I didnt dig up anything lol.
I reposted something which made headlines years ago,
which was my point, that you could have found had you
simply copypaste and searched it.
Only reason I knew about it was from these headlines, so no, I didnt
"Have you read every letter in every ‘legal’ document regarding the company and so on?
You’ve bothered to dig up the number of some ‘patent’ — fine, which doesn’t mean everyone cares about them (I don’t, especially for some US so-called ‘patents’)."
lol. I listed it there for you to google it, but instead you made wild assumptions. get help.
I genuinely understand that you don’t have unlimited time.
However, game “journalists” are under no circumstances going to spend hours going through a document with a triple digit number of pages. If you’re very lucky they at least tried to skim it, but they’re basically making stuff up and plagiarizing other authors. When I see a headline from a gaming new site there is no way I am trusting it. You gotta either do your own research if you care enough, or just admit that you have no clue what’s going on.
Again, stop jumping to conclusions here. I said I got to know about it from the headlines. As in, thats how I learned it was a thing, and read up more on it.
Just because I learn of something from a headline, doesnt mean I base all my facts around singular articles, atleast in my country, this is something we learn in elementary school, to not trust singular sources, or believe everything journalists write, but compare sources etc.
1 Like
That’s why you should read the patent directly instead of relying on “journalists.”
If it seems that way, it’s because matchmaking is indeed not random
2 Likes
I did. As I just literally wrote, I learned of somethings existence from the headlines, which enabled me to google the patent and read the basics.
I didnt dig through anything. Selecting a phrase in an article, right click and “search on google” (or other search index), takes less than a minute lol.
Edit; And thats in the cases where the sources arent linked, which they often are, (though said links often doesnt get clicked enough)
1 Like
No one should take any headline at face value. Alas, that’s about as much “research” many people engage in to fool themselves and proclaim they have knowledge. 
Reads Nature headline…
I’m practically a marine biologist!
1 Like
Fake News Fools Fools Again. There’s your headline.
This is what the COD patent does exactly.
lol…
You get paired against a sniper with a weak gun then after dying a lot… they noticed people go buy the sniper gun.
THEN the guy with the new sniper gun gets to pick off handgun scrubs at range.
Kinda like when I crafted Rag and he went face to win me the game the 1st three games I played him.
2 Likes
They did? I thought this was an assumption.
No, it does not. I’ve covered this recently.
You a journalist now? 
Where can I read your coverage, though? I’d love to read your assessment.
I don’t want to find that post.
But here’s a summary: the “patent” is, like all patents, written to be as broader in scope than they actually are, when really it’s a Call of Duty patent. The idea is that guns are sold as microtransactions and the different maps are designed to favor different premium guns. So the patent describes adjusting matchmaking so that purchasers are matched to the map for a time after purchase (temporary effect that eventually goes away), and that f2p players who play the map temporarily receive increased ads for corresponding guns.
Because unreasonably broad language, the word “session” is used instead of map, and theoretically could apply to any multiplayer game lobby where one lobby can be different than another in some quality other than the players who happen to be in it — so Battlegrounds would have sessions (which tribes are included/excluded) but Ranked would not. So if the patent was applied to Hearthstone then right after someone buys a custom portrait for the Ysera Battlegrounds hero, they’d play a lobby and be offered Ysera as a hero choice (so Dragons lobby), and after that game a player in that lobby without that custom portrait would get a suggestion to buy it.
It’s important to note that at no time does the patent even mention algorithmic manipulation of the opponents of purchasers, except on the basis of skill or network latency. It does mention algorithmic manipulation of allies of purchasers, because actually a Call of Duty patent, to include having allies without the premium gun on the same team as allies with premium gun, I guess hoping to create jealousy without necessarily creating negative feelings of unfairness.
There really isn’t any application to Ranked play here.
1 Like
For all the deniers, just queue a reno deck and watch how nearly every game will be a plague dk. Rigged.
3 Likes
Also regarding the patent: you might notice that temporarily rewarding a player for making a purchase, and having non-purchasers matched with purchasers as allies instead of as opponents, is very different philosophically from the common conspiracy theory nonsense regarding rigging. I think it’s clear from the structure of the patent that its philosophy is, yes, to manipulate events to create dopamine hits of reward for the paying customer, but to do so while minimizing the suffering of free to play players. This contrasts heavily with the “make them lose so they have to buy packs” theory commonly presented. I think that Blizzard knows something that salty tinfoilers haven’t figured out yet: angry customers just don’t make purchases.
The majority of the patent doesn’t even really care about free to play players, it’s primarily concerned with manipulating someone who has bought once to buy twice. Which makes a lot more sense than trying to get free to play players to buy once, if you think about it.
Oh, yes, I remember now. You did us the favor of reading and summarizing this patent awhile ago. Thanks, man. It boggles my mind everytime I see someone use the existence of a patent as evidence that said patent is being used. The world of patents is wonderfully weird. I urge anyone to Google “craziest patents”, or any similar search.
1 Like
Matchmaking is not random, it never has been. There there has always been an element of variables that determines your opponent.
2 Likes
“That which doesn’t seem may still be.”
-ME, just now!
You are matched with an opponent of the same skill, based on wins & losses.
Within this parameter it is random.
Anyone who does their research knows that is not entirely true.
This is a topic that has been debated on this forum countless times and what I say to players is do your research and draw your own conclusions.
1 Like