Another DDA (comeback logic) post
-
Sometimes the DDA says this guy is beyond my help.
-
@SkunkyTrees1977 ... I get that you think you're absolutely right on this (or you wouldn't be telling people they "need their head checked"), but, consider, for a moment, the possibility that you aren't.
I had assumed, when first posting, that this thread referred to player vs player matchups only, but @halfbutt pointed out examples of CPU games; there, I can see dynamic difficulty coming into play, because user inputs don't have to be manipulated. That, to me, is the key. In a CPU game, dynamic adjustments do add drama and change the course of the game, but that's all make-believe anyway, because you really can't fool the CPU. It knows what you're doing, despite how it makes you feel. The CPU can take you down a notch at any point by simply taking balls and hitting the next strike over the wall to close a gap in scoring because it isn't relying on user input to generate that HR-generating swing. It just does it.
Assigning that to other humans is something else. You point out the old forced meatball point, and, yes, that happens, but it happens all the time, regardless of score. It's random, but the odds of that random event can increase depending on the situation. I'd argue that it happens more the longer a pitcher stays in a game, so when a player forces their starter into the 8th because he's already struck out 12 guys, the odds of him throwing a meatball are already higher because he's thrown more pitches. There are so many variables that contribute to those outcome; there's the pitch count, the clutch rating of batter and pitcher, control, confidence (per pitch and overall), and that's all before you factor in adaptations made by your human opponent.
There is randomness in this game that forces unexpected and undesirable outcomes throughout, and the late inning mistakes just stand out more... you're probably not going to remember the fastball that ended up right over the heart in the 3rd inning when you got lucky and the opponent missed it, but you're sure going to remember the one in the 8th that he didn't.
Maybe I'm mistaken, here, but a lot of what you're calling DDA is simply retention (that link had nothing to do with DDA as I understand it); DDA, I thought, was the actual adjustment of in-game difficulty by altering certain facets of the gameplay, not rewards and better luck outside of actual gameplay. You also mention Crash Bandicoot, but that isn't a head-to-head game like this.
Maybe there is some aspect of DDA that changes the game in a minor way, but there are other explanations, and not everyone finds this as obvious as you. Maybe I'm flat out wrong. Maybe you're attributing things to DDA that have nothing to do with it. I guess my point is that it isn't as clear as what you're saying, and people that play this game a lot don't necessarily agree with what you're saying...
-
I'm on the receiving end of DDA all the time. I beat a 5 time flawless BR winner with 1 just 1 hit. The difference is I can admit when it helps me. Not just my opponent
-
@The_Joneser And just for giggles why would a single player game have DDA to keep people from quitting, but an online multiplayer with real money doesn't?!?!?
Did you Google anything I said or you just posting what you believe?
-
I love online forums… nowhere else is the esoteric discussed with such certainty. Perhaps that five-time Flawless player attempted a game after polishing off a case, had little luck with either of the controllers floating in front of him, still held his own, but lost a game to someone who got lucky with their one hit.
Dumb luck and varying circumstance affect everything, and sometimes that carries the appearance of something more nefarious at work. That doesn’t mean predetermined outcomes are the only explanation.
-
@The_Joneser You keep using the word predetermined. That's not what we're talking about here. It would help if you understood what DDA is first.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around why it's so hard for you to believe it's in games today when it was in games for the last 20+ years. For crying out loud. I'm not asking you to believe in Jeebus. Just that companies allow bad players to hang around.
-
I think it’s fascinating that many of you seem to be debating with OP on this stuff. I admit, I’m slightly envious! This game would be infinitely more fun if I could play it without experiencing the programming designed to keep games close.
I’m not going to argue, because it’s plain as day. If you don’t see it, you will eventually after a few more years of playing the game, and if not, like I said, I’m jealous. You must really enjoy the game!
-
@halfbutt Anyone who plays online long enough will definitely see this.
I was playing Conquest the last 4 days. I lost count how many games I should've lost if the CPU didn't make the dumbest error I'd ever seen. That's not even talking the terrible attempted steals and baserunning they do. That's DDA....
-
Oh, and to fubar, yes, I know OP was talking about H2H games. My point was, you can just as easily experience what he is talking about by playing vs the cpu.
The game is the game.
-
@SkunkyTrees1977, if you aren't talking about predetermined results, then what did you mean by this: "DDA makes your perfect release get thrown down the middle"? Or by the rest of what you're saying, for that matter? I'm not interpreting that as predetermined wins and losses, but you are absolutely saying that the game is playing a certain way despite the user input if, "suddenly," someone who was hitting now cannot and vice versa.
I do understand what dynamic difficulty is, and I'm also saying that I could be wrong. I'm just as incredulous as you are by my take when I read that you are so certain that DDA is behind all of these things that you see. I've played this game since the 989 days, and I see these as mostly random events, occurring randomly, with random outcomes. Sometimes, I'll play poker with a novice and they'll take three or four straight hands because they drew better cards. It happens.
I do make the distinction between single and head-to-head games because the CPU isn't bound by input in any way; it is all a script meant to engage the player in the feeling of being in a dramatic game. That's a very different scenario. The CPU simply doesn't have that amount of control over the outcome if two real players are trying to deceive one another and relying on their input hit and pitch and field. Granted, maybe there is some type of in-game difficulty adjustment that puts players in more favorable positions, but they still have to execute at some level, and that alone puts the better player on top most of the time (and makes a single-player CPU game a completely different animal).
But, I'll stop and let you believe what you want to believe. I mean, how could it be possible that you're incorrect. You made this game, right?
-
I mean, if you accept that this game is a simulation, then you have to accept that there are other variables involved in determining outcomes than just user input, right?
-
@halfbutt - But that's what I'm saying. There are so many variables that determine results. Things are random, and sometimes that results in coming back late. Sometimes it's the reason you're up in the first place. What I'm saying is that I don't think "comeback logic" is scripted into head-to-head games.
To me, the more likely scenario is that some random combination of factors create a random result, and, as humans, we tend to ascribe the outcomes we don't like to something actively working against us with intent. I don't think that's happening.
-
@The_Joneser Bro... you are confusing dynamic difficulty in the settings for DDA. The concept really isn't that hard to grasp. It's been here for years. It's always nice seeing someone learning about it for the the first time. Years ago it was called field tilt or ice tilt before everyone learned about it.
"changing parameters, scenarios, and behaviors in a video game IN REAL-TIME, based on the player's ability, in order to avoid making the player bored or frustrated"
-
@SkunkyTrees1977 - No, I am not. DDA is short for dynamic difficulty adjustment, and the concept is not lost on me. I understand that you're saying the game is altering the level of play to keep players engaged. I'm saying that you may very well be confusing DDA for random events that sometimes change the course of the game.
It kills me when people are pedantic in their approach when they aren't as versed in the subject as they think they are.
-
But DDA is what CAUSES "the random event that change the course of the game"...
You're almost there
-
@SkunkyTrees1977 - A random event is by definition unpredictable. DDA is an intentional feature built into games, and, thus, intentional. So, no, DDA does not cause random events.
You should read a little about the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
-
How do these random events get into each individual game? Is this game programmed to play a certain way or is each game sprinkled with it's own randomness?
And are you positive they are random and not some part of programming that "changes parameters, scenarios, and behaviors in a video game IN REAL-TIME, based on the player's ability, in order to avoid making the player bored or frustrated"
Randomness equals RNG. Just as bad.
Did you know EA was sued by people claiming DDA and that EA settled out of court with them people. Them people haven't said a word since about it. I wonder why....
-
@SkunkyTrees1977 - You may think randomness is just as bad, but it is very different.
You're almost there.
-
I'd rather have the programming decide when I suck (DDA) then some random roll of the dice (RNG).....
Hol up! Them things sound the same...
-
That lawsuit was dropped not settled.
