vS Data Reaper Report #302

Multiplayer Discussion
203

That’s you claiming the same thing a week ago

That’s me replying with 4 examples of being fallible and admitting it, all posted in the same 24 hours. I do it all the time.

But of course I’m not going to admit it when I have proof to the contrary. Which you and Scyhla can’t possible have, because I have them.

And now, this is you being dishonest again.

It’s funny, how people who are dishonest have the need to constantly brag about being honest.

Oh, there was one cute little thread where you claimed you had proof the game was rigged xD

hahahaha I’m sooo sad I can’t find that one xD Damn, bro, how blatantly transparent you can be xD

P.S. It gets so lonely when I’m the only one posting proofs. Are you guys just gonna keep throwing empty accusations, or are you gonna find some proof?

1 Like
204

This is you claiming you are capable of admitting when you are wrong.
Actually doing it is another thing entirely.

205

I did call him dishonest, but that’s because he is. He is purposefully not telling anyone his rank or EU name because he knows exactly why. He does a lot of other suspicious behavior as well. Cropping out stuff to purposefully not show something, rants and raves about a deck, posts screen shots but forgets to crop out the win rate which shows the win rate at like a Tier 3 deck win rate.

It’s all very weird.

I’m not saying he’s not a great player or that he didn’t hit Top1k, I’m sure he is and did, but there’s more to the story here. When you hide stuff on purpose, there is a reason.

2 Likes
206

Yeah. But you did not say: ( which he placed in quotes.) “You’re a liar”.
So he paraphrased what you said and then pretend “quoted” it.
The man’s lack of shame has no basement.

207

KK, so empty words and accusations without proof, name-calling without proof, and all that despite being proven wrong with 20 uploaded screenshots, excel tables and a whole lotta other things

Not your best work, I must admit.

209

It’s OK.

Yes, I can be insecure. That’s why I know a lot of things. That’s why I push my limits and try to be better at things, including the game. The need to prove myself to myself. To others, even, sometimes, some people, at least.

Not everyone can make me feel insecure or hurt me. But when people do that to me, I know it’s my fault, not theirs. It’s my fault I even allowed myself to get engaged in this battle of egos. It’s my fault others’ opinions meant enough to me at that moment to start posting proofs which noone:

a) reads,
b) cares about,
c) accepts when they do read.

But seeing all those proofs, knowing first-hand how good I can be both as a player and as a member of the forum, and despite all of that calling me out without proof of any kind, and together in a band, that’s not something I expected from the users I got it from.

You have successfully betrayed everything you allegedly stand for, all 3 of you, and stooped very low, used very dishonest tactics, and for what? What did you get out of it?

Even if I somehow crossed the line and get banned, you know that won’t be the end of me here. We’ve been through all of that, and I’m still here.

Even if I did lie about everything, will that change the facts that one of you spams and doomposts 20 thousand of same things and uses emotional manipulation when they’re called out?

Will that change the fact that one of you used emotional manipulation, misquoting and a whole lot of other things to get ahead and got called out for it? And then:

a) reported me for calling them out for what they did (even though they did that to someone else and again they got called out for this),
b) put me on ignore (which they said they don’t support and would never do).

Will that change that one of you prouded themselves for being fair and then used dishonest tactics to kick me where it hurts, when I’m low, even though it wouldn’t help his case because I literally have proof about being in top 80 - 800 the whole time?

Will that change the fact none of you play in my ranks? Or even play standard anymore? One of you plays wild, the other one Battlegrounds, and the last one doesn’t even play anymore.

How will that change?

I wish you all good luck. It sounds to me that you need it.

210

I wish you all the best as well.

211

Well, first of all playing HS is not the only thing to do in life… what’s even more important you can argue about HS :smiley:

Seriously tho, the thread stopped being about Hearthstone a couple days ago, now it’s personal and when it’s personal… it’s on site :smiley:

1 Like
212

only the very most sane of people accuses someone of being a liar and a scoundrel and immediately breaks CoC not even two posts later.

classic Mal. I prefered the mage doomposting to be honest.

1 Like
213

I understand that this is a direct quote from VS, but I think it’s mildly misleading.

As I described earlier in this thread, VS uses estimated winrate, which means that they’re essentially using the formula OverallWinrate=sumproduct(MatchupWinrate, OpponentPopularity). There’s no way to calculate matchup winrate without considering BOTH decks. VS does calculate deck popularity using only the decks of opponents of players with the tracker.

If one thinks that VS is using actual winrate, which they’re not, instead of estimated, one might imagine them only counting wins from opponents of players using the tracker. That’s not what’s happening.

214

I could respond to this. But I’m not going to.

Some of y’all out there, you know who you are: you owe me one.

215

The report only affirms more of the same.
I could be knocked over with a feather to see real innovation.
The only thing I see that I wouldn’t call status quo is that Rogue is doing badly for the first time in a long time.

216

That’s not the most misleading part in that statement (even though you’re also right), is that they later say “we’re unbiased that way because we see what a random player would see as opponent”.

No you don’t VS; you see what your players who give you data would see; they have a certain MMR and certain attributes and the match maker is a black box.

1 Like
217

I don’t know if I’m a fan of the word “unbiased” because I believe that the complete and total elimination of bias is impossible. I would have phrased it as

We only report on the decks of the opponents. This way, we provide a picture of what the meta looks like that is less biased.

Nevertheless, I strongly disagree with you. The way that VS measures deck popularity is the least biased method that I’m aware of. It seems to be the least biased method possible.

Furthermore, your entire theory about matchmaking being a “black box” has been utterly debunked by me multiple times. Random is as random does, not as random thinks or what its intent is. The proof isn’t in the box in the first place, it’s in the output.

218

Yes it’s probably less biased than just looking at your own users, but we’re both right that it’s dumb to report “it’s unbiased” (full stop).

Only the Devs have all the data; and it’s worse than that; only the Devs know if the matchmaking isn’t just a singular MMR.

219

Nope. It would show in the results, demonstrably, if it was otherwise. If you have enough results, you can reverse engineer the process that created them.

WE might not know this for sure, but VS, HSguru, etc would only need to look at what they have. Whoever has the data would know, not just Blizzard (assuming that they have data).

It’s a mistake to assume that Blizzard knows their own algorithm. They could have intended a fair/random system, accidentally wrote the wrong line of code and messed it up. Like I said, intent is irrelevant.

220

Say you are at Platinum 4 and you match with someone and you record it (and VS records it from you). How do you know if you got a fair opponent MMR and not something doctored? The other player has a hidden MMR; you don’t even have enough data to do it indirectly because you’d have to record the history of the other player; again we conclude only the Devs have all the data.

221

I edited my previous post to add additional content.

222

1 Like
223

Didn’t answer my hypothetical. It’s answerable by definition. You simply need to be Blizzard to know if you doctor the MMR of the opponents; you can’t even stretch it to “I can calculate the MMRs”; you don’t have the data to do it accurately (even if you could guess the formula) so they can still play with small variations on what you go against.