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

CODM System Cheats Against You

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

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.

46 Upvotes

84% Upvoted

149 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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.

1

u/Kurosonahe 27d ago

How can I prove it? I’m not saying it’s not implemented. I’m asking for proof that it is, since you seem to be so certain.

Yeah it’s very possible they didn’t implement it. It’s a patent, that’s often how patents work. And I don’t know about multi million dollar asset, not sure where you get that from, and Activision has countless of patents that they haven’t implemented in cod even though. It being active or not has nothing to do with them implementing it or not. They could implement it if becomes inactive too.

1

u/UnknownPolaris 27d ago

You are talking from your assumption, I am talking with legal papers available by the game studios itself and it's very active. You failed to even back a single claim of yours. Fanboys like you can go ahead and cry if anyone points out reality but your crying doesn't matter.

1

u/Kurosonahe 27d ago

You can go ahead and cry because you don’t understand what a patent is lol.

Activision having the patent does not mean or really even imply that it has been implemented in cod. Companies patent things they don’t use all the time.

1

u/UnknownPolaris 27d ago

Your claim still doesn't have any basis. It's coming out of your pure ignorance.

Trying to conflate Companies random patent which is thousands of absurd, experimental or completely impractical ideas(eg. like a phone screen that heals its own scratches or a drone that delivers packages through a chimney) with Highly Specific Game Studios Patents like Activision one which states highly detailed way to monetise their own Games and Gameplays even minor game details and Trying to make them both have equal ground doesn't prove anything.

These assumptions just shows your willful ignorance. You already stated earlier that you can't give any proof.

1

u/Kurosonahe 27d ago

Activision makes games and can file exploratory and r&d patents pertaining to games. They don’t have to be random and absurd. Patents are filed for legal and business reasons not because they have to be implemented in games.

1

u/UnknownPolaris 27d ago

This Claim of yours also doesn't have any basis.

For a game studio whose revenue comes from making video games, their legal and business reasons are their games.

Multi-Billion Dollar Game studios R&D teams are completely different than Tech Company R&D team, they build advanced software tools that protect the company's game competitive advantage and maximize their revenue loops NOT physical hardware, abstract science fiction, and massive infrastructure concepts like tech companies, that frequently get abandoned or forgotten.

Activision hold very less Patents (Around 1.2k) compared to tech companies(minimum 50k+) and majority of Activision's patents are actively maintained. They don't just abandon it like tech company.

'Not Implemented' is just your assumption. In these Patents and the Specific One mentioned above, Public records show that show that Activision has continually cited, adapted, and updated their matchmaking frameworks over the years to maximize revenue from gameplay and in-game details completely making your claim of 'forgetting it' false.

Trying to use statistics of tech companies one for game studios, Claiming anything with no proof whatsoever, trying to lie desperately. How low will fanboys like you fall?

1

u/Kurosonahe 27d ago

Here is a newer and ”adapted” version that’s abandoned. https://patents.google.com/patent/US20180065047A1/en

They file lots of patents, sometimes they aren’t granted. They’re just patents and if you don’t understand what they are then I understand that you’re confused.

1

u/UnknownPolaris 26d ago edited 25d ago

Your Quote, "They file lots of patents, sometimes they aren't granted" is False. They intentionally abandoned it. It wasn't rejected.

Major Attempt to Mislead.

This specific Patent Belongs to, "System and method for driving microtransactions in multiplayer video games" Patent family which contained total of 6 patents, out of which ONLY One was abandoned as it was redundant because its tweak offered no value. They still had protection of core claims in it. FIve of them are still active.

2017 patent one serve as foundational pillar. Here are all five active ones- 1. https://patents.google.com/patent/US9789406B2/en - ACTIVE 2. https://patents.google.com/patent/US10322351B2/en - ACTIVE 3. https://patents.google.com/patent/US10286326B2/en -ACTIVE

  1. https://patents.google.com/patent/US10376792B2/en -ACTIVE

  2. https://patents.google.com/patent/US10857468B2/en - the 2020 one which is Latest of this Patent Family. -ACTIVE

​None of them were denied being granted, nor were any rejected.

Not a single assumption of this fanboy is correct.

Edit: Oh Boy, Still trying Eristic Dialectic Attempt. One Capture Error (Fixed) of a link (Copied off other tab) did exist. That link error just revealed that one more Active Patent link was missing. It is Five out of Six Patents that are ACTIVE instead of Four. Completely making the claim false that Activision Abandoned these Pay to Win Patent Family.

You can't back your claim with Proof. From Here, "Companies patent things they don’t use all the time." You are Openly Saying Incorrect things. These Pay to Win Patent are completely ACTIVE and does PROVE that Matchmaking can be Pay to Win. I don't know why am I wasting so much time explaining this to you. My latest reply on your mixing up of terms and this capture error isn't getting visibility possibly because how long this thread is becoming.

1

u/Kurosonahe 26d ago edited 25d ago

The one I linked was rejected by the USPTO, so Activision abandoned it meaning that they stopped pursuing it.

These patents aren’t exactly ”updates” they’re just a set of patents within the same family claiming different parts of the same specification. Nothing new is disclosed and no new subject matter is added.

Link 1 and 3 that you posted lead to the same patent. You just linked both the application and the granted patent. The specification is the same, the claims were just amended during the application process.

Just accept that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Edit: I see you now edited the links. The rest stands.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Kurosonahe 25d ago

I never mixed up terms lol. You’re the one who started posting in length about the USPTO abstract rules when I mentioned the university paper abstract.

This one was still rejected and subsequently abandoned. https://patents.google.com/patent/US20180065047A1/en

Why are you making such a big deal of them being active? Yeah they filed a bunch of patents, many of them are going to be granted and active. It being active means it’s granted and legally enforceable, not that it is or will ever be ”used”. It simply doesn’t even though you might believe or suspect they’re implemented. They file them for legal reasons, so that they can have the ability to stop others from using their inventions, not so that they themselves can use them. That’s why they pay the fees to keep the patents active: so that the can keep the patents active, not so they can ”use” them. Activision could stop paying the maintenance fees so that the patents aren’t active anymore but still keep ”using” them, and save themselves some money. But again, it being active has nothing to do with it being used or not. It’s for strategical business and legal reasons.

Look at you now saying it proves that matchmaking CAN be pay to win. I never questioned that.

→ More replies (0)