I've figured out what needs to be checked to see if the game is rigged

Multiplayer Discussion
1

I work with these kind of things and I’ve been thinking hard about the patent referenced by Kris of Five here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T658vTvoRs&list=LL&index=27

Could someone still plays this game and knows how HSreplays works in detail check if specific overall strong decks that have very hard counters which themselves are overall weak against other combinations than those that they counter face those counters more often on average than other combinations do?

So let’s say X is a weak deck overall that counters a specific subtype of meta deck(s).

Y is that subtype of metadecks that has an overall very high winrate against other decks than its direct counters (X).

Z are all other decks.

Can we see if X faces Y more than Z more often than it should?

If yes, it’s rigged.
If no, it’s not.

Unless HSreplays is also rigged somehow. But that’s beyond our ability to test and highly unlikely.

To test this we would need to pull many different Z type of decks and even many type of X and Y decks, so that we do not have a bias. Preferably all decks ever played over a certain threshold but if that is too much I’d go for this:

Weakest 10 X: type of decks overall (with enough plays) that still have a positive winrate vs Y: type of decks.

Strongest 10 Y type of decks that still have a negative winrate vs X type of decks.

30 overall average and highly popular normal decks (Z) that Y beats consistently but who in turn beat X consistently without being direct counters to it.

Feel free to suggest something as well if I may my thoughts may have drifted aloof somewhere.

Everyone else, please do not reply to people saying it’s rigged or even that it IS rigged in any such that opens up that argument, stay on topic and discuss how best to test it!

Cheers.

If you want to work on this please write here and I’ll start forming a group, we can meet on Teams or Zoom or Whatsapp or something. I have no Youtube channel so if you want to post the results for Youtube and get some views I’ll leave that to you as well. My interest is mostly that it would be a great project at the side of my studies for me to help uncover the truth and that I’m semi-active in consumer protection related politics so I’m passionate about the subject.

There’s also some other things to test there, like if players with few premium (say new expansion) cards regardless of skill get placed more often with people who have them so as to entice people to buy more of those cards than those people should be facing and other things we can discuss more in detail in private.

2 Likes
2

it’s not “rigged.” you either have a deck that can beat something or you don’t. if you don’t outdraw someone it’s a loss. if you DO have a deck but are outdrawn you can still be beaten. that’s the thing about card games. it’s not like a shooter in that it’s literally one persons skill against the other. you’re trying to figure out how to make rng not random. which is exactly what RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR is. though i guess making threads trying to prove something that isn’t logical at all seems like a good time waster for people.

3

This is not a thread about if it’s rigged or not. Please stay on topic. This is about testing if it’s rigged or not in the best way, according to the patent that is presented in the video while trying to understand it to the best of our collective abilities.

Thanks!

2 Likes
4

wut? if you’re trying to figure out if it is or not then it most definitely IS about if it’s rigged or not. honestly these types of threads scream f2p for me. no one with a lot of cards that they can make multiple decks to switch between cares about stuff like this because if they hit a wall they just switch decks.

5

I’m sorry to say, but this part is stupid. Of course you will face people who have cards from the latest expansion because they’re part of the meta (I even have cards from the latest expansion in my Wild decks). It doesn’t matter if you fill your deck with only expansion cards or classic cards. You will still face the same opponents, meaning they’ll all play with cards from the latest expansion.

Also, just because they have that patent (which isn’t even for Hearthstone and I doubt it would work in something like Hearthstone because there are too many variables, even with netdecks), doesn’t mean they use it. Many companies have patents that they don’t use, just to keep them out of hands of competitors.

6

i completely ignored that part myself when i was responding cuz all the f2p people on the forums hoard their gold and packs until the start of an expansion and just buy a bunch of packs from the new set anyway. if you’re trying to only play wild with cards from the classic set or something then lol.

7

We all know the game is p2w, freemium style, but that’s not what he’s proposing. It’s about the matchups being served according to decks. It’s the same thing people face when they run tech cards and never see the counter decks they are supposed to beat despite being very popular in the meta.

The problem is, the data on these websites aren’t filtering this kind of content and nobody keeps track on these things unless they are testing it in long game sessions. Back when it was evolve shaman breaking the meta, I used to run decks with 2-3 weapon removals and sometimes I would go into streaks of 15 games without seeing any of them, despite it being the most played deck of all the meta by a really long margin. Then, you take the tech cards off and suddenly you are spammed again with the decks you were supposed to beat again.

This meta is not really that different. I played a priest for, say, 20 games, slapped 2 weapon removals on deck, not a rogue to be seen, facing a lot of OTK decks instead. Then I add ilucia to the deck and remove tech cards, all OTK decks now are gone and then all weapon decks are back into the fold. That’s how it usually goes, that’s why nobody uses tech cards and just netdeck whatever is there and try to get their BS out before the opponent.

Fun.

4 Likes
8

so if you put a weapon removal and illucia in a deck then what happens? you have 30m queues because you broke the system? throw a bunch of trash tech cards into a deck and see what happens. it’ll be random. like random is.

9

The last thing I would do is trust activision with a patent that literally encourages people to spend money, let alone believe they aren’t actively using it. The matter of fact is that they have it and it would be foolish to believe they aren’t interested in using it since they spend a lot of manpower and $ to get these things done. This is not a R&D company, it’s a money making machine where its main interest is to keep shareholders appeased.

3 Likes
10

Nah, you are just making up BS now. Since we really don’t know how matchmaking works exactly, all we have is speculation, but the fact of the matter is that these things happen more often than not.

2 Likes
11

if you honestly believe nonsense like this why do you play at all? for me i wouldn’t just continue to spend tons of time on a game, or the games forums, just to whine and moan about f2p being playable but not optimal. you have the same ability to buy cards as anyone else does. if you genuinely think you’re at a handicap because you don’t pay and aren’t willing to, the logical thing is to quit. it’ll remove a lot of unnecessary stress from your life. there are other card games you can play that throw tons of stuff at you all the time without having to pay. gwent for example. if you’re married to the wow universe theme though it makes even less sense. if you played the rts games they weren’t free. you paid. in wow you pay $15 a month and at least $40 every two years for an expansion. so you should feel used to spending to be able to access warcraft related things.

12

The question is if it happens more often than not. It’s just something to test, to end this debate forever. Its mentioned in the patent.

If Hearthstone staff were open and played with an “open hand” so to speak they could openly adress the issue (lying to customers means you can get sued) and we wouldn’t need to do this.

1 Like
13

They just say what they’re told to say. Players have no access to the coding and most likely never will. These things are protected and if leaks of any sort happen, you can rest assured they will sue them for whatever they’re worth. The company has to protect its interests obviously, what does not sit well with me is knowing what activision represents in the gaming industry and somehow people think they develop matchmaking algorithyms for any other reason besides making more money.

1 Like
14

I’m not saying your initial test is wrong, just the part that I quoted. If ninety-five percent plays with cards from the latest expansion, it doesn’t matter what deck you play, you’ll still be facing the same people.

15

I’m not sure about this.

Obviously everyone have some cards. But the patent suggests that people with few or no cards could be paired more with people with many cards to induce them to buy them.

Just something worth testing. There are more of these things.

But the main thing for everyone is of course the main part of the OP.

16

in most f2p games you have to pay to not get constant adds. or you pay obscene amounts for optional cosmetics. the fact that any random f2p player can hit legend is the opposite of them “doing anything to make money.” because if that’s what they were trying to do you wouldn’t be able to buy meta defining cards from current packs at all with gold. they lose money every time someone realizes they can hit legend without spending a dime. you can get gold from spending time. that time = the equivalent money spent to buy the same cards as someone else who spends more time to get the same things. it is not pay to win because i don’t get access to cards by paying that are meta defining that you can’t also get from opening your free packs.

17

It literally says “First Person Shooters”. It’s not applicable to Hearthstone because there are too many variables. Why does this keep popping up?

18

You didnt read the patent, you maybe read the first three lines introducing it and because it says “first person shooters” you are now saying its just for that.

If you didn’t read the patent, then you should refrain from posting false information.

1 Like
19

why aren’t you responding to my posts? too much logic for you? :rofl:

20

I don’t reply to nonsense, thats why. If you truly believe there’s no aspect of p2w in a freemium game, then there’s nothing to be talked about with you.

2 Likes