But y'all always say that BLIZZARD is forcing people to have ~50% WR But how about it? Playin meme - reno and/or mill druid https://imgur.com/a/jBkvw1N Any ideas why i have WR over 51%? While meme'ing on legend ladder?
A forced 50% is what the "rigged!" crowd wants you to believe. The MMR or any ELO system doesn't work that way though.
Yes, in the end, once you reached your proper rating, it would result in a 50% WR. But HS isn't chess with a static environment and zero randomness. On your way to your proper rating you can have a higher or lower WR and even after reaching your rating, you can play a different deck, in a different meta, under different conditions (tired, tilted, ...) or just have bad RNG that will result in different WR.
The system matches you to someone of equal rating, assuming that it reflects your skill. Winning means an increase in rating and playing against people with higher rating (and potentially skill), while losing lowers your rating and results in games against people with lower rating (and potentially lower skill).
That's why the proof of HS being "rigged" by intentionally conceding and then having a win streak afterwards, is rather pointless: it's throwing in the towel to be relegated to the toddler group and then magically winning.
It's very easy to make the system be aware of probing it. Remeber, you are using ONE account each time you play.
System: "hey, this account faced 80% of my scripted decks in the last 50 games. It's getting obvious. Lets change back to either true pseudorandom or simply the negated scripting (i.e. don't face decks with certain cards)"
Player: "hmm, i've had 50 games that seemed to be against scripted opponents. But the next 10 were all over the place, and it continued to be like this for a while. Hmm, must've been an unlucky randomness streak with a 0.00001% chance. Nevermind, it happens, blizzard would never do this anyway".
System: "gottem. No big data website is gonna find out. Now let's reset the time variable for this account (yea, the variable that determines - after how many days of playing and/or being offline and/or matches played reached a certain number since the last script run - how often this scripted matchmaking should run)"
It's funny how easy it is to implement something like this, which doesn't even need to be complicated.
But that makes no sense.
You say that there is fixed matchmaking going on - but in order to prevent it from being detected in large datasets, the system is also providing random matchmaking that makes the fixed matchmaking seem appear as statistically normal.
That's like saying rolling a die is fixed to show six all the time - but there are enough of the other numbers to appear as if it's a 1-in-6 chance.
#edit: or rather you say that in order to prevent it from being detected by a single player, you have random data points which leads the person to assume them being an outlier in the larger dataset. That is more plausible in the smaller scope of a single person but fails in the larger picture as that is an aggregate of single persons which would all display that dynamic.
here they are the hearthstone white knights rushing to defend when it’s been a known fact.
The only known thing here is the rhetoric that is used over and over again in these topics:
"Here is the thing I can't prove but it's true and if you disagree you are a Blizzard shill and white knight. Therefore I'm right."
You have nothing but your few anecdotal data points. If you want to make that claim, back it up with an actual dataset and have an explanation why this was never discovered by the bigger data sites.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A forced 50% is what the "rigged!" crowd wants you to believe. The MMR or any ELO system doesn't work that way though.
Yes, in the end, once you reached your proper rating, it would result in a 50% WR. But HS isn't chess with a static environment and zero randomness. On your way to your proper rating you can have a higher or lower WR and even after reaching your rating, you can play a different deck, in a different meta, under different conditions (tired, tilted, ...) or just have bad RNG that will result in different WR.
The system matches you to someone of equal rating, assuming that it reflects your skill. Winning means an increase in rating and playing against people with higher rating (and potentially skill), while losing lowers your rating and results in games against people with lower rating (and potentially lower skill).
That's why the proof of HS being "rigged" by intentionally conceding and then having a win streak afterwards, is rather pointless: it's throwing in the towel to be relegated to the toddler group and then magically winning.
But that makes no sense.
You say that there is fixed matchmaking going on - but in order to prevent it from being detected in large datasets, the system is also providing random matchmaking that makes the fixed matchmaking seem appear as statistically normal.
That's like saying rolling a die is fixed to show six all the time - but there are enough of the other numbers to appear as if it's a 1-in-6 chance.
#edit: or rather you say that in order to prevent it from being detected by a single player, you have random data points which leads the person to assume them being an outlier in the larger dataset. That is more plausible in the smaller scope of a single person but fails in the larger picture as that is an aggregate of single persons which would all display that dynamic.
The only known thing here is the rhetoric that is used over and over again in these topics:
"Here is the thing I can't prove but it's true and if you disagree you are a Blizzard shill and white knight. Therefore I'm right."
You have nothing but your few anecdotal data points. If you want to make that claim, back it up with an actual dataset and have an explanation why this was never discovered by the bigger data sites.