Then you should start by asking specific questions, rather than half-assing the argument then blaming us for your lack of detail.
The amount of gaslighting and projection you’re doing is rather staggering, and evidence that you’re just trying to trap us rather than advance the discussion.
Doesn’t this seem specific?
And yes, the idea is to either get a decent answer and use it against you later (after providing the evidence) or just conclude that no amount of proof will ever be enough to convince you (by your refusal to answer or having expectations that can’t be met).
The only people gaslighting here are those who dodge the question. I’m not asking what would be a definitive proof, but what would convince YOU.
This isn’t how anything works. Especially #4. That doesn’t make any sense at all. You collect data, then present it in a way you think makes sense. People then discuss it.
But providing one set of data is just that. One set of data. Doesn’t matter if it’s excel, or deck tracker, or a sample size of 100 or 1000.
It has to then be repeated without bias or selective data. If the data you collect doesn’t match and you don’t show it you’ve ruined the experiment.
No one can say what exactly would be convincing because the data needs to be analysed. Which can only happen if someone actually tries to collect data.
This question is important because First of all you gotta specify what exactly is rigging to diferentiate It from standard deviation. How do you know where ramdoness ends and rigging begins? Clarifying that would Go a long way into giving you a meaningful hypothesis.
Someone said that if it isn’t 100% it’s not good enough. So that one is just to make sure what the expectations seem reasonable to the person.
Btw, the questions are for everyone, not just one person.
The data gathering will progress in it’s own pace, so it doesn’t matter too much what anyone says. And I did ask for input at to whether something can be improved.
Ok. I help Veden (already forgot the initial goal of the thread…)
Here is my test setting:
10 people in dia 4-1 play every day from Monday to Friday 4 games (same Priest deck) between 6-8 pm on the European server for 2 weeks. (400 games in total)
The games are all tracked by Firestone and since screenshots can be photoshoped, everyone will post every game link from Firestone xD, visible for everyone on this forum. (so sad that there are no time stamps)
Type of rigging: Win balancing
The game is rigged if during winstreaks, unfavoured Priest players meet far more tickatus warlocks, at least a 2/1 ratio, than during lose streaks. A winstreak consists of at least winning 3 games in a row; a lose streaks is at least 3 in a row as well.
(doesn’t have to priest vs tickatus; could be weapon vs ooze etc)
The issue with the test: Not all players have the same skill level; some may win more often, thus changing the amount of winstreaks vs losestreaks
So, your thoughts on this.
I would like to participate in this test if possible (unfortunately I’m missing too many of the priest cards to make most decks).
Can participate with secret mage, since it’s one of the more consistent ones and I actually have the cards for it.
You could also try it with a variety of agro decks.
I’d just like to point out a few things.
Most priest decks are heavily reliant on good draws and discovers, and are also hard to play (except big priest), so in general it’s hard to get consistent winning streaks with them.
That’s why in my experiment I’m using a more consistent deck that’s less reliant on the luck of the draw or discovers.
One of the points in my hypothesis is that you need to be able to beat your hard counters to face them more often, which would be hard to do with priest.
As far as hard counters go for priest, if you don’t run illusia mozaki mage and most OTK decks are also pretty bad matchups.
In the current setting I don’t think we’ll be seeing tickatus in wild for a while.
As far as my thoughts on the Win balancing, I haven’t seen enough proof of it to be on the side people calling it rigged. Even if it’s unfavorable you can still beat the bad matchups.
The full package of win balancing would include matchmaking, muligans, draw sequencing, discover luck, and pure rng outcomes.
From my experience, everything except the matchmaking is a bit too hard to prove. At times it does seems rigged, but It’s not consistent.
I was speaking about standard, since there are less archetypes involved (you could always happen to be the one who faces the exotic decks like me:P)
The problem in wild is that too many techs exist, and nearly all archetypes have tech potentials. Standard games are far more likely to be played with common stock meta decks, where not a single card is changed.
Actually, it’s winrate really spikes with lackey on one, but nvm.
Ok, it’s standard facehunter then… without the 2 craftable legendaries included.
It’s a 2800 (?) dust deck and still at least tier 2 without the legendaries. Consistent and not discover reliant.
And the bad matchup would be Priest.
Hunter is probably not a bad choice. I’m missing one epic from it, and one legendary (the draw one). Think the lack of legendaries may hurt the consistency.
While lakey does make your openings insane with rigged faire game, the deck does quite well w/o it. In other words, you don’t need to highroll to win most of the time.
They aren’t pillar legendaries, so it’s fine. Especially the 5 drop isn’t that good unless vs Priest and the legednary wepaon can be changed for a trueaim crescent. (one copy in the deck isn’t bad)
That is because it’s general winrate is high xD
I think the % of rigging indicates the % of the matches played. 100% means 100/100 or 50/50 , 153/153, etc. games played had tech or hard counters in them for example.
When I mentioned exactly this in another thread the rigged mafia told me that it wouldn’t be that obvious because it’s about tech cards, not class…
I mean, okay…
lol
But yes, if deck mattered it would show up in the HS replay stats for sure and would have already been widely noted.
I do stand by that, When I see a big priest running dirty rat against my mozaki mage, it does make you wonder.
Well, at least you admit to this being a personal attack rather than civil discourse.
If you see it that way, then sure.
No, you said it was.
If you provide actual proof of rigging, I’d be as interested in it as anyone. Your prejudicial assumption that I would reject it merely because I don’t currently agree with you is your projection, and rather insulting to boot. Your admission that this is adversarial and entrapment further justifies my opinion as to your lack of legitimacy in finding the truth.
Just because you would reject legitimate information does not mean everyone would.
But you still haven’t said what would convince you. I really don’t like moving goal posts, so do indulge me.
Yes I did. A testable hypothesis followed by data collection, with a rigorous statistical test based on that data.
I can’t prescribe to you a test without knowing your hypothesis, because the different statistical tests have different inputs and methods of analysis.
Have you actually taken a statistics course, and understand that “test” has a specific meaning?
I have read what you wrote and told you many times now that your’s is a non-answer.
You are still suggesting that I’m asking you to prescribe a test which I’m not. You continue to say you don’t know my hopothesis despite me quoting it many times, as well as provided a link to the test I’m doing.
In university I did statistics, so I think I know how they work, but here I’m not claiming anything(that will come if there is anything substantial) but asking for your opinion.
Your declaraction of non-answer merely shows that you don’t understand statistical analysis. I have given you VERY SPECIFIC answers.