“Probably worth pointing out here that your comment (that I responded to) was about what a person's reaction to finding out the game was "rigged" should or shouldn't be (in your opinion), and not whether the game is actually rigged or not (a separate issue). ”
Isn’t there part of your sentence missing here? Should or shouldn’t determine whether people play or not? Either way, I agree, they are separate issues. I was trying to say that player agency does play into whether a player wins or loses (just like playing poker actually). The thing will the gambling analogy is that “this time will be different” doesn’t work here, with Hearthstone. With gambling, people are winning. So technically, “this time will be different” is not untrue. The odds might not be in your favor, but there’s a probability that you will win. So there’s a risk/reward thrill which lead to an addictive behaviour.
With the “hearthstone is rigged” theory, there would be no point in playing at all since the victor would always whoever invests the more money in Hearthstone. Unless 3nnu1 still plays because he enjoys when the game is “rigged” in his favour and he wins. If that’s the case, you would have a point. I doubt people would enjoy winning a game knowing they have been rigged to win from the onset but who knows, it might be the case.
On a different topic, if he/she is still around, I’d like to make a wager with him/her. Start two new accounts, one in which I’d spend x amount of money in and one where I’d f2p. Then I’d play the same amount of games with both accounts and record everything. In each game, I’d do nothing just, pass my turn every time. In the end, we could compare if paying money determines the winning outcome. We could wage 500$ whether it would or not, payable by PayPal. If I’m wrong, then the game would appear to be rigged, with a predetermined outcome in every game. If both accounts systematically lose, however, it would mean player agency does matter. Then we could take things from there and conduct more experiments: have another hearthstone player who has invested a huge amount of money play a completely random deck against a net deck and keep track of his or her winrate. Would any of the the conspiracy theorists risk that wager? None. Why? Because they know it would prove them wrong and they’d need to backpedal and admit that the game isn’t, as previously put, a rigged shitshow and own up that they have some responsibility whether they lose or not.
I can guarantee that every time, the conspiracy that everything is rigged would be disproven. Every time. That’s what I mean by pushing back against the conspiracy claims. It never happens because those who support the theory always vanish when they’re pressed. I’m writing a lot about this but it’s a let peeve of mine. HS has balancing issues and is driven by weird design imperatives but “the whole thing is rigged” is not fair criticism which should be rightly dismissed.
I’d like to end with a quote from the protagonist:
“But then I thought, if the game is designed for stupid assholes, might as well play like one and see how much fun it is. So I check implock, hmm, only need to craft the legend fucker, will go with that. Hmmm, whose the most annoying hero, perfect, this nemsy bitch is insufferable. So I immediately concede my first 10 games to get good RNG (the game is rigged remember, the same dudes who told you DH is balanced are the ones who claim it isn't). Afterwards I play 10 more, go 9-1 all the while emoting, roping and being the douchiest of bags. And guess what, this is what the game is designed for. ”
Keep in mind that the narrator here plays the game for “stupid assholes”.
When you’re gambling, you do win sometimes and the stakes are much higher as you’re risking your own money. Without going too much into it, the psychological dynamic isn’t the same. Also, gambling often doesn’t pit you against another player in a duel, that’s another key difference for the reasons discussed below.
In this user’s opinion, everything is rigged. Honestly I’ve read so many of those conspiracies that it’s hard to keep track of it all as they range from “players who pay win automatically” to “matching someone on the same skill level is rigging the game”. It’s hard to get a definite answer as to how the game is rigged exactly as when you provide a counter argument, they suddenly stop responding (until they bring it back up a while later in a different thread).
If everything is rigged, none of your decisions matter, you are “rigged” to win or lose. You could always play your left side card on each turn and you’d win because it rigged and you’re playing against a f2p player. Of course, this whole theory crumbles under a modicum of scrutiny but faith is something which you can’t reason with.
Q. How do you explain that there’s a winner when two f2p players face each other? A. Oh that never happens, based on my nonexistent data, the loser is always whoever doesn’t pay as much as the winner.
Another recurring argument is that the winner was rigged to draw “perfectly”, as if the player agency had *nothing* to do with the victory. Anyway, the list goes on but there’s just no way for putting those absurdities to rest, they just keep popping up. There’s always someone to blame (or something) one key character is always innocent: the proponent of the conspiracy. They never misplay, a defeat on their part is always caused by some unseen algorithm they have no control over. If this isn’t some kind of mental disorder, I don’t know what is.
“Probably worth pointing out here that your comment (that I responded to) was about what a person's reaction to finding out the game was "rigged" should or shouldn't be (in your opinion), and not whether the game is actually rigged or not (a separate issue). ”
Isn’t there part of your sentence missing here? Should or shouldn’t determine whether people play or not? Either way, I agree, they are separate issues. I was trying to say that player agency does play into whether a player wins or loses (just like playing poker actually). The thing will the gambling analogy is that “this time will be different” doesn’t work here, with Hearthstone. With gambling, people are winning. So technically, “this time will be different” is not untrue. The odds might not be in your favor, but there’s a probability that you will win. So there’s a risk/reward thrill which lead to an addictive behaviour.
With the “hearthstone is rigged” theory, there would be no point in playing at all since the victor would always whoever invests the more money in Hearthstone. Unless 3nnu1 still plays because he enjoys when the game is “rigged” in his favour and he wins. If that’s the case, you would have a point. I doubt people would enjoy winning a game knowing they have been rigged to win from the onset but who knows, it might be the case.
On a different topic, if he/she is still around, I’d like to make a wager with him/her. Start two new accounts, one in which I’d spend x amount of money in and one where I’d f2p. Then I’d play the same amount of games with both accounts and record everything. In each game, I’d do nothing just, pass my turn every time. In the end, we could compare if paying money determines the winning outcome. We could wage 500$ whether it would or not, payable by PayPal. If I’m wrong, then the game would appear to be rigged, with a predetermined outcome in every game. If both accounts systematically lose, however, it would mean player agency does matter. Then we could take things from there and conduct more experiments: have another hearthstone player who has invested a huge amount of money play a completely random deck against a net deck and keep track of his or her winrate. Would any of the the conspiracy theorists risk that wager? None. Why? Because they know it would prove them wrong and they’d need to backpedal and admit that the game isn’t, as previously put, a rigged shitshow and own up that they have some responsibility whether they lose or not.
I can guarantee that every time, the conspiracy that everything is rigged would be disproven. Every time. That’s what I mean by pushing back against the conspiracy claims. It never happens because those who support the theory always vanish when they’re pressed. I’m writing a lot about this but it’s a let peeve of mine. HS has balancing issues and is driven by weird design imperatives but “the whole thing is rigged” is not fair criticism which should be rightly dismissed.
I’d like to end with a quote from the protagonist:
“But then I thought, if the game is designed for stupid assholes, might as well play like one and see how much fun it is. So I check implock, hmm, only need to craft the legend fucker, will go with that. Hmmm, whose the most annoying hero, perfect, this nemsy bitch is insufferable. So I immediately concede my first 10 games to get good RNG (the game is rigged remember, the same dudes who told you DH is balanced are the ones who claim it isn't). Afterwards I play 10 more, go 9-1 all the while emoting, roping and being the douchiest of bags. And guess what, this is what the game is designed for. ”
Keep in mind that the narrator here plays the game for “stupid assholes”.
It’s not the same thing, however.
When you’re gambling, you do win sometimes and the stakes are much higher as you’re risking your own money. Without going too much into it, the psychological dynamic isn’t the same. Also, gambling often doesn’t pit you against another player in a duel, that’s another key difference for the reasons discussed below.
In this user’s opinion, everything is rigged. Honestly I’ve read so many of those conspiracies that it’s hard to keep track of it all as they range from “players who pay win automatically” to “matching someone on the same skill level is rigging the game”. It’s hard to get a definite answer as to how the game is rigged exactly as when you provide a counter argument, they suddenly stop responding (until they bring it back up a while later in a different thread).
If everything is rigged, none of your decisions matter, you are “rigged” to win or lose. You could always play your left side card on each turn and you’d win because it rigged and you’re playing against a f2p player. Of course, this whole theory crumbles under a modicum of scrutiny but faith is something which you can’t reason with.
Q. How do you explain that there’s a winner when two f2p players face each other? A. Oh that never happens, based on my nonexistent data, the loser is always whoever doesn’t pay as much as the winner.
Another recurring argument is that the winner was rigged to draw “perfectly”, as if the player agency had *nothing* to do with the victory. Anyway, the list goes on but there’s just no way for putting those absurdities to rest, they just keep popping up. There’s always someone to blame (or something) one key character is always innocent: the proponent of the conspiracy. They never misplay, a defeat on their part is always caused by some unseen algorithm they have no control over. If this isn’t some kind of mental disorder, I don’t know what is.
3nn1: surely you’ve quit playing the game a long time ago once you discovered that the game was “rigged” right?
“If ever one card can single-handedly win a game and therefore is broken as -expletive-, then it's that one.”
Denathtrius?