Explain that manner in detail.
This feels like one of those assumptions that feels extremely safe, but that most people donât look for hard data on.
Interesting how Iâm talking about manipulation which the patent admits to, and you use this well poisoning phrase deliberately.
Re-read the thread. If you canât keep up, thatâs on you.
Good thing the patent and the situation with diablow showed us that exact data.
The deniers just choose to handwave it.
1 Like
I mean, itâs always the matter of intensity. Itâs not 0 or 1.
We know with certainty that in theory it works that way - the correlation is positive. But how much, that depends on other factors which are harder to come up with.
Some examples include:
a) does the game have strong marketing and seasonality so that its effects skew the data about correlation between purchases and win rates
b) What does the learning curve look like?
c) How many new decks/new cards does an average player need? If they donât need much, then dust also plays the role in masking the effects
.
.
.
etc, etc
Lots of small variables have effects, positive or negative, which skew the correlation between purchase history and win rates. Itâs a dynamical system with too many parameters for us to discuss now precisely, thatâs for sure.
But you can have an intuition about it based on other complex systems you know and some creativity.
And to top it all off, itâs just one small part of what I meant when I said that I wasnât sure the marketing scheme/patent even works in practice xD
And this is where it impacts the win rates. Because if youâre telling me that they designed it so well that it will match the poor guy with nothing to the guy with everything so the poor guy is tempted to make more purchasesâŚand that the poor guy ISNâT hit with a disproportionate outcome in the win-loss departmentâŚWHETHER OR NOT they intended it, then they still even with rigging the game for cosmetic purchases, still created a secondary effect that negatively impacts players in the in-loss area.
And the minute they were made aware that it was happening, and DIDNâT fix it, they became actively culpable for it.
Which is probably why they havenât implemented it at all.
If it worked as intended, no reason not to implement it xD
As Iâve said, itâs not immoral, and itâs not illegal. It would actually be quite smart - if it worked.
1 Like
Fine then, Iâll go first.
The patent increases the satisfaction of players who have just purchased microtransactions by making sure that they queue into a map that uses said microtransaction, so they can use their shiny new toy immediately. (âSessionâ is patent lawyer speak for âa map, but also somehow applicable to games without maps.â)
For example, Call of Duty player just bought sniper rifle. Donât put him in map where sniper rifle bad; thatâd be lame. Put him in the map with all the crows nests.
One additional noteworthy side effect of this is, because the map with the sniper nests is getting more than random numbers of players who bought sniper rifles, try to even the number of sniper rifles on each team so all the players without sniper rifles will see their teammates doing cool things that they canât.
This, plus describing the process in mind numbing detail, plus the standard matchmaking stuffs (worrying about ping, worrying about balancing the skill of the teams, etc), and thatâs it.
It is not a thing for Ranked play because Ranked doesnât have âsessions.â BGs has sessions; someone buys a Dragon microtransaction, put them in a Dragon lobby. There is no Ranked application for this patent whatsoever.
1 Like
Oh sureâŚthey simply apid their lawyers, legal team and all those related people for something that they just sat on. When itâs clear itâs been in their games for years. Infact, thereâs no concrete evidence this tech isnât in their games, and quite the opposite: the numerous stories about diablow show the most recent iteration of this technology.
In fact, the only person to confirm that it wasnât in use in games was the community manager over at Bungie, when they were still working with with actiblizz and putting Destiny 2 on their game platform. And only THAT game.
The use of microtransactions and game manipulation is actively being debated currently in several countries for the same reasons loot boxes were: because they are at minimum immoral, and their legality skirts the lootbox laws.
altair already beat you.
Remember, a denier posted this.
I donât remember dragons in codâŚbut knock yourself out. But at least we got one to admit it applies in hearthstone! Thatâs progress.
There was a time when they said there was NO application in hearhtstone.
Eventually, it will be âyeah, but manipulations make the game better, mhmk.â Just like when they bot crowd denied there were actiblizz bots, then said anyone who claimed there was was a troll and a liar, then said thereâs bots, so what no one never said there wasnât bots, then bots make the game better.
1 Like
I donât care whatâs being debated currently. This is not up for a debate. If it doesnât impact the results of games, you are all wrong. It is a form of manipulation, but for marketing purposes. Nothing new in this world.
Again, nothing immoral in trying to sell your product if there are people willing to buy it.
In what world is this comparable to lootboxes? xD
You can check the patent yourself, but there is no mention whatsoever of matchmaking anyone with a particular kind of opponent in the context of promoting microtransactions. Every reference to opponents is in the context of matchmaking by skill (which is still a factor within the patent) or in the context of adding BlizzBots to the lobby (super lame, but itâs in there). There are references to matching players to a map (âsessionâ) because microtransaction, and matching players to teammates because microtransaction, but there is absolutely no reference to matching players to opponents because microtransaction. Thatâs something that the patent simply doesnât do.
Meh. It would seem to me that giving players who purchase a microtransaction weapon in a first person shooter a temporary better than random chance at queuing into a map specifically designed to favor that weapon, would bump the overall winrate for players who main that weapon. It is worth noting that the patentâs effect here is temporary, I presume so that when the good feels wear off the purchaser is tempted to make another purchase; because itâs temporary so is the stat bump. But when you average natural levels with artificially inflated levels, you get half as much artificially inflated, average two more normal levels and halve it again to a quarter, and so on. Eventually that might minimize until it can âblend inâ and seem pure random but it is still slightly inflated, technicallyâŚ
âŚbut itâs a molehill and not a mountain, so maybe we shouldnât make it out to be one.
At the very least, thatâs not the phrasing that Iâd use.
Then you support a mega corp back dictatorship.
No thanks.
The cartels thank you for your support. Along with the tobacco industry, and a host of other companies with proven immoral and illegal tactics.
Read up on the subject, Iâm not going to spoonfeed you.
Literally from the abstract:
âA system and method is provided that drives microtransactions in multiplayer video games. The system may include a microtransaction arrange matches to influence game-related purchases. For instance, the system may match a more expert/marquee player with a junior player to encourage the junior player to make game-related purchases of items possessed/used by the marquee player. A junior player may wish to emulate the marquee player by obtaining weapons or other items used by the marquee player.â
Remember, from the same people who claim no patent threads were nuked.
If you canât trust them on something as simple as âthere is no mention whatsoever of matchmaking anyone with a particular kind of opponent in the context of promoting microtransactionsâ then the rest of whatâs being posted on their side canât be trusted either.
Yes. As a teammate. If you actually read beyond the abstract youâd know that. I also covered it in my summary.
Itâs a gosh darn Call of Duty patent, what do you expect, people to admire the guns of players that they canât see?
"The microtransaction engine may analyze various items used by marquee players and, if the items are being promoted for sale, match the marquee player with another player (e.g., a junior player) that does not use or own the items. Similarly, the microtransaction engine may identify items to be promoted, identify marquee players that use those items, and match the marquee players with other players who do not use those items. In this manner, the microtransaction engine may leverage the matchmaking abilities described herein to influence purchase decisions for game-related purchases. "
Also contradicted by:
Funny, I didnât realize that the other people in bgs were on your team!
False:
âSystem and method for driving microtransactions in multiplayer video gamesâ
Literally for any and all multiplayers games; cod was just an example.
Status: Active
Adjusted expiration: 2035-10-15
No, that doesnât contradict me at all.
I already covered this:
So two options, teammate or session.
Stop being a Blizzard simp. They are lying here. Almost all patent lawyers are loathsome trolls who try to sue anybody with any system remotely close to theirs to take their money. To maximize effectiveness in court they deliberately make terminology as vague as they can get away with so that whatever their victims are doing, it falls within the patent. Itâs a Call of Duty patent.
That you of all people post this is hilarious. Note the desperation of the deniers here. Anyone who knows my post history knows I am anything but.
And note, for those paying attention, the personal attacks by someone who claims this is the very reason these threads are being taken down.
Clearly not,
For anyone confused on if itâs just teammates or opponents, they spell it out right at the beginning:
Multiplayer video games have exploded in popularity due, in part, to services such as Microsoftâs Xbox LIVEÂŽ and Sonyâs PlayStation NetworkÂŽ which enable gamers all over the world to play with or against one another. Generally, a multiplayer video game is a video game in which two or more players play in a gameplay session in a cooperative or adversarial relationship. At least one of the players may comprise a human player, while one or more other players may comprise either non-player characters and/or other human players.
So they clearly know and have an idea that itâs for both.
And of course, for some reason you keep confusing âFOR EXAMPLEâ as âOMG, THIS IS A CALL OF CUTY PATENT!â
Imagine someone using driving metaphorsâŚyou must assume they spend their life in their car.
The MM was always rigged⌠the problem is that there are too high power level differences between classes now⌠so some class has zero chance against others⌠THAT is the problem⌠If the game would be balanced⌠rigged MM wouldnât count that much⌠Because you could win by skills⌠but since RNG controls now more than half of the game⌠it is impossibleâŚ
It was a joke. But the point is that no, you canât just point to Blizzard saying that X is Y and say âthis proves X is Y.â Thatâs exactly what you were doing.
Thereâs very little. You just imagine that because thatâs what you want, and thatâs sad.
As far as that little bit goes, I am a bit exasperated that you donât actually read what Iâm writing, then make points I debunked a post or two prior. In other words all my desperation isnât about the topic, itâs about you. Itâs clear that when it comes to this topic that you have no interest in actually reading, much less considering, other perspectives. You just want to win the argument, not actually have one.
And because Iâd rather have an argument than win one, youâre just not fun to talk to. If you have reasoning skills youâre not displaying them here. Just naked ugly zealotry. Well, ugly to me anyway, I reckon you think itâs positively glorious.
Thatâs just it - thatâs the core of what this system makes complex and why ordinary statistics dont help much in analyzing those.
âBlending inâ part is the self-organizing, self-balancing part of the complexity of the system, in this case, a game. Feedback loops between player vs player, player vs devs, etc, constantly work on doing just that.
Letâs imagine for a second that the patent truly manipulates results of individual matches and player win-rates. With time, players would pick up on that and the core idea of marketing manipulation would stop being effective, urging the devs to change the matchmaking system again and leave that out.
Welcome to system dynamics.
Except when you continually go âNah man, itâs a call of duty patentâ even when they arenât actually saying that.
Like claiming the patent isnât actually in use, or isnât actually in use in anything but cod, or anything but other modes of hearthstoneâŚor you get the idea.
Ah, now weâve moved to âDEBOONKED.â
From the person who deflects bad faith arguments like:
âit was a jokeâ which is exactly what people do when they use cheap shot trolling at you. In fact, Iâm starting to notice that you are doing a whole lot of this very activity, but show zero awareness of it.
Again, Iâm not going to stop calling out such cheap shots when theyâre made (so much for âmuh zealotâ theory), but it shows how low youâre willing to go in a simple internet debate.
or, theyâd just patch issues that made it super obvious that it was being used and keep trying to hide it. Then trust that people would continue to post on their behalf that it actually wasnât being used in games.
âThe greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist.â
1 Like