• 0

    posted a message on No it's not bias, key cards are sniped immediately after taunt dies.

    So couple questions about this and the study you did:

    Did you account for cards such as Zapp being played?

    Is the minion stats of board accounted for throughout the rounds? As your board is typically much larger than your Baron, that means that they can sometimes tank extra hits whereas Baron is a small, weak-statted minion by the time he gets played and dies in 1 hit. To account for this, do you have statistics on how often your Baron, or other "key cards" are attacked first? Dying first is very easily skewable in that comparison.

    Going back to your current metric of first to die - Baron being compared to Juggler, and to an extent mechano, is an iffy comparison. They go in different builds. Juggler survives to be a later minion alive with your analysis, sure, but if you think about how a juggler demon builds, that makes more sense that their board will be thinner, especially as voidlord is a common tool for jugglers. By the time that voidlord and all its spawned taunts die, your board is going to be down to less minions (4-5) on board by the time that Juggler can even be hit. Baron is more often played with beast or mech comps (more beast), where they don't have returning taunts. So once your first taunt is down, everything is immediately open, Baron immediately vulnerable. Mech builds are fairly similar to beasts in this way that they typically don't have returning taunts, once their initial ones are gone. Though it's thrown off more by divine shields. Mechano and Baron both in mechs are comparable, mostly, when used in mech comps, but not other comps. If you have them both on board in any of your games, you'll have to account for that, your board positioning, and cleave. As baron usually goes further back, closer to taunt, and more readily cleaved. So other things to consider with your program would be to account for cleave and how often that impacts your results as well as what comp it is being played in. If you have Baron and Juggler (or mechano) on board, which dies first more often? If you have Baron in a juggle demon comp instead of Juggler, does baron die noticeably more often?


    Very interesting preliminary research and statistics though, has me curious for sure. Makes me want to see further data on this for sure! Some of those things I mentioned above I think would be particularly interesting to see accounted for in data because otherwise, currently, the data is interesting but has enough potential holes and confounding factors for me to consider it proof of non-RNG being used (yes, it is significant as of now, just not sure it's necessarily telling).

    Posted in: Battlegrounds
  • 0

    posted a message on United in Stormwind Decks - Second Week Specials

    If those are the actual numbers, open 3 more and you're guaranteed a third legendary.
    Congrats though on making it to D10 and I'm glad you're enjoying the meta! :)

    Posted in: News
  • 0

    posted a message on Have they changed the BGs algorithm?
    Quote from M0res >>

    I’ve noticed a big change since the last patch - I know how it works and the whole psychological thing. I’ve been playing since day 1 - it’s different this time. And you miss the point - everyone’s win rates are lower not just mine. I specifically mentioned that it affects everyone not just me 

     That just adds to my point, honestly. It doesn't affect everyone, not everyone is suddenly losing more. There are always 4 winners and 4 losers in BG. (Sure you can argue there's an intermediate if 4-5 go out together but you still always have 1-4 and 5-8 and it doesn't change it.) Thus, the win rate for the game is always 50%. People as a whole aren't suddenly losing more after the patch. You're focusing on when you lose and when whoever else you're watching loses. That's confirmation bias. "Everyone" is winning and losing at the exact same rate they always have been.
    If over a large sample size, you, or your friends, or the streamers you watch, have under a 50% win rate then you/they are not playing at the same skill level as their opponents. Yes, you may get unlucky and lose 10 games in a row because of bad rolls but every single other player in every single BG match has the exact same odds of getting unlucky. If you play enough games, "luck" is taken out of the picture. The system did not get changed in the latest patch in a way that changed how fundamental statistics work, or in a way that specifically targets you.

    I entirely understand hitting a rough patch in BG (I've had more than a few, you're not alone) and wanting to vent, blow off steam, be salty, and blame the system. I don't fault you at all, I do it too. But, no, nothing in the system has changed, the win rates and algorithm is still the same as it has been. It's still the same Hearthstone Battlegrounds that we've been playing and enjoying (and getting super ticked at).

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • -1

    posted a message on Primal Dungeoneer

    Ladies and gentlemen,
    Today I gather here to tell you about the newest Hearthstone Mini-Set! We are proud to announce:

    The Return of Shamanstone! 

    It will be in your hands on June 3rd!

    Posted in: Primal Dungeoneer
  • 0

    posted a message on Have they changed the BGs algorithm?


    Sorry, I had to. For real though, no, they have not changed the algorithm. That sounds like a little bit of the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon and confirmation bias at work though (entirely natural, I get hit with it too, as does literally every other person). Basically, you noticed you got unlucky and then you started becoming hyperaware of any unlucky thing happening and zoned out the lucky things happening. If the algorithm did change then everybody would be getting affected in the same way. It's a flip of a coin, 50/50 for getting "unlucky" vs "lucky", every time you get unlucky someone else gets lucky, and vice versa, as those are the only two possible outcomes in the game mode really. Over a few games, sure, you can get unlucky every time. Over a larger sample of games though, you should be 50/50 as far as luck goes. If you find yourself continually losing and getting "unlucky" at a high rate over many games, then that means you are not playing at the skill level of your opponents

    tl;dr: You noticed you got unlucky and now you're noticing every time you get unlucky and ignoring the times you get lucky. Statistic talk bb :)
    Also, remember, you only can face ghost if you're bottom 3 in the lobby left alive ;)

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 4

    posted a message on Hearthstone Esports suspends Zalae
    Quote from Strongpoint >>

    Looks like the presumption of innocence isn't a thing anymore

     As I've pointed out in another post, that legal rule does not apply in this situation. That's been well established since 1895 (Coffin vs United States) that the presumption of innocence only is a thing in legal criminal charges, not in private business practices. As Activision-Blizzard is a privately owned company, it is well within their legal right to suspend him based on an allegation.

    Posted in: General Chat
  • 3

    posted a message on Hearthstone Esports suspends Zalae
    Quote from aksldnalks >>
    I just had to log in to say: oh my God! In democratic country everyone is innocent until proven guilty. With their move, they just cut him. im not saying that he is innocent, but to do something like this, until it is proven.... just shows whats wrong with society , and this whole "cancel" culture. and i cant agree more with the dude you are quoting. 

     The only problem is your quote "everyone is innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply in this situation. It has been widely established that the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, which establish the Presumption of Innocence (the idea you're referring to), apply only in legal criminal cases and in no other setting. That's been the case for pretty much as long as those Amendments have been around, check out Coffin vs United States (1895) where it establishes this rule to be the case in criminal charges.

    Trying to argue that "cancel culture" is happening and using the Presumption of Innocence as a supporting beam for it is silly. It's a legal rule that has never, in any circumstances, applied to private practices. Otherwise, you could run into scenarios where it's well known that an employee has committed first-degree murder but it has yet to be established in court (court takes a LONG LONG time sometimes if you didn't know). The business would be legally forced into continuing to employ and let the person work, even if they had the murder on camera.

    There is nothing wrong with private practices being able to fire or suspend employees over allegations, comments, etc. It is within their legal rights that the "hands-off" government approach allows them to do. Call it "cancel culture" if that makes you feel better about it, but it's a business doing business, publicly condoning and condemning whatever they view as morally or ethically right. Capitalism, hands-off government, and freedom of businesses all explicitly allow and support a business in their right to do this. If you don't like it, argue for the government controlling all businesses.

    Posted in: General Chat
  • 9

    posted a message on Hearthstone Esports suspends Zalae
    Quote from CurseOfDeath >>

    Wait what ? What does eSports even had to do with this ? Whats next ? Getting kicked out from from any where even if you have a car crash ?

     Now that is a definite slippery slope fallacy argument right there. Domestic abuse and car crashes are drastically different things and making a comparison of those two is belittling domestic abuse. 

    As far as what Esports has to do with this, they're very much so connected. Zalae is a member of Hearthstone Esports, thus he is working underneath Hearthstone, acting as a face, a representation of Hearthstone, even if he isn't directly employed by Hearthstone. It's the same thing that the NFL has done, suspending players after child abuse or domestic violence cases. I could add several other cases but don't want to due to political charges that they can build as of right now. Anyway, it comes down to the fact that they (Zalae, in this case) is a public figure representing a privately owned company (Hearthstone, in this case) and so, thanks to laws (at least in the US) it is within every right for Activision-Blizzard to suspend Zalae, even just over allegations, as they are a private company and he is currently representing something that they do not want to represent. They're putting him on a temporary leave effectively right now due to the allegations, and should he go to court and prove true, I believe they should permanently ban him from their Esports. For now, though, he is on leave due to an allegation, and will likely be either unsuspended or banned upon trial. It's the same thing that happens through just about every other organization or business and it's well within their legal rights to do so.

    Posted in: General Chat
  • 5

    posted a message on Worst meta since... Outland?

    Have been playing since about May 2014. This is DEFINITELY not THE or one of the worst metas, by any means. Sure, mage, paladin, and warlock are bopping but a couple classes have easily ruled just about every expansion other than maybe, one I think? And it's not that toxic compared to some old metas, by any means. Full charge face hunter that had you dead by turn 4-5 when all the cards were 1/3 of the stats with much weaker battlecries. That was fun, since you couldn't stop it since it was straight out of hand autopilot, I watched friends that weren't that good at Hearthstone, averaging rank 16-17 usually, and they took it to Legend at 80%+ winrate. Undertaker hunter is still the most oppressive deck of all time, and dear lord that one was toxic.

    Honestly though, sure, some decks are annoying. That is the case in literally every single expansion, especially post-rotation, with certain decks dominating it. And yeah, some of them aren't fun or interactive to play against. Again, happens most expansions. But like, overall? Barrens is probably middle of the road, average on post-expansion meta. It's what I, and you should, have been expecting. And tbh, I'd rather face a Tickatus warrior or secret paladin where I have a chance and can sort of do something other than just watch a hunter burst me for 30 to the face by turn 5, all out of hand where I can't do anything except play chillwind yeti as my best card.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Nobody talking about Ysera nerf

    Blizzard has confirmed that you will be able to dust old Ysera for full dust compensation due to her dreams getting changed/nerfed.

    Quote from Alec Dawson - "There will be a refund for the old Ysera since her Dream cards have changed."

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on DH OTK is a bug I think?

    When the card was first revealed, Blizzard stated that you only had to have all of the initial amount summoned in order for the next group to be summoned. In this case, the initial 5 have to die in order for the next 7 (or maximum amount) to be summoned. That is the intended function of the card. Also, the card text itself says "If they all die", not "if all seven die", meaning that only the summoned ones need to die. So yes, it still works if you only summon 1.

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