Do you play to the worst case?

[Altair-2432]

@Carnivore-2587

Someone telling you they don’t believe something but they consider it a chance because the code is black box they don’t do “tin foil”; they literally do good scientific rigor

Lol, give me a break. If you had a modicum of scientific rigor, you’d be saying what I said above, not that there’s a chance it’s a conspiracy.

Let me repeat what I said because I have a feeling you got triggered before reading this and couldn’t comprehend any of it, if you even read it:

@Altair-2432

It’s a normal functioning of the MMR system, as it seeks to find the most fair match for you. Yes, they DO want you to win 50% of the time, not just because then you should be playing more, but also because that’s what balance looks like. But the way it’s accomplished is quite logical.

When you’re on a winning streak, you get matched against either:

a) similar opponents who’re also on a highroll streak, or
b) better opponents who are on “normal” or lowroll streak.

If the probability of winning against a) is 50%, as it should be, and the probability of winning against b) are lower than 50%, then the expected winrate in those situations will be an average of the two, which means less than 50%. If a system is working exactly as it’s intended and described, as MMR system does, can it really be called “rigging”?

This explains your doubts rationally and if your mind was at least a little bit scientific, you’d have assumed this long before assuming the game’s rigged.

But it’s not. It’s a broken chat gpt module stuck in reading about psychological trauma, bullying and the rest of western popular psy-pop crap, whose narcissistic wounds conjured up an image of yourself as a matter-of-fact scientist with 100% rational mind, when the reality couldn’t be more opposite than it is.

[Carnivore-2587]

@Altair-2432

saying it’s a conspiracy.

assuming the game’s rigged.

a broken chat gpt module stuck in reading about psychological trauma

You can talk to a strawman all you want, it’s not me. You do the most typical mistake found on gaming forums; you can’t handle the arguments; you turn others into monsters with lies so that you handle them easily in your imagination.

Nobody told you it’s a conspiracy; I told you it’s not certain how it works; if you think you are certain give us proof of your credentials as an employed programmer at blizzard.

[Scr0tieMcB-1291]

@Carnivore-2587

Nobody is literally calculating the odds to a singular number.

The entire point is that you can’t calculate it precisely. That’s what makes it fun.

I don’t know if they do this anymore anywhere, but when I was growing up libraries and restaurants would do this thing where they’d take a big jar and fill it with jelly beans (or something else small) then you could enter the contest by guessing how many jelly beans were in the big jar, with the closest entry winning some silly prize. The entire point of the contest was that, unless you have x-ray vision, you can’t see through the jelly beans to count all the jelly beans, even though you can see into the jar.

That’s an “infinite” time estimation problem, but Hearthstone is trying to create time pressure estimation problems.

[Carnivore-2587]

Yes, while the inputs of probability and probable outcomes aren’t clear: the conclusions may be VERY clear in this context. A good player may think “high probability X modest benefit” is better than “low probability X good benefit” but both are worse than “low probability X OTK”; they may be wrong and they may miscalculate; but it’s possible to be right and it improves with experience and knowledge.

[kewl-21106]

@Scr0tieMcB-1291

The entire point is that you can’t calculate it precisely. That’s what makes it fun.

Tell that to the developers, who think the real fun comes from the ‘explosiveness’ of turn swings.

[yellovvsnovv-1935]

@Scr0tieMcB-1291

I don’t know if they do this anymore anywhere, but when I was growing up libraries and restaurants would do this thing where they’d take a big jar and fill it with jelly beans (or something else small) then you could enter the contest by guessing how many jelly beans were in the big jar, with the closest entry winning some silly prize. The entire point of the contest was that, unless you have x-ray vision, you can’t see through the jelly beans to count all the jelly beans, even though you can see into the jar.

Funny you should mention this anecdote.

There’s a book, I believe called “the wisdom of crowds” which summarizes research into studies like this. It turns out, if you ask enough people, with enough variation in the people’s background, and take the sample mean, you actually get eerily close to the correct number. And this is repeatable.

This suggests that if you draw a person at random from a population and ask them to estimate something, they will be likely wildly off. But due to evolution or some other mechanism, human intuition on average is actually quite good at estimating, only if many many people are consulted and their opinions are factored in.