To keep people playing. Said it 3 times now. The bad games are a side effect, not the intention.
Want to answer my question of why Blizzard was added to a patent you say they don’t use?
Do you mean the bit you quoted? That is just business 101 (even listed as a purpose of the patent).
Or do you mean that the patent isn’t real?
Or do you mean I have no evidence it is used, other than Blizzards name on the patent?
You telling its true is no form of evidence.
No?
Yes. You know, let say Mark knows Edgar. One day Edgar dies. Did Mark kill Edgar? You know, its just logical, Mark could have killed Edgar so he must have done it. No need for any evidence, its just logical.
It doesnt make any sense. To keep people playing? So youa re telling me that people would not be playing if blizzard would not be using some kind of patent to keep them lower? to making them having loss streaks. How the hell that make sense. They would be much more happy without it, so why having it should have any kind of posisite effect.
Maybe because COD is pay to win and they have it under battle net service? which is blizzard? Just maybe?
It being true is evidence of it being true? This is like you arguing that a business doesn’t need to make money to pay staff. Very weird. Have you read the patent?
Your logical fallacy is not logical, and has bearing on a patent specific to a matchmaker being used by a company whose name is on the patent. Congrats on sounding very special there.
Woah there, where does it say, or I say, it keeps them lower? Third time, give a quote for where it says this. If you think a couple of forced wins or losses here and there is enough to force a rank then there is no helping you.
You must think if a GM loses a single match he must be put straight to bronze and never allowed out. This is the first time I’ve mentioned rank, and it is to point out your strawman.
Ok so if that patent doesnt keep people lower, what the hell is it doing in Overwatch lol? People are playing because they like the game, you dont need some kind of patent which is virtualy doing anything for that.
Btw I just check that patent you are talking about and I have to say that you are completely delusional. This is from the patent:
A 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.
Just read it omg, its used so players will be using microtransations to have game-related purchases of items possessed/used by the marquee player. You dont have anything like that in Overwatch as microtransactions are completely cosmetic and will not affect you anyhow as a player.
.
Holy self answering post batman!
And then included in said patent:
Or did you not read that bit? Patents, now follow me here, can have more than one aspect!
“The only thing MMR does is determining your skill relative to other players within the same skill bracket”
This is untrue. The team’s are based on a MMR average, not per person, in a selected bracket. 2 smurfs with 4 dead weight are of equal MMR average value to a team of all average players. I’m all for a system pairing people by close MMR matching and SR gain/loss based on performance of character played against a pool, minus the top/bottom 10% to rule out cheaters and smurfs.
Vast majority of time you get mirror matched up. If I would queue up with someone 1k SR below me I’d meet the same type of team comp like 7-8 out of 10 games while the other 2-3 games actually being harder as that would put me against a team with 6 people all above the average of my teammates (or close to all).
So the MM take more things into consideration than just matching 6 people of the same MMR against each other.
Issue I have with it is how many games it takes to move anywhere, how long those games take to que into, and so on.
Yeah i agree with that, but you have to be carefull, if you would make system where it woukd be muvh faster , people would abuse it more easy too. Boosting would be much faster too so.
Thats called ladder mobility and we proved it takes 40+ hours of your own time to move up a rank, all things being equal (i.e. clean matches and 60% maintained win ratio). Way too grindy even for tryhards.
Its just not worth the sweat under those conditions.
Now if ladder resets and/or placements actually mattered…you might convince more people that comp (and by proxy the entire esports scene) is still relevant.
Its all about microtransactions and how they will affect that.
*FIELD OF THE INVENTION [0002]
The invention relates to a system and method for driving microtransactions in multiplayer video games.**
You quotiong one of examples doesnt change anything as overwatch has only cosmetic microtransaction. Thats end of the story.
You are missing the point really. What would be the reason to use some kind of system in overwatch? Lets say you are in gold right but you play as bronze? So you will lose games and will not have fun, but it will stop as you will drop to a place where you will eventualy pop off as people will be same skilled as you. This is how the game works.
So why they would need something to engeneer games if its already working naturaly as i explained?
Anyway, i feel that this discussion with you is going nowhere. As i said, you are free to believe anything. If you are ready too prove things you are saying find my post above where i linked my topic where i collect evidence for it.
“Hey everyone! No one buys lootboxes!” Really? Are you seriously saying the entire business model of Overwatch doesn’t work?
quit.
Fixed it for you.
Why would new player quit after several lost games lol?
Yes, game has lootboxes and they dont have any kind of ingame effect on your performance. Its just cosmetics.
It goes beyond handicapping the matchmaker via rigged (in the sense of strong one-sided predicted wins/losses).
There are several patents out relating to ‘dynamic difficulty adjustment’. I’m not digging them up here as proof because no amount of conjecture will ever be good enough for you.
We call it ‘DDA’ in the Activision ecosystem.
Wiki: Dynamic game difficulty balancing - Wikipedia
And its worse than rigging matchmaking. You feel the full force of DDA when the game realizes there was a mismatch in the matching and gives one team fight a passive 5-10% ult charge bonus, or toggles up the hit registration (server side aim assist) for that struggling hanzo to suddenly pop off, or that 1 trick 200hr moira main having seemingly ridiculous 1v1 ttk.
There are so many ways to rig a match its kinda sickening - and they have a lot of reasons to do it (engagement, sales, retention, sense of progress, etc). The primary reason for in-match DDA is to make fights seem closer and more challenging.
Until its transparent and auditable we can only take guesses at when/what kind of DDA tech they implement.
Gold to bronze is a lot of games, so that would be a very long streak of feeling the game is unwinnable. Players would quit. What do you think the purpose of that section is for?
And people buy them. I worry you don’t understand this point.
It will be, as i said many times before, post your video proof here:
If system which you claim is in ow, recording evidence should be easy.
LMAO,you cant be serious dude. 
I posted a screenshot of my forced losses and streamed it. And yes, there is DDA in Overwatch (Diamond and above, probably not).
It exists in other games… Assuming it isn’t in Overwatch is surprising.
I doubt Overwatch does it though, at least in these examples that it could be done. Did you not know what examples are?
Yes they buy them, so? I know people stuck in lower rank who are buying a lot of lootboxes while i climbed on multiple accounts without buying anything.
Again, its cosmetics, dont dont affect your ingame performance. Is that really so hard to understand?