Let’s say you have a black box where you can’t see what’s in the box, but you can see the output of the box. Then you study the output of 100 random systems that aren’t your black box, so you learn how to identify the output of random systems. Then because the output of the black box matches the output of random systems very closely, and you have a LOT of that output, you conclude that the process in the black box is 90+% random.
That’s exactly the situation with Hearthstone. Deck trackers have collected millions of games of data and the evidence shows beyond any reasonable doubt that at least 90% of games and draws are random. We can’t prove that there’s literally zero rigging, maybe there’s a handful of special VIP accounts which are algorithmically favored and that rigging gets lost in millions of games of random noise. There might be some subtle manipulation that applies to everyone if they meet certain unusual conditions, e.g. if you’re playing a class over 20% popularity then you’re 10% more likely to be matched with your same class. But your theory that everything is rigged from matchmaking to draws is objectively, demonstrably, empirically incorrect.
Random is as random does. The matchmaking and draws do random so they are random. That’s how we know.
I mean, on the one hand yeah, but on the other hand it’s kinda irrelevant. Regardless of whether “Team No Rigging” have the burden of proof or not, they have the evidence to disprove any claim that the majority of in-game outcomes are rigged. We have proof that most of the tinfoil hat claims are false, so whether we “need” it or not is kinda a moot point.
The evidence isn’t sufficient to disprove every possible claim of rigging, but those claims aren’t very popular with the tinfoil crowd anyway. And some such claims are also much more realistic, e.g. Magic the Gathering being found guilty of rigging to prevent “mana flood” and “mana screw” in its online games. I think it makes sense to be on the lookout for evidence of subtle, “benevolent” rigging.
If the RNG system was created by a human, it is flawed. They determine the range and how weighted certain cards are. That such a thing needs to be proven for you to believe it? JFC, man. Read a book. Do some research. I can’t with people like you.
You made the claim it was “random”. But you can’t back this up with evidence.
You created the outlandish theory, that the game is “random.” You don’t have evidence for this but you tell someone they’re not justified in their stance because they can’t prove the opposite.
Exactly.
Good point.
No. The matchmaking and draws aren’t random. It’s a common misbelief.
In fact, this game is RIGGED. Matchmaking, starting hand, mulligan, card draw, discovery options, “rng” effects aren’t random at all.
I did. He was just parroting it back at me. I suspect he either doesn’t know what it means or looked it up (and might still not understand what it means).
His childish approach to the argument is telling. He stomping around with his fingers in his ears saying, “I know you are but what am I?” My patience has run out with him. Thanks, as always, for your reasoned comments.
That’s like asking me to prove that the sky is blue, to someone who is so ridiculous that they don’t know what blue is. If you look at the millions of games of data, the output is random. It’s that simple.
Truly the core of all of this is that you can’t identify randomness when it’s right in your face.
Btw, if you look at the millions of games of data, you can’t see whether the recorded games were rigged or not. You can only see what happened, but you can’t see why.
Absolutely false. Random is any process that a human can’t reliably predict the outcome of. So to say that a process is random is to say that the output is random, that is, unpredictable. The judgment of the process is through its output.
Intent is irrelevant here. You don’t have to try to be random to be random.
Intent doesn’t matter. If the output is the same as random then the experience is the same as random. It’s not possible to taste the difference. The output is at least 95% in accordance with random so it’s random.
I mean, let’s say that I’m an extremely incompetent villain working at Blizzard. I get into the Hearthstone code with every intention to rig the game, but after sitting down and doing my coding, people collect data on games and the outcomes are the same as if it was random. That would be a random process because INTENT DOES NOT MATTER, OUTCOMES DO.
We know from millions of games what the output is, it’s random. The randomness of a system is a measurement of its outputs.
If you have data on millions of RIGGED games, but the output in general seems to be random, it doesn’t mean that the rigged games weren’t rigged.
If you play 100 games, 50 of them are rigged against you and 50 of them are rigged against your opponent, then you played 100 rigged games even if the outcome suggests otherwise.