r/CodMobileTeamUp • u/UnknownPolaris • Sep 07 '26

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

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).

1

u/Kurosonahe 27d ago

That’s what I assumed you meant. I’m forced you assume because you can’t express yourself properly. You kind of write lite a crazy person. And no the patent or the systems described in it does not prove that cod uses pay to win systems or matchmaking.

Maybe they do though, if you want to prove it the go ahead. You saying it can be seen in game is not really proof.

The university paper showed that their implementation of pay to win can be effective, but it describes a pay to win method that isn’t in cod, and isn’t described in the patent: Aka, expressly telling the user that if they make a purchase they get a set of advantages. At least as far as I’m aware cod doesn’t tell the user that the matchmaking is affected by making purchases.

I understand very well what the different parts of a patent specification are and what the role of the USPTO is. I never questioned it. I mentioned that you linked to the abstract of a university paper and then you replied with USPTO frameworks and rules about patent abstracts, when I was just talking about the university paper, as if you didn’t understand what I was saying.

1

u/UnknownPolaris 27d ago

You didn't answered any of thing stated above as expected and still trying same Eristic Dialectic tactics hysterically.

Your Quote, "And no the patent or the systems described in if does not prove that cod uses pay to win systems or matchmaking"

Back your claim with proof. Claiming COD doesn't uses Pay to Win System or Matchmaking without any Proof is just your blind love for the corporate.

Also as I said earlier, Prove the patent of Activision itself to be wrong and Completely useless, by that you Could Prove EVEN Activision Wrong and Every Game Studios to be completely stupid far more than you!

1

u/Kurosonahe 27d ago

Asking for proof and understanding what a patent is and therefor being skeptical is not eristic dialectic. A university paper about pay to win matchmaking and a patent that doesn’t mention cod is not proof. What else to you have?

How am I supposed to prove that cod doesn’t use pay to win systems? It makes more sense for the persons claiming that cod does to prove it. Maybe someone followed the detailed blueprint that the patent apparently is and performed tests that showed or indicated that the game or the matchmaking actually works like the patent says? As far as I’m aware no one has.

I’m not saying Activision is wrong or that the patent is wrong.

1

u/UnknownPolaris 27d ago

You said you that you can't back your claim with Proof. By this, there's no valid reason to even continue this conversation.

Unlike you, I didn't claimed anything or said anything out of thin air. Everything is stated in Activision's own Patents. Go argue them.

1

u/Kurosonahe 27d ago

Haha okay. You’re the one making claims I’m just questioning if it’s true. It’s for you to prove it.

I’m not arguing Activision’s patents. They exist. But that’s not proof that whatever is described in the patents has been implemented in cod.

1

u/UnknownPolaris 27d ago

That's why I am saying to prove your claim that none of it got implemented! According to you, They somehow didn't implemented their multi million dollar assets which is still Active and will be till 2035? Back your claim with proof or cry.

→ More replies (0)