Something tells me MMR is out the window

Competitive Discussion
112

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
113

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.

114

The person making the claim has to provide the evidence.

I am still waiting for actual evidence =]

1 Like
115

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
116

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.

117

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
118

I didn’t know which thread to ask this in but hopefully this is the right one.

Here’s my question: how are these MMR matchmaker taking into account the low level account smurfs, bad tank/supports who just plays the role for the DPS tickets, throwers, derankers, leavers, and players who decided to try out a hero they’ve never used before in comp?

If the matchmaker is really trying to make every match 50/50, the system would have to dig really deeply into the players habits to even be able to mathematically determine or even predict 50/50 from so many variables including, but not limited to what’s mentioned above.

119

The reason is to get players to strive for something and play longer. It is a reward, a shiny new border with shiny new stars. It was never meant to indicate anything other than overall XP gain.

120

Pretty much all of these patents were declared as experimental by Blizzard, if I recall. In which case, there’s “00.00” proof that they’re even implemented.

2 Likes
121

Source please thanks.

122

Well, there are two extreme views on this issue: the first group says that each of these patents is somehow built into Overwatch, while the other group denies everything and assumes that there is no manipulation in the game at all.

Since we know that there is smart matchmaking in other games and Overwatch also works with a secret MMR, it can actually be assumed that matches are put together according to certain criteria that go beyond pure SR value.

Very many players, with the exception of the top 5-10% perhaps, have been reporting anomalies and inconsistencies since the beginning of Overwatch. About inexplicable streaks and conspicuously unequal teams.

Much of this can be explained by player misbehavior, i.e. cheating, smurfing and trolling. But still, many of these streaks are not explainable until today.

It is absolutely improbable that so many players experience these reproducible ups and downs at the same time. Also, the length and impact of these streaks are extremely similar. As if there was an internal switch that, once a certain threshold is reached, ensures that the matches you are thrown into have to run in a certain way.

I wouldn’t say that you don’t end up where you belong because of this matchmaking. I think this behavior could also be a bug in the AI if you are quite close to your skill level. It just sucks that the user experience is just extremely bad because of it.

This also explains why smurfs and significantly better players simply don’t notice this problem. Because until they play at their skill level, they can move around freely. And once they reach the top, they meet extremely talented players for whom certain variances are no longer as decisive as they are in the middle ranks.

TLDR: There is something going on behind the scenes of the matchmaker. Be it a deliberate manipulation or a faulty code. All we know is that such mechanisms are used in the gaming industry to improve player retention. So why should Overwatch be an exception?

123

Why are the top 5-10% an exception?

2 Likes
124

EXACTLY what comes in mind everytime I hear RigGed open his mouth

2 Likes
125

The variance comes from wildly different capabilities.

At the top, these differences have already leveled out.

126

Its because Overwatch gives us a free pass, they love us SO much! :smiling_face_with_three_hearts:

1 Like
127

Like what? Can you give an example?

2 Likes
128

In Gold, you can have people with both Bronze and GM skill, ok? That’s the entry level for all new accounts. People then move to their true rank.

In GM, there should be no more bronze players. While GMs can easily play at any rank below GM, it is not possible for Bronze players to play above Bronze. Call it a “skill funnel.”

The higher you get, the fewer discrepancies there are. Because to get to the top, you need a solid skillset, from aiming to movement to game sense.

129

Or to demonstrate in in another form:

Bronze matchmaking:

Player 1: -2.5
Player 2: -2.4
Player 3: -2.8
Player 4: 3 (GM Smurf)

Gold matchmaking:

Player 1: +3 (MMR)
Player 2: -2
Player 3: 1.5

GM matchmaking:

Player 1: +2.9
Player 2: +2.8
Player 3: +3.0

130

Use the little magnifying glass icon up in the top right corner of your screen and search for Jeff Kaplan inseart desired content.

  • You’re welcome
3 Likes
131

The article I found you guys had potg as a definite - “some” others they dismissed. However all patents cost $$.

And the gdc video which goes into detail how match making works looks exactly like OW.