Another DDA (comeback logic) post
-
A lot of cards have quirks that allows them to perform better when losing, and this is the extent of their "comeback logic". I have played a lot of MLBTS H2H online games over the years and I do not believe there is some secret DDA code written in by the developers.
I got beat a few years ago 7-6 after leading 6-0 going into the bottom of the ninth. My opponent just started hitting everything, regardless of what Pitcher I put on the mound. I messaged him and asked how and he said that I got too predictable and once he started hitting, he just got in a groove. This stuff happens organically, as no DDA is needed. Just yesterday, in an Event game, I finally got focused in the 3rd inning, was able to see the ball, time it very well, and put up five runs or so. Being "in a zone" is a human element. Playing vs another human in H2H is more unpredictable and interesting, than vs CPU.
-
I agree that playing vs a human is more interesting.
I think “comeback logic” is a poor description for what we’re talking about. It’s not that the game is going to always magically favour the team that is behind.
It’s more that the game is a simulation with its own agenda. It’s not purely a transparent competition between two players. Both players are playing against the game AND each other.
-
@halfbutt - Really interesting to see this… because “comeback logic” is exactly what people like me are arguing against. You say that it doesn’t necessarily favor the team that’s losing… so then it isn’t DDA acting as “comeback logic” at all. If things happen that benefit one team or the other, regardless of which is winning, and that it isn’t about predetermined outcomes… then it’s random!
People don’t like RNG or whatever they want to call it, but that’s a huge factor in what happens in this game, just as random events are a huge factor in what happens in the real game. As the other poster said, some cards have quirks that make them better when losing… those and myriad other variables influence the outcome of any given situation by changing the odds in what is ultimately a roll of the dice to yield a result in that particular situation. If a card with high clutch that performs better when you’re down is batting late in the game with a runner on, the odds for success are greater then they would have been earlier in the game, and people—I think incorrectly—attribute that higher likelihood of success to DDA or “comeback logic.”
Humans adapt, the odds change in a game that stressed from the get the importance of “clutch,” and random events occur randomly. That is not “an agenda” held by the software, and it isn’t DDA.
-
Well, I admire your commitment to the integrity of the game. I’m curious, how long have you been playing the show?
-
@halfbutt… I think that was to me? I’ve been playing since it was a thing, back in the 989 Studios days. I’m about a week away from 50, and have been playing any baseball game I could get my hands on since baseball on the Intellivision.
-
Yes, Joneser, that was to you.
I admit, I’m slightly envious of your level of enjoyment of the game.I just quickly looked up a definition of DDA online: “ is the process of automatically 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 (if the game is too easy) or frustrated (if it is too hard)...”
If you don’t see plenty of evidence of this in the Show, again, I’m envious.
Regardless, Cheers! Hope to run into you in a match sometime.
-
@halfbutt - Last thing, and I’ll stop. I agree that it’s part of the experience in games played vs the CPU (those are very, very different), but all I see is randomness in head-to-head… so I don’t totally disagree with you.
Cheers.
-
It’s all about the dopamine.
-
@Red_Ted_is_back
You’re not wrong! -
Wow this convo starting to seem so repetitive. It makes me wonder it’s a person that posted this is insane or maybe mentally challenged. Either way the conspiracy theories are all of that just theories
-
@EzMack
The thread is a bit hard to follow now that all of the OP’s posts have been removed. -
DDA is a term that is used as a crutch of the post Gen X generations since they were never taught how to lose. It's easier to blame their loss on fictional AI (fictional in online sport games such as this and Madden), than internalize their loss because they made mistakes and need to make adjustments. The Dolphins should say they lost last week to the Titans because of DDA.
-
@whiplash0013 - As a Gen Xer, I'd say that's a pretty fair take. Lots of holes in the DDA argument, and plenty of other reasons why undesirable things sometimes happen.
-
@whiplash0013
Not sure I buy your judgements but ok? -
Sounds bout right. If it was the game to blame then I’m sure the answer would be easier to find
-
Not to stir the pot again, but, I’ve noticed there seems to be a pretty black and white response to this idea presented by OP.
Obviously, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I think the truth of the matter lies somewhere in the grey between “it’s a crutch because your generation never learned to take a loss” and “the game is rigged”.
-
@halfbutt DDA is sort of like ghosts or UFO's. There is no real proof they exist, but people explain things they don't understand by saying it was a ghost or a UFO for example. As you noted with DDA, people either believe in them or they don't, it's black or white. Reason being is that there really is no gray area. They either really do exist, or they don't exist. In the case of DDA, people can't understand or comprehend why they lost, so they attribute it to DDA. It's just easier to associate the loss to something external, such as DDA, than try to rationalize the real reason they lost or why a play didn't go as they expected. Similar to seeing something you don't understand in the sky and saying it's a UFO or hearing creaking in your house and saying it's a ghost. If you really investigated these situations, the true explanation would be revealed.
I completely agree that everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I have changed my opinion many times over the years based on scientific proof. Should any empirical evidence every come up where they find DDA code in an online Sports game, then my opinion would change.
-
I mean, purely for the sake of argument, there is no real proof there isn’t DDA in the game’s coding either.
If you look at the subject from a business point of view, it’s highly likely there is such coding in just about every video game. The producers would be crazy not to include it.
That said, whatever helps people to enjoy the game the most is great with me.
-
@halfbutt I am a true believer in innocent until proven guilty. I know that isn't how things work today with cancel culture, but call me old school. The burden of proof would be on the naysayers to show there is DDA in this and other online Sports games. EA has already proven this by having their case dropped after the plaintiff was shown proof it didn't exist. It wasn't settled out of court, the case was completely dropped. Should SDS be sued over a similar claim, we will find out the truth. Withstanding a court decision, my opinion stands.
-
Well I just played an event game where my opponent was so weak I struck out the first 8 batters, and he was never even close to a threat during these at bats then right on cue, batter number 9 hits a walk off home run.
This game is more scripted than a WWE match.
