Is the evidence there or is it being witheld for the purpose of buiding a lawsuit?
Get your story straight bud
3 Likes
Its not even that. I’ve already explained to him that you can’t provide evidence of something not existing because, ya know, it doesn’t exist.
Its just more deflection so he can pretend he knows what he’s talking about, when really his only argument is “Go play CoD”
3 Likes
And I’ve already explained to you that the USIPO exists, the patents on file exist, their active-use exists, Overwatch being in those patents exists, the derv statements literally saying they rig exists.
You can’t refute well-documented evidence with grounds for denial, that, ya know, don’t exist.
It’s a rigged game says the USIPO and official documentation. “No it’s not” says Slyther0829. Hey guys he got us we can’t have a lawsuit now.
Considering you have refused multiple times to provide said documentation, claiming it is well documented is disingenuous at best
4 Likes
Considering you refused to use google search?
I typed “rigged matchmaking patents” and got these:
Which literally show Overwatch being used by the Patents.
And much more, from a company that intends to rig their products, services, platforms, games. Found via simple public listing of documentation:
h.ttps://ideamart.xyz/assignee/activision-publishing-inc./
I also turned up this with a simple search:
Which were referenced here:
Which is of course rigging, by definition.
The definition was an easy google search:
So as you can see, documentation 1, you 0.
Another easy google search for team math.
Stop denying they exist because you wasted your life on a fake game.
Show us official documentation that refutes the above sources or counter-factually proves they can’t possibly exist.
2 Likes
I dont know why people fight the word “rigging”. Its plain as day. Now can people still practice skill and rank up? Sure! You just have to be aware that the system looks at thinks outside of skill. Can you use that to you advantage? Sure! Space said match maker is dogs*** and group up with people. Be strategic who you avoid, and maybe use communication outside the coms wheel. But are the Matches Rigged? Yes…
2 Likes
This is the correct interpretation. One can talk about improvement and ranking up. It’s possible since that’s not how the rigging works.
But pretending it doesn’t exist? Terribly misinformed. Dismissing and denying that it’s rigged? Terribly illogical. Making statements/claims that those seeking to improve the system are hardstucks/lowelo is also terrible misinformed and/or without evidence.
Statements about the system being rigged are just that. That it’s rigged. The more people accept this terminology and accept the documentation, the sooner we can move on to offering solutions and fix the issues in time for OW2.
And on the CoD forums/reddits they’ve already accepted this and have moved on to attack the matchmaking, lobby against SBMM/EOMM in competitive environments etc. It’s like their community is more woke with fewer shills/plants.
1 Like
Its almost like arguing with AB employees who arent woke.
1 Like
So would you mind finding an example of a matchmaker for an online video game with a ranking system that isn’t rigged, by your definition?
4 Likes
So quick disclaimer, literally nothing I say here is new. You just always conveniently avoid it. I’m more posting this for reference.
I’ve searched for a while now and I can’t find a single thing that you’re talking about.
Best I can find is that Overwatch is an intellectual property? Which, ya know… duh?
Maybe it’d help if you actually provided direct links to what you’re talking about instead of just screaming the same words over and over again without context.
This means literally nothing. Just because a patent exists does not mean that the product does. Sometimes patents are filed for the sake of “getting ahead.” Some people just think up random products just to cash in on them later should someone else invent them. Some big companies have dedicated think tanks that just come up with ideas that might potentially be used, but ultimately go no where.
Some companies like Activision.
https://kotaku.com/activision-patents-matchmaking-that-encourages-players-1819630937
Update 7:15 P.M: An Activision Publishing spokesperson has responded to Kotaku with the following statement:
“This was an exploratory patent filed in 2015 by an R&D team working independently from our game studios. It has not been implemented in-game.”
If you want to argue that the product is actually in use, you need to provide evidence of it actually being used. Which you have not. And if you want to say that it’s being used in Overwatch then you need to provide evidence that directly relates to Overwatch. Which you have not.
Anything else is simply theory crafting based on breadcrumbs.
Again, you don’t seem to understand how this stuff actually works and just reinforces the idea that you found a couple popular buzzwords and started parroting them without actually looking into it.
As you like to say, “this is just one basic search away”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent
A patent does not give a right to make or use or sell an invention. Rather, a patent provides, from a legal standpoint, the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the patented invention for the term of the patent
If a patent is active, then that simply means that the patent grants the company the rights to the idea presented in the patent. In other words, while Activision holds the patent, they can prevent someone else from inventing a product similar to the one described. In no way does it guarantee that Activision themselves are holding and using the product.
I believe you’re specifically referring to patent US10561945B2 where a screenshot of Overwatch is used in the figures.
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/c7/40/e6/6d4a0b8f5858f3/US10561945-20200218-D00010.png
First off, if you actually look at the picture, you can instantly tell that it is simply an example and not actually in game. You can log in right now, play a game and see that there is no progress bar under any form of team grouping like that. So right off the bat the “evidence of it being in game” is questionable at best.
That said, if you actually read through the patent, it goes into detail about a system that incentivizes teamwork by tracking and scoring helpful and unhelpful actions, and then potentially rewarding players for hitting certain milestones. Assuming it has been implemented into Overwatch, it’s probably the bare bones blueprints of the endorsement system. Something that does not influence automatic matchmaking outside of maybe endorsement level 1, since you can run into literally any endorsement level in any game at any tier of play. It’s meant to reward good play, not punish the bad, or segregate them apart.
Even if it is being used in the matchmaker in some form, it’s for the purpose of finding enjoyable teammates so the match itself is enjoyable, not for deciding the outcome of a match. If we want to talk about rigged outcomes, any way you slice it, this patent is ultimately irrelevant.
So what does this mean about the other patents?
Nothing. Literally nothing.
Again, there is nothing linking them directly to Overwatch. Activision is a company with dozens of IP’s spread across hundreds of games, with each game having different and distinct teams working on them. Assuming each and every single patent the overall company holds applies to each and every game they produce is a massive leap in faulty logic. If you want to show a specific patent applies to a specific game, you need to show a link between the two. You can’t just say “A → B so that must mean M → R”.
Where?
This is legitimately the first I’ve ever heard of this.
Even from you, which is a shock.
What I have seen is multiple dev statements saying the exact opposite.
I already posted one above, where Activision reached out to Kotaku:
https://kotaku.com/activision-patents-matchmaking-that-encourages-players-1819630937
Update 7:15 P.M: An Activision Publishing spokesperson has responded to Kotaku with the following statement:
“This was an exploratory patent filed in 2015 by an R&D team working independently from our game studios. It has not been implemented in-game.”
But if you want more
https://mystgraphics.com/overwatchforumarchive/competitive-forced5050myth.html
There is no assistance to win or lose. This is misinformation.
https://mystgraphics.com/overwatchforumarchive/competitive-forced5050myth2.html
This thread is full of misinformation.
The game does its best to make each individual game a 50/50 win chance. Over time that means the vast majority of players end up with a 50% win rate.
Nothing more, nothing less. It isn’t changing damage numbers or purposely putting you in bad games to make you win or lose. There are players who sit at 55%+ and 45%- win rates and they aren’t constantly getting placed in lopsided games.
This is correct. There has been an unfortunate trend of people believing that we somehow force you to lose, which couldn’t be further from the truth.
https://mystgraphics.com/overwatchforumarchive/competitive-matchmakingandavoidthisplayerremoved.html
At no point in MMR calculations do we look at your win/loss ratio and win/loss ratio is never used to determine who to match you with or against. We are not trying to drive your win/loss percentage toward a certain number
https://mystgraphics.com/overwatchforumarchive/competitive-season4followup.html#post-13
I’ve seen comments like “I just won three games in a row, so the matchmaker put me in a bad stomp to get back to a 50% win rate”. It doesn’t do anything like that at all.
Again, what evidence?
All you ever bring up are patents that may or may not even be relevant. You don’t even talk about the patents and how they’re directly linked to Overwatch. You just copy and paste an ID and say “sEe ThEy ExIsT”.
You still didn’t answer my question. I’m genuinely curious.
Google keeps track of your browser history. You’ve been looking at these patents for a while, of course it’s going to recognize exactly what you want to find. That doesn’t mean you’re any more or less correct, it just means Google searched for what you wanted.
You still don’t seem to know what you’re looking at.
Big company owns many patents. Cool. Did you actually look at them or just trying to copy and paste any crumbs you find? Because I don’t really think a guitar hero ripoff is very relevant to the conversation.
Already talked about this.
Someone else’s forum post is not concrete evidence. They’re going off of the same information as the rest of us, they just have it all neatly written down.
If the match is rigged, then that means there is a push for a desired outcome of the match.
A balanced 50/50 means that there is no desired outcome, hence the match is not “rigged” by definition. The whole purpose is to ensure that fair match does not have a single determined outcome before it starts.
We should also acknowledge the fact that you’re saying the “deceptive and dishonest” methods are synonymous to a “fair” game which, ya know… Isn’t how English works.
And after all this, of course I know you’ll just ignore this reply yet again, or maybe cherry pick out a single thing and pretend I didn’t address everything else. Good thing I just work on this on and off throughout the day to kill time, I suppose. Hopefully this thread doesn’t get deleted like last time.
2 Likes
wait wut? isn’t being able to use google a pre-req for the internet?
can not provide direct links since they flag it as spam.
Nope. The USIPO periodically requires corporations to cite whether or not IP is in active-use. This is commonplace now to avoid ‘IP trolling’ where companies buy and hold tons of IP landscape for the sake of it. That’s just how IP law works so it’s not really up for debate, but you can check for yourself that they are in active-use and mention “battle.net platform” and have Overwatch screenshots and citations.
That’s not how modern IP portfolios work. For small inventors sure, but not for corporations. They have to pay upkeep and show it applied to actual product/service/platform offerings. This is easy to check btw, but since you’re new to IP law just google it and come up to speed.
Exactly. patents attempt to be vague and claw out as much applicability as they legally can. That’s typical wording/citations.
They are linked because they cite overwatch, show the platform, are in active use, and corroborate the statements made several times by dervs about how the matchmaking works. SBMM/EOMM and hidden mmr systems are 100% rigged as per definition.
Taken together they show:
- smoking gun,
- dead body,
- written intent,
- scene of the crime.
And you’re defending them on the grounds that we can’t show it actually killing the victim. The rigging works behind the scenes, not at the presentation layer, so we won’t ever have in-game evidence of rigging the way the rigging is said to work.
But, to help your case, maybe provide at least some kind of alibi, counter-factual evidence, or other documentation and submit it to the courts for your defense? Otherwise it’s groundless denial in-defense of a system you really have no vested interest in defending.
So why are you trying so hard without anything to offer/show? Do you care if it’s rigged? You wouldn’t want it to be rigged? So maybe dig something up that proves it’s not rigged.
2 Likes
I love the fact how Receipt’s only argument, always, is “that’s not how x,y,z works”.
4 Likes
He is not capable of showing evidence, so he tries to baselessly refute anything
3 Likes
I hate to be the one to tell you but you’re the one making claims. Saying do your own research really isn’t the angle that’s going to result in anyone believing a thing you have to say. Provide a source for your references. You brought people’s educations level into this, surely you are aware of how references work right?
4 Likes
Sure. And like I said, I’ve been searching for a while, which is why its weird that I can’t find anything.
I can find stuff like USPTO and intellectual properties, both of which directly relate to the existence of patents, but I can’t seem to find anything with USIPO, particularly nothing that has to do with Overwatch.
I’m not being disingenuous here, I legitimately don’t see what you’re talking about, but would like to. I’m assuming I’m missing some sort of keyword or something, which is why I’m asking for your help in finding it.
So let me get this straight:
We both know there are ways around the link filters.
I did so half a dozen times in that post. (use the ` key to surround it)
You literally provided a link with both the dictionary definition as well as a link to the list of Activision’s patents, neither of which are to “approved” sites.
But when I ask for something specific for the sake of understanding what you’re talking about, suddenly you can’t figure it out?
…
…
K
So we’re in agreement that the patents don’t actually point to anything specific? Thus using them as stand alone evidence for a specific game is a pointless argument?
Great! Glad we’re in agreement.
Wait, no, now I’m lost again.
We JUST established that they don’t do this because they’re meant to be as generic as possible. So they’re super generic as to not be tied down to a single instance… But are specificaly citing and being made for Overwatch?
If you’re going to suddenly pivot your argument again, you’re gonna have to provide context. Where is Overwatch properly cited? Specifically, where?
And just so we’re clear, you need to provide proof for every single patent you claim to be relevant. “That one picture from that one patent” doesn’t cover all 7 patents. You can’t just cherry pick one and assume the same applies to all of them, as all patents are distinct entities that may or may not represent different purposes, teams, or IP’s.
It REALLY would help if you read what you’re replying to.
What statements?
I provided multiple ones saying the opposite, even one specifically saying the patents are not in use. So… What statements say they do? Again, it’d be nice if you took half the time you spent arguing and actually started applying it towards actually backing up your claims.
I’m saying I have yet to even see a victim, and all you do is say “the body exists because I found this gun. It may not even be smoking, but trust me on this, the body is… somewhere.” Because that’s a totally convincing and valid argument.
So after all this time you admit you have nothing concrete then. Cool.
So here’s a thought experiment:
How does one prove bigfoot DOESN’T exist? I could spend my entire life combing the entire world, and I’d still come back with nothing. If he doesn’t exist, then there’s no evidence to find, obviously. Now, would having nothing conclusively prove that he doesn’t exist? No, because there’s always the counter point of “well you might’ve missed something.” Instead, we have to rely on the ones claiming bigfoot does exist to actually come forth with some sort of valid and undeniable evidence of said existence.
This is the same sort of thing. Burden of proof lies on the one making the claim, because you can’t prove a lack of something beyond “I haven’t seen it,” which is hardly conclusive.
Likewise, I’m not making any claim here, only discussing the validity of your own. If you can’t understand the difference, then you don’t belong in this make believe, videogame-esque court room you seem to have thought up for yourself, let alone an actual one.
I’m just curious about the truth, and I’m not afraid to challenge both myself and others in an attempt to figure it out. I’m simply looking at the evidence as its presented and trying to come to a reasonable conclusion based on its worth. Contrast that with yourself, where you seem to be starting at the conclusion (things MUST be rigged) and are walking backwards to try and scrape together anything that might remotely support the idea, which will absolutely bias anything you look at. Then you seem to be getting annoyed when I’m not interested in making the same sort of bad faith arguments as you.
Ultimately, I don’t care what the outcome is, it can be in the rigged camp for all I care, I just want things to make sense, and I will logically argue towards that.
So where does this all leave us? Well, I’m the one consistently providing links, quotes, and sources for why I say what I do. When I can’t find something that supports your claim, I legitimately ask for guidance because I know its not fair to just write you off.
But what do I get in return?
- Deflection
- Ignorance
- Back Peddling
- Inconsistencies
- Logical Fallacies
- Inconclusive “Evidence”
- Excuses
- Avoidance
All of which you’ve taken part of in this one post, let alone all the others you’ve made in response to both myself and many others. This all seems to me to be based on nothing more than a large pile of misunderstandings made by someone who wants to think they’re smart enough to have cracked the code no one else could.
Oh yea, and since I’m on the subject of avoidance…
I really want to know.
I’ve already shown you multiple statements, not to mention explained each and every one of your points. You are the one who keeps plugging your ears and turning tail whenever challenged.
Just to add to this, remember, search engines like Google try to curate the outcomes to the person doing the search, because it’s their job to get you what you want. If someone completely different than you “does their own research”, it’s entirely possible for them to come across completely different results.
Sourcing one’s own claims is not only a bare minimum standard, but it just saves everyone a ton of unnecessary confusion.
2 Likes
You could, in fact, do the same. Demonstrate that this patent isn’t in use. What gives you such confidence?
At the very least, we know that concrete considerations have been made in this regard. The concern doesn’t come out of nowhere.
The person making the claim has to provide the evidence.
I am still waiting for actual evidence =]
1 Like
as more stupid things come from blizz and acti, the more the playerbase will drop. lowkey i might jump ship before everything dies and i get upset
1 Like
You found the patents and you found the overwatch screenshots you found the derv statements and you found out what rigging means but you still get it all wrong and still produce zero documentation to submit as evidence and refute.
Did you find any documentation that refutes or counter-factually argues that rigging can’t possibly be in the game? You haven’t shown anything concrete. Your grounds for dismissing the well-documented claims just look like panic and damage control.
Yes. They specifically point to Overwatch (it’s listed in the IP), and use standard IP language. This makes them specifically applicable to Overwatch and but leaves some wiggle room for future embodiments (battle.net platform products/services). They can’t maintain tier1 active-use without specifically citing where/how their IP is to be implemented. Large corporations are periodically required to submit embodiments and actual implementations of their patents. This prevents them from being overly vague or trolling out large regions of IP landscape just for the sake of it (such as denying competitors IP scope and range).
Nope, you provided only this:
That article concerns only the following patent: US 20160005270 A1
Which is rigging by/for microtransactions. This patent is in tier2 active-use which means it’s ‘hanging on’ by association with other IP that are implemented. It’s hanging on because it has been superceded by US9789406B2, which is actively implemented. Feel free to show us Activision statements saying US9789406B2 isn’t in their games.
If you’re going to refute the patents that cite Overwatch rigging, at least do a good job of it. Show actual documentation that says they’re not in use. Not some out-of-context strawman.
Not quite. The patents exist, are in active-use, and show an intent to rig. They’re tier1 active, meaning they are applied and don’t constitute exploratory status (not just trolling out landscape for future maybes).
Feel free to provide an Activision statement that says the documentation wasn’t produced by them with the intent to rig products and services. That the documentation IDs (specific patentsare) are specifically not in active use. Just as you did above for the micro-transaction strawman.
That patent in question (teamplay incentivization and in-game param rigging) is tampering with lobbies using non-skill metrics. It’s rigging the natural selection of players (by skill) into lobbies so it’s still a kind of rigging. It also modifies in-game params. It’s one of 4+ patents that cite overwatch directly, the many others by association.
That is 100% rigging. The desired outcome is 50-50. Attempting to force 50-50 outcomes by tampering with lobby selection behind the scenes, is rigging as per definition.
So where is your documentation that says Overwatch doesn’t use any rigging or rigging tech or patents that rig? Do us all a favour and come up with something that can stand against the piles of documentation that says otherwise.
Like it or not this is a company that utters rigging threats: ongoing themes: SBMM, EOMM, DDA, to rig matches and rig in-game param. And has several tech that rig (active-use patents) and even pictures of the bodies it intents to rig (overwatch screenshots in the extreme case, in lesser cases applicable language).
You’re really going to equate USIPO official documentation and derv statements with Bigfoot? Our litigators just had the biggest laugh thanks for that one.
The whole point is that there isn’t anything concrete. I’m not necessarily denying the possibility, but the evidence that’s being shown is wishy washy at best. This kid thinks that just because Activision patented something, it has to be in Overwatch 100%. If you ask for details, he deflects and avoids the question.
I found multiple patents.
I found a single screenshot.
I literally asked you for j_your version_ of the dev statements multiple times?
And I still can’t find anything on USIPO.
I’m still giving you a massive opening to show your point. I don’t know what you’re talking about when you bring up USIPO and Overwatch is and literally nothing I do is bringing anything relevant up. I just keep getting spelling corrections for USPTO or brought to things like the song Usipo. I am willing to admit that. But you still won’t share. You even said that you have a direct link to it, but just can’t figure in how to pass the spam filters you’ve already passed twice.
My point is its obvious you’re talking out of your rear. The outcome this conversation is irrelevant, you literally don’t know what you’re even saying, just bringing up words that sound fancy but you can’t back up.
I asked specifically where!
As in point me to it.
Again, I don’t see anything in 6 of these patents.
Okay cool.
This still doesn’t prove WHERE they are being used.
And I never once denied this. I am well aware of what kind of company Activision is overall.
What I’m asking for is evidence of those threats being in Overwatch. Each time I do you change your story and move your own goal posts.
You literally have nothing, and its starting to show.
It doesn’t tamper with lobbies though.
Just so we’re clear, I strictly believe that if it’s in Overwatch, the patent would be regarding the endorsement system.
This is from the thread that YOU linked as “evidence”:
In other words, it is irrelevant to this conversation.
That said
I’m looking at the list of citations right now. No where is Overwatch properly cited.
A picture example is not a proper citation.
Either way, it doesn’t matter. Like I said it doesn’t influence matchmaking, and is the only one that has anything remotely referencing Overwatch.
Remember, this is the list you presented:
For our purposes US20190091581A1 is a repeat of US10561945B2 (both are the endorsement patents, which I marked for clarity) and its redundant to bring either up again, especially since they are ultimately irrelevant to matchmaking.
As for the other 5?
Absolutely none of these shown anything directly specific to Overwatch. And using 1 to relate the other 5 is a massive leap in faulty logic.
Again, you are more than welcome to directly prove me wrong, just show me exactly where in each patent you’re talking about. But I have no doubt that you’ll just fall back on to your classic “iTs ThErE!!!11!!1!” without any context because you don’t know how to form an actually coherent argment.
That’s not how it works mate.
The outcome in question is the outcome of the match. The setup process is not an outcome. You’re literally complaining that both sides get a fair game.
If they influenced the actual game to level the playing field, then you may have a point, but you seem to have moved away from the DDA argument you also used to relentlessly repeat.
Oh so now I’m important enough to show to an entire legal team?
I’m honored, truly.
Glad to know just how big of a fantasy you seem to have built for yourself.
Ultimately it’s gotten clear that you have absolutely no idea what you’re presenting and are just repeating whatever rhetoric your favorite youtuber or streamer tossed out to you a while back. As entertaining as it is to watch the record actively break and go on repeat whenever their initial argument doesn’t follow through, I think we’re probably done here.
If you actually have any of the evidence you say you have, you are more than welcome to share and I’d probably be willing to take this somewhat seriously. I’m not opposed to the idea of rigging or against having a proper conversation about it. But I’ve given you more than enough openings to simply show what you mean, all of which you’ve failed miserably. So for now, good luck with your… ah… case…? I’m sure you’ll need it.
Remember, you have about a year until OW2 comes out, so I hope you find literally anything concrete by then!
3 Likes