Hearthpwn

Botting accounts are sold for money. They sell accounts with a certain amount of gold and packs for money. From what I've read, it's fairly popular in China. Since registering accounts is free, it's an easy way to make money with an automated process. Aggro decks require little to no strategy to win so can be easily handled with A.I.

I honestly just wish 'Games is Rigged' threads would just be systematically locked. As a mod in this very thread said: it just leads to disinformation and people who spread the falsehood won't accept to be corrected anyway.

You know, you wouldn't lose face or be humiliated by admitting your take on this was misinformed. Quite the opposite, it means you have the ability to learn and correct your thinking after pondering about something. Everyone has a wrong take on things all the time, there's no need to hold on to your original position. The other proponents of the hidden algorithm have stopped replying when they found their position untenable. It'd be nice to have at least one member admitting they're reconsidered.

Did you keep track of your games on HSReplay? If so, do share please. I'd like to see your sample size and the outcome to determine whether or not it's significant. 

Why would I waste time.

Well, we're having a discussion about Hearthstone on a Hearthstone forum, that's kind of the point, isn't? I'm not too bothered about using my time super productively on a card game discussion forum but you do you (I don't get the municipal court analogy here).

The only potentially good argument so far has been the patent which has been barely quoted and explained. The rest is essentially Blizzard rigs the game because I say so.

It's simply far too easy to manipulate player matches, card draw, or rng with algorithms if you understand anything about coding.

Great, explain it. Give examples of a match where a player had spend more money and were given a perfect draw in a given situation against a player who was free-to-play. Explain it to me. Maybe you're right, maybe the game is rigged in that way. I'm only interested in the truth, it's certainly possible that I'm wrong.

I work in an industry where we monitor our customers like rats so we can manipulate them to spend money. 

I honestly feel for you, that sounds soul crushing. 

On the other hand, what proof do you have that the whole ecosystem is not controlled and manipulated? 

I have none, none whatsoever. It all comes down to epistemology. I don't claim that the ecosystem isn't controlled or manipulated, I claim that it's not controlled in the way which is described by other people in this thread so far. That's the difference. Maybe it is controlled and manipulated to promote microtransaction, it would make total sense for a company to do that. BUT, it doesn't mean we can make up how they do it. 

As I said, whenever a consumer queues in a game, the consumer assumes that there are equal chances of winning the game, but again, if you try to read that document, you can find out that you don't have all the time equal chances of winning. 

I did try to read the document, I've told you so in my previous message. You're the expert here, you work in that field and you allegedly understand the document (while I admit I don't), throw us a bone here. You're saying that players don't have 'equal chance of winning'. That's the claim. Now back it up with evidence. What evidence do we have that players don't have equal chance of winning? Maybe there isn't any evidence out there, in that case, we can speculate about it but we can't make assertions about it. See what I'm saying? What does the patent say about that?

I mean, what does 'equal chance of winning' even means? You're using sentences as if they were a given but to me, they're not.

 Is there any explicit information when you queue that you may be queued in games where we can adjust your MMR, giving the opponent a perfect draw, or we may queue you in games just to advertise our cards?

So that's a claim. What's a perfect draw? Give an example. What does 'advertise our cards' mean? Give an example. You're taking all of this for granted, as is it was obvious. Trust me, it's not. 

Thus, you make an assumption based on corporation's trustworthy, I make assumption on a legal document. Who is closer to the truth?

Why don't you ask me what I think instead of telling me what I think? Here's what I think: I don't trust Blizzard, I don't care about Blizzard. I don't think Hearthstone is especially well designed and wouldn't mind if the game ended or failed. I don't think the current team is competent enough to handle such a game. I think most corporations are amoral and the only thing preventing them from doing the worse for humanity is if they're carefully monitored legally and ethically. I don't really think 'drone' fits that mindset. On the other hand, I naturally skeptical and don't believe something just because someone tells me so.

Still, I think the fact that you've used the word 'assumption' yourself at least means that you're well aware that you're speculating about this. The way you were writing your messages had a very factual tone to them: 'Blizzard is rigging the game by doing 'x' 'y' and 'z'' when really, you don't have a clue. That's fine, neither do I. The pushback you're getting is because is essentially because at the end of the day: we don't know if and how the game is rigged. Anyone who pretends otherwise needs to back their claim with proof. That's it really.

You also didn't address any of the points I brought up. I always bring up the same points whenever someone brings up the rigging issue and every single time, without fail, I never get an answer, the member stops responding or avoids responding. I think that's because, if you were to really consider the points I've brought up, you'd realize it's impossible to justify the game being rigged the way it's pretended to be rigged.

To conclude, I do think that if you think about this long enough, you'll realize 'perfect draw' and 'advertise the cards' doesn't make any sense. 

I'm just trying to understand your point of view.

You have a player that spent currency, and one that didn't spent currency. The one that didn't spent currency doesn't queue in the game to get a show off game of the legendary that the algorithm wants him to buy, the player queues to enjoy the game, this is the player assumption, but the algorithm decides to punish him for not spending enough currency, of course, everything in the benefit of the player to improve the deck, skill etc...

I don't understand this paragraph. Maybe someone else could clarify or vulgarize it for me. I've read it and showed it to other people can't make sense of it.

To sum up:

1. A player spent currency and a player didn't. So this means that players are matched based on whether they spend money or not. If they did, they're matched with someone who didn't and vice-versa. What happens if both players have spent currency? They never face each other, is that it? Because I've spent currency and have faced players who have also faced currency so I'm confused.

2. The player who didn't spend money doesn't queue in a game with the legendary Blizzard wants him to buy? Don't you mean the opposite? Wouldn't exposing the non-paying customer to a missing legendary serve as an incentive to then go ahead and buy it? 

3. The player queues to enjoy the game? Which one? The one who pays or the one who doesn't? Both?

4. 

In one implementation, the microtransaction engine may target particular players to make game-related purchases based on their interests. 

How does that apply to Hearthstone? The sniper example makes sense in a FPS but what would player interest be for Hearthstone? Someone who plays control or aggro? Is that it?

This makes sense:

The microtransaction engine may match the junior player with a player that is a highly skilled sniper in the game. In this manner, the junior player may be encouraged to make game-related purchases such as a rifle or other item used by the marquee player.

I'm asking those questions to the whole community. 

 [...] because you can't understand a document [...]

I don't. I don't think you do either. I think you cherry picked bits and pieces to support your argument and are trying really hard to make the piece fit into the puzzle when it doesn't seem to. 

 so it's obvious that there are higher chances of this game being manipulated, no matter how much gaslighting the drones are making.

Let's stick to facts as opposed to insults. If you have a good argument, there's no need to resort to calling people 'drones' who disagree with your take on things. 

I think it's cool you've provided something to back up your claims. I've skimmed through the .pdf but I'm having a hard time understanding what's being explained here. Could you summarize your understanding of the whole thing? I feel that quoting a single part without explaining the general principle might be misleading. 

This is a quote from Dean Ayala from two years ago about Match Making in Arena:

• Your record with your deck is assigned a value.
• The matchmaker attempts to match you with another deck with the same value, but possibly a different record.
• If a match can't be found after some time, it will slowly expand the search range until one is found.
• They have enough data to determine how different records do against each other.

Source: https://outof.games/news/3152-dean-ayala-confirms-how-hearthstones-arena-matchmaking-works-tracked-skill-rating/

Could you explain how the quote above meshes with the matching making patent you've quoted? Now, I realize that this is a quote for Arena matchmaking but I'm assuming it's the same principle for Standard or Wild (although I'm open to be corrected). According to the wiki on fandom, Hearthstone uses different MMR for different types of game, so Standard MMR might be different than Arena MMR. 

I find Dean's quote pretty convincing and it's how I imagine a match making system would work. 

Since the meta changes with new expansion, more powerful decks reach the top with the new card synergies. This, in turn, encourages players to get a hold of the new cards. Isn't that sufficient enough a motivation to drive the game's economy? I think it is. Note that:

• MMR is gained with wins and lost with losses.^[11]
• The amount of MMR gained or lost is dependent on the MMR of your opponent.^[1][11]
• MMR adjustments are not affected by the duration of the match;^[12] or what cards are in either player's deck.^[13]
• Casual mode MMR is adjusted quickly when a player experiences a win or lose streak.^[14]
• While MMR is not used in sub-Legend Ranked matches without a Star Bonus, it is still recorded and altered after each match.^[9] It is unknown whether or not cooperative Tavern Brawls (which do not use MMR for matchmaking) affect the player's MMR.

Bolded for emphasis.

I'd be interested in what you'd have to say about this provided it's backed by data or evidence (as opposed to saying they're lying for example).

You’re being very harsh with them. Give them a break! 
Besides, they’ve learned their lesson this time. Next expansion will have legendary Brann which quadruples battle cries. 

There’s so much work to do. I’d be nice if most games could get past round 4 or 5. Or limit the crystals to 5 maybe. A game with so much potential but so fucking wonky. 

I think you guys are about to blow the lid on that thing. Your investigation is getting closer and closer to the truth, I can feel it! 

I don’t like playing mirror matches. 
1st mirror, concede. Ok, let’s play now. 2nd mirror, concede. Ok, should be good now. 3rd mirror, concede. In a row. 

How did Brann dodge the nerfs again? I auto-concede as soon as it’s played, it’s pretty much a play to win card. It’s funny how Bran was removed before because doubling battle cries was unhealthy for a single turn and then they print it for the whole game. It’s like making a mistake and then making an even worse mistake doing the opposite of what you should’ve learned from your first mistake. Nevermind the fact that you won’t be facing any warrior without that card. 

Warrior: Brann: concede

Warrior: Brann: concede 

It makes me understand playing treant druid just a bit, if only out of complete helplessness. Haven’t reached that point yet. 

Once you’ve hit legend once, reaching diamond is a walk in the park because star multiplier will pretty much get you there. 
Reaching diamond without that is a challenge however, so congratulations!