Hearthpwn

Quote from mtmf >>

FFS! How fucking useless and lazy do you have to be to not at least test the one final task after all this shit?

That's beyond ridiculous! Unbelievable! And I'm not sorry for my language, they deserve worse after that.

Edit: The task completes if you buff him to 150+ to do 150 damage in a single attack. At least we can complete this one without waiting for them to fix it.

Ah, it's just 30% of the quests bugged! Nothing too major, right? :P More seriously, it's a mess with all the bugs - but that sums up Mercs as a mode. When bugs persist for entire patch cycles it shows how much Blizz care - and, no, nothing seems to have changed now they have a dedicated team.

This is interesting. You got the bot's output recorded (i.e. the actual parsed data to be analyzed regarding number of rounds)? First time I'm seeing anything of this ilk actually backed up by data.

I presume all of those baron rounds were without taunts or Zap, and we're talking about baron being the first attacked, rather than just first to die? Just making sure we're all on the same page here!

Quote from DeathDragon >>

It depends on merc rarity and the bounty (it seems droprates differ slightly). In general it goes like this:

-You need 2700 coins to max out most mercs (3 skills 5 levels each and 3 equipments with 4 levels. Some mercs have less equipment to max, e.g. Sylvanas has only 3 levels on her deathrattle equipment, whatever it is called)

-Old tasks gives 985 coins to specific merc and some amount to random ones (I'm to lazy to count the exact amount. Those coins are nice early on but since we still don't have duplicate protection they become worhtless later on).  New tasks (for merc that unlock one equipment throught bounty rather than task 7) give 55 more coins, 1040 total.

-As such with the merc already unlock and tasks done you still need 1660-1715 coins. 

-In case of legendary mercs whom seems to be most consistent in terms of bounty reward, you get min. of 15 coins from heroic bounty, rarely 20 and even more rarely an extra pile. I would say that it's rougly 20 coins of average per bounty. For common and epic mercs coins piles seems to be a bit bigger (20 is quite common, sometimes you can get 25).

-Finally 1660/20 is 83 - bounties to do (86 for 1715) . It a bit hard to tell how long it takes to finish a bounty even on average (it depends on you skill, avaible mercs, treasures and the bounty itself) but I would say 15-20 min at least in my case. As such maxing a legendary merc takes 21-29 hours with no extra coins from tasks, packs or ranked rewards (and shop of course).

Of the later bounties, on HC, one is guaranteed coins for the leg, one is completely radom, one is random within the mercs in the party, and two are from the bounty rewards - prior to the guaranteed you had an approximately 28% chance per bundle (and three bundles) to get legendary coins from the bounty rewards. Probably significantly reduced after the change.

This isn't that relevant, though - you're probably doing a lot better with soloing the first HC, or doing it with a team that you need the coins for everyone for. You'll get 15 coins for the merc per run that way, and it's three encounters. Much better for post-crafting, although boring.

I've seen it suggested that you need 10 DRs in a *single turn*. I finally did it after some stalling of the boss to give additional DRs to the adds etc., but suspect that was just luck on it completing. Had a lot of dead mercs - the deathrattles of the adds killed my three, which just added to the pile of DRs. Blizz are working on it, apparently, but with a time limited event and the number of bugs so far... the only redeeming feature is that the merc itself is from the second task, so you shouldn't be missing out on that due to bugs.

This latest patch is an absolute mess, though. Seriously bad implementation, a complete lack of testing... I can understand the task 3 bug, but it's clear by this point that testing doesn't even cover "does this overhaul break basic functionality".

Quote from ArcyroX >>

Quote from fusilli >>

Huh, you people can get into that bounty? I'm experiencing errors when I try to open it.  Using Malf/Guff/Bru/Anacondra/Murky (for coins)/Velen (for 6 bounty Q). No intention on using the latter two, but even removing them it hangs for a good minute or so then drops me to the main menu with an error about "We encountered an error when trying to load this menu". Happens on both N and HC. Basically the same as last night when they locked darkshore just with an error message after rather than an eternal hang.

Error happens immediately after selecting team. Can still enter other bounties, and team is basically the same as the one that just did task 2.

 I am experiencing the exact same thing. Anyone has a solution for this? I would be really annoyed if I miss the event because of some bug.

 The front post is updated with it - they're working on it, but say a workaround is to clear the previous bounty on Normal, and they think the bug is tied to people who only did the previous bounty on HC, not on N.

Huh, you people can get into that bounty? I'm experiencing errors when I try to open it.  Using Malf/Guff/Bru/Anacondra/Murky (for coins)/Velen (for 6 bounty Q). No intention on using the latter two, but even removing them it hangs for a good minute or so then drops me to the main menu with an error about "We encountered an error when trying to load this menu". Happens on both N and HC. Basically the same as last night when they locked darkshore just with an error message after rather than an eternal hang.

Error happens immediately after selecting team. Can still enter other bounties, and team is basically the same as the one that just did task 2.

Quote from Shipmen >>

No. You need one person and the MMR is not relevant. You are testing the meta. Therefore if in 100 matches he will not find (with always the same deck) 23,6% of druid (or around this number) something is strange, otherwise, everything is fine. 

 But the meta will shift between different MMRs. Always has done. Top 100 legend meta will be significantly different to that in, say, silver 10 with a MMR that reflects that. Heck, it'll be different between bottom of legend more fun decks and D5-1 - in this case because of a difference in philosophy for the players.

People say that they play aggro until a certain point for faster and more consistent grinding, as an example.

The core issue is that you're matched based on MMR, which is invisible pre-legend - and that MMR influences your metagame, thus needs to be controlled for. 80%+ of actual science, in my experience, is controlling variables, cutting datasets, and similar.

Quote from Shipmen >>

Well, this is because they had to balance between free-to-play and people who spend. Players are both. Anyway, it is not impossible to think that a face hunter player will find more matches against taunt druid, shadow priest or control warrior (that are not favourable matches) than a ramp druid for example. 

These assumptions are pretty easy to check anyway. We need one person that plays around 100 matches or more with the same deck. Every deck is fine for this experiment. 

If the numbers of his fights are aligned with the numbers in the attachment, everything is fine. If his numbers are not aligned with the numbers in the attachment we can assume that HS is controlled. 

With an experiment like this, there is proof. 

 You need two people at the same rank (and possibly same server - not entirely sure how much variance there is based on that) with roughly the same MMR, realistically - the large datasets show variance between ranks. In practice, this means two legend rank players with a similar rating and different decks.

Also, even just looking at purely the classes, I'd look at a bigger sample than 100 - more like 2-300. I presume you're not planning on looking at 40-50 deck types with 100 sample size, for what should be obvious reasons!

Lightfang's felt weak for a while even in menagerie when compared to Brann shenanigans (brannigans?) or Blackthorne. Menagerie's not too bad, I find; currently sitting at about 7k without pass, though, so not top-tier, and generally only have three tribes because of space until I get amalgams.

If the buddies didn't eat up a space with tribeless then Lightfang would stand more of a chance.

Pretty sure it's just to do the SI:7 Smuggler bounty? Third one along in Onyxia's lair. If it's lcoked, then you need to complete the dragonbone golem one first.

Yep, looks like jousting pulls minions or spells now. Doesn't matter if the casting card it a spell or minion and what other cards are in your deck.

No packs in shop? 

Quote from Shipmen >>

You don't have to leave meta to shift. You have to try it during the same meta. If you let the meta shift during the experiment the whole experiment is pointless. Even though the experiment seems long, it is quite fast. Take a random deck (face hunter for example) and match the opponent and concede 100 times. Are your opponents aligned with 23,6% druids? 

• Yes - So HS is not controlled
• No - HS is controlled

In Vicious syndicate, there are data about different ranks. So you have to choose one accordingly. Anyway, there are some differences, if you check the data, but nothing astonishing. 23,6% druid is the average in all ranks, so it is a reasonable benchmark. 

https://www.vicioussyndicate.com/drr/classarchetype-distribution-data-reaper-report/

There are multiple difficulties with that approach.

Yes, you can't let the meta shift - but you are looking at 'all ranks' in the VS data. Click into the rank breakdown and you will see that the overall 23.6% is all over the place: from 15% at GSB to 38% at 1k legend. There is a 4% difference between the Diamond brackets.
So picking a random rank will not reproduce the same value.

You also cannot try to repeat last weeks results this week because the meta is shifting between weeks (which you can see in the different reports).

The meta is probably also shifting on a daily basis (weekdays - weekend), time of the day (ladder grinders during the day or casuals in the evening) and MMR (the skill to pilot certain decks).

So ideally you would want to break down the VS data to that level to have an accurate goal or in absence of that granularity, play enough games to cover all levels with a large enough sample size.

And then you have to consider the observer effect of you injecting games: if you beat players they might change their deck, if you concede they gain rank and move out of your bracket scope with possible knock-on effects. On top you are gaining or losing MMR, which can put you in a different meta.

So yeah, you want two players with different decks that queue at the same time into the same local meta to generate two data sets that you can then compare.

HSReplay tracks every single game played by it's users. Well over a thousand games minute.

At no stage have they been able to track any kind of pattern in the match-ups and if there were any it would be quite obvious given how many games they record.

People continually post of this forum about being matched up badly when changing decks, seeing fixed RNG working against them, seeing card draws being either too lucky or unlucky to be believable...

But it's all based on annecdotes  at worst, or a short run of tracked games in their personal log at best - neither of which amounts to dick all.

Of course activision Blizzard have IP on all sorts of algorithm, they are heavily in the loot box box business, across nearly all their games. That doesn't mean some of the more nefarious ones are in use in hearthstone - and the second they were people would see.... I mean, err, people that are not so susceptable to conspiracy and paranoia would see...the rest of you see it already when it isn't even there - there isn't much helping you, you've been told so many times now.

Ah yeah that is very poorly worded, ignore any mercs that have an ability with the 'Combo' keyword, what you have to do if I recall correctly is deal 200 damage with his 2nd ability (the combo one)

Quote from Tikku82 >>

The game knows what deck you are playing, and matchmakes you usually with counter decks. Only applies to D5 or better ranks. I have tried everything, but only solution is probably to uninstall. 

 If it's doing this to you, it's doing this to the other guy. If it's doing this to everyone, then WHO EXACTLY IS WINNING?

Dumbass.

Quote from sPacEtiMe19 >>

It’s always funny because people have this unwarranted notion that “control takes skill because it plays more expensive cards. Aggro does not because it floods the board.”

It’s the complete opposite, and anyone of worth knows it. Aggro/tempo decks need to be mindful of how much to commit to the board. You can’t commit so much that one removal blows you out, while committing enough that you threaten the win. 

Control has no decisions to make against the Aggro player whatsoever. You either have the answer to their threats a few turns in a row and win, or don’t and lose. There’s no skill in “hmm, my opponent played a wide board, and I have brawl, should I brawl.” This is a broad example, it makes the point. 

I am a control player, but I hate other control players with this kind of mindset. Playing expensive cards and wanting to play more turns doesn’t mean those turns take more skill. Having more cards in hand does not equate more skill. 

 

 Aggro and control have different playstyles. It's not like one takes more skill than the other, just that the skill you need to develop is quite different from each other. 

Aggro teaches you to value tempo, play cards so they're in play and think about what the opponent could do to remove the board so you play around it.

Control teaches you to value your resources, to exhaust the opponent so you win by card and board advantage.

Depending on the context, you will sometimes be forced to play control as an aggro deck or play aggressive as a control deck so having the knowledge of both archetypes makes you a more complete player.

Variance, you need a bigger sample size.

Quote from Addisono >>

Obviously everyone is going to say it's RNG but I also trust my intuition. What I want to know is: is a bug like this even possible? or can cards secretly have values that make them more commonly eaten or drawn? is it even possible to mistakenly put that in the game? I Know nothing about coding/game programming 

Trusting your intuition is a bad thing when it comes to RNG and probabilities due to biases and us human not dealing well with statistics.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here, though always ask yourself: Why would Blizzard do this? What is their goal and how does this achieve it, without being picked up by the data collection sites? The usual answers like Patent! Zephrys! Money! still don't answer how this rigging would translate to more sales.

Anyway:

Yes, things could be programmed that way. Give each card a weight that modifies a certain interaction with another card. When you have 20 "normal" cards left, drawing a card is 1/20 - but give Mutanus a weight of 3 and suddenly you are looking at a higher chance to draw it.
In the same way they could add a weight for cards to be eaten. But again: why would they?
Could these things be added secretly or by mistake? Secretly, yes - their code isn't open source so we can't check it (which leads to the "you can't prove it isn't rigged!" claim).
Everything by mistake, no. They would need to implement drawing in this way (purposefully giving each card a weight when it's not necessary), then manually enter the weights (they aren't needed in the first place and why manually, if they are supposed to be all the same) and then fat-finger the values specifically for certain cards (how would this happen for Murgur and Mutanus and not be detected internally) and then not pop up on data collection sites afterwards.

While Mutanus and Owl are from different sets, their dev cycle is probably still a year or longer. So an interaction could have been coded into them. Why specifically Owl though and not some other card?

The most likely answer is that eating a random other card is just not memorable enough as you go on and win the game. Having your single combo piece removed means instantly losing, so that creates a lasting impression.

Where are you located? 

Sales Tax / VAT is 19% in my country. What makes you think you're exempt?