Another DDA (comeback logic) post
-
@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.
-
@fubar2k7 Homeboy....they dropped it and haven't mentioned it since because they settled.
-
@SkunkyTrees1977 said in Another DDA (comeback logic) post:
@fubar2k7 Homeboy....they dropped it and haven't mentioned it since because they settled.
It’s a 2 minute read. Maybe 10 minutes for you. It was just dropped.
-
@fubar2k7 "While EA does own a patent for DDA technology".....
Odd that you'd own a patent on something you say you don't utilize.
-
@SkunkyTrees1977 said in Another DDA (comeback logic) post:
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....
That lawsuit also stated that due to EA's use of DDA, players were forced to spend money on Loot Boxes to even the playing field. A random meatball doesn't warrant forcing someone to go spend money on packs.
And BTW, it wasn't settled out of court it was dropped.
-
@GixxerRyder750 If you read more than a article on a gaming site that most likely gets money from EA you'd learn that these people haven't spoke about the lawsuit since. That tells me they settles and signed a NDA. Real world stuff we're talking about.
Kinda like how the US government owns the patent on marijuana while saying it has no benefits. You're crazy to believe the government. Even crazier to believe a billion dollar corporation.
-
Well, it seems pretty clear that you two aren’t going to agree on this. Honestly, as long as you enjoy playing the game, it ultimately doesn’t matter IMO.
I think there’s a lot of evidence to support the idea OP is suggesting. I ask myself why there are so many players I face in ranked lately that have played hundreds of games online, and yet have a record around .500, especially now when the idea is that only really good players are still on the game.
As you go up the leader boards, you find more players with winning records, but there are WAY fewer pages of those.
Why is that? The obvious answer is that there are less players that good at the game, and far more that are just so so.
Can a player play 3-400 online games and still just be half decent skill-wise? Maybe.
Personally, I think the game is engineered to give results that are around a .500 record, and box scores that seem consistent with MLB box scores.
I still enjoy the game, even though I’m pretty awful at hitting, but that’s mainly because I only paid $10 for it.
-
@halfbutt People were having this debate in 2011 when I played HUT. I personally believe a company would be stupid not to have DDA in their game. Especially one where you want people to spend real money.
-
@SkunkyTrees1977
Indeed. The same debate comes up at some point every year. I almost feel bad stirring the pot, but I think it’s important for people to be aware of this stuff. -
@halfbutt
Agreed. Whether or not ppl realize it on their own or not want to admit it at all, I think the fact that so many of us talk about this often enough citing similar and compelling examples gives a lot of validation here. The game gets taken out of your hands seemingly when this DDA bs comes into play. And that is not fun.
-
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.
