EA Forums - Banner

NHL 20 Patch Details April 3rd

image
Check out our April 3rd patch details here.

Dynamic difficulty is ruining versus play

Replies

  • 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.

    How do you know it's not? They're not marketing these modifiers as "features " of the gameplay, but there's no reason to believe this isn't still going on in the code.

    My point is, if they had modifiers in the game previously, ones that affected THE WAY YOUR TEAM PERFORMS... why is it so hard to believe they could include them again? Why is this so hard for people to accept?

    Do you remember the momentum meter?
    Getting good or bad momentum was contingent on how you were performing in game.... if you played poorly, the performance of your team would reflect that...and vice versa.

    This is how they formulated the hot, cold streak modifiers...
  • NYR_Nick wrote: »
    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.

    How do you know it's not? They're not marketing these modifiers as "features " of the gameplay, but there's no reason to believe this isn't still going on in the code.

    My point is, if they had modifiers in the game previously, ones that affected THE WAY YOUR TEAM PERFORMS... why is it so hard to believe they could include them again? Why is this so hard for people to accept?

    Do you remember the momentum meter?
    Getting good or bad momentum was contingent on how you were performing in game.... if you played poorly, the performance of your team would reflect that...and vice versa.

    This is how they formulated the hot, cold streak modifiers...

    For the love of God, you guys can argue any point and then say how do we know it's not.

    I do not believe in ghosts or haunted houses. You also gonna say how do I know they don't exist?

    Devs have said there is none of this in the game. They didn't reply with snake-in-the-grass words, they have explicitly said, no, it isn't. There is no room for interpretation here. It is black on white.

    You want to believe the game is against you? Fine, go ahead. I can tell you right now, connection is the main culprit and putting HUT and VS in a p2p environment is the dumbest thing they could ever possibly do, and it leads to these kinds of discussions.
  • 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.

    Well the theory behind DDA isn’t to make people win against better teams but keep them competitive. The thought process being that if you are not good at the game and lose the vast majority of the time you won’t keep playing and certainly won’t buy packs. So if every now then the boost helps them win a game here and there or at least keep it close to a better team, be it skill wise or stacked wise, the player will comeback for more, try and get better, and most important, hopefully buy packs in an effort to improve his team. You have to admit from a business aspect it makes great sense even if you don’t buy into.

    When it comes to EASHL I don’t believe the mechanic kicks in. I honestly believe it’s solely in HUT. In those other modes it’s poor AI and legacy issues that plague it along with EA having a very difficult time finding the right balance with stick lifts and poke. Although poke is not so bad now.
  • SpillGal wrote: »
    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?

    These are the reasons why I don't play VS anymore. Games like this happen way too often where you're up against an opponent who forces passes through defenders in good position and it doesn't matter much. Excellent examples of the inconsistencies in this game. Happens way more often than anybody would like to admit.
  • Also something I find really sad is whenever somebody shows clips nobody ever acknowledged them on this forum.

    And people specifically ask for clips... I don't get it.
  • Sinbin
    1331 posts Member
    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?

    What exactly would DDA be then? I've heard everything. Pre-determined games, scripted games, the game allowing pucks to clip through goalies, etc. The theory is that the weaker team wins so they will spend more on HUT packs or not quit playing, right? To me that means the game needs to read the mind of the players and determine if they are going to quit playing or not buy HUT packs to decide if it needs to unfairly tilt the game in their favor. Sounds pretty absurd, right? So does DDA, ice tilt, magical voodoo that forces the "worse" team to win. If this were true it would mean you had little to no say in your wins and the computer chose you to win them. So, why not put your controller down the next time you start a game and see how well that goes for you. If you lose enough, the DDA should kick in and force you to win, right?
  • NYR_Nick wrote: »
    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.

    How do you know it's not? They're not marketing these modifiers as "features " of the gameplay, but there's no reason to believe this isn't still going on in the code.

    My point is, if they had modifiers in the game previously, ones that affected THE WAY YOUR TEAM PERFORMS... why is it so hard to believe they could include them again? Why is this so hard for people to accept?

    Do you remember the momentum meter?
    Getting good or bad momentum was contingent on how you were performing in game.... if you played poorly, the performance of your team would reflect that...and vice versa.

    This is how they formulated the hot, cold streak modifiers...

    For the love of God, you guys can argue any point and then say how do we know it's not.

    I do not believe in ghosts or haunted houses. You also gonna say how do I know they don't exist?

    Devs have said there is none of this in the game. They didn't reply with snake-in-the-grass words, they have explicitly said, no, it isn't. There is no room for interpretation here. It is black on white.

    You want to believe the game is against you? Fine, go ahead. I can tell you right now, connection is the main culprit and putting HUT and VS in a p2p environment is the dumbest thing they could ever possibly do, and it leads to these kinds of discussions.

    Simply put, EA said no. If people want to create hypothetical theories explaining that EA is incorrect or they are lying to us, go for it. They are all what if scenarios as there has nothing been said or done to prove that DDA/ice tilt/or whatever it's being called is in this game.

    But to respond with "How do you know it's not in the game?" is a ridiculous question in itself and defeats the purpose of a debate. You can't respond to a question with the negation of that same exact question. This isn't grade school. Provide real evidence stating your case.

    I commend the people bringing in videos, pictures, and even articles stating their claims, but unfortunately, the bottom line is there is still 100% no proof that any of these claims are real. If you can provide actual proof that there is something, I really will believe it. Otherwise, I'm chalking it up to connection issues or just bad coding since most of the problems are the same errors that have been in the game prior to that patent everybody keeps referring to was even written up.
  • Sinbin
    1331 posts Member
    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.

    I agree with you. Why are there people with records where they have a huge amount of wins with a small amount of losses if DDA is balancing things? People will say they're glitching. Ok, fine, if they are that's still something within their control and not DDA/tilt. Besides, if you're not able to stop someone from scoring constantly on the short side then you don't belong in the top divisions anyway. Again, that's not tilt. That's a lack of skill, which again, people here are not accountable for.

    I don't see how this is possible in EASHL either. Especially with full 6s games. I still don't believe it's there when you have AI teammates either.
  • NYR_Nick wrote: »
    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.

    How do you know it's not? They're not marketing these modifiers as "features " of the gameplay, but there's no reason to believe this isn't still going on in the code.

    My point is, if they had modifiers in the game previously, ones that affected THE WAY YOUR TEAM PERFORMS... why is it so hard to believe they could include them again? Why is this so hard for people to accept?

    Do you remember the momentum meter?
    Getting good or bad momentum was contingent on how you were performing in game.... if you played poorly, the performance of your team would reflect that...and vice versa.

    This is how they formulated the hot, cold streak modifiers...

    For the love of God, you guys can argue any point and then say how do we know it's not.

    I do not believe in ghosts or haunted houses. You also gonna say how do I know they don't exist?

    Devs have said there is none of this in the game. They didn't reply with snake-in-the-grass words, they have explicitly said, no, it isn't. There is no room for interpretation here. It is black on white.

    You want to believe the game is against you? Fine, go ahead. I can tell you right now, connection is the main culprit and putting HUT and VS in a p2p environment is the dumbest thing they could ever possibly do, and it leads to these kinds of discussions.

    Simply put, EA said no. If people want to create hypothetical theories explaining that EA is incorrect or they are lying to us, go for it. They are all what if scenarios as there has nothing been said or done to prove that DDA/ice tilt/or whatever it's being called is in this game.

    But to respond with "How do you know it's not in the game?" is a ridiculous question in itself and defeats the purpose of a debate. You can't respond to a question with the negation of that same exact question. This isn't grade school. Provide real evidence stating your case.

    I commend the people bringing in videos, pictures, and even articles stating their claims, but unfortunately, the bottom line is there is still 100% no proof that any of these claims are real. If you can provide actual proof that there is something, I really will believe it. Otherwise, I'm chalking it up to connection issues or just bad coding since most of the problems are the same errors that have been in the game prior to that patent everybody keeps referring to was even written up.

    The devs even went as far as adding an emote when you score a goal. And it goes like this, or close to it:

    "No tilt, all skill baby".

    Wouldn't that be a blatant admission right there? No? Still not convinced? What's that? They used to have hot and cold streaks in the game 17 years ago? There used to be momentum meters 8 years ago? Ah, well there you have it. If it was there 17 years ago, then you can bet your first born it is in there again today, but we can't see it. The devs are liars and shady, just like the company they work for..... Gimme a break.

    BTW not aiming this at anyone specifically. Just in general even though I used this quote.
  • Sinbin
    1331 posts Member

    The devs even went as far as adding an emote when you score a goal. And it goes like this, or close to it:

    "No tilt, all skill baby".

    Wouldn't that be a blatant admission right there? No? Still not convinced? What's that? They used to have hot and cold streaks in the game 17 years ago? There used to be momentum meters 8 years ago? Ah, well there you have it. If it was there 17 years ago, then you can bet your first born it is in there again today, but we can't see it. The devs are liars and shady, just like the company they work for..... Gimme a break.

    BTW not aiming this at anyone specifically. Just in general even though I used this quote.

    It says "Gonna cry ice tilt now, bud?"

    I hardly see how that confirms it's real. I believe it's EA's way of ribbing the people that blame tilt instead of their own lack of skill. I know people also believe it's in because the commentators say it. It's a common hockey term. If it's in the game... right?
  • Sinbin wrote: »

    The devs even went as far as adding an emote when you score a goal. And it goes like this, or close to it:

    "No tilt, all skill baby".

    Wouldn't that be a blatant admission right there? No? Still not convinced? What's that? They used to have hot and cold streaks in the game 17 years ago? There used to be momentum meters 8 years ago? Ah, well there you have it. If it was there 17 years ago, then you can bet your first born it is in there again today, but we can't see it. The devs are liars and shady, just like the company they work for..... Gimme a break.

    BTW not aiming this at anyone specifically. Just in general even though I used this quote.

    It says "Gonna cry ice tilt now, bud?"

    I hardly see how that confirms it's real. I believe it's EA's way of ribbing the people that blame tilt instead of their own lack of skill. I know people also believe it's in because the commentators say it. It's a common hockey term. If it's in the game... right?

    That is exactly what I said though.
  • VeNOM2099
    3172 posts Member
    edited November 2018
    The devs even went as far as adding an emote when you score a goal. And it goes like this, or close to it:

    "No tilt, all skill baby".

    Wouldn't that be a blatant admission right there? No? Still not convinced? What's that? They used to have hot and cold streaks in the game 17 years ago? There used to be momentum meters 8 years ago? Ah, well there you have it. If it was there 17 years ago, then you can bet your first born it is in there again today, but we can't see it. The devs are liars and shady, just like the company they work for..... Gimme a break.

    BTW not aiming this at anyone specifically. Just in general even though I used this quote.

    Yeah. EA has always had a thing for "ribbing" their detractors in game like that. Go back to NHL 2001 and the huge uproar in the NHL community that the game was in such a poor state after the great NHL '98, 99 and 2000. People lashed out at the devs back then just as much as people are lashing out now on the forums.

    NHL 2002 comes out and they put the song "Brand New Low" by the Treble Chargers as the main menu theme. Check out some of the lyrics:
    "Over and over, I keep wondering why
    Then I give up and see that look in your eyes
    'Cause if I trip and fall, I'll be to blame
    And if I hit the wall, I'll still be the same

    Wasting your time with your so-called friends
    The ones you adore and the ones you pretend
    And it's kind of sad and deranged
    But it's not so bad that it can't be explained

    'Cause in my mind
    It's all a waste of time
    And there's no excuse at all
    Then I realize
    Surprise, you were right all along

    And I want to know
    Have I gone too far?
    Have I sunk to a brand new low?
    And I want to know
    If I've gone too far
    'Cause I've lost all my self control
    "

    Cheeky. :p
  • VeNOM2099 wrote: »
    The devs even went as far as adding an emote when you score a goal. And it goes like this, or close to it:

    "No tilt, all skill baby".

    Wouldn't that be a blatant admission right there? No? Still not convinced? What's that? They used to have hot and cold streaks in the game 17 years ago? There used to be momentum meters 8 years ago? Ah, well there you have it. If it was there 17 years ago, then you can bet your first born it is in there again today, but we can't see it. The devs are liars and shady, just like the company they work for..... Gimme a break.

    BTW not aiming this at anyone specifically. Just in general even though I used this quote.

    Yeah. EA has always had a thing for "ribbing" their detractors in game like that. Go back to NHL 2001 and the huge uproar in the NHL community that the game was in such a poor state after the great NHL '98, 99 and 2000.

    NHL 2002 comes out and they put the song "Brand New Low" by the Treble Chargers as the main menu theme. Check out some of the lyrics:

    "Guilty as charged, I've been convicted and tried
    Was it too much to ask for you to take my side?
    'Cause there's nothing here to defend
    When it's always me that you blame in the end

    'Cause in my mind
    It's the perfect crime
    And there's no excuse at all
    Then I realize
    Surprise, you were right all along

    And I want to know
    Have I gone too far?
    Have I sunk to a brand new low?
    And I want to know
    If I've gone too far
    'Cause I've lost all my self control
    "

    Cheeky. :p

    lol - it's incredibly doubtful that's the reason this song was in the game. It was a pop hit in Canada at the time.
  • Sinbin
    1331 posts Member
    Sinbin wrote: »

    The devs even went as far as adding an emote when you score a goal. And it goes like this, or close to it:

    "No tilt, all skill baby".

    Wouldn't that be a blatant admission right there? No? Still not convinced? What's that? They used to have hot and cold streaks in the game 17 years ago? There used to be momentum meters 8 years ago? Ah, well there you have it. If it was there 17 years ago, then you can bet your first born it is in there again today, but we can't see it. The devs are liars and shady, just like the company they work for..... Gimme a break.

    BTW not aiming this at anyone specifically. Just in general even though I used this quote.

    It says "Gonna cry ice tilt now, bud?"

    I hardly see how that confirms it's real. I believe it's EA's way of ribbing the people that blame tilt instead of their own lack of skill. I know people also believe it's in because the commentators say it. It's a common hockey term. If it's in the game... right?

    That is exactly what I said though.

    I know. I was just saying in general for the people that believe it confirms it.
  • 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.

    Interesting that you decided to kind of just ignore and sidestep everything I posted, talk about World of Tanks (?), and then glaze over it with "I dunno what else you need to hear". Sounds like you already made up your mind without looking at any evidence to the contrary. I hope you aren't on my jury if I am ever framed for murder...
  • VegasJay77 wrote: »
    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.

    Interesting that you decided to kind of just ignore and sidestep everything I posted, talk about World of Tanks (?), and then glaze over it with "I dunno what else you need to hear". Sounds like you already made up your mind without looking at any evidence to the contrary. I hope you aren't on my jury if I am ever framed for murder...

    I indeed made up my mind, just as you have. Why? Devs have stated numerous times that it simply isn't coded into the game. Interestingly enough, you sidestep that fact to chase whichever idea suits you best.

    Hope you aren't a jury if ever these devs get framed for murder.

    Cheers.
  • VeNOM2099
    3172 posts Member
    edited November 2018
    VeNOM2099 wrote: »
    The devs even went as far as adding an emote when you score a goal. And it goes like this, or close to it:

    "No tilt, all skill baby".

    Wouldn't that be a blatant admission right there? No? Still not convinced? What's that? They used to have hot and cold streaks in the game 17 years ago? There used to be momentum meters 8 years ago? Ah, well there you have it. If it was there 17 years ago, then you can bet your first born it is in there again today, but we can't see it. The devs are liars and shady, just like the company they work for..... Gimme a break.

    BTW not aiming this at anyone specifically. Just in general even though I used this quote.

    Yeah. EA has always had a thing for "ribbing" their detractors in game like that. Go back to NHL 2001 and the huge uproar in the NHL community that the game was in such a poor state after the great NHL '98, 99 and 2000.

    NHL 2002 comes out and they put the song "Brand New Low" by the Treble Chargers as the main menu theme. Check out some of the lyrics:

    "Guilty as charged, I've been convicted and tried
    Was it too much to ask for you to take my side?
    'Cause there's nothing here to defend
    When it's always me that you blame in the end

    'Cause in my mind
    It's the perfect crime
    And there's no excuse at all
    Then I realize
    Surprise, you were right all along

    And I want to know
    Have I gone too far?
    Have I sunk to a brand new low?
    And I want to know
    If I've gone too far
    'Cause I've lost all my self control
    "

    Cheeky. :p

    lol - it's incredibly doubtful that's the reason this song was in the game. It was a pop hit in Canada at the time.

    Yeah. I mean, EA never confirmed or denied it either. But it was rather convenient how THIS particular song was picked at the time right after the community had had an open CHAT with the developers at the... I think it was the Thunderpuck forums at the time? After the chat, the sentiment in the community was that EA Devs basically thought we just wanted to blast them for no reason. When what we wanted to do is to convey to EA our concerns about the game and try to get them to improve it.

    But everyone on the forums picked up on the hidden "meaning" behind that theme song. If that was EA's intention, I thought (and still think) it was pretty clever.
  • PS.

    Also, I believe at the time that NHL was being developed by EA in the US. IIRC, the NHL series was handed over to EA Vancouver in or around NHL 06-07... NHL 07 on Consoles was EA Vancouver, while on PC it was EA Montreal that handled it.

    NHL 2004 was handled in house by Black Box I remember as well.
  • HockeyCityUSA
    500 posts Member
    edited November 2018
    VegasJay77 wrote: »
    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.

    Interesting that you decided to kind of just ignore and sidestep everything I posted, talk about World of Tanks (?), and then glaze over it with "I dunno what else you need to hear". Sounds like you already made up your mind without looking at any evidence to the contrary. I hope you aren't on my jury if I am ever framed for murder...

    I'm glad you just brought up a trial as your analogy. Doesn't this whole debate fall under "without reasonable doubt"?

    Copy past from wiki....

    Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not involve proof to an absolute certainty. It is not proof beyond any doubt, nor is it an imaginary or frivolous doubt. More is required than proof that the accused is probably guilty.


    I post this not because people on these forums don't know what it is, but to look at the last sentence I quoted. This is what many of us are trying to say. Yes, you are correct, evidence is being provided, but is it really that sufficient? Many are saying, "Hey, there's a patent!" So EA must have already put this in the game. All this means is they are planning to do something with one of there games. Whether that is on console, computer, or mobile, that's all we know.
    Post edited by HockeyCityUSA on
  • Sinbin wrote: »
    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?

    What exactly would DDA be then? I've heard everything. Pre-determined games, scripted games, the game allowing pucks to clip through goalies, etc. The theory is that the weaker team wins so they will spend more on HUT packs or not quit playing, right? To me that means the game needs to read the mind of the players and determine if they are going to quit playing or not buy HUT packs to decide if it needs to unfairly tilt the game in their favor. Sounds pretty absurd, right? So does DDA, ice tilt, magical voodoo that forces the "worse" team to win. If this were true it would mean you had little to no say in your wins and the computer chose you to win them. So, why not put your controller down the next time you start a game and see how well that goes for you. If you lose enough, the DDA should kick in and force you to win, right?

    It has now become obvious that you don't understand what's being talked about here. It's also clear you did not read my post on the last page.

    You are saying that people on here believe there are "mystical forces" that are at play with the game. I asked you to provide a link to those who have called them "mystical forces", which you have yet to do, and I also posted direct paragraphs from the DDA Patent, which you also have ignored. The Patent that I have linked in my above post outlines EXACTLY what DDA does and how it does it. There is no need to inject mysticism, voodoo, or any other weird magical practice. You are actively choosing to ignore the patent and fail to read it, even though it is right in front of you and tells you EXACTLY how it accomplishes everything you call "voodoo".

    So when you ask, "What would DDA be then?", well.. why don't you just read the patent, and it will tell you, in fine detail, exactly what it would be. Until you do that, attaching condescending words or making scarecrow arguments to sidestep what is right in front of you wont make it disappear.
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!