Hearthpwn

Quote from user-31021151 >>

Sorry to say this OP, but your opinion is worth about as much as the rank you're stuck at.
Which is to say, not much.

You're simply oblivious to facts and have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

 and you are oblivious to being trolled. 

Quote from P4dge >>

I see this exact same argument throughout each year... Year after year...... Regarding Pro Evi and Fifa. 

We get it, there are multiple games within a genre. Some people will prefer playing one over the othet(s), some will spread their time across multiple. That's fine, some people prefer pro evo, others prefer Fifa. 

But they, like you, for some reason have a need to try and 'convert' people to their preference. If you prefer runeterra, cool, play runeterra and enjoy discussing that positively on a forum or reddit. I've tried magic and I've tried runeterra and for me, hearthstone is far superior. 

I'm not a big card game player, I'd tried a couple in the past and found them clunky and unappealing. Hearthstone is an anonoly in that sense for me, I really enjoy it. I'm sorry you don't but I imagine me enjoying it means absolutely nothing to whether or kot you do. 

Apply that same logic in reverse, you constantly telling me you prefer another game is irrelevant. I don't care. Your enjoyment and preferences simply aren't on my radar at all. Just ad mine aren't with you. 

So just as I stick to talking about hearthstone because I enjoy it, why not use this time to discuss your preferred game? Is that not more positive? No one has ever given me a reasonable response to the question 'why do you haunt the forum of a game you claim to dislike rather than spend time on a forum of the game you do like'. 

It's like going to a restaurant you know you don't like, just so you can complain about not liking it whilst the restaurant you do like would happily seat and serve you. 

 It is meant to a show a contrast of how another, similar game goes about it's business.  My question is 'do you think hearthstone would be better if it was set up like this?'

This comes from someone who has played hearthstone for 5 years and used to love the game. 

I love the way blizzard defenders keep bringing up fifa. EA is the godfather of game ruining,  predatory monetizing, tone deaf hacks.  The fact that you even make this comparison shows how out of reality you are. I have been a blizzard customer for more than 2 decades. I always felt blizzard was one of the best gaming companies. The last few years have really changed that opinion, to the extent that I doubt I would buy another blizzard product.  

I am 3 days into hearthstone rehab, I still do my dailies and I imagine I will make time next weekend to complete the weeklies, but if you told me I had to uninstall tomorrow I would just shrug. The game has fallen that far.

Quote from Shadowrisen >>

Maybe I'm not well-enough versed in King Digital's history, but I don't know the answer to that.  I mean, Candy Crush is one of the most successful mobile games, and in general, the mobile sector is the worst when it comes to monetization practices.  But I don't know specifics from King Digital.

As to the poor state of goodwill to the Blizzard brand, it will be interesting to see.  For many years, because of the nostalgia attached to titles like Warcraft and Diablo, Blizzard could do no wrong in the eyes of the gaming media.  But ever since Activision bought it, Blizzard has lost its favored status and become just another corporation.

One thing I will say is that no matter how sleazy the manipulative practices have gotten in microtransactions, time gating, and other such, there is usually a reasonable degree of transparency.  It's as if the companies know that the majority of their player base will either not care enough to research, or play the game regardless of the sleaze.  And while you could say the same about Hearthstone players, given all the stuff they do out in the open, I just find it at least highly questionable to believe that they decide to overlay an entire rigging system and not cop to it.  I don't know enough about programming to look at the code and tell myself, but it seems like someone would have been able to datamine it by now.

 I don't know how easy or hard it would be, I already have given too much time to this discussion and my holiday weekend is coming to a close. It would be interesting if a trusted third party were to do the research and present the findings. But given the way blizzard hides their data, that may be easier said than done. 

I still find it amusing that the new card 'bug' still exists ever since the new card feature was used to confirm that blizzard packs were manipulated against the players. This was the last time I remember anything being 'confirmed'. And blizzard actually gave out free packs as a result. 

As for king, there was quite a bit of controversy a few years back when it was discovered that king had built frustration plateaus into their game in order to induce spending. However, I still see people playing crush games all the time, I look at them the same way I look at people who buy lottery tickets. 

I long ago reached the acceptance stage of grief in regards to my relationship with hearthstone. I took it for what it was, nothing to be taken seriously, the most recent change which I believe will take away my ability to enjoy expansion releases, likely signals the end for me, I am sure I will not be missed by blizzard.

I do however remember how I felt when I first saw the manipulations happening, the questioning, the doubt, the frustration. I mainly post to help others through that process. It seems wrong to me that a product marketed to children could engage in these practices. But as long as there are people like you to defend them, I suppose it won't change. 

Quote from Shadowrisen >>

Quote from 3nnu1 >>

Quote from Shadowrisen >>

Nah, I work pro bono where dishonest videos are concerned.

 A a pro bono defender of corporations, you are quite the individual. 

Another question for you,  If a corporation owns a patent on a technology that has been demonstrated to increase revenue but does not use it, do the shareholders have a legitimate grievance? 

 I didn't defend Blizzard for one single second.  I didn't say anything that remotely suggested Blizzard was innocent in this issue.  I simply showed where the video creator lied about the document he was showing.  That isn't defending Blizzard.

On the real, though, I have defended indigent clients without pay more times than I can count.

 

As to your question, it depends on what reason is given for not using the patent.  If a reasonable argument can be made that another aspect of the business would be harmed, such as goodwill toward the corporation or general reputation in the market, then no, the shareholders would have no grounds for a complaint.

 I would argue that we are past the point of good will, between the blitzchung incident and this rewards path debacle, blizzard no longer seems to care about the perception of long term fans. Perhaps we are just a vocal minority and insignificant to the big picture, and those trying to force change from blizzard truly are just tilting at windmills.

I was going to try to link to a previous post where I laid out the reasons I do believe that blizzard does engage in the standard practices of many other f2p games to monetize their product, but I am getting an error when I try to look up old posts, perhaps I will try to link to it another time. 

I do have one more question, and I must say you do answer questions well, Do you think Blizzards acquisition of King is a significant piece of circumstantial evidence in the discussion of whether or not blizzard engages in manipulative tactics to induce spending?

Quote from Shadowrisen >>

Nah, I work pro bono where dishonest videos are concerned.

 A a pro bono defender of corporations, you are quite the individual. 

Another question for you,  If a corporation owns a patent on a technology that has been demonstrated to increase revenue but does not use it, do the shareholders have a legitimate grievance? 

Quote from Shadowrisen >>

Quote from 3nnu1 >>

Quote from Shadowrisen >>

Apparently it's because I'm a lawyer.

My motivation behind the mountain of words (Jesus people, read a book if that's a "mountain" to you) is to illustrate the dishonesty in the video.  I wrote an even bigger "mountain" about Zeddy Hearthstone in my own thread because he's an even more dishonest content creator.

Pretty simple.

 So you believe that blizzard does not employ these mechanisms that Activision has patented to increase revenue?

 It's not a matter of belief.  Of course they employ them.  That has long been acknowledged.

But, you clearly haven't read my post.  The point was that the video creator lied and misled his audience about the nature of those mechanisms.  He claimed the document said things it very clearly didn't, he ignored the parts of the document that refuted his rhetoric, and at times, he departed from the document and any other evidence to just make accusations with absolutely no basis.

As I VERY clearly stated, none of the above "proves" Blizzard doesn't rig things.  But likewise, what he claims as proof rarely even rises to the level of evidence, and doesn't at all support his theories.

 So just to be 100 percent clear, because as you can see, I don't seem to always comprehend your message. Is it your position that Blizz/Activision does rig outcomes in hearthstone to stimulate spending?

Quote from Shadowrisen >>

Apparently it's because I'm a lawyer.

My motivation behind the mountain of words (Jesus people, read a book if that's a "mountain" to you) is to illustrate the dishonesty in the video.  I wrote an even bigger "mountain" about Zeddy Hearthstone in my own thread because he's an even more dishonest content creator.

Pretty simple.

 So you believe that blizzard does not employ these mechanisms that Activision has patented to increase revenue?

Quote from Shadowrisen >>

Quote from 3nnu1 >>

Quote from Shadowrisen >>

Yes

 So you have experience casting doubt on accusations made against your clients?

 Sure.  It always helps when the witness has an agenda and can't be truthful on the stand.

It's REALLY nice when they can only tell half the story without exposing their own lies.  When the jury hears the other side of the story, they write him off pretty quick, and rightfully so.

And the final nail in the coffin always comes when the witness completely overreaches.  When he starts to claim he can prove something that he can't.  Because juries are generally reasonable people, and can see that crap for what it is.

But I know where you're trying to go.  Lawyers twist the truth and obfuscate and all that.  But surely if that's what I'm doing, rather than just pointing out legitimate problems with the video, you can show the jury where I'm wrong. 

 

 

 I am just trying to understand the motivations behind your mountains of words. 

Quote from Shadowrisen >>

Yes

 So you have experience casting doubt on accusations made against your clients?

Quote from Shadowrisen >>

Is this the first time you've heard of this document?  There was a huge rush of post a year or two ago when this patent first became public knowledge.

I'm typing this as I listen, and I won't hit post until I'm done with all 14 mins of the video, but so far this guy has proceeded from a premise no one has ever claimed (that matchmaking is random) and drawn one conclusion that is in no way supported by a single line of text in the document (the game picks which player "is going to have fun", the other player "is not going to have fun").  He uses the word prove after jumping two logical steps beyond what actually appears in the document.

Ohhhhh, huge ridiculous logical fallacy at 5:17.  The document says a gamer's profile will carry data such that the game will recommend game modes it expects the player to enjoy (the example given is "capture the flag").  This video creator says that the relevant comparison to Hearthstone is picking a Soul Demon Hunter opponent for a Control Warrior.  That is grossly dishonest.  A "game mode" and a specific opponent are not remotely synonyms.

Good God, this guy has an insufferable tone.  I'm having to listen to him pretend to throw up in his mouth while he goes through the whole "Blizzard matches new players with players who have items and skins they paid for, in the hopes that the new player will want those items as well and be influenced to buy them."  That's old news, and has been acknowledged for years.  This guy claims he's using a budget deck in wild and getting matched up against Highlander Priest, which is a more expensive deck.  No allowance for how popular and successful Highlander Priest is.

 

Wow, ok, so at 8:00, he takes a quote from the document talking about making sure new players are exposed to whales, or "marquee players" in the words of the patent, and the whales' premium weapons, and compares this to having players in Hearthstone see rigged topdecks so that certain legendaries are drawn in an artificially timely manner and work to win the game.  This is in no way what is contemplated in the text, and by the way, if we proceed from the logic that decks with more legendaries and epics are going to be stronger than budget decks (a logic I generally agree with), then one must admit, it is not necessary for their to be any MM rigging for new players to be exposed to these cards for two reasons:  1) if the new player enjoys any success at all, he will be matched against those cards naturally, and 2) as time goes on in a meta, there is a natural pressure to craft and include those cards in order to be able to win games, regardless of what level of play is being observed.

This is the fundamental issue with videos alleging "proof" of rigging from this document.  The document exclusively talks about team-based games, and though it says the principles are generalized to all multiplayer games, Blizzard patented the system for games with a cooperative element specifically to have a way in which they can advertise skins and other purchasable items thru matching both teammates and opponents in non-ranked beginner-level play.  In ranked play, when these premium items (like legendary cards in Hearthstone) positively affect win rates, players are naturally exposed to them without this sort of engineering.  I'm not saying at all that Blizzard is too principled to engage in such activity.  I'm saying the same effect occurs without any of this easily data-mined manipulation.

In any case, I'm continuing with the video, but my God, this guy is hard to listen to.  I'm going to need ASMR therapy after this.  And the word "proof" has never been molested and mutilated as hard as what I'm seeing today. 

I like how from 8:40 - 9:20 he just stops referencing the document completely to refer to something called the "honeymoon period" where apparently it's a "fact" that when you make a new deck, you get a win streak before things "even out".  No reference to the document or any other evidence, just a little throw-in there.

I also like how he just dismisses all the diagrams that don't support his point.  Mostly because they all clearly refer to games that have no analogy to Hearthstone (which is true of the stuff he's referencing also, but if we can just accept his jumps between what is written and what he wants to prove, he'll get somewhere here).  I'm also scared we're taking analytical proof from a guy that doesn't know the word "coefficient", but whatevs.

So minute 9 and 10 are more of the same, he's insisting that legendaries are the "items" that cause players to be matched together, and that you will have a rigged matchmaking system based on what cards you own.  Of course, this completely ignores the contrapositive of this point, meaning that if what he says is true, I should be able to affect what decks I get matched against based on what legendaries I do not own.  That is an easily testable hypothesis, and so anyone who purports to have "proof" without doing that work is full of it.

THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST EASILY ASSAILABLE POINT OF THE VIDEO.  If Blizzard is rigging the matchmaking as he says, I should be able to track a statistically relevant increase in opponent's decks that contain legendaries (and perhaps epics, but DEFINITELY legendaries) which I do not own.  If, on the other hand, I am correct and the only relevance to matchmaking my opponent's legendaries have is how they affect his winrate and MMR, then I will see an increase in the more powerful legendaries in my opponent's decks, regardless of whether I own said legendaries or not.

He continues to ignore the language of the document when it doesn't match his rhetoric.  There are a few particularly egregious misstatements of the text around 12:30 when the document talks about gauging player satisfaction from things like quitting a match while it is still in progress for other players (a factor which does not translate to Hearthstone, as quitting a game before actually taking lethal damage is the outcome of a huge percentage of games and generally indicates only that one player believes he is beaten). 

 

Anyway, his last bit about Hearthstone watching you is another "what else is new?" moment, but that's just a cherry on top of the conspiracy sundae.  As with most videos that purport to "prove" something on this topic, I'm not suggesting there is proof to the contrary.  I'm simply pointing out how grossly inadequate and misleading the evidence (or in this case, the interpretation of evidence) is as a source of proof.

 you're the lawyer right?

Quote from enoX_36 >>

Whoever says this game is not rigged can go F themselves. I play my galakrond rogue to draw 2 cards, I have 15 cards in my deck, only 1 backstab and only 1 shadowstep... Guess what I draw, ofc these 2 cards, not the expensive ones and this happens every single time like I have to wait until I draw my 0 and 1 mana cost cards then play gala such a stupid rigged game

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T658vTvoRs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T658vTvoRs

This video addresses many of the weighted RNG aspects that are featured in hearthstone that many people deny exist. I think the maker of this video does a great job of laying it out. 

I voted cost, because the latest cost increase is likely the final nail in this game for me, but the creeping RNG has certainly been a huge factor in my current disdain for this game.