Re: Here's what I found..

and another thing, let's say that is the case, how and why is it that it's always the teams we're always 7, 8, 9, 10+ ovr(including the power boost) better than that's doing all of the slaughtering? We only control one player on one side of the ball at a time. My other ten players who are ten times better than my opponents team (that I spent hundreds on smh) should be playing as so. It's always the teams with gold, silver and elite 1 players filling their teams that's doing the winning. How are they better? How and why does the algorithm think they're the ones better to beat the teams that are better than them? Why are we spending money on these players then?

I did some research regarding this.

Win rate is set to approximately 50% (comment by EA).

EA claims it achieves that with a MMR in place (Matchmaking rating system). When you win, your rating goes up, matching you to a slightly more difficult opponent. And so on, until you start losing, then you are matched up to a slightly more lower opponent. That’s how they claim it is done, when you play better than others, the game manages so you will eventually lose. I don’t know if DDA (Dynamic difficulty adjustment) is the same. But I think it’s basically the same.

From a gamers perspective I can understand that, you want your game to be challenging otherwise gamers probably lose interest. But the ppl who are F2P or spend moderately will have a problem with this system, because at one time they will hit a wall of the big cashers who are have the best team, but maybe are not so skilled but will win by brute force. I think that’s why the put nerfing in place. But you kill skilled players.

I think the original system is designed to keep games interesting and keep them from becoming dull. This might work in games which you buy and are fully skill based from there, with no model of earning money by microtransactions behind it. This F2P game (and most other games by EA) are P2W and I think the system is misused to get the microtransactions going.

I think this system is not originally designed to use nerfing, or at least not in the way and extend EA is doing it. When you are the best, you are the best, period… based on skill. But nerfing is so clearly present in this game, it’s sometimes painful to watch and play. It feeds frustration and kills players who grind and work on their skills to achieve something.

If you combine MMR with DDA and nerfing, it’s a deadly combination. Way over the top.

Also unclear is if nerfing is the same for everybody. Do the top players (or cashers for that part) also experience this as lower players do? No idea.

The silence by EA around this subject is deafening.

I have feeling EA doesn’t like critical questions by their player base and don’t acknowledge the frustration by their players.

Also not acknowledging fundamental problems brought up and the lack of fixing them gives a feeling that the players a nothing more than a ATM and the game a cash grab. 

https://www.muthead.com/forums/madden-nfl-mobile/madden-nfl-mobile-discussion/1422991-are-matches-just-well-decorated-simulations

https://www.dsogaming.com/news/electronic-arts-is-using-dynamic-difficulty-adjustments-in-multiple-games-proposes-to-get-rid-fair-matchmaking/

Apparently my former post was removed... in my opinion I wrote nothing wrong...

So here it is again:

I did some research regarding this.

Win rate is set to approximately 50% (comment by EA).

EA claims it achieves that with a MMR in place (Matchmaking rating system). When you win, your rating goes up, matching you to a slightly more difficult opponent. And so on, until you start losing, then you are matched up to a slightly more lower opponent. That’s how they claim it is done, when you play better than others, the game manages so you will eventually lose. I don’t know if DDA (Dynamic difficulty adjustment) is the same. But I think it’s basically the same.

From a gamers perspective I can understand that, you want your game to be challenging otherwise gamers probably lose interest. But the ppl who are F2P or spend moderately will have a problem with this system, because at one time they will hit a wall of the big cashers who are have the best team, but maybe are not so skilled but will win by brute force. I think that’s why the put nerfing in place. But you kill skilled players.

I think the original system is designed to keep games interesting and keep them from becoming dull. This might work in games which you buy and are fully skill based from there, with no model of earning money by microtransactions behind it. This F2P game (and most other games by EA) are P2W and I think the system is misused to get the microtransactions going.

I think this system is not originally designed to use nerfing, or at least not in the way and extend EA is doing it. When you are the best, you are the best, period… based on skill. But nerfing is so clearly present in this game, it’s sometimes painful to watch and play. It feeds frustration and kills players who grind and work on their skills to achieve something.

IF you combine MMR with DDA and nerfing, it’s a deadly combination. Way over the top.

Also unclear is if nerfing is the same for everybody. Do the top players (or cashers for that part) also experience this as lower players do? No idea.

The silence by EA around this subject is deafening.

I have feeling EA doesn’t like critical questions by their player base and don’t acknowledge the frustration by their players.