective facts and when asked to prove in some way shape or form said point, hide back behind "well if you've played half a game, you'd know hearthstone was rigged", "oh, you're asking me proof but why don't you give me some" and the evergreen "THE PATENT OMG SOMEONE THINK OF THE PATENT".
It's 100% pointless to argue with these people. It's not that they lack understanding of what "random" is or how statistics work (which they most assuredly do) but that they lack the basic premise that should be at the base of a discussion...rational thought. Their belligerent refusal to understand what they're arguing about also can't help matters that much.
I was even going to go on a tirade explaining how if there was any "rigging" we'd know but...what's the point. It's like me trying to tell my cat not to climb the plant, I may shout as much as I want but the cat isn't able to understand me and does what she wants because that's how she is.
So please do carry on with the conspiracies, but I would like to ask you to at the very least come up with something new or a bit more original because the Hanon points are really...stale. A few reptilians, a kabal or two and maybe the NWO would make things more interesting.
Lol, your big argument is that believing that Video game makers in fremium games manipulate those game to inspire spending is equivalent to believing the earth is flat.
The reality is that believing that Blizzard would not do such a thing flies in the face of logic and reason.
You don't understand what being a conspiracy theorist is. Being a conspiracy theorist is not believing something ridiculous or impossible. Being a conspiracy theorist is believing in something for some silly reason and waving away every fact that contradicts the theory and explaining it by a wider conspiracy.
Also, just like flat earthers know nothing about basic physics, people like you know nothing about rather basic math. Because anyone who knows something about probabilities and statistics will understand that this rigging is impossible to hide in the world of data collection tools.
If Blizzard is capable of doing something or not IS IRRELEVANT. This hypothesis, which is based on that patent, contradicts reality, contradicts observable facts. What you claim is easy to spot by any HS data gathering software.
When, quite a few years ago, Unibet, a reputable (at that time) poker site, was accused of having superusers (players who could see opponent's cards) everyone dismissed it as yet another excuse... Until it was mathematically proven that they do have them because play patterns of superusers indicated that.
Gaby has an 80% WR in Grandmasters atm so if this is the case, they've done a pretty terrible job...
I don't doubt for a second that they want to inspire spending... but they aren't doing it by "rigging the matchmaking" to make you face other people with better cards (so you want to buy) or give you wins when you're on a losing streak to keep you playing.
They inspire spending by showing off shiny things, offering packs in bundles that look enticing. Preying on whales that need to buy everything is probably enough to keep the game afloat on its own, and then anyone else who buys a bundle or pre-purchase expansion here and there is icing.
The amount of money they would gain from rigging your games so you get a little extra dopamine once in a while is not going to be worth the effort. Someone lost, someone else won, it's always going to be that way. So the "happiness value" is always going to be balanced here.
Show me that line of code they use to keep track of every player's wins/losses and then adjusts their draw when needed on the fly first... and then we can talk about these theories of rigging the game.
the game aint rigged, but sure as hell is easy to rig a player account to either get good pulls from packs and the match up themselves. Do they do it? doubtfull, maybe on some specific occasions, perhaps on the pack openings for certain streamers, but even then too much hassle.
now in the past Pokemon had a serious court problem and they admit it they rigged the pack opening of certain streamers in order to lure ppl into opening packs thinking they would get good cards from them
Actually Zephrys is probably the best example of why this isn't true, it took them like 6 months to get it consistently working 80% of the time and he still missed lethal sometimes and completely ignored every variable except the active, current board state
With respect, your argument is tremendously shallow and ironic. If anything, you sound like a conspiracy theorist about conspiracy theorists, lol. You assert that it's "pointless" to argue with people who believe that there might be some sort of rigging because they lack the capacity for "rational thought" when your argument revolves around ad hominem attacks and appears not to have any empirical basis. This lack of self awareness on your part is really quite amusing. In actuality, you and people who believe that the game is rigged but can't substantiate that premise with any logic or plausible reasoning appear to ironically be two sides of the same coin: both sides are blindly and irrationally committed to believing that they are unequivocally correct and refuse to so much as consider the possibility that the other sides argument might have so much as a shred of validity.
So indeed, it is worth asking "what's the point" when arguing with people like you, but at the very least it is entertaining to watch you unironically condemn the idiocy that you demonstrate with your own rationale.
And again, there are aggregating sites that track the opening of tens of thousands of packs. That's actually how we first learned the true odds of opening a legendary, etc. (before Chinese law required full disclosure of those stats), and how we figured out the pity timers. If pack openings ever started to drift from the stated odds, holy hell would break loose.
In fact, pity timers are an example of Blizzard manipulating the odds in the player's favor, and I don't see anyone complaining about that.
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
Here is something you can do to test one of the mechanics I believe exists. This is what I refer to as the 'golden' RNG, Don't play constructed for a week, then play something powerful with an easy curve (like taunt druid), bet you go on a nice little win streak. This game state seems to be triggered by not playing for a while, as a way of hooking players back in to the game.
Another one that most players are familiar with are the progress gates. Like at diamond 10, diamond 5 and legend. Don't be surprised if you get terrible RNG consistently that drives you back from breaking through. This type of thing was first publicly observed in the game Candy Crush. The game would stick players on levels so they would buy powerups to break through.....who owns king? Activision. Activision thought so highly of King's manipulative tactics, that they went out and acquired them. But watch people on this site scream up and down that Activision would never do something like that in hearthstone.
As for the first part, I myself play rather infrequently and haven't noticed it being such, but that is hardly definitive proof yay or nay. Rather than argue the existence of such a system, I would propose a much simpler way of accomplishing on Blizz's part. Perhaps inactivity for protracted time tanks your mmr? That way when you return you are pair against people below your skill level. Or perhaps it is that the people who were at you skill level climbed up the ranks while you been gone? I can't say, but neither to I believe it to be a thing in the first place.
As for the climb through Diamond, mmr is probably rearing it's ugly head again. Especially at D5 where you need to win SIGNIFICANTLY more than you lose compared to earlier ranks. As you win more often, you climb in mmr and get matched accordingly, thus the challenge to reach each milestone. My thoughts on the matter, at least.
Playing few games and see if you feel that your RNG is better than average IS NOT a test. If it is testing anything, it is a confirmation bias
Doing it (at least) 20+ times and noting all instances of RNG and checking if those show statistical abnormalities is testing.
This literally proves nothing man what are you even saying
100% rigged.
I've definitely crafted a new legendary; played 5-6 games and won them, then started losing.
One hypothesis is that you're matched against local players often: You match against the same opponents; you change your playstyle to counter them, they then change their playstyles to counter you, I can imagine like the Magic Arena that there may be 12 players in a lobby that play themselves over the space of an evening.
If we look at Battlegrounds and how that algorithm works according to the deck tracker; the game determines the outcome in the first second and only the luckiest of RNG rolls make winning a 0.1%er possible.
I think the most probable way of correcting inconsistencies is for Blizzard to tweak the RNG of discovery and their keyword "Random".
I remember they changed their discovery RNG shortly after Whispers of the Old Gods, as in arena, players were receiving powerful cards too often.
I'm sure the RNG is determined by turn number, heath of opponents, and likeliness of either opponent winning {Look at all the times a player 1>5<10 health are killed by a random card from Hallucination or Swashburglar, or The Amazing Reno.
I think that what frustrates Control players is that it is easy to RNG a lethal combo. It feels at times that the game does not account for all the top-decks that a control deck can have to win the game if they are at low health: If the game feels like the chances are low; even though a single topdeck could turn the game around in an instant, the game's RNG engine allows for a top-deck lethal often, possibly due to a Battlegrounds-style Lethal/win-chance algorithm.
the game is rigged.the 50% winrate push is happening for everybody.if you have a losing streak,will give youa favorabile matchup,and if you re on winning streak.it will give you more bad matchups . how you handle them is up to you or your opponent.. but the "satisfaction" of the playter is well taken into consideration so you can be happy to buy more from the game. is a huge psichology behind this and im sure you can find it out on google.you get addicted of oppening packs,in this game,for example
That... feels very hard to test. So you're playing no constructed for a week, then, say, 30-40 games with taunt druid to get a sample size that's even roughly passable. Note your winrate across the entire 40 games.
How do you get a control group of games to compare to, given that your MMR will have changed significantly since you started, and, due to things like rank floors and possible suppression of cross-rank games (without knowledge of actual mechanics here we can't say), possible variance in opponent MMR that you have no way to account for? Also, pocket metas are a thing and they will move in MMR throughout the month.
Or did you not want actual scientific tests?
These tests also wouldn't pick up a difference between your hypothesis of a "golden" RNG state and something like MMR decaying over time spent not playing, as MMR is not publicly available information. Decaying MMR would be simpler to program, as well, and I don't think blizz can appropriately analyze gamestates on the fly to rig games (look at Zeph's issues, and that's from a tiny subset of cards).
OK, so please point me to a dataset that includes not only few milions of games played but also what cards each players own, what are their money spending, cards crafting, modes choosing patterns. What classes they play, how frequent do they play etc. For at least 2 last years of course. And if you don't have one please learn a bit of "basic" math.
The truth is we can only speculate whether any form of "rigging" takes place or not (unless of course we can get hs source code, both user and server side).
Yes, these discussions are always interesting and entertaining:) One argument that I see popping up every now and then (also in this thread) that actually does go against the collective scientific knowledge is the "I know myself, and I don't buy more if I lose more, I buy more if I win more" argument. Decades of research show people on average do actually make more impulsive decisions (buy more, spend more) if the are not content but rather a bit frustrated or "flushed". Researchers call this state "arousal", and whether it is caused by winning a lot or losing a lot is irrelevant. In the context of free-to-play games, the best thing the profit-driven game designer can do is design a game that continuously has the player on the edge of their virtual seat. See e.g. "The Candy Crush Sweet Tooth: How ‘Near-misses’ in Candy Crush Increase Frustration, and the Urge to Continue Gameplay" (https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10899-016-9633-7.pdf) This is the reason the game is designed to keep most of the players around the 50% win rate.
What is sure is that every single one of the successful free-to-play games utilise mechanics aimed at increasing player arousal, and many exploit the fact that frustration leads to poorer impulse control. Whether you call the mechanics that are used to reach such states "rigged" or not is semantics in my opinion (I must say, though, that I am also not a native English speaker). I do agree with the view that it is not some secretive rocket science, though. It does not need to happen on the micro level of individual card choices or actions. Actually, doing it at that level would indeed make it easier to spot and expose. It can be done much easier on the macro level of general matchmaking and, of course, by designing asymmetries in the power level of the cards themselves (thereby explaining why there will never ever be a "balanced" meta - it would be poor design from a monetisation perspective).
This post is all the proof you need to show that these dudes know exactly nothing about probability. Seriously, this might be the most laughably asinine idea for data collection I've ever seen on this forum. "Play a few games and see if you go on a winning streak." Don't look at the vast data collected by numerous sites: go with your hunch.