Study of EA Predetermined Wins & Losses

[Dauminator]

I'm a Hawkeye first, so when they play head to head I'll be for Iowa.

[Cardot]

Quote: Originally Posted by Dauminator

I agree entirely that difficulty and AI settings were put in so that skill at video games is not a factor in the enjoyment of the game. How this shows that sports games are meant to be mastered, I do not know. Not everyone seeks to dominate and perfect their skills. To me, sports games-all games-are made to be enjoyed as simple entertainment. If mastering the game is how you derive amusement in your gaming, kudos for your accomplishments. I, for one, enjoy the games as a way to pass a little time every once in a while and do things I don't normally get a chance to do, like coach Iowa to a Rose Bowl win.

First of Daum, what is up with that MSU logo? Did you lose a bet or something? Horrible.

Second, I totally agree with you. I specifically try to avoid mastering sports games. I try not to find money plays, glitches and the likes. I am totally content staying at the same level for the duration that I own the game. I make absolutely no effort to improve.

My video game career hit its peak when I knocked out Mike Tyson in Punch Out on the NES. I didn't get any money for that, Chicks still didn't like me and even my friends weren't impressed. Ever since then, my video game career has been in cruise control and I just have fun now.

[gooberstabone]

Quote: Originally Posted by spectralfan

I don't think the games are pre-determined in the sense that the game has decided you will win or lose and will make everything go that way. However, there is undoubtedly a "randomness" programmed in so that teams can have great or mediocre games. Without this, teams would always lay to their ratings and the better team would always win. That's not real. I usually see one game per season where it's evident that one team is having a great game while the other is having just a miserable day and I've been on both ends of it. When this occurs, it makes it that much more noticeable. But every sports games has this to some extent. It happens in real life too.

I think that the only time "randomness" should be programmed is if you have CPU vs. CPU games. If "randomness" wasn't built in the higher rated team would always win.

But there is no need for that when at least one human is involved. That's enough randomness there to produce different outcomes... And if you have Human vs. Human, then there is DEFINITELY no need for built-in randomness because playcalling, joystick-jockeying, nerves, etc. all come in to play and affect the outcome.

So either have the game run on two different engines (one with "randomness" logic built in for CPU vs. CPU games and one without it for when at least one Human is involved) or,

Leave out such built-in logic altogether.

[gschwendt]

Quote: Originally Posted by gooberstabone

I think that the only time "randomness" should be programmed is if you have CPU vs. CPU games. If "randomness" wasn't built in the higher rated team would always win. But there is no need for that when at least one human is involved. That's enough randomness there to produce different outcomes... And if you have Human vs. Human, then there is DEFINITELY no need for built-in randomness because playcalling, joystick-jockeying, nerves, etc. all come in to play and affect the outcome. So either have the game run on two different engines (one with "randomness" logic built in for CPU vs. CPU games and one without it for when at least one Human is involved) or, Leave out such built-in logic altogether.

and the congregation said AMEN!

[mercalnd]

Quote: Originally Posted by gooberstabone

I think that the only time "randomness" should be programmed is if you have CPU vs. CPU games. If "randomness" wasn't built in the higher rated team would always win. But there is no need for that when at least one human is involved. That's enough randomness there to produce different outcomes... And if you have Human vs. Human, then there is DEFINITELY no need for built-in randomness because playcalling, joystick-jockeying, nerves, etc. all come in to play and affect the outcome. So either have the game run on two different engines (one with "randomness" logic built in for CPU vs. CPU games and one without it for when at least one Human is involved) or, Leave out such built-in logic altogether.

So then, your team should never have a bad day? Yes the human introduces some randomness but if you are very consistent in your level of play you'll never have a bad day and lose to a lesser team. Basically, that equates to taking out the "intangibles" completely out and relying solely on the player's skill to determine the outcome. I don't want that. I do agree that it is overdone in the game but it shouldn't be taken out altogether.

[Shaver]

The only way to do a true "test" to see if this existed would be if both teams called the exact same plays in every test game. That factor alone keeps you from having a true apples to apples test. Because the situation won't always be the same, this test could not happen...rendering the test impossible.

Interesting theories though.

[rudyjuly2]

Quote: Originally Posted by spectralfan

So then, your team should never have a bad day? Yes the human introduces some randomness but if you are very consistent in your level of play you'll never have a bad day and lose to a lesser team. Basically, that equates to taking out the "intangibles" completely out and relying solely on the player's skill to determine the outcome. I don't want that. I do agree that it is overdone in the game but it shouldn't be taken out altogether.

I don't think you need randomness to have a bad day. Its already there but I don't think its preprogrammed at the start of the game with a bias. If you run the same play in practice against the same defense in practice, do you think the exact same result will happen every time if you move your controller exactly the same way? Or course not.

That's because the computer does a calculation on every play. If one player is 10% better than the other player, it might break the block 60% of the time and the other 40% lose on the block. There is a constant calculation being done to determine who wins the battle both in the front 7 and with the DBs versus the WRs. I'm sure a random probablity determines the course of action on every play.

Over the course of the game, much like gambling, you could have a good game where you get a higher than expected number of good outcomes or a bad game where for some reason you are on too many losing ends. Maybe the random probabilities even out and you don't see any "cheating". My point is that this randomness is always built in and can result in good or bad games WITHOUT having the computer use a bias in any quarter, half or game (ex. I will give the CPU a 10% bonus on all random probabilities in the 4th quarter). That is how AI is simply created.

To prove it, just go to a practice session and run the same running play against the same defense over and over again and chart the T vs DE assignment and compare it to their ratings. See who wins and loses every 10 plays and see how consistent it is. You can do this with any play and any matchup. It is random but is there a bias to it? I don't think so.

[gooberstabone]

^^agreed. I believe probability is calculated on every play-- in the trenches, whether or not the RB breaks a tackle, etc. IMO, that's enough randomness. I might win, I might lose. Even if I do have a higher rated player/team. My higher rated DE should beat the low rated OT more often than not... The probability is greater for success, but its still a "roll of the dice" each play. To go beyond that and to add something "extra" that's just cheatin' to me.