My only comment is to say I have seen more mages on quest warrior than I did on Libram paladin.
I am also in the part of the meta where ramp druids live and that deck needs to go away forever.
The ramp is one thing, but the free if you have seven mana is just over the top. Like, they have seven mana on turn two, right?
Nothing about ramp druid is entertaining back and forth game play. Nothing.
Observation: when you play a few dozen games each with a few different classes, there is variance in how often they face different decks.
Your hypothesis: This is because of rigging.
The truth: This is because variance is inherent to random samples at low sample sizes.
The test: Get a deck of traditional playing cards (without jokers) and take out the aces. Weâre going to simulate a Hearthstone metagame where there are four classes â Spades, Hearts, Clubs and Diamond â and each of those classes plays twelve games. Separate the aces from each other, shuffle the remaining deck thoroughly, and deal twelve cards to each ace. We know that each suit is exactly 25% of the deck and the expected value for each pile of twelve is 3 of each suit, but the chance that you deal each pile this way is extremely low. Most likely at least one ace will get 5 of one suit, 66% more than average.
If you complete the test a few times youâll see that the variance youâre describing here is completely possible under purely random, non-rigged conditions (itâs not like you were rigging the traditional playing cards deck).
Wrong, thre is algorithm in hearthstone not randomness
But your âevidenceâ isnât proof of an algorithm. It looks exactly the same as the completely random experiment I described.
So here is the proof that youâre crazy.
I saw a demon hunter and two warlocks as paladin, but none of those as Quest Warrior.
The warrior saw an extra druid, a priest, and a paladin.
Otherwise the matches were exactly the same opponents.
But the big point is I saw three mages with both decks. I conceded early in several of the matches because I hate playing pirate warrior and unfavorable matches take too much time to lose.
https://imgur.com/a/XYItyhQ
Also keep in mind that the last matches as pirate warrior were in D5 matched on ranking instead of MMR. Games got much harder at the end because of better players.
Hypothetically, if the game was not rigged, how many games do you think it should take for the class play rates to equal out.
For example, I queue up a Mage deck and match against a Druid. After that 1 game, I switch to a Warlock deck and play another game. Should I also be matched against a Druid? Then repeat for each class. If the game is not rigged and the Meta doesnât change, is the expected result that each class faced a Druid for their first opponent?
If one game is insufficient to produce identical (or nearly identical) results between all 10 classes, then after how many games should they match up? I am looking for the lowest possible number here btw.
Again, this would be for a version of the game that isnât rigged. You believe the play rates between classes should be nearly identical after a certain amount of games. I wonât accept an answer of 100 either. If you believe 100 games should match, then surely 99 would too. And if 99 matched, itâs reasonable to assume 98 would as well and so on. So what is the minimum amount of games required in a non rigged game?
Those are good matchups, you can win by superior skill. Imagine control warrior xd
Yes. But it is not based on class, deck, win streak, loss streak, or any of that. Itâs based on your MMR or your Rank. Any other pattern in your matchups is purely coincidental and entirely within the expected variance of a massively large pool of opponents.
Then explain why I got more weapon deck opponents when I added the Vipers to my deck than when I did not have the Vipers.
For CLASS play rates (not deck play rates), youâd need to recordâŠ
Of course you did, lie more pls
Spam, just do the experiment with the playing cards already. I get that I canât convince you, but maybe reality can. What you are seeing in Hearthstone is not evidence of what you believe.
This is great and all, but not what I was asking of Emotedspam. He believes if the game wasnât rigged, then after 100 games played with each class, the amount of each class he played against would be nearly identical.
100 is just an arbitrary number from him though. If 100 games with each class should have matching opponents, 99 should as well. If 99 does, 98 should also. So I wanted to know, from him, whatâs the minimum amount of games.
Does he believe 1 game from each class in a row, with each opponent NOT being the same class, is sufficient proof of MM being manipulated? I assume not, because that would be completely ridiculous. So what about 5? 10? 25? At what point does he expect the games to match up between every class?
I donât actually expect a reply from him tbh, so w/e lol
Even if you did 1 billion games with each hero you would see that the meta is different with each hero, also its not only matchmaking thats algorithmed, its also card draws
Not what I asked.
Why would they bother rigging MM though if they are rigging the card draws?
Well, the picture starts really fuzzy and low resolution at about 50 games and slowly becomes sharper. But maybe itâs just me but I wouldnât go around making accusations of anyone cheating, player or Blizzard, or accusing them of anything really, until I was 99.9% confident. So if you ask me, no one has any place making rigging claims, except for data aggregator websites.
Because the algorithm would be too obvious if they just hard slammed hard counter every matchup, so they can also make you lose with putting your key cards as last cards on your deck
Iâll just be blunt:
Youâre losing because Zoo Warlock is horrible.
Im not playing zoo warlock anymore, it was just a self test and it proved me even more right with giving me 5 control warriors in row
Iâll just stop. Youâre trolling, you win. GG, Iâm out.