No, it’s impossible to prove that something doesn’t exist. That’s the point. Which is why when rigging conspiracists whine that there’s rigging, we ask for proof. Because you can prove that something exists. But it’s faulty logic to turn that around and ask those who are rigging skeptics for proof, because you can’t prove the negative.
It is not hypocritical, and it is not a dodge.
If someone says they have a million dollars in the bank. Or if someone says they have a dragon in the closet. Both those things you can prove do not exist.
Unless I’m miss understanding you, cause sure there are different levels of claims which require different levels of evidence.
You looked in one bank, but did you look in the bank I have money in? No? Well, it’s totally there!
You checked all the banks in my city? Well, banking is national. All the banks in the country? Well, banks are global. All the banks in the world? Well, there’s other planets too, have fun checking them all before you die of old age.
The dragon in my closet is invisible to people he doesn’t like, and he doesn’t like you.
You’ve proven nothing.
My honest answer? I don’t know. It would depend on a variety of factors: how strong the statistical correlation is, how were these games gathered (were these two thousand games by one individual spanning a period of several months or collected from more players over a shorter timespan?) etc.
Most importantly, it depends on the specificity of the particular manner in which Blizzard is rigging Hearthstone that would determine what would be sufficient evidence to convince me. This is why I often try to determine what exactly the person means by “rigging” so that I can work together with them to devise an experiment that I would find convincing.
An all you have done is moved the field goal whenever someone gets close to proving it does not exist.
Stretching it into the “fantasy realm” does not make it impossible to disprove. It just shows how dishonest you are.
If 1 HS players would have examples of “rigged” matchmaking then we have more evidence for that then your claims of a dragon or million dollars
Completely. Which is exactly what the rigging conspiracists do whenever presented with actual information, like, say, the statements of the developers.
I could give a thousand reasons why you can’t see the dragon in my closet, and you’d have precisely zero reason to believe me that it’s there unless I actually showed that it exists.
Of course I’m being dishonest about the dragon in my closet. OR AM I!??!?!?
And they haven’t. Not once. Not in the last seven years of whining have they ever presented any evidence whatsoever that it is happening. Just mad speculation, salty whining, and rambling about the inherent evils of corporations (not that they explain why rigging the game would make money, either).
Have you seen every person who made this claim and seen I’d they provided evidence or not? As far as we know maybe there has been a person or two that did crack this. An they was just laughed off.
A company like blizzard doing some shady sh*t is 100% in the realm of possibility.
I mean it would help OPs case if they had a sample size. Even then people quickly write it off without evidence themselves to disprove it.
Sample size is what its all about.
I can go into a town of population of 500 people. Round up everyone above age of 60 and ask what kind of music they like. And then post this of the web with a heading: 95% of all Americans like Rolling Stones!
Yes. I have been here the entire time and seen them all.
Your sample size/results would be accurate but the only thing that would be false is your title and how you presented it.
If that would be the case then a company doing shady sh*t is the less of your worries lol.
Yep. It’s completely no skin off my nose whether they do or do not rig the game.
and this is exactly what OP and people like him are doing. They taking their sample size of 20,30 maybe 100 games and making a claim that its true for millions of players and 100s of millions of matches.
And they conveniently ignore the third-party sites that do have records of millions of matches that show not even a whiff of anything untoward, and who also have huge incentive to provide the single biggest scoop in the history of fan-driven data sites.
So those sites don’t show that decks stay at a 50% win rate
They don’t. The deck matchup distribution is what forms the core dataset for the balance whining from the rest of the playerbase that isn’t deluded into thinking that Blizzard cares that they, specifically, not climb the ladder.
This is where I am coming from, which I posted elsewhere -
I LOVE playing Hearthstone,…especially the Battlegrounds. So, since it is my favorite I have a question/request.
I may be wrong, but I believe this particular game has been programmed in such a way to manipulate the players psych. Between the cost of the cards and tier leveling up, the hero’s health, these three items create a time narrowing that does not allow the player to completely finish their warband.
Yes, while I understand the object is to ‘win’, the motivating factor which brings players back to play again, is the incompleteness of forming the ‘perfect’ set of minions.
While it may, and does, satisfy blizzard’s need to have recurring players, this model of game style does not satisfy the player,…but then that is the point, right?
Players love the game, until it becomes an unobtainable goal.
Just give us a little more please: lower the cost of minions, give more health. I’m all for more health, like 60. It would allow for more rounds. Yes, I know there is a hero who starts off with more health and, yes, I know there are numerous hero combinations. Thank you for listening. Michelle
Bruh BG is a buy in 20 bucks every 4 months. Why the hell rig something that cheap? There are no prizes to win. At least with normal HS you can keep spending money on it making rigging make more sense. But BG? The idea is just silly.
This is actually a very interesting insight, and you’re not entirely off the mark with it. This is actually a core part of the philosophy of designing Deckbuilding Rogue-likes (Slay the Spire, Griftlands, etc…), where the goal is to have the “end of the run” (final boss or whatever) happen right around or slightly after the deckbuilding is “complete.”
Now, I don’t really play Battlegrounds, so I cannot say how similar it is to deckbuilding roguelikes, but I could see similar design ideas in play. If creating and building up synergies is a core appeal of Battlegrounds, then I could see it being a good design philosophy to set the length of the game such that it scratches that itch without leaving it fully satisfied.
Exactly!!! I’m glad someone understood what I was trying to say,…you put it into words much better than I. However, I disagree with the ‘good design philosophy’ from a player POV.