Study of EA Predetermined Wins & Losses

[Graphik]

Quote: Originally Posted by 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.

A roll of the dice, exactly. That "extra" something is exactly what we're talking about.

Put it like this, once I first realized Madden and NCAA had cheat cards you could unlock and use at your own will, it only made sense for the cpu to use the exact same variables/cheat cards in any given situation. So when you get those plays where the RB cant be tackled, pummeling through your highest rated LBs or the AI QB going 6-6 on a TD drive, even when you picked your best pass defenses or your backs catching fumble-itis at the much crucial times, those cheat cards are at work. Only thing is, you would never know because its not something thats announced.

My reasoning is, if it was programmed in the game in the first place, then its apart of the games code and there is nothing stopping the cpu from using these so called cheats or attribute boosts. Think about it.

[mercalnd]

Quote: Originally Posted by rudyjuly2

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.

We're kind of in agreement here. My point was that it's not really cheating as in the CPU gets a pre-determined boost. I thought I had said that clearly in a previous post. But you have to understand a few things. I know I've mentionned the need for a certain randomness to account for good days and bad days but true randomness cannot be produced in programming. It can only simulated.

When you want to generate random values you have to provide a seed (a numeric value) from which the calculations start. The same seed will always produce the same series of "random" values so it's not truly random. Similarly, when you code something that deals with probability, you have to tweak it somewhat to simulate true probabilities because the calculations with the same values will always yield the same results so if you were to program player A to have the edge over player B with a probability of 70% then player A would win 70% of the time in every game. Without playing with the seeds of the random portions of the probability calculations, you'd NEVER get a weaker team having the edge over a stronger team over the course of an entire game. In any big upset, if you were to perform a statistical analysis of every matchup over the course of the game, you'd find that the %'s are pretty far from what should have been expected. Any programming involving randomness/probabilities is very tricky if you want ot keep a certain balance. That's somewhat oversimplified but it should give you a better idea of what I meant.

I do not believe that they programmed "cheat" logic to give the CPU an edge in certain games. It's all in the way the probabilities/random variations work out. That's where I think they could have tightened it up a bit to prevent the games where people think the CPU is flat out cheating.

[rudyjuly2]

Quote: Originally Posted by spectralfan

I do not believe that they programmed "cheat" logic to give the CPU an edge in certain games. It's all in the way the probabilities/random variations work out. That's where I think they could have tightened it up a bit to prevent the games where people think the CPU is flat out cheating.

Yeah I think we are in agreement on most things. You are also correct in that a true random number can never truly be random. The random number could be very simple and repeat itself often depending on the generator used, who knows. That might lend itself to the feeling of being preprogrammed.

All I know is that I don't think they program a blatant cheat and neither do you although there are many out there like Graphik that do. I think most people that feel there is a cheat out there are people that get ticked off when the CPU comes from behind and beats them. My number 1 ranked game is a game I lost when the CPU tied the game on a last play 68 yard TD hail mary - catch and break two tackles to get in the end zone. I then fumbled in OT to have them return it for a TD. Man I was angry.

But these things do happen in real life. Look at the Iowa bowl game last year. Look at the Notre Dame USC game with the long pass on 4th and 9 to set up the winning TD. Texas's comeback alone against USC was great. If any user was on the losing end of these games if they occured in a video game, most would scream a CPU CHEAT and never accept it as a simple random occurence. I just don't know how Graphik can say its a fact there is cheating.

[gooberstabone]

Quote: Originally Posted by Graphik

A roll of the dice, exactly. That "extra" something is exactly what we're talking about. Put it like this, once I first realized Madden and NCAA had cheat cards you could unlock and use at your own will, it only made sense for the cpu to use the exact same variables/cheat cards in any given situation. So when you get those plays where the RB cant be tackled, pummeling through your highest rated LBs or the AI QB going 6-6 on a TD drive, even when you picked your best pass defenses or your backs catching fumble-itis at the much crucial times, those cheat cards are at work. Only thing is, you would never know because its not something thats announced. My reasoning is, if it was programmed in the game in the first place, then its apart of the games code and there is nothing stopping the cpu from using these so called cheats or attribute boosts. Think about it.

I hear ya. Not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing though, lol.

What you seem to be describing is bona-fide cheat logic.

Let's say, hypothetically, that a LB with a 95 tackle rating has a 80% chance of tackling a RB with a 55 breaktackle rating. That means that although each match-up is unique, each time the linebacker should have a GREATER chance of making the play.

What's at issue hear is whether or not those behind-the-scenes "Madden Cards" are being used by the CPU unbeknownst to me so that when I confidently stick that RB with my 95 tackle rated LB that 80% suddenly drops to 20%!

It should be 80% chance all game long, barring fatigue or injury... If it changes arbitrarily, then THAT'S the something "extra".

[dagger55]

Quote: Originally Posted by gschwendt

Again, I understand a player or two being off in a particular game, but an entire team (and Im talking a football team) having an off day is a little unlikely.

See: 2006 Capital One Bowl

[woodjer]

Quote: Originally Posted by rudyjuly2

All I know is that I don't think they program a blatant cheat and neither do you although there are many out there like Graphik that do. I think most people that feel there is a cheat out there are people that get ticked off when the CPU comes from behind and beats them. My number 1 ranked game is a game I lost when the CPU tied the game on a last play 68 yard TD hail mary - catch and break two tackles to get in the end zone. I then fumbled in OT to have them return it for a TD. Man I was angry. But these things do happen in real life. Look at the Iowa bowl game last year. Look at the Notre Dame USC game with the long pass on 4th and 9 to set up the winning TD. Texas's comeback alone against USC was great. If any user was on the losing end of these games if they occured in a video game, most would scream a CPU CHEAT and never accept it as a simple random occurence. I just don't know how Graphik can say its a fact there is cheating.

Not that I want to get into the technical details of random numbers and stuff but I have to say that your use of real-life examples of comebacks is somewhat flawed. Yes, they were comeback wins, and yes, some people might scream cheat if it were to happen in a video game. Heck, I might do that too even though I'd eventually sit back and be glad that I just played a great game.

The issue that I have with your examples is that those were great games the entire way through. My issue lies in the games where I go into halftime up 30-40 points and end up sweating out a victory, at best.

Here's an example: I played a game the other day--ND (me) vs. Stanford, 5 min quarters. I was scoring pretty easily in the first half and went in something like 34-0. I take the first half kickoff and on the first play, Quinn gets sacked and coughs it up. Two plays later, they score. I take the kickoff that followed and have an almost exact repeat except their DT wins a footrace with Walker to get into the endzone off the fumble. I take the next kickoff and drive to mid-field before Quinn gets picked off. They drive down the field running it up the middle. I even switched to a 5-2 and tried to clog the middle. They were still able to pick up 8-10 yds every down (still running up the middle). So after three quarters, it's 34-21. They couldn't move the ball at all in the first half, I couldn't really be stopped, and they put up 31 points in the second half to my 3. I was the home team and kept my starters in the entire time. Now tell me that there's no way that could have been cheat logic.

I don't have a problem with losing on the last play of the game--if it's been a consistently close game. But when a lesser team explodes in the 2nd half to make it a close game, that's a different story. I'm not saying it's impossible for a team to make a big comeback but when it happens fairly consistently, that's not right. Heck, if I go up by any more than 20 points, I practically know that the game will end up pretty close no matter what I call.

Just my two cents...and back to the subject matter, Clay is right. Unless you can guarantee that everything will be the same each time, you won't be able to compare things in a balanced way.

[Fluffhead]

I have to chime in here as it's the primary reason I took 2006 back to the store. I know crazy things happen all the time in CFB and I can totally accept that and welcome that. I'm a guy who loves building up a crappy team, with multiple no bowl bid seasons, and building them into something special. My problem with the game was the way it handled whether you won or loss, or even made it close. It's mega flawed.

I started out my season with Ball St, bottom of the barrel on AA. First game against Iowa at Iowa, a top 10 team at the time. No matter what kind of luck Ball St. could muster, it should be a whopping (real life 56-0 game). Yet, miraculously I found myself up halfway through the 4th quarter! Why? Iowa played outrageously dumb on offense and I was somehow averaging 6 yards per carry against their awesome D along with over 200 yards passing. We're talking 20 rating point overall per player differences for most positions. Eventually Iowa hit a couple of miracle bombs at the end and won by 3.

Next week, Bowling Green at Ball St, a game I was super confident for given my last weeks performance. I lost 56-10. Could not run, got sacked 7 times, and gave up over 400 yards passing, mostly on double teamed WRs as I got burnt a few times initially and played it "safe" later. Didn't matter. BG just threw the ball up over and over for touchdown after touchdown. I could do nothing on O. Odd I thought, Iowa has a MUCH better D and I moved the chains all day.

Next week, top 15 Auburn at Auburn (real life 63-3). Pretty much a repeat of Iowa, I did what I wanted, Auburn competed and barely stole it away at the end, won 37-30 I believe. Wow, Ball St. can really play with the big boys away from home!

I think whoever is reading gets the point. There is something built into the system that is not subtle at all. Some call it random greatness, I call it lame. My games defied logic and as a veteran of the series, I can only attribute this to programming of the game. I haven't done any tests more than just playing games like this, but I think there's probably at least 3 different scenarios that are set up for each game: play down to competition and make it close, play to your abilities, or play out of your mind. Again, I know this happens in real life, but it's totally random (in a bad way) and far too extreme to be realistic.

[Dauminator]

I think the major beef is not that it happens. We all agree that it does happen. I understand with some of the examples where the game has gone extreme. Extreme in that it is too random and extreme in that when it does happen, the "altered performance" is overdone. An Auburn may be able to gaffe against Wisconsin, but they shouldn't see multiple of those games in a year, along with multiple games where they're unrealistically dominating. They should play to their level in the majority of games, leaving them to be decided by either an inherent ratings advantage or the execution of the players on certain key plays.