In the other thread, I called this out as well. I said:
When trying to do exactly as you are doing now - “telling it to them straight”.
And you replied to me:
It now looks like you are in the exact same state of conclusion that I was in days ago.
You see, these people don’t want anything explained to them. They don’t want to be educated. They want to remain uninformed because they like thinking it is rigged. I already came to that conclusion. Now you’re at the same place I was when you replied to me stating I should have patience and these people just need to be educated because it’s “hard to grasp”. Now you see it’s not hard to grasp, it’s simply a matter of refusing to grasp it because they refuse to see the error in their logic. They simply do not want to be educated.
Can you now agree that there’s nothing wrong with what I said before and that I was right?
I got it. Blizzard rigging mechanism must be turning off when you are recording to avoid proving its existence. So all the game is rigged people need to do is record Hearthstone to trick Blizzard and disable the rigging.
I said this elsewhere but I’m doing a video series on this after rotation for both Standard and Wild using different methods. I’m happy to take any and all suggestions from other players in playing different ways to achieve data.
You are right that this should be tested but that unfortunatly is impossible.
Whenever you try test this for yourself and get to a sequence that would fall outside 2xstandard deviation (a rather low bench but in statistics this is the accepted benchmark for statistical proof) you have proof but this proof would be rejected. You dont have the games recorded and they will tell you that your sample seize is to small. These are reasonable arguments but they make it so that an individual will never be able to proof this. You are asking for something which can not be delivered by people not working for blizzard. You probably know this as well so i will consider asking for this as arguing in bad faith.
What we need is data from tracking sites but the specific data (i know exactly what data i need and how i would set up the experiment) that is needed is not beeing shown (while it obviously is available as they do track everything.) If i had acces to this data and it would show the matchmaking is indeed completely random (lets just focus on one aspect,the matchmaking,and ignore all other random events that might be off) then i would be the first to admit i am wrong. But as said,this is something that can not be done as the data is not there.
Let’s say some Christians and some atheists are debating the existence of God (which, by the way, we won’t do here). If a Christian hands an atheist a Bible and says “here’s the proof,” that’s not going to be convincing 99% of the time.
We all know you believe the evidence is in the Hearthstone play experience. But we play the same game and we don’t see what you do. If you aim to convince anyone who doesn’t already agree with you, you’re going to have to be more specific what you’re pointing to. You’re going to have to show more.
I will accept a sample size of at least 2000 games. Statistically, that’s ~99% certain that populations are within 1% of what the sample shows. This might sound like a daunting number, and it’s certainly not something you can do in a weekend, but the HSReplay deck tracker automatically records your games, so all you have to do is play. I have 10,000 wins in Arena alone, so if I can do about ~15,000 games of just Arena in 8 years (I’m quite good at Arena), then you can do 2000 games in 1 year.
False. Data aggregator websites have access to all the necessary information. It would seem to me that, if they had evidence of rigging, they’d have a strong incentive to report it. Since they haven’t reported any such thing, I presume no rigging. If you think they’re on the take, well, that’s the type of accusation you’d want to be 99% sure about before you make it, so get on that 2000.
You just did it! You can’t complain about testing being too hard without first proposing your hypothesis.
“It’s rigged” isn’t a testable hypothesis.
Here’s some potential examples:
“It’s rigged to provide 4% easier games immediately after spending over 4.99$ by providing better top decks”
“It’s rigged to provide a 2% easier matchups for each 9.99$ spent over the past year by providing better Discover options”
“It’s rigged to provide different matchups for different decks, to provide 5% more difficult matchups for players who didn’t spend money since the release of the previous expansion”
And it begs the question. If you are so well versed in science, why do I need to explain this to you?
I wonder how one measures a percentage of easierness. It’s important to have a measurement process in mind when making a hypothesis, because if it’s not measurable then it’s not testable.
I have changed “matchups” to “games” in that sentence. “matchups” did not convey the best meaning and was confusing.
Like I have been saying, first we have to get to a testable hypothesis.
We’re not there after all these years.
Then we can figure out the appropriate testing process. For top decks and Discover one could look for a Standard deviation on the drawn win rates for cards were drawn/disco in the first, 5 turns, maybe?
I would argue there might be anecdotal evidence that people who believe reality is rigged by a powerful entity will be more prone to believe their video games are rigged by powerful corporations.
I am not saying I have proof. But this thread is beginning to sound weirdly similar to Atheist Experience episodes.
Eh. There’s a great many atheists who believe that the sole source of every problem in the world is economic rigging. And it’s not the one above all who writes the sinister algorithm — it’s the one below all who does it. The belief in a devil by another name is much more common than the belief in a god these days, particularly among the secular.
But if you are a Buddhist who is deeply religious and doesn’t believe in a God that’s rigging reality; you are probably not going to be as predisposed to rigging conspiracies.
Here’s an example: in the United States there are members of both political parties who believe there was a conspiracy to steal the election from their presidential candidate. One thinks this happened in 2016, one in 2020. Both are pure raw copium (yes, Selwynn, even the one you think isn’t) and both are widely believed.
It’s absurd to act as if the atheists have some kind of protection from conspiracy theories relative to religious people. They don’t. At all. Conspiracy theorizing is thoroughly mainstream. You’re in a tiny minority of you’re not prone to it. The main reason most people don’t think they’re vulnerable is because they laugh at all the ridiculous stuff the other side believes, without realizing they’ve already succumbed to a different iteration.
: