I guess you can say that anything that deviates from truly random is rigging the game.
Not only you can but you should.
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.
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.
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.
There's nothing nefarious (necessarily) about rigging the game at all, I don't get your point.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
First, I didn't say "enforce", and neither did Blizzard.
No I did, what's wrong with that ? This isn't a monologue, I'm an actual person talking to you.
That's you putting words into our mouths.
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 ?
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.
I'm still learning english and I have no idea what you are saying here, I'm sorry.
Okay, so you're intentionally misusing that word.
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.
You must know that most people associate "rigged" with an unfair practice.
Ok thanks, I didn't know that, but I must say I care more for definition than association.
But you're ascribing to the word things that are the opposite of unfair (matching newbies with other newbies).
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.
So the secret solution is to simply fill your deck with random cards that don't synergize at all, and then the algorithm won't be able to figure out what you're playing and can't match you up with a deck that beats you!
HAH! I just beat the system!
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.
8 years into the game I still haven't seen one evidence, one confirmation, one proof that HS is not rigged. But I have seen confirmation from Blizzard themselves, that the game is rigged, so, arrogant shills need to chill out. This isn't bias, this is reality.
Google burden of proof. If you claim that something exists you need to prove that this something exists.
Are you saying that blizzard needs to prove that Hearthstone is rigged ?
No, you are twisting the burden of proof to your own advantage. Blizzard say the matchmaking algorithm is rigged. YOU then need to prove that it isn't. In fact, the one and only reason to have a matchmaking algorithm is to rig the game to begin with, and not just face totally random opponents, because it's impossible to balance.
The arrogance of people, believing they can spot rigging in their own games that HSreplay can not see when tracking hundreds of thousands... it blows my mind.
Who says HSreplay cannot see the game is rigged ? If HSreplay says the average winrate of anything is close to 50% is literal confirmation that the game is rigged.
YOU can't/won't see what HSreplay is showing you, that is very different.
But I have seen confirmation from Blizzard themselves, that the game is rigged, so, arrogant shills need to chill out.
No, you haven't seen that, unless you twist the definitions of "rigged" and "confirmation" beyond recognition.
A stated general design goal to balance classes to about 50 percent winrate over the long term isn't it.
So what exactly is a stated general design goal to enforce a 50% winrate in an unbalanced game then ?
So if I queue up class X - the algorithm is going to tend to match me with class Y because Blizzard has it set up that way, and they know that class Y beats class X?
We say the game is rigged, we never claim to know exactly how, only Blizzard can know. Since when "rigged" means exactly "match X class with Y class" you can be sure the algorithm is a lot more complex than this farce.
Simply put, an online card game that isn't rigged cannot exist, because no human brain can handle true randomness. If the game isn't rigged, then new players cannot win a single game, because they will face totally random, most likely long time players, instead of being forcefully redirected to other new players.
The game is rigged in all kinds of ways, it is not a conspiracy, it is not evil, it is necessary and I don't see why it's so hard for some people to admit it. The game is rigged and it's okay. You would have stopped playing many years ago, as would any human being, if it wasn't for the rigged matchmaking.
Wait, you GENUINELY think the game is not rigged ?
Please enlighten me, oh arrogant one, how don't they do it ?
8 years into the game I still haven't seen one evidence, one confirmation, one proof that HS is not rigged. But I have seen confirmation from Blizzard themselves, that the game is rigged, so, arrogant shills need to chill out. This isn't bias, this is reality.
If HS wasn't rigged it would be broken beyond belief, there would be decks with 90% winrate, homebrewing would be a death sentence, Wild would be 500x worse than it is right now, they would buff and nerfs hundreds of cards every month.
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.
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.
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.
Not only you can but you should.
I do know and believe that.
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.
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.
Are you saying that blizzard needs to prove that Hearthstone is rigged ?
No, you are twisting the burden of proof to your own advantage. Blizzard say the matchmaking algorithm is rigged. YOU then need to prove that it isn't. In fact, the one and only reason to have a matchmaking algorithm is to rig the game to begin with, and not just face totally random opponents, because it's impossible to balance.
Who says HSreplay cannot see the game is rigged ? If HSreplay says the average winrate of anything is close to 50% is literal confirmation that the game is rigged.
YOU can't/won't see what HSreplay is showing you, that is very different.
So what exactly is a stated general design goal to enforce a 50% winrate in an unbalanced game then ?
We say the game is rigged, we never claim to know exactly how, only Blizzard can know. Since when "rigged" means exactly "match X class with Y class" you can be sure the algorithm is a lot more complex than this farce.
Simply put, an online card game that isn't rigged cannot exist, because no human brain can handle true randomness. If the game isn't rigged, then new players cannot win a single game, because they will face totally random, most likely long time players, instead of being forcefully redirected to other new players.
The game is rigged in all kinds of ways, it is not a conspiracy, it is not evil, it is necessary and I don't see why it's so hard for some people to admit it. The game is rigged and it's okay. You would have stopped playing many years ago, as would any human being, if it wasn't for the rigged matchmaking.
Wait, you GENUINELY think the game is not rigged ?
Please enlighten me, oh arrogant one, how don't they do it ?
8 years into the game I still haven't seen one evidence, one confirmation, one proof that HS is not rigged. But I have seen confirmation from Blizzard themselves, that the game is rigged, so, arrogant shills need to chill out. This isn't bias, this is reality.
If HS wasn't rigged it would be broken beyond belief, there would be decks with 90% winrate, homebrewing would be a death sentence, Wild would be 500x worse than it is right now, they would buff and nerfs hundreds of cards every month.