But if you didn't have the research skills to find it yourself I laugh heartily at the idea of you comprehending it. (The US Patent number was clear in the image in the Kotaku article linked to earlier.)
Preeeetty sure he was trying to be funny, since the patent has been linked about three or four times already in this thread alone, and approximately 6.28 billion times else where on this site.
Oh no! I am going to need some burn cream for that one. However will I go on? Surely you managed to defeat me and counter my statements with such a clever little Insult. Waaaait a minute. Doesn't that sound familiar?
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.
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.
Indeed. I have read that patent far more times than I would have ever cared too. But it is the massive leap in logic I see when people go from "There exist a patent that Blizzard could invoke to mess with matchmaking." to "BIG BROTHER BLIZZARD CONTROLS EVERYTHING FROM THE FIRST DRAW TO THE TOP DECK LETHAL AND YOU DON'T THINK SO YOU MUST BE STOOPID!!1!" that typically makes my eyes roll right from my head.
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.
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.
Preeeetty sure he was trying to be funny, since the patent has been linked about three or four times already in this thread alone, and approximately 6.28 billion times else where on this site.
Oh no! I am going to need some burn cream for that one. However will I go on? Surely you managed to defeat me and counter my statements with such a clever little Insult. Waaaait a minute. Doesn't that sound familiar?
Sooo.... I am guessing the moniker "Hypocrite" is just one you wear with pride then?
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.
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.
Indeed. I have read that patent far more times than I would have ever cared too. But it is the massive leap in logic I see when people go from "There exist a patent that Blizzard could invoke to mess with matchmaking." to "BIG BROTHER BLIZZARD CONTROLS EVERYTHING FROM THE FIRST DRAW TO THE TOP DECK LETHAL AND YOU DON'T THINK SO YOU MUST BE STOOPID!!1!" that typically makes my eyes roll right from my head.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." -Hanlon's Razor
And I love your salt! It goes so very well with my popcorn, and I should thank you for producing so much. :D
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.