I will never have an issue with someone who loves/likes the game. I think it’s pretty fair to say a decent amount of people who play Hearthstone are fans of Warcraft.
Hearing how you enjoy collecting the cards, an the artwork makes me happy. That’s something I can appreciate too, though I don’t collect cards anymore. (Majority of my collection is completely destroyed lol). Huge gratz on being such an accomplished raider in WoW. I was a PvP Battlegrounds rat myself lol.
It’s this right here though, that people like yourself an me are on the same page with. Giving awareness is better for all parties involved. Those that either see the truth, or those who learn the truth.
It could be myself an I finally learn the in’s an out of the matchmaker an conclude it’s not rigged. But unfortunately, I feel like I might be one of those people who can’t accept it in any form without myself going through all that I can.
This topic reminds me of that episode of catfish where that girl Jess turned out to be a dude named Justin. The couple met up and nothing this guy said made any sense whatsoever but it was top tier entertainment.
You don’t play any significant amount of games against the same three or 4 classes and then change decks and get a different matchup spread.
It simply does not happens.
People feel it does. People think it does. But it does not. It’s always a mixture of people playing 3-4 games against 2 or so classes and then changing decks and saying “See, the meta changed!” (It didn:t, you simply didn’t play enough) and calling whatever beats them “counters” and whatever their opponents draw “the perfect draw”.
This would be THE easiest meta to prove it. Half the META is just three classes. There are 8 classes out there. Just fnd the one who can’t get matched against the top three over any amount of games and prove that the matchmaker is selective.
Nobody does this. Because it does not happens. This would imply certain decks are matched against certain decks more often.
HSreplay literally tracks how many games each deck archetype has against other deck archetypes and surprise surprise, it’s just the average distribution of the decks again.
It’s like everyone slept on the class about Bias in highschool. You guys KNOW memory isn’t reliable, right? You guys also know how averages work right? You know if you pick three people at random they aren’t necessarily representative of your country population, correct? Especially of they are from the same place.
Then how do people go around applying their 3-4 game experience to the hundred million games that are played regularly? It baffles me.
You gaslight again, how can you say such thing when just many many players experience this for years. Regarding to you they dont know what they experience.
How can you say so if YOU have no proof at all that its not the case?
I have seen images of hs trackers where people played over a course of 100 games with one deck 45% to 50% against the same class.
See thats the dilemma of it all, i dont want to conviimce you as i need no proof for what i experienced and observed ingame…you on the other hand want things have proofen you dont have knowledge about yourself.
Just imagine you would be a blizzard community manager (just as example) would you be able to explain to me how the matchmaking algorythm would work in detail?
No, because you lacking the coding skills, thats why you work as community manager and not in the coding department.
That’s right, I wouldn’t trust my own observations for a number of reasons… e.g I’m prone to bias, and have learned that people including myself aren’t very good at measuring things like this. So I’d look for the biggest data source instead.
If you see a unicorn, you show it to me and I will say “huh”. If you wanna convince me a unicorn is real just by words, I will say you got too heavy handed on the hallucinogens, and chances are I will be right.
I doubt it, unless extraordinary circumstances were at hand. Actually, I doubt it at all.
My first go at legend, through the whole season had something about 500 games. No overly present counters. It’s all recorded, maybe even still present in my post history.
Sure there’s a possibility. However in my view, the possibility that hsreplay are faking data, is much much much lower than the quite ordinary possibility that people’s judgement is clouded by bias.
So based on the available information, I am not convinced that the game is rigged in the way that you described.
Unicorns are real but that a whole different story…
You clearly underestemate peoples judgement.
If this were lol or cod you might be right but i had the impression that card games are mostly for rational and intelligent people.
As a scientist I am very familiar with bias. People do not have good judgement. Otherwise we’d have had flying cars a couple of hundred thousand years ago.
Boy, you are CLEARLY overestimating people’s capability for judgement.
You yourself and most people on the rigging side of this thread don’t know what Bias is. How could such a person have any significant ability for judgement?
Even worse is the possibility that you KNOW what Bias is and keep falling prey to the same old tired logical errors we learned in high school. What capability for judgement would there be then?
Either possibility is horrifying to say the least.
So as a sscientist you would say you are probably an expert on a certain field…
But you would also say you have like no expertise when it comes to the gaming industry and what they are capable of for maximise profits and what their actual practises and strategies are ?
Like for example the reason was behind the descission for diablo immortal to put out lootboxes with so low drop chances that it cost like 16k to maximise a char…right you have no clue why they would do that for a f2p title.
If there are so greedy on that game, dont you think theres a chance they put up fake data to coverup a rigged matchmaking to maximise profits aswell (whatever is behind the algorythm) like no1 actually knows.
I’ve been involved in gaming as a player, administrator, developer and designer since the mid 90s. Actually it’s been where my scientific background is most relevant! But it’s not my career.
