3 ms·

It's supposed to work as follows, from the article: > A popular video titled “TOP 10 SCRIPTING PROOF! EA 100% EXPOSED! FIFA 19” purports to show 10 different c

It's supposed to work as follows, from the article: > A popular video titled “TOP 10 SCRIPTING PROOF! EA 100% EXPOSED! FIFA 19” purports to show 10 different clips demonstrating dynamic difficulty adjustment during gameplay, mostly near-misses, goals that should have gone in but don’t, that sort of thing. A game is just a simulation and the skill of the player doesn't influence every aspect. Any event that is not in complete control can be nudged to benefit the weaker player. For example, a ball that's just in or out.

rhn_mk1 6y ago
The article doesn't state it, but you indicate the game is favoring the weaker player. There's still a missing link: the article makes an assumption that the incentive to boost the weaker player is greater earnings. Otherwise it's hard to get upset about the practice. But how does it translate to increased spending? I would guess that having more matched games would lead to both players having more fun and being more satified with their current skill levels.
- My8thAccount 6y ago
  Yes, its about keeping people playing and not rage quitting. I love halo, but after a few months of playing, I start matching against semi-pros (or koreans at night =P) that are far too good and even though I've been getting better, it reaches a point where it's more stressful than fun.
- Bootvis 6y ago
  > unfairly increase the difficulty of multiplayer mode online matches in order to encourage players to spend real-world money to boost their chances of winning I admit it's a big leap and this technology seems like a good idea to an extend but it doesn't reward getting good at the game as much. As mentioned elsewhere, Elo-type matching is an alternative but does have the disadvantage you never get to beat down on noobs. Some gamers indeed hypothesize that the earning of more money is indeed through better engagement based on artificially balancing games: > "EA Wants to Get Rid of Fair Matchmaking to Focus on Player Spending & Engagement"
- wsc981 6y ago
  The 10 scripting examples video in the article states that to increase your chance of winning the game, you need to have the best players on your team. Apparently there's some online market where players can be bought and sold. The theory is that EA makes players lose, so they feel more incentives to spend money to buy stronger players. I saw the video, but I have to say I am not wholly convinced of their argument. For example 1 of the "scripting examples" show a ball going through a goalkeepers' hands. In my opinion the game could have already decided that the player would shoot inside the goal (partially using RNG) and perhaps the rendering messed up a bit when the goalkeeper was jumping towards the ball. I am not sure if this is solid proof of so-called "scripting". Other examples can't really convince me either.
  - permo-w 6y ago
    http://futfacts.com/2020/06/04/fact-check-does-the-game-create-momentum-swings-around-3-2/ http://futfacts.com/2020/06/04/fact-check-does-the-game-crea... This is somewhat anecdotal, but fairly convincing

rhn_mk1 6y ago

The article doesn't state it, but you indicate the game is favoring the weaker player. There's still a missing link: the article makes an assumption that the incentive to boost the weaker player is greater earnings. Otherwise it's hard to get upset about the practice. But how does it translate to increased spending? I would guess that having more matched games would lead to both players having more fun and being more satified with their current skill levels.

My8thAccount 6y ago
Yes, its about keeping people playing and not rage quitting. I love halo, but after a few months of playing, I start matching against semi-pros (or koreans at night =P) that are far too good and even though I've been getting better, it reaches a point where it's more stressful than fun.
Bootvis 6y ago
> unfairly increase the difficulty of multiplayer mode online matches in order to encourage players to spend real-world money to boost their chances of winning I admit it's a big leap and this technology seems like a good idea to an extend but it doesn't reward getting good at the game as much. As mentioned elsewhere, Elo-type matching is an alternative but does have the disadvantage you never get to beat down on noobs. Some gamers indeed hypothesize that the earning of more money is indeed through better engagement based on artificially balancing games: > "EA Wants to Get Rid of Fair Matchmaking to Focus on Player Spending & Engagement"
wsc981 6y ago
The 10 scripting examples video in the article states that to increase your chance of winning the game, you need to have the best players on your team. Apparently there's some online market where players can be bought and sold. The theory is that EA makes players lose, so they feel more incentives to spend money to buy stronger players. I saw the video, but I have to say I am not wholly convinced of their argument. For example 1 of the "scripting examples" show a ball going through a goalkeepers' hands. In my opinion the game could have already decided that the player would shoot inside the goal (partially using RNG) and perhaps the rendering messed up a bit when the goalkeeper was jumping towards the ball. I am not sure if this is solid proof of so-called "scripting". Other examples can't really convince me either.
- permo-w 6y ago
  http://futfacts.com/2020/06/04/fact-check-does-the-game-create-momentum-swings-around-3-2/ http://futfacts.com/2020/06/04/fact-check-does-the-game-crea... This is somewhat anecdotal, but fairly convincing