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...
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.
The game algorithm matches you with a hard opponent depending on your deck and other things.
I just confirmed today that this algorithm is super rigged, unfair and unfunny.
If I use slow warlock quest I got matched with quest mage 99% of the time. Then I make a paladin deck that counters that deck AND ALMOST ZERO mages.....and if its a mage, its NEVER quest.
I change to warlock..same thing again..quest mage.
Theres no reason to play a game where all this is manipulated like gambling in a casino.
I play since beta...and at those times opponents were RANDOM.
Not now....everything is MANIPULATED somehow...packs...adventures...matches....I have lost the interest to play.
So if you think this is rigged against you, then what about your opponents? Were they rigged into good matchups? If so, they weren't rigged into hard matchups. What you're describing isn't the same rules for everyone.
A conspiracy theory really isn't a conspiracy theory without the benefactors of said rigging. So who are these opponents of yours getting these free wins? Bots programmed by Blizzard employees? Actual human Blizzard employees piloting the decks? People who spend more money on the game than you do? Lizard people? Zionists? I'm genuinely curious who you plan on scapegoating your ineptitude upon.
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.
That's a strong argument rebutting the people contending that Blizzard Hearthstone isn't rigged because Blizzard or Activision would never do anything shady.
Literally no one is arguing that though.
For my part I think they seem pretty awful. I detest the way that Hearthstone is monetized, I think Lootboxes are shady as hell, I'm put off duels by the way you have to pay for it several times over, and Mercenaries looks like Gacha rubbish (but it's not out yet so what do I know). To say nothing of the sexual harassment and discrimination accusations, which are a huge deal and far more important than any of this other stuff. But that's a bit of a thorny issue to get into here. I'm also not particularly a fan of Blizzard games.
That's all totally irrelevant though.
If you think "Blizzard did this separate bad thing, that proves that Hearthstone is rigged" is a coherent argument, there's no point in engaging with you further. I'll be opting out from here on.
Fantastic use of the Chewbacca Defense though.
I throw it out there because the defenders love to say that blizzard would never do this.
Blizzard does far worse, they would do it, and they would deny it. Just like they do in other areas.
I have not read all post but just first page, so apologies I missed anything relevant.
Hearthstone matchmaking system and probably card dealing is rigged/manipulated for sure imo. I have encountered many times if I switch decks after 2-4 games I might end 1-9 after 10 games easily even I play top 3 meta decks. I see this happening from Naxxramas. If I start playing after some time or had some winstreak last day I will most likely lose 2-3 games from next 3, oposite is true when I come from losing streak. I experienced If I play more casual deck with less powerful cards I am facing also more casul decks or opponents with lower winrate (making bad plays etc)
So from my observation frequent deck swapping or cards you are playing and what is my current winrate has impact on my winrate in first three games. This is done by facing counter decks and/or card manipulation either my or my opponents. It is usualy enough to miss one or two from first five. Yes it could happen normaly, but in those three games it is more significant. I see this happening so often that I have no doubt there is some manipulation of that sort. Is it big deal? Well I got into tilt sometimes beacuse you know, you log in after long day to get some relax, you know you play well, you are experienced, have good deck and you got smashed by bad draw or counter decks in first 20 minutes, 0 wins, 0 relax anyway.
Why would something like this exist? Heartstone I think is ment to be less about precise mathematics and close numbers and more about wonderfull effects and awesome plays. It would be more suitable to balance gameplay by manipulating matchmaking and card dealing then by making tight mathematical balance above countless variations. (you would not get that awesome "random" plays in my oppinion if random was pure randomness..) And by "balance gameplay" I mean you have long term gameplay experience of fair chance of winning, because that is a reason you will keep playing the game long term and you will stay in game that day. More people playing the game equals higher chance player making ingame purchases. And don't get me wrong but somebody has to pay the devs. Hearthstone even it is competitive in its nature is more casual game in fact. Thats why we will probably never get balanced meta in hyper comepetetive way.
So If you manipulate outcome of the match you could get: - increase chance for winning for more casual player - more versatile meta - you eliminate chance of deck metapicking strategies, if you try to outwitt current meta by changing deck too often. btw remember old ladder days with Miracle rogue and hunter deck being most dominant decks in the game? - you might screwed by bad card dealing in first games, but in long run you could get more consistent card dealing in even games - more balanced meta in case of winrate
All above are the reason for more "positive play experience" for player and more sustainable product for company. Price? You might get tilted sometimes and game prefers if you stick with one deck in game session. What I wrote is debatable, it is based on my "gut feelings" and "rumours" about patent. But I think it could make sense.
(edited, since I accidentaly press submit halfway through writing)
Well said, I think player engagement is a big reason that they have these mechanics.
Scrotie thinks that the patent would not work because most players only play one class.......Yeah, I think that is fallacious and untrue.
Fusili seems to be going with, anyone who thinks the game is rigged may be a dangerous Nazi. And then returns with cuz Science for good measure.
Strongpoint (ironic name) weighs in with the tried and true strawman 'that is like believing anyone with a penis is automatically a rapist!' -absolutely ridiculous.
While user lays out some very basic logic that will make sense to anyone with any objectivity. I really do enjoy this thread.
And 3nnu1 continues to draw from their bag of tricks labeled "list of logical fallacies" and invokes Godwin's Law by dropping the n word. If your accusations is that people are demonizing the opposition, then bravo on your hypocrisy.
Seriously,the most dubious claim there is the first line "reading replies." Reading but choosing not to comprehend through, giving you the benefit of the doubt here, willful ignorance of they intent.
Scrotie thinks that the patent would not work because most players only play one class.......Yeah, I think that is fallacious and untrue.
Fusili seems to be going with, anyone who thinks the game is rigged may be a dangerous Nazi. And then returns with cuz Science for good measure.
Strongpoint (ironic name) weighs in with the tried and true strawman 'that is like believing anyone with a penis is automatically a rapist!' -absolutely ridiculous.
While user lays out some very basic logic that will make sense to anyone with any objectivity. I really do enjoy this thread.
The main reason all the rigging accusations strike me as nonsense is that I don't see any way that they could logically transform rigging the game into better pack sales.
If I'm on a losing streak because the rigged RNG has kicked in to determine that I should stop winning, I'm not going to be having much fun. I am much more inclined to spend money on Hearthstone, and hobbies in general, when I'm enjoying them. The idea that a losing streak would make me buy packs is obviously nonsense. It would ruin a lot of players' fun and have the opposite effect.
The idea that buying packs is similar to buying a power up in candy crush saga is also ridiculous. You get no mechanical advantage from having a larger collection. Any card that is not in your deck is totally irrelevant for the purposes of determining the outcome of any game you're playing. Of course the game could be programmed in such a way that having a larger collection improves your RNG, even if only temporarily, but that would ruin players' experiences while doing nothing to incentivize purchasing packs.
Say for example owning a random not-in-my-deck legendary (let's call him Tyrion) means that I'm more likely to get favorable matchups when I'm playing mage. There's no reason that should be the case, it's illogical and counter-intuitive. The official line from the developers is that it's not the case. I'd have no realistic way of knowing whether I was benefitting from having Tyrion in my collection or not. Clever players who saw through the deception would realize that buying packs until they opened Tyrion would mean better win rates, but the rest of us Blzzard-apologist sheep would continue to believe the Company Line and would stop buying packs once we had opened or crafted Sorcerer's Gambit.
The system would have the effect that over time people with better collections would hit higher ranks, but a) not in a way that was discernible to the desired customers and b) this would happen naturally over time anyway. Having a bigger collection is an inevitable outcome of spending time and/or money in the game. People who play a lot of Hearthstone, on average, over time, become better at Hearthstone than people who play less and are less invested. And I say that as someone who was fairly invested (about $50 per expansion for about 5 years I think) and never got very good. But hey there's always going to be outliers.
Finally, I could absolutely believe that they use similar systems to what they apparently use in other games to promote the sale of cosmetics. I don't own any mage skins other than the default Jaina, and I could see how putting me up against players who own Khadgar, or whatever, might make me more likely to buy him.
It wouldn't work with legendaries though, at least not outside the very narrow conditions of players who are playing decks missing key cards being matched up against players who have the cards in question. "If I could just craft X then my deck would work so much better". But even at low ranks and in casual I rarely encounter people playing decks missing key cards
In practice, if I was playing an expensive deck that included all the legendaries I could make space for and MMR rigging kicked in to stop me from winning, they'd generally be matching me against cheaper more effective decks rather than ones based around dubious legendary synergies. Any time that MMR rigging matched some super fast aggro deck with 1 or 2 legendaries against some ponderous highlander control deck they'd be achieving exactly the opposite of what the system is supposed to be promoting.
If having a more expensive deck meant you got coddled by RNG and given favorable match ups we'd expect to see that generally the more expensive decks outperformed the cheaper ones. Perhaps that decks built around new legendaries (cards that prospective customers don't own yet) do better than cheaper decks. You wouldn't expect that Face Hunter would be consistently one of the cheapest and most effective decks in meta after meta. Or that cutting quests and other new legendaries like Varian and Cornelias from popular United in Stormwind decks would improve their win rates.
If I did believe that the game was rigged in the way that some people do, though, I would absolutely stop playing. You're not actually playing an online card game at that point, you're playing some sort of Freemium "Card Game Simulator" and I don't know why you'd want to give them your time or money. But hey I don't expect to change any minds here and what you do with your free time is up to you.
This is in no way what I am talking about.
Running inefficient decks full of legendaries will cause you to lose.
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.
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.
These endless analyses to prove or disprove the obvious….
the game is a software driven casino-like game. Whoever has played more than 50 games and doesn’t think it’s rigged is naive at best
It's a horrible analogy: you're not playing against the house, you're playing against other players. So to suggest that Blizzard unfairly favors some players, at the expense of others, is just bizarre. Why would they do that? Why would they need to? A neutral matchmaking system does the job pretty well, without any complicated AI or deep learning or WTF-ever dynamic data analysis of decklists and winrates, and God knows what else.
Just a neutral MMR, and some heuristics to keep queue times in check, and try to keep newbies from queuing into seasoned veterans in their first 10 games.
So, what is it that keeps people playing? Idunno... maybe they're having fun? What makes the game fun? It's not the matchmaking system.
Do some research into player engagement. There is a reason they seek a 50 percent win rate in all of their competitive games.
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.
It is good to see that you feel so defensive about the Burden of Proof, even if you have deluded yourself about the intent of those throwing the term around. In my experience, the conversation usually goes thus:
Person 1: "This is a thing!" Person 2: "Can you prove that it is a thing?" P1: "Can you prove it is NOT a thing?" P2 "Burden of Proof!" Yada yada. It isn't being used to defend a position, it is being used to remind you that your the one making a claim and they would like you to back it up. Typically page one or two of a thousand post thread.
Burden of Proof isn't just a court of law thing either. Seriously, read the Wikipedia page Burden of Proof (Philosophy), it is a much more interesting read than the law one (personal opinion).
But then again, this threads are always a source of amusement for me in a similar vein as the salt thread, so thanks! Keep it up.
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.
Who pays to do this? No one would spend that much time on nonsense without getting paid by someone. Well I guess you could be unemployed and this is just what you fill the hole in your life with.
Oh I forgot the most common tactic, 'shoot the messenger' . If you cannot argue against a person's points, just go at them.
if you read my first post in the zephrys thread, you will understand my motivation.
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
⚙
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.
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.
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.
I throw it out there because the defenders love to say that blizzard would never do this.
Blizzard does far worse, they would do it, and they would deny it. Just like they do in other areas.
Activision Accused of Shredding Evidence, Obstructing Probe (2) (bloomberglaw.com)
yeah, these guys would never do anything shady......
Well said, I think player engagement is a big reason that they have these mechanics.
heh, you stink of desperation
So reading replies
Scrotie thinks that the patent would not work because most players only play one class.......Yeah, I think that is fallacious and untrue.
Fusili seems to be going with, anyone who thinks the game is rigged may be a dangerous Nazi. And then returns with cuz Science for good measure.
Strongpoint (ironic name) weighs in with the tried and true strawman 'that is like believing anyone with a penis is automatically a rapist!' -absolutely ridiculous.
While user lays out some very basic logic that will make sense to anyone with any objectivity. I really do enjoy this thread.
This is in no way what I am talking about.
Running inefficient decks full of legendaries will cause you to lose.
But if you are an average player and missing a few meta legendaries, you will lose to those cards a disproportionate amount of times. That is this patent Activision Patents Matchmaking That Encourages Players To Buy Microtransactions (kotaku.com) or something like it at work.
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.
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.
Do some research into player engagement. There is a reason they seek a 50 percent win rate in all of their competitive games.
thanks for reiterating my point, if you can't counter the message, then attack the messenger.
I love the way you project your defensiveness
Oh I forgot the most common tactic, 'shoot the messenger' . If you cannot argue against a person's points, just go at them.
if you read my first post in the zephrys thread, you will understand my motivation.
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.