I read the thread, but I still see nothing out of the ordinary.
Did you read the thread?
The entire situation is that you have decided random should look different than what random looks like.
Which is why I asked others who know gaming systems what it should look like.
Are you done flogging me? Can we go back to discussion?
Yes, you have, and yes, it is (see also below to get straight to the point and to the relevant reference).
Yes, you could.
Looks like I’ve done it for you, though:
.
See also some other posts linked above.
I’ve got no time for the rest of the topic now — sorry if I’ve missed something substantial, although it’s probably… the usual 
, but I suppose I’ve answered definitively regarding the subject proper, which is why I stopped by here in the first place, and that’ll do for now.
PS Oh, come to think of it, one more thing: I don’t think they’ve ever actually promised that ‘random’ effects are ‘truly’ random, that they have equal or appropriately weighted odds (e.g. that Ragnaros can hit all targets with equal probabilities) — it’s mostly something the players would assume, but it’s not written anywhere officially, AFAIK. Someone made a topic (can’t be bothered to look it up now, sorry) about how improbable events seem very much more probable in HS, possibly in order to make it more ‘exciting’ — I’d even go ahead and assume that, say, 5% events have the probability of 95% to happen in HS 
, it’s not something I haven’t observed over the years. Well, but this postscriptum is getting longer than the post itself, so I suppose I’ll stop here… for now.
There is nothing to discuss because you have not identified an issue.
You are imposing structure where it does not exist, seeing patterns that are not actually patterns.
I have never claimed they did.
And, asking questions is literally the cornerstone of critical thinking.
As I said above: If We cannot ask questions about the game here, then this forum should not exist.
You know, it irks me. I don’t post here crying for x or y to be nerfed so that my z can win. But no one has any problems with those threads.
No. Instead I ask questions in the hope that We can discuss ways to make the game feel better for average players, and get attacked for wanting to learn.
If I don’t know how the system actually works, then I cannot imagine ways to make it better.
Sensible, right?
1 Like
Mallenroh I really believe that you should quit to care about any kind of fair mechanism if you play WILD. This mode is completely broken model.
You should just drop your cards and get a highroll on facing a opponent with a broken deck or not.
37 is my password for everything lol
1 Like
Therein lies your mistake. You simply assumed something, and that assumption is just wrong.
There IS need to hide it - the need is to hide the total number of players playing to hide when the game is bleeding players because other people might mistake it for a real trend and join them by stopping playing
They had to hide it due to the danger of self-fulfilling prophecies killing the game
1 Like
I see that not only did you buy into that BS, but are continuing the propagation of misinformation.
Where is the evidence to suggest it would do just that? And why do other formal sports and matchmaking models exist that are public knowledge?
What happens when those are manipulated through the fear of imagined and realized risks that you spout? Exactly, consequences - sure, it would require more administration and management, but it would be legit.
There is no “NEED” to hide it, there’s an inferred need based on fearmongering-self-fullfilling-imagined-prophetic-nonsense.
Man - using made up BS to prove a point is silly. IDC if you agree that it’s silly, it’s only important that you someday realize that.
I’m not denying that there are potential risks, but I refuse to use made up nonsense to prove a point or any logical fallacy (not intentionally, at least). So “NEED” no. More like “There is an ‘INTEREST’ from the developer side to hide it, but not from the player base side”.
1 Like
This is a winning argument for me, but I don’t think we should assume that it is done for some self serving interest.
I think it is equally likely that it is hidden to keep from inviting more controversy and conspiracy claims.
All I wanted to know was how the matching works, and if the psuedo- random thing had any effect on matching or draw.
I’m out guys. Thanks to everyone for trying to teach:)
1 Like
The thing is, we don’t even know it for sure.
How dare you suggest such a preposterous thing! Ridiculous!
Critical thinking, btw, makes you a ‘conspiracy nut’ with a ‘cOgNiTiVe BiAs’. Instead, you’re supposed to have quasi-religious faith that the game is perfect, the company can do no wrong and so on — because it cannot be the other way around.
Oh, I wouldn’t be so sure, some characters here seem to have problems with so many different kinds of posts, that for each post or topic there’d be someone who’s got problems with it. 
Ironically, the subject (pseudorandom numbers) was originally conceived as a way to achieve that, if you look at the reference above: for example, the outcome of a RTS game should be decided mostly by… strategy (duh), not lucky crits (e.g. by a Blademaster) or such.
It’s not the only popular implementation… There’s been this obnoxious excuse of game, somehow popular for reasons I almost cannot fathom (hype and all, I suppose), called “Baldur’s Gate 3”, touted as a ‘role-playing game’, although it’s more of a ‘reroll-playing game’, as they say… Anyway, rolling virtual dice is one of the main aspects of its particular… ‘gameplay’, and they’ve introduced somethig called ‘karmic dice’ with a similar idea (dunno how buggy the actual implementation is, though). That’s another example of at least an attempt to achieve a similar goal — make the game more fun by reducing lucky/unlucky (depends on the viewpoint, I guess) streaks.
Come to think of it, I believe XCOM: Enemy Within/Unknown, for example, also uses similar mechanincs on lower difficulty levels…
Indeed, here are some sources:
https://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php/Difficulty_(EU2012)
https://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Chance_to_Hit_(EU2012)#When_The_Game_Cheats...
As you can see, it’s effectively cheating for the player.
So, it’s not an uncommon practice to use this kind of stuff in games, including those by Blizzard. Yet, for the forum ‘paladins’ it’s inconceivable!
PS This post is missing Khadgar’s avatar for this particular voiceline, I guess…
hearthstone.wiki.gg/wiki/Mercenaries/Khadgar/Miscellaneous
Or is it from this skin?
https://hearthstone.wiki.gg/wiki/Navigator_Khadgar
Nobody does for sure, apart from those who’ve got acces to the source code and such.
Yet the forum’s self-annointed pundits know everything in the world — why, they can even read your mind and know your better than yourself.
No! Tin foil, yadda yadda.
‘We don’t ask questions! Questions are offensive!’
Yeah, I seemingly never get tired of posting this little masterpiece here.
1 Like
I think you won the internet today, man:)
1 Like
Oh, one more thing. This whole shebang which I was writing about shouldn’t be confused with so-called pseudorandom numbers, i.e. those generated by a computer on some deterministic basis instead of some abstract ‘truly’ random ones (one could also debate what that is), but with essentially the same properties in terms of distribution for practical purposes.
What I was talking about is explicitly not-quite-random numbers used deliberately instead of (pseudo)random ones, as elaborated above.
1 Like
Ooh, and one more example — a classic, of course. Nearly forgot about it — been tired (and busy), sorry, hence some of my hectic back-and-forth edits 
just above and such, as well as replies only directly to you in this topic. So, I mean The Witcher — the first one… Anyone remember the dice poker there? See, for example, the notes here:
https://witcher.fandom.com/wiki/The_Witcher_dice_poker#Notes .
I dunno whether the raised chances of exceptional hands are there in order to make it more interesting or to imply that sharpers are doing some… tricks, but anyway…
Right, I suppose that’ll do for now, I’m off!
2 Likes
HS is based on zero sum game. For every winner there’s a loser. Now, the way that this is done is by forcing outcomes in matchmaking.
I’m assuming that there are 2 phases, first is something like somewhat of a random, and the second phase is the adjustment. The repeating patterns usually appear in the second phase, where the algorythm forces some pattern in order to meet the adjustment requirements.
I’m not sure exactly how it works, but there’s definately both phases.
Depends on actual luck which one you end up playing in, and it’s not rigged, it’s by design.
While the 2nd phase can actually qualify for the definition of “rigged”, the first one can’t be in the same category, because the adjustment has to adjust something.
The specific details can only be known by devs.
Not sure about this
For at least half of the playerbase, but probably more, this way is better, because seeing how many players are better than them might discourage them from playing
So that’s 2 reasons, 1 for each side of the equation
You got any better suggestions? No? Thought so.
Nope. You summed it all up perfectly! Just as you thought! Good job.
Now where were we, that’s right, removing the logical fallacy concepts from the conversation.
Moving on, I think Sparkly might be on to something.
Oh, I see how it is
Why didn’t you say so immediately
Now I can safely put you on ignore
There’s also tie and ‘crash out of the game without it recording a win, loss, or tie’.
Those have been my experienced 4 outcomes
I can see that being likely used in Hearthstone as well. Where there would normally be a pseudo-random event (with a seed, a range of options from #-###, the higher the output value the greater the chance of success), it would then be modified post-pseudo-rng so that the output, where normally between #-### now becomes an output of ##-### eliminating the bottom x% … or something like that.
In games with ‘difficulty’ settings, it’s all controlled pRNG. Actually, all games are controlled pRNG. It has to have some flavor of chance, but also some flavor of control to make the game able to draw in players on more than just ‘the story’. Controlling in-game outcomes is only one of the tools developers have to be able to more accurately increase favorable player responses. You can argue logical fallacies or intuition or pretend-expertise till the cows come home, but the facts speak for themselves. If the goal of a label is to increase revenue for their stakeholders, then why not use all of the tools at their disposal to increase that bottom line? I’d do it.