Attention: The game is NOT rigged after all!

[Schyla-1490]

If I have a gun in my house, is it proof that I’ve used it to shoot someone?

Notice how you didn’t answer the question. So I’m assuming you realize the answer is “No”.

@Henjam-1869

Are you asserting that Blizzard is worthy of trust?

I didn’t assert anything. You did.

“The game is rigged” is a claim. <-----see, that’s you

Claims require proof of their assertion. <------that’s me

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.

You’re pretty bad at this.

[Henjam-1869]

You are the one demanding, on a video game forum, an unreasonable standard of “evidence” to prove claims that many already know are true via shared anecdotal evidence.

If the fact that Activision has a patent on rigged matchmaking to entice microtransactions is not evidence enough that they find value in it, and are therefore using it, then a proponent of the rigged MM argument is left to either risk jail time to obtain highly secret server-side code of Blizzard (the code which is described in the patent), OR, to do a million dollar statistical analysis to prove the obvious.

These are not hoops any reasonable person would be willing to jump through, to prove their case to some rando on HS forums.

I think you know that fact, and you are relying on that fact in order to “win” internet points.

Here, take them lol. Clearly there is no reasoning with you. You “win”.

[Schyla-1490]

@Henjam-1869

anecdotal evidence

The plural of anecdotal evidence is not data.

You are now just upset that I require evidence equal to the wild assertion. You provided none whatsoever. All you have at best is “But they can” and confirmation bias. That is all.

Yet another alt has failed to do anything to substantiate the claim that Blizzard rigs games as has everyone else before you. Color me shocked.

Why can’t you go into the game and show demonstrable evidence that others could reciprocate to show that the game is indeed rigged?

I’m not asking you to jump through hoops. You put the hoops up claiming they exist. By making an assertion, it is by default you who must ask yourself to jump through them.

Asking someone for evidence of a claim is not some new thing I invented. It’s literally how the world works. Your refusal to do so and then claim I’m the problem is just a direct representation of your confidence in said claim. Or, as others put it so eloquently, you are writing checks your own behind can’t cash.

Until you come back with some demonstrable evidence of rigging that can be confirmed, you’re a waste of time.

[Henjam-1869]

I proved my assertion to my satisfaction by linking an Activision patent describing rigged matchmaking to drive microtransactions.

Whether it’s proved to yours is really of no concern to me. The only reason I even responded to your post is because I don’t like quasi-intellectuals beating up on little kids on video game forums without getting a logical comeuppance.

Some of us plebians are smart enough to notice your commission of numerous logical fallacies in your “arguments” though (ad hominems, strawman, etc. etc.) And, apparently, some patricians aren’t as smart as they think they are.

Nice “debating” with you, lol.

[Elchar-11130]

The question is, why build a massively complex algorithm to get 50% winrates when a simple MMR system will get the same outcomes for much less initial and ongoing effort.

Your silly idea was shot down at the first design meeting.

[SumsiDumsi-2915]

LUL, it’s known for years that Hearthstone is a rigged trash game.

[Scr0tieMcB-1291]

@Henjam-1869

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.

FROM THE PATENT lol

Yes, it’s from the patent. But do you understand what it means?

It’s saying that IF you queue onto a map that favors sniper rifles without owning the sniper rifle and afterwards buy the sniper rifle microtransaction THEN it’s more likely to put you on that same map the next time you queue up. Because you probably bought the sniper rifle for that map and you probably want to try your new toy out right away.

It’s not saying that it’ll match you against players who don’t own sniper rifles — indeed, it’s implying the opposite, that you’re more likely to be matched with other players who just bought the sniper rifle microtransaction. And it’s not indicating a permanent change in matchmaking variables — it’s a one-shot.

This particular aspect of the Activision patent for Call of Duty microtransactions doesn’t have a Hearthstone application, because Hearthstone doesn’t have maps that effect gameplay.

[Henjam-1869]

If you read the last few pages of the patent (pages 26-27 on the pdf) it’s a little clearer.

It doesn’t say anything about putting you on the same map. It says in a play session, which means like you open up the game, play it, and then leave or go afk.

The gist of the process is that they keep a “player profile” of you, to secretly keep track of what you might like in the game. So for instance in HS, you might notice that you get offered those dynamic bundles in the shop sometimes that are tailored to you. If you play a lot of Wild, they give you wild bundles, if you like golden cards, they give those, etc… I don’t really have a problem with using play data like this.

What’s scary is the patent says that if Blizz sees you playing a particular archetype often (like pirate warr), they will rig MM to put you against a decent counter (like kazakusan) to make you big mad. Then you log out and make a purchase of a premade deck/packs to play whatever new faceroll archetype you think is next.

The part of the patent you quoted explains that if you do make that purchase, then the next time you play, MM may be rigged so that your shiny new deck is more likely to win, and the resulting dopamine hit incentivizes further purchases.

There are other points on the last few pages of the patent about the whole manipulative process.

[Scr0tieMcB-1291]

@Henjam-1869

It doesn’t say anything about putting you on the same map.

It doesn’t use the word “map” because of how patent law works. Activision wants the patent to have maximum applicability so that another developer can’t use their idea in a game that isn’t a first person shooter. Because of this, a patent lawyer goes through the entire document and replaces all specific words with vaguer words.

But by session here, they mean a digital place where online players gather to play each other. In the terms of a first person shooter, that’s a map.

@Henjam-1869

What’s scary is the patent says that if Blizz sees you playing a particular archetype often (like pirate warr), they will rig MM to put you against a decent counter (like kazakusan) to make you big mad.

No, it doesn’t say this anywhere. What It’s trying to do is: among a mountain of other matchmaking variables like skill and availability,

1. determine how much a player would desire a particular microtransaction, and
2. put players into situations that would make them further desire that microtransaction (e.g. put them in a game with other players who have it).

Now it is worth noting that the matchmaking specifically says it tries to predict future available for players who haven’t queued up yet, including for players who aren’t even logged in yet. That’s creepsville. But it’s not saying what you’re saying at all.

Now if we applied this to Hearthstone, it wouldn’t be queuing you against specific counters. It would be queuing you against players who have what you want. For example, if you played a lot of Druid with the default portrait, it might pair you up a lot against a player with a paid Druid portrait, or vice versa. Or maybe even, if they applied it to cards and you were running Spell Druid without Kazakusan because you didn’t have it, they might queue you against a player who does. Or maybe you’re not playing that Spell Druid right now but they know you have it built all but that one card, that Kazakusan, sitting 29/30 in your Collection, so they queue you against that more.

But nowhere in this patent is there anything about making Call of Duty players mad. That doesn’t help them at all. They’re trying to make them envious, silly.

[Boreas-1179]

after all this time…there are still people claiming making people mad makes them spend money ???

[Marcoscongas-1413]

This whole thread is smoke and mirrors.

Nothing is true.

Starting with the assertion that someone, quite possibly someone with the tag marcoscongas, said it’s too expensive.

I said it’s cheaper foregoing the rigging, and merely hire internet trolls to spread the conspiracy theory that it’s rigged for paying costumers. Because the money doesn’t come from the rigging itself. It comes from the belief that it’s rigged.

Like how those megachurch pastors and professional quacks make money.

[Paf-11558]

Actually, the sarcasm is obvious. Good job detecting it.

What you overlooked due to your prejudice and anger was the point of this thread.

How is “Blizzard doesn’t have the money to pay programmers to rig the game” even a REMOTELY decent defense to this long-standing issue?

While I rarely agree with you, I respect your intellect on these forums. Your logic, not so much. Let’s see if you can address the question, I just posed without getting sidetracked.

I’ll wait.

Just in case you already forgot.

How is “Blizzard doesn’t have the money to pay programmers to rig the game” even a REMOTELY decent defense to this long-standing issue?

Just copy and paste that and answer it. I’m super curious.

@Marcoscongas-1413

Because the money doesn’t come from the rigging itself. It comes from the belief that it’s rigged.

Where’s the meme…

How about BOTH?

@Henjam-1869

I mean, you can say there’s “insufficient evidence” all you want, but “insufficient evidence” is subjective.

Side note: I have no idea if the game is rigged. I do however see many things occur that would suggest “something” is going on. You can search these forums and verify my consistency.

“Insufficient evidence”, yes. There is a theme amongst the Blizzard Avengers that “we” can’t prove a negative. “They” don’t have to prove it’s not rigged, we have to prove it is rigged.

Fine, whatever.

But “Because Blizzard said it’s not” and other Blizzard provided documentation is their foundation for the way the game runs.

These people also were told how Christmas “runs” and found out early in life the truth and probably cried for a while.

This thread, like all others has been hijacked with massive deflection by the Blizzvengers.

The topic focuses on one very specific “defense” which was fumbling around yesterday, that Blizzard wouldn’t bother to pay programmers “extra money” to rig the game. And my mind was BLOWN.

What company would make a financial investment to make more money! This is an absurd notion! /s

It was one of the most ridiculous notions ever.

[Izizero-1732]

@Henjam-1869

that many already know are true via shared anecdotal evidence

Say what? Do you also believe in Unicorns and Snake People?

God, you people aren’t even aware enough to understand how dumb this kind of thing makes you seem by association.
Shared anedoctal evidence points to Gnomes existing. It points to literally every single God ever existing all at once. Shared anedoctal evidence points to crocodile in the sewers.
Please tell me you are just playing devil’s advocate.

@Henjam-1869

If the fact that Activision has a patent on rigged matchmaking to entice microtransactions is not evidence enough that they find value in it, and are therefore using it, then a proponent of the rigged MM argument is left to either risk jail time to obtain highly secret server-side code of Blizzard (the code which is described in the patent), OR, to do a million dollar statistical analysis to prove the obvious.

Luckily, we already run this kind of thing. It’s called having a metric ton of players. Players by themselves ran statistical analysis when Nat Pagle was burned, and ratted out an theoretical 50% draw chance that was bugged, in a card that was hardly used, simply because they could. The fact you can’t collect data does not mean everybody is so incapable.

You seem to be woefully ignorant of the computing power a metric ton of people has.

@Henjam-1869

These are not hoops any reasonable person would be willing to jump through, to prove their case to some rando on HS forums.

I think you know that fact, and you are relying on that fact in order to “win” internet points.

Here, take them lol. Clearly there is no reasoning with you. You “win”.

Your whole point is that you’re too lazy to actually address your own point dude. If you’re so lazy, at least believe in the deck tracking services that found nothing after nothing

[ERNewb-1306]

Lol, I would be happy with a 50% win rate… I’ve played at least 30 games in the last two days and I’ve won maaaaaybe 8 of them.

[Killuminati-11956]

I give you an A+ for persistence. I think you have failed at trolling, though, @Paf. We all know your position, and there’s no need whatsoever to try and be entirely disingenuous here.

It’s fine if you believe the game is rigged based on the anecdotal evidence (which isn’t evidence by the standards of many users here). What you need to overcome here is the data collected over the years by aggregates like HSReplay that have never demonstrated rigging. Data analysts like Vicious Syndicate would have also noticed this very early into their endeavor.

And so what is essentially happening here is you must conclude that these websites are in on the conspiracy. Ultimately, this hypothesis falls under its own weight because it approaches a statistical certainty that someone involved, at some point, would have leaked evidence of matchmaking manipulation in the way you and others suspect.

[Paf-11558]

@ßƐƐ-1741

we have data

I just noticed this.

“We”

Hmmm. so my speculation a few days ago that Blizzard employees use these forums indiscreetly is gaining more evidence.

And Bee, if I’m wrong where is this date “we” have? Could you share “your” data? Or would your job frown upon that?

[Marcoscongas-1413]

You really don’t know straw manning is a fallacy?

I have already specified I didn’t say that Blizzard doesn’t have the money.

This is really aggravating. You started a whole thread because of a straw man.

[Paf-11558]

@Killuminati-11956

It’s fine if you believe the game is rigged

I wish you would read. More listening, less typing.

@Paf-11558

Side note: I have no idea if the game is rigged. I do however see many things occur that would suggest “something” is going on. You can search these forums and verify my consistency.

98% of my banter is simply a mental exercise, like an old lady doing a crossword puzzle so she doesn’t lose her wits.

I am playing devils advocate.

I don’t care about this game that much. But when I see someone say Blizzard would have no incentive to rig the game, I grit my teeth and disagree.

I’m not saying it’s rigged.

I’m saying you can’t know that it’s not.

Because Blizzard said so?

Careful who you trust.

Oh yeah, Bee said he has millions of points of data he’s going to share. So we can see what he shows us later.

[Killuminati-11956]

Think about a company like Blizzard. Greedy as hell, right? Would they invest in an elaborate and very advanced algorithm to lure players into probably quitting or just maybe spending money? Or would Blizzard use a basic matchmaking algorithm, that’s immensely cheaper, to accomplish that same thing?

Edit: It’s also worth noting that the latter option runs no risk of exposure and a huge financial hit.

[Paf-11558]

Why would you assume the “rigging” would promote quitting?

See? This is the sidetracked logic I can’t stand.

You can’t admit for one minute that frustrating a player would make them SPEND MORE in a video game?

You just CANT admit that?