So yes it’s not a patent for SBMM but it does have to explain how SBMM works and the parts you are quoting are things that exist for that.
I do understand the point of matching based on pure skill vs match quality. Like you explain things that correct for loss streaks and you can see these things openly in old OW comp when people started to lose more SR for a win or a loss after streaks. So basically say after 10 losses in a row it may temporally lower your MMR more a game until you win a game. This exists in OW to correct things like meta-shift ruining games, smurfs, brought accounts or players that have returned after a break.
Do you think a game should let a player lose and ruin 100 games to get to their MMR or have a correction system after it’s clear they are not at their MMR so they have better games and ruin fewer games? Even if you don’t agree with this, this isn’t rigging games.
My issue with what you’re saying is when you look at these things and put them in the context of rigging games. There are basics of skill-based matchmaking, I suppose it is a little more advanced than basic tho when we talk about MMR correction systems.
I also did explain how Quickplay games are matched on quality over fairness and if the purpose of QP is to give people a 50% win rate then it might overdo MMR correction or put you in an unfair game overtaking longer to make a fair game or waiting for you to lose enough games so you’re playing at your skill rank.
The monetization thing
First I’m not arguing the patent is for SBMM and have never made that statement, you think this because it suits your point better.
I’m correcting when you are quoting parts of it that explain SBMM and you’re saying it’s a bad thing when it’s a normal thing that exists in most SBMMer. Remember the patent needs to put the idea in the context of things that already exist.
My point is the patents existing don’t prove they are used in Overwatch. There are features in them that do not exist in Overwatch that support this and Activision has many games that do have these features.
They are proof they could rig games but that is something that is already true so that point is worthless.
My corrections for you aren’t really about that, I’m trying to point out the normal things within the patent. There are bad things in there and I have already agreed they suck in previous points.