Message deleted for personal reasons.
I mean, if the argument is that EVERYONE is pushed to 50% win/loss ratio EVENTUALLY, and that “the algo” will ALWAYS enforce this in the long run, the proof to it should be as follows:
1.) Start game with literally any deck you want.
2.) Click “end turn” IMMEDIATELY after every single turn, without playing a single card.
3.) “Algo makes games rigged towards 50/50” therefore, EVENTUALLY, you will find yourself matched up with opponents who are FORCED to concede JUST to get YOU to a 50% win rate, in spite of you doing LITERALLY nothing
I mean, “it’s rigged” so even doing BS like this, won’t matter right? It’ll work out, right?
The game is rigged and everyone has already agreed to that.
If you disagree then do my challenge and use hearthstone replay to prove to me the algo will put a plage def nite up against an anti plage def nite deck.
Also no one has ever said it tries to create a 50% win loss for everyone…
What I explained is the algo wants you to win enough so you don’t quit but also lose enough so you buy cards and if you buy cards it wants you to win at first and then it will make you lose more so you buy more cards.
If I created this game, I would program it the same exact way to maximize profit.
But then again… I am a genius.
Others may not think to do this.
The MAIN THING IS to keep the WHALES happy.
A smaller number of whales can keep a game afloat.
the free players are the minnows for the whales to eat.
Games like Black desert online relies on whales spending $100,000s and the free players are the food.
1 Like
If we’re stupid enough to keep playing, what makes you think we’d be smart enough to listen to you and stop?
You tell me. I can’t read your thoughts.
1 Like
I’m just saying, not everyone wants to be saved. You have no purpose here if nobody believes you. That’s the curse of punditry. If nobody buys in, you go broke.
Clearly you are trolling or your reading comprehension is very low.
1 Like
No, I read that the first time, and I also read when people ask for proof, or screenshots, or literally anything other than letters from your keyboard, to back your shenanigans.
I reject your premise on the grounds that you offer nothing beyond “just trust me bro.”
No one asked for proof.
1 Like
I’m pretty sure even I asked for proof, though I’m too lazy to comb back up there.
If you’re posting in the good faith you claim to have, then you’re insane by technical definition. You’ve been posting in these forums for around 4 years, and it’s been the same thing every time. Are you addicted to this game? Or are you incapable of following your own advice?
Do you even think the idea of the game being rigged is a problem? You certainly play it often in spite of believing you’ll never achieve your goals for playing it.
I disagree. I mean, I want to be nice to people, but when they routinely create threads with misspellings in the title then say that they’re a “genius,” they’re really making it hard for me.
Also, he keeps saying nonsense like this. I think the only logical conclusion is that he thinks that if someone doesn’t agree with him, then they’re not people.
1 Like
I have told people who disagree with me to provide proof.
They refuse to provide proof.
The burden of proof is on them.
They are making the claim it is not rigged. Then provide the proof.
I can’t prove a negative but they can prove the algo will match a plage deft night with an anti-plage deft night deck simply buy observing it and recording it.
This is standard science.
If you say Chimps use tools, well the burden is on you to provide the proof.
If you say ghosts exist, then the burden of proof is on you.
I can’t prove they don’t exist because I never observe them.
I can’t prove chimps use tools if I never observed it.
If you are positive the game will match anti–plage deft nite decks with plage deft nites then provide the proof.
No one has come forward to say they have observed this.
If I say “chimps do not use tools.” Well, then it is up to someone observing it to prove they do.
Standard science.
1 Like
No, it isn’t.
By the same logic, someone could prove that there’s at least a billion dollars of cash in circulation by putting a billion dollars in cash in front of you.
The reason why no one has provided this “proof” of yours is not that it is impossible. It is that it that you are not worth the effort, and never will be.
Also for Pete’s sake, learn to English already, Mr. Genius.
Here’s what the burden of proof is because what you called burden of proof is TYRANNY.
You have the burden when YOU bring an extraordinary claim to the table.
It’s tyranny otherwise because you could accuse people of crimes.
1 Like
While Mr. Genius has used several logical fallacies, I think it’s a tremendous, indeed a ridiculous, exaggeration to label them as tyranny.
Let us look to a historical tyranny:
In 1944, investigator, proud of his faultless logic […] told Babitsh: “Investigation and the process are merely juridical figuration, that can’t change your destiny, which has been determined before. If it is necessary to shoot you, you’ll be shot, even if you’re completely innocent.”
— Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
The critical difference between what Mr. Genius is doing here, and what actual tyrannies do, is this: while in this thread he is asking for ridiculous things to establish the truth, in tyrannies the truth of the matter is simply irrelevant. Mr. Genius argues about what is true or not passionately, albeit inappropriately; the tyranny treats the subject with apathy, because they are not even truly interested in it.
Maybe tone down the rhetoric a notch. I know, I can get excited too, but maybe what i need most in those times is a friendly hand on my shoulder, pulling me back.
1 Like
It was bit of a figure of speech (not the literal political “system” of tyranny). That behaving in their way is just unjust/unfair/tyrannical to others.
You can’t just accuse people of things and then say “oh you didn’t prove that you didn’t do what I said therefore nahnahnahnahanah!”.
1 Like
Your father smells of elderberries and I farted in your general direction.
It is now entirely YOUR burden to prove otherwise.
2 Likes
To provide context:
Just in case our resident genius is not familiar with classic 1970s comedy films.
1 Like
Oh and btw if was going to take things in that direction, I’d have argued with him about airspeed velocities of swallows.
1 Like
The root issue though is that SilentStorm is neither silent, nor storm. He’s more like a sudden fart; loud and rude, but quickly irrelevant. I chose my words accordingly.
(side note, I heard a rumor that they ran out of money and that’s why Monty Python had to end that movie the way he did. Is that true?)