Dynamic Adjustment

This will be closed as well.

It is either used or it is not used. My thoughts are that it is used. It's "industry standard". And "bosses are asking for it to be used" (to paraphrase).

If that's an issue to me then I wouldn't play.

what's the goal here?
If they were going to admit to using such a system, they would have by now. If you still believe they're using such a system, you're not going to believe they aren't no matter what they say.
Believe what you want to believe, personally i'd pick the option that enrages me the most so i can get more and more upset every time i get bad drops. Works like a charm, really enjoyable.

"leef;c-1879522" wrote:
what's the goal here?
If they were going to admit to using such a system, they would have by now. If you still believe they're using such a system, you're not going to believe they aren't no matter what they say.
Believe what you want to believe, personally i'd pick the option that enrages me the most so i can get more and more upset every time i get bad drops. Works like a charm, really enjoyable.

The semantics of their response said 'manual'. A dynamic algorithm is anything but manual, especially when it's based on machine learning.

A game that takes money from people should be transparent in how it does so. If an algorithm dynamically changes drop rates to induce you in to playing longer or spending money then it prays on gambling.

It's not about whether you agree or disagree with it - however it certainly puts the 'RNG' arguement to bed as that doesn't exist in a game that dynamically adapts to the situation based on trained data

"leef;c-1879522" wrote:
what's the goal here?
If they were going to admit to using such a system, they would have by now. If you still believe they're using such a system, you're not going to believe they aren't no matter what they say.
Believe what you want to believe, personally i'd pick the option that enrages me the most so i can get more and more upset every time i get bad drops. Works like a charm, really enjoyable.

Also, you do know this is a silly response? In lieu of dynamically changing drops or adjustments, Drop rates would be fixed.

"Reyalp;c-1879525" wrote:

"leef;c-1879522" wrote:
what's the goal here?
If they were going to admit to using such a system, they would have by now. If you still believe they're using such a system, you're not going to believe they aren't no matter what they say.
Believe what you want to believe, personally i'd pick the option that enrages me the most so i can get more and more upset every time i get bad drops. Works like a charm, really enjoyable.

The semantics of their response said 'manual'. A dynamic algorithm is anything but manual, especially when it's based on machine learning.

Since they can just flat out lie without consequenses, i don't see why you want to argue sementics here.

A game that takes money from people should be transparent in how it does so. If an algorithm dynamically changes drop rates to induce you in to playing longer or spending money then it prays on gambling.

Transparancy on such a system would definately not benefit the game, or the players for that matter.

It's not about whether you agree or disagree with it - however it certainly puts the 'RNG' arguement to bed as that doesn't exist in a game that dynamically adapts to the situation based on trained data

So what is it about? A hypothetical discussion about RNG not excisting under the assumption that they're using such a system? What purpose would that serve?

"leef;c-1879529" wrote:

"Reyalp;c-1879525" wrote:

"leef;c-1879522" wrote:
what's the goal here?
If they were going to admit to using such a system, they would have by now. If you still believe they're using such a system, you're not going to believe they aren't no matter what they say.
Believe what you want to believe, personally i'd pick the option that enrages me the most so i can get more and more upset every time i get bad drops. Works like a charm, really enjoyable.

The semantics of their response said 'manual'. A dynamic algorithm is anything but manual, especially when it's based on machine learning.

Since they can just flat out lie without consequenses, i don't see why you want to argue sementics here.

A game that takes money from people should be transparent in how it does so. If an algorithm dynamically changes drop rates to induce you in to playing longer or spending money then it prays on gambling.

Transparancy on such a system would definately not benefit the game, or the players for that matter.

It's not about whether you agree or disagree with it - however it certainly puts the 'RNG' arguement to bed as that doesn't exist in a game that dynamically adapts to the situation based on trained data

So what is it about? A hypothetical discussion about RNG not excisting under the assumption that they're using such a system? What purpose would that serve?

It's the same as the dealer being able to change his hand in blackjack to fit the situation.

Personally, I think if a company (EA) with a goal of making as much money as possible* has the technology that enables them to squeeze more money out of the players, they will use that technology. And I really doubt that they prohibit their affiliates to use it. It's more likely that they encourage the usage of that technology.

Now the question is whether CG implemented it or not. I think it depends on how can they meet the monetary expectations (or even requirements) of EA. Usually I'm pessimistic about the intents of profit-driven companies, though I'm willing to give the benefit of doubt to CG. The fact is that we'll never know as it's obvious that they never ever admit it if they use that technology.

So these kinds of speculations and discussions make no sense and lead nowhere.

*Edit: I mean if that's their main and only goal, which is clearly shown by the iterations of basically the same games over and over (I'm looking at you Fifa and co.)

If they use that, what's the problem? A lot of games have shady things, it's just the way games are. People shouldn't be betrayed by it or anything. If the game uses it, it's a feature in the game and that's it.

We are speaking about EA, which is REPORTEDLY the worst company ever, let alone the worst videogame producer. Are you surprised? Just make some history research on the internet about what they did in the past.

What irritates about conspiracy theories is that people assume something, argue about it and lash out regarding the thing they have no proof of...