Random or rigged?

Community Discussion
62

This is fiction. The so-called algorithm was specifically designed to match people in team games with others based on cosmetics, to promote sales of things like skins and voice effects in games like Heroes of the Storm. Then people just assumed it would be used to rig matchmaking “because of sales” ignoring the blatantly obvious fact that most people (present company excluded) don’t stick around playing rigged games. Seriously, what kind of moron keeps playing a game they know to be rigged? Do you give away your bank info to Nigerian scammers for fun too?

Of course you don’t, because you’re smarter than that. But you seem to think the people who argue with you are imbeciles that would honestly believe you’re arguing in good faith.

This is basically point (1) wearing a different dress. See above.

Again, a repeat of point (1) in “Evil Corporation” flavor. If you want to rant and rave against the evils of late-day capitalism and corporate behavior, I am 100% behind you. But maybe focus on something more substantial than a video game company? Like, Amazon is right there people.

You could use the same argument to explain away your position. Plenty of people can’t accept that they lost a game fair and square, so they make up justifications as to why the game didn’t really count, wasn’t really fair, and so on. Which, coincidentally, is why almost every time “tHe GaMe iS RiGgEd” threads show up, is after people go on losing sprees.

Except the game data we have available can check for both of these things: we have matchup info (that is, how well certain decks/deck archetypes do against one another), and card draw data (that is, the likelihood of winning a game based on the turn in which you drew or played a particular card in your deck).

2 Likes
63

I am out of this argument… It not going to get us anywhere again you can’t prove anything nor can we so why argue about it other then to stroke you epeen?

Also Logic is not the end tell all of the world and is much easier to lose oneself if you only look at logic.

Also God is the hypocrisy of this argument no proof he exists and no proof he doesn’t yet many people throughout the world believe in this all mighty being that literally no proof has been given that he does in fact exist. So please share your logic on that one.

1 Like
64

You can’t lose a game fair and square when there is RNG included in said game. When someone has full board control and has outplayed his opponent every step of the way yet 2 rng cards give him the win that is not fair it is rigged period.

2 Likes
65

So you can’t lose a poker game “fair and square”?

Look, if this was the first week of SoU or DoD release, this argument could maybe hold water. But we’ve been dealing with Zephrys/DQA decks for a solid four months now. If you can’t figure out how to play around them, you are not outplaying your opponent.

(I’m assuming the “2 rng cards” you’re talking about are Zephrys and Dragonqueen Alexstrasza. If my assumption was incorrect, do let me know.)

3 Likes
66

Because we’re in a forum titled Community Discussion. Seriously just read and you’d understand.

It kind of is, though. Even the greedy, profit-driven motives you’ve talked about were likely calculated using logic and data, as is the case for literally any and every practice that enables scientific and societal progress. If anything it’s practices that go against logic which have set us back in the past (things like bias, prejudice, etc).

Funny enough my teapot analogy was originally used as a proof against any given higher power, especially one one that is by definition unfalsifiable. It’s called Russell’s Teapot, and you’re more than welcome to read up on it here if you’re interested.

The long of the short story is that, objectively and scientifically, there is no reason to give credence to a higher power without evidence. This is for the same reason you should give no credence to my claim that there’s an invisible all-knowing teapot that supercedes our reality in orbit between Earth and Mars. It’s an astronomical claim with an inversely proportional amount of evidence to support it, and for that reason we should not take any claim of a higher being at face value.

2 Likes
67

Poker is a set deck of 52 cards no more no less (unless you add Jokers) they will never change they will never become something other then they are.

In hearthstone cards from outside the known deck type can come into play with no way to ever be able to play around those cards because they belong to a class you are not playing.

You are trying hard to compare apples to oranges and you are also trying to bring in a very simple system (poker) against a very complex system (hearthstone).

There are only 52-54 cards in poker and they do not change so please stop trying to get your point across using stuff that can’t even compare to what we are talking about.

3 Likes
68

You were incorrect One was the card that gives the Rogue 2 random cards from a random class. in the case above Flamestrike and Polymorph.

The other card was that fat kobold Togglewaggle or what ever his name is that gives 2 random epics your choice out of 3) handed out the 7/7 rush gives an 8 mana random when they attack.

Sorry but no playing around cards you can’t predict.

1 Like
69

I am not going to sit here and discuss something with you when it is a total waste of my time. I can’t change your views you can’t change mine so not going to waste my time get over yourself.

2 Likes
70

Then don’t do it jfc :joy:. I have no power over your actions. Be free!

2 Likes
71

@infinity

i have better things to do with my free time then learn or read about Philosophy which is what you speak of.

Somethings though while having little to no proof we know have to exist because of our understanding of physics etc. Like Dark Matter and Anti-Matter etc. Everything in this universe has a beginning and an end even if we can’t prove it.

1 Like
72

You’re moving the goalposts (because of course you are). You said, and I quote:

Poker, by definition, has RNG (or more precisely, randomness) built into the game because you shuffle the card deck before dealing. Or at least, most people do, not sure how you play it. So poker has a random component to it and therefore, by your very statement, cannot be won fairly. Maybe chess is more your speed? No random element there!

But, presumably, you are aware that cards exist outside of the ones in your deck and the ones from your opponent’s class, right? If someone plays a “Discover a dragon” card, I have a good idea a) what sorts of cards they’re offered, and b) what my opponent is most likely to pick given the situation. People rarely pick Nozdormu when they’re behind on board, for example. Is your read going to be perfect every time? Of course not! But it is possible to narrow down the possibilities to some degree. That is part of the skillset involved in playing the game well.

So, what’s the problem then? Randomness (“RNG”) or complex systems? Is it a random AND complex system? Just kidding, I know you’re just moving the goalposts for funsies.

Congratulations, you got highrolled. The same card could’ve easily given your opponent Elemental Allies and Incantation of Power, a much less powerful result. In that sense, yes, it’s harder to play around. But that is generally understood to balance in the long run because the very good results in one match are countered by mediocre (or even very bad) results in other matches.

You do know that the most commonly chosen Togwaggle treasure is the draw one, right? I get it, I’ve gotten highrolled by the “summon two random legendaries” one before myself, but again, that is a very high-risk high reward play.

2 Likes
73

The presence of dark matter is often invoked when studying astrophsyics but to say that we know what it is would defeat the purpose of calling it “dark matter” in the first place. Antimatter is different in the sense that we have created it and have documented its existence, so I’m not sure where you got the claim that we have no proof for it.

What sets aside both of these from the existence of a higher power though is that they have a very healthy and extensive amount of logic and scientific study backing them up, not just emotion and instinct.

2 Likes
74

Yes, exaxtly that. Something else?

1 Like
75

Like playing a “rigged” game? :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like
76

@InfinityMin1-1247

“Except there’s no reason to believe that the profits of a rigged-beyond-MMR system could outweigh the cost of R&D, implementation, hiding a multinational conspiracy against the playerbase, and the risk of loss if the playerbase found out.”

  • The first rule of Fight Club is We DON’T TALK ABOUT FIGHT CLUB.

:stuck_out_tongue:

That’s all I got for now.

2 Likes
77

Oh…and I almost forgot… I also have a screenshot from January this year where I was playing a ranked match. I think it was in wild… Anyways, the screenshot clearly shows I’m rank 18 playing against a rank 14 opponent. I don’t think that was supposed to happen. I definitely feel like this continues to happen and that is the reason you don’t see your opponents ranks anymore in ranked play… but once again… there is no evidence that can clearly be pointed to to support such a claim.

3 Likes
78

1: Science has never nor will it EVER prove God exists or doesn’t exist. (btw i don’t believe in any God(s)).

2: Scientific study is a play on words because many religious and non religious people have evidence that Jesus did in fact exist as a man. (Which to some is proof enough that God exists)

3: Dark matter must exist if we are to believe our own understanding of physics and the universe. I believe it does exist but we will never find it or be able to study it as long as we use equipment that is made to observe light matter which is what our world is)…

4: People thought at one time our sun revolved around our tiny planet and even when proof was given they ignored it because the though of not being the center of the universe upset their small minds. This I can say about you and your like minded individuals and you can say it about me and mine but again we are in a clash neither can win or lose.

5: Logic is stupid like Capitalism it only works when rules are placed on it to keep it from devouring itself. When you take the chains so to speak off Logic and Capitalism it seems awesome at first then the realism sets in and you realize it is killing itself with its own rules. Do you know WHY the USA economy is starting to collapse because of the virus while China and Europe are doing better? I will let you think about it awhile.

6: There is extensive and very healthy amounts of study that proves God exists and doesn’t exist. You see Logic can not prove God exists nor can Science and the thought of any God is unfallable because it is FAITH/BELIEF without proof. That doesn’t mean it is right but it also doesn’t mean its WRONG which is what i have been trying to tell you from the beginning.

79

This game is absolutely rigged. When the HS don’t want to win your game through the random effect card or drawing worst card for you and best card for your opponent arrange your losing game. I’ve got used to it, but it is pity. This game partly depends on the player skills and unfortunetaly on the rigged algoritms. I hope that they don’t delete my note as last did it.

2 Likes
80

@Kuhjahh716

Yes not displaying their rank makes me wonder about the system being rigged as well in that sense…

2 Likes
81

Never said it could, never said it will. A higher power supercedes the physical world by definition, and that’s why no objective, science-based institution will take God claims seriously.

What makes it a play on words?

More importantly, just because Jesus may have existed doesn’t make his status as the son of god true, or make the existence of a higher being any more spectacular. If David Copperfield went back in time to 0 A.D. there’s a very real chance he could have convinced people he was a messiah too (that is, as long as the threshold for being the son of god is being able to make it appear as if you cure the sick, walk on water, etc).

If by “dark matter must exist” you mean “there is likely a unifying solution in the gaps of our knowledge”, then sure. My point was that we don’t know much of anything about what dark matter is, only the effects it has on our understanding of the universe.

Say there’s an object that passes overhead, and creates a shadow on the ground. Our current knowledge lets us see the shadow (that is, the impact that the object has on our world by passing in front of the sun), but we have no idea what the object is or what it’s doing passing in front of the sun - only the two-dimensional, comparatively formless shadow that we have in front of us. Saying that “dark matter must exist” is the same as saying there’s a shadow - it’s just a repetition of things we already know.

What we don’t know is that dark matter actually is.

“Is it a sphere creating this shadow?”
“Is it a cone?”
“Is it a complex structure that never loos like this shadow unless viewed directly from above or below?”
etc.

Similar logic applies to the existence of a higher power. We know the universe (probably) exists, and that it (probably) began somewhere around 14 billion years ago. However its anyone’s guess as to exactly why the universe exists, if there was anything before the universe, if anything is responsible for having created the universe, etc. In this case the “shadow” is existence, and the “object in the sky” is whatever is responsible for it.

More to the topic at hand, this analogy is relevant to determining whether the game is rigged or not. If I insisted earlier that a complex, very-much-not-spherical object was creating a circular shadow, it would be a guess that is much more complex and makes more assumptions than one that assumes and object with a circular form or base. The simpler of the solutions (that a circular object is the thing most likely to create a circular shadow) is the one taken as the status quo, and until evidence is provided demonstrating otherwise, the “circular base” theory should and would be the accepted truth.

The same applies to the “game is rigged” theory. Blizz has openly stated that the game isn’t rigged beyond MMR, there is no hard evidence for the alternative, and on a statistically relevant scale games don’t play out any differently than you’d expect from a random system (that is, odd plays and statistical anomalies happen about at the same rate as you’d expect from a physical card game).
For all intents and purposes, the skeptics’ position is the status quo - the “circular object/base” theory, and it’s the one most commonly accepted as truth. This isn’t to say that the game isn’t rigged (that there was a complex shape casting a circular shadow), but it is to say that it is nonsensical to believe that the game is rigged without an according threshold of hard evidence supports it.

It went a lot deeper than “people were small-minded”. People refused to believe the heliocentric theory for two main reasons:

  • They had no concept of the scientific principles that led to its development

  • The heliocentric theory philosophically challenged the very egocentric, human-focused model of the universe as established by abrahamic religions. The notion that humanity wasn’t at the literal center of the universe was blasphemous and in many cases led to the torture and silencing of people who proposed it.

This is a superb example of dogmatic thinking and how emotion-driven beliefs are not the best way to objectively evaluate the world around us. If this is related to the current situation, can you show us where dogmatic and emotion-based thinking is getting in the way of logic and evidence? How is the “game is rigged” side revolutionizing the way we think about the game and not just offering anecdotes, and what genuine evidence are we ignoring in our denouncing of their position?

Care to give an example?

And I haven’t said outright that there isn’t a god or that there isn’t rigging in this game, only that the logic and thresholds of evidence that lead people to believe in both are often underwhelming and far more fallible than they should be. The thought process that leads you to believe in a multinational conspiracy shouldn’t be “I played a funny streak of games”, but should involve proper research into both sides of the situation. An overwhelming majority of people who believe the game is rigged don’t do this, and that’s where I try to talk to them.

1 Like