Notice that you didn’t attack the logical explanation at all…you simply moved on to a money argument that has nothing to do with the programming logic I presented.
Like Killuminati said, it’s paradoxical. If games are being rigged against you, that must also conclude that games are being rigged FOR someone else (including you sometimes). You don’t see any threads about people complaining about always playing decks they counter easily. In fact, you see absolutely zero data about that. Thus, it has to logically be concluded the opposite doesn’t exist either.
Read the post i provided with links above, because clearly you aren’t reading my posts clearly if you missed the massive thread with proof and links and all the fun stuff.
You didn’t do 1600 posts just like the other guy. You read the top and walked.
Your refusal to even look at it all before replying tells me you don’t care about this at all you are just like the other guy, here to argue and push a silly narrative about paradoxes in programming.
I don’t have time for your stupid anymore. It hurts too much.
Just so you know from here on, I’m not reading your posts but just posting under it to keep the flow going.
Most of us read and participated in that thread as it was new. We’ve read all this crap before.
Except that thread has no actual proof, which is the point… neither do you.
I will summarize your position here: starting at D5 blizz makes you face only hard counters to frustrate you into buying more cards.
So when I have all the standard cards do I get free wins to frustrate people like you? Do you have any evidence, real hard proof, that frustrated players spend more? Why do they wait so long to make you buy cards instead of silver or platinum? Is it everyone or just a few people that get this treatment?
I’d love for you to elaborate more on your conspiracy fever dream because I find this sort of lunacy fascinating.
Also, you were the one who got hostile the first time someone disagreed with you.
So just like you, i’ve read this crap before, same argument and participated in this same thing before as well.
So what? Its a forum? If you don’t care to read it and participate then scroll on.
You can summarize everything you want man its a forum. you are adding your input. Thank you for that. But its also nothing new.
And no the hostility was coming from one person that is finished posting. But now you are bringing new forceful oomph to it like i should get ready to debate you annnnnd…
Nah. The links are there which is what everyone wants. You go read it all and come back after looking at all the links that do even point to the patented code that does exactly what you figure it would do and come back.
Otherwise, i’m done reading your crap too and just like the “paradox” people i’ll have ignore your crap too. There’s no point in continuing if you won’t go read and give input on what has been laid out.
That is for a different type of game and isn’t used in HS. The devs have directly stated that patent is not in this game.
I have already read it before you brought it here today. It’s a common topic and oft referenced thread. It should be required reading for new forum goers for sure.
Translation: You have no good answers and so you want to use faith instead of reason and you are ending the discussion because one can’t prove faith.
I have read the entire thread. Nothing in it proves anything related to rigging. Scroll through it… you’ll find I have lots of posts there in that actual thread…
Here’s a clipping out of the patent i linked up above. Stop me if this sounds familiar to anyone.
“For example, in one implementation, the system may include a microtransaction engine that arranges matches to influence game-related purchases. For instance, the microtransaction engine may match a more expert/marquee player with a junior player to encourage the junior player to make game-related purchases of items possessed/used by the marquee player. A junior player may wish to emulate the marquee player by obtaining weapons or other items used by the marquee player.”
“In one implementation, when a player makes a game-related purchase, the microtransaction engine may encourage future purchases by matching the player (e.g., using matchmaking described herein) in a gameplay session that will utilize the game-related purchase. Doing so may enhance a level of enjoyment by the player for the game-related purchase, which may encourage future purchases. For example, if the player purchased a particular weapon, the microtransaction engine may match the player in a gameplay session in which the particular weapon is highly effective, giving the player an impression that the particular weapon was a good purchase. This may encourage the player to make future purchases to achieve similar gameplay results.”