The CPU decides the game....

[Yankees2009Champs]

Re: The CPU decides the game....

This actually happens nearly every game. For me at least.

Phantom baseballs

That's originally why I gave up on 2K and got a PS3 just to play a great baseball game. I have video of 2K where the CPU was on all-star level I believe. The pitch was well outside but somehow the CPU made contact. I was like no way, go to replay and somehow he swung over and still made contact.

I've never seen that or a ball go through a bat in the Show and thank God.

[bcruise]

Re: The CPU decides the game....

Look....some guys are going to shoehorn what they want/need/think they see into some sort of forced game logic.
The fact remains.....it's just not the case.
If we really want to put this to bed....how about a little experiment?
For you guys who "know" what the outcome is going to be(you would have to know if you say the CPU is making a certain outcome....it has to be the one you're sure of right?)
Get to a game that you are positive of the outcome.
Save the franchise file and post it here.
Let us play out the game and post the results.
They should all be as you predict, correct?
Anytime you guys are ready.

M.K.
Knight165

I've seen you mention this before, and no one's ever taken you up on it. It sounds interesting, and I'd be willing to help if someone sent said file (and we can actually do that now that saves aren't copy locked, right?)

[Heroesandvillains]

Re: The CPU decides the game....

I've seen you mention this before, and no one's ever taken you up on it. It sounds interesting, and I'd be willing to help if someone sent said file (and we can actually do that now that saves aren't copy locked, right?)

Exactly.

The file has to come from a person that truly believes this stuff, with a detailed description as to what they believe is going to happen.

I don't see how any harm could come from it. Either their issue is proven, and SCEA is made aware of this logic, or their CPU pre-determined theories are completely blown out of the water.

I'll help test this. It's a win-win as I see it.

[mike22]

Re: The CPU decides the game....

Okay....so instead of programming you to actually MISS the ball....instead they just have the ball go through the bat.
They can change anything they want to about the at bat and you'd never know, but they chose to "program in" something easily seen instead.
Makes perfect sense.

M.K.
Knight165

Explain why it's visible then without the there's clipping in replays excuse. I honestly don't even understand what your point is in the above post.

[Knight165]

Re: The CPU decides the game....

Explain why it's visible then without the there's clipping in replays excuse. I honestly don't even understand what your point is in the above post.

Okay....first....I have no idea what you are trying to say. Your first sentence is gibberish.

My point is however, that if SCEA was going to program in something to "make you miss".....WHY THE HECK WOULD IT BE THE BALL GOING THROUGH THE BAT!?
You as the user have no idea of the height of your swing during the at bat. Why wouldn't they just have you swing above or below the pitch?...You would never know. You would just have swung high or low and missed.
It's asinine to think that if they were going to program in any shenanigans .....it would be the ball going through the bat....and something that's clearly visible on replay.
It's simply the replay and compressions on that particular type of replay for whatever reason. Nothing sinister.
No offense, but seriously....use your heads. What is being suggested just makes little to no sense.


Edit...okay....I've deciphered your first sentence:
You meant to type.... Explain why it's visible then,without the "there's clipping in replays" excuse.
So....you would like me to explain the reason, but not be able to introduce the reason?
Brilliant.


M.K.
Knight165

[mike22]

Re: The CPU decides the game....

Okay....first....I have no idea what you are trying to say. Your first sentence is gibberish.

My point is however, that if SCEA was going to program in something to "make you miss".....WHY THE HECK WOULD IT BE THE BALL GOING THROUGH THE BAT!?
You as the user have no idea of the height of your swing during the at bat. Why wouldn't they just have you swing above or below the pitch?...You would never know. You would just have swung high or low and missed.
It's asinine to think that if they were going to program in any shenanigans .....it would be the ball going through the bat....and something that's clearly visible on replay.
It's simply the replay and compressions on that particular type of replay for whatever reason. Nothing sinister.
No offense, but seriously....use your heads. What is being suggested just makes little to no sense.


Edit...okay....I've deciphered your first sentence:
You meant to type.... Explain why it's visible then,without the "there's clipping in replays" excuse.
So....you would like me to explain the reason, but not be able to introduce the reason?
Brilliant.


M.K.
Knight165

You actually think that I think they programmed the clipping into the game ? Come on, gimme a little bit of credit. That's never intentionally put into any game as far as I know. I'm just saying it should try to be handled differently, like what you said, ( when a perfectly timed swing misses ) have the bat go under or over the ball instead of through it.

My first sentence isn't gibberish. Here, I'll rewrite it for you..


Explain why it's visible then without the " there's clipping in replays " excuse.

[Knight165]

Re: The CPU decides the game....

You actually think that I think they programmed the clipping into the game ? Come on, gimme a little bit of credit. That's never intentionally put into any game as far as I know. I'm just saying it should try to be handled differently, like what you said, ( when a perfectly timed swing misses ) have the bat go under or over the ball instead of through it.

My first sentence isn't gibberish. Here, I'll rewrite it for you..


Explain why it's visible then without the " there's clipping in replays " excuse.

Mike;
The ball already does go under/over the bat. It's just in the replay that it gets out of whack.

....and I had already rewritten your sentence. I'm sorry, but in your original post, without punctuation, it was difficult to figure what you were saying.

M.K.
Knight165

[mike22]

Re: The CPU decides the game....

Mike;
The ball already does go under/over the bat. It's just in the replay that it gets out of whack.

....and I had already rewritten your sentence. I'm sorry, but in your original post, without punctuation, it was difficult to figure what you were saying.

M.K.
Knight165

Hey, Knight, honestly, I've never seen what the other guy mentioned ( ball clipping through the bat in replay ) and I've looked for it the past few games. How the game handles stats and renders it into graphical animation is top notch in my opinion.

[aktransplant007]

Re: The CPU decides the game....

Look....some guys are going to shoehorn what they want/need/think they see into some sort of forced game logic.
The fact remains.....it's just not the case.
If we really want to put this to bed....how about a little experiment?
For you guys who "know" what the outcome is going to be(you would have to know if you say the CPU is making a certain outcome....it has to be the one you're sure of right?)
Get to a game that you are positive of the outcome.
Save the franchise file and post it here.
Let us play out the game and post the results.
They should all be as you predict, correct?
Anytime you guys are ready.

M.K.
Knight165

I never stated, nor do I believe I have seen anyone state directly they know something specific is going to happen in any game at any time. I said I felt the likelihood (or better term would be probability) of winning is low in certain games, especially ones that are in the middle of a considerable win streak.

So you are not even going to ask the difficulty or slider settings that someone utilizes as part of this test?! Would you change settings/sliders or anything before playing..for example, what if I played on the most difficult level that game has to offer and someone 'tests' this one game..they would either change the settings to play or have a low probability of winning (assuming they are not able to play at a level above AS and win more than ~50% of their games). So then they most likely lose and that proves what exactly?! Or they adjust settings and that changes this 'test', as that would no longer be a controlled part of a test. I assume most people have their own settings from the many to choose from.

The above is all pretty much rhetorical, as a 1 game test, even by multiple people does not prove or show anything to what I have stated or believe; especially considering I most likely play on a different difficulty and slider level than most people. If I get into another considerable win streak and get to a game that feels like a low probability of winning, I will send, but don't think it would prove anything.

A true test would be anyone who has played into a Franchise (as this is my experience, observations, etc. that have been stated) and played 1 season; they would use their winning percentage to determine how many games would be replayed; more on this in a moment. Can I at least assume you agree that sliders and difficulty level can change the outcome of a game for an individual, due to their ability? Another way of stating this is a low probability or high probability of winning, depending on the difficulty/slider levels (if someone plays on AS and wins ~50% of their games, Rookie would be easier and most likely a win or higher probability of a win and Legend would be difficult or low probability of winning).

162 games is not going to happen and has about a 0 probability of anyone who would do this, but even an 81 game sample would be sufficient (again, I don't see anyone willing to take the time). More likely, would be at least a 30 game test, and this possibly would not give the best results (i.e., varience most importantly if multiple people attempt and don't honestly believe ~20% of data or games would truely show a pattern) and surely would not have as many volunteers to even make this happen.

Anyway, for anyone who has gone at least 30 games into Franchise, take your winning % and restart a Franchise with same settings, team, everything. The point is to play to an undefeated record. If each game is it's own and absolutely no logic is transfered within the CPU, this should be no problem to achieve, for anyone. You also have the experience of what not to do to win. If you win 2 of every 3 games, the first 30 games you play, you should win 20 first time around, no problem. The 10 you would lose, you just replay and you should win at least 6 on the second time around. Then you have 4 to replay, so on as this would be ~45 attempts or games to have a 30-0 record. If you win ~50% or have ~0.500 record, it should not take you more than ~60 tries to have a 30-0 record. No simulating, as even when I did this in games I replayed through the first few innings, I believe I won 1 or 2 of them. Once the first pitch is done, that's 1 attempt. If you don't think you'll win, even by the 3rd inning, just quit and reload your Franchise. At any point you lose, just replay the game and that's another attempt.

I do not have the quote, but believe you (Knight), stated that cold/hot hit streaks can be determined and the logic run through multiple games in a Season/Franchise (please correct me if I read it incorrectly and I apologize). If correct, does this include Pitching cold/hot streaks too? For batters, a cold streak is a low percentage of hits and a hot streak is a higher %. That can also be said that it is low probability / high probability of getting hits. That is a control on the game and through multiple games, if any of the above is true. If you have your starting lineup hitting well over 0.300 for the first ~10 games (or even more), the probability of getting hits decreases in games later to adjust accordingly to ratings. Or can/do individuals have 8-9 players hitting over 0.300 the entire season? This assumes you don't adjust ratings for every player to maximum, otherwise the example would be 0.400 or you get the idea that it is a higher percentage than the rating allows. If you have a P that starts a season with ~0.0 ERA and WHIP close to zero, is there a greater probability that he will give up a hit and/or runs? If so, that is a control and also lowers the probability of an individual winning a game. If not, how many people have gone through a season or even simulated a season with #s far outside the ratings or even undefeated records??

Does anyone play with a team where they have a hitter with a high average on power or something reasonably high? if so, did you start a Franchise and hit 10-15 HRs in the first 10-15 games? Do you honestly believe this would continue this average in power and if each game is it's own (w/ no logic or information passed through the CPU) and you could end a season w/ 80 or even 100+ HRs? If that cannot happen, that is a control by the CPU that lowers the probability of scoring a run or runs that way with a player. That logic would continue through a season. If you start a season batting ~0.500 through the first ~20 games, if you can't continue this through the entire season, that's mainly due to the probability of getting a hit then decreases. Again, that is a control.

I seriously doubt the ability to play to an 81-0 record on ~125 attempts/games or less (for someone that wins ~66% of their games through 81). I would have a hard time believing that the programming did not consider probabilities within a BB game algorithims or logic, but if it's true, I stand corrected. I also recently read the Thread regarding players "hitchance"; which is a probability being calculated, so I think that's a reasonable assumption.

Since a season is 162 games, at minimum this 'test' should be no less than 81 games to have an undefeated record, but I don't see anyone willing to attempt this amount of time. If there is no logic between each game or information being passed through the CPU, this really should not be a difficult task for anyone. Once you start overperforming w/ regards to to ratings, the probability of that performance continuing decreases and that is the control I am talking about.

[nomo17k]

Re: The CPU decides the game....

... If you have your starting lineup hitting well over 0.300 for the first ~10 games (or even more), the probability of getting hits decreases in games later to adjust accordingly to ratings. Or can/do individuals have 8-9 players hitting over 0.300 the entire season? This assumes you don't adjust ratings for every player to maximum, otherwise the example would be 0.400 or you get the idea that it is a higher percentage than the rating allows. If you have a P that starts a season with ~0.0 ERA and WHIP close to zero, is there a greater probability that he will give up a hit and/or runs? If so, that is a control and also lowers the probability of an individual winning a game. If not, how many people have gone through a season or even simulated a season with #s far outside the ratings or even undefeated records??

Does anyone play with a team where they have a hitter with a high average on power or something reasonably high? if so, did you start a Franchise and hit 10-15 HRs in the first 10-15 games? Do you honestly believe this would continue this average in power and if each game is it's own (w/ no logic or information passed through the CPU) and you could end a season w/ 80 or even 100+ HRs? If that cannot happen, that is a control by the CPU that lowers the probability of scoring a run or runs that way with a player. That logic would continue through a season. If you start a season batting ~0.500 through the first ~20 games, if you can't continue this through the entire season, that's mainly due to the probability of getting a hit then decreases. Again, that is a control.

One thing that people often misunderstand about probability and "regression to the mean" is that streakiness (say, the chance of being lucky or unlucky for an extended time) can happen even if all the events are independent of each other, that is, what follows has no knowledge of what happened before.

Think about dice roll (6 faces). The average of readings from all events are 3.5. Say the first 5 attempts gave something like 4, 6, 5, 3, 5. The average there is 4.6, a bit higher purely by luck. What does Nature do in the following 5 attempts? Does it know what happened before and tries to adjust so that readings will be lower this time? Of course Nature doesn't care about such a trivial game, so the chance of getting any face will remain 1/6... You may continue to get some higher readings for the following five purely by luck, or you may get lower readings purely by luck (which gives you an impression that Nature is forcing this to regress to the mean). But more likely than not (if you repeat this experiment many times), the average of your next five readings will be around 3.5... It is actually this tendency for the average to remain closer to the true mean *all the time* that makes thing regress to the mean without any knowledge of what previously happened.

Now, things can change if the devs indeed implement some form of artificial cold/hot streaks into the game. Some stats nerd have tried to see if there are truly streaky performances in real life as opposed to randomness disguising as streaky results like my example above. There are statistical tests people can do on things (I think there are sabermetrics articles on the issue).

I didn't mean to condescend but my point is "apparent" streakiness doesn't necessarily mean the devs need to hard code artificial streakiness. Randomness in games is really beautiful thing... when implemented well it can make some funny and interesting things happen. That's why computer games can be fun IMO.

[thaSLAB]

Great point Nomo... I've always said that if everyone around here better understood statistics (which is almost a double-negative, I know), a lot of "issues" with CPU logic would be better accepted.

Ahhhhhh, the joy and complexity of video games!


*logs on to Minitab*



Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[liftheavy]

Re: The CPU decides the game....

I have seen some pretty crazy things on all star and above...
But it is not just for the computer...I believe legend gives
the computer a huge advantage...knock it down to all star and
both the. Cpu and user both have that huge inning where crazy stuff
happen...I scored five runs in top of first one game and gave
up four in the bottom of the inning...didn't matter what I did the Cpu was
ripping me...I was using Randy Johnson in his prime. That is not
where the problem is...the problem was I felt wwas when I was hitting that
I couldn't be stopped no matter who was batting.

I drop it down to vet level with no guess pitch, strike zone, hot zone
or any other aid...I do not see this problem. Game feels pure to me on this level.

I know scea scea had said they tested the game on all levels but to me
all star, hall of fame and legend modes are a lot more "random" than vet level.

[aktransplant007]

Re: The CPU decides the game....

One thing that people often misunderstand about probability and "regression to the mean" is that streakiness (say, the chance of being lucky or unlucky for an extended time) can happen even if all the events are independent of each other, that is, what follows has no knowledge of what happened before.

Think about dice roll (6 faces). The average of readings from all events are 3.5. Say the first 5 attempts gave something like 4, 6, 5, 3, 5. The average there is 4.6, a bit higher purely by luck. What does Nature do in the following 5 attempts? Does it know what happened before and tries to adjust so that readings will be lower this time? Of course Nature doesn't care about such a trivial game, so the chance of getting any face will remain 1/6... You may continue to get some higher readings for the following five purely by luck, or you may get lower readings purely by luck (which gives you an impression that Nature is forcing this to regress to the mean). But more likely than not (if you repeat this experiment many times), the average of your next five readings will be around 3.5... It is actually this tendency for the average to remain closer to the true mean *all the time* that makes thing regress to the mean without any knowledge of what previously happened.

Now, things can change if the devs indeed implement some form of artificial cold/hot streaks into the game. Some stats nerd have tried to see if there are truly streaky performances in real life as opposed to randomness disguising as streaky results like my example above. There are statistical tests people can do on things (I think there are sabermetrics articles on the issue).

I didn't mean to condescend but my point is "apparent" streakiness doesn't necessarily mean the devs need to hard code artificial streakiness. Randomness in games is really beautiful thing... when implemented well it can make some funny and interesting things happen. That's why computer games can be fun IMO.

I definitely agree with you. And would also like to make something clear, even though in my 'huge rambles' (understatement..lol) I don't believe that I clearly stated that I do not believe it is "intentional programming" by any means. Or logic that is forced by the programmers. One fact everyone could agree on, when playing against the CPU, the logic is there to try and win games or become challenging to players, so not every game is won. Also, I would find it hard to believe that everything reported in the 'bug/glitches' section is actually that and can be fixed easily in some way or even recreated.

Whatever it is, could be a simple as not knowing all 'correction factors', if that is included in the programming or even the term is utilized. Or even it's not possible to have 'constant correction factors' at all (if A-B-C-F-G-H-D-E happens, does 'it' change if A-B-C-H-G-D-E-F happens).

One thing I have noticed, is answers can be cryptic or at least short w/o much detail from the programmers (when they make comments/responses) and that could just be the way the question or statement is made or asked. The question should not be "is there intentional coding or forced coding" to create these observations/glitches/patterns, but "is there coding or something that just causes the appearance of 'The CPU decides the game"; and I doubt the programmers would even state this as well. There is quite possibly something not random going on if this 'comment' is made year-in/year-out by multiple and possibly different people and for people who may be their 1st year playing or 4th.

[chrishthomas]

Re: The CPU decides the game....

If you have come across my previous posts in this thread or others, you should be familiar with my stance on this issue. I'll gladly admit that holding a lead in this game can be tricky, and there are some games where it seems like the deck is stacked against me from the start, but overall I feel the game is fair and that the CPU doesn't affect the outcome of the game to an inordinate degree.

But, I just had to come to this thread this morning to vent about my game last night. I had Jake Peavy going for his 8th win in a row (20th of the season), and my team in the middle of a 5 game win streak. Close game all the way, I'm not making good contact often, but when I do it's right at someone. Finally break through in the bottom of the 6th for 2 runs. Jake has kept the Rangers off the board until now, so it's looking like I might eke out the win after all.

Figure I'll let Jake pitch the 7th since he has the shutout going. He gets two quick outs. Takes the next batter to a 2-2 count, and I throw a backdoor slider that is clearly in the zone, and should be strike. Batter takes it, but umpire calls it a ball. Commentators mumble about how it should have been strike three, blah-blah-blah. Then, I let him off the hook with another ball.

Next batter grounds weakly to second, should be out of the inning, but Beckham bobbles the ball, and makes a throw that pulls Konerko off the bag. Sure, could be user error in this case, but certainly came at a convenient time for the CPU. Runners on 1st and 2nd, 2 outs.

In steps Michael Young. Don't know why, but I thought I would trip him up by throwing a slider to open the at bat. Wrong, he was right on it. Hits to just-right of dead center field. But, he got a lot of air under it, and it's gonna be close. Alex Rios manages to get to the wall in time and climbs it...and, what do you know, I make my first homerun saving grab to seal the victory for Peavy. AMAZING!!!!!

But wait, there's more. Although Rios had the ball in his glove, as he comes down, he drops it over the wall for a 3-run homer. And the commentators follow up with, "What the Canseco is going on out there."

Finally tally, Rangers 3 - White Sox 2.

It happens...it sucks...it seems a bit forced..but I can live with it. Stranger things have happened in real life, and for what it's worth, similar things hve happened in real life. If any us were to watch every inning of a 162 game season, we would see situations like this.

However, I can also see where players begin to see patterns like this and feel like the CPU is toying with them, or manipulating outcomes. Because when it comes to video games, many players feel that if they execute the button combinations correctly, then everything should happen perfectly, that we are in complete control of the game, and the these random fluctuations are aberrations, or some code to torment users.

Off the subject...in terms of holding, or more accurately giving up, late inning leads, for me, this game plays more like college baseball than MLB, but I can live with that as well (it adds some drama). For those of you who are college baseball fans, you'll probably understand what I mean.

[jemens]

Re: The CPU decides the game....

I had 2 comebacks issues in my last 2 games. But not AI comebacks, Human Comebacks :-) A walk-off 2 runs blast and previous game I won on a bad throw to first by the AI.

Sometimes we have selective memory and we put more emphasis on those things when it's against us !! IMO We're just experimenting the beauty of baseball