Does Blizzard knowingly do this?

Straight from the horse’s mouth.

45:20 “The approach where it’s still kinda 50/50 but you don’t always give a 50/50 match, you give a variety of matches, you have some smart way of saying no for this match i’m going to give him actually a hard match
for this next match i’m going to give him an even match for the next match i’m going to give him an easy match.”

45:35 “it gets to the point when matches are super even all the time after a while it actually get kinda tiring…so i come up with the opinion that its ok to allow a little bit of balance here and there and have a mix of even hard and easy matches.”

Do you actually have any evidence that it’s not implemented? u know what i m goin to say next…confirmation bias la la la la :notes: :saxophone: :guitar: :musical_keyboard: :trumpet: :violin: :banjo: :drum: :microphone:

It means one goal of a matching would be ‘fun’ matches. He also mentions there are different goals, for different ends, for different types of games. The leading caveat of that ‘goal’ is that [they] don’t know what “fun” actually is, but they can try to approach it be removing parts of what it “isn’t”.

There’s also the sections on how to on-paper fix certain issues, but not to fix the perception issues from those ends of the game. Given that this topic, and some of your demands for ‘proof’ stem from problems of player perception, you may have overlooked the part of the video that’s more pertinent.

Given how you keep trying to use this video in particular ways, have a disconnected sense of how you engage with other discussions, and then try to continue to cherry-pick select lines to try to have a point without much by way of
a) establishing context
b) providing commentary to emphasize a particular bit in a different topic
c) properly summarize the concerns because it shouldn’t take 1 hour for someone to dissect 1 sentence.

Of what I have seen of your contributions, you seem rather negligent on any of those, presume you are already “right” about something, and then demand others “prove a negative” about your cherry-picked sampling.

So, it’s a fat stack of fallacy on top of fallacy on top of a fallacy, then you magically feel better/empowered for it?

This smells like half-baked imitation to the point you aren’t actually even sure what is being conveyed, but it suits the authority of what you claim to want, therefore you support it. And then it’s on anyone else to sort through that mess to actually tell if it matters, applies, or is pertinent.

So… this smells more like anti-contribution in that it fixates on a red herring, doesn’t apply coherent thoughts to its attempts, and doesn’t have the courtesy to care to do otherwise.

I mean, yea, if you think something positive out of that, then sure “confirmation bias” because apparently you’ve learned how to see those two particular words, but… you don’t seem to know what they do, why they’re bad, or why you keep doing it. Which is pretty much the summary of your post history, fixation on that video, and why apparently you’d want to hide profile so it’s not as easy if someone wanted to point out how many times you’ve done that, keep doing that, and apparently don’t learn much from it despite demanding other people do so from the air of authority that is your linked vid.

But hey, ignoring context makes everything better, right :smiley:

2 Likes

Merchants of Doubt 2010

The Confirmation Bias Boy band playing live…members consisting of…feel in the blanks u know who u r.

:saxophone:
:guitar:
:musical_keyboard:
:drum:
:violin:
:trumpet:
:drum:

Written works are indicated with quotes, underlines, or italics.

If your response to to try to consider yourself akin to those that decry said “merchants”, then you’re missing a few key qualities:

  1. They actually know how to look for ‘proof’
  2. They actually convey particulars of said ‘proof’
  3. They know how to edit a comment instead of spamming multiple posts with broken thoughts.
  4. The thesis extends just beyond decrying nay-say.
  5. There was positive reception because the methodology involved was more than just reactionary ad hominems.
  6. They used “words” and not just letters.
  7. They know how to use ellipsis.

The ironic bit of your second post being that people who aren’t already in “on it” won’t actually “know who they are”. Similarly, your decry doesn’t actually provide anything complimentary to your cause, debunk criticisms of your methods, or really do much more than be you calling someone else a bad name.

So congrats, you’ve called people names and seem to thinking insulting others is on par with science. Unfortunately, that’s not the case.

But yea, in keeping this reply in with the rest of the topic, goodjob on demonstrating the issues of perception and the likely outcome that people prefer to just blame things instead of applying effort to consider said perception problems :+1:

3 Likes

Except you are:
a) proving my point
b) distracting from your own
c) willfully violating forum conduct
d) ignoring context
e) acting contrary to your post.

Replying to me “is” feeding into not; not what you wanted.

Gotta pay better attention than that. I wonder if there’s a song called “Perception Problems” that I could just link to that instead, and you can play it over and over again. I mean, if you’re not so keen on actually reading, maybe audio would be the better grab.

Then again, robot-voice reads are already a thing, so so long as people highlight the text and use their indicated hotkey, the computers are already more than able (and willing) to read this stuff out loud for you :wink:

3 Likes

Everything u said is confirmation bias la la la :drum: :trumpet: :musical_keyboard: :saxophone: :microphone: :banjo: :notes: :notes: :notes:

U r just like Colin Powell presenting the case of WMD. :loudspeaker: :helicopter: :parachute: :airplane: :rocket: :firecracker: :bomb: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull:

I didn’t ‘say’ anything.

I wrote it down. This is a written medium. Engaging in a written medium involves reading. I am under the impression you’re not actually keen on reading, which would likely indicate why you seem to have an ill-informed opinion and why you’d rather ignore anything that doesn’t “agree” with you.

Which is… the sign of confirmation bias. :clap:

Maybe if you’d actually bother to read things, instead of just name-calling, you’d also make better analogies, metaphors, and similes. It’s also help with that bad case of irony you have going on there too.

But ya know, you’d actually have to read this post to realize that. Since that’s unlikely, you’re probably looking at a rashy case of off-topic spam.

1 Like

The problem with this approach is, it can get just as unfun as the fair ones.

  • With fair matches, you know you screwed up or you made it work. (Or the enemy.)
  • With unfair ones, you can either beat the system, play along, or my favorite, fail to win.

Unless the game is so hard on rock scissor paper that it never feels fair.

Regardless of random or implemented, I do have this experience, I feel like just playing along, playing well and losing, playing crap and winning, it all just happens. Personal impact is a couple rank points over a 100 matches, and that’s kinda sensible, if you’re about in place. My place, that’s somewhere between Plat 4 and Bronze 4, which is kind of broad. (I’ve been winning well in G1 and losing terribly in B1. Confidence interval: the galaxy.)
(… And my other experience, but that’s off topic here.)

For example, yesterday:
  • first match I only lost 174 points,
  • 4th B1-B1-B2-S3-G1 vs a full team of S2, the Tyrande being G1, of course she had no impact, it’s not the hero
  • 5th there was a B5 (+700, 120:110 this season) in the S3 match - and his performance wasn’t an outlier, mainly due to a bad draft