• 3

    posted a message on Serious question on randomness
    Quote from M0res >>
    Quote from Bushmaster22 >>

     There is absolutely algorithms built and designed with the intent to keep you coming back for more. How they achieve that can be done a number of different ways.

    I have nearly 10,000 total wins and have been playing since beta and I have found some interesting consistencies over that period of time that happen again and again and again.

    One of the biggest observations that I have noticed is that when I sit down to play my first hearthstone game for the day I take one to two or maybe three losses in a row and then I begin to start seeing wins and only after I have played 10 to 15 games at one sitting will I start to see a normalized pattern of 60%+ win rates, but the first two or three games are almost always guaranteed losses. I'm convinced that's some kind of an algorithm.

    Another thing I've noticed is that I always have higher win rates between 2 and 8 p.m. Whether that's an algorithm or just a bunch of noobs flooding the ranked competition... I'm not sure.

    Another big observation that I have made is that I almost always lose after I hit the concede button. This probably occurs 80 to 90% of the time. I don't think that's anything other than an algorithm pitting me against the hardest matchup intentionally or putting very bad cards in my hand on the following game after I have conceded giving me very bad odds of winning.

    Anyone who uses a deck tracker can also see a pattern began to emerge. Win rates of a particular deck Spike on one day and plummet the next and then spike again and then plummet again. This is done because Blizzard can build an algorithm that pits a mismatch of a deck that is likely to lose against another deck. Some nights I will see one third of my games will be mage, 16% will be warlock, and 16% will be priest. On other nights I will see completely different match-ups with different hero types that don't resemble that pattern at all. Is it random? ...not likely. Blizzard is doing their best to keep any one player from having a runaway win streak. The highest win streak ever recorded I believe was 75 wins in a row. Blizzard doesn't want that to ever happen again.

    Again I don't have proof of Blizzard purposefully doing these things but it is something that is very consistent and it's something that I observed for over 7 years.

    I'm convinced that algorithms are a very important part of the game design to keep you coming back again and again to get those wins... which Blizzard needs to keep the game full and profitable.

    It's always about the bottom line or the company ceases to exist.

     

     Well said - this is exactly my point but the “it’s all random” supporters seem to not notice it... For them there is no pattern, no different matchups depending on what type of deck you play... nothing, all random.

    to those naive souls who believe it’s random - you know there is extensive research out there from top universities that describes how matchmaking in online games works, how players behaviours are captured and analysed, that there are patents that prevent competitors from using the same matchmaking techniques right??

    Oh I know what you will say “ I’m an evil soul, it’s all random” lol 

    The problem is that you can very much see patterns that reflect *you* and your play patterns rather than some algorithm Blizzard is using. 

    Bushmaster22 describes a pattern that doesn't fit at all with my player experience. I usually win the first three to four games I'm playing before starting to lose more games, and I usually stop playing after losing a couple of games in a row. Why does that pattern occur? Well, after the first couple of games, I usually get a little bored and start watching YouTube in the background or some other thing - hence I make more mistakes and lose more games, which makes me realise that I'm bored and I stop playing.

    Perhaps Bushmaster22 takes a couple of games to get in the zone and start winning, and perhaps they lose after conceding because they're tilted. My point is clear, I hope: these individual patterns are reflecting *us*, not Blizzard's secret algorithm. In order to prove such an algorithm, there must be a *collective* pattern, which means that thousands of players must experience the exact same pattern. That's how the pity timer was revealed, remember? The fact is that massive amounts of data are collected every day through deck trackers, and yet nothing has emerged that support the RNG manipulation and matchfixing described in this thread.

    Yes, there is absolutely done a lot of research in how to keep player engagement going and there is no doubt in my mind that daily quests, the ranked overhaul etc. have been designed to maximize player engagement and keep people playing, but I simply do not believe that Blizzard is fixing games by rigging matchmaking, draw, discover options and so forth. 

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Serious question on randomness
    Quote from M0res >>

    People who challenge the “randomness” are told that they have no proof, although they presumably play the game for years in many cases... so what is everyone else’s proof that the game is truly random then?

    This is on the hearthstone wiki, clear as mud:

    “When a player enters the matchmaking queue the system will attempt to find another player in the queue with an identical matchmaking value. If one is found, the two players will be entered into a match with each other. If a perfect match is not found, the matchmaking system will "wait a few seconds" and then search again. However, each time the system fails to find a match its matchmaking parameters are widened, allowing for increasingly rough match-ups.This ensures players are not left waiting for too long, but as a result, players may occasionally be matched with opponents of significantly different rating, rank or record”

    ...this does sound anything but random to me!!!

    also a mod on one of their forums said 

    “Since each player starts at the bottom of the ladder at start, we want fair matches for everyone (aka. win-rate close to 50%).”

    So they DO control the win rate at ladder bottom to be close to 50%... no sh*t

    Again, we need to make a distinction between known rules that affect RNG and RNG manipulation because they are NOT the same thing, and a lot of people are confusing them in this thread. Known rules are consistent and apply universally, while manipulation is inconsistent and restricted. Let me clarify with a couple of examples:

    It was a known rule that Discover cards would be biased towards class cards. Blizzard had confirmed it, and players could use this information when building their decks (by putting Stonehill Defender in every Paladin deck) and take it into consideration when playing against opponents (by playing around your Paladin opponent's third Sunkeeper Tarim). Everytime a Discover card was played, the chances of discovering a neutral or class card were the same - skewed but consistent.

    Similarly, there are known rules that govern matchmaking, because if matchmaking was 100% random, no one would be having fun (that is, if we agree that everyone is having the most fun when playing against opponents with a similar skill level). Again, Blizzard have clearly stated what the rules are and how they work, as illustrated above. You're matched according to MMR and time spent in queue. The rules are consistent and work the same every time you queue up, and they're the same for your opponents. Blizzard do not "control the win rate", they simply match people with similar skill level against each other, which should naturally produce a win rate close to 50%.

    RNG manipulation, on the other hand, is inconsistent and restricted. It would have been manipulation if only players who had spend money on the game would have a higher chance to Discover class cards. It would also be manipulation if the chance to Discover class cards depended on time of day, win rate, games played that day, etc. It would be matchmaking manipulation if players who have spent money on the game are matched with opponents of lower skill to inflate their win rate. It would be manipulation if matchmaking targeted certain players and gave them (un)favourable matchups no matter what deck they played. Again, it is RNG manipulation if it is inconsistent (different depending on the situation) and restricted (only applies to some players).

    So far, no one has presented proof of any RNG manipulation in Hearthstone. One should think it would be possible with the amount of data collected through various deck trackers, though. I really hope everyone who suspects Blizzard of foul play gets together and conducts a thorough investigation (hopefully with more success that the flat earthers in "Behind the Curve").

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on The start of the year of the Phoenix feels underwhelming?
    Quote from HMcCool >>

    This is not a salt thread bad mouthing the developers, but an honest feeling I have that the start of the new hearthstone year has been pretty under whelming in new features, new brawls and content compared to last expansion. 

    Like last year by this time we had:

    The expansion which was overall much more balanced and fun imo to play

    Lots of New brawls

    A brawl based on the expansion

    New Easter event

    Single player content about to come out with 5 wings

    This year for the most "content filled year" of hearthstone:

    New expansion and class, but has required 2 balance patches to get it near enough balanced

    Few new brawls

    One small battleground update 

    Like anyone else kind of wishing for not more new cards of massive content updates, just more news about new stuff at all. Like it would be fun even if we had a brawl with decks with each of the primes in it or something. Just feels like a super slow start of a new Hearthstone year

    I mean... there's a world-wide epidemic going on. I would be surprised if it didn't impact the Hearthstone team that everyone is working from home. 

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Serious question on randomness
    Quote from laadeedaa >>
    Quote from HoraceWalpol >>
    Quote from laadeedaa >>

    So the question made is far to general. Do they manipulate randomness? Yes, they have already admitted to doing so with cards like Dr. Boom, Mad Genius. They will add weights to certain card "types" the same as they said they changed certain probabilities for getting certain Arena cards. 

    In what way was Boom manipulated? I haven't heard of this before.

     They had different weights for generating class Mechs vs. non-class Mechs. They openly stated that after they changed the weights to equal out the chance of getting class Mechs. They also lowered probabilities of getting certain OP cards in Arena. 

     

    Edit: these were the Delivery Drone hero power discovers.

     

    Edit #2: This is taken from an article on HearthstoneTopDecks. I'm not sure why it was SOOOOO hard to find this information and that so many people were unaware of this change. Here is the gist of the article.

    "Let’s talk quickly about what exactly changes. Before this patch, each Discover card that could give you cards from pool of both Neutral and Class cards (so a bunch of them) gave you the latter more commonly. To be precise, each Class card had a 400% chance to appear compared to a Neutral card. After the patch, this bonus will no longer be present. It means that every single card has exactly the same chance of being Discovered.

    It doesn’t means that Class cards will have exactly 4x lower chance to appear right now than they did in the past. Depending on the exact card pool etc. they will now, on average, appear ~2.5 times less often. Which is still a lot.

    But why does it matter, exactly? Why is it a nerf? That’s because, on average, class cards are more powerful than neutral cards. There are less “filler” class cards than neutrals. There are also much more specific, high priority picks among class cards. Getting them way less consistently will be a huge downside. The cards that could previously give you either a class or neutral card will now offer neutral cards more often. Which, most of the time, is bad. But we’ve also got two examples of cards that will become stronger after the changes!"

    Oh, you were referring to the old Discover rule. The question is: Is it RNG manipulation or a mechanic that Discover cards used to favour class cards? I mean, it wasn't hidden information, everyone knew it. That's what made Stonehill Defender so good in Paladin. Removing the class bonus actually made Discover cards even more RNG heavy.

    Isn't what we're discussing here whether Blizzard is manipulating RNG in secret? 

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Should Blizzard unnerf these cards?
    Quote from episode63 >>

    I don't know if anyone remembers, but Nourish at 5 mana, wasn't even played all the time or all that often in classic hearthstone through several expansions. Sure, it had some use, but other things were more important at the time, and other cards were considered better inclusions. So I was very surprised when it was nerfed seemingly out of the blue, and couldn't understand why. Well, if I remember correctly, it was nerfed around the time the quest that gives both choose one's came out, so I guess it made some sense. But that wasn't Nourish's fault, that was the quest's fault. So yeah...it should be back to 5 mana, honestly. Wild Growth should be back at 2 mana honestly, as well. It's just a joke at 3 (maybe they want it to be a joke, but still, it's like...not good at all anymore)

    You don't remember correctly. The quest came out last year with Saviours of Uldum in August. The Nourish nerf was December 2018 right after the release of Rastakhan's Rumble, same patch that nerfed Wild Growth. 

    Both cards were nerfed because everyone was sick of druid dominating the meta with taunt druid/malygos druid/token druid. Earlier that same year, Jade druid had been driving people crazy. Maybe Blizzard realised that if they wanted to actually take druid down a notch, they needed to nerf the cards those decks have in common. One and a half year later, druid still haven't gone an expansion cycle without at least one viable deck, so it seems to me the nerfs were fine.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on Serious question on randomness
    Quote from laadeedaa >>

    So the question made is far to general. Do they manipulate randomness? Yes, they have already admitted to doing so with cards like Dr. Boom, Mad Genius. They will add weights to certain card "types" the same as they said they changed certain probabilities for getting certain Arena cards. 

    In what way was Boom manipulated? I haven't heard of this before.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 4

    posted a message on This new ranked system is a joke.
    Quote from sicknantos >>

     

    Based on your skill, efficiency, deck composition, and rank, you'll get matched with people who best line up with you. 

    For example, you'll face a player who makes a lot of mistakes if you make a lot of mistakes, too. You'll face a lot more meta decks if you run meta decks, too. Running off-meta? Your opponent is likely to be doing the same. Win streak? Your opponent probably has one going, too.

    What deck you're playing and if you have a win streak going or not has nothing whatsoever to do with matchmaking. There are two things that determine matchmaking in the new ladder system:

    1) At the beginning of a new season, you're matched with people by MMR, no matter your and their rank. Basically, you're playing the same people in Bronze 10 that you were playing two days ago in rank 5. 
    2) When your star multiplier is gone (when you are at the rank you're "supposed" to be according to your MMR) you'll be matched according to rank. 

    This cannot be said enough: Blizzard does not care what deck you're queueing up with when they're matching players. Your choice of deck has absolutely no impact on matchmaking. None. At all.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on The selected deck is not valid

     It would be easier to answer you question if we could see your deck. But if it starts searching before kicking you out, it might be a server problem.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Getting more than x2 of a card.

    Is one of the copies golden? Because I got normal copies of cards I only have in golden before I got all the new Priest cards. It seems golden cards count as another rarity. 

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Getting more than x2 of a card.

    Is one of the copies golden? Because I got normal copies of cards I only have in golden before I got all the new Priest cards. It seems golden cards count as another rarity. 

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Flaw in new ladder system
    Quote from zynessa >>
    Quote from HoraceWalpol >>
    Quote from Skelos_bg >>
    Quote from HoraceWalpol >>

     To create a sense of progression for the player. 

    This is not logical when they give so big streak bonus and players reach rank 5 fast.

    I'm literally just saying what Blizzard said themselves. They wanted to match people with similar MMR but still give a sense of progression. It's working for me 🤷🏻‍♀️

     It works for most people. Just get to legend quicker if you dislike normal ranks so much. 

    I don't get what you're saying? I don't dislike anything. People were discussing why Blizzard had chosen to have everyone go back to bronze 10 every month when everything is MMR based anyway (so you're essentially playing against the same players no matter your rank), and I repeated Blizzard's own argument: that they still wanted to give the players a sense of progression. And I think they've achieved that. That's what I meant by 'working'.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 3

    posted a message on Flaw in new ladder system
    Quote from Skelos_bg >>
    Quote from HoraceWalpol >>

     To create a sense of progression for the player. 

    This is not logical when they give so big streak bonus and players reach rank 5 fast.

    I'm literally just saying what Blizzard said themselves. They wanted to match people with similar MMR but still give a sense of progression. It's working for me 🤷🏻‍♀️

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on Flaw in new ladder system
    Quote from Skelos_bg >>

    Yes, but the purpose is not clear at all - why go from zero each month when they know our MMR?

     To create a sense of progression for the player. 

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on First-time ranked rewards giving duplicates?

    Golden seems to count as another rarity, but I'm not sure. The only duplicates I've received are ones I've only had in golden.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Anyone excited Battlegrounds to cost $$$ ?
    Quote from Skelos_bg >>

    Nah, they wouldn't use the word "cycle" if it wasn't meant to be 2 years. I agree it's not precisely stated, but it's 95% to be interpreted as 2 years.

    I guess most people are confused, because the previous BG QoL lasted until next expansion.

    I hope you're right, but I really don't think so. In the Omnistone special from a couple of weeks ago, they discuss the new Tavern Pass, and Firebat clearly states that you have to pay every expansion (watch it here). I expect him to know, with him being a streamer and all.

    EDIT: All over reddit, people are talking about spending 20$ per expansion to get the Battlegrounds perks, and no Blizzard employee is correcting them. Given how active the Hearthstone team is on reddit, their silence on the subject is telling - if it was two years and not four months, they would be correcting people and publishing clarifications.  I'm pretty sure is 20$ per expansion.

    Posted in: Battlegrounds
  • To post a comment, please login or register a new account.