This game is rigged as hell

[LimeBeast-12776]

@Paf-11558

You know how many times I’ve trusted Kiblers OPINION and … AND ITS NOT?

Going by how poorly you understand how the world works, I’m pretty sure this happens to you frequently and not just in hearthstone.

@Paf-11558

TLDR: You can show me 100 matches on deck trackers and they don’t mean much if anything because I could just be looking at 100 lucky matches.

BUT they mean significantly more than your biased recollections and anecdotes. And if the next person is able to repeat your results, and the one after that too, then we’re moving towards scientific consensus. By building a series of results that show agreement, we come to conclusions that are lightyears better than your “I’m sure it’s rigged because that’s what I desperately need to believe.”

@Paf-11558

If I showed you 100 matches where every time I had weapon removal I never faced a weapon

I would replicate it. If I could replicate your findings, that would be something. The problem is you can’t even show that much because it’s not real.

@Izizero-1732

You literally used the word wrong

I wasn’t going to go into that. Seems like a lost cause.

@Izizero-1732

stop owning yourself.

It’s their superpower, though.

@Izizero-1732

YOU DON’T HAVE EVEN THE MOST BASIC DATA.

This is so much the actual point and still so lost on our dear friend.

@Paf-11558

You blatantly ignoring everything someone says

You’re the type of person who skims what others tell you already knowing you’re right, which means you are unable to comprehend and learn.

Lots of people have given you absolutely factual information about these topics and you are the one who has ignored everything and then been the most rude person here. Like, if we gave out an award for the most rude poster you would get nominated based on this thread alone.

@Paf-11558

I made a point that many people have personal experiences with this game

And everyone has told you that’s not data. Everyone has told you how and why memory sucks. We’ve all asked for evidence to support your claims, and still we are waiting for you to show us anything.

The problem is you, not us. You are immature, rude, and not nearly as smart as you think you are. Every time you reply here, you make it worse.

@Paf-11558

You just live in denial of reality.

Sure, it’s everyone but you, my dude.

I hope you get help.

[Izizero-1732]

@Paf-11558

You blatantly ignoring everything someone says and saying “No” just highlights the lack of intelligence and character you possess.

I don’t know how to tell you, in any simpler terms, that numbers aren’t subjective.

I didn’t give you a “no”, i wrote paragraph upon paragraph explaining to you that people can have different opinions bassed on data, but the deck tracker per se isn’t subjective. Subjectivity presumes a observator. The numbers are just numbers.

VS opinions may be wrong, but they have a far, far more grounded view on what’s actually happening than any of us; particularly you, since you don’t even have your own data.

You can barely claim to know what happened in your own games, let alone dismiss VS data based analysis.

I didn’t say no to you: I explained, at length, were your approach is wrong. If yu think this is only “saying no”, then it was a wasted effort because you didn’t get anything in the first place.

[Scr0tieMcB-1291]

@Paf-11558

How else would you ABSOLUTELY know what Bliz has in their matchmaking system? Because “they said”??

We don’t know absolutely, but we have enough millions of games of output to know that games are 99.99% unrigged.

Here’s a way to think about it: imagine you’re told that a machine is a pasta making machine. The inside of it is a complete black box, but when you feed dough into one end pasta comes out the other end. You do this a few million times and you comb over the pasta that comes out for irregularities — like for example trying to find out if it’s sprinkling traces amounts of cyanide into the pasta. But nope, the output is exactly what you’d expect given what youve been told it is. Eventually you know from the output that it’s a pasta making machine, even though you can’t see the inner workings at all.

But maybe the black box has been coded to wait until exactly May 1 2023 to switch into not-pasta-making mode and then oops we were misled. That’s what I mean about 99.9% sure not absolutely sure.

[Theory-21357]

This game is rigged in every aspect. Matchmaking, mulligan, card draw, discovery are all manipulated. Rng and luck are pure illusion.

[Scr0tieMcB-1291]

This isn’t a space ork WAAAGH, Theory. Things don’t become more true just because you believe them harder.

Currency markets, those are WAAAGHs. But not matchmaking.

[Theory-21357]

Resistance is futile. Your life, as it has been is over. From this time forward this game will be more rigged than ever before.

[SparkyElf-2852]

@Paf-11558

When these people throw out their VS reports and “X class” is number one… it’s still subjective. How many more games were played simply because it was the OPINION of the forums or whomever that X Class was the BEST! So, the bandwagon gets bigger. People only play the X Class/ Beast Deck and the “data” shows that Beast is the way to go…

Yep, it’s called ‘positive feedback’ (for further reading, one could see this). What’s more, those deck trackers mostly show numbers (supposedly — no one has independently verified their ‘data’, someone might as well just typed in arbitrary figures… It’s not as uncommon as you’d think, considering that only something like twenty to fifty per cent of results from journals such as ‘Nature’ — and that’s a supposedly reputable one, I’m not even taking about someone’s shady commercial project — were found to be reproducible… don’t recall the details and the exact number, it’s been a while… But one could easily do a web search) from the games of their users, rather than the overall player base, so the assumption that this is a representative sample is a… very strong one, to put it mildly — perhaps even more wild than some charlatanic claims that ‘vaccine X protects a man from disease Y with Z efficiency’ (spoiler: ergodicity conjecture, although I doubt many people, except someone like ol’ Boba — where is he, by the way? — would even get it).

By the way, even if we get some actual data from Blizzard (their guy published some for Mercs, when PvP was still a thing), this forum will hardly even be able to interpret it. Hey, some of the most vocal orators here apparently don’t know how to interpret something like ‘the win rate of a card’ — they just think the bigger it is, the better.

@Paf-11558

BUT HOLD ON

A month later some streamer is fiddling and finds out that X Class / MECH DECK is better!

But, I though Beast…

So this streamers OPINION gets a bunch of people to play MECH and did anyone really stop and crunch the numbers?

Bingo.

Miracle Rogue.....finds a way

Sadly, it seems much mundane than that to me: since the bulk of those players I see, politely referred to as netdeckers, are like sheep, driven by herd instincts, the popularity is probably determined, at least in a ‘first-order approximation’, as a physicist would put it, by the popularity of whatever ‘authority’ (a ‘streamer’ or self-proclaimed ‘meta guru’) they are following, e.g.: deck_popularity = sum_{i} streamer(i)_popularity * deck_play_rate_by_streamer(i) , or something along these lin…

PS My apologies for self-citation, but, as aptly noted above, these forums are quite repetitive.

@Paf-11558

So, please educate yourself a bit more on how things work in life. Maybe go take like 20 more college courses and throw around some more Latin phrases that you learned that mean nothing.

Come one, go easy on him (or her?) — maybe it’s truly a fifteen-year-old guy with youthful maximalism: ‘Di sientific metod, me learn it from da skul textbuk, me am smart! You stoopid and not educated, know nottin of di world, me enlaiten you all!’ As said (ugh, repetitions again), it’s called ‘youthful maximalism’ and considered normal at some stage.

@Paf-11558

“because math”

Ironically, such idolisations of ‘maths’ (typo corrected), ‘science’ are common among novices at best — and quite often among complete laymen, who got no clue how it works, yet firmly believe they ‘follow di science’ and so on in their sheeplike couse of action.

[TieGuanYin-31724]

@SparkyElf-2852

Yep, it’s called ‘positive feedback’ (for further reading, one could see this). What’s more, those deck trackers mostly show numbers (supposedly — no one has independently verified their ‘data’, someone might as well just typed in arbitrary figures… It’s not as uncommon as you’d think, considering that only something like twenty to fifty per cent of results from journals such as ‘Nature’ — and that’s a supposedly reputable one, I’m not even taking about someone’s shady commercial project — were found to be reproducible… don’t recall the details and the exact number, it’s been a while…) from the games of their users, rather than the overall player base, so the assumption that this is a representative sample is a… very strong one, to put it mildly — perhaps even more wild than some charlatanic claims that ‘vaccine X protects a man from disease Y with Z efficiency’ (spoiler: ergodicity conjecture, although I doubt many people, except someone like ol’ Boba — where is he, by the way? — would even get it).

step aside paragraph. this my sentence.

[SparkyElf-2852]

Jah, mon, too stronk for joo!

[Shuyin-1330]

@Scr0tieMcB-1291

Here’s a way to think about it: imagine you’re told that a machine is a pasta making machine. The inside of it is a complete black box, but when you feed dough into one end pasta comes out the other end. You do this a few million times and you comb over the pasta that comes out for irregularities — like for example trying to find out if it’s sprinkling traces amounts of cyanide into the pasta. But nope, the output is exactly what you’d expect given what youve been told it is. Eventually you know from the output that it’s a pasta making machine, even though you can’t see the inner workings at all.

The problem is the “It’s rigged” club see pasta making machine making pasta and call that being rigged.

[SparkyElf-2852]

By the way, dunno why, but I even bothered to do a quick search on the question mentioned above (it’s probably too difficult a task for a significant number of posters here anyway, as far as I can see… I’m not even talking about reading skills again), so here’s some quick example:

Many studies claim a significant result, but their findings cannot be reproduced. This problem has attracted increased attention in recent years, with several studies providing evidence that research is often not reproducible. A 2016 Nature survey, for example, revealed that in the field of biology alone, over 70% of researchers were unable to reproduce the findings of other scientists and approximately 60% of researchers could not reproduce their own findings.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d42473-019-00004-y

[LimeBeast-12776]

@SparkyElf-2852

it’s called ‘positive feedback’

Sadly, I don’t have any positive feedback for you at this time.

I hate to break this to you, but you’re not intelligent and your posts are garbage. The biggest problem you have is that you take things out of context then over generalize them to situations where they don’t actually apply.

It’s clear from the way that you post here that you struggle interacting with actual people, and that’s really sad. I don’t know who hurt you, but it won’t get any better hiding in the basement behind that keyboard.

Get help.

[Mordekaiser-21778]

sometimes even if you get a lucky win streak and queue up again they won’t let you queue up (you get that error message that tells you to try again later LOL) because there are no decks that counters yours queuing up, and when you manage to queue up you’ll get countered and lose most likely.

[Izizero-1732]

@SparkyElf-2852

Yep, it’s called ‘positive feedback’ (for further reading, one could see this). What’s more, those deck trackers mostly show numbers (supposedly — no one has independently verified their ‘data’, someone might as well just typed in arbitrary figures

Yeah, not like you can just look at the data changing game after game and confirm yourself, lmao.

This is part of the anti-intellectualism argument. It’s just a variant of “how do you know, have you checked (all the science)?” It’s the same as the guy who asks if you saw all of the earth to guarantee it’s not flat. Sadly, planes fly, sattellites (don’t) fall and ICBMs reach their destination because the whole process up to the conclusion has already been checked and it works.

One does not need to work out every step of anything for oneself, or knowledge would never progress.

@SparkyElf-2852

Bingo.

Absolutely sad. Paf’s quote was misguided at best. You trying to confirm him is a show of how dishonest is your whole point. If you had a modicum of honesty, you could agree to the whole post except this part.

@SparkyElf-2852

Come one, go easy on him (or her?) — maybe it’s truly a fifteen-year-old guy with youthful maximalism: ‘Di sientific metod, me learn it from da skul textbuk, me am smart! You stoopid and not educated, know nottin of di world, me enlaiten you all!’ As said (ugh, repetitions again), it’s called ‘youthful maximalism’ and considered normal at some stage.

Yeah, sure, lmao. Sadly, some of us actually work with science every day and get to know first hand f it works or not. But do go off, lmao. Prove your point by dying of any wound, who knows if any of the things the medics read about in the textbooks are true

@SparkyElf-2852

Ironically, such idolisations of ‘maths’ (typo corrected), ‘science’ are common among novices at best — and quite often among complete laymen, who got no clue how it works, yet firmly believe they ‘follow di science’ and so on in their sheeplike couse of action.

Yes. What you should do is to not trust the science that made your cars, phones and computers. Nor the math that says if something is dangerous or not. You trust the opinions of this one forum guy because he says “science and math is for dumb dumbs, lmao”.

You tell me how it goes later. I will be here not dying of polio.

@SparkyElf-2852

https://www.nature.com/articles/d42473-019-00004-y

This by the way, it’s about the same as the first point. Magazines whole job is to publish new information. the whole point of peer reviewing things is that not reproducible things fall out and we use the things we can reproduce.

Research is made faulty all the time. Anyone that has made any research knows that. The whole point of peer-reviewing is to test again and see if it works. If you read “Research is found not repeatable” and think “So science does not work, can’t believe in it” you failed at the most basic of tests

[TieGuanYin-31724]

why would BDk even matter when we have coins, rocks, papers and scissors to haunt our nightmares.

[ImAnAngel-11971]

And that something is the over usage of quotes.

[Scr0tieMcB-1291]

@LimeBeast-12776

I hate to break this to you, but you’re not intelligent and your posts are garbage. The biggest problem you have is that you take things out of context then over generalize them to situations where they don’t actually apply.

It’s clear from the way that you post here that you struggle interacting with actual people, and that’s really sad. I don’t know who hurt you, but it won’t get any better hiding in the basement behind that keyboard.

Get help.

Just because this post is hypocritical doesn’t it make it any less true. I loved every word.

[SparkyElf-2852]

@LimeBeast-12776

Sadly, I don’t have any positive feedback for you at this time.

Yeah, your opinion is very important to everyone, I do care about it.

@Izizero-1732

lmao

@Izizero-1732

anti-intellectualism

How fitting… Well, at least it’s honest, gotta say that.

@Izizero-1732

Sadly, some of us actually work with science every day and get to know first hand f it works or not.

Oh, I’m very familiar. It’s something like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-R6wFMALCQ&t=18s (up to 0:55)

Thanks for prompting me to look this old bit up.

@Izizero-1732

the science that made your cars, phones and computers

Ironically, it’s got nothing to do with that navel fluff research and other things that I mock and you idolise.

@Izizero-1732

Magazines whole job is to publish new information. the whole point of peer reviewing things is that not reproducible things fall out

@Izizero-1732

The whole point of peer-reviewing is to test again and see if it works.

‘Naivety is a fool’s blessing’.

The point of that ‘peer review’ fetish in practice is mostly to ‘scratch my back, so that I can scratch yours’, while hiding one’s incompetence behind anonymity, which was supposed to be a form of protection once.

PS Oh, one more small thing, albeit an obvious one. The whole point of it, journals included, in the end is mostly (there are exceptions that actually produce some knowledge, but they are outcasts, like Grigori Perelman, for example) to convert taxpayers’ money into something more… practically useful, according to that old maxim: ‘There is no such thing as pocket money — there is only research money’, hence research symposiums, research yachts and mansions, research visits to a brothel and so on.

[LimeBeast-12776]

@SparkyElf-2852

your opinion is very important to everyone

Failure to deny the assertions is agreement.

It’s settled.

You say anything you want as I’m going to go ahead and put you in the ignore pile.

Cheers!

P.S. I do sincerely hope you find some connection with a live person in a meaningful and positive way at some point before your end. Help is a good thing and change is possible.

[Scr0tieMcB-1291]

@LimeBeast-12776

Failure to deny the assertions is agreement.

You are your own parody.