There have been various ‘conspiracy’ theories about how the game is possibly ‘rigged’, some of them focusing most commonly on ‘skill’ or ‘performance’ and/or equalising ‘win rate’ (possibly flattening that Gaussian-like distrubution into a more rectangular one), others touching the F2P/P2W aspects of the game (for example, this report). We should note that these do not necessarily contradict each other, moreover, the long-term goal of ‘reverse-engineering’ Hearthstone’s ‘kayfabe’ algorithm (a.k.a. ‘The Algorithm’) is ‘reconciling’ those theories and establishing how different aspects are specifically implemented in the system as a whole.
While this work is but a step in this direction, it is at least some progress in this poster’s understanding, who has mostly overlooked the second aspect of rigging described above, mostly due to lack of own experience of non-free gameplay and empiric evidence. In this light, feedback or reports by those who have got any in the context of this writing are welcome.
This idea, theory or hypothesis has been inspired by playing too much, sadly, some time ago, due to weather conditions and other circumstances — more than I normally would have liked to. This was done in a rather casual fashion and I haven’t kept very detailed notes, yet a certain pattern seemingly started to manifest.
While playing only a few games, you could have any kind of daily record: it could be 2-3, or 3-2, or something about 5-5, or even 10-2 — the ‘climbing’, you know. However, after a certain number of games — hard to say how many specifically, but something of the order of ten — the game would apparently switch from a seemingly ‘nondescript mode with the semblance of normalcy’, for which the term ‘trial mode’ is proposed here instead, to the so-called humilation mode, a.k.a. ‘you cannot win’ mode (see also numerous reports like this one… looks like some comments there have been destroyed, though), and the record could be 10-20, 10-50, 10-100 or until you would no longer be able to continue the experiement to determine: ‘How long can this go on?’
Apparently, and in accordance with the report(s) cited above, a ‘Rune$tone$ bomb’ would be expected to break the spell and keep winning or climbing as you normally would, or, if you wouldn’t, you should act according to the common wisdom — just leave and come back later, when the cooldown would reset eventually.
Another related hypothesis: all those ‘PREMIUM’ skins and other ‘MEGA-DIAMOND’ bundles include a ‘Booster mode’, meaning that you can’t lose during the ‘promo’ period and/or a number of subsequent games. Oh, and one more proposition: since there have been suggestions that the game encourages you to craft new staff (can’t be bothered to dig it up, sorry — mostly because it wasn’t in my posts and thus not so easy ), the well-known phenomenon of “beginner’s luck” is highly likely no coincidence and by design.
Suddenly, it all seems to add up… Moreover, the proposed framework of different ‘modes’ (affecting so-called match-making, ‘RNG’ or whatever), as described above, would elegantly unify all the aspects of ‘kayfabe’: be it triggered by your ‘excessive’ performance, i.e. winnig more than you should or are entitled to (whether due to being of the ‘Big Streamer’ league or not, spending much/little, being too smart/stupid or whatnot) and, vice versa, displaying ICQ below 40 in the game or on these forums and thus the need for ‘paraintellectual help’ from the game — or a ‘rune$tone$’ event, a timely engaged appropriate mode would put you… in your place soon enough. Oh, and unlike the alleged ‘MMR’ etc, it’s apparently real. At the very least, it seems to be working in practice, unlike some mythical ‘MMR’, which some of its adepts seem to believe in dogmatically, quasi-religiously.
PS Oh, almost forgot to elaborate on the concept of ‘trial mode’. It’d be something along these lines: you free trial has ended (for today or whatever), welcome to the $hop if you wanna win some more games. F2P, you know.
(UPD: a missing reference added; some minor edits made for clarity and accuracy)
Look at this unbelievable thread. Of course it’ll take me until the end of the weekend to read it but thats EXACTLY what i want. I’ll read it probably tonight or tomorrow but I’m definitely investing in this thread, it can go places. Give u my thoughts shortly.
When the devs implemented the wild heroic brawl, I and some of my friends started playing in the wild mode to prepare to that heroic brawl. I and some other people never played in the wild mode before, so we started with low mmr.
Our winstreaks looked like dozens of games. As far as I can remember the best result was ~70 wins in a row (it was posted on reddit, but I am too lazy to search and check).
The most cases of your “you cannot win mode” more likely are outcomes of matching a person against stronger players and imperfection of the mmr system in the game where rng and luck are involved.
Btw, the correct form is ‘my friends and I’. But that’s a prelude…
Oh, I suppose that rubbish was expected nevertheless, even though I’ve made it quite clear that it’s got nothing to do with reality whatsoever, I believe.
Anyway, let’s deconstruct that delusion (again , I suppose) in detail…
In 2017 or whenever that was, perhaps…
Nowadays, if you start with a fresh account as a beginner, you’re gonna meet the same stuff as in that ‘top legend’ or whatever. Same playarghs, same (net)decks, same ‘skill’, whatever.
These forums are rife with reports like that (I’ve even linked one of them above, you weren’t paying attention, I guess), and it’s been the case for years, I think. Tested and reported it myself, too (not sure about bli$$bots at this point, though, haven’t they removed that officially? Dunno, don’t care). Why, I think yet another topic like that was on the main page just a while ago.
Yeah, yeah. When you hit that ‘legend’ rank and start seeing those of your opponents, for example, you realise that those world champions humiliating you 30 times in a row are Platinum players, perhaps… Or something like that.
If you were paying attention to references, you would have found this bit, for example:
Just when you think you’ve seen more or less it all when it comes to mocking politeness on the verge of passive aggression and beyond it, as well as formulations which are ‘politically correct’ beyond the point of… ridiculousness, here comes a little ‘black swan’ for you.
The ‘imperfection’ is that the ‘system’ in question, quite obviously, doesn’t exit or function at all, to put it mildly. As said umpteen times (can’t even be bothered to dig it up again), this whole ‘MMR system’ is big (hog)wash or simply a hoax. Were it not the case, the aforementioned reports wouldn’t come forth as if from a horn of plenty. Beginners would play amongst themselves, and so would ‘top’ players, etc.
If you suggested the existence of real-life yetis or pink unicorns, virgins in a brothel or posters on this forum like you (the ‘forum paladins’, ‘white knights’ for the company, HS apologists, whatever you call it) with some common sense in their noggin , it’d be less preposterous than that proposition about some supposed ‘MMR’ in HS. Oh, and repeating yet again how not a single believer in this whole lunacy, its zealot, has ever provided at least the formula or the algorithm that would do it.
No, I said “wild heroic brawl”, not “heroic brawl”. I installed the game in 2022 and I didn’t play heroic brawls during my first year of playing. Then I can remember some standard heroic brawls, and only later some wild heroic brawls happened. But I should admit, maybe I made a mistake and it was not the first heroic brawl in the wild mode.
Yes, when I started playing wild, I started facing wild meta decks very soon. But they were piloted extremely poorly to make dozens of wins in a row be possible.
Don’t forget that it was the wild mode. I saw how top-600 of wild played coin + hero power on the turn 1. Literally yesterday I saw top-600 playing coin + Patchwork Pals on the turn 1. Maybe he expected that I would die due to feeling that smth cringe happens, otherwise I can’t see any reason to make such a move.
This sounds familiar, but… what if… it happens because they are better than me?
It is possible to be lucky sometimes and climb to higher mmr without truly deserving it. Then such lucky people lose some games in a row and come here to write something about rigging, perfect answers to their every move (without understanding that their moves were very predictable and it is normal for experienced players to prepare answers), etc.
The most cases of “you cannot win” mode are probably like that.
But I didn’t say “all cases”.
There are some suspicious phenomena in this game, but they are just not where you look for them. What on the earth can make any developer add “you cannot win” mode in any game? It is useless. Unlike adding some better rng for players who spend real money and newbies and returning after a long break players…
I’d like to post proof that the game is rigged, but yesterday I posted a link to my screenshot and “coincidentally” the “community” flagged it… who is this “community”? Obviously, internal Blizzard users who flag and remove posts, effectively pretending that a “community” has flagged them. If anyone wants to, please contact me somehow and I’ll provide the screenshot that also supports this post. That is, turn one in an arena with zero wins, they are literally oneshotted by an opponent who on turn 12 had seven 13/16 minions on the board… obviously, he had $500 worth of skins and probably who knows how much he spent per month (I’m a free-to-play player).
The best thing to start a theory is having a completely opaque basis You should always writte a conclusive essai about your theory before gathering data, that’s the most sane thing to do
That way you can gather any reports from ppl whinning about a lose streak and call it proof material and we know that’s the best methodology
Sarcasm aside, you’d also need to establish when that theory starts applying since we know for a fact there was nothing such back in the days when you needed 30 wins to get all your daily gold and it was perfectly doable, natural fatigue being the only win limitation
I remember my first climb to legend before I was a paying player and it took me 2 days to go through all 10 diamond levels at the time and it was just an intense tug of war with some winstreaks and losestreaks but nothing extraordinary since I beat it in the end
There are also been numerous achievements of users climbing to legend on a brand new free to play account in a few days which goes against every theory in place
Any theory should come with its opposite, so what would prove that theory wrong ? A single player getting like 20 wins in a single day ? Especially so if they are not a paying player ?
I remember playing some before quitting the game for years (first Un’Goro, as said many time on these forums), mostly out of frustration, but it probably was Standard. Turns out I was quite correct about the first Wild, though.
Dunno about Wild specifically — you’ve got a point here, not sure if I’ve ever even played it.
The post(s) above are mostly about Standard, but I played also Classic (even without considering the ‘original’ classic… like open beta etc ) and Twist while they still were a thing — more or less the same thing with ‘meta’ decks, even though the modes weren’t very popular either (neither is Wild, I must assume). Oh, and years ago I tried Casual, I think, which was the same as Ranked. And I wanted to to something wacky or whatnot…
Nevertheless, Wild might be different, I just dunno.
Looks like a completely leigitimate move in Standard.
With that said, I have to repeat that thing about that dreaded Octosari Hunter again, I guess:
Also wrote many times about apparent bots with basic decks in Classic… So, all this doesn’t mean anything.
Yes, that exactly why these champions still cannot get out of Silver/Platinum/Diamond while you’ve been playing in Legend for some time.
The troll ‘psychology’ of forum paladins is truly something.
I dunno. I cannot even take this seriously, let alone reply to it so. Consider this your victory, if you will.
Imagine a guy whose socks smell so terribly that everyone avoids him and tries to stay at least ten metres away. He keeps going, though, how everyone envies his skill and therefore behaves so, because it cannot be any other way around, simply because it cannot. They do envy the skill! Yes, they do! How could one possiblye doubt that? If you do, you surely envy it, too.
So I dunno, I personally wouldn’t savour such a victory too much.
And your parroting that hypothetical ‘MMR’ rubbish… Just above I asked you what the algorithm or formula for it is. No reply, nothing to say, as is always the case with the adepts of the MMR cult. Okay, you don’t know how it’s supposedly calculated, but maybe you can at least tell me what is it? The number, to matter how meaningful (or not)? Oh, no, of course not, it’s hidden , but it surely does sort everything out magically, just trust us. What is this? Russel’s teapot? No, it is those world-ruling smelly socks of skill, I tell you!
Alright, a special mention to the ‘deserving’ part. I don’t even know what to say, I’m at a loss here. Good one!
Some? Who taught you to speak ‘politically correct’ like that?
Seriously, you’d go far, say, in the EU with rhetorics like that.
You’ve gotta be kidding, right?
I used to make observations and count, like: okay, let’s see how many games today I’ll play without getting a single copy of my four key cards, with specific tutors for them also available, having drawn 20+ cards from my deck, when the opponent will play four-five his unique ones — just the right ones, despite drawing half as many, perhaps. The answer would be of the order of ten — don’t think I play more. I’ve long tired of such little experiemtns.
See also, for example:
, or:
,
or:
Maybe your problem in a dispute is that you completely ignore arguments and just keep going on with your stuff repeatedly instead?
Oh, my dear fellow, have I got a real kicker for you…
Imagine this: for someone to win more (‘better rng’, to put it in your words), someone else has got to lose more, because it’s a zero-sum game.
The whole point of ‘rigging’ is that some clowns win more than they would if skill or whatever was a thing and are happy about it, while others are robbed of their wins to make up for it.
Who are you to … lecture me?
I think I’ve proposed enough terms already even in this very topic. Don’t wanna repeat it — not even for you.
Dat essai, mon…
Sarcasm aside, though…
Oh, I’ve already written about important milestones that woud do the trick from a technical perspective. That’s possibly when it was (or could have been) implemented in practice.
For me, a fact would be the source code or something like it.
No, there seemingly wasn’t.
People used to talk about ‘bad meta’ or such, Undertaker Hunter or whatnot, but not ‘kayfabe’. Besides, AI — in the game and in general, I suppose — was much less advanced then (single-player adventures were a good illustration — remember how bossed got much tougher when they upgraded it?), it would have been too tricky to implement any shenanigans like that, most likely.
Nowadays, though, if I were to implement this kind of rigging technology (by the way, many of my ‘exercises’ on the subject here are of such a ‘what-if’ nature: if I were to make it rigged, how would I do it in practice, specifically?), I could probably ask some chatbot AI to gauge players’ IQ by ‘reading’ posts on this forum and spotting obvious idiots in need of ‘help’.
Wrote many times how even bots with basic decks seem to have done it en masse, so it doesn’t mean much nowadays.
You mean good ol’ Popper and all that?
For my conspiracy stuff, it’d be simple: a Big Streamer on a Gaming_Chair™ having some bad luck for once, or incompetent… playarghs, who make one obviois and crude mistake after another, not stomping their opponents consistently anyway, or reports of all those players with ALL DIAMOND and MYTHIC stuff (mentioned also above) having bad luck and loss streaks — why, even the usual topics with complaints on these forums would do, but have you seen any? All of this would falsify such theories, alright.
Of course, if you also remember that ol’ man Thomas Kuhn and particularly that Imre Lakatos guy, you’d remember how a single (experimental) counter-example doesn’t immediately disprove or overthrow a theory or, more specifically, a so-called research programme, it’s a bit more complicated than that… But it’s a separate story.
PS Good question, though, anyway.
Mind you, unlike our crazy conspiracy stuff, there’s seemingly no way whatsoever to test that ‘MMR’ hypothesis (more on that above) empirically, experimentally. And yet they call their opponents names?
It’s factual that it was perfectly doable to get the daily gold cap which was at 30 wins. All you needed was the time to play those games
You’re making a global claim, which implies it’s always true. A single occurence of the opposite makes it false
So non-paying bots spamming the ladder are able to get through the anti free-to-play rigging and daily win-limit cap while always playing the same deck ? And blizzard’s rigging is incredibly perfect at what it does yet they can’t get rid of bots climbing the ladder ? And your only answer to what looks like a large data sample (from what I understand of your sentence) is “doesn’t mean much” ?
sounds like cognitive dissonance
Couple humans able to do it already sounds like contradictory to your theory and you’re the one saying that even bots can do it
So if I were to give you the link to a twitch replay of a years-old streamer who bought the last pet but goes 3-7 in battlegrounds at 7k rating, it would falsify your theory ?
Yes, but that’s not what we/you/I was/were talking about… Ah, forget it, then.
In maths or logic — yes, in science — no, it doesn’t (again, see above… and below re that).
It only means that the mere fact of reaching that ‘legend’ doesn’t mean much nowadays, that’s all.
There’s inflation, there’s this nagging little circumstance that bots don’t care about losing streaks (and yes, real players with deck trackers registered improbably high win rates against those bot waves when it was a hot topic — so those bots would lose a lot), there’s the sheer number of bots that makes it possible for them to ‘flood’ all ranks, so to speak…
Dunno about mine specifically, since I don’t generally deal with BGs (did a couple of times or so when some ‘quest’ or such ‘strongly encouraged’ me to, that’s it), but generally speaking — yes, it would falsify it, but no, it wouldn’t disprove, deconstruct or bring it down. I’ve gotta repeat: check out Lakatos (btw, if memory serves, he did a surprisingly concise and clear summary of his work — unlike what philosophical articles tend to be, long-winded, murky and pointless, because “that’s how we do it” — for some lecture or whatever, it was readily available online and quite readable) and that part about ad hoc hypotheses specifically.
Besides, rigging might not necessarily enforce or prohibit certain events — just make them more or less likely than you’d assume. An analogy, if you will: a single so-called person of colour might receive a prestigious position or something like it, but it doesn’t mean there’s no racism at all, meaning that such people are less likely to get a good job etc. So, you’ve gotta be more specific with what a ‘counter-example’ is.
Also, check out something along those lines:
In general, when it comes to theories, decision-making or whatnot, right or wrong aren’t even the right categories. Or, if you don’t want any puns, not applicable. Dunno if this would blow your mind like a revelation, but that’s how it actually goes.
Tldr. People like you are the main reason why rigging in this game will never be noticed by any serious institution and proven. Nobody wants to take serious any theories when most adepts are not very far from adepts of flat Earth.
PRECISELY what you’re talking about
You’re the one claiming the game starts putting you in a “cannot win mode” after a ten daily wins
If science has a theory about pigs not being able to fly but tomorrow a single pig does actually fly, that theory is proven false.
If you wanted to be scientifical with your theory you would have to be the one establishing the limitations of your theory, or at least initiate the debate on how to establish them, it shouldn’t be on your readers to assume them
I have to say I would find it actually interesting to see a topic about “how could we prove it ?”, but all I see is “There’s that, deal with it”
Let’s say your first post filled with “possibly, seemingly, apparently, hard to say” isn’t really scientifical
It still requires a large number of games, which is what we’re focusing on
I didn’t know bots could magically not lose stars during losing streaks because they didn’t care
How do you explain that they can still climb with a miserable winrate due to daily win cap, and yet still align with your initial theory ?
to falsify
to prove (a statement or theory) to be false
to disprove
to prove that (something) is false.
Can you be serious ?
also there you go, at 24 hours and 46 minutes in the VoD, it’s on a webtv and it was the end of that streamer’s session https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2573513692
It’s extemely easy to find such material on battlegrounds since you can just check any twitch video every hour and the tracker lets you know of their past games, while for constructed you would have to actually watch the video
Well, at least it’s honest that you’ve got nothing meaningful to say… which is not surprising, but why stop by at ll, then?
‘But still, you envy my socks!’
Ugh… I cannot… You change subjects than Zerus or a Shifting Scroll does its form.
Absolutely not.
Check out history or philosophy of science, I even gave you some pointers above.
Well, I’ve written a series of treatises about that, already.
It should be at least to do some homework.
There’ve been quite enough more like ‘How we have proven it’, but still not enough for you. Alright…
PS Come to think of it — no, you and others like you probably wouldn’t. Most likely, it’d be yet another case of ‘This post was flagged by the community and a staff member opted to remove it.’
These forums are predictable.
Oh, and that so-called cognitive dissonance hurts, apparently.
Oh, it is much more so than wild claims about the existence of ‘MMR’, ‘role of skill’, ‘you problem’ and so on in a matter-of-course fashion. Why, most of these claims aren’t even falsifiable at all and thus, as said umpteen times, quasi-religious.
Ugh… Truly?
Ever heard about rank floors?
Besides, if bots become sufficiently numerous, then real players beating them become insignificant for them, a minor statistical noise. Sure, those people can climb to the top like there’s no tomorrow, but bots don’t care — with their sheer numbers, they just flood all ranks, and yes, even if they all spam the same basic deck, some would ‘climb’ even past D5 (getting there isn’t an issue at all due to win streaks) to L, which requires just some usual fluctuations.
Absolutely.
Given you even references and all, yet still you display surprise and what looks like a reaction of a novice. If that’s the case, then I’d suggest that you take a course in philosophy of science, get a PhD from a decent place or something like it; why, at the very least you could do some home reading proposed above. Then it all, including this discussion, would be more meaningful, perhaps.
This is a bit hard to follow for just 14 posts, so I’ll just add my opinion to what I think is being discussed.
I have no problem with people posting general theories about the game being rigged. After all, it very well could be. That being said, posting a very specific theory (that can be easily tested) and claiming the game is 100% rigged in that way is just dumb.
If you make a claim that can’t be replicated, it’s extremely dubious. To OP’s credit, this thread appears to be more of a suggestion that an actual claim, but without actual facts I don’t see how you can simply refute the people replying to you. There are glaring holes in what you purpose is going on and you are making a lot of assumptions.
Could the game be rigged? Sure. Until someone can reliably replicate something of substance though, any specific claim is just fiction.
Btw if it was you playing Starship DH against me, next time don’t launch small ships. Some exceptions are possible while playing against hyper aggro, but this deck probably loses vs hyper aggro anyway (that’s why it is a tier 2-3 deck). You way to win against Rogue is to risk at the start and to build a bigger starship and then Exodar into armor + ressurecting and replicating your starship. Actually this matchup is not so good for Rogue, if DH survives and launches a starship, this game becomes almost unwinnable for Rogue (some of my opponents had 1 hp + ~100 armor in the end), so I thought my chances were low (my starting hand was not the worst, but still was far from being good), but you literally did everything to make them higher (if it was you, maybe it was someone else with the battletag SparkyElf).
Playing like that + picking a deck that is more likely tier 3 = it is not “you cannot win mode”, it is a mode “I picked a relatively weak deck and I pilot it not quite well”.
No, it’s not. For every game you could show a streamer skillfully winning, I can find one of a streamer losing. You have a clip of a high roll, I can find one of a low roll. How would that prove anything? You could also make that generic claim about any streamed game.
I wasn’t clear, but by “replicated” I mean someone makes a prediction and then does it. Then they do that experiment again, with the same prediction. And then they do it again. And again. All while streaming or recording uninterrupted. The results don’t even need to be the same as long as they show a pattern and that pattern could also be replicated.
This isn’t even difficult to do. So many specific claims that could be proven with an hour of effort if people wanted to. Your Trial/Humiliation Mode claim wouldn’t be viable for this, but a deck tracker with screenshots of these crazy losing streaks would certainly go a long way.
I would say that uniting us all in a mega class action against Blizzard, sending it into bankruptcy, would solve everything. I want to see these scammers broke or worse, behind bars.
Don’t really track your kind, though, could have been you or someone else with the same nick, but different numbers.
I do recall a game that looked like what you describe, though, so it might have been it.
Gotta quote this again:
Assuming that was indeed the game…
Apart from the fact that sometimes a turn 5 Starship is the best move, have you considered the possibility that your opponent plays something strange (like a Carnivorous Cubicle on some small minion) because there’s nothing else to play? Has this thought ever occurred to you? Probably not, since any thought at all there (in the noggin of those HS playarghs, that is) would be more rare than a double total eclipse.
From what I remember about that particular game, not a single Arconite Crystal — the card around which that kind of DH is built, really — was ever played at all (UPD: 'cause none ever showed up in the hand, duh! Usually, you’d wanna play one A.S.A.P.), with about half of the deck or more drawn. PS Same for Tusk Piercer, the one to ‘tutor’ it. Go on, estimate the probability for it.
So yeah, imagine that — some people do play Starship DH without Starships, or, to consider some other decks (I don’t run them, though), Protoss Priest without Protoss, Leech DK without leeches, Fyrakk Rogue without Fyrakk, Mech Warrior without mechs etc…
Probably not you, though, according to my original rigging theory. Judging from your posts, you can’t be very smart, thus the paraintellectual help from the system and very skillful ‘RNG’ in most of the games (well, unless it’s against an even bigger jormungar ).
Playing like that, as described above in detail, especially for like 20 times in a row every day (past the free limit of 5-10 games), regardless of deck (for example, I could tell you stories about Cliff Dives with no minions in the deck most of the time and so on), is exactly that mode to me.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like one…
Anyway, thanks for you feedback. It makes that particular game an interesting data point.
Come back when you’ve got something like Ysera, Fyrakk and Zilliax, with nothing to play for the first 5 turns, 30 games in a row every day for a couple of years. Tell me it’s not a humiliation mode, then.
Oh, yeah, skill issue, how could I forget.
Oh, please.
That’s not even a testable hypothesis.
Whatever you mean, reproducibility of results is a well-established enough term, I think, and I’m familiar with it, thank you.
Anyway, this is exactly what’s been done umpteen times by different people, anecdotally or whatnot.
The results will probably never be the same, but the pattern in question is the HS take on the Pareto principle: events with a 20% or lower chance of occurrence happening 80% of the time or more often, or something along those lines.
I’ve long lost count of that.
You’ve gotta be kidding, right?
I’ve described just above how you can validate it.
What else? Tax returns? Photo ID? Classified documents?
Speaking of the last-named, you’d be surprised how many eejits have reportedly uploaded them to some gaming forum or community just to prove someone wrong on the internet.
Seriously, do you truly expect someone to do all this kind of work (including installing dubious third-party software on one’s machine) just to impress some anonymous stranger on a forum?
You know, people are getting payed (as part of their job) for preparing nice, polished articles (quite a boring piece of bitter work, I tell you) and whatnot… Yet I’m amazed by all those forum people feeling so entitled that they demand it. This ‘Here we are now, entertain us’ mentality… I dunno, sometimes it’s too much for me.
You know, if someone offered decent pay for writing a detailed report, with statistical analysis, tons of references and all, I’d consider it. The real condition, perhaps, would be someone capable of actually comprehending and appreciating all the maths and whatnot — that’d be a greater motivation than money, perhaps, for me at this point to write a nice paper and whatnot. I’m not gonna do it just to put it in my drawer — and definitely not at the behest of a bored anonymous stranger.
Until then, I’m free to write notes about my hobby project as informally as I wish, armchair sceptics and self-annointed pundits not impressing me one bit. With that said, if anyone else wishes to share his or her case, even a single one (and no, there’s not need for ‘di tauzandz hundred millionz of gamez’, unlike some popular fraudulent claims you might hear), you’re welcome. We could at least do some quick Bayesian estimate how likely the game is rigged, based on that.
You’ve gotta be kidding, right?
These people have been doing more or less gambling in a paper-thin disguise and are fine with it.
Do you think some rigging would do anything to them, when they’ve probably got it covered by ‘patents’ or whatnot? Or, more importantly:
Oh, if you believed their ‘RNG’ was random — it’s your problem.
Besides, you used the term ‘class action’. I think it’s specific to the so-called justice system in the USA (more or less the same for ‘patents’, btw, although I believe they also enforce this nonsense in their satellites), known also informally as the system where whoever’s got access to more expensive lawyers wins. Are you seriously gonna litigate against Microsoft, of all them?
If you got bitten by some Greta Thunberg and caught the syndrome, no matter how popular it might be nowadays (see also above on that), I’d suggest that you shake it off and grow up.
), the well-known phenomenon of “beginner’s luck” is highly likely no coincidence and by design.
, I suppose) in detail…
When you hit that ‘legend’ rank and start seeing those of your opponents, for example, you realise that those world champions humiliating you 30 times in a row are Platinum players, perhaps… 
Or something like that.
play for fun or money, or dont play at all 
You should always writte a conclusive essai about your theory before gathering data, that’s the most sane thing to do
