Hearthpwn

Yes, because they added a quest with a skin that restricts it to only people winning the Brawl... purchasing a skin is fine. Winning a skin is fine. Purchasing a chance to maybe win a skin is not. 

Bro wtf are you smoking? What does antifa have to do with a digital trading card game?

Quote from MightyMaus >>

Quote from Bengalaas >>

Definition of rigged (by Merriam-Webster)

1: manipulated or controlled by deceptive or dishonest means

What is deceptive or dishonest about having a matchmaking system that looks for the player with the closest rating to you? Or having RNG elements in the game? Or even allowing double the hero options for a price?

Nothing. Nothing is deceptive, nothing is dishonest, nothing is rigged, at least not by the common definition of the word.

 First off, it also means "arrange something to get the result they want or to give someone an unfair advantage." Don't have to mansplain what you think the definition is, but leave out the other half.

Secondly, you're saying forcing people to stay at around a 50% win rate isn't arranging the game to give someone an unfair advantage? You guys are getting so offended that someone is saying something THE DEVELOPERS OF THE GAME literally said at a blizzcon (THEY USED THE WORD RIGGED THEMSELVES "it is rigged in a way") because it has a negative connotation behind the word "rigging". But, that's simply how games like this work, it literally gives people an unfair advantage, or better put. You a disadvantage. Along with matching you with opponents that have a higher % of winning the game against you, or losing against you to keep you at that 50%. 

Again - 

1.  Luck % changes how much you find the cards that have synergy to your card. I.E. You have 2 beasts, cards that effect beasts, and beasts are less likely to be drawn at the tavern. 
2. If you're winning they place you against opponents that have a higher chance of beating you, if you're losing, they do the opposite. 
3. You can buy a pack that gives you 2 extra hero choices. Literally a 50% chance of getting better heroes than people who didn't pay.  Literally making the game in favor of those who pay. 

Is it wrong of them? No, it's a standard practice to keep any sort of decent pvp game like this even. It's not like normal chess where you could play against some guy with a rating of 800, and then next game will place you randomly against a guy with a rating of 2100 and you'd have no way to win. This would put a 3500 up against a 6000, and the 3500 has an even chance of winning. 

Is it dishonest? Not really aside from the fact that for some reason you people don't want to acknowledge that it's there. So obviously it's somehow deceptive in some way. But I think that's just a form of in-group biases based off of people thinking a game being rigged is an insult to their precious game. Which, their precious game can do no wrong, there's no possible way it's rigged.  

Do other auto-battlers do it? Yes, every one of them does it.

Does that make it not rigging? No, it is definitely a form of rigging whether you want to admit it or not as the game forces players to stay around 50% wins. If it wasn't every player would have the chance to be at 100% wins. But they don't,

 

Unlike in chess, rocket league, DOTA, CS:GO. Someone that's a pro at this game couldn't just make a new account and be 100% wins out of ~10/20 games.  Because the game would force them to lose. How is Forcing the outcome of a game to be against your favor not considered not "rigged, at least not by the common definition of the word"? 

 I am pretty shitty at this game and got 3 #1 wins and 3 more 2nd-4th when I was doing the BG quests the other week. Am I the guy that Blizzard is rigging the games for? 

Also, by your logic, Blizzard is also "forcing someone to win". How do they decide who they should force to win? And why do you think they're specifically targeting you?

Quote from Toribasher >>

Quote from Lorcen >>

 Wait, what?  In order for it to be rigged against you, it would need to be rigged FOR other players.  BGs are a zero-sum play mode.  If you're thinking "crap, those attacks sucked", your opponent is thinking "wow!  Those were some lucky attacks". 

No Battlegrounds is NOT rigged against me.

Battlegrounds is rigged to have shorter games or more excitement.

Yes, confirmation bias exists and like everyone else I remember when the RNG sucks for me and forget the times it worked in my favor.

I didn't think the game was rigged, but then saw too many statistically unlikely AI-precision attacks too often in too short a timespan.

Some sort of rigging is going on.  But it is not against anyone in particular.  It could just be there to cull opponents to shorten games --- we see how they like short games in standard and it somehow boosts revenue.

 

 >shorter games

My dude the reason i dont play battlegrounds is because games are too fucking long. How are you gonna talk about shorter games? If they wanted shorter games they could just shorten the ridiculous 90-120 second buy periods in the late game. 

As for "statistically unlikely attacks in a short timespan", what about all the times those happened IN YOUR FAVOR? You don't even think about those, because you dont get upset about them so they arent memorable. 

Uhhh you know Maestra was released 4 months before Gnoll was right? It's just as playable now as it was before Gnoll release.

Quote from PetiteMouche >>

68 billions... i wonder how many lives I need to live before I can acquire as much money. Crazy how humans can still seek money more than anything, even after they obtained so much. Isn't Bill Gates satisfied with his life already ?

But Microsoft did good with Minecraft, they gave the devs a lot of freedom and support, so I am willing to give them a chance. Can't be any worse than it is right now anyway..

I don't care about the future of hearthstone, game is dead and buried already, with unsustainable economy and game balance, but I'm intrigued about World of Warcraft, I'm curious what they'll do with it.

 >Bill Gates

Bill Gates retired last year my guy. And he hasn't controlled Microsoft for over 13 years. 

 TFW the entire thread is complaining about Mage and Hunter when Mage barely makes it to T3 and Hunter is only good because it counters Rogue. 

Rogue is going to get destroyed, and the next most powerful decks are Druid, Pally, Lock, and Quest Sham. 

For the suggestions in this thread:

Warrior is not getting hit. It's a low skillcap deck and is not even slightly a problem at high ranks.

Ignite is probably not going to be changed as there's no way to change it without destroying the card completely. 

Double Agent might be put to 2/3 or 3/2. 

Lol@ Cariel mana nerf as that really wouldn't make any difference. Real fix would be to make the weapon "lower damage by 2 but no less than 1"

Flamewaker is Wild so I have no idea why someone is talking about it in General. Same with Sorc Apprentice. The game is not balanced around Wild, we have this discussion every month. 

Gnoll probably will get bonked a bit. Likely to 4/4.

NGL your deck looks kinda memey to begin with... Maddest Bomber? Really? And Saboteur? Sneed's is fine IG but come on my guy. You're going way too hard on lategame and that's why you're losing, not because of hero card cost

Okay? Doesn't change what I said. They don't balance for Wild. They cut out things that completely break the game but that's it. Seems a lot of people here are real salty that I'm speaking truth

Made a big mage deck and went about 57% winrate with it. It isn't Tier 1 but it's absolutely playable.

Quote from SinAscendant >>

Quote from Maziskynet >>

The only issue with Warlock is the current dev team. Hopefully some corporate will step up and they will resigned soon to other projects before killing the game. I bet with their current design "competence" they made quit a lot of players which results in much less revenue.

 Nope. Samsung tracks how many people play at least on their phones and miniset + this expansion are the highest number of players in the last year with a 20-30% increase

 https://imgur.com/a/nJXh2e2

Quote from Maziskynet >>

The only issue with Warlock is the current dev team. Hopefully some corporate will step up and they will resigned soon to other projects before killing the game. I bet with their current design "competence" they made quit a lot of players which results in much less revenue.

 Nope. Samsung tracks how many people play at least on their phones and miniset + this expansion are the highest number of players in the last year with a 20-30% increase