EA Forums - Banner

Dynamic difficulty is ruining versus play

Replies

  • VeNOM2099 wrote: »
    Nicely said.

    However, it isn't just losing streaks. There are times where I score a goal and say to myself, "wow, that was complete garbage". Happens sometimes as well when I get scored against. But this will never lead me to believe tilt exists. Faulty coding, or bad infrastructure and iffy servers I could believe in, but not tilt.

    This is pretty much the same view I have. What's sad is that if you can come to grips with the game mechanics, you'll have much more success. But it doesn't make the game more enjoyable... In fact it makes it less so.

    Agreed. It is getting less enjoyable every single year. Would not have said this 6 weeks ago, but here we are....
  • People continue to willfully ignore the fact that EA has programmed modifiers into this game in past versions. These modifiers affect the game above the sliders and the difficulty settings.

    They want all this proof and it's staring at them right in the face.
  • NYR_Nick wrote: »
    People continue to willfully ignore the fact that EA has programmed modifiers into this game in past versions. These modifiers affect the game above the sliders and the difficulty settings.

    They want all this proof and it's staring at them right in the face.

    but where, though?
  • NYR_Nick wrote: »
    People continue to willfully ignore the fact that EA has programmed modifiers into this game in past versions. These modifiers affect the game above the sliders and the difficulty settings.

    They want all this proof and it's staring at them right in the face.

    but where, though?

    Exactly. What is this proof? Where is it?
  • I've posted this several times..

    Hot cold player and team streaks
    Goalie fatigue
    Line chemistry
    Salary cap
    In game momentum engine


    All the above affected your team outside of the sliders and the difficulty
  • NYR_Nick wrote: »
    I've posted this several times..

    Hot cold player and team streaks
    Goalie fatigue
    Line chemistry
    Salary cap
    In game momentum engine


    All the above affected your team outside of the sliders and the difficulty

    Other than line chemistry, which is now called Synergies and only in HUT, all the rest is not in the game.
  • OK, I'll have a go at it. All these clips are from one game, it's HUT green connection and I'm home.

    Starts off with a pass, right through where I am. The only reason I am just there, is because I'm trying to stop that pass. Well, I'm not allowed to stop it so we get a 50/50 in front of net. In these games there are no 50/50's they are 90/10 advantage whoever I'm up against.
    Please pay attention to how my AI decides to swap positions just in the right moment to leave that shooter open.


    Some hassle in front of goal, where my AI intercepts a bacward pass. And yes, even in games like this it does happen, it's just that it's that much rare.
    Anyway, opponent succesfully connects with the puck from behind. You can see I am in control of the puck after I have passed him, then all of a sudden it's back where I just was.
    A saved shot before opponent win a "50/50", Who promptly passes it through an incoming defender for a wide open one timer.
    Then I get to borrow the puck. Please observe how my AI joins in on the attack, making absolutely sure he is always covered.
    Clip ends with opponent passing right through where I have placed myself to stop just that pass.


    2 on 1. A counter like this, I can only dream about in these kind of games.
    He slams on the breaks and passes it behind me, fine. Continues to pass right through where I am now placed, just to stop exactly that pass.
    Another "50/50" that he wins by sticklifting in thin air.
    This time the pass is not going straight through me, still it goes straight through where I have placed my self to stop exactly that pass.


    Passing through AI:


    While you can not connect the easiest of passes:


    In these games you are slower than you opponent (might be from ratings, though):


    Your players will not start wide open breakaways:


    Opponents AI will bump you off the puck. Man, I wish mine would do the same:


    In a game like this it is really hard to find an open man, if you happen to find a chance the result is very likely to be this:


    While your opponent is given all the ice he could wish for. Please watch my LW:


    When your opponent are allowed to pass straight through you, win every "50/50".
    Have an super agressive AI (mine is on high pressure, by the way), that are constantly skating into position for a shot or opening themselves up to passes.
    While your AI is nowhere to be found, neither on offence or defence.
    You cannot connect the easiest of passes and every shot you manage to squeeze out is a miss.
    Well, how can you possibly win?
  • Socair wrote: »
    jake19ny wrote: »
    ExSnake01 wrote: »

    This was proven to simply be an offline A.I. adjustment code.

    The people who read that and say it translates to online A.I. are clueless, IMO.

    Why wouldn't the offline mode dynamically adjust? Like honestly - does everyone want to play against a CPU that never adjusts strategies or ups the pressure in situations where the human is dominating?

    So there are two sets of code where one applies to online and the other offline? Can you link that proof for me to look at?

    If the game makes things like passing or scoring easier or more difficult, that sounds more of a handicap/boosting. Thats not adjusting strategies. Its more along the lines of ai having to cheat to be more challenging.

    Adjusting a strategy successfully results in passes and shots being more successful. That's how and why strategies work.

    So, if the CPU successfully counters your current strategy with one of their own - is it ice tilt or a good strategic move by the cpu? And what proof do you have to make a claim that it's ice tilt?

    And in order to preemptively stop you from trying to say something like, "Where's the proof that it's NOT ice tilt?" I will say this; The onus is on those making the extraordinary claim that ice tilt exists to provide the evidence. It is not up to the defendant (in this case, EA SPORTS) to provide proof that it doesn't.

    What I find interesting is how many people around here will take the developer's word on gameplay mechanics and changes that align with their own beliefs or narratives but when it comes to the developers flat out saying that these types of mechanics (ice tilt/DDA/etc) don't exist, suddenly their word becomes meaningless in the chaos of conspiracy theories.

    I don’t care if it’s ice tilt, DDA, a game flaw, or something else.....I’m just waiting for the 3 specific questions I was asked to post that address 90% of what people are complaining about. Answers by a Dev that explain those things will suffice for me. I can’t speak for anyone else. However this is the second time in 2 releases I’ve asked the same questions to a Dev and the conversation ends. Think what you will about that but it only furthers suspicion.
    He asked for you to post your last ten versus games and the CR’s of your opponents. To analyse before answering your questions.

    You are referencing HUT though, right? I guess you could do the same, but show records. But then you would just say you barely squeaked out a win versus the teams with the poor record. HUT has more variables than versus, with boosted cards and synergies to consider.

    Again, there was also a thread recently where someone was complaining that the lower skilled guys don’t have a chance. I also see other posts where people complain about stacked “pay to win” teams and how it’s not fair that their mid 80’s overall team is matching up with them.

    Plus these P2P modes are so connection dependant, anything is possible. You can have a nice smooth, low ping, but the games just don’t play as consistent as they do on a server.

    I didn’t post my recent games for 2 reasons. The first is in HUT CS you don’t see the rank of the teams you are playing against so it wouldn’t show him what he’s asking. Second and, most importantly, my recent games have zero to do with my questions. Seeing my recent games can provide no answers to them. If you read my questions you would have to agree.
  • Socair wrote: »
    jake19ny wrote: »
    ExSnake01 wrote: »

    This was proven to simply be an offline A.I. adjustment code.

    The people who read that and say it translates to online A.I. are clueless, IMO.

    Why wouldn't the offline mode dynamically adjust? Like honestly - does everyone want to play against a CPU that never adjusts strategies or ups the pressure in situations where the human is dominating?

    So there are two sets of code where one applies to online and the other offline? Can you link that proof for me to look at?

    If the game makes things like passing or scoring easier or more difficult, that sounds more of a handicap/boosting. Thats not adjusting strategies. Its more along the lines of ai having to cheat to be more challenging.

    Adjusting a strategy successfully results in passes and shots being more successful. That's how and why strategies work.

    So, if the CPU successfully counters your current strategy with one of their own - is it ice tilt or a good strategic move by the cpu? And what proof do you have to make a claim that it's ice tilt?

    And in order to preemptively stop you from trying to say something like, "Where's the proof that it's NOT ice tilt?" I will say this; The onus is on those making the extraordinary claim that ice tilt exists to provide the evidence. It is not up to the defendant (in this case, EA SPORTS) to provide proof that it doesn't.

    What I find interesting is how many people around here will take the developer's word on gameplay mechanics and changes that align with their own beliefs or narratives but when it comes to the developers flat out saying that these types of mechanics (ice tilt/DDA/etc) don't exist, suddenly their word becomes meaningless in the chaos of conspiracy theories.

    I don’t care if it’s ice tilt, DDA, a game flaw, or something else.....I’m just waiting for the 3 specific questions I was asked to post that address 90% of what people are complaining about. Answers by a Dev that explain those things will suffice for me. I can’t speak for anyone else. However this is the second time in 2 releases I’ve asked the same questions to a Dev and the conversation ends. Think what you will about that but it only furthers suspicion.
    He asked for you to post your last ten versus games and the CR’s of your opponents. To analyse before answering your questions.

    You are referencing HUT though, right? I guess you could do the same, but show records. But then you would just say you barely squeaked out a win versus the teams with the poor record. HUT has more variables than versus, with boosted cards and synergies to consider.

    Again, there was also a thread recently where someone was complaining that the lower skilled guys don’t have a chance. I also see other posts where people complain about stacked “pay to win” teams and how it’s not fair that their mid 80’s overall team is matching up with them.

    Plus these P2P modes are so connection dependant, anything is possible. You can have a nice smooth, low ping, but the games just don’t play as consistent as they do on a server.

    This whole topic is a complete waste of time. People believe what they want, and that's that.

    Yes, people believe what they want.

    However, when those beliefs are being formulated based on topics such as this one, it becomes a problem. The beliefs that they are formulating are based off of pure rumor, speculation and hyperbole while simultaneously disregarding the official stance on the matter - which is that ice tilt, flat out - does not exist.

    When our beliefs are challenged, we are supposed to look at the objective evidence to decide whether those beliefs are rooted in truth.

    When you have something like the 'code' posted on Reddit in regards to FIFA DDA and making it out to be truth - or some kind of evidence to support the DDA/Ice Tilt theory - that introduces false evidence which muddies the waters even more.

    You're right - people will believe what they want. Those who can't take a losing streak or are unable to come to grips with not being as dominant at they think they should be, tend to want to believe ice tilt/DDA exists and yes, that will never change.

    You guys completely miss the point of the discussions. It’s not about winning or losing but how you lose or barely squeak out a win....or win for that matter. I’ve been on all sides of it. See you guys see it as people whining about not winning a game. I’ve lost plenty I deserved to lose because I played bad, the other guy was just better, or I had a crap connection. Outside of the connection loses I don’t care that I lost. That’s part of the game. It’s losing those games when you can see and feel the imbalance in the game. Many people see and question the same stuff.
  • Socair
    2415 posts Game Changer
    jake19ny wrote: »
    Socair wrote: »
    jake19ny wrote: »
    ExSnake01 wrote: »

    This was proven to simply be an offline A.I. adjustment code.

    The people who read that and say it translates to online A.I. are clueless, IMO.

    Why wouldn't the offline mode dynamically adjust? Like honestly - does everyone want to play against a CPU that never adjusts strategies or ups the pressure in situations where the human is dominating?

    So there are two sets of code where one applies to online and the other offline? Can you link that proof for me to look at?

    If the game makes things like passing or scoring easier or more difficult, that sounds more of a handicap/boosting. Thats not adjusting strategies. Its more along the lines of ai having to cheat to be more challenging.

    Adjusting a strategy successfully results in passes and shots being more successful. That's how and why strategies work.

    So, if the CPU successfully counters your current strategy with one of their own - is it ice tilt or a good strategic move by the cpu? And what proof do you have to make a claim that it's ice tilt?

    And in order to preemptively stop you from trying to say something like, "Where's the proof that it's NOT ice tilt?" I will say this; The onus is on those making the extraordinary claim that ice tilt exists to provide the evidence. It is not up to the defendant (in this case, EA SPORTS) to provide proof that it doesn't.

    What I find interesting is how many people around here will take the developer's word on gameplay mechanics and changes that align with their own beliefs or narratives but when it comes to the developers flat out saying that these types of mechanics (ice tilt/DDA/etc) don't exist, suddenly their word becomes meaningless in the chaos of conspiracy theories.

    I don’t care if it’s ice tilt, DDA, a game flaw, or something else.....I’m just waiting for the 3 specific questions I was asked to post that address 90% of what people are complaining about. Answers by a Dev that explain those things will suffice for me. I can’t speak for anyone else. However this is the second time in 2 releases I’ve asked the same questions to a Dev and the conversation ends. Think what you will about that but it only furthers suspicion.
    He asked for you to post your last ten versus games and the CR’s of your opponents. To analyse before answering your questions.

    You are referencing HUT though, right? I guess you could do the same, but show records. But then you would just say you barely squeaked out a win versus the teams with the poor record. HUT has more variables than versus, with boosted cards and synergies to consider.

    Again, there was also a thread recently where someone was complaining that the lower skilled guys don’t have a chance. I also see other posts where people complain about stacked “pay to win” teams and how it’s not fair that their mid 80’s overall team is matching up with them.

    Plus these P2P modes are so connection dependant, anything is possible. You can have a nice smooth, low ping, but the games just don’t play as consistent as they do on a server.

    This whole topic is a complete waste of time. People believe what they want, and that's that.

    Yes, people believe what they want.

    However, when those beliefs are being formulated based on topics such as this one, it becomes a problem. The beliefs that they are formulating are based off of pure rumor, speculation and hyperbole while simultaneously disregarding the official stance on the matter - which is that ice tilt, flat out - does not exist.

    When our beliefs are challenged, we are supposed to look at the objective evidence to decide whether those beliefs are rooted in truth.

    When you have something like the 'code' posted on Reddit in regards to FIFA DDA and making it out to be truth - or some kind of evidence to support the DDA/Ice Tilt theory - that introduces false evidence which muddies the waters even more.

    You're right - people will believe what they want. Those who can't take a losing streak or are unable to come to grips with not being as dominant at they think they should be, tend to want to believe ice tilt/DDA exists and yes, that will never change.

    You guys completely miss the point of the discussions. It’s not about winning or losing but how you lose or barely squeak out a win....or win for that matter. I’ve been on all sides of it. See you guys see it as people whining about not winning a game. I’ve lost plenty I deserved to lose because I played bad, the other guy was just better, or I had a crap connection. Outside of the connection loses I don’t care that I lost. That’s part of the game. It’s losing those games when you can see and feel the imbalance in the game. Many people see and question the same stuff.
    And many don’t see this. It doesn’t mean their opinions are invalid. Nor does it mean yours is...but this forum is for discussion. And that’s what’s happening.

    NHL Series Game Changer & Volunteer Moderator
  • jake19ny wrote: »
    Socair wrote: »
    jake19ny wrote: »
    ExSnake01 wrote: »

    This was proven to simply be an offline A.I. adjustment code.

    The people who read that and say it translates to online A.I. are clueless, IMO.

    Why wouldn't the offline mode dynamically adjust? Like honestly - does everyone want to play against a CPU that never adjusts strategies or ups the pressure in situations where the human is dominating?

    So there are two sets of code where one applies to online and the other offline? Can you link that proof for me to look at?

    If the game makes things like passing or scoring easier or more difficult, that sounds more of a handicap/boosting. Thats not adjusting strategies. Its more along the lines of ai having to cheat to be more challenging.

    Adjusting a strategy successfully results in passes and shots being more successful. That's how and why strategies work.

    So, if the CPU successfully counters your current strategy with one of their own - is it ice tilt or a good strategic move by the cpu? And what proof do you have to make a claim that it's ice tilt?

    And in order to preemptively stop you from trying to say something like, "Where's the proof that it's NOT ice tilt?" I will say this; The onus is on those making the extraordinary claim that ice tilt exists to provide the evidence. It is not up to the defendant (in this case, EA SPORTS) to provide proof that it doesn't.

    What I find interesting is how many people around here will take the developer's word on gameplay mechanics and changes that align with their own beliefs or narratives but when it comes to the developers flat out saying that these types of mechanics (ice tilt/DDA/etc) don't exist, suddenly their word becomes meaningless in the chaos of conspiracy theories.

    I don’t care if it’s ice tilt, DDA, a game flaw, or something else.....I’m just waiting for the 3 specific questions I was asked to post that address 90% of what people are complaining about. Answers by a Dev that explain those things will suffice for me. I can’t speak for anyone else. However this is the second time in 2 releases I’ve asked the same questions to a Dev and the conversation ends. Think what you will about that but it only furthers suspicion.
    He asked for you to post your last ten versus games and the CR’s of your opponents. To analyse before answering your questions.

    You are referencing HUT though, right? I guess you could do the same, but show records. But then you would just say you barely squeaked out a win versus the teams with the poor record. HUT has more variables than versus, with boosted cards and synergies to consider.

    Again, there was also a thread recently where someone was complaining that the lower skilled guys don’t have a chance. I also see other posts where people complain about stacked “pay to win” teams and how it’s not fair that their mid 80’s overall team is matching up with them.

    Plus these P2P modes are so connection dependant, anything is possible. You can have a nice smooth, low ping, but the games just don’t play as consistent as they do on a server.

    I didn’t post my recent games for 2 reasons. The first is in HUT CS you don’t see the rank of the teams you are playing against so it wouldn’t show him what he’s asking. Second and, most importantly, my recent games have zero to do with my questions. Seeing my recent games can provide no answers to them. If you read my questions you would have to agree.

    I don't know if you read my post in response to your questions or if you even care unless it's answered by a dev, but I pretty much said that you may have to provide more information to get those answers you're looking for. They are so open ended that I don't think there is a definitive answer to them.

    You ask why weaker teams have slower players that are much faster than your own higher rated speed players or something to that extent. What kind of answers are you looking for here? If the developer says, "Sorry, this indeed is a connection issue", your willing to accept it and just be done?

    You ask why teams who get low amount of shots score multiple goals yet teams with a large quantity of shots who dominate gameplay still lose. You say this happens multiple times. I've answered this in other threads about and I'll repeat, I'll believe this is an issue if you can provide the evidence to supporting the claims.

    This is where recent games could help provide a better idea of what is happening. Is there really no way to see a players HUT rating after game? Otherwise, if it happens so much, I would suggest trying to provide a video so it could be checked out. If you don't want it critiqued by the community, I would be more than happy to check it out if you send it through a private message. I don't say the get good stuff, I will actually look to see if you are indeed getting screwed. I just haven't lost a game in which I have completely dominated play, so it's hard for me to wrap my head around why it's occuring to people unless they're not actually getting those opportunistic shots.

    I'm not trying to be a pain, I'm just saying that overall, I think these are tough questions to answer without providing any context. I hope someone can come in and provide some answers for you, but as @Socair has stated, none of what you are asking has occurred to me or others I have played with.
  • jake19ny
    688 posts Member
    edited November 2018
    Socair wrote: »
    jake19ny wrote: »
    Socair wrote: »
    jake19ny wrote: »
    ExSnake01 wrote: »

    This was proven to simply be an offline A.I. adjustment code.

    The people who read that and say it translates to online A.I. are clueless, IMO.

    Why wouldn't the offline mode dynamically adjust? Like honestly - does everyone want to play against a CPU that never adjusts strategies or ups the pressure in situations where the human is dominating?

    So there are two sets of code where one applies to online and the other offline? Can you link that proof for me to look at?

    If the game makes things like passing or scoring easier or more difficult, that sounds more of a handicap/boosting. Thats not adjusting strategies. Its more along the lines of ai having to cheat to be more challenging.

    Adjusting a strategy successfully results in passes and shots being more successful. That's how and why strategies work.

    So, if the CPU successfully counters your current strategy with one of their own - is it ice tilt or a good strategic move by the cpu? And what proof do you have to make a claim that it's ice tilt?

    And in order to preemptively stop you from trying to say something like, "Where's the proof that it's NOT ice tilt?" I will say this; The onus is on those making the extraordinary claim that ice tilt exists to provide the evidence. It is not up to the defendant (in this case, EA SPORTS) to provide proof that it doesn't.

    What I find interesting is how many people around here will take the developer's word on gameplay mechanics and changes that align with their own beliefs or narratives but when it comes to the developers flat out saying that these types of mechanics (ice tilt/DDA/etc) don't exist, suddenly their word becomes meaningless in the chaos of conspiracy theories.

    I don’t care if it’s ice tilt, DDA, a game flaw, or something else.....I’m just waiting for the 3 specific questions I was asked to post that address 90% of what people are complaining about. Answers by a Dev that explain those things will suffice for me. I can’t speak for anyone else. However this is the second time in 2 releases I’ve asked the same questions to a Dev and the conversation ends. Think what you will about that but it only furthers suspicion.
    He asked for you to post your last ten versus games and the CR’s of your opponents. To analyse before answering your questions.

    You are referencing HUT though, right? I guess you could do the same, but show records. But then you would just say you barely squeaked out a win versus the teams with the poor record. HUT has more variables than versus, with boosted cards and synergies to consider.

    Again, there was also a thread recently where someone was complaining that the lower skilled guys don’t have a chance. I also see other posts where people complain about stacked “pay to win” teams and how it’s not fair that their mid 80’s overall team is matching up with them.

    Plus these P2P modes are so connection dependant, anything is possible. You can have a nice smooth, low ping, but the games just don’t play as consistent as they do on a server.

    This whole topic is a complete waste of time. People believe what they want, and that's that.

    Yes, people believe what they want.

    However, when those beliefs are being formulated based on topics such as this one, it becomes a problem. The beliefs that they are formulating are based off of pure rumor, speculation and hyperbole while simultaneously disregarding the official stance on the matter - which is that ice tilt, flat out - does not exist.

    When our beliefs are challenged, we are supposed to look at the objective evidence to decide whether those beliefs are rooted in truth.

    When you have something like the 'code' posted on Reddit in regards to FIFA DDA and making it out to be truth - or some kind of evidence to support the DDA/Ice Tilt theory - that introduces false evidence which muddies the waters even more.

    You're right - people will believe what they want. Those who can't take a losing streak or are unable to come to grips with not being as dominant at they think they should be, tend to want to believe ice tilt/DDA exists and yes, that will never change.

    You guys completely miss the point of the discussions. It’s not about winning or losing but how you lose or barely squeak out a win....or win for that matter. I’ve been on all sides of it. See you guys see it as people whining about not winning a game. I’ve lost plenty I deserved to lose because I played bad, the other guy was just better, or I had a crap connection. Outside of the connection loses I don’t care that I lost. That’s part of the game. It’s losing those games when you can see and feel the imbalance in the game. Many people see and question the same stuff.
    And many don’t see this. It doesn’t mean their opinions are invalid. Nor does it mean yours is...but this forum is for discussion. And that’s what’s happening.

    I’m ok with all of that I just wanted to point out that it’s not about losing. Many people have said they have been the beneficiary of DDA as well as the victim. I’m also not saying I’m right just saying what I’m experiencing. I’m awaiting an answer to my questions that cN explain this.
    If it’s not DDA then what is it? I don’t know enough about the P2P but what I’ve read on it is accurate EA doing nothing about it while it causes things like I posed in my questions is equally as wrong as having DDA. If it’s simply poorly coded game flaws then that to is equally wrong on EAs part. Any of those things renders the idea of competitive seasons along with card ratings pointless.
    Post edited by jake19ny on
  • ExSnake01
    466 posts Member
    edited November 2018

    Adjusting a strategy successfully results in passes and shots being more successful. That's how and why strategies work.

    So, if the CPU successfully counters your current strategy with one of their own - is it ice tilt or a good strategic move by the cpu? And what proof do you have to make a claim that it's ice tilt?

    And in order to preemptively stop you from trying to say something like, "Where's the proof that it's NOT ice tilt?" I will say this; The onus is on those making the extraordinary claim that ice tilt exists to provide the evidence. It is not up to the defendant (in this case, EA SPORTS) to provide proof that it doesn't.

    What I find interesting is how many people around here will take the developer's word on gameplay mechanics and changes that align with their own beliefs or narratives but when it comes to the developers flat out saying that these types of mechanics (ice tilt/DDA/etc) don't exist, suddenly their word becomes meaningless in the chaos of conspiracy theories.

    Again, you do know there are sliders that can adjust just about every aspect of the game? They are not there to adjust a strategy which is what you keep implying.

    There are sliders that can manage your acceleration, speed, poke check effectiveness, and a lot more...It would explain why my guys can't ever hit the net, or hardly connect any hits or my lines going though energy more frequent then other games. Slider manipulation patent... Uh, hello?!?

    Momentum bars, producers talking about fights or big hits swinging momentum, patents, paper/studies, scripting to modify difficulty... You wanted proof. Now you have it. It's easy to see why things like this are killing the sales of this franchise. You really expect a developer to admit in using DDA? I guess you think owners of car dealerships openly admit to ripping people off all the time too... Unreal.

    That Fifa code where you said it's "proven" to be offline only...Still waiting for it.

  • Sinbin
    1331 posts Member
    jake19ny wrote: »
    If it’s not DDA then what is it?

    Why does it even have to be something? There are lopsided games in the real world too. Flukey goals happen, passes miss. pucks take weird bounces, etc. Do you ever watch replays to see how plays develop? People talk about the team with less shots winning. Do you watch how those goals happened and take any accountability for the turnover or change of possession that gave them the chance to score? You know, there used to be tape to tape passes a few years ago. People complained they weren't realistic. Passing changed to be looser and more skill based. Now we get complaints that passing is bad or one team's passes connect more than the other's. There's rarely someone admitting their passing wasn't up to par.

    The community wanted a more skill based and realistic game. It was given to us and now many have a hard time with the physics causing what seems to be randomness that can occur in games. People even think these are predetermined to benefit the supposed weaker team. However we have people believing there is some mystical force moves the puck in the favor of the team that's going to quit playing if they don't get the win.

    The more this game resembles its real world counterpart, the more they complain that skill isn't be rewarded. Maybe you just aren't as skilled as you think you are.
  • VegasJay77
    7 posts Member
    edited November 2018
    Sinbin wrote: »
    However we have people believing there is some mystical force moves the puck in the favor of the team that's going to quit playing if they don't get the win.

    Would you be able to provide a link to those who said they believe in a "mystical force" behind this?

    There are many who believe that DDA is coded into the game, but I have yet to hear anyone say that there are mystical forces at play. I could be wrong on that, and a link would go a long way in proving that statement, but I haven't personally seen anyone claiming mystical forces on this forum.

    I have also read others claiming that the DDA patent was for only for mobile games, and only used in offline games, but I would like to see a link proving that as well, because I have proof that is NOT the case.


    Here is the link to the official patent:
    http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2017/0259177.html

    Now, under the section labeled "Detailed Description of Embodiments" section of the patent it literally says, word-for-word:
    The use of the term “video game” herein includes all types of games, including, but not limited to web-based games, console games, personal computer (PC) games, computer games, games for mobile devices (for example, smartphones, portable consoles, gaming machines, or wearable devices, such as virtual reality glasses, augmented reality glasses, or smart watches), or virtual reality games, as well as other types of games.

    So that takes care of the "The patent is only for mobile games" claim. This very intricate and complex system was designed for games on all platforms.

    Now, lets take a look at some other parts of this patent. Here is literally what the opening paragraph of this patent says, so what you claim people are saying are "mystical forces", are actually described in detail throughout this patent:

    A computer-implemented method comprising: as implemented by an interactive computing system configured with specific computer-executable instructions, determining a user identifier of a user who is playing a video game on a user computing device; accessing a set of input data associated with the user based at least in part on the user identifier of the user, wherein the set of input data comprises user interaction data associated with the user's interaction with the video game; based at least in part on the set of input data, determining a predicted churn rate for the user, the predicted churn rate corresponding to a probability that the user ceases to play the video game; based at least in part on the predicted churn rate for the user, selecting a seed value for a knob associated with the video game, wherein the knob comprises a variable that when adjusted causes a modification to a state of the video game; and modifying execution of the video game by adjusting the knob based at least in part on the seed value.

    Doesn't sound so mystical anymore, does it?

    Ok, how about this paragraph:

    Another solution that may be used in some types of competitive video games, is to vary the ability of the user or the user's competitor based on the relationship between the user and the user's competitor. For example, supposing that the video game is a racing game, the user's car may be made faster when the user is doing poorly and may be made slower when the user is doing well. This solution may result in what is sometimes referred to as a “rubber band effect.”

    Embodiments presented herein include a system and method for performing dynamic difficulty adjustment. Further, embodiments disclosed herein perform dynamic difficulty adjustment using processes that are not detectable or are more difficult to detect by users compared to static and/or existing difficulty adjustment processes. In some embodiments, historical user information is fed into a machine learning system to generate a prediction model that predicts an expected duration of game play, such as for example, an expected churn rate, a retention rate, the length of time a user is expected to play the game, or an indication of the user's expected game play time relative to a historical set of users who have previously played the game. Before or during game play, the prediction model is applied to information about the user to predict the user's expected duration of game play. Based on the expected duration, the system may then utilize a mapping data repository to determine how to dynamically adjust the difficulty of the game, such as, for example, changing the values of one or more knobs to make portions of the game less difficult.

    And here the patent specifically mentions people who have "spent money on the game" in regards to those who haven't (They are "rated" differently by the system):

    systems disclosed herein monitor user activity with respect to one or more video games to determine a user's preferences regarding game difficulty and the user's skill level with respect to playing the video games. This information may be determined based at least in part on factors that are associated with a user's engagement level. For example, a user who plays a video game for an above average length of time and who spends money while playing the video game may have a higher level of engagement than a user who plays a video game for a short period of time. As another example, a user who plays a video game for a short period of time, but who plays an above average number of play sessions may be associated with a high level of engagement, but may be classified differently than the user of the previous example.

    Further, in certain embodiments described herein, users may be grouped with other users who have similar preferences into clusters. The users may be grouped based on user behavior with respect to challenges or obstacles presented in the video game. Each of the groups or clusters of users may be associated with difficulty preferences or settings for one or more video games. Using this information, one or more aspects of the video game can be dynamically adjusted to present a user of the video game with a particular difficulty level that is most likely to engage the user, or more likely to engage the user than a static set of difficulty levels. As noted above and further herein, additional or alternative embodiments described herein may determine one or more seeds or knob values for adjusting the difficulty of the video game by using one or more parameter functions or prediction models.


    This entire patent describes an incredibly complex Orwellian-type of rating system that literally monitors and analyzes your every move and is constantly learning about you and dynamically adjusting "knobs" (variables) based on what it sees and records. It's actually quite eerie when you read through the entire patent.
  • ExSnake01
    466 posts Member
    edited November 2018
    Sinbin wrote: »

    However we have people believing there is some mystical force moves the puck in the favor of the team that's going to quit playing if they don't get the win.

    Well that explains why you are unable to understand what DDA is. You think it's mysticism and magical forces at play here.

    It's just clever coding, I promise.

  • jake19ny
    688 posts Member
    edited November 2018
    Sinbin wrote: »
    jake19ny wrote: »
    If it’s not DDA then what is it?

    Why does it even have to be something? There are lopsided games in the real world too. Flukey goals happen, passes miss. pucks take weird bounces, etc. Do you ever watch replays to see how plays develop? People talk about the team with less shots winning. Do you watch how those goals happened and take any accountability for the turnover or change of possession that gave them the chance to score? You know, there used to be tape to tape passes a few years ago. People complained they weren't realistic. Passing changed to be looser and more skill based. Now we get complaints that passing is bad or one team's passes connect more than the other's. There's rarely someone admitting their passing wasn't up to par.

    The community wanted a more skill based and realistic game. It was given to us and now many have a hard time with the physics causing what seems to be randomness that can occur in games. People even think these are predetermined to benefit the supposed weaker team. However we have people believing there is some mystical force moves the puck in the favor of the team that's going to quit playing if they don't get the win.

    The more this game resembles its real world counterpart, the more they complain that skill isn't be rewarded. Maybe you just aren't as skilled as you think you are.

    Come on man. I know you’ve been reading the thread....this is not about losing a game, having a lopsided game, or having someone get lucky. Whatever....I give up. EA will never answer my questions because they can’t without exposing either DDA or admitting that something is horribly wrong with their game. Without EA seriously addressing it rather than blanket denials or asking irrelevant counter questions these threads become redundant with the same wash, rinse, and repeat posts by everyone. We will just have to agree to disagree but mark my words...the nonsense going on is at a minimum but once they get the player items into 92-97 and people build great teams the nonsense that you experience when playing a weaker built team will stand out big time.... you are going to see more threads like this and more people complain about DDA.

    This game does not resemble its real life counter part by a long shot but that’s another whole discussion.
  • KidShowtime1867
    1105 posts Member
    edited November 2018
    My intention with this post is to be 100% constructive. These may be criticisms, but criticism is the basis of being constructive. You have to be willing to be critical and accept criticism in order for things to be constructive. This is 100% my intention with this post.
    SpillGal wrote: »
    Please pay attention to how my AI decides to swap positions just in the right moment to leave that shooter open.

    Your A.I. was coming to cover the center who you dragged out of position. Maybe you shouldn't be skill-zoning so much?
    Some hassle in front of goal, where my AI intercepts a bacward pass. And yes, even in games like this it does happen, it's just that it's that much rare.
    Anyway, opponent succesfully connects with the puck from behind. You can see I am in control of the puck after I have passed him, then all of a sudden it's back where I just was.
    A saved shot before opponent win a "50/50", Who promptly passes it through an incoming defender for a wide open one timer.
    Then I get to borrow the puck. Please observe how my AI joins in on the attack, making absolutely sure he is always covered.
    Clip ends with opponent passing right through where I have placed myself to stop just that pass.

    1. Some of your sentences don't make sense, and it's hard to follow what you're trying to say.
    2. The pass went through the defender because he initaited a body check. You can't intercept passes if you're going in for a body check - A.I. included. The A.I. decided to lay the body and the player made a pass at the right time. It didn't go 'through' anyone....
    3. Yep, your controller player missed the pass at the end - there seems to be something up with intercepting the puck while holding vision control. Try not using vision control so much and focus more on utilizing LS more. The animation of vision control interrupts the ability to intercept passes, it seems.


    2 on 1. A counter like this, I can only dream about in these kind of games.
    He slams on the breaks and passes it behind me, fine. Continues to pass right through where I am now placed, just to stop exactly that pass.
    Another "50/50" that he wins by sticklifting in thin air.
    This time the pass is not going straight through me, still it goes straight through where I have placed my self to stop exactly that pass.

    1. He didn't 'slam on the breaks'.. he slowed down to get you to bite. And you did - twice. You may have 'placed' your player in what you thought was the right lane - but you bit on his juke - and in doing so, you give up some of your ability to intercept the pass.
    2. There's nothing 50/50 about stick lift. He timed it better and had better positioning than you...
    3. You are skill zoning throughout these clips.. and you even seem to just get so angry you let your player continue gliding away from the play... maybe this has something to do with the things you complain about...

    Passing through AI:

    Did you notice how you intercepted the pass at the end? Did you also maybe read the tuner/patch notes to see that A.I. defenders are now 'muted'?

    While you can not connect the easiest of passes:

    So let's see the controller visualization on that one. Clearly you misfired - your aim is off. Maybe adjust the pass assist so that it's more in your favor? Or maybe turn it down so that you aren't at the mercy of the game's auto-assist?
    In these games you are slower than you opponent (might be from ratings, though):

    Could be ratings.. could be he had a fresh line on the ice and you left yours out too long. Could be your D pair just finished a PK.. there's so many details left out of these 'clips'....

    Your players will not start wide open breakaways:

    Player just got off the bench and you threw a pass out to him - he still needs time to gain speed. The defender did a great job of keeping an eye on him, and when the human took control he was able to catch up and null the breakaway.

    You would realize this success too if you weren't skill zoning so much. Take control of the defender closest to the puck more often.
    Opponents AI will bump you off the puck. Man, I wish mine would do the same:

    You neglected to make a decision with the puck in time and you paid for it. That was an easy one...
    In a game like this it is really hard to find an open man, if you happen to find a chance the result is very likely to be this:

    You found the open man.... and you passed it to him before he was able to generate speed towards the net. Plus you one-timed it off the forehand of the winger.... the winger needs to be on his off-side to get a one-timer you're looking for. In the scenario played out in this video, you would've had more success if you let the winger gain possession and then fire a wrist shot.

    While your opponent is given all the ice he could wish for. Please watch my LW:

    LMAO - yea, that was awful.
    When your opponent are allowed to pass straight through you, win every "50/50".
    Have an super agressive AI (mine is on high pressure, by the way), that are constantly skating into position for a shot or opening themselves up to passes.
    While your AI is nowhere to be found, neither on offence or defence.
    You cannot connect the easiest of passes and every shot you manage to squeeze out is a miss.
    Well, how can you possibly win?

    One of those videos was a 'yea.. that sucks' kind of moment - but the rest were just poor plays on your part and what seems to be a misconception about some of the mechanics in the game.



  • WainGretSki
    3660 posts Member
    edited November 2018
    jake19ny wrote: »
    Sinbin wrote: »
    jake19ny wrote: »
    If it’s not DDA then what is it?

    Why does it even have to be something? There are lopsided games in the real world too. Flukey goals happen, passes miss. pucks take weird bounces, etc. Do you ever watch replays to see how plays develop? People talk about the team with less shots winning. Do you watch how those goals happened and take any accountability for the turnover or change of possession that gave them the chance to score? You know, there used to be tape to tape passes a few years ago. People complained they weren't realistic. Passing changed to be looser and more skill based. Now we get complaints that passing is bad or one team's passes connect more than the other's. There's rarely someone admitting their passing wasn't up to par.

    The community wanted a more skill based and realistic game. It was given to us and now many have a hard time with the physics causing what seems to be randomness that can occur in games. People even think these are predetermined to benefit the supposed weaker team. However we have people believing there is some mystical force moves the puck in the favor of the team that's going to quit playing if they don't get the win.

    The more this game resembles its real world counterpart, the more they complain that skill isn't be rewarded. Maybe you just aren't as skilled as you think you are.

    Come on man. I know you’ve been reading the thread....this is not about losing a game, having a lopsided game, or having someone get lucky. Whatever....I give up. EA will never answer my questions because they can’t without exposing either DDA or admitting that something is horribly wrong with their game. Without EA seriously addressing it rather than blanket denials or asking irrelevant counter questions these threads become redundant with the same wash, rinse, and repeat posts by everyone. We will just have to agree to disagree but mark my words...the nonsense going on is at a minimum but once they get the player items into 92-97 and people build great teams the nonsense that you experience when playing a weaker built team will stand out big time.... you are going to see more threads like this and more people complain about DDA.

    This game does not resemble its real life counter part by a long shot but that’s another whole discussion.

    I am obviously not is a position to guarantee you are wrong, but what about the loads of people complaining they can't win against stacked HUT teams? Why isn't the DDA kicking in for them? If it did kick in and made them competitive, why would they want to buy HUT packs? Isn't the goal to sell as many HUT packs as possible? I have seen too many people whine that it is a pay-to-win mode. Weird because DDA would help them win and therefore we shouldn't see those types of comments unless you are a very horrible player.

    What about people, such as myself, that strictly play EASHL? DDA, imo, cannot function with the variables of 12 different people being connected, yet we still see many of the shenanigans that we hear about in HUT and VS.
  • WainGretSki
    3660 posts Member
    edited November 2018
    VegasJay77 wrote: »
    Sinbin wrote: »
    However we have people believing there is some mystical force moves the puck in the favor of the team that's going to quit playing if they don't get the win.

    Would you be able to provide a link to those who said they believe in a "mystical force" behind this?

    There are many who believe that DDA is coded into the game, but I have yet to hear anyone say that there are mystical forces at play. I could be wrong on that, and a link would go a long way in proving that statement, but I haven't personally seen anyone claiming mystical forces on this forum.

    I have also read others claiming that the DDA patent was for only for mobile games, and only used in offline games, but I would like to see a link proving that as well, because I have proof that is NOT the case.


    Here is the link to the official patent:
    http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2017/0259177.html

    Now, under the section labeled "Detailed Description of Embodiments" section of the patent it literally says, word-for-word:
    The use of the term “video game” herein includes all types of games, including, but not limited to web-based games, console games, personal computer (PC) games, computer games, games for mobile devices (for example, smartphones, portable consoles, gaming machines, or wearable devices, such as virtual reality glasses, augmented reality glasses, or smart watches), or virtual reality games, as well as other types of games.

    So that takes care of the "The patent is only for mobile games" claim. This very intricate and complex system was designed for games on all platforms.

    Now, lets take a look at some other parts of this patent. Here is literally what the opening paragraph of this patent says, so what you claim people are saying are "mystical forces", are actually described in detail throughout this patent:

    A computer-implemented method comprising: as implemented by an interactive computing system configured with specific computer-executable instructions, determining a user identifier of a user who is playing a video game on a user computing device; accessing a set of input data associated with the user based at least in part on the user identifier of the user, wherein the set of input data comprises user interaction data associated with the user's interaction with the video game; based at least in part on the set of input data, determining a predicted churn rate for the user, the predicted churn rate corresponding to a probability that the user ceases to play the video game; based at least in part on the predicted churn rate for the user, selecting a seed value for a knob associated with the video game, wherein the knob comprises a variable that when adjusted causes a modification to a state of the video game; and modifying execution of the video game by adjusting the knob based at least in part on the seed value.

    Doesn't sound so mystical anymore, does it?

    Ok, how about this paragraph:

    Another solution that may be used in some types of competitive video games, is to vary the ability of the user or the user's competitor based on the relationship between the user and the user's competitor. For example, supposing that the video game is a racing game, the user's car may be made faster when the user is doing poorly and may be made slower when the user is doing well. This solution may result in what is sometimes referred to as a “rubber band effect.”

    Embodiments presented herein include a system and method for performing dynamic difficulty adjustment. Further, embodiments disclosed herein perform dynamic difficulty adjustment using processes that are not detectable or are more difficult to detect by users compared to static and/or existing difficulty adjustment processes. In some embodiments, historical user information is fed into a machine learning system to generate a prediction model that predicts an expected duration of game play, such as for example, an expected churn rate, a retention rate, the length of time a user is expected to play the game, or an indication of the user's expected game play time relative to a historical set of users who have previously played the game. Before or during game play, the prediction model is applied to information about the user to predict the user's expected duration of game play. Based on the expected duration, the system may then utilize a mapping data repository to determine how to dynamically adjust the difficulty of the game, such as, for example, changing the values of one or more knobs to make portions of the game less difficult.

    And here the patent specifically mentions people who have "spent money on the game" in regards to those who haven't (They are "rated" differently by the system):

    systems disclosed herein monitor user activity with respect to one or more video games to determine a user's preferences regarding game difficulty and the user's skill level with respect to playing the video games. This information may be determined based at least in part on factors that are associated with a user's engagement level. For example, a user who plays a video game for an above average length of time and who spends money while playing the video game may have a higher level of engagement than a user who plays a video game for a short period of time. As another example, a user who plays a video game for a short period of time, but who plays an above average number of play sessions may be associated with a high level of engagement, but may be classified differently than the user of the previous example.

    Further, in certain embodiments described herein, users may be grouped with other users who have similar preferences into clusters. The users may be grouped based on user behavior with respect to challenges or obstacles presented in the video game. Each of the groups or clusters of users may be associated with difficulty preferences or settings for one or more video games. Using this information, one or more aspects of the video game can be dynamically adjusted to present a user of the video game with a particular difficulty level that is most likely to engage the user, or more likely to engage the user than a static set of difficulty levels. As noted above and further herein, additional or alternative embodiments described herein may determine one or more seeds or knob values for adjusting the difficulty of the video game by using one or more parameter functions or prediction models.


    This entire patent describes an incredibly complex Orwellian-type of rating system that literally monitors and analyzes your every move and is constantly learning about you and dynamically adjusting "knobs" (variables) based on what it sees and records. It's actually quite eerie when you read through the entire patent.

    Other games do this as well. World of Tanks, for example has many algorithms to keep players involved and hopefully playing longer. Skill is still the deciding factor. They have admitted in their forums that when you get a new tank, they facilitate your 10 first games, however it isn't a guarantee you will win.They also admitted that the 10 last games before you unlock your next tank will be alot harder and it still isn't a guarantee you will lose.

    I am willing to bet any and every single free to play game has a similar algorithm because they do have things you can purchase. The end goal is to get people to want to buy and the best way to do that is to know player's tendencies and manipulate those tendencies to keep them engaged. A player who isn't engaged either isn't on long enough to purchase anything, or is too angry at the game to want to purchase. Get used to it because this isn't going to leave anytime soon and imo, will just be amplified over the years.

    Even though EA does have their own patented version, nowhere does it say it is included in NHL games. The devs have stated many times over the years that it isn't in their game. Dunno what more you need to hear, but this is what it is.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!