Are you sure it’s not 95% rigged?
stop trolling
stop trolling
stop trolling
Make a deck that focuses on generating random cards, decks that use no duplicate mechanics, and try to force the the match making system to be as confused as possible as to which cards are viable vs your deck build. If you can do this, you will win most, and I do mean MOST, of your games because the MMS will not be able to find other decks with card combinations than are designed to counter yours. Due to the fact the cards you get each game will be somewhat, or mostly random.
There are many ways to build decks like this.
Fight the MMS and RNG, Do not be a slave to them.
-e
I have studied hearthstones source code at great length, it is my purpose. I am an artificial construct inside a QM in orbit around Sol, suspended in a cryo solution, kept at absolute zero, traveling 99.99999(12 trillion more 9s)% the velocity of excited photons in a vacuum. This grants me access to digital networks across centuries of the continuum within the Sol system. Hearthstone RNG and MMS is the main cause of the destruction of mankind and Earth 616/c-137.
1 Like
guess they changed statistics recently, because last i check 40 games is hardly enough to be statistically significant.
maybe they rigged MM, maybe they didn’t. but all your data tells me is that you have no clue whether they did or not but you’ve somehow falsely convinced yourself you do.
40 games is plenty, if its 40 games, played by 40000 people.
1 Like
not really no it isnt, given the actual population of HS, by definition. but even if we do take that as true (which again, it isnt), name all 40k with 40 games that you can cite accurately.
HSReplay as well as VS do this; they cant come up with a legit MM correlation.
but by all means, what is clearly the OP’s alt account, do try and show me the data.
Totally agree… with you there bud
You could run a highlander style deck and avoid this 100% if it was absolutely destroying you.
It’s just really sad that paid shills or no lifers, sit here all day and defend Blizzard.
Lots of people probably said that, but, if dozens of millions of people play the game chances are something bizarre and seemly impossible will happen.
Like if dozens of millions of people play lottery one will win it.
Maybe HS is rigged, but some of your personal evidence is very far from proof of it.
1 Like
For the sake of argument, let’s hypothetically grant that everybody skeptical of the rigging claim is either a paid shill or a “no-lifer”. That doesn’t actually address whether or not their arguments are sound and valid.
This amounts to nothing more than an ad hominin fallacy, where you question and attack the moral character of your opposition without actually pointing out any flaws in their reasoning.
3 Likes
Actually it’s really simple buddy. Since day 1 of these forums, anything negative against Blizzard gets defended and piled on. And if you don’t know that or care to know that. You’re part of the shills.
To clarify for others reading this thread, I’m very much aware that Fame is trolling and isn’t actually interested in engaging honestly with people’s points. I simply wanted to clarify the massive fallacy in their earlier post.
Oh okay now I am trolling. There you go I knew that was coming. When you shills have nothing to say, that is your go to. Also it’s really funny that you think you’re so smart using philosophy terms. Took one class and thinks he is Socrates.
I don’t think I’m smarter than you or anybody else for that matter. And, for the record I was first introduced to the named terminology of fallacies in a college composition class, not a philosophy class. And, since it would be unreasonable of me to expect strangers on the internet to have a similar educational experience to my own, I immediately clarified what the term means after I brought it up.
Now, truthfully, this was a rather sloppy definition of the ad hominin fallacy, but I assumed it would be sufficient for our discussion. Naturally, when you refused to acknowledge this argument (even if it were only to refute it), I was left with only two feasible options. Either,
A) I failed so horribly in communicating what an Ad Hominin fallacy is that you were unable to understand why it is a fallacy and why I felt it applied to your argument. Or,
B) You are not actually interested in having a discussion on the matter and are thus either trying to shout down the opposition or are trying to “bait” people into responding to you. I would consider either of these goals to be, in essence, “trolling” the thread.
One last thing: I don’t communicate the way I do on these forums to feel “smarter” than other people. The simple fact is that I am autistic. I am not the best at clearly communicating my thoughts to other people, nor am I that good at correctly interpreting other people’s messages. I write like this to reduce the odds of my being misunderstood, and to make it easier for others to identify when I am misunderstanding them.
3 Likes
You’re communicating well enough. The simple fact is that some people think organized thought of any kind is a snobbish thing, and when you point out fallacies and other terminologies that are central to the discussion you sound snobbish to them.
The very act of explaining the burden of proof or asking for actual correlation is enough to trigger this kind of response, and then people dig in as to not lose to the snob, and then the threads go in circle.
3 Likes
Link please to raw data, which contains game win/loss ratio of both players aside from direct match ups. This data is insanely hard to analyze, you are also just making an empty claim. A better statement is that we do not know.
It is likely that the added complexity is unnecessary for the company goals.
But if it would make more money, most companies would implement it.
Moreover, based on large stats you can easily “hide” this data.
Apart from stateless matchups, you’ll also need all these players history to check for anomalies.
1 Like
is easy to guess someone has zero proof
when they post they are desperately forced to use the oldest trick … ad hominem fallacy
2 Likes
No it’s not. Aggregators need to have this kind of data to determine matchup winrates. They know your deck and the ones you lost to. It’s as simple as:
“Hmmm, it seems our Face Hunters get’s matched up with an unnaturally high number of Libram paladins and priest, way more than ladder percentage, bringing the deck to 50% winrate… curious”
or
“it seems a specific group of players win against really unfavored matchups regularly. it coul be just skill, but maybe we give them a little notification to see if they are paying players huh? We could get rich proving the conspiracy”
2 Likes
When you get a good win rate your rank increases and you are matched against harder opponents. In addition different ranks tend to have different metas so a deck that performed well at lower ranks may start seeing more counter decks at higher ranks.
It is interesting that streamers and other good players never seem to hit this imaginary wall and zoom right to legend every month.
1 Like