When you're talking about computing power - which variant of rigging are we talking here? A lot of the high computer power claims are related to in-game rigging, which is why Zeph comes up despite his logic being utterly abysmal.
Secondly, what bonus does matchmaking based on decks (sometimes - sometimes it matchmakes easier decks or harder decks for you depending on <factor that claimant feels like>, but presumably not always) do that simple tweaks to MMR - stuff like increase your k- value when on a streak, or even just decaying MMR over time - doesn't produce with significantly less effort and less bad PR if it comes out? And at what point does this even count as rigging rather than a robust matchmaking system?
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...
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'.
Answer: Yes. We know it from the patent. In Battlegrounds its easy to rig the amount of triples offered, let the computer auto-decide the winner if possible. It already calculates who won before the right start. The tech is there. No doubt.
If yes to the above. What would Blizzard gain from rigging the game?
Answer: Keeping people hooked. Incentivizing F2P-players to buy more packs. If people lose too many games they will quit the game. So the game makes sure you win the game once in a while. It is 100% determined by your win-rate. So in the end its about profit-maximizing.
So if a multimillion corporation has the tech to rig the game they sure as hell will. Stop being naive people.
Rigging draws sounds ridiculously hard for Blizz to do, given how badly the one card that does vaguely similar (Zeph) actually does it - I heartily recommend people claiming him as an example of how it's possible actually try playing the blighter, see for yourself how he ignores a lot of factors. Would be absolutely useless for decks who do not intend to just curve out every turn, or have reactive answers they need.
Rigging matchmaking based on decks requires a significant input of tech/resources analyzing the decks to determine winrates against other decks. Doable, but has extra downside of gameable as well based on what cards people are using, probably would show up in big datasets as core cards actually dropping winrates and thus might disincentivise sales.
Using a MMR system already makes long win/loss streaks relatively unlikely, and it's very easy for Blizz to, say, have MMR decay when you don't play a mode or decrease faster when you're on a losing streak (to reincentivise playing a mode or limit long loss streaks). Any rigging will be aimed at MMR tweaks, IMO, due to significantly lower costs for a similar benefit - and they also don't really count as rigging because it's a MMR system, rather than a straight ELO or whatever (heck, most places will use a modified ELO, AFAIK, with a reliability factor that affects how much rating is gained or lost - nobody claims Chess.com is rigged).
It is irrelevant if Blizzard can or can't do some rigging.
Their whole logic of "Blizzard can do this" is like "This guy has a penis, therefore he can commit a rape, therefore he is a rapist"
And you, instead of dismissing their notion as an absurd one, give them legitimacy by arguing something like "Well, this guy is an impotent..." when you should just dismiss their nonsense as... nonsense
In the real world, it isn't enough to prove ability, it isn't even enough to prove a motive. You need to prove that this did happen.
And in the real world, we have no proof of Blizarrd rigging Hearthstone. Any kind of rigging would be immediately noticed by HSreplay and similar services.
Actually, I'm trying to point out that if there is rigging, it makes much more sense to use an adjusted MMR system to 'rig', which barely counts as rigging as other games and systems do that in varying ways without the same cries of rigging (chess is rigged!). It makes very little sense for Blizz to leap through hoops to rig in game RNG when there's easier and less problematic routes to take.
I quite agree that there is no proof, and the burden of proof is on those making these claims - and people often aren't really putting forward even testable hypotheses, if we're honest. I was just attempting to engage and explain which - IMO - is an important and rarely used part of science. Dismissing as nonsense rather than pointing out flaws alienates lay people and leads to situations where people can manipulate with warped statistics [such as my work, where they used stats from one week in the middle of summer to generalize to yearly take], or make things obtuse with differences in meaning [such as theory being used to actually mean hypothesis], as well as feeding the current trend of "People have had enough of experts".
Maybe I'm coming at this from more of a science angle where you need something to base a hypothesis on, and you're looking from a more legal viewpoint, given your proof (beyond reasonable doubt) comment?
Answer: Yes. We know it from the patent. In Battlegrounds its easy to rig the amount of triples offered, let the computer auto-decide the winner if possible. It already calculates who won before the right start. The tech is there. No doubt.
If yes to the above. What would Blizzard gain from rigging the game?
Answer: Keeping people hooked. Incentivizing F2P-players to buy more packs. If people lose too many games they will quit the game. So the game makes sure you win the game once in a while. It is 100% determined by your win-rate. So in the end its about profit-maximizing.
So if a multimillion corporation has the tech to rig the game they sure as hell will. Stop being naive people.
Rigging draws sounds ridiculously hard for Blizz to do, given how badly the one card that does vaguely similar (Zeph) actually does it - I heartily recommend people claiming him as an example of how it's possible actually try playing the blighter, see for yourself how he ignores a lot of factors. Would be absolutely useless for decks who do not intend to just curve out every turn, or have reactive answers they need.
Rigging matchmaking based on decks requires a significant input of tech/resources analyzing the decks to determine winrates against other decks. Doable, but has extra downside of gameable as well based on what cards people are using, probably would show up in big datasets as core cards actually dropping winrates and thus might disincentivise sales.
Using a MMR system already makes long win/loss streaks relatively unlikely, and it's very easy for Blizz to, say, have MMR decay when you don't play a mode or decrease faster when you're on a losing streak (to reincentivise playing a mode or limit long loss streaks). Any rigging will be aimed at MMR tweaks, IMO, due to significantly lower costs for a similar benefit - and they also don't really count as rigging because it's a MMR system, rather than a straight ELO or whatever (heck, most places will use a modified ELO, AFAIK, with a reliability factor that affects how much rating is gained or lost - nobody claims Chess.com is rigged).
Heck, you might even want to start treating people who believe in the real craziness, like flat earth or qanon, like they're human beings. Perhaps slightly mentally ill human beings but I'm not saying I'm cognitively perfect myself.
In short, let's be smart and bring it off, and be excellent to each other.
As someone who works under a boss who is a conspiracy theorist (his words) - be very careful with them. A lot of conspiracy theories end up with globalist/Zionist/antisemetic tripe at the end of the rabbit hole, it seems (basing this also on books and the like that come through my other job). A massive conspiracy is needed for a lot of these ideas and you've got jews as 'easy targets' (part of the whole issues with antisemetism in the harder left in the UK - this pervading idea that they run the banks, paired with banks being bad, leads to jokes that are... sketchy).
Sure, be excellent to each other, but be aware that a lot of people who tie into conspiracy theories of the ilk of the ones you mention are actually horrible people using it as a rationalization for their bigotry).
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.
That... feels very hard to test. So you're playing no constructed for a week, then, say, 30-40 games with taunt druid to get a sample size that's even roughly passable. Note your winrate across the entire 40 games.
How do you get a control group of games to compare to, given that your MMR will have changed significantly since you started, and, due to things like rank floors and possible suppression of cross-rank games (without knowledge of actual mechanics here we can't say), possible variance in opponent MMR that you have no way to account for? Also, pocket metas are a thing and they will move in MMR throughout the month.
Or did you not want actual scientific tests?
These tests also wouldn't pick up a difference between your hypothesis of a "golden" RNG state and something like MMR decaying over time spent not playing, as MMR is not publicly available information. Decaying MMR would be simpler to program, as well, and I don't think blizz can appropriately analyze gamestates on the fly to rig games (look at Zeph's issues, and that's from a tiny subset of cards).
From a development point of view, it could very likely be possible to draw suboptimal cards when the mechanics of wishing for a perfect card already exists Zephrys the Great. Personally, I have not used that card as I'm a returning player after 2+ years of inactivity so I'm not really sure on its consistency but given the mechanics that HS believes you can get the optimal card then its merely reversing the logic so that you would get suboptimal cards. Heck, Zeph against a rattlegore and see if he offers transform removal.
P.S. I don't believe the game is rigged just giving my train of thought, I'm a casual player having some fun now and then in HS. :)
Zeph is very overhyped in his capabilities. That card has a very limited subset of cards to pull from, and struggles a lot of the time. Doesn't handle multiple things to deal with well. Will not give you flare unless you're at 1 or 2 mana remaining regardless of secrets on the board. Will not give transform removal against deathrattles unless they are over something like 6/6. Cannot handle refreshing HPs from ongoing effects. Good at spotting lethal ignoring the ongoing effects. Good at giving overcosted (because he costs 2) boardwipes and the odd threat.
Seeing and playing with Zeph does not give me confidence that the game is rigged based on his code.
When you're talking about computing power - which variant of rigging are we talking here? A lot of the high computer power claims are related to in-game rigging, which is why Zeph comes up despite his logic being utterly abysmal.
Secondly, what bonus does matchmaking based on decks (sometimes - sometimes it matchmakes easier decks or harder decks for you depending on <factor that claimant feels like>, but presumably not always) do that simple tweaks to MMR - stuff like increase your k- value when on a streak, or even just decaying MMR over time - doesn't produce with significantly less effort and less bad PR if it comes out? And at what point does this even count as rigging rather than a robust matchmaking system?
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'.
Actually, I'm trying to point out that if there is rigging, it makes much more sense to use an adjusted MMR system to 'rig', which barely counts as rigging as other games and systems do that in varying ways without the same cries of rigging (chess is rigged!). It makes very little sense for Blizz to leap through hoops to rig in game RNG when there's easier and less problematic routes to take.
I quite agree that there is no proof, and the burden of proof is on those making these claims - and people often aren't really putting forward even testable hypotheses, if we're honest. I was just attempting to engage and explain which - IMO - is an important and rarely used part of science. Dismissing as nonsense rather than pointing out flaws alienates lay people and leads to situations where people can manipulate with warped statistics [such as my work, where they used stats from one week in the middle of summer to generalize to yearly take], or make things obtuse with differences in meaning [such as theory being used to actually mean hypothesis], as well as feeding the current trend of "People have had enough of experts".
Maybe I'm coming at this from more of a science angle where you need something to base a hypothesis on, and you're looking from a more legal viewpoint, given your proof (beyond reasonable doubt) comment?
Rigging draws sounds ridiculously hard for Blizz to do, given how badly the one card that does vaguely similar (Zeph) actually does it - I heartily recommend people claiming him as an example of how it's possible actually try playing the blighter, see for yourself how he ignores a lot of factors. Would be absolutely useless for decks who do not intend to just curve out every turn, or have reactive answers they need.
Rigging matchmaking based on decks requires a significant input of tech/resources analyzing the decks to determine winrates against other decks. Doable, but has extra downside of gameable as well based on what cards people are using, probably would show up in big datasets as core cards actually dropping winrates and thus might disincentivise sales.
Using a MMR system already makes long win/loss streaks relatively unlikely, and it's very easy for Blizz to, say, have MMR decay when you don't play a mode or decrease faster when you're on a losing streak (to reincentivise playing a mode or limit long loss streaks). Any rigging will be aimed at MMR tweaks, IMO, due to significantly lower costs for a similar benefit - and they also don't really count as rigging because it's a MMR system, rather than a straight ELO or whatever (heck, most places will use a modified ELO, AFAIK, with a reliability factor that affects how much rating is gained or lost - nobody claims Chess.com is rigged).
As someone who works under a boss who is a conspiracy theorist (his words) - be very careful with them. A lot of conspiracy theories end up with globalist/Zionist/antisemetic tripe at the end of the rabbit hole, it seems (basing this also on books and the like that come through my other job). A massive conspiracy is needed for a lot of these ideas and you've got jews as 'easy targets' (part of the whole issues with antisemetism in the harder left in the UK - this pervading idea that they run the banks, paired with banks being bad, leads to jokes that are... sketchy).
Sure, be excellent to each other, but be aware that a lot of people who tie into conspiracy theories of the ilk of the ones you mention are actually horrible people using it as a rationalization for their bigotry).
That... feels very hard to test. So you're playing no constructed for a week, then, say, 30-40 games with taunt druid to get a sample size that's even roughly passable. Note your winrate across the entire 40 games.
How do you get a control group of games to compare to, given that your MMR will have changed significantly since you started, and, due to things like rank floors and possible suppression of cross-rank games (without knowledge of actual mechanics here we can't say), possible variance in opponent MMR that you have no way to account for? Also, pocket metas are a thing and they will move in MMR throughout the month.
Or did you not want actual scientific tests?
These tests also wouldn't pick up a difference between your hypothesis of a "golden" RNG state and something like MMR decaying over time spent not playing, as MMR is not publicly available information. Decaying MMR would be simpler to program, as well, and I don't think blizz can appropriately analyze gamestates on the fly to rig games (look at Zeph's issues, and that's from a tiny subset of cards).
Zeph is very overhyped in his capabilities. That card has a very limited subset of cards to pull from, and struggles a lot of the time. Doesn't handle multiple things to deal with well. Will not give you flare unless you're at 1 or 2 mana remaining regardless of secrets on the board. Will not give transform removal against deathrattles unless they are over something like 6/6. Cannot handle refreshing HPs from ongoing effects. Good at spotting lethal ignoring the ongoing effects. Good at giving overcosted (because he costs 2) boardwipes and the odd threat.
Seeing and playing with Zeph does not give me confidence that the game is rigged based on his code.