How can people say that winrate is not enforced?

General Discussion
101

Except you didn’t. Trying to claim you did is just more demonstrates of how you superficially grasp something, claim otherwise, and deride others for it.

Right. It’s not like I can quote exactly what I said:

“rather than treat me to a delightful wall of text with links and enumerated refutations, you’ve remained uncharacteristically vague, making only allusions to some unspecified past threads or some nebulous “consequences” that haven’t happened.”

Where the context is what I said it was and the part with “consequences that haven’t happened” is a word for word excerpt of you–I hope I won’t need to link your own words to you for you recognize them. In the place of that phrase in the quoted sentence, you should expect to see one of the vague arguments you’ve made against the patent and that’s exactly what that was. I suppose you probably think that the quotes around consequences somehow make it take on a different meaning but there’s a much more logical explanation for this: I quoted consequences to render it a direct reference to what your wrote, to emphasize that you were so vague that you did not do so much as even list some vague consequences. This is something that an enlightened being free of confirmation bias such as yourself should have been able to pick up on.

The teniable fixation you have in trying to goad the ‘mistake’ is that that is just more of the same superficial fluff of what you’re reading in this. “oh he mistook me for the OP, therefore yada yada” – to which that’s further strained by how you claim you can’t fathom the ‘acceptability’ to ‘put words in the mouth’ when that’s pretty much what you’ve been doing from the onset.

Oh so you’re a victim now? Smart move. It’s easier to play that card than to explain why you would attribute to me an attitude of “so obvious” solely on the basis of disagreeing with you and having a default avatar.

That conclusion there of trying to claim I “post for everyone?” That’s an indicate of you not reading the material, making assumptions, and then acting informed anyway, but then to try to bemoan others for something you didn’t think through.

It’s a good thing the “material” is available to us at all times, isn’t it?

“When I write, I tend to do so for more than just a single person; even if replies are direct, the post is going to be read by other people. It’s not a mistake, but attitude/reactions like yours are just replaceable.”

Would you feel better if I had written “multiple people”?

However, both parents are particular to first-person shooter games; the metrics, interactions, incentives, etc etc are for a particular genre. Even if someone were to say “oh well, they can just adjust some stuff to make it work for hots” it isn’t the same thing, and some of the changes that have been done with HotS matching have demonstrated the problems of trying to realize that.

What if that someone was the people writing the patent?

“While aspects of the invention may be described herein with reference to various game levels or modes, characters, roles, game items, etc. associated with a First-Person-Shooter (FPS) game, it should be appreciated that any such examples are for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to be limiting. The matchmaking system and method described in detail herein may be used in any genre of multiplayer video game, without limitation”

And if you actually knew what my angle on this was you’d realize that this was exactly my point. I think Blizz is trying to match by more than just MMR in QM and that a “forced” 50% win rate under some circumstances (say, if you get a bunch of wins while still locked into the new player pool) could be one of the problems resulting from the realization of such schemes.

And I could go on, but here’s the main kicker: for people that look at activision patents, how many have bothered to realize that blizzard has its own list that they use instead?

You would call that a main kicker? I stumbled onto this patent through Kotaku. I viewed it through google patents, I didn’t even know there is a free site to look up all of a company’s patents. What’s your next kicker? How many people bothered to get a C.S. degree and code their own matchmaker?

Anyway, that doesn’t really prove much. Could be that patents filed under Blizzard are those that are specific to Blizzard IPs and are of no interest to any other subsidiaries. Certainly, the replay patents would fall under that one. Could be that patents are filed by place of development, which would not preclude Blizzard from making use of a patent assigned to its holding company.

But I applaud that you’ve taken a small break from the inquisition and actually presented a somewhat cogent counter-argument. If only so much of my post wasn’t wasted on some of the more inane things you’ve said. It’s come out to a dreadful wall of text now.

102

Most of what I’ve written is stuff you haven’t even considered. Without consideration put into it, it seems ‘nebulous’ and you overlook it.

As I wrote to you before, part of why I included you in the “obvious” loop is based on your conduct, not your choice of words. The realization of that still hasn’t occurred to you.

Part of the issue of how you process information is that you’re doing it on a fairly ‘shallow’ level (specific choice of words there.) Your latest reply is a series of line-item responses that indicate you’re forming impulsive responses as you see each item, rather than first going through the whole thing and reading it in its entity.

Because you are reacting to stand-alone items, that leads you to draw conclusions that assume the other side has to be inconsistent, rather than see congruity in the whole. How you want to react is shaped by a pre-existing desire before you read the particulars, so you’re just shooting for confirmation bias, esp to look for what you ‘want’, rather than to see what’s actually there, and process a reaction afterward.

Even without pointing at specific example from your line-item list to me, that’s pretty much how your reaction as been to the topic from the onset. You have your fixed conclusion that you set as being ‘probable’ and then just circle around cherry-picked instances to keep trying to confirm that.

That sort of impulse/bias system is part of why people freak out of ‘patents’ without bothering to realize what a patent actually does.

Posters, like yourself, probably don’t even know that said patent doesn’t require a single line of code to be written (for actually attempting to realize the effect) that the process may have been filed by an intern, or that the methods for getting a patent suit a “one size fits all” that allows some fields (like software) to be fairly vague on the particulars for the patent (actually making or using it) compared to other fields.

It can be seen as more a common practice that patents are made to try to put hurdles on competitors who may try to realize the idea, rather than for someone to use it themselves. Or, if it seems unique enough after it’s been made (ie, people can actually see it in action) to prevent others from copying the same thing. Patent’s tend to be used for software because the method can be somewhat vague, while copyright’s would only protect select code specifically, so if someone looked at the code, they just need to make a few changes to get away with copying the whole thing.

The use of ‘consequences’ I used early would be substituted for the word ‘evidence’. If something happened, then there would be evidence of it in effect (because there’s a consequence of action.) Patents draw more attention by people out of the loop because the are put into the public domain – so shallow readers can find traces of it, not think through the implications, and have their reaction ready to go before thinking further into the matter – and since it’s out in the open, click-bait can grab attention by people that thrive off of reactions to select words.

However, even without patents, players have concerns for manipulative elements in games and can see background processes being run (such as ‘spyware’) run scripts to see what the processes actually check, datamine for coded interactions or see what sort of data/variables are stored, and a number of other things. (hence the “Warden” example I referenced earlier, though I doubt you would know or have looked that up)

For people that don’t know any of those things can be checked, it doesn’t occur to them that if said concern were in effect, people will notice, and react more sternly about it. Instead, you find slews of these theoretical reactions that don’t follow-up with another search to check other particulars (such as related patents, what patents actually do, community responses or decries, etc etc) And all of that is despite the connection that players do have outcries to unwanted behaviors (such as certain Loot box implementations) when they’re found.

So, yes, what I call the “main kicker” is the comparison of a scope you’re not going to consider in connecting one element to another to figure out all the dynamics of the matter at hand, as per your responses to me, you’re not going to read through it were I to spell it out that much more.

A patent is something accessible to the public, so of course there are sites to look up a what patents are held; it has to be accessible information in exchange for the legal protection offered. That’s why it’s a patent. Have you thought to yourself to ever ask “what is a patent, and what does it do?” People are too busy reacting to superficial information to think through what it actually means or how it’s used. So they choose to remain oblivious because they have the ‘obvious’ answer, that they don’t ask more involved questions to learn more about the particulars as hand.

What interest they have is caught up in other speculations that would be deterred if they were a bit more knowledgeable about the particulars. But since the ‘reaction’ is the driving element of their efforts, that curbs a number of other discussions because they a) don’t want to consider otherwise b) won’t read otherwise and c) fault others when they don’t know otherwise.

You can react “oh know you’re playing the victim” but with how much you’re filtering out, the main issue is that you’re just playing yourself.

103

Part of the issue of how you process information is that you’re doing it on a fairly ‘shallow’ level (specific choice of words there.) Your latest reply is a series of line-item responses that indicate you’re forming impulsive responses as you see each item, rather than first going through the whole thing and reading it in its entity.

OK, time to pop this bubble. I’ve seen posters like you on other forums. Like the rest of them you’re under the illusion that the multiple people who mock your walls of text do so because they find them intimidating or because they lack the intelligence to engage. That’s not the case. You are mocked for the same reason that any other autist is: your inability to read the social environment and modulate your responses accordingly.

So yes, I did read your posts in their entirety before replying; and, yes, you are quite delusional if you honestly think that replying to quoted items in sequence is anything more than a way to organize writing or if you think that you write so well that each of your posts here forms a gestalt that admits no decomposition into smaller units.

Even without pointing at specific example from your line-item list to me, that’s pretty much how your reaction as been to the topic from the onset. You have your fixed conclusion that you set as being ‘probable’ and then just circle around cherry-picked instances to keep trying to confirm that.

And let’s pop this bubble too. Confirmation bias isn’t something you can lord over other people. Everyone is subject to cognitive biases. Even if there is varying susceptibility to it, the way to gauge that would certainly not be by your personal impression of how unbiased you are. People all over the world have invented adversarial systems to mitigate bias. Yet here you in an adversarial situation whining about how biased I am because I don’t perceive your posts the way you would like them to be perceived.

I took a bit of thought of how to address one of your complaints about how posters like me have no interest in reading something they disagree with even if you would deign to actually spell it out. Doing it item by item would make for an obnoxiously long post, so I figured I’d show you how you could have had me read over 5 paragraphs of actual content through the use of a legend:

Posters, like yourself, probably don’t even know that said patent doesn’t require a single line of code to be written (for actually attempting to realize the effect) that the process may have been filed by an intern, or that the methods for getting a patent suit a “one size fits all” that allows some fields (like software) to be fairly vague on the particulars for the patent (actually making or using it) compared to other fields.

It can be seen as more a common practice that patents are made to try to put hurdles on competitors who may try to realize the idea, rather than for someone to use it themselves. Or, if it seems unique enough after it’s been made (ie, people can actually see it in action) to prevent others from copying the same thing. Patent’s tend to be used for software because the method can be somewhat vague, while copyright’s would only protect select code specifically, so if someone looked at the code, they just need to make a few changes to get away with copying the whole thing.

The use of ‘consequences’ I used early would be substituted for the word ‘evidence’. If something happened, then there would be evidence of it in effect (because there’s a consequence of action.) Patents draw more attention by people out of the loop because the are put into the public domain – so shallow readers can find traces of it, not think through the implications, and have their reaction ready to go before thinking further into the matter – and since it’s out in the open, click-bait can grab attention by people that thrive off of reactions to select words.

However, even without patents, players have concerns for manipulative elements in games and can see background processes being run (such as ‘spyware’) run scripts to see what the processes actually check, datamine for coded interactions or see what sort of data/variables are stored, and a number of other things. (hence the “Warden” example I referenced earlier, though I doubt you would know or have looked that up)

For people that don’t know any of those things can be checked, it doesn’t occur to them that if said concern were in effect, people will notice, and react more sternly about it. Instead, you find slews of these theoretical reactions that don’t follow-up with another search to check other particulars (such as related patents, what patents actually do, community responses or decries, etc etc) And all of that is despite the connection that players do have outcries to unwanted behaviors (such as certain Loot box implementations) when they’re found.

So, yes, what I call the “main kicker” is the comparison of a scope you’re not going to consider in connecting one element to another to figure out all the dynamics of the matter at hand, as per your responses to me, you’re not going to read through it were I to spell it out that much more.

A patent is something accessible to the public, so of course there are sites to look up a what patents are held; it has to be accessible information in exchange for the legal protection offered. That’s why it’s a patent. Have you thought to yourself to ever ask “what is a patent, and what does it do?” People are too busy reacting to superficial information to think through what it actually means or how it’s used. So they choose to remain oblivious because they have the ‘obvious’ answer, that they don’t ask more involved questions to learn more about the particulars as hand.

What interest they have is caught up in other speculations that would be deterred if they were a bit more knowledgeable about the particulars. But since the ‘reaction’ is the driving element of their efforts, that curbs a number of other discussions because they a) don’t want to consider otherwise b) won’t read otherwise and c) fault others when they don’t know otherwise.

You can react “oh know you’re playing the victim” but with how much you’re filtering out, the main issue is that you’re just playing yourself.

The parts in bold are baseless pseudo-psychological speculations that amount the little more than ad hominem. The parts in italics are either superfluous or so jarringly out of sync with the surrounding text to the point of being irrelevant. I read all of those words. You could have replaced all of those words with something of actual substance and I would have read that, too.

As for the parts of your screed making an actual argument, you’re pretty off base. Patent trolls were a pretty popular news item a few years ago regularly making the front page of sites like reddit, so tons and tons of people know that many patents are overly broad, that many patents are never turned into a product, can be used offensively, etc. I was tempted to bold and italicize that section too, though, because it’s not really an appropriate argument to make. It only works under your assumption that I share the OP’s attitude that it’s all “so obvious” and that I intended to present the mere existence of a patent as proof that matchmaking is rigged.

Similarly, your section on background processes is flawed. The argument is like saying that a bug can’t exist in the game now because previous bugs were identified. Moreover, the lack of specificity really kind of kills any point you could have. What makes you so sure that Blizzard couldn’t still be running something like PBMM in Quick Match? The player rating is hidden, the match quality is wildly inconsistent. If you were getting +/-20% MMR by the same criteria as the PBMM that was unveiled what clear consequences would you observe?

As in my previous interaction to you, the entire basis of our discourse depends on a strawman from you to create the illusion that what you have to say is relevant. Now that you’re actually slowly crystallizing this aura of “there are so many things you didn’t consider” into some actual points, it’s become quite clear that there is no substance to your take on this. You need to insist that you can put others’ words into my mouth because without misrepresenting my stance none of your points would stick. It doesn’t make sense to tell me I didn’t consider all the implications when I myself was telling others that they haven’t considered some alternative ways in which a ‘forced’ 50% win rate might arise. It is only by pretending that a tentatively worded objection was actually an authoritative and peremptory accusation that you could conjure up a reason to wax on about how others “process information”.

104

I donno about all theses big word and long winded arguments.

But it is simple.

You aint as good as you think. End of story.