It’s Call of the Wild all over again.
Truly random simply doesn’t exist when it comes to computers. The best rngs just hide the fact that they’re rngs very well and don’t get called-out.
HS has a very bad rng imo. You often get the same result doing the same thing: Like you play 2 matches in a row and a card x gives you the same random card into your hand both times. That’s statistically insane but happens to me all the time and let’s not talk about the amount of pack-duplicates (something everyone should have noticed).
Does that mean the rng is rigged? No. If this happens to every player (and I believe it does), we’re just talking about a very badly coded rng.
About Dr. Boom (as I posted earlier): Turn 7 is not that strange (considering how many cards both players already drew).
Standard counter intelligence answer. I get it. We do not know what we think we know. Well said. Did you know that Blizzard devs know that we do not want what we think we want? I know. This is all very confusing, yes. Do we know? Don’t we know? Does a person need 100 games or 10,000 games to be sure? Certainly, it must be a number so substantive that one person could not possibly do it, right?
Counter intelligence gibberish aside, I did gather hard numbers to learn how serious the manipulation was. Dr. Boom, is just one, of course, so let me share a little of this data using a random spot check of 11 games. The presumption is that manipulation that favors Dr. Boom draw exists. We should see that pattern develop in a small random sample. My one random spot check will suffice.
| 1st|2nd | Drawn? | Decksize | Rate | Draw Turn | Play Turn | Game End Turn |
| 2nd | T | 13 | 70% | 11 | 11 | 18 |
| 1st | T | 18 | 50% | 8 | 9 | 32 |
| 1st | T | 27 | 20% | 0 | 7 | 27 |
| 2nd | T | 22 | 60% | 5 | 7 | 17 |
| 2nd | F | 9 | ||||
| 2nd | F | 9 | ||||
| 1st | T | 16 | 57% | 7 | 8 | 13 |
| 2nd | T | 26 | 27% | 0 | 7 | 10 |
| 2nd | F | 14 | ||||
| 1st | T | 23 | 33% | 4 | 7 | 13 |
| 2nd | T | 21 | 43% | 4 | 6 | 12 |
-
NOTE: Only played cards can be verified, so it could be in hand with an “F”.
-
RATE FORMULA: (30 - Decksize + (3 or 4)) / 30; indicates average draw rate
Firstly, the game records indicated that players generally do not mulligan all cards for Dr. Boom, but it was accounted for in the rate formula to settle that argument. Next, we need to acknowledge that the crucial number in the table is the deck size. The play turn is of consequence, but it does not satisfy our need when developing facts. Subsequently, we need to acknowledge that we have not agreed upon a standard deck size that would equate to a turn ten play to meet our average expectation.
Now, what do we glean from this facts table? Well, the obvious first thing is that Dr. Boom is fairly consistently drawing within the first ten turns: 7 of 11 (~64%). One thing about statistics that I use as a personal rule when judging randomness is that a fractional value will somewhat frequently deviate by one fractional amount of +1/+1 or -1/-1 (without falling below a numerator of 1). Thus, 1/2 (50%) will somewhat frequently deviate to 2/3 (66%) or 1/3 (33%). This spot check shows close to that upper deviation, so it does not suggest anomaly. However, if repeated spot checks show the upper deviation, then the lack of normalcy should prompt a larger study to allow us to more ably scrutinize. Also, we need to remember that the 64% is really 64%+ due to the lack of data from the three games Dr. Boom was not played. Furthermore, the turn 11 play is literally one turn after the cutoff.
In conclusion, we should get more data. The first spot check leads to a need for more data due to the upper deviation meeting the presumption of draw favor. What we are seeking is counter factuals. Draw favor would prevent or inhibit deviation toward the lower draw rate of 33%. If spot checks never show the lower deviation, then we can briefly conclude that draw favor exists. In doing so we would need honest spot checks. Conversely, searching through larger serial data for windows of deviation rates that meet the lower deviation ought to require a higher spot range, say (2n +1). Eleven games is fine for honest spot checking, so 23 game windows should suffice when cherry picking larger serial data sets. However, if we had larger (unmanipulated) data sets, then using the whole set would be more honest.
I don’t intend to go deep into this discussion, but this caught my eye. Isn’t the draw turn kind of pointless data as we don’t know how much card draw was played before then? You have the deck size stat there as well, which I would have considered more relevant. And by that we have 7/11 only without any mulligan.
On the other hand, if we want to consider the draw turn, shouldn’t we evaluate the proximity of the draw to turn 7 (or 6 with coin)? The turn when it becomes a good draw.
I am glad you brought that up, friend, glad you mentioned the importance of drawing on curve. You see, this discussion is about the relevance of Dr. Boom; as you said. If AI.RNG causes Dr. Boom (or any card) to have a favored draw, then the curve strength of the card would be a special factor when engineering the algorithm that prompts the card to be drawn on or near curve. So, if we are to look at Dr. Boom draws on or before turn seven, its curve value as given by the card cost, then we see in the facts table that it drew 6 of 11 times (54.5%) of the time. That seems reasonable, right, or is it? What if every card had a ~50% draw rate at its curve value? What if Khadgar drew on or before turn two half the time? What if Zilliax reliably drew on turn five half the time? Do you see how this becomes an argument that excuses actual manipulation? Cards do not naturally draw on their curve value given true (or digitally averaged) RNG. The only thing that could cause cards to draw on curve is AI.RNG (a.k.a. rigged).
Thank you for your participation. I am so glad you brought this up.
Patterns don’t exist in small random samples, period.
3 Likes
Fractals. I win. Where is the prize?
Fractals and card draw odds are very, very different things.
In a fractal each part is strictly not an independent event. There is a defined pattern being repeated.
Card draw is not going to follow any pattern in the small scale that resembles the larger scale results.
You can not use a sample for 10-20 games to show that there is a problem with card draw odds.
1 Like
See people always say 40% to have or 70% to have but its actually 100% chance to have isnt it?
Certain cards are ALWAYS there.
I haven’t played Warrior since the Warsong nerf so do Warriors hard mulligan for Boom?
Thinking about the play rate on curve, seems like it.
11 samples tells nothing except that you didn’t do enough work for it to be statistically meaningful. Especially when you didn’t show how you picked those 11 games.
A lot more data. If you want any kind of cherry picking you would need a sample size of 1000 to begin with.
LMAO! I am trying to help others find the truth. Please do not attempt to reintroduce doubt with the same tired old excuses.
Statisticians sometimes use sample sizes of ~150 for introductory polling of voting, and there is no pattern to voting; only association tendency. Repeating words to maintain doubt about conclusions is only used by counter intelligence, which the public learns via propaganda, usually in the form of media or advertisement. What you think you know about statistics requirements, as shown by your post, is not accurate.
Let me help you understand by remarking about human mental function. It was once proposed that the human brains is fundamentally a pattern matching system. That supposition is not true. Pattern matching is ancillary to a pattern recognition system, which is ancillary to a predictive system. Let me clear that up. The human brain is exquisitely tuned to predict events while using incomplete data. The absence of pattern data requires our brain to do most of its processing to fill in expected data. We use memory for recognized patterns, but for other missing data the brain uses different types of logic. One of the causes for people enjoying gambling or for being interested in RNG is that it triggers our brains to do what it does best. We are keenly aware when there is a pattern or an absence of a pattern. It is not imagination playing tricks on us. Our subconscious is vigorously at work doing super-server level calculations to justify what we are observing. Because of this, we do not need thousands of cases to tersely conclude that a pattern exists. Our lives depend upon our ability to correctly determine patterns [EDIT: by guessing without absolute proof, but also when no pattern exists or a pattern is being actively disrupted - antipattern behavior]. We avoid danger. We recognize food. We are aware when true randomness is manipulated.
I hope that from this short discussion you will have more confidence in your own conclusions for the remainder of your life. The same goes for anyone who reads this. Your mind was made to predict the future. That is your mechanical purpose, as much as you are your mental state. Trust yourself to anticipate future events. Do not let propagandists and counter intelligence agents defy your brilliant discovery of what is to come. This is true for everything you predict, which includes noticing predictable patterns in Hearthstone AI.RNG, like with matchmaking and card draws.
Be good to each other! Spread love and joy. Also, may RNGzus be with you.
That is exactly the problem. Because we are “wired” to spot/look for patterns we are extremely bad at determining random events, like card draw/shuffle etc. as we are always looking for a pattern, even when there isnt one.
No. That is a fallacy promoted by those who were selling the idea that our brains are pattern matching systems. Actually, we think just fine without observable patterns. In fact, what we call “creativity” is the brain’s ability to defy pattern behavior. In reality, we are most comfortable in an environment devoid of pattern or perceivable order. It is not chaos we seek either. We like options. The strictness of patterns is deadening to our senses. Environments dominated by order interrupt our sense of individuality, creativity, enjoyment of leisure, and sense of well being.
No, my friend, we are “wired” for self expression due to our sense of unique perspective. Live friend. Live fully. Do not let these ideas you speak of hold you back or steer you inward in an unhealthy way. We are not such simple minds. We are all more than what you inferred.
Care to share the studies done on the topic that support your claim?
3 Likes
No, but, if my words have peaked your interest, then I pray that you have many years left to live to learn what many of us have already learned. Do you feel like a robot mind? I didn’t think so. Please, do yourself a favor by finding those studies you seek. They are out there, but it sort of disappoints me that your impulse was to seek confirmation thusly. Be well to yourself friend. I feel like you need to.
I have looked and cant find them, maybe I’m searching the wrong thing. So, if you would be so kind and provide the studies that you got this theory from, it would be much appreciated. Nothing I have found supports your stance so far, so I can only assume its me searching the wrong keywords or these studies not existing.
4 Likes
This is nothing but a bunch of pseudo-intellectual poetic jargon trying to drown out Bowser’s claim. There are literally dozens of studies pertaining to human pattern recognition, its origins, extents, etc that can be found in a simple Google Scholar search, let alone the world of academia at large. Claiming that these are all “fallacies” and refusing to back that up with studies of your own does more to damage the credibility of your stance than support it.
At no point did anyone say that we are exclusively pattern-seeking either. Just because it’s a fundamental part of the human psyche doesn’t mean it dominates its entirety.
2 Likes
Yep, and they also generally realize that with those small samples there is a very large margin of error that requires thousands of responses to get it down to a +/- 2%
Smaller samples aren’t useless, but they still can’t be used to back up an argument that something fishy is going on with card draw odds being manipulated.
Groups like HSR collect the data of thousands upon thousands of games, and pay attention to average turn played/drawn/etc of each card. If anything fishy was actually happening, we would have known about it ages ago.
At the end of the day, Dr. Boom is likely to show up by turn 10. HSR shows his average turn played at 9.7 in control warrior. This isn’t a result of any bad randomization on blizzard’s end, or tilt toward making Dr. Boom extra likely to show up early. This is the expected result for a deck that mulligans for Dr. Boom and is given 10 turns to draw it.
You do actually need thousands of games to prove he is showing up too often, as you are looking to find the exact odds of having the card by a certain time in the game and compare that to the true random value. Small samples have too high of a margin of error, and run the risk of just being an anomalous outcome until you have a large enough sample size.
Trying to act like you are advanced in statistics while ignoring the basics of it just makes you look bad.
3 Likes
Sometimes, the binds we bear, by our ignorance or fear of shame, we put there. Why would I tell you this if I did not care? This information was given to be sure you were aware. When I told you the truth, brother, all you did was glare and and get upset about it. As I rhyme these words to you, brother, I want to better share wisdom with entertaining wit. Why, when I knew you would do this, would I dare? Because haters will hate, nay sayers will nay, yet I will continue unabaited to spread knowledge as I say exactly what you need to hear to undo the binds upon your mind, so that you can live unburdened and maybe help others in kind.
When I said “options,” it was the same as saying variety. We reward uniqueness, to bring attention to it through notoriety. Why would we do this if our thinking required pattern matching as a precondition? In that case, societies would kill nonconformists with ammunition. We would be living in a nightmare dystopia. Maybe an endless supply of potatoes would be our cornucopia. This is not the way we behave. We seek renewed enjoyment after becoming bored by repetition. We prefer to give prizes to those who prove superiority through competition. Everything about us is proof against the pattern matching superstition. That paradigm persists because it is an elitist fantasy to rule over a zombie population. Pattern matching is a small subset of our thinking capabilities. For that, memory is used to shortcut logic to fill gaps in our sensibilities. It is kind of like how a multi-core CPU operates. Each core has discretionary memory to compensate for the much larger amount of time it would take for each core to share one memory chunk for every fetch it should make. Without memory we would need to recognit everything perceived. Every instance of sensory information would feel freshly received. Memory is a shortcut mechanism, that is all. It’s purpose is to support awareness, lest we fall. And for that danger we prioritize predictive thinking over memory access operations. This is how, throughout millions of years of human existence, we have avoided predation. This is how we ultimately became the dominant species on Earth. Our predictive power was so well developed that it aided industrialization’s birth.
What you want to research is “causality,” “personality and individuality development,” and much, much more, but you won’t.
We are dealing with numbers that are easily gathered. You saw my facts table. Where is yours? The presumption is that Dr. Boom draw is skewed above the expected draw rate. I see all these words. Where are your facts?