If you think matchmaking is rigged, read this

Could Blizzard have “all data?” No. There will always be statistics that no one even thought to collect.

How much statistics gathering does Blizzard actually do themselves? Well,

If Blizzard chooses not to create an algorithm to recognize the major metagame archetypes, track winrates at various ranks, and several other statistics, Blizzard knows that websites like HSReplay and Vicious Syndicate will literally do all of that work for Blizzard, providing all of the same results without Blizzard lifting a finger, and in the case of Vicious Syndicate for free and at a very high level of quality. All Blizzard would have to do is release new cards then wait about a week.

So Blizzard has a strong incentive to never develop algorithms that scan deck lists to determine their archetype, never track deck archetype winrates internally, and never construct archetype matchup winrate tables internally. Thus, we can assume that Blizzard has access to the same data that we do, from the same sources.

This would fit well within Blizzard’s overall modus operandi. For example, in Diablo Immortal, developers made no serious effort to balance drop rates between various farming dungeons, at least not on their own. Instead, they hosted a closed beta test for Diablo Immortal, and a team of unpaid volunteers took the task upon themselves, using the best speed clearing strats to do multiple recorded runs of every dungeon, watching the recordings to collect drop rate data, and entering that data into spreadsheets for analysis and comparison. This team then submitted their work to Blizzard, completely unpaid, who acknowledged their work as the basis for drop rate rebalancing.

In short, Blizzard doesn’t pay for balance testing for Diablo Immortal, because unpaid beta testers will do the work for free. So would it not then follow that Blizzard wouldn’t pay for balance testing, to include data collection, for Hearthstone, considering that we know that players do this work for free as well, via the Hearthstone Deck Tracker’s data collection to a third party website?

In all seriousness, I don’t know exactly how much data collection Blizzard does. My real point here is that demonization is NEVER a good predictor of behavior. Why? Because there is only one way to to be perfect, but there are infinite ways to be wrong — many of which are mutually exclusive to each other. Is Blizzard wrong by collecting data then using that data to nefarious ends, OR are they wrong by being too lazy to collect the data in the first place? You can’t tell this with a demonization model, so instead what a demonization model becomes is a manifestation of pure raw confirmation bias, seeing not what is but what YOU want to see.

Stop strawmanning opponents of your demonization model as “defending Blizzard.” I’ve already shown how it’s possible for someone to have a negative view of Blizzard that conflicts directly with your negative view — that is, that Blizzard is very lazy. There are infinite ways to disagree with your demonization model and only one of these infinite ways is the belief that Blizzard is perfect.

1 Like

And you have no evidence that it isnt either lmao.

Blizzard has many games. Do you believe they are rigging all of them? Are my random BG queue’s in WoW being rigged by the patent algorithm so that I will continue my subscription? Loot drops? Queue times? Critical strikes? Trinket procs? They are a greedy corporation of dubious morals after all. I guess there is no reason they wouldn’t be rigging everything.

Also

Are you saying they don’t rig MM in low ranks?

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

2 Likes

Why is this such a hard concept to grasp for people? I honestly don’t get it.

The whole “Prove my assertion is false” mentality is just ignorance at its finest.

They understand that a statement like “Well, prove Bigfoot doesn’t exist to prove me wrong!” sentence is so dumb, yet they apply that same thinking in other arguments. What the- ?

2 Likes

It can be asserted with out evidence that it is rigged cause I dont know a single online game that is truely random any more.

It legit says matching you with openent of your skill. If thats not fixed/rigged idk what is.

Except the game flat out says its not random when you push start.

They have never claimed it is purely random. They use MMR. They have been very open about this fact.

Rigged definition:

“manipulated or controlled by deceptive or dishonest means”

There is nothing deceptive or dishonest about games in general using MMR for matchmaking purposes. They are very clear that they do use MMR systems for that task.

2 Likes

Humans learn by reinforcement, so by default we look for confirmation of things we believe or suspect. It took over 200,000 years to learn to break the habit, but it’s stubborn!

But where does that believe or suspicion come from?

Looking for confirmation is natural,its how pretty much science works. And its something that the game is not rigged clan asks us to provide all the time. They want proof (confirmation) of what we believe to be true.

What you describe is pretty much the scientific method.
We make a hypothesis (our believe or suspicion) and then we look for confirmation of that hypothesis. Sometimes this hypothesis is formed after seeing data,but that is not a neccessity. There is many examples of hypothesis in science that where formed before data was available.

Why would you care? The idea is to see if you can find a way to disprove your ideas using the available means. It doesn’t really matter where the idea came from.

If you take the Higgs boson as an example, they reasoned that it existed, that it would appear within a broad energy range of collisions, and then set about proving energy ranges incorrect until they found it.

They didn’t say we think it’s here and hey presto there it was.

1 Like

Absolutely false. The scientific method is not at all about finding evidence that supports claims. It is about finding evidence that REFUTES hypotheses.

The closest that science offers as “support” to hypotheses is: well, we tried really hard to kill it, but we failed to refute it. But that’s nothing even remotely resembling proof. Our failure to refute a hypothesis can be our own fault, due to a lack of imagination, diligence or resources.

1 Like

This is a common theme in psuedosciences.

You need to rule all things out, and only then are you left with an answer. Or a set of possible answers.

1 Like

But that is what i am interested in,where the ideas come from.

I did try find a way to disprove my idea that the rng is flawed (though i didnt try very hard i have to admit).

My idea is that the rng is flawed. I cant find data to proof this idea,but i cant find data that disproves it either.

Now what i am supposed to do with my idea. Scientifically it remains unsettled,though as the burden of proof is on me i can not make a statement about it.

But my idea that the rng is flawed is equall to the idea that it isnt flawed. There isnt proof for either of both.

And now that i see scrotties response.
I did follow the scientific method perfectly. I looked for proof that my idea was false and i cant find any. (and spare yourself the trouble,you wont be able to proof its false either).
Does this make my idea true,obviously not as it would still require proof.

I can see the line of thought. But applying that line of thought to my specific situation (the idea that the rng is flawed) doesnt yield anything. I am left with a set of it can be true and it can be false,which doesnt give any information.

So i guess this is something noone can make any claim about.

And as a side note. Giving proof wasnt my idea.
It was the “game isnt rigged” clan that asked for proof all the time. They even made a thread dedicated to this.

It would be trivial to create a definition of “flawed”, design and take measures based on that definition, and analyse your results. This is something designers do every single time they build a system (testing). And anyone who designs experiments does this all the time.

Yes they can. if there’s an actual claim that’s not just it’s rigged its flawed… etc. Like when people say it’s rigged because the game gives you different matchups based on your deck type, you can say well that means different decks face different matchups to each other. And then you look at the data and see that they’re all getting the same matchups.

If you’re claiming Rng is flawed, that statement is so unspecific you need to say its flawed because it… (Insert specifics)

Disconsider It.

“I think unicorns exist, but I can’t find proof of one” is unscientific, for lack of a better word.

“I think unicorns exist”
“I try to find one”
“There’s none”
“I suspend my belief in unicorns untill further proof”

Science works in this way

You don’t have evidence it’s true, therefore, it’s unproven untill proven. It’s the whole concept of Russel’s teapot.

If your thinking process already starts with you believing either way, you’re already flawed. You start by registering something about reality (I feel the game is rigged), then you define what’s your exact idea (how the game is rigged), you check if reality confirms to it (is there evidence the game is rigged) and you assert or not the null hypothesis by that.

What you’re saying is like “I don’t know if the sunsets are a thing. There are no sunsets in my world, but what if they do exist?”

Ive read the top 75 posts but seen no one mention if you create a unique deck that is completely off meta, like beast priest for example, you’ll end up versing some one with a very similar deck as you within the first 3 matches. 0.01% of players play this deck but there they are.

1 Like

Unicorns exist! now prove to me that this IS a photo-shopped picture of a horse wearing a party hat, and NOT a unicorn

1 Like

I mean I used to play off meta decks for most of my HS life and I could count the mirrors on one hand.

Same.
Unless if by mirrors they mean the few cards every deck in a class is using because they are that good.

But I played Fire Mage for a good while since Ignite came out and I’ve never see a similar deck. That’s only the newest homebrew