It definitely said class originally.
5 Likes
What? I’m not taking personal credit. The belief was only unreasonable for people who are naive.
Yes, it definitely said class at first. Given that the CM team not the dev team makes the website patchnotes, sometimes there are transcription errors.
4 Likes
Great now everyone is gonna latch onto a misprint as proof. Good going Blizz you stoked the flames of the rigged crowed. >_>
1 Like
We includes yourself, so you did.
Poisoning the well. Withholding belief in the absence of evidence is not naive 
Your statement is demonstrably incorrect.
No evidence has ever been provided, if you have ‘faith’ in your beliefs (belief in the absence of evidence) then you could just as easily believe blizzard is run by fairies.
7 Likes
Can fairies laugh as deep as Ben brode?
2 Likes
Wow…
Matchmaking is actually rigged…
The avoiding facing the same player part is nice.
The avoiding the same class thing is really messed up!
It’s a good thing that’s not what’s actually happening
It was a very strange typo though…
4 Likes
ah. yea.
I just reloaded it and it changed.
Suspicious as F.
1 Like
Everyone knows goblins (big game companies, or big corps in general) carefully design and manipulate everything for monetary reasons, and they obfuscate all of that as much as possible.
Everytime I go to my elderly mother’s house, I set her laptop defaults to Google and Chrome. Everytime I go back again, her defaults are somehow magically Microsoft Edge and Bing.
If you choose to say “I have no evidence these goblins are doing anything, so I withhold belief that these goblins could be doing anything” then that’s your problem.
They are being transparent in this case because they know it will be popular.
Can someone tell me why anyone would continue playing a game they believe is actually rigged to prevent them from ranking up?
It’s mystifying to me.
And while you’re at it, how come it’s only rigged for some people? How come some people get to legend with win rates above 60%?
3 Likes
I think for some the biggest beef is not with the fact that the system tries to keep them at 50 % winrate by matching them with players of equal skill, but with the fact that the system artifically tries to keep them at 50 % winrate using other factors like lucky/unlucky draws, matching them with their counter decks. In MOBAs like League of Legends I’ve often heard complaint that after long win streaks the system tries to bring you down by giving you absolutely worst teammates.
And in a game like Hearthstone where luck/RNG plays a huge role it’s easy to start blaming system for artifically holding you at 50 % by handing you the wrong cards or matching you against counter decks.
P.S. I don’t believe the system is rigged. Just trying to look at it from the perspective of players who do feel that it’s rigged.
2 Likes
On the other hand props to Blizzard if they typed class “on accident” just to mess with the conspiracy theorists.
2 Likes
Yeah, they slipped up alright … my posts were predicated on that statement, so nevermind I guess …
You know what makes more money than rigging a game that has abundant stats gathering from third parties which will get them caught and result in not making any money? Not rigging it and not getting oughted for rigging it lol. Cheating people always comes with the cost of being found out. It is not inherently better to cheat.
Could =/= Are
If I have no evidence that they are manipulating things, then I withhold belief that they are manipulating things. I make no claims of the future, and I make no claims of certainty.
If the game is rigged, it should be detectable. If it’s not detectable, than how can it have any affect (ie metaphysical entities that are claimed to exist in the physical world but leave no trace. If they leave no trace, how are they interacting?)?
We have good sample sizes to measure the events that could be manipulated from third party sites that track player data. Not one single person has looked at the results of tens of thousands of games tracked on these sites and identified anything that points to rigging. Not one.
No reasonable person holds belief in something without evidence. Sometimes that’s hard when we don’t have the means to measure something or it is very difficult to measure. In our case, we have all the data and the right data to identify manipulation and … it isn’t there.
It might change tomorrow, or the day after, but it isn’t there. So withholding belief in something that is not demonstrable is the only reasonable position.
How does this example tie in? As a thought experiment: This is an observation void of a hypothesis — what is your hypothesis and what evidence do you have?
1 Like
Except that it doesn’t prove that at all, of course.
1 Like
While it might be safe to assume that Blizzard makes cuts and choices to maximize profit, that doesn’t mean they make every attempt to do so at the expense of player satisfaction, and it doesn’t mean that it’s safe to assume that they’re partaking in specific actions. Just because they’re a big corporation doesn’t mean that they’re automatically artificially and maliciously rigging matchups towards 50% beyond the MMR system, and the analogies that people have provided up until now aren’t even close to adequate when it comes to proving something like this beyond reasonable doubt.
You’d might as well argue that any game produced by any major company has done everything in their power to underhandedly force players to spend money. While it’s true that some, if not most, have done shady things to improve profits, it’s significantly less likely that all of them have manipulated every aspect of their product against their users’ interests, and it’s disingenuous to automatically assume that a company does one specific thing just because its generally known that companies want to make a profit. The conversation goes nowhere by calling people “naive” for being skeptical of something for which there is little to no explicit proof beyond “companies want to make money and will cut corners to do so”.
I would advise against going down this road at all. No need to argue what an entity would or wouldn’t do when what they DO is measurable by means we already possess.
Einstein: Reality is measured
If it’s true, you can measure it. If you can’t, don’t get to attached to the idea. While it could be true that you will come upon means to measure it in the future, you can not assume you will.
1 Like
Or, more importantly, that they are capable of competently doing so.
Oh so their Answer to Wild Big Priest is queues that last forever after you concede to skip one of the billions of Big Priests.
2 Likes