I say this about the entire matching system. It may be impartial, but it isn’t random as some players claim.
Holding such a belief with zero evidence is intellectually irresponsible.
So is believing that a system is random when you have no more evidence than I do to support or refute.
The main question of why they would rig it usually is answered by the assertion that paying players and streamers get better rng of some form. This assumes that people will notice and it will create a positive reinforcement between winning and spending money. This seems flawed.
I think, if they did rig it (and I’ve seen no evidence they do), they would rig it to make the game more fun.
E.g., it isn’t fun when your opening cards don’t show up, so they do more frequently by chance. Or your combo pieces come together a bit easier. Or you topdeck a card you need right at the right moment.
This would at least make sense.
1 Like
Those are not equivalent.
Is the belief in unicorns equal and equivalent to a disbelief in unicorns? Lack of evidence does not disprove something, that is why we do not pursue proving a negative and the base assumption is that unicorns do not exist and we prove the existence of unicorns with EVIDENCE and maintain disbelief until this is accomplished since this process could take forever and yet unicorns could still exist even if we don’t find evidence.
If we believe the existence of something before we have evidence, anything you could come up with would be taken as true and you could never disprove them with a lack of evidence. You would be forced to believe everything. Aliens, lizard people; you need to understand these paragraphs long before we get to hearthstone because this is about finding a reliable source to truth.
The base assumption begins with :
-
that the game is governed by non malicious rng like thousands of other game that have no micro transaction opportunities, even blizzards (the razor principle).
-
that a rigged system would reveal itself in the hundreds of thousands Of aggregated data that neutral third parties have collected. Equal draw rates between cards that are not hard mulliganed, hard mulliganed, or only kept in the opening hand, people consistently getting the same ranks season after season. Even on different or fresh accounts.
The game could also be bugged and unintentionally messing things up; this is far more likely given the symmetry problems (people usually conflate rigging to being forced a loss — but somebody is being forced a win and this contradicts their postulate).
Reality is measured
5 Likes
It really is amazing how people will insist the game is cheating to make them, and only them, lose. Never to make them win, even though apparently it’s making their opponent win. Why you, and not your opponent? Whatever alleged positives you think there might be for making you lose, aren’t they offset by making your opponent win?
Even more, this cheating is allegedly totally obvious to anyone who chooses to look on a game to game basis, yet simultaneously completely invisible to data aggregation and mining that sees literally millions of played games. Huh.
5 Likes
there are some correlation I wont deny it. this is why there are no concrete evidence to support or deny it.
But you were also right in that thread.
"You have zero method to avoid false positives "
other than noticing the pattern. there are no way in telling. that’s why it’s a speculation.
the deck in the test was
the Experiment deck was this
Test paladin
Class: Paladin
Format: Standard
Year of the Phoenix
2x (2) Air Raid
2x (2) Aldor Attendant
2x (2) Hand of A’dal
2x (2) Libram of Wisdom
1x (2) Murgur Murgurgle
1x (2) Sandwasp Queen
2x (2) Shotbot
2x (2) Subdue
2x (3) Aldor Peacekeeper
2x (3) Bronze Explorer
2x (4) Lightforged Zealot
2x (5) Aldor Truthseeker
2x (6) Libram of Justice
1x (7) Lady Liadrin
2x (7) Lightforged Crusader
1x (8) Tirion Fordring
2x (9) Libram of Hope
AAECAZ3DAwT6BpamA/y4A4TBAw2PCZasA5CuA5uuA5yuA422A5a2A8q4A/24A+q5A+u5A+y5A8rBAwA=
To use this deck, copy it to your clipboard and create a new deck in Hearthstone
10 games you’d notice the bad draws when u win.
again it doesn’t prove much other than the possibility .
From your lips to every Evangelical ever.
We don’t set out to prove a negative, read my most to Mallen about unicorns.
TLDR: the base assumption is that unicorns do not exist until evidence proving existence of unicorns is presented. If you agree with that, then you will see that referring to evidence against existence is problematic because you will never find it.
It’s not a correlation, it’s a matter of false positives. Very different.
Just because you have identified a pattern does not mean it is generated by interference. A non rigged system, as I described, is perfectly capable and expected to have the same result as the one you are speculating as rigged. Your speculation adds no explanatory power and by the razors principle is extraneous.
Example:
Rain is produced by condensation in the atmosphere. Supported by evidence.
OR
Fairies bring the water up there while riding elephant sized toads (also invisible) who bounce around so much that the fairies slowly but surely start losing all their water. No evidence for or against.
The second hypothesis results in more questions to an indistinguishable answer that already exists. Therefor, the second hypothesis is unreasonable.
3 Likes
Yes, belief in supernatural entities is also failing to suspend belief before evidence is present. They also make unreasonable assertions that the lack of evidence disproving existence is a valid reason for belief
1 Like
I don’t believe this. I think the draw is pretty random.
However; I do not believe the matching is purely random, particularly the first match with a deck that the system identifies as new, or; if you tech in a card. I think the matching strives to pair a new or modified deck with a class that is as close to a 50% win chance as possible.
I believe it is impartial, but I don’t believe it’s random, and without concrete evidence, I never will.
Now’s a good time to grab some popcorn my man.
1 Like
Of course it isn’t random. That’s the point of a ladder system.
But no, it does not care what is in your deck. Other games do use such systems: MTG Arena uses a weighting system that rates the cards in your deck by the rate at which people craft them - more crafts are assumed to be “better” cards - and it uses that weight to match in the casual queue.
Hearthstone doesn’t even do that for its casual queue, and neither uses it for ranked play because rank-based matchmaking is easily sufficient.
The matchmaker matches the player, not the deck. It doesn’t care if you go on a win streak with a new deck. If your win rate holds up at the new level, great, you’ve advanced. If not, you drop back down again. What would be the point of artificially suppressing a rise in rank? Blizzard doesn’t care what rank you are.
3 Likes
Same goes for newton’s flaming laser sword argument.
you cannot deny it’s existence. But there is no point in arguing it’s existence. cause there are no real necessity for it.
Rigging is an issue many people here (in these forums) claimed it existence.
and as OP pointed out. most of them are just people complaining and falsely accuse the game for rigging. while it’s just mere coincidence . and people tend to remember the bad more than the goods.
Common question
-
Why do they rig their game?
Winning matches 3 matches gives u 10 gold.
gold = money
Hearthstone wants your money.
they want you to buy packs.
if you win you have fun. if you lose you don’t
if you lose you might think your deck is not strong enough. which motivates you to buy more packs to get stronger cards.
if you have only one strong deck. you wont need to buy packs.
it’s better for them if you lose and buy more packs.
they wants you to win to get hooked then lose unfairly.
There is a plausible cause for Devs to rig it.
and a lot of people in these threads claiming and accusing the game being rigged.
it’s not like unicorns or other stuff you brought up or the flaming sword.
If you so sure the game is not rigged. then do so bring proof it’s not.
saying it’s not rigged then flip the table and leave… is not a form of constructive discussion.
There are the demands and the necessity for this argument to exists.
I however brought up a possible way they can rig it. If they game is rigged it’s mostly likely be the way I assumed in my theory.
And it’s most plausible way than what most people assume it is.
Common rigging assumptions :
-
they Rigged the matchmaking You are not getting matched against people you are trying to counter. well that’s possible. but how ?
does the game have specific list of cards coded that if Cube exists in the deck then it’s counter must be silence . which are A B C cards. if these cards are being run in the deck then - Do not match.
That’s too much work. and it assume the Devs knows all the possible outcomes from each match. and assume their database is pretty solid.
that’s too much work and requires too much resources to pull off.
so ask yourself is it plausible they did this ?
or is there another explanation for this to happen.
Matchmaking cannot choose for players the cards and the decks they want to play. there are just too many variables.
what I brought up in my assumption. they just manipulate in a simple way the draw chances of key cards. Cards that have higher chances to make u win.
RNG there is no such thing as true Random in coding. take Mario bros on NES for example. the last boss Bowser have 8 different patterns of attacks. they are tied to internal timer. each second he changes his pattern. so when you reach him he’d be in specific attack pattern. speedruners could abuse this patterns to get the best one by reaching him in specific time frame.
that’s just an old example on how games used to calculate RNG.
In hearthstone I assume (again just an assumption) they have numbers assigned to each card in the game. they run a randomizer calculation based on each card’s value and they assign them into your deck.
they do this rather than go with Generic randomization to make the game more fun.
it’s more fun when u draw good cards on curve than drawing your highest cost situational cards.
having fun means you are getting hooked. which is one of their goals.
this is an easy way to manipulate wins and loses. (rigging).
boasting you win chances or working against you decreasing the odds to win. they want you to switch decks. they want you to get more cards to build decks.
aggro decks gets away with this especially hunter cause most of their cards are low cost anyway. this system doesn’t effect them much. and in old days hand lock could get away with this… cause they want high cost cards in their hands. it’s not a perfect system. assuming it is true ofc.
that’s what my assumption are. I cannot prove it being true and I cannot prove it being false. it’s just a plausible theory nothing more nothing less. do u have better theory of how the game is rigged ?
Do you have better theory (like OP) to disprove common rigging claims ?
This is not where the burden of proof lies and yes this is exactly the unicorn problem. You are asking me to bring proof that unicorns do not exist. That is unreasonable.
I can tell you things to try:
Try hard mulliganing for a low mana card you want early and compare the chance of having it by turn x with the same cost card that is actually a late game card (example being wild growth versus dead mana hand)
But I can’t prove the non existence of something. I know it might be frustrating that it seems like I am making you do the work, but it’s your hypothesis and it’s your burden of proof (in fact, I ran your experiment from the other thread and demonstrated the importance of sample size and how depending on when we started counting we could come to completely different conclusions)
Here’s one, besides my articulation on reliable paths to truth.
Card games already do this, that’s why they are so popular. They are non deterministic, as are dice games. I have never gotten a Yahtzee, ever, and yet my girlfriend gets regular Yahtzee’s and even single throw Yahtzee’s, which is ridiculous to me.
You don’t need to manipulate anything to have extreme variance in a card game — the format of the game is designed to do this naturally. Why do you think card games and dice games make for good gambling games? There is definitely skill involved, but there is a large portion of those games AND THIS ONE that is completely up to the cards. Card games and dice games guarantee that even the best players can lose at the whim of card draw/dice throws, that’s why they are good gambling games. In a loose sense the game is already manipulative based on the format of the game.
6 Likes
It’s not your burden or mine to prove it. it’s the Devs. playing their defense in this matter is invalid. because neither me or you know how it really works.
you can only speculate like me. and provide assumptions or accusations.
and you are free to discuss why my assumption doesn’t work. like how OP did and like How I did to the common people’s assumptions on how they think the game is rigged.
There is no proper data available for me to study if my hypothesis is correct or incorrect.
“You don’t need to manipulate anything to have extreme variance in a card game”
yes Card games have RNG involved like you said like Yahtzee. by nature Randomness can works with you and against you.
as I stated they don’t want you to play and win with one deck/class.
that’s works against them. They want people to win and to get hooked. even bad players needs to win. but not win too much they need to lose and get crushed. motivate them to pay to win.
Also if I remember correctly a user called DMX is the one who ran the test and posted the results not you.
1 Like
It is though. Would you ever trust blizzard? They would seem a little biased don’t you think lol.
And you won’t, because sometimes the luck of the draw determines the game no matter what like I said.
This also is why card and dice games are popular. Skill is a big factor, but usually it takes some time for a skillful player to demonstrate that over a series of games.
I can beat my brother playing Starcraft 2 every single game. Without fail. But if we decide to playa game of hearthstone against each other, or Yahtzee, or a card game, even though I am better than him, I will not win every single game.
There is, I gave you an example with late game vs early game equal mana cost cards and hard mulliganing for them. You can look at hsreplay or Vs or another third party data site for the early game hard mulligan pull rate and then do an experiment yourself with a low mana late game card that you hard mulligan for. If cards are weighted to be pulled in the more sensical order as you describe, they should not have similar pull rates over a sufficient number of games.
I did as well. You wanted 10 games so I did 15 or 20 and tried to demonstrate how 10 games is too small a sample size. What you predicted did not happen and additionally if I moved which consecutive 10 games I was counting I could notice completely different ‘patterns’. Unfortunately it appears you did not read it lol but it’s fine.
I’m trying to educate people on reliable paths to truth, not just in hearthstone but in general. The burden of proof is an important concept because it means even if it turns out we are incorrect, we were still holding the most reasonable beliefs.
4 Likes
You have some good points but I feel that you are a bit off on number 3.
I do not believe the game is rigged but skill level also has factor with ”being lucky”. The better the player you are the more likley you are to recognize when you need to highroll instead of just playing the safer play that has enough impact to prevent you from dying.
Another point that will impact your view of being lucky or not is your ability to make your play depending on what your opponent is likley to want to play and likley to be able to play. A better player will by thinking ahead, playing around stuff and saving cards for certain threats will also enforce the feeling of them being extremly lucky.
Soo basically what I’m saying is, a player getting matched against a far better player can impact the worse players feeling of who is getting lucky to the point of ”My opponent is much more likley to get lucky then me”.
Players (like you) breaking the ladder system by losing or making smurfs, ranking on new regions etc will be players who others believe to be ”extremly lucky” as they shoudn’t face someone of your skill lvl. Soo in a way those games are rigged, but not by the devs but by the players breaking the match making system.
TL:DR the game is only rigged by players breaking the match making system creating unfair matches against players who are far worse players.
Dev has already explained how it works. They got accused by small-minded people like you of lying.
1 Like
I see this a lot, but Blizz has already stated numerous times that it isn’t rigged.
APXVoid’s high Legend success for years now by playing only Mage kinda flies in the face of that idea, doesn’t it?
6 Likes