Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
The proof is in all the unbalanced matches you supposedly get. Rather than thinking those matches are just inherently imbalanced, you should be focusing on what you can do to turn the imbalanced matches that you lose into close matches or wins.
Explain in detail how it works to the rest of the class.
lol. This is has got to be one of most ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ responses on here and that's saying something.
It's like being told to swim faster in a race where the water is full of obstacles or the water itself is moving counter to your swimming direction in a way that influences your stamina and speed. Instead of focusing solely on improving your stroke, it might be more useful to address the obstacles and current in the water first. While improving your technique helps, it’s hard to win when the conditions are inherently stacked against you. As is the case for many many of use who are playing rivals. When I do good I still lose, when I win I get hit with a 9 game losing streak. Its not a hard concept to fathom that people out here are rigging the system to take advantage of people.
You are effectively saying get good. While willfully ignoring the outside influences that impact performance within the game.
You dense human beings are further proof how dinosaurs survived millions of years with walnut sized brains. Netease appreciates your commitment to the cause though Im sure.
I understand what you're saying, but you're overlooking that these aren't minor adjustments and do invalidate the patent's core by shifting its focus entirely.
To the degree you're assuming it's been adjusted, yes it does.
Short of opening up their proprietary algorithms to be open source, nothing would do that for you. A public statement you'd call corporate lies and a public PDF you already decry as not how the system works.
Brought up because you claimed people are enmasse using it to decry complainers about this issue. Because that's the meme... it's normal and organic because it's what's always done now. Search up any other shooter forum for "skill issue" and notice how often it crops up. This isn't unique to this game's forum and it's become an internet standard that has nothing to do with the company behind it.
Then you don't understand my position, and have in fact misrepresented me just now as claiming that any modification invalidates the patent. Twisting the truth doesn't befit you. I clearly stated that your specific modifications would invalidate the patent. I always have taken notice how you have resorted to repeating the same generic rhetoric now that you've realized that getting specific with your claims is easily disprovable.
You're shifting responsibility away from yourself and onto a third party that has nothing to do with why people are disagreeing you, citing your problem as sitting behind the keyboard, or pointing out how your views don't align with the official documents or the experiences of players within this and other threads. Surely it would be a more universal experience if it was accurate, yet already many outlandish theories about how it works have been debunked. As has yours, but you have adopted the stonewall defense and take pot shots at all who oppose you, as though they have no reason for doing so other than they're being paid for it.
Yep any everytime you win a match you weren't supposed to win with eomm you end up making your matchmaking experience even worse, but considering what your saying here it's pretty obvious your one of those players who cant achieve 50% on their own ablity, and thus the matchmaking is making uneven matches in your favor in order to keep your win rate from getting to low.. of course ignorance of the game and denial keep you blinded to the fact that the matchmaking is feeding you pitty wins..
Nothing screams "I'm a weak player who's been gaslit by an algorithm into thinking im good" quite like supporting eomm
I thought I'm going full schizo, fing subhuman manipulators
If my theory is correct—that the system isn’t controlling highs and lows but rather keeping players constantly low—then it crosses a line for me. This isn’t a clever win-some, lose-some methodology; it’s pure parasitic deception.
"Skill issue" bots try to frame it as if unbalanced matchmaking affects only the losers, but it affects winners as well, because easy wins hold no value to a normal person.
If there are doubts that a company could be motivated to keep players in a constant state of frustration to make skin purchases seem like rewards, then I’ll step in. If the game is just making people miserable and gaslighting them into believing it’s their fault, so quitting would be wrong, that’s too much for me.
In this light, the deliberate intention to create unbalanced matches makes perfect sense.
Nothing screams "I'm a weak player who's been gaslit by myself into thinking I'm better than the algorithm says I am" quite like believing in eomm when official sources indicate skill-based matchmaking.
It's a simple idea, it's just not true. There are tons of people here who don't get these loss streaks. They generally tend to be people with a better general understanding of the game.
The game can never force you to lose. Even if your opponents had a small advantage (which will happen sometimes, the matchmaker can't perfectly know how good everyone will do in every match), you could still overcome it by playing better than them.
You: Because everyone's saying the same thing.
Me: So everyone's in agreement that the problem is you.
You: No, everyone is being paid to disagree with me.
Me: But this phrase is uttered on every competitive forum constantly.
You:
Okay, let's imagine the core idea of the patent is like a recipe for making a cake!
The recipe says you need flour, sugar, and eggs to make it. Now, you can adjust the amounts of sugar or change the temperature of the oven slightly, but you're still making the same cake with the same basic ingredients. These are just small changes to make it a little bit better, but the main cake recipe is the same.
Now, if you suddenly replace the flour with rice, that would be a big change, and it would no longer be the same recipe. But adjusting the amount of sugar or changing the oven temperature? That’s just tweaking the same basic idea. It’s still the same cake, just slightly improved.
So, when we talk about matchmaking, adjusting how the system works to keep players engaged (like adjusting parameters or using bots for certain situations) is more like adjusting the oven temperature or the amount of sugar—still part of the same core idea, not a complete overhaul.
Adjusting the system doesn’t change the core principle. The core is about balancing players based on skill and relationships. Modifications like prioritizing engagement or adding bots are optimizations, not a complete overhaul. These tweaks still operate within the same framework of the original matchmaking concept.
I’m not asking for the algorithms to be open source, just for clarity and transparency. A public statement from NetEase would stop the speculation—but instead, they remain silent, leaving us to guess. The problem isn’t the statement, it’s the lack of accountability. If they really wanted to clear things up, they could simply provide clear explanations of how the system works in practice. But they haven’t, and that speaks volumes.
I get that the "skill issue" meme is common across many forums, but that’s exactly why it’s used as a tool to dismiss valid concerns. It’s not just a meme—it’s part of a larger pattern of silencing criticism and shifting the blame. The problem here is that it's being weaponized by bots or coordinated efforts to discredit legitimate frustration with the system, especially when it’s clear that the matchmaking feels manipulative.
It may be a standard tactic elsewhere, but when it’s used to shut down discussions about the system’s issues, it becomes part of the problem—not just a joke.
I didn’t misrepresent you—I understand your point, but you’re still overlooking that small modifications don’t automatically invalidate the patent. The core of the system remains intact, even if adjustments are made for specific situations. It’s not about broad changes; it’s about how the core principle is maintained, which still aligns with the patent.
You’re right that being specific helps clarify the issue, but the fundamental goal of balancing skill and relationships hasn’t changed, regardless of the tweaks.
It’s interesting that in a discussion about Marvel Rivals’ matchmaking system flaws, you’re trying to place the responsibility on me rather than NetEase, the actual company behind the system. If there’s a problem, NetEase should be the one clarifying it, not me.
I would’ve imagined this being the only way to see things, but gaslighting can truly take some reality-bending shapes, can’t it?
I think that’s the right choice, at least until this situation is resolved. No one should keep doing something that brings them no joy, and definitely shouldn’t be shamed for walking away. I did exactly the same when the picture started to emerge that the hopeless losses and meaningless wins might actually be part of the design.
You’ve attempted to discredit my points by comparing them to something entirely unrelated and absurd. This kind of misdirection doesn’t address the core issue of overriding the patent's core.
It’s a comparison that doesn't hold up and only weakens the argument.
It changes the specific implementation, which yes does change its core and its protection. This isn't a philosophy class. You're not building a patent based on arbitrary and generic methods. In fact, the law specifically doesn't grant protection for algorithms that aren't represented precisely as they function. Tweaking a variable isn't what you're proposing, you're suggesting a systemic shift to a differently designed system. Yes, these tweaks do represent a complete overhaul when the law looks at them, as they are no longer governed by the original framework. Matchmakers already exist quite similar to each other. It's in their specific execution that they differ and you are convinced that they would move away from players being ranked according to wins and losses together and towards players being ranked against some arbitrary allotment of engagement when the very document identifies what engagement means and how it's obtained through the skill-based matchmaking, another deviation you propose is only natural and totally wouldn't invalidate the core. You're just digging a deeper hole the more you try to defend your position. You haven't the faintest clue what even you mean when you describe a focus on engagement or how that would play out mathematically without altering how the player interaction values are obtained and calculated.
It really doesn't. This has been corporate MO for decades now. They used to release a lot more information to the public, but it routinely backfired as people like you love to twist any information they get their hands on by maliciously misrepresenting it to others. Heck, you've even done that with the PDFs that are public, taking a very clearcut matchmaker based on skill and turning it into something focused on subverting skill purely based on your hypothesis.
Yet not one that is organized or initiated by the developers. It's just something the gaming community has chosen to adopt because we used to entertain troll messages with long writeups like this, and as you can see, it's rarely productive and never changes any minds. So people got tired of all that and between Tiktok and other attention-span shortening tools, responses have evolved to a simple two word reply that summarizes everything that needs to be said about the problem. It's not a joke, for sure, it's an explanation for why you are so enraged by the algorithm that is truer than your actual accounts.
Well that's just a bold face lie right there. You literally claimed I thought any modification invalidated the patent. That's a logical fallacy you employed where you moved the goal posts and misconstrued my argument to make it sound weaker than it was. Now you're backpedalling on it because I called you out on it. You are claiming a broad change that shifts away from skill-based matchmaking to focus instead on engagement while sacrificing skill-based matchmaking. These are your claims, and I'd be happy to pull up exact quotes from you claiming them. You've made them all. You insist even in the OP that's what they do and call the system EOMM when it's actually not. You also conflate EOMM in other games with the methods used by this one as though all corporations share pool parties together and do exactly the same things as though their algorithms are shared.
Try telling that to a judge in patent court. You'll be told to get down from your soapbox, this isn't philosophy class, it's legal proceedings. Definitions hold meanings.
But this isn't a discussion about the matchmaking flaws, and it's certainly not where I stepped in or why. Had you left out item 3 and 4 of your post, I may have disregarded the entire complaint as another complainer. After all, there are plenty more topics I could be in, some even bigger than yours. Yet I don't much care for them. What I care about is that you're spreading misinformation about the contents of the documents unveiled, fearmongering over perceived matchmaking anomalies that run counter to the documented system, accusing your fellow gamers of being corporate shills for disagreeing with you, and trying to brainwash everyone into believing there's this massive psychological manipulation conspiracy all while putting forth your own conspiracy. You're doing exactly what politicians often do, scapegoating the rival for your own problems. If you had any reason to believe otherwise, I'd expect to see some evidence, anything that is more substantiated than "Trust me Bro!" which you have failed to deliver.
I suppose it can. Here you are trying to gaslight into being something I'm not purely so you can save face and believe in your theory unmolested. Yet you're on a public discussion board, publically presenting these ideas for scrutiny. Then becoming shocked when there is disagreement by them and blaming it on "an organized smear campaign" as though we're all just texting each other on former Twitter to come and fight this guy because he dared say something against the cartel.
Someone agrees with you: Normal, sane gamer that sees corporate BS.
Someone disagrees with you: Bot spamming skill issue as part of a smear campaign.
You leave no room at all for dissenters who genuinely just... don't accept what you're saying. You've polarized the world into an Us or Them mentality. You're the most toxic person I've ever dealt with on these forums and you can bet your bottom dollar that I find that to be reason enough to challenge your claims. I don't need any other reason.
Especially when it's clear your only true motive is to get people to mass quit a game you decided to leave. This happens ALL THE TIME in MMORPGs. When someone quits World of Warcraft, they make a giant hate thread complaining about the game and trying to drag a bunch of other people to quit with them. This has become so common that it has its own trope. That's all you're doing. Nothing new or original.
The analogy isn’t irrelevant; it’s a simplified explanation to make the point clear. The core idea of the patent—balancing players based on skill and relationships—is the foundational system, much like a cake recipe. Modifying non-core aspects (e.g., adjusting matchmaking parameters, engagement tweaks) doesn't invalidate the core concept. These are optimizations, not fundamental changes.
In the patent, the core idea revolves around balancing players. As long as that core idea remains intact, minor adjustments, like the inclusion of bots or slight changes to matchmaking flow, don’t violate the patent. They are tweaks within the established boundaries of the original design.
If you disagree, could you clarify which specific modification you believe fundamentally shifts the core concept described in the patent? What exactly about these changes makes them a violation, in your view?
This response addresses the technical aspect of the patent and invites a clearer explanation from the other person. Let me know if this works!
The key misunderstanding here is that you’re assuming any tweak in the system fundamentally changes the core principle. The patent covers the general methodology of balancing players based on skill and relationships. Adjustments that improve engagement (such as adding bots or slight changes to matchmaking flow) do not change the core principle. They are optimizations, not a complete redesign.
In law, patents protect the methodology and core idea, not every specific implementation. The core idea here—balancing players by skill and relationships—remains intact, even if tweaks are made. These tweaks don’t invalidate the core, as they don’t fundamentally change the way players are balanced.
I understand your point about execution, but altering non-core elements for specific conditions (like engagement) doesn’t equate to an overhaul of the system. Could you explain which specific change you believe crosses the line to invalidate the core patent?
I understand that corporate secrecy is common, but that doesn’t make it acceptable. The lack of transparency fuels speculation, and as long as NetEase remains silent, we’re left to guess. If they wanted to clear things up, providing clear explanations would be an easy step, but they haven’t done that, and that lack of clarity speaks volumes.
As for the PDFs, I’m not twisting any information. The core idea may be skill-based, but the application, especially with engagement-focused tweaks, has shifted. It's not about misrepresentation; it's about questioning how the system is actually being applied, given the lack of transparency
I agree that "skill issue" has become a widespread meme, but that’s precisely the point—it’s used to dismiss valid concerns. The difference is that this is not just a meme; it's a way to deflect attention from the real issue of unbalanced matchmaking and the lack of transparency from the developers. The gaming community may adopt certain phrases, but when it's used deliberately to shut down criticism, that's where it becomes a tool for gaslighting.
I understand the argument about attention spans, but it doesn’t change the fact that this isn’t about a meme—it’s about real problems with how the system works and how it's communicated to players.
I haven’t misrepresented you. The argument has always been that small modifications, like prioritizing engagement, don’t invalidate the core patent. The core principle of balancing players based on skill remains intact, even if tweaks are made.
As for EOMM, I never claimed Marvel Rivals uses it in the exact same way as other games—what I pointed out is that the focus has shifted in some cases towards engagement, which could resemble patterns seen in EOMM systems. That doesn’t mean it's the same method, but it aligns with the idea that the game may be adjusting matchmaking to maintain player engagement, not purely based on skill.
You’ve mischaracterized my argument, and I stand by the distinction I’ve made between core principles and specific adjustments. Just because the system shifts doesn’t mean it completely abandons skill-based matchmaking.
I agree that definitions hold meaning, and the legal application of the patent matters. However, the core concept of balancing players based on skill and relationships is still the central idea protected by the patent. Minor adjustments, like optimizing for engagement or making tweaks for specific conditions, don’t alter the fundamental purpose of the system, which is to balance players. These adjustments are within the scope of the original design and don't invalidate the patent.
If we’re talking about legal matters, I’m open to discussing specifics, but let’s be clear: the changes we’re discussing are optimizations, not a complete overhaul of the system.
It’s interesting that you’ve shifted the focus onto me, but this discussion has always been about the lack of transparency from NetEase. If there are issues with the system, it’s their responsibility to address them, not mine.
I’m not trying to spread misinformation; I’m simply pointing out gaps in transparency and questioning the system’s true nature based on the experience of players. As for the “conspiracy” talk, it’s not about some grand plot—it’s about valid concerns that have gone unaddressed. The game is creating frustration, and instead of being given clear explanations, we’re left guessing and gaslit into believing it’s just a “skill issue.”
I’m not trying to brainwash anyone, I’m just raising awareness based on my experiences and the concerns of many players who feel similarly. If NetEase wants to clear up this confusion, a simple public statement would go a long way. It’s really that simple.
It’s interesting how quickly you’ve jumped to calling me a “gaslighter,” but the truth is, I’m not twisting anything. I’m pointing out that legitimate criticism is being dismissed as “skill issues,” and players are being manipulated into believing that frustration is their fault.
What I’m calling out isn’t the disagreement—it’s the lack of transparency and the way people are silenced by those who label them as “toxic” or part of a “smear campaign.” You’re free to disagree, but instead of addressing the real concerns players are raising, you’re redirecting the blame onto me for simply voicing my frustration.
As for your comment about being "polarized"—it’s not about “us vs them,” it’s about fairness and accountability. It’s about demanding clarity from the developers instead of being gaslit into submission. If that makes me “toxic” to you, so be it. I’ll keep raising the issues I believe need attention.
I’m not here to get people to quit the game, nor am I trying to drag anyone down with me. If players genuinely enjoy the game, that’s great—I’m not here to change that for anyone. What I am doing is pointing out a serious issue that many, including myself, have experienced.
The problem isn’t just frustration—it’s a manipulative design that traps players in a cycle of unsatisfying wins and hopeless losses. The lack of transparency only deepens the frustration, and that’s why this conversation needs to happen.
This isn’t a hate thread; it’s a discussion about systemic flaws that deserve scrutiny. If someone truly enjoys the game, my words won’t change that. But if a player is stuck in a constant state of frustration, gaslit into believing it’s just a "skill issue," they might finally realize that the shaming is part of the design—to keep them playing a game that offers no joy.