⚙
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.
I just put Rustywiks into my reno warlock deck, so I get lots of legendary primes into my deck with both guldan dk hero and N'Zoth. What do I meet? Fatigue Rogue with Oracle Murloc. Althought I won it's really weird.
I hate to break it to you, but match MAKING is inherently rigging.
Randomising your opponents is not, finding them based on algorithms is.
But, what do I know? I am just a programmer...
<iframe src="http://gifyoutube.com/gif/ywoqQP" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" width="440" height="400" style="-webkit-backface-visibility: hidden;-webkit-transform: scale(1);" ></iframe>
You people lack such critical thinking it’s sad how incredibly unaware you are. Oh well just remember to get your weekly jab and remember papa Bli$$ard would never lie to us for the sake of profits :D
At that point 'Rigged' loses its meaning. Is Chess.com rigged (non-pure ELO due to a k-factor of reliability of opp's rating)? Is a pure ELO system rigged? Are draws rigged due to being a form of pseudoRNG rather than a demon (a la maxwell's) rolling dice for every interaction? Is anything computer generated 'Rigged'?
Nobody claims that chess.com is rigged, in my experience, so you seem to be in a minority in your usage of the term 'rigged'.
You didn't answer the question.
It's impossible to be bad at Hearthstone because the game pretty much plays itself. The fanboys keep this delusion that there is some skill required outside of basic math and reading. Please tell me how to outplay decks that give you no chance to counter. I would love to hear your input.
Also, didn't ZTG prove that there is a system in place where the board state can be read? How much computing power would that take?
I don't think the matches themselves are rigged however. But I believe the matchmaking is. I've been playing long enough. You Knights of Hearthstone want actual proof when you know it's impossible to deliver on that promise. I mean how exactly do we obtain such a thing outside of anecdotal evidence? Send an email to Blizzard asking for their algorithms?
It's already been explained multiple times that the RNG rigging will favor you to end a long losing streak and go against you when you hit a progress gate (like legend). Either you are not reading the thread or are being willfully obtuse.
it is one thing when it takes into account an ELO score, or even a hidden MMR. But when the matchup is dependent on how you are doing, what is in your deck, whether or not you are at a progress gate or whether or not blizzard wants to keep beating you with a card you do not have.
A claim for which you have exactly zero evidence.
Hearthstone is in such a terrible state that for the moment no one should care if it is rigged or not. Ladder is unplayable trash right now and the game is going downhill. Bli$$ard surely loves to hire incompetent game designers. :(
Yea, it's called finding you a worthy opponent. It even tells you so. If your MMR tanks because you are losing a lot then a worthy opponent is clearly one with less skill that you have a chance at beating. This is basic match making. Nothing nefarious.
You are all over the place and not making any sense. One minute you are on about a patent that is irrelevant to Hearthstone. Next you're making deluded statements like this. Seriously, who pays you to be such a huge troll? Your entire day cannot consist of just being a horrible human to other people on here.
Ah, this. Again.
I know that Mark Rosewater (of Magic the Gathering) described his the psychographics slightly differently, but the way I see it, the three core types of game players are:
Timmy, who just wants a cool story out of the game. Basically, his purpose of playing is to be in a Trolden video.
Spike, who takes piloting seriously, and would very much disagree with your claim here.
And lastly, Johnny, who doesn't play the game so much as play the meta. For example, trying to make his own viable deck without copying the netdecks. Of course, because this is very difficult and some Johnnies have some realism, not all Johnnies try this this, but their unifying feature is that they want to beat the game in the deck builder before the match even begins.
Because Johnnies don't believe that piloting is important — at least not compared to deck selection — they have a lot of delusions about what they're doing while piloting, and about the game in general. From a perspective of a Spike, Johnnie might spend almost no time actually playing a game, despite spending hours on it — to apply the concept of Johnnies to ARPGs like Diablo, if you've meticulously planned out more builds than you've actually beaten the game with, your Johnny is showing. (Incidentally, Spikes can sometimes look at Timmies similarly, as some of them spend a lot of time watching Hearthstone games on YouTube or Twitch for the pogginess instead of playing themselves.) This kind of play without playing is where these delusions come from, and is why Rosewater described Johnnies so poorly (being one himself). Very few Johnnies are honest with themselves about how they see the game, yet simultaneously they make up most of the community.
And the most militant of this last group want to tell themselves that there is no such thing as piloting skill, because their bias towards the importance of deck selection is so great that they don't want to admit there is any further experience they're missing out on.
Well, here's the truth about piloting: sometimes, hidden opportunities arise to show your 200 IQ skill, and sometimes the plays are obvious and there's nothing you can do. The gameplay experience isn't consistently one nor the other. Sometimes Johnny is right, but sometimes Spike is right, too.
The people who are consistently on top are constantly on top because they turn around some single digit percentage of games that "normal" players would lose. I happen to know this better than most because I've played LOTS of games of Magic the Gathering with a former US national champion, and at some point playing in person I could finally see he was on another level, something I couldn't fully understand until he (somewhat begrudgingly) broke it down for me — and even then, he thought out in seconds what would take me minutes. That said, for all this mental superiority over me, it basically meant matchups I had a 55% chance to win, he had 60%.
Ultimately, when you're talking about a lot of mental effort to crank out a relatively small reward, what happens is that players only go through the effort if they enjoy the effort in and of itself. If you're the sort of person who would pause a YouTube video with a "find the lethal" puzzle rather than just reveal the solution, for the fun of working it out yourself. And not everyone is that (that's why the delay in those videos is so brief) and that's okay actually.
It's okay to like playing the meta and hate piloting. I'm not trying to say being a Johnny is invalid; I'm just saying it can be tough being honest with yourself about what you're actually doing. If you are honest with yourself, that's cool.
But it's hilariously sour grapes delusional of you to pretend piloting skill doesn't exist.
Did you know that employment is rigged? Secretly, companies pay you less and/or charge customers more so that the business can make money for its owners.
Oh wait some people actually believe that constitutes rigging.
Lol, computing power and programming to do this would be almost nonexistent.
It's literally comparing a hash of your deck against hashes of a win rate list and picking the one that favors or does not favor your win rate.
This would be 200 lines of code at worst, and that's really stretching it already.
For draw optimization you can run sims, hearthstone deck tracker literally does the same, it runs thousands of sims for your entire board state and the opponent's, on people's potato pc's, in less than a second...
Lol at the programming bro talk. I actually do it for a living instead of telling people about it on the internet.
Your making a huge mistake by assuming everything is known and in a vacuum with no outside forces acting on it. Deck lists change all the time with subtle meta shifts. Not everyone has every card for every optimal deck. Not all metas are the same for every rank. Not all people can pilot a deck the same. Human behavior and ingenuity is a huge variable. To account for all of these things is near impossible without someone noticing at some point given how popular the game is.
As for the deck tracker I assume you are talking about the Battlegrounds one. Keep in mind there is far less going on there. You don't choose what minions are offered. They are all always offered. You don't choose how many exist. They all have a set amount. You don't choose who attacks who. It is governed by a strict set of rules. Far easier computationally.
Of course if you want to write that 200 lines of code that proves me wrong. Be my guest and make that app. I hope you get rich off it. I'm just going to err on the safe side and bet against you on that one.
I've mentioned it before, but at some point I'd like an answer as to why 3 people on Hearthpwn seem to have this all figured out but no one actually tracking and writing code for these things has. It's mind boggling.
Well, which is it? Are we matching to decks in our favor or against? And what about the person we're matched with; why are they getting matched against ours? Why is matching based on a neutral MMR not sufficient? (Really, explain this. But first, really think about it.)
200 lines for an utterly pointless... no, strike that... utterly incoherent "feature" would be 200 lines too many.
Did you know how many different combinations of cards you can put into the deck editor? How many different hashes are possible? A seven with 86 zeroes after it. If you're talking about a winrate table, you'd have to square that number.
Or, I imagine you could take only the most popular hashes. Except if you were one card off for whatever reason — like you were missing a chase legendary? — totally different hash.
You might need some extra lines of code after all.
You like to hear yourself talk, I see.
Me play Paladin quest. Me play 1 cost cards. Me achieve quest. Piloting skill supreme right there.
A dead monkey could play this game and you typing a long-winded post doesn't change that fact.
Ah yes one day of play is a large enough sample size and provides unequivocal proof that the system is rigged. Thanks for providing the evidence.
No, that extra data is not on codelevel. I can pretty much guarantee you that blizzard already has a dataset with every deck ever played and it's statistics against other decks, it's a pretty simple thing to have the client do an api call with a hash or base64 string of your deck and the result against the opponent's hash/string, and save that data somewhere. They even talked openly about this in the past; they are using said data for balancing purposes.
This is even a pretty simple use case as far as big data goes, really.