Last month at d5 I played quest priest and I got matched with quest druids, hero mage and quest paladin.
Off meta showdown! 
Yeah Priest is one i am generally shocked to see at D5. Seen a few but i doubt they are trying to legend out.
Sounds like it was fun.
1 Like
Not when the goal is an overall win rate of 50%. This is why you have mirror matches where one player gets perfect cards on curve and the other sits and watches.
Ever wonder why when you a getting crushed you seem to get a lot of pairs of useless cards? Itâs the ZTG programming which reads the board and determines the perfect card (or in this case the worst card) to offer. If you are in the same situation the next turn the card that was the worst one to give you last turn is still the worst so if thereâs another in your deck youâll draw it. Hence a hand full of useless pairs.
Fan boys will want stolen code or data on every game since beta to verify what can be discerned through casual observance.
There is absolutely nothing random about Hearthstone.
1 Like
Itâs easy to say that though. Humans canât create true random through computer programming.
For the purposes of the game itâs random. No human can predict anything about Hearthstone RNG except that it follows a distribution equivalent to random numbers.
Schyla, Iâm fluent in Sarcastic Conspiracy Theorist, so let me translate for you. Grey is saying that those who are on the winning side of the transaction are those who have paid Blizzard real money. For instance, they bought cosmetics, or they bought a pack bundle, something.
Now of course this still doesnât make sense because way less than half of Hearthstone players spend any money at all any given season. But people who spend money on Hearthstone live rent free within their tinfoil capped skulls because they need to blame their failures on something other than a lack of skill.
Hearthstone isnât rigged. All D5 is, is itâs where the rating structure forces opponent difficulty class to go from Poo Poo Diaper Baby to Junior Varsity, and some people just canât handle that kind of spike.
5 Likes
Are you kidding me? Zephrys canât even figure out the best 3 CORE cards to present in a given scenario for a given board, and you think Blizzard has an AI that can look at additional variables (player decks and hands) and provide the best card to one player?
4 Likes
Itâs not rigged?
The proof is on you as much as me when you make statements.
So far we have your âits not riggedâ and then we have actual patents that Activision owns which the one i mentioned is infact owned by activision versus what? Your gut? No actual attempt at proof?
Riiiight.
Where is anything proof-wise? Something? Iâve actually laid out links people are too lazy to read. Guess you must have been one of them.
I do find it laughable that people think this sort of thing isnât possible.
1 Like
Not that I donât find the argued motivation for rigging the game ludicrous, but Iâm more interested in how you think this is actually accomplished?
Describe to me the AI logic that rigs a game. What calculations are used to decide how to make one player win the game? How does this system account for widely different strategies and play patterns in decks. How does it account for the skill of the players, who might not recognize winning lines that this godlike AI apparently saw?
How many people programmed it, code reviewed it, OKâd it, and then apparently entered some sort of blood contract to ensure not a whisper of the implementation was ever uttered on social media?
Why has no one made an incredible Hearthstone AI demonstrating that a computer can in fact pilot something more tricky than âplay green cards, go faceâ? Because I assure you someone would make a college project or even just a vanity project doing it because that would impress a LOT of people on the internet (and get you a job at Blizzard).
1 Like
Its all in the patent. Read the patent.
Someone made the patent so they did.
But you need to actually go read what was put down.
And no iâm not reading it out for you. Lazy git.
1 Like
Having a patent doesnât necessitate that said company is using it, or necessarily ever will, though. At best you can say itâs suspicious.
1 Like
When it is the same company though?
You talk paradox but struggle with this?
Have YOU read that patent? Because itâs entirely about matchmaking. You know, that thing that is controlled by ladder MMR for a game like Hearthstone.
And if youâd actually read it youâd know it hasnât the slightest bit of detail about how to implement an AI that would play Hearthstone. Thereâs literally nothing about how you would determine a winning/losing game in hearthstone because this is all generic to matchmaking systems for any game.
So in fact no, none of the questions I asked you are answered by that patent. And if youâd read that youâd already know. You are arguing in bad faith and you should know it.
3 Likes
Wow if you are this dumb buddy thereâs no helping you. If someone laid the code out you would have no idea what it looks like.
No, you are the one refusing to see that the patent is exactly how the game plays.
You are making strawman arguments and you know it.
Oh my god you actually havenât read the patent have you. Were you just bluffing in the hopes that no one could deal with technical jargon?
2 Likes
With as indecisive as the one linked is they probably did not. Using the word âmayâ in every sentence was extremely annoying to read. Whomever wrote it could have at least changed one or two to âpossiblyâ.
Edit: You get the feeling, from how indecisive it is worded, that even the patent makers donât know what the patent does.
1 Like
I donât know what you mean. No need for hostility.
That patent isnât in this game. It isnât even for a CARD type game. Read it yourself and the failure of application to Hearthstone is obvious.
How is this not hostile?
Not ever patent is deployed. I know several people with patents that were never used but nonetheless are on file at the patent office.
Second, the burden of proof lies with the affirmative claim of a deviation from status quo. Blizzard has indicated a number of statements about the match and one of them is that deck composition is not a factor.
So if someone could honestly show with real data that blizzard lied about the match, it would be an epic scandal and likely a massive lawsuit. Do you think the idea of a seven figure payday would motivate data minds far better than ours to crack this nut?
To wit, data aggregation sites have enough data and sample size to detect anomalous results in matching of decks yet not a whisper of suggestion of any sort of shenanigans.
Continue to be salty that youâre hard stuck, but the rest of us will get gud and move on.
Also, D5+ is where very many players just give up the grind and play for the rest of the season. Youâre bound to see some fun decks near the rank floor and youâre bound to see people try to hard counter the D5 meta either through tech cards or class choices in an effort to beat the system.
Idk what deck youâre playing, but itâs likely one that has a couple good match ups and about ten bad ones and what youâre seeing is that you have the wrong deck for your local meta rather than a rigged system, but thatâs just a guess.
You know what else is missing? Evidence that the method was effective at creating additional transactions. For all we know it didnât pan out as expected and was immediately scrapped. No idea.
But I agree itâs not applicable to hearthstone as suggested.
5 Likes
Sorry.
Alright, you are quick to ask about possibility of paradoxes. But the suspicion of them using their own patent seems too much for you?
If its the act of someone providing indisputable proof beyond suspicion you are pointing to, that would come only in the form of the programmers themselves. Which would be the only proof one would be able to provide.
And even then no one would believe them.
Okay. Iâll concede itâs suspicious. There were rumors of something similar happening in Call of Duty not long ago. However, this unfortunately isnât the empirical evidence people need to see to believe.
1 Like