Well the hypothetical rng can serve up the same number to multiple different games, but unless you’re playing them all how is that relevant?
You should calculate the actual odds, 3 in 200 seems pretty low.
Odds of discovery.
Number of chances per game. Some choose 3 logic.
Now multiply that by the number of scenarios that would trip your spidey senses.
No, it is not common. It is clumping, and you are conflating clumping with rarity. The chance of Rune is 1 in 70 and your report of 3 in slightly over 200 is almost exactly what we’d predict,
Is he just complaining they’re close together??
Yeah, that’s where I find computer programs fail to do random well… Multiple random simultaneous events, like how in the past we have seen diablo games have issues with multiple identical items dropping due to being rolled at the same time.
I do question how well that works when I use 2x jackpot in a game and get 3x impfestations out of the deal, as those kinds of results seem to occur more commonly than they should.
But the matchmaking system doesn’t do multiple random rolls, so people can’t blame rigging on it like that.
Where the rigging argument usually falls apart is here:
If you built a new priest deck that beat rogue, and nothing else, and queued into top legend, the system would have to notice over time that your deck beats rogue, and because rogue is 75% of what is being used, what does it do?
Does it keep using your new deck to counter the rogues with too high of win rates and feed you wins? Or does it try to make you fight other classes because your personal win rate needs to be worse and let the rogues be too high?
The logistics of making a system that tries to force a win rate through counter queues is painful to consider with all of the variables it has no control over, would have to scan to machine learn what is winning against what, and hope the deck distribution at rank bracket even allows it to manipulate the values like that.
2 Likes
Where it really falls apart is when you look a a few hundred thousand games and see they all faced pretty much the same mix of opponents.
His rng argument makes no sense because he’s saying concurrent calls can result in the same rolls, but none of the scenarios he’s talking about are concurrent. Twice in one game and once in the next is anything but concurrent.
1 Like
Thats an FAQ hahahahahaha. Dude you are embarrassing yourself. Please stop.
They have this MM patent, which manipulates matchmaking in a way that people are “inspired” to use the cashshop.
Where their engine matches people on purpose together so one of them feels the urge to buy stuff.
How do you think that Blizzard as a revenue driven company would not use such engine for all of their games?
(Temporal) clumping is fine, I’m okay with it existing if it is a rare event. Problem here is, based on my experience, it does not appear to be a rare event and seems much more common than it should, but I have no stats to report other than my experience so I don’t expect people to believe me at my word.
Yes that is pretty much all I have been saying. The concurrent pRNG is a proposed possible cause of this, but obviously it is speculation without access to details on what exactly blizzard does in their backend. From my experience, I have seen this kind of biasing (temporal clumping) of pRNGs in the past and the cause was incorrect concurrent pRNG, so I’m applying my experience here, but it’s just as likely they could just be using a poor pRNG algorithm, or seeding it incorrectly. There are known issues like this with pRNGs if one reads sufficient material.
I think Scrotie’s explanation that the MMR system attempts to “make you lose” is sufficient enough and simple to explain any effects that people observe about “rigging”, because it is in fact “rigged” in that sense, it keeps finding you harder and harder opponents. I mean I just thought this was well understood by most players in competitive games, but apparently it is not.
So that kind of erroneous output might occur in the same nano or millisecond, if memory that concurrent calls are accessing isn’t managed properly, but not when they’re being called seconds apart. That’s why I found it bizarre that you kept exploring this idea.
I don’t think it is "in fact ‘rigged.’ "
As an analogy, imagine two dice. One of these dice appears as a normal die, but in fact it’s carefully and subtly weighted to always roll a 6. The other die is weighted exactly like a normal die, with an equal chance to roll any side, but every side on the die is labeled 6. Both of these dice always roll a 6. But only one of them — the first one — is rigged.
Rigging is about putting one story forward about how the algorithm works, then doing something completely different. The MMR system isn’t rigged even if it produces nonrandom results because MMR matchmaking is working exactly as advertised when it creates those nonrandom results.
1 Like
Precisely. “Rigged” implies deception. And if you believe in the deception, then you should quit.
2 Likes
I gave up leading the horse to water. If you think your anecdotal example proves anything, then more power to you.
Interesting. To me it’s sort of the same concept of outright lying, versus lying by omission.
If you are lied to one way vs the other, can you make any conclusions about the intentions of the party lying to you? One is blatant, one is subtle, but they can be equally as damaging in the appropriate context.
I think this is comparable to what is happening here. There are no clear and simple rules about match making that can be understood other than reading an obsfucated description in some US patent. That’s analogous to withholding pertinent information behind a hard to understand wall that may be intentionally sparse with details.
That said, this is a game, and I really don’t care one way or the other if something shady is happening or not. Call it rigging or not, doesn’t matter to me. Though I suspect if you think one is correct and the other is not, you probably make a distinction between outright lying versus lying by omission. To me they are all the same.
1 Like
I never thought that suspecting a gaming company that known with their greedy practices would be this bad. Okay okay I will not suspect Blizzard anymore.
which app or game isnt greedy?
This is how idiots think that Hillary Clinton eats the souls of children in pizzeria basements, or that Donald Trump pees on hotel beds just to be more racist. Yes, actually suspecting people known for doing wrong, when you don’t have any valid evidence for the new charges, is unironically bad. Don’t demonize people by rendering them into simple constructs who will just do anything nefarious. Instead, try to truly understand what motivates them, how exactly they are bad.
Well, as I said I have no evidence to prove it. Blizzard has never been transparent about this. I guess that there is a biased algorithm, based on expected result and behaviors. You “also” guess there is no such thing.
In past years, I have been playing Hearthstone on and off, taking a break sometimes when the meta is beyond BS. I won everytime when I come back.
I am a F2P player. I only paid the money for one set many years ago.
Did you and your son play at the fullest of your skill ? You just cannot pick any old deck and hope it was going to work 6 months later, right ? Did you net deck and tweak yours to match it as close as you could ? The first thing you need to do when come back is to craft some new powerful cards from new expansion. Did you do that ?
If you didn’t give your fullest, you maybe lost. Even “happiness time algorithm” cannot help those who do not try to win.
I always reach Diamond 5 with free decks for more than 5 years.
By the way, from business point of view, do you think that a collectable card game wants a player to buy cards ? Do you really think that they would do nothing to increase their income ? No data is used for manipulation at all in this AI and big data era ?
Ask yourself, which one is more likely to be ?
This seems like an odd thing to say after you said you “guarantee it”. Perhaps you were just exaggerating? I don’t typically use the word “guarantee it” unless I’m 100% positive and have evidence to back it up. I can understand if you were exaggerating though.
Yes, I basically played the game for him to show him how the deck works and I’m a Legend player. We played the meta list. I’ve played the deck list to Legend prior to this so I 100% know how to play the deck. Unfortunately, for 5 games we got demolished by quick OTK decks and I told him that’s just the meta right now.
Well, I think I am wrong then. I should use another word that is not guarantee. Perhaps, I should say more likely to win.
I am sorry. English is not my native language and I have never studied abroad.
You have proved me wrong in that part. Yet, I still think the system is biased (rigged) for some expected result.