For clarity, Hitchens Razor is a fancy way of saying “pics or it didn’t happen”.
That being said, there is an old testament “eye for an eye” kind of fairness to it, though with an air of cold dictatorship around it.
Also, it’s “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” You added in the established status quo bit, though that is typically what the quote is used to enforce.
True, that was my mistake. I mixed together Hitchens’ Razor with the burden of proof and how they apply to the current situation. If someone makes a claim against the status quo the burden of proof lies on them, and Hitchens’ Razor is a related but separate rule that applies to situations where people claim a phenomenon is so apparent that there is no no apparent need for the burden of proof that would normally be required to confirm that phenomenon.
A little side education for anyone reading…
in criminal cases , the burden of proving the defendant’s guilt is on the prosecution, and they must establish that fact beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil cases , the plaintiff has the burden of proving his case by a preponderance of the evidence .
Yet, even if there were intentional or unintentional match-making hijinks at play here, I don’t think it would matter one bit legally. This is all Blizzard’s intellectual property. Do we even partially own our own accounts? Beyond being responsible for our online behavior?
I’ve been referencing the burden of proof more in a scientific/philosophical sense, seeing as the topic is founded in the determination of whether the game is rigged and how the game is rigged if that’s the case. The default position/status quo is one of neutrality or unbelief (in this case the position where people don’t believe the game is rigged) and the burden of proof is on those who are making a claim (in this case the claim that the game is indeed rigged).
Hey now…that jerk keeps parking in front of my driveway…
…What I do inside my basement is my own business…besides you cant help but sniff it when making model cars…
…She’s my STEP-SISTER and she’s a swimsuit model…
…don’t judge me
That slash disturbs me. The scientific perspective is one of many philosophies, though it does seem to be taking over as Christianity once did. But maybe it was an honest mistake.
I know you meant it in a non-legal sense, it’s ok. Just beating around the threadly bush.
What I find funny about this whole repeated accusation of bad matchmaking, is that if Blizzard would just allow one class ban as you queue, it could eliminate a heck of a lot of complaining overall. I know as a Demon Hunter I’d pick Priest every time. Resurrection Priests can burn in **** for all eternity and the next one.
In “a scientific sense” anyone demanding to prove non-existence of whatever must be flagged as a troll at once.
Ever figured why sometimes you get an opponent instantly and sometimes it takes a minute to find one?
Oh, don’t bother about that, just refer to patents . google . com/patent/US9789406B2/en
yet in many instances proving something is near impossible and thus scientific uncertainty is applied. This happened (still does) in the 70-80’s when entire towns had many children with cancer and most parents knew it was the chemical plant that had not protected their water source.
The chemical companies had their own people (like you) do their own research and with statistics behind them they countered every single research done. It wasn’t until years later that they proved beyond a doubt that the chemical plants in fact KNEW they were killing people but thanks to scientific uncertainty and their own group of researchers they got away with it.
People like you want burden of proof to be on us knowing full well you have the advantage. I learned a very very long time ago that anything coming out of a companies mouth is usually not the truth in regards to things like what the OP and my post stated.
Many many people have witnessed this phenom and nothing that HS Replay shows would prove or disprove that. Already in this thread seems more people believe it is an actual issue and you are out numbered.
A troll is someone that gets pleasure out of emotionally triggering others. A troll is a mental sadist. A psychic vampire, in more poetic terms.
That was a very interesting read.
“System and method for driving microtransactions in multiplayer video games” …
“matching, by the host computer, the first player and the second player to play in a gameplay session, wherein the matching is based on: (i) the potential interest of the in-game item to the first player, and (ii) the possession of the in-game item by the second player; and
updating the profile associated with the first player in the multi-player game to reflect a purchase or non-purchase of the in-game item.”
What this is saying is that we could be getting matched based on what cards we might want that we don’t have.
A purely profit driven algorithmic conspiracy does make a lot of sense in these times. And Blizzard knowing what cards I might like is no more rediculous than youtube recommending me videos based on recent activity.
I’ll buy into this… 74%. Saving some room for the embarrassment of being wrong, of course.
That would explain why I stopped to permanently encounter turn 8/9 Highlander Alexstrasza the moment I crafted her.
Keep in mind you could be the one with the card(s) someone else wants, and such matching wouldn’t necessarily happen every game.
I know. But since I don’t run many legendaries in my decks, that happens probably very rarely.
People like epics too. Even rares could theoretically be a part of a programs “consideration” if it’s based on other things, like minion typing (I covet dragons, for instance).
Possibly. I just looked, and my secret rogue with 78% winrate has only 2 epics (I love bamboozles), but 8 rares. And the rares are usually what seals the deal (blackjack stunners and faceless corruptors)
Scientific uncertainty is the principle that not all members of a population/not all aspects of a topic can be known at once, so a range is permitted within data. This doesn’t change the fact that hard data is required in the first place. If you’re going to draw a one-to-one analogy from victims-of-a-chemical-plant to hearthstone-players-believing-the-game-is-rigged, you still don’t have wiggle room for scientific uncertainty. At the very least in the former example, you’d have hard evidence in the form of increased numbers of people who developed cancer.
This is fundamentally different from the case of “hearthstone is rigged” because the number of people experiencing bad RNG isn’t any different than what you’d expect from an otherwise random system (or if it is, literally no one has done anything to show this is the case or that the bad RNG is worse than it should be). Simply claiming the game is rigged and appealing to numbers doesn’t allow you to invoke scientific uncertainty and validate your opinion.
So are you telling me that we should believe the world is flat, because Big Globe is using statistics and science to prove that it isn’t?
So if a company makes no statement on matchmaking systems, they aren’t to be trusted because they’re beign secretive. Similarly, any company that explains their matchmaking system and denounces rigging also can’t be trusted and should be assumed to rig anyways. Ergo, literally any and every company that makes a video game is rigging the game against the best interests of their playerbase. Am I getting this right?
And many many more have witnessed absolutely nothing out of the ordinary or weird. If the number of people who noticed “fishy things” was nearly as large as you claim, we’d already have published statistical analyses as the playerbase did with Nat Pagle and Animal Companion.
If a rigged system can only be seen on a game-by-game basis and can’t be seen on a macro scale or objectively proven, it isn’t any different from a random system.
Cool. So long as we’re cherrypicking sample sizes I’d like to counter with r/hearthstone. With ovver 1.4 million members, only about 3 dozen of which have taken the “rigged” conspiracy seriously in the entire life of the sub, I’d say your position is outnumbered 35,000 to one.
@Infinity
I am done with you as you can’t prove otherwise so I am right you are wrong and that is just how it is going to be. You go ahead and live with your head in the sand it matters not to me.
I will believe what I see and you keep your head buried in the sand defending a company that everyone knows is all about money…
Except there’s factual proof that the earth is round and that 5G doesn’t spread disease, conspiracy nuts just refuse to believe it. When it comes to matchmaking, none of us know for sure because we don’t have access to Blizzard’s code. Unless you have access to the code or have some dissertation level research conducted on Hearthstone matchmaking, you’re just guessing as well.
If Blizzard shared the matchmaking code and people still argued against it, then your examples would be comparable.
This would just be stupid to go against what’s shown, I will still believe what I have seen with deck switching, don’t think there is anything on draw and pack opening I leave it to randomness