Some are but some are just trolling
It’s all just trolls down here now, lurking under the bridge to the tavern. Some are funnier than others
See through the darkness, search for the light
This happens a lot, that’s why we need to remember to act like Jesus would, face fears and own up, there is no shame only lov3e
1 Like
The worst part about being a genius… is the loneliness.
Amirite?
1 Like
Unless you happen to know a few more. Then you can hang together. Same interests are a nice bonus.
if developers want to show there is no algorithm or script behind plays, we have to able to see detailed log for deck, turns and changes about all after game.
Play game with never paid profile and you can predict more what is going to happen.
Just today i had 5 mana battlecry steal minion and my opponent put 4. Minion on board which was big mistake 3 1/1 minions and one life steal rush 15/10 . i was going to steal but guess what he cast random spell and targeted fourth minion and killed it.
Another thing i put 12 bombs in opponent deck which has 16 card with total. Board was full exactly lethal. Guess what he didn’t pull any bomb and didn’t trigger.
i want to see each turn records clearly after game in detailed log. Of course there is possibility this log can be created while match is running but, devs has to show players at least starting deck log detailed. So there has to be 2 logs before game start pure decks. Another log for running match . Detailed record for both situation. That won’t never happen because that’s the point of manipulate players and give them feel like they are lucky and winning. Give them moments.
Only players can trust no algorithm with detailed logs. Starting hand and decks.
And another one in game match running log.
2 Likes
If a card gets burned at the start of the game, and it is the one card out of your 40 that would have destroyed the pre-made deck you are up against, 100% no matter what you do you will lose that game.
It’s always confirmation that the Algo has decided the other player is the winner.
Nothing will change it. If you are a mage and play those puzzle box spells and other spells that do random stuff none of it will be helpful, in fact most will be detrimental to you.
Example: Up against the roge with a magick weapon that keeps enchants and right at the start out of all your cards your weapon stealer card gets burned. Guess what. You lost that game no matter what you do.
Normally, the game won’t put you up against the magick weapon if you have weapon stealer card. The only time it will is if they have weapon stealer card to steal it back. Not kidding about this.
4 Likes
You’re overstating, if you say that you have a ‘genius level IQ’
Einstein said it best: ‘Everyday I learn something new, and it makes me feel like a fool!’
‘The ultimate truth is the knowlege of just how much you do not know!’
Not necessarily, one can accurately state their IQ especially at the genius level. You are however correct that there is wisdom in knowing ones own flaws and limitations and what they may-not-know-even-if-they-know, it’s true that genius can be mistaken or make errors. Fortunately for us all SilentStorm is indeed the real deal
The reason I state I have a genius level IQ is because it is very important to the discussion.
Lower IQ brains do not work the same way as higher IQ brains and will not see patterns, or if it is low enough like under 90 they may not even have abstract thinking.
This is why some people will swear they don’t see any patterns the way the algo does things because they can’t and never will.
IQ studies on prisoners found one thing that most prisoners share.
They can’t do hypothetical situations in their brain for an example. (Consequences for their actions would be an abstraction) There brains cannot go into that kind of deep thinking.
People with 90 and under IQs cannot do hypothetical situations. Also, these same people would never be able to recognize algo patterns over time.
This is why it is important to state I am genius. And I think you agree my cognitive abilities and abstract thinking are very high on the scale when you consider at 10 years old I solved the Rubik’s Cube in one day.
2 Likes
To determine which of the strings of coin flips are random and which are rigged, we need to look for patterns and deviations from expected randomness. In a random sequence of coin flips, we expect approximately equal numbers of heads (H) and tails (T), and no discernible patterns or biases over the groups of coin flips. Here’s an analysis of each string:
A: THTTTHHTTTTTTTTHTTTHHHTTT
- This sequence has 10 H’s and 15 T’s, which is fairly imbalanced. However, it doesn’t show obvious repeated patterns, so it could be random but might have some bias toward tails.
B: HTTTHTHHHTTHHTHTTHHTHTTTH
- This string contains 11 H’s and 14 T’s. It also exhibits a more varied structure and balance in block sizes (groups of heads and tails), which makes it seem more random compared to A.
C: TTTTTHHTTHTHHHHTTHTHTHTTT
- This string has 9 H’s and 16 T’s, exhibiting a long run of tails at the beginning, which is less expected in random sequences. While not conclusively non-random, the long repetition hints at possible rigging.
D: THTHTHTHTTHTHTTHHTHTHTHTT
- This sequence is very structured, alternating between heads and tails until the last six flips, where it has two tails followed by two heads. The highly regular pattern suggests this string is rigged.
E: HHHTTTHHHHHHHHHHHTHTHTHHH
- This sequence features long runs of heads and tails. It has 14 H’s and 11 T’s, with some structure but also some randomness in placement. Still, the clustering of heads could indicate a deviation from what we expect from a truly random sequence.
F: HHTHTTHHHTTHTTTHHTTHHTTHH
- This string contains 11 H’s and 14 T’s. While it has some groupings, it doesn’t have the type of structure seen in D. The mix of heads and tails seems more consistent with randomness, but the number of tightly grouped segments might indicate it’s also rigged.
Conclusion:
- Random : B, F (preferred for their cluster patterns but overall varied placement)
- Rigged : A, C, D, E
Overall, the sequences that present clear patterns and significant imbalances compared to expected randomness are suspected to be rigged, while those with a more random distribution of ups and downs in counts, along with a balanced number of heads and tails, are more likely random.
True or false, you can’t prove it.
In reality, this test was really NOT FUN, has no interest and above all, proves nothing, which is why I don’t think anyone tried to answer it…
A coin can come up tails or heads an infinite number of times in a row.
The 1st flip does not influence the next flip.
2 Likes
That’s true.
However, just for information, a scientific study has proven that the “heads or tails” success rate is not 50% but approximately 51% / 49%.
The correct answer is that ACE weren’t rigged and BDF were. I included a hint in the test which would remind me, even months later, what the answers were: in this case the clue was “hotshot” (ace).
You got one out of six correct. This is because your theory on how to differentiate rigged from nonrigged is complete nonsense. You are exactly the “randomness-blind” person that I was talking about, and in your hubris you believe that you are not.
So…while technically “a scientific study” may have resulted in 51%/49%, that does not actually prove anything. For scientific study to be proof, requires multiple scientific studies, repeating the same experiment, and achieving the same result. For instance, another scientific study showed the success rate as 49%/51%. Another showed it as 50.5%/49.5%. Do enough studies (infinite studies in this case, ideally), and the only thing that gets proven is it actually does reach 50%/50%. Any deviations from that are just that, deviation. It also depends significantly on the control variables remaining the same. Coins may be unbalanced weight wise from one side to another. A mechanism flipping the coins may cause different results based on fluctuations. Even atmosphere composition at the moment (humid vs non humid, etc) affect the result. Anyways…just wanted to help clear up what the actual truth is.
So I took about an hour and made a visual aide — a graph — to explain what you got wrong and how.
https://i.imgur.com/FmrTQqo.png
Let’s go over the important points.
- As the number of coinflips increases, the length of the average streak INCREASES. There is no cap; if you flip infinite coins, then at some point you will flip infinite heads in a row. This is counterintuitive to most people.
- As the number of coinflips increases, the deviation from 50% heads 50% tails decreases, which is intuitive to most people. However, at the same time, the raw difference between heads and tails tends to INCREASE; that is, the absolute value of wins minus losses tends to go UP, not down. Again, no cap; as coinflips approach infinity, the absolute value of wins minus losses approaches infinity. This second part is counterintuitive to most people.
When I designed the algorithm to rig the trap answers in my test, I designed it to conform to the intuition that people have about point #1. I made it significantly less streaky than actual randomness. People who are familiar with the streakiness of true random, long strings (such as 25 coin flips) should have no problem passing my test; people relying on “common sense,” which is BS, get it wrong.
You responded to posts I made about two months ago, after which I received an unusually long and, in my opinion, unfair forum ban. I don’t remember what my mood was then, and it’s likely changed since. But here’s my point now:
Randomness is counterintuitive. It is hard to understand. But this does not mean that I consider randomness to be good, and the intuition of the common video gamer to be bad. Quite the opposite. What you think is rigging, is not rigging, it is randomness — you probably don’t like hearing that. But you might like this: what you consider to be the impact of rigging on your enjoyment, and the enjoyment of other players, that impact IS REAL, it’s just caused by randomness instead of rigging. Randomness is not a fair or ethical gameplay system in most game design, because randomness has powerful negative psychological effects, to include effects on player purchasing inclinations. In essence, I am saying that Hearthstone design is guilty of the same crimes you think it’s guilty of. All of them. I am not invalidating a single symptom that you say you’ve ever felt. I’m just saying that the cause of those bad feelings is randomness. Rigging is not the prognosis.
I now believe that any ethical game developer has a duty to not use pure randomness, and to engage in “benign rigging.” By benign rigging, I mean rigging the game in such a way that the outcomes of random events better conform with “common sense” interpretations of RNG and with average player intuition. Stuff like “karmic dice” in Baldur’s Gate 3. In other words, in the game setting, when you say that A C and E are “wrong,” YOU should be right. You are, after all, the customer. And if that means fudging some dice rolls behind the DM screen to make the players happy, then so be it.
I never waste my time debating with narcissistic trolls.
“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
― Mark Twain
2 Likes
The games are rigged, they have to be.
Randomness, in the videogame industry, is not statistically accurate. It has been detremined that actual randomness is plain not fun. Like i posted in another thread, winning streaks indicate you’re much too strong for your MMR and it goes sky high. Well faster than it would normally. So, to prevent those occurences, you are fed a loss, to break the winning streak. But if you actually win that specific game, you’re in trouble.
Becasue if you go seriously high MMR, and it’s not appropriate, it would normally go down, just as fast. But if that happens, there’s grounds to determine you’re manipulating your MMR. Then you’re off to space jail.
However, some people are miserable, and they might need a little love. Because fun…
What i think should happen, well could… Is to validate a MMR spike against a second opponent of the previous MMR.
MMR = Fun*c²
Yes. 
And he also said :
“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”
So let them discuss among themselves…
2 Likes