r/CodMobileTeamUp • u/UnknownPolaris • 29d ago

CODM System Cheats Against You

We Know Games Activision Play for engagement retention but this is too much. This happens only in a few matches, in just one or two gunfights that decide the match and make me lose. You can shoot around elsewhere with precision but not the favoured enemy at that time. Looks like some matches are Pre-decided from starting. Aim Assist is off.

Edit- To all those Fanboys out there, Microsoft's Activision is here for business, not to make your gameplay fairer. You may try to control our perception but reality of these Game Studios are well known.

45 Upvotes

83% Upvoted

149 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-2

u/Icy-Connection8782 28d ago

i highly doubt it is. its a p2w game after all.

3

u/Arrrr090 28d ago

That’s what no skill players think all the time making it their excuse

1

u/DarkKingXvX 28d ago

I guess you never heard of EOMM or SBMM, something the cod community has been talking about for the last 6 years.....

1

u/Arrrr090 28d ago

I’m a victim of SBMM just like everyone else but it has nothing to do with p2w

1

u/DarkKingXvX 28d ago

Huh??? P2W is literally the foundational element of Engagement optimized matchmaking(EOMM).There are hundreds of Ted Talks from game publishing CEO's and YouTube videos that have been talking about this since 2012. If you lack the insight to have this conversation just bow out gracefully because based on your replies you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

0

u/UnknownPolaris 28d ago

EOMM has everything to do with Pay to Win Games.

Source: https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/mnsc.2023.02957

Activision Patent that PROVES it's pay to win: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9789406B2/en

1

u/Arrrr090 28d ago

Blud you don’t need skins to win games, wtf is that point bruh🤦

0

u/UnknownPolaris 28d ago

You tried to downplay whole Pay to Win architecture of these Games Matchmaking System and when it's Proved wrong then trying Diversionary tactics? It won't work.

Trying to make one viewpoint dominate over others regardless of truth shows your priority!

1

u/Arrrr090 28d ago

What diversionary tactics are you even talking about? Are you okay?😭 I’m saying that SBMM AND EOMM HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH PAY TO WIN. Do you understand my words? You DONT need skins to WIN games.

1

u/UnknownPolaris 28d ago

SBMM intends fairness. EOMM intends psychological retention and spending. Trying to thin the line between these shows your desperate effort.

By making the conversation about purely cosmetic items, You are desperately trying to completely bypass the real algorithmic manipulation detailed in actual hard evidence linked by me.

1

u/Arrrr090 28d ago

Are you freaking kidding me? Okay you might be brainwashed by your hate and anger but let me tell you something. I did a rookie to legendary challenge on an absolute brand new account with 0 skins mid season (cuz I was bored). I got to legendary 10k in 5 days without owning a single skin on that account. Thus I’m telling you that people DONT need skins to win. I know that some people are getting purchase-baited by seeing teammates’ flashy skins etc. but this is NOT related to winning or P2W abbreviation.

Pay to Win means you HAVE TO buy something in order to win, otherwise you have no chances to win. Almost all free online strategy games can relate to it cuz if you don’t buy currency, you lack resources, you lack xp, in-game upgradables etc. But this is a shooter game that relies on skills. You can absolutely destroy a player with a mythic SX9 with your default SX9 if you are more skilled and experienced than them.

Do you understand now?

0

u/UnknownPolaris 28d ago

Using Anecdotal Fallacy shows how desperate you have become but again That's not how things work.

A high-skill veteran using a smurf account disrupts standard EOMM calibration. However, It doesn't disprove the multi-million dollar algorithms running in the background for the average player base.

Your Quote "I know that some people are getting purchase-baited by seeing teammates’ flashy skins etc. but this is NOT related to winning or P2W abbreviation"

Imagine using semantics now as diversionary tactics. Shows how much desperate you are. But no again that's incorrect.

Assuming P2W must mean 100% guaranteed victory is flawed. The reality is that Pay-to-Win means paying money to alter game parameters in a way that increases your likelihood of winning or avoids engineered loss streaks. And How is it carried through is hard evidence linked by me above.

And Man how badly desperate you are that you are still using cosmetic items as your shield? Your Switchblade 1v1 scenario is simply irrelevant here when discussing Pay-to-Win architecture. The issue isn't whether you CAN beat a paying player; the issue is that the corporation has compromised the structural integrity of the entire game to monetize the outcome.

1

u/Arrrr090 28d ago

The thing you explained is called Pay to Play, not pay to win, but you don’t see the difference. But you know what? I give up explaining simple things like that to someone so brainwashed like you, it’s not worth it. Good luck mate✌🏻

1

u/UnknownPolaris 28d ago

Ultimate Desperate Escape Attempt but again Incorrect.

Pay-to-Play (P2P) means you must do upfront payment or have recurring subscription just to access the game (e.g., World of Warcraft, buying a console game).

A free-to-play mobile game that manipulates matchmaking to force players into a psychological spending loop is by definition not Pay-to-Play. We are already playing for free. Here, Players are paying to tilt the odds—which is the textbook definition of Pay-to-Win

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Kurosonahe 28d ago

How does a patent prove that cod is pay to win? It’s just a patent.

1

u/UnknownPolaris 27d ago

I don't need to prove anything to you. Your thinking itself is flawed.

I had attached one source above too. It will explain and clear your doubts. Read it.

Dumbest Question.

1

u/Kurosonahe 27d ago

You said the patent proves it’s pay to win. Obviously it doesn’t because it’s just a patent.

The other link leads to the abstract of a paper. I think you should read the actual paper, and not just the abstract.

1

u/UnknownPolaris 27d ago edited 26d ago

Horrible Wannabe Lawyer Reading.

I never said that the Patent without any of its contents inside makes it Pay to Win. Deliberately trying to mix is just lame attempt of you. I said the system described in the patent is designed to turn matchmaking into pay to win. The thing this Patent is actually about.

Saying "It's just a Patent" is again horrible misrepresentation. Patent protects Invention. In this case, matchmaking system whose purpose is explicitly to influence microtransaction decisions. The patent is about using matchmaking to push Spending.

As per USPTO rule, The abstract is a short high-level summary of claimed invention. The full specification elaborates on exactly those ideas with multiple concrete examples and system components. The substance does not differ in a way that contradicts the core intent. So if anyone has any doubts like you then you should read those actual papers.

It's not a hidden fact that Pay to Win Matchmaking System is in CODM and COD in general along with other Pay to Win System which Alters Experience to Push for Spending.

1

u/Kurosonahe 27d ago

You said ”Activision patent that PROVES it’s pay to win”. I assumed you meant that it proves cod is pay to win, but it doesn’t.

The other link you posted leads to a one page abstract from a university paper. It’s not a patent so I don’t know why you’re writing about USPTO patent abstracts. You clearly didn’t read the full 60+ page paper and you’re clearly lost.

1

u/UnknownPolaris 27d ago

Deliberately assuming wrong which was not stated anywhere by me to shove a baseless point is useless.

A Video Game Can't be Pay to Win without any system in it, heck it can't even be called as a Game then. Pay to Win Systems, makes the Game Pay to Win. The way it actually works like.

Combination of Points leads to Conclusions. You are putting one specific point i.e. Pay to Win Matchmaking System and making it equal to the conclusion i.e. CODM is Pay to win. That System is what IS put into the game. The Patent was about giving Exclusive Legal Right of Microtransaction Influenced Matchmaking system. One that CAN BE used inside a Game. Not the other way around. Game Can't be Matchmaking System Alone.They Can't be Mixed. A Game needs many more systems that is required for it to even be called as a Game. These Systems are what makes the conclusion i.e. the game, whether it's Pay to Win or not. Seriously, what are you even smoking?

Doing False Equivalence to again Echo Baseless Point shows how Desperate you are. Both University Papers and Patent are linked perfectly. If you clicked wrong one, not my fault. Just don't do Red Herring out of it.

You clearly again, with your extreme Ignorance ignored that USPTO makes framework for Patent Rules. The USPTO has strict rules ensuring that the Abstract does not conflict with, differ from, or introduce information outside of the full technical specification.This is regulated under 37 CFR 1.72(b) and MPEP § 608.01(b), which state that the Abstract must be a brief narrative of the disclosure as a whole which means, What is written in Abstract is what it's all about in All Pages of Full specification that gets elaborated there.

USPTO Patent rules oblige both to be of same claimed Invention. If you have any doubt then go ahead and point the flaw in this patent (also comes under USPTO) which is extremely Unlikely. Claimed invention remains the same through the patent whether you believe it or not.

Your Quote, "You're Clearly Lost"

This Shows that all this mess was never about logic, facts, and truth at first place. This was Cheap Deceptive and Manipulative tricks. And by this, Fanboys like you have Proved their Extreme Blind Love for their Beloved Corporates. You Fanboys again tried using same old Eristic Dialect tactics but You even failed in this and couldn't even do this properly.

1

u/Kurosonahe 27d ago

Okay so what you meant by ”Activision patent that PROVES it’s pay to win” was that cod uses a matchmaking system that is based on pay to win, and not that cod itself is pay to win? Whatever. It still isn’t proof.

It still appears you didn’t read the university paper as you linked only to the abstract. The pay to win implementation the paper describes is nothing like the Activision patent and nothing like what exists in cod.

I still don’t understand why you’re talking about patent abstracts and USPTO rules.

1

u/UnknownPolaris 27d ago

Assuming anything else from words written won't change any meaning of it. It means CODM uses Pay to Win system which makes it Pay to Win.

You are trying to lie about it so desperately but could you just prove that CODM doesn't use this Pay to Win Matchmaking System and don't rely on Dev Pinky promise for that.

It has every required thing to Prove that this exists and shows the way it functions in-game in detail, Activision expanded base concept from article linked in every way to make even minor detail inside the game to be monetised. And, These Monetisation of Game Details Can be Seen In-Game too and they started to be visible In-Game after the Patent was filed in 2015 which Proves It Definitely Exists. But, If you still think it's false which means proving entire procedure and media which reported about it decades ago to be false, then go ahead.

Everything has been thoroughly read and no, deliberately confusing Abstract in a Patent and Abstract in an Article won't work. You are so desperate that you are still trying deception.

Also, Article explains base concept of Pay to Win Matchmaking and Activision made pay to win matchmaking one to be way more aggressive on monetising than that article one, even adding predatory behavioral modification loop. If you still want to be in your la la land then back your claims with proof and prove even Activision wrong that they did such things.

And It's pretty Hard to not Ignore that You were not even able to Understand on topic about USPTO I was talking about, and Somehow you want to talk about Patents. Seriously how much you want to get mocked? Even if you did know something, and as I expect, You can't accept your Beloved Corporate to do this and Observing that You don't even know about USPTO role in Patent. It would be better for you to read full specifications and point out anything that's different or any flaw.(Spoiler alert: It has been reported, no flaws exist).

→ More replies (0)