The problem with the “It’s Rigged” crowd is they don’t look beyond their own biased selective memory. Every Match they claimed is rigged means another person is not getting rigged upon. Matchmaking is impossible to rig everyone which is the goal of rigging in the first place. Unlike a Casino where you are betting against the House in Hearthstone you are betting against another random opponent. Blizzard is the House and whatever outcome of Matchmaking that happens The House doesn’t see extra benefits if the match goes one way or the other. If the premise is people that lose spend more then Blizzard doesn’t need to intervene as every game except in the rare case of a tie someone loses and Blizzard doesn’t care which one of the two randos it is as either way they get the someone lost so they spend outcome. They don’t need to do anything special to reach that outcome so why put time and resources into it. But the "It’s rigged " crowd doesn’t see this. We keep telling them 2+2 is 4 yet they come up with 2+2 is 22.
Pretty sure this was covered with blizzard’s algorithm using a singularity to network with one of the many worlds, where people complain about positive matchups.
Sure enough, I found one of your alter ego’s posts.
Those are not meeting the proper testable hypothesis definition.
That’s yet another problem with that data.
I don’t understand what it’s supposed to support.
It looks like that was data they understood how to obtain, and they tried to shoehorn it into their claims.
That’s not how it works.
If you are serious you first derive your testing procedure and then go get the data. Ideally the testing procedure is first vetted by skeptics.
To be fair it was my instructions being followed. I didn’t elaborate on what widespread rigging should look like.
You do you go on believe 2+2 = 22.
I believe “2”+“2” == “22” …
Also let a = 2 and b = 2
a+b = 4
ab = 4
a+b = ab
This is so true and proves it’s rigged!
“We keep telling them 2+2 is 4” → we don’t know how matchmaking works and telling someone something that you don’t know yourself, Proves you are rigged in the head and compromised by manipulation!
“yet they come up with 2+2 is 22” - maybe it works that way! If there is just 2+2, we don’t know if it’s 4 or 22! Based on experience and odd stuff happening “22” most likely!
BAAM shakalaka yoomloo BlizzNuts!
Riggity riggity rii!
Hells yeah, brah… cuz you gots to carry da 1.
And here comes the problem:
No-one can prove rigging or non rigging based on this data.
Reason is not the data, but the shifting targets.
2% variance is huge considering the sample size, compare it to get 2% less wages this month, you’d certainly notice. There is also sufficient data to conclude we are outside the acceptable range, in short it “might” be proof of rigging.
At this point someone will point out there are non-considered hidden variables that might explain it all. Hence, if you are a nefarious party you can certainly screw around in the margins. (Not saying it is happening, but you can certainly “hide” it)
Can’t prove moving targets people, so move along, if a numerical argument doesn’t spark a doubt, nothing will. Let the rig claimers claim rigs, and the nay sayers say nay, none of them can claim to hold the truth.
That’s probably true.
That doesn’t mean that there’s no possible data set and procedure for showing that rigging is taking place.
As far as digital CCGs, we already have a framework.
Because it turns out that there’s other CCGs out there. And this might be hard to believe, but people believe that companies that are not undergoing sexual harassment lawsuits are also rigging their CCGs.
And this might even be harder for you to believe. In other CCGs, they have statistical proof for issues.
The difference is that they followed the process correctly. Not making wild accusations beyond what the data showed (though others who read their results did).
And it’s hard for me to believe that somehow none of these serious accusers, including you, have been smart enough to contact those folks. Hell, just figuring out that those folks exist in the first place.
Because you are not serious. You are just half baked trolls.
So we have no way to win and prove the case. No “evidence” will ever be accepted because there is always something that can descredit the data.
I have considered this point before " You need the real time 24/7 population graphs for both groups throughout the period in question and do some sort of analysis of the delta to determine that there’s no deviation between their queuing distribution"
And i read it the other way then you do. That the monthly stats showing the matchups match the popularity does not prove non rigging as like you said,there is variance and you would need running data from day to day or even hour to hour. And then we dont even consider nerfs that happen along the way or “good” players getting matched against “bad players” with the “bad” player playing the counter deck.
There is just to much to consider so this issue will never be decided,at least not here on this forum.
Hilarious.
You posting that right after my last post.
Basically everything in your reply has already been addressed.
I have said it so many times. Follow the proper order for determining such things!
Why is that so hard!
First make the hypothesis! Make your hypothesis public! Have people critique it!
So you get the best hypothesis that you can!
Then do the same with the testing procedure! I or anyone else smart enough who studied statistics with Calculus should be able to help critique it.
And if you haven’t studied the Statistics with Calculus, you probably need to bring in someone else who has.
Because that’s the field you are in, and you need to respect. Or take a course, there’s plenty online. Don’t forget to take Calculus first!
You say it isnt rigged
Yes, because i live in reality.
ok i give up on it.
No need to be condencing,i know calculus and statistics.
I think this is mostly based on the marketing-induced assumption that players spending actual money is normal-ish. Roughly 50-50.
That isn’t the case. At all.
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-04-09-only-2-2-percent-of-free-to-play-users-ever-pay-report
Rigging believers, understand this: your games against players who spend ANY real money on Hearthstone is about 1 game in 40. The other 39/40, 97.5%, are free to play vs free to play. So in those F2P vs F2P games, why on earth would Blizz rig things against you, and not your equally freeloading opponent?
Thats such a nonsense statistic lol.
" two-thirds of people stop playing after one day"
If you count all those players then yes but those players you dont meet on the ladder. They are doing the tutorial or play 1 game at rank 50 and then quit.
You ask about re-allocation of games, and I have a pretty good idea how I would implement that. If I had to write the algorithm, I’d make the tier changing games harder, so whenever upon a win you would go from plat to diamond e.g. you’d get a harder matchup. The guy playing you would then be a mid tier (this should be easy, since most people are midway to tier points) This would be unfindable, unless you have a crazy amount of data.
So the issue is that you will never be able to prove rigging with easily obtainable data.
Then there is also true variance, and observer bias. The former is just wild randomness: “yes, you will at some point draw the top end of your deck, however unlikely this is on an individual game level.” This is just the law of big numbers, also called Murphy’s law, which does not mean that it is a freak accident, just that all possibilities will happen at some point.
The really annoying one is observer bias, where you remember highs and lows the best. This is just the way humans are built, no need to remember that average game, but do remember the worst thing that happened. This might make it feel like something weird is going on, but it’s just you noticing.
I appreciate your response, could you provide a reference to these studies? I’d love to see how this was handled.
Also note that I do not really appreciate the cynicism and general insult at the end.
I thought none of the “it’s rigged” crowd would notice. You’ve exceeded my expectations.
But even if you triple 2.2%, you’re still nowhere close to 50-50. To which you might say “but it wouldn’t be triple, it’d be more than triple.” Yeah, it probably would be more than triple. Doesn’t really change the core point. Out of everyone who’s queuing up at any one point in time, less than 20% have EVER spent money on Hearthstone.
By reallocation of games, I meant “which opposing decks were picking up the slack”.
It’s one thing to speculate about how you might design a system, but that’s very different from such a design having been implemented. Look at the fermi paradox as an example of a mystery with many many many well documented solutions. The problem is not finding a solution, it’s finding the solution.. I was saying that a 2% variance isn’t automatically evidence of rigging. And it contradicts theories of widespread rigging, where you’d expect much more variance.
So what are all of the possibilities for a 2% variance? Data issues? Rigging every 50th game? What about the other 86% of matchups? And their matchups. Etc. In my experience it’s likely a data issue but I wouldn’t put money on anything in particular without detailed analysis.
Lastly and this is my main point when I reply to these threads and say look at this data:
You can absolutely say that this data does not support widespread rigging. I’m referring to posts like this: