DDA is real

I now know, no doubt in my mind, DDA is a real thing in this game/some very close form of it. I just played this guy, and all in the same drive, 97 WILL Ken Houston dropped 2 picks, one of which he had uni activated, also has LA, and the user card also dropped one (no LA but right into his hands) 

Those who thinks it isn’t a thing, what do you say to this?

I don't what to call it? The game is way too inconsistent. Defense is all over the place, there's too much glitchy animations like speed boosting, line lagging out and not blocking the user, etc. this game needs so much work, it's unplayable sometimes and it makes it worse when you have to empty your bank just to have some kind of ability to compete in games.

Look up the difference between RNG and DDA. DDA is not in online gameplay. It’s been proven in court.

droblunts313 said:

Look up the difference between RNG and DDA. DDA is not in online gameplay. It’s been proven in court.

There are things I will completely ignore when you say them. This is not one, because it's 100% untrue.

There was never any court judgment.

Prove me wrong. End of story.

phatalerror said:

There are things I will completely ignore when you say them. This is not one, because it's 100% untrue.

There was never any court judgment.

Prove me wrong. End of story.

That is correct there never was a court judgement, the case was dropped before going to court.

• EA provided plaintiffs with detailed technical information + direct access to engineers. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case in early 2021 after verification.
• EA's public statement (still on their site): "We do not use any scripting or 'Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment' (DDA) or anything similar that would automatically adjust the difficulty of gameplay in FIFA, Madden and NHL Ultimate Team matches." They add: "While EA does own a patent for DDA technology, that technology never was in FIFA, Madden or NHL, and never will be. We would not use DDA technology to give players an advantage or disadvantage in online multiplayer modes in any of our games and we absolutely do not have it in FIFA, Madden or NHL."

BetterThanSam said:

I now know, no doubt in my mind, DDA is a real thing in this game/some very close form of it. I just played this guy, and all in the same drive, 97 WILL Ken Houston dropped 2 picks, one of which he had uni activated, also has LA, and the user card also dropped one (no LA but right into his hands) 

Those who thinks it isn’t a thing, what do you say to this?

you are correct. It's 100% real.

whiplash13 said:

That is correct there never was a court judgement, the case was dropped before going to court.

• EA provided plaintiffs with detailed technical information + direct access to engineers. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case in early 2021 after verification.
• EA's public statement (still on their site): "We do not use any scripting or 'Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment' (DDA) or anything similar that would automatically adjust the difficulty of gameplay in FIFA, Madden and NHL Ultimate Team matches." They add: "While EA does own a patent for DDA technology, that technology never was in FIFA, Madden or NHL, and never will be. We would not use DDA technology to give players an advantage or disadvantage in online multiplayer modes in any of our games and we absolutely do not have it in FIFA, Madden or NHL."

Look at how the game worked this year, and tell me why the folks at EA responsible for the statement you quote have any basis for confidence in their software engineers.

They can't patch the most fundamentally simple bugs without needing months to do so. Some go right through the entire iteration of the current-year Madden.

I'm also not arguing that DDA in the iteration specified in EA's patent is what is at work in Madden. Registration of a patent requires a certain meeting a certain technical complexity meriting protection as an intellectual property. Even so, if you have code that evens out random events as observed with sports umpires (evening out a prior bad call as an analogy for weighting the outcome of a random event as more or less probable on the basis of the outcome of an earlier event), or code that factors in ELO in any situation other than the initial matchmaking, that would constitute the dynamic adjusting of difficulty for both users, even if these outcomes aren't the result of an iteration of EA's patented system of DDA.

The people who most vehemently deny the existence of DDA seem to see the concept as an assault on their belief in their own relative skill in the game. But not to worry: Anyone's proficiency at exploiting the holes in Madden's artificial intelligence is generally sufficient to minimize any potential encroachment of DDA or its variants into the results of a game. In theory, DDA would be more significantly manifest in a game involving a relatively high number of randomly-determined events. If you're exploiting coding logic to send in rushers unblocked, throwing to wide-open receivers in the flats, or using cheat boosting, you're inherently reducing the frequency of randomly-determined outcomes, with the effective result that DDA isn't playing heavily into your results.

TL;DR: The problem here is that "DDA" involves more than what is explicitly described in EA's patented system for Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment. Arguments citing the court case involving DDA serve as a red herring for the actual issue.

phatalerror said:

Look at how the game worked this year, and tell me why the folks at EA responsible for the statement you quote have any basis for confidence in their software engineers.

They can't patch the most fundamentally simple bugs without needing months to do so. Some go right through the entire iteration of the current-year Madden.

I'm also not arguing that DDA in the iteration specified in EA's patent is what is at work in Madden. Registration of a patent requires a certain meeting a certain technical complexity meriting protection as an intellectual property. Even so, if you have code that evens out random events as observed with sports umpires (evening out a prior bad call as an analogy for weighting the outcome of a random event as more or less probable on the basis of the outcome of an earlier event), or code that factors in ELO in any situation other than the initial matchmaking, that would constitute the dynamic adjusting of difficulty for both users, even if these outcomes aren't the result of an iteration of EA's patented system of DDA.

The people who most vehemently deny the existence of DDA seem to see the concept as an assault on their belief in their own relative skill in the game. But not to worry: Anyone's proficiency at exploiting the holes in Madden's artificial intelligence is generally sufficient to minimize any potential encroachment of DDA or its variants into the results of a game. In theory, DDA would be more significantly manifest in a game involving a relatively high number of randomly-determined events. If you're exploiting coding logic to send in rushers unblocked, throwing to wide-open receivers in the flats, or using cheat boosting, you're inherently reducing the frequency of randomly-determined outcomes, with the effective result that DDA isn't playing heavily into your results.

TL;DR: The problem here is that "DDA" involves more than what is explicitly described in EA's patented system for Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment. Arguments citing the court case involving DDA serve as a red herring for the actual issue.

The evidence for it tho is largely anecdotal. It’s a pretty strong claim and I don’t think wanting real evidence of it is crazy

elmango30 said:

The evidence for it tho is largely anecdotal. It’s a pretty strong claim and I don’t think wanting real evidence of it is crazy

Anecdotal is all you have when the coding is indecipherable.

Tort law doesn’t work the way most people imagine. The viability of a civil lawsuit seeking monetary compensation hinges on the potential for recovering damages versus the cost of proving intent or negligence of the defendant as being primary factors resulting in injury. The most likely reason why the lawsuit was dropped was that the plaintiffs lacked a computer sciences forensics resource sufficient to decode Madden, and the good-faith efforts of Madden’s engineering team to explain their understanding of the code didn’t make continuing the legal battle financially tenable for the plaintiffs and/or their lawyers.

droblunts313 said:

Look up the difference between RNG and DDA. DDA is not in online gameplay. It’s been proven in court.

You have some really good posts and insight on this forum, but when it comes to DDA, for some reason your always the biggest defender it doesnt exist

DDA is basically RNG tilted towards your opponent

So if RNG exists, DDA exists

phatalerror said:

Anecdotal is all you have when the coding is indecipherable.

Tort law doesn’t work the way most people imagine. The viability of a civil lawsuit seeking monetary compensation hinges on the potential for recovering damages versus the cost of proving intent or negligence of the defendant as being primary factors resulting in injury. The most likely reason why the lawsuit was dropped was that the plaintiffs lacked a computer sciences forensics resource sufficient to decode Madden, and the good-faith efforts of Madden’s engineering team to explain their understanding of the code didn’t make continuing the legal battle financially tenable for the plaintiffs and/or their lawyers.

I mean even tracking dropped picks in comparison to the current score would be more evidence than “I dropped a pick this drive, it’s because of DDA”. Next time I break the yolk making eggs over medium can I blame DDA?

jimshredder said:

You have some really good posts and insight on this forum, but when it comes to DDA, for some reason your always the biggest defender it doesnt exist

DDA is basically RNG tilted towards your opponent

So if RNG exists, DDA exists

RNG and DDA are very different. It’s crazy how many people on here don’t know that. I’m not trying to sound like an a hole but look up the definition of both.

elmango30 said:

I mean even tracking dropped picks in comparison to the current score would be more evidence than “I dropped a pick this drive, it’s because of DDA”. Next time I break the yolk making eggs over medium can I blame DDA?

You would need a tremendous amount of data within its context, of course. There's no publicly-accessible system allowing us to scrutinize this, nor any way of objectively accumulating this data from our own experiences.

The fact that randomness is expected does make evaluation more complex.

All I'm saying is that any argument that 'this was proven in court' is rubbish. It is both technically and practically false.

droblunts313 said:

RNG and DDA are very different. It’s crazy how many people on here don’t know that. I’m not trying to sound like an a hole but look up the definition of both.

I have looked it up

While DDA can boost fixed ratings such as speed, it can also boost not fixed RNG ratings to occur more often then they should

One element of DDA is targeted RNG

If you have a Dlineman with 0 abilities going  against a secure protector/All Day Olineman, the chance of them shedding  vs blocked is not fixed - not 0% or 100% - its somewhere in the middle, hence RNG - its random each play - and has a small change of happening

I would think a non ability DLineman would shed a secure protector/all day Olienman maybe 5% of the time

However DDA can make this DLineman with no abilities shed about 50% or more of the time (its probability increases)- but its still RNG based - not 100% certain

.

Almost all abilities in madden and now RNG based - occuring a random probability - however DDA can make this probability occur more often for your opponent and less for you

.

Look at playing against All Madden difficulty vs Rookie as a prime example of how the same OVR player ratings produce higher RNG outcomes - that is shifting the favor to your opponent on All Madden