I was just having a “discussion” in another thread.
We have come to the conclusion that the game is not in fact rigged as some have suspected, and here is the reason these guys have come up with.
I’m paraphrasing a couple of gentlepersons, so bear with me…
“It would be too expensive to pay programmers extra money to rig the game”
This is the new “it’s not rigged” defense. It would be too expensive to rig the game.
I’m glad we have sorted all this out!
Blizzard being a small indie company owned by some dude who got started in his garage…
Glad we settled that!
Carry on!
Edit: A minor copy/paste of an article I read regarding incentives for companies to spend design monies to manipulate the consumer. If you want the source, copy paste and google the following, I’m sure you’ll find it.
" The recent Four Corners report frames the gaming industry as a largely manipulative one. It attacks the industry’s calculated pricing strategies, which can affect how we value in-game purchases.
But these same strategies are also widely used in the [restaurant industry](https:/ /bettermarketing.pub/4-pricing-strategies-restaurants-use-to-make-you-spend-more-money-1ab5a1a86c29). Even supermarkets are designed so [customers spend as much time as possible](https: / /www.sciencetimes.com/articles/27561/20201002/supermarkets-manipulate-people.htm) inside.
Push notifications that encourage play and consumption have a real-world equivalent, too, such as [scent machines at Disneyland](https:/
/foodbabe.com/the-behind-the-scenes-marketing-tricks/) used to boost cotton candy and caramel apple sales.
Yet, we don’t think of these subtle techniques as completely robbing us of our agency. So why does the gaming industry draw so much criticism?
If you want to stay on topic and not be a troll, you could say something addressing the topic of how paying the programmers more money would or wouldn’t affect the quality of the product or the way the product is designed.
"Hey man, I could program the matchmaking to be controllable for every possible situation. "
“That’s amazing! Do it.”
“Well…would I get a raise?”
“On the other hand we do not actually need it…”
“I see…and btw I have found the line in a code that makes all our patches hostile to mobile users. I could fix it if you would give me a …”
“Nah, it’s ok. We do not need that either.”
It is not up to the person rejecting the claim to prove the claim wrong.
It is up to the person making the claim to prove the claim true.
When “The game is rigged!” is rejected because of insufficient evidence to convince someone of the assertion, it is the fault of the person making the claim. If the claim were strong, the evidence would hold water.
Being mad that the claim has bad evidence is not a reason to attack those rejecting the claim.
We’re not claiming “It’s not rigged”. We’re simply rejecting the claim that it is.
Rejecting a claim is not the same as accepting the opposition to the claim.
“I reject your claim that the game is rigged” does not equal “The game is not rigged”.
If this makes no sense to you and you believe them to be equal, you should educate yourself on how debates work.
An incentive needs to be communicated to the target in order to influence their behavior.
Let’s imagine two scenarios. In the first, I put up a sign saying that I’ll buy used PlayStation 5s for $200. In the second scenario my sign simply says “drop off your PS5 here” then wait for someone to randomly give me a PlayStation 5 without discussing what amount, if any, I’ll pay for it, in which case I give them $200 if they do give it to me first. What difference would you expect in the number of PS5s I receive under each scenario?
If your conspiracy theory regarding rigging of matches involves Blizzard creating incentives for players to buy more packs then keeping those incentives a secret, then your theory is bad.
OK, let’s just have a looksee at the proprietary trade secret code in the Blizzard server room.
Oh wait…
OR, you can just play 5 games of mercenaries like I did this morning against the same named opponent, resign 4 times after the first loss, and then face a bot the next match.
It’s almost as if Blizzard has a matchmaking algorithm to prevent win trading… I wonder if other algorithms which sense certain playstyles and respond by manipulating matchmaking might also be running on these mysterious servers…
Maybe there’s a matchmaking algorithm to, you know, pit certain deck archetypes against each other, and maybe this algorithm is being used to put players into unfavorable matchups a few times to incite them to buy packs?
Kinda like the algorithm described in Activision patent US20160005270A1 ?
I mean, you can say there’s “insufficient evidence” all you want, but “insufficient evidence” is subjective.
Even your condescending, ingenuous argument is rigged, since it relies on your opponents to have evidence which only exists on Blizzard servers. It’s easy to “win” an argument when you set the rules of the argument to be impossible to meet.
Oh wait a minute. Silly me! Of course there are ways to determine hidden variables via Bayesian analysis, but I don’t have millions of dollars to put together a statistically significant, carefully cleaned dataset to prove the extent of Blizzard’s greed to 5 sigma or whatever you deem is sufficient proof.
Wild assertions <--------------------------that’s you
Proof asked for wild assertions
“you think they wouldn’t!?” <------------------that’s also you
Proof asked for wild assertions
“I don’t have proof…you think they wouldn’t?” <--------------there you are again
Proof asked for wild assertions
“I don’t have proof…you think they wouldn’t?” <--------------and yet again
0219. In an operation 812, responsive to a determination that the first player purchased the in-game item, the player profile may be updated to reflect the purchase and the first player may be matched (e.g., match variables and/or coeffi cients tuned) to play a second gameplay session in which the in-game item is suitable to be used. For example, if the in game item is a weapon (e.g., an accurate and powerful Sniper rifle), the second gameplay session may be selected because the weapon is highly effective in the second gameplay ses Sion. Doing so may encourage the first player to make Subse quent purchases due to the satisfaction of effectively using the in-game item during the second gameplay session.