⚙
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.
Sadly you will also have to fight against a high synergy deck. So using random cards doesn't add anything to your favor.
blizzard has better statistics than hsreplay. They know specifically the winrate and best game of every card/deck.
they can (and do) order your deck at the start of every game. The engine only needs some milliseconds to read and put in place every card. Want a rough begin? there you have your 6, 7, 8 draws. (plus 6,7,8 mulligans)
It's funny cause that's basically what happens, exaggerations and irony aside.
If you remove some key cards from your deck, it is very easy to manipulate the matchmaking system to put you in a different bracket and face different decks, and basically increase your winrate a tiny bit, despite playing a worse deck. I've been doing that all the time, I would never hit legend with my homebrew decks without this system. This is actually the most skill intensive part of this game. People take pride in their ability to build or play decks but that's BS, kids can do that. When you can move cards in and out of your deck to influence your future opponents aka your winrate is when you are a skilled HS player.
Make the experiment. Play 50 games with Odd warrior with Silas, and 50 games with Odd warrior without Silas. Tell me how that impacted your experience and how many control/aggro/OTK decks you faced, then come back and tell me that obviously 50 isn't a big enough sample size because you have no other argument to back up your claim. Silas is just one example I can name thousands, I use Silas because it's a known thing that playing Silas OTK in Odd warrior will significantly increase the number of fast paced decks you face (not necessarily aggro).
And that's the actual beauty of this system, it's designed to be super rigged on small sample size, but eventually normalize on huge sample size. On 50 games with and without Silas, you will always notice a massive disparity, but on 5000 games with and without Silas, you will never notice a difference, but you will never experience it, because nobody plays 5000 games in a row with the same deck, so you have to rely on stuff like HSreplay to make claims that the game isn't rigged because you see 5000 odd warrior games with Silas and without Silas and they tell you there is nothing wrong, but you fail to understand that these are the combined experiences of hundreds/thousands of different players and their different experiences playing 10-20 games with the deck.
No, they did not. Unless you twist the definition of "rigged". There's nothing nefarious about using an MMR, or being a bit flexible when matching players of unequal MMR's for the sake of reducing queue times.
First, I didn't say "enforce", and neither did Blizzard. That's you putting words into our mouths. Second, it's a statement of aspiration, not prima facie evidence of mal-doing. Just because Blizzard has said that's the general goal when they design, they have also admitted it's not usually possible to the Nth decimal place all the time. Or even most of the time. Come on, you're not this thick. [Edit: I think you're conflating a statement Blizzard made about game design (i.e. class abilities and effects) with matchmaking implementation.]
Okay, so you're intentionally misusing that word. You must know that most people associate "rigged" with an unfair practice. But you're ascribing to the word things that are the opposite of unfair (matching newbies with other newbies).
"To know" is not a synonym for "to believe".
There's nothing nefarious (necessarily) about rigging the game at all, I don't get your point. What you are describing is a rigged game. You can call that "being a bit flexible" if that makes you feel better, i'm fine with that. Still rigged.
No I did, what's wrong with that ? This isn't a monologue, I'm an actual person talking to you.
No, just my own mouth. And your and Blizzard's mouths are very different, I wouldn't advise calling them "our mouths" unless you want to confirm you are a paid Blizzard shill ?
I'm still learning english and I have no idea what you are saying here, I'm sorry.
Not intentionally, but I may be. Does "rigged" necessarily means something bad/wrong in its definition ? Because like I said, in my definition, an online card game HAS to be rigged in many ways, so it's not bad. It can be bad, it can be exploited, both by blizzard and players, but it isn't inherently evil.
Ok thanks, I didn't know that, but I must say I care more for definition than association.
The newbie thing was just one, very obvious example that can't be denied because we've all experienced it. There are many more.
And yes, in a way, it is unfair. It makes sense at a human level, to match new players with new players. But it is totally unfair, at a mathematical level, because they get a benefit from the system, that veteran players don't. So you can see why "fair" doesn't always mean "good" in the world of human beings, and why it is necessary to enforce some amount of unfairness here and there, so it FEELS more fair overall to a majority of people, because humans are inherently irrational.
Threads like these are fascinating to me. I guess you can say that anything that deviates from truly random is rigging the game. Although that statement doesn't add value to the argument or the game.
I think it's fair to say that the game has a matchmaking system that tries to find you a "Worthy Opponent". Is that detrimental? I think not. Especially since there is no evidence it does it based on cards or decks. It's just a normal matchmaking system. Does it feel bad when you are higher up than you actually should be and you get your ass handed to you? Yea, but that's just part of finding your equilibrium.
People here are just ill equipped mentally to find their own faults in their play or deck. If it worked for so and so, why not me? because you are a human going up against another human who makes decisions and has creative thoughts. But it didn't follow the exact percentages I was told. Yea because those are based on huge sample sizes. You will see far more variation in your games than the stats show. Fact of the matter is that what you see is variation in how people see things and make decisions based on them. No one plays exactly the same way and there is always room for creativity and ingenuity which is what humans are good at. Adaptation to a meta is a sign of ingenuity not rigging.
I'd also like someone to respond to the HSReplay stuff. Seriously, any rigging would show up in their stats somewhere. The only answer I've seen is that they are not analyzing it correctly lol. That's not how data analysis works.
Here's my conspiracy theory. There are people that get paid by competitors to come here and try to get people to think Hearthstone is rigged and the developers are pure evil. I find it hard to believe people would troll so hard without getting paid.
I do know and believe that.
Not only you can but you should.
That's much easier — you're getting the most undesirable opponent, if your WR is high. Even without archetype analysis it's quite simple.
My point is, at the very least you're misusing some significant words. You seem to be doing it on purpose, which is kind of obnoxious. That is, you seem to be trolling.
Shame on me for taking the bait.
No you shouldn't. For the exact reason my following sentence states: "Although that statement doesn't add value to the argument or the game. "
You're being an ass and quoting out of context while not addressing everything else I said. Are you a journalist or something?
I posted that in a hurry, sorry for being an ass. I don't get your next sentence. It doesn't add value to the argument, it IS the argument.
Why would I be misusing words on purpose ? I'm not trolling, I'm just not a native english speaker, this thread would be on fire if I was trolling and you would have taken a much bigger bait.
Shame on me for misusing words I guess. Does it matter what we call it ? Rigged, programmed, whatever. They put rules in place to ensure the game stays balanced through mechanisms that are everything but random.
Wait, people GENUINELY still think video games programmers can't
deliberately modify a game to be rigged, and subtle make you want to buy inside the game?
It doesn't add value because it is lowering the bar for the definition of rigging to virtually anything that does not appear to be random. That doesn't fit the definition and misuses the word as others have said.
If you're saying that it is not completely random that is one thing. Rigging has malicious and fraudulent intent attached to it. And there is certainly no proof of anything of that sort.
It's funny how the reality deniers always fall back on the same tired excuses.
Uh, you have confirmation bias. Which is a classic gaslighting technique that is use by con men of all ilks. Basically the argument is. You see that reality that is right in front of you, you are too stupid to know it is not real. Which is quite effective, especially with younger people who fear being perceived as different or dumb and are very sensitive to the criticism of their peers. This makes manipulating them way too easy.
But my very favorite is when they start in with burden of proof. That is language from court proceedings which is tied to two meanings, preponderance of evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt. Most lay people only think of beyond a reasonable doubt which is actually quite a difficult burden to make. I mean a guy has to be really guilty with a lot of strong evidence to overcome a reasonable doubt which a decent atty can generate.
So just in life, remember when someone goes to Burden of Proof to defend their position. What they usually mean is you are right but I can still deny it, nyaah, nyaah, nyaah.
But if you look at Blizzard/Activision...it is very hard to look at them as some moral group that would never engage in shenanigans to make money. I think their track record in the last decade speaks for itself. If you read through the other zephry;s thread I linked you will see many of the same arguments as this one, there is another good thread on this too, but I am bit too lazy to dig it up. But one thing to keep in mind is that Activision acquired King, which is notorious for manipulative controlled gameplay designed to cause frustration in their users to get them to spend. King also generates a bazillion dollars because that shit works. It is ridiculous to think that blizzard would not engage in similar tactics in this game.
The system is set up to keep you at a 50% win rate.
So tell me what word to use instead of rigging and I promise I will use that word. But there has to be a word for it since it is not random, and it is intentional.
Just say it's not random. That's all you need. But then this thread wouldn't be where you make your argument. The OP was specifically talking about rigging with malicious intent.