If I link multiple articles will you just discredit the sources as bias?
ie. I could link multiple policies that benefitted America that were instituted by former President Trump.
If I show that players who lose spend more, will you just say “fake news”?
Because I don’t want to waste my time.
I could start off by mentioning “Las Vegas” and illustrate the financial tendencies of people who continuously lose.
Gambling is not a good example because it requires that people lose for the service to exist. There are no gambling services where players win more than lose.
The fact that you think HS has no relationship to gambling is why I may not bother trying to educate you.
Okay, off you go then…
I never said there was no relationship. But I think you just showed your intellectual limit.
Depends on the quality of the source. But I’m kinda interested in psychological studies, so if you’ve got some to share with me I will read them for sure.
I can’t really argue the fact losing make people spend more because, tbf, I don’t have a clue about if it’s the case or not, that’s why I ask it.
Intuitively, I would say that losing is not a reason for people to spend more, but we all know that human psychology and intuition are not always good friends. So … Please share the studies.
But disclaimer, if it’s dark articles from conspiracy websites, I will laugh at your face. If it’s solid psychological studies, I will be perfectly fine with it.
Maybe I am misreading.
Isn’t the win rate in HS intentionally designed to be around 51%?
You don’t think people who only win 48% of the time buy packs to try and get above that benchmark?
And, opening packs that you bought with real money to get random results within the packs, and then buying more packs with real money because you didnt like the results of the previous pack opening and repeating this IS CALLED GAMBLING.
No, I can tell you for a fact that people cannot tell the difference between 51% and 48%.
*Without help.
I’d be interested in your mathematical explanation about how you force 51% winrate on 100% players. Because, hmmmm, do I need to explain what tickles me ?
Yup, buying pack can be assimilated to gambling. But this part of the game is not correlated to the overall Hearthstone game.
So yeah, we can all understand that gambling biases and addictions apply to pack opening, but what does that have to do with the matchmaking ?
PS : wow my english speaking skills are abysmal these days, sorry about that.
I had to put in 110% effort on this one…
Ask the stat militia that exists on these forums.
They are the ones that can confirm or deny that stat.
Had to repost this becuase it was an edit I think you missed because you’re a fast replier…
Exactly. The system that’s already in place does the same thing. The complex undertaking would be trying to analyze the deck archetype and manipulate the matchup into the best counter archetype. Why would they bother when they’ve already got a system that works.
I’ve been saying the same thing for years in these Rigged threads. Yes, the matchmaking is rigged. You get stronger or weaker opponents based on your strength/weakness as a player as determined by Rank or MMR. That system work well over the long haul, at the macro level. It doesn’t really show it’s effect in a small window, which is why it’s possible to have 10 game winning or losing streaks. I think Mal is suggesting that there’s a system in place to curb that from happening at that micro level. And while I can see where Blizzard might be concerned with losing players who lose 10 straight games, I don’t think they are and I’ve seen no evidence that such a system is in place.
Ok so you did misunderstand why I said gambling is a bad example. The point was to show where losing is more effective at motivating people to pay than winning. You immediately brought up the gambling industry. But there are no gambling industry models where the player wins more than they lose.
I’m pretty sure if you have a casino where people win more than they lose, people will pay more.
As self-declared General of the Stat Militia, I regret to inform you that’s not our bag. I think you should visit the Commissioner of the Logic Police.
So let’s say you have one single game of Hearthstone between two brand new players. After that game, what is the average winrate of those two players?
Now do that ten million more times.
Why use logic when I can just quote you?
Do you need me to get the fire extinguisher?
You also seem to have misunderstood this, unless you just replied to a random post. If so, it was a joke about percentages.
You aren’t getting it.
It is literally impossible for the average winrate in Hearthstone to be anything other than 50%. All games are between two players, one wins, one loses. Every win creates a loss and vice versa. It’s laughable to believe for a second that average winrate could be 51%.
Are you seriously gaslighting me right now and saying you didnt say what you said even after I quoted you by arguing a 1% error in my guestimate?
You specifically said TOWARDS
I can keep quoting what you said and you can keep lying and twisting things.
Keep showing your character
You know it’s not personal right…
How is calling someone “confused” (paraphrasing)
and “you arent getting it”
and attacking someone
How is it not personal?