Confidence needs to be revamped

[Russell_SCEA]

Re: Confidence needs to be revamped

Mike I completely disagree with you, but I must say you are arguing your point 1,000 times more cohesively and logically than anyone else ever really does, and for that I tip my cap to you.

That being said, I don't find the hitting system scripted at all. I think the bigger problem is that people overlook the complexity of baseball, and try to turn pitcher vs. batter into some sort of trading card game or Pokemon battle, when it simply does not work that way. Baseball is a game of many variables. X will not always lead to Y, no matter how much you may wish it to do so.


For starters, just because you swung at the right place, and at the right time, does not mean you actually even squared up on the ball. You still need to have a level swing, and read the pitch properly. Not to mention that "the spot" isn't the same with every pitch. "Squaring Up" on a fastball means hitting it head on, center of gravities parallel. Do that with a curveball, and that's called a groundball to short. While I believe the game accounts for all of this during actual gameplay, the L3 feedback obviously does not (how would it? It would have to dynamically decide where you "should" have swung, and what the most desirable location and result even was), and so while the game might be telling you everything was perfect, rest assured, it probably wasn't.

Winner Winner chicken dinner

[Mike0ne]

Re: Confidence needs to be revamped

Mike I completely disagree with you, but I must say you are arguing your point 1,000 times more cohesively and logically than anyone else ever really does, and for that I tip my cap to you.

That being said, I don't find the hitting system scripted at all. I think the bigger problem is that people overlook the complexity of baseball, and try to turn pitcher vs. batter into some sort of trading card game or Pokemon battle, when it simply does not work that way. Baseball is a game of many variables. X will not always lead to Y, no matter how much you may wish it to do so.


For starters, just because you swung at the right place, and at the right time, does not mean you actually even squared up on the ball. You still need to have a level swing, and read the pitch properly. Not to mention that "the spot" isn't the same with every pitch. "Squaring Up" on a fastball means hitting it head on, center of gravities parallel. Do that with a curveball, and that's called a groundball to short. While I believe the game accounts for all of this during actual gameplay, the L3 feedback obviously does not (how would it? It would have to dynamically decide where you "should" have swung, and what the most desirable location and result even was), and so while the game might be telling you everything was perfect, rest assured, it probably wasn't.

Thanks for the kind words, unfortunately some lose sight of the fact that even when we disagree, we're on the same side. I'm not looking for an admission of fault and an apology, I simply want to game to be improved when I buy it next year, and I have no doubt the developers do as well.

As for your point, I'm not sure how it applies. You're absolutely right about it being so complex that it should feel random at times. If we were talking about 5 at bats, I simply wouldn't have an opinion for that reason. I'm basing this on thousands of at bats, and even accepting all those variables you mentioned, I find there is a strong disparity which correlates to pitcher confidence.

Some other excellent arguments for your position that I've considered:

Great pitchers are more likely to have full confidence bars, and great pitchers are harder to get hits off of.. Weaker pitchers will rarely be in a position to be throwing with full confidence for long enough to notice an issue.

Pitchers who are cruising will have higher energy later into the game, making the speed/break of the pitches themselves better in the 2nd half of the game compared to an average start where a pitcher is tiring.

I'm sure I could think of more.. but what I want to demonstrate is that I don't want to believe I'm right, I don't want an excuse for sucking. I'm simply stating that with a large sample size, I strongly believe that the same pitch, in the same location, and the same swing, will produce a different result depending on the pitchers confidence.

If only we could run a test.. 500 identical pitch/swings with full, and no confidence and see the result. If that proved me wrong, I would eat my mitt.

[Jgainsey]

Re: Confidence needs to be revamped

I'm sure I could think of more.. but what I want to demonstrate is that I don't want to believe I'm right, I don't want an excuse for sucking. I'm simply stating that with a large sample size, I strongly believe that the same pitch, in the same location, and the same swing, will produce a different result depending on the pitchers confidence.

If only we could run a test.. 500 identical pitch/swings with full, and no confidence and see the result. If that proved me wrong, I would eat my mitt.

That's the thing, you don't actually have a sample size, or anything of substance that you can show to help prove your point. You simply have an opinion on what you have decided to be true however long ago. Anyone who follows any of the more advanced baseball statistics knows that there can be a big difference between what you think you're seeing and what the stats actually bear out.

If you've made up your mind on this point, every time you flub a perfect timing/contact swing against a pitcher with high confidence, you're going to chalk it up as more "proof". When in actuality, you're just making assumptions based on feelings and opinions that for all we know, are completely subjective. Especially since you've already convinced yourself that you're right, in some way, shape, or form.

What we DO have, is testimony from developers that completely contradicts what you think to be true. They have code they can point to, and that's more than enough for me.

The vast range of statistics and results in baseball could lead someone to come to almost any conclusion.. about nearly anything concerning the inner workings of this game. We've seen threads like this all year. And as far as I'm concerned, the Devs are still undefeated, so to speak, when it comes to proving points that usually don't need to be proven.

[Mike0ne]

Re: Confidence needs to be revamped

That's the thing, you don't actually have a sample size, or anything of substance that you can show to help prove your point. You simply have an opinion on what you have decided to be true however long ago. Anyone who follows any of the more advanced baseball statistics knows that there can be a big difference between what you think you're seeing and what the stats actually bear out.

If you've made up your mind on this point, every time you flub a perfect timing/contact swing against a pitcher with high confidence, you're going to chalk it up as more "proof". When in actuality, you're just making assumptions based on feelings and opinions that for all we know, are completely subjective. Especially since you've already convinced yourself that you're right, in some way, shape, or form.

What we DO have, is testimony from developers that completely contradicts what you think to be true. They have code they can point to, and that's more than enough for me.

The vast range of statistics and results in baseball could lead someone to come to almost any conclusion.. about nearly anything concerning the inner workings of this game. We've seen threads like this all year. And as far as I'm concerned, the Devs are still undefeated, so to speak, when it comes to proving points that usually don't need to be proven.

Hmm, posts like this are very disappointing. I understand that you want to state your opinion, and you have every right to, but this post is just lazy.

I've addressed confirmation bias, the fallibility of developers, and the issue of proving/disproving.

If your point was that it's easier to agree with the game developers over a random guy that plays the game.. You got it, it sure is..

[Jgainsey]

Re: Confidence needs to be revamped

Hmm, posts like this are very disappointing. I understand that you want to state your opinion, and you have every right to, but this post is just lazy.

I've addressed confirmation bias, the fallibility of developers, and the issue of proving/disproving.

If your point was that it's easier to agree with the game developers over a random guy that plays the game.. You got it, it sure is..

I'm not sure what's so very disappointing...

I wasn't trying to make some profound point. I was just throwing in my two cents, while summing up why I find it difficult to believe you, or even take your argument seriously.

Obviously, the developers are always going to get the nod over random guy. But you're not just a random guy, you're like random guy #1000 who is convinced that the game is flawed in a way in a way it is not. Which is frustrating to see over and over again, given how forthcoming the devs are with us, and how they almost always own up to things that are either broken or need to be addressed.

[Black59Razr]

Re: Confidence needs to be revamped

I'm not sure what's so very disappointing...

I wasn't trying to make some profound point. I was just throwing in my two cents, while summing up why I find it difficult to believe you, or even take your argument seriously.

Obviously, the developers are always going to get the nod over random guy. But you're not just a random guy, you're like random guy #1000 who is convinced that the game is flawed in a way in a way it is not. Which is frustrating to see over and over again, given how forthcoming the devs are with us, and how they almost always own up to things that are either broken or need to be addressed.

Occam's razor states, the most logical explanation is usually the correct one. That school of thought is not as exciting as a good ol' conspiracy theory though. Don't believe the devs; the truth is out there!

[Mike0ne]

Re: Confidence needs to be revamped

I'm not sure what's so very disappointing...

I wasn't trying to make some profound point. I was just throwing in my two cents, while summing up why I find it difficult to believe you, or even take your argument seriously.

Obviously, the developers are always going to get the nod over random guy. But you're not just a random guy, you're like random guy #1000 who is convinced that the game is flawed in a way in a way it is not. Which is frustrating to see over and over again, given how forthcoming the devs are with us, and how they almost always own up to things that are either broken or need to be addressed.

Disappointing was the fact that you were too lazy to read even 10 posts before your reply, then used re-hashed arguments that had already been addressed.

It's the equivalent of standing in a crowd and yelling "yeah!" whenever the the person you favor speaks, and convincing yourself that you're contributing. It's also the kind of post that turns a thoughtful and civil discussion into a typical internet flame war(speaking of frustrating things 1000's of guys do on message boards).

On that note, I feel like I've been heard by the people that matter, and there isn't much left to discuss. I'm sure you've got an aggressively worded retort half written in your head. I'll allow you the last word, and excuse myself from this thread.

Have at it.

[Vashyron.]

Re: Confidence needs to be revamped

There is no such thing as batter confidence in the game.

There is batter confidence to some degree as the batter's hot zones change over the course of the game; get a hit in a cold zone and next time up, that zone is hot. Or make an out in a hot zone, and that zone is blue next AB. I still believe there is in-game confidence. I've played RTTS for 3 straight weeks and it is so much easier to hit late in the game if you have a multi-hit game going than it is if you have an 0-for.

Also, since confidence literally does almost nothing but increase/decrease pitcher control, then why can't we have an option to disable it?

[Knight165]

Re: Confidence needs to be revamped

Disappointing was the fact that you were too lazy to read even 10 posts before your reply, then used re-hashed arguments that had already been addressed.

It's the equivalent of standing in a crowd and yelling "yeah!" whenever the the person you favor speaks, and convincing yourself that you're contributing. It's also the kind of post that turns a thoughtful and civil discussion into a typical internet flame war(speaking of frustrating things 1000's of guys do on message boards).

On that note, I feel like I've been heard by the people that matter, and there isn't much left to discuss. I'm sure you've got an aggressively worded retort half written in your head. I'll allow you the last word, and excuse myself from this thread.

Have at it.

Wait...
Because YOU made a reply about certain things being discussed in this topic, nobody else was allowed to touch on them...ever again!?
Bring yourself down a notch cowboy.

Your arguments are not as valid to others as they are to yourself. Trust me.
You bring in a very isolated incident in the NHL game and then state(paraphrasing)....."and I've played XXX # of games and can say without a shred of doubt that this happens".
Sounds very scientific.
I'm convinced!

I'm down for a good back and forth with anyone, but Jgainsey brings in a very valid point in all of this IMO...and that's player perception.
Comeback code, bad AB's written off to "scripted" play(and bad pitching performances for that matter) are, IMO, more player perception than anything else.

M.K.
Knight165

[Mike0ne]

Re: Confidence needs to be revamped

Wait...
Because YOU made a reply about certain things being discussed in this topic, nobody else was allowed to touch on them...ever again!?
Bring yourself down a notch cowboy.

Your arguments are not as valid to others as they are to yourself. Trust me.
You bring in a very isolated incident in the NHL game and then state(paraphrasing)....."and I've played XXX # of games and can say without a shred of doubt that this happens".
Sounds very scientific.
I'm convinced!

I'm down for a good back and forth with anyone, but Jgainsey brings in a very valid point in all of this IMO...and that's player perception.
Comeback code, bad AB's written off to "scripted" play(and bad pitching performances for that matter) are, IMO, more player perception than anything else.

M.K.
Knight165

During a "real life" conversation would you listen to someone make point A, then wait for the reply, then repeat point A just moments later?

I highly doubt it..

And you see you validated my argument that posts like his derail intelligent conversation and invite personal attacks. Your previous posts were on topic and respectful. Now look where this going.. The second half of your post was you inventing arguments to replace my own that are easier for you to ridicule..

All perception is flawed, including that of your infallible developers (excluded the "very isolated" incident I referenced, of course). If I only felt this was an issue while batting, I would be included to chalk it up to confirmation bias and deal with it. But it works just as often for me as it does against me, and both are frustrating.

I'll give a recent example.. I was pitching a perfect game with Brandon Morrow, but going into the 7th, I had already thrown 90 pitches, and I decided I would rather take a shot at the perfect game than tire out in 8. So I started pitching to contact.. not even on the corners, just right down the pipe, fastballs and sliders only.. and watched the cpu dribble grounders to second and shallow pop flies to left for 2 innings. Then top of the 9th, I decided I wanted to have a game save at this point so I could finish off a perfect game any time I wanted to.. Saving mid game makes you exit, and little did I know that when you load back in, all pitcher/pitch confidence is reset to default.. So after 15 strikeouts and then 2 innings of weak outs, the 9th, and back to pitching for the zone edges was a smashed line drive right at my second baseman, a flyball to the warning track, and a grounder up the middle to second that ended the game by half a stride. All 3 hits much harder than any during the 7th and 8th of pitched right over the plate (and of course, being a perfect game, the 9th was the bottom of the order)

Conclusive? Not even close.. But does it support my argument? Absolutely.

So instead of making this personal, or yelling "yeah!" from the back row.. Let's assume I'm not an idiot, and entertain possibilities.

I would think a hit in the game comes from a complex formula, on the pitcher side you have the pitch thrown with speed, control, and break variables, influenced by that individual pitch confidence which is then influenced by the timing/accuracy/speed of the analog stick(or simulated for CPU) and the pitchers energy bar.

Then when contact is made, the variables include the hitters contact, power, plate vision, clutch? hot/cold zone, analog timing/accuracy and somewhere in there the pitchers h/9, k/9, hr/9, clutch? must have have some influence.

So, with a simple statement like confidence only influences the pitchers control, should that be taken as the only influence it has is to increase the control attribute for every pitch? or bb/9? or allow more room for error on the analog stick, or something else? does the pitch confidence also influence that pitch's control rating? what happens if they exceed 99?

That's a lot of variables, all working together, and plenty of room for something to go awry, can you understand why a simple dismissive statement isn't enough to make me discount my opinion?

BTW, I use your rosters every year and they're amazing, They improve the quality/realism of the franchise mode immensely. Thank you for that!

[nomo17k]

Re: Confidence needs to be revamped

...

Conclusive? Not even close.. But does it support my argument? Absolutely.

...

Well I'm not the one in this conversation, but this is the sort of thing that makes skeptics like myself (as are others) wonder about what evidence you are using to support your argument, because the example you cited of course is not conclusive and it actually doesn't really support your argument either.

You can not cherry pick one example that supports your case and say that in general is true... all you've done here is that you found one (and only one) case that favors your argument, and it's still inconclusive.

The statement that "all swans are white" can be defied by finding just one black swan somewhere. Finding one white swan however doesn't support that statement, because it does not exclude the possibility that there are black swans... Essentially that's what you just did above.

[Knight165]

Re: Confidence needs to be revamped

*sigh*

Using a larger font does not make you correct. I'll accept that you think that's the truth, but in my personal experience with the game, I can assure that perfectly squared up hits do not give a consistent result until you include the pitcher confidence as a variable.

And for those so eager to pipe up with "but a dev said so", relax and consider this:

In NHL 10, members of the EASHL community complained that raising the discipline rating was making them get called for more penalties. 2 different devs told them in was in their head, that it would be impossible, and dismissed them. And then of course the forum flag wavers joined in to ridicule them.

When the complaints didn't stop, one open minded dev(Jason Rupert) decided to look deeper and conclusively end the debate. Sure enough, he found deep in the code that under certain conditions the discipline rating inverted, meaning a higher rating did in fact raise your chance of committing a penalty. The issue was resolved in a patch.

I understand that was a different game/dev team.. but my point is that dev's shouldn't be so arrogant as to dismiss widely reported issues without getting their hands dirty to check it out.

Once again.. I have played hundreds and hundreds of games vs CPU pitching, and as a habit I hit L3 after every contact with the ball(hitting and pitching). And I claim without a shred of doubt that pitcher confidence influences batter contact. for both CPU and user.

To make this less frustrating, I've detuned pitcher timing to keep them from being pinned at full confidence when they start the game well.

Last thing: I greatly appreciate devs that take the time to interact with the community, and understand you can't possibly know everything contained in millions of lines of code.. Let's all understand that.

Inventing?
Did you not post that?

....and if I was actually attacking you(you're decent at misdirection and deflection...but not that good) you'd know it.
This is another typical internet defense....when someone posts something they don't want to hear or admit to...they claim "degradation to attacking" defense.
You're posts reek of high and mighty. They are interesting, but no more than that.

You are now changing your tact and saying that pitcher confidence INDIRECTLY will effect batter performance through the other pitcher attributes....which is a bit more reasonable, but in your first post, you were clearly stating a direct connection from pitch confidence to batter contact, which it does not.
Apples/Oranges? yes and no IMO.

M.K.
Knight165

[Yankees2009Champs]

Re: Confidence needs to be revamped

This thread has been very interesting to read. However, hasn't it run it's course. I did agree somewhat with the idea that the pitchers confidence goes up far too fast. Then it becomes impossible to get a hit til he's out of the game. But, no one is going to change his mind. And that's fine, it's his opinion and I applaude him for it. He's trying to think outside the box, I don't think he's looking for an excuse for poor hitting.

The higher powers have weighed in and we know there isn't such a thing as batter confidence. We know that confidence helps with locating pitches not stiffling hitters. So we just have to move along.

[Bobhead]

Re: Confidence needs to be revamped

Not that anyone ever searches before creating topics, but it would be nice to keep this topic open for future Confidence questions/discussions. I agree though, the current conversation doesn't really have anywhere to go.

[Mike0ne]

Re: Confidence needs to be revamped

I'm high and mighty.. So your reaction is to act higher and mightier?

You're doing your share of misdirecting and deflecting as well.. I agree this thread has run it's course, but I'm compelled to clarify a few things..

Comeback code, bad AB's written off to "scripted" play(and bad pitching performances for that matter)

Those are the invented arguments that didn't come from me, and have nothing to do with my argument. You added them to strengthen your position. That what people do when they're more interested in winning than arguing.

....and if I was actually attacking you(you're decent at misdirection and deflection...but not that good) you'd know it.
This is another typical internet defense....when someone posts something they don't want to hear or admit to...they claim "degradation to attacking" defense.
You're posts reek of high and mighty. They are interesting, but no more than that.

Do I even need to point out the massive contradiction here?

"and if I was actually attacking you, you'd know it."

Really? Internet bully tactics? *shrug*

You are now changing your tact and saying that pitcher confidence INDIRECTLY will effect batter performance through the other pitcher attributes....which is a bit more reasonable, but in your first post, you were clearly stating a direct connection from pitch confidence to batter contact, which it does not.
Apples/Oranges? yes and no IMO.

Now you're relying on semantics instead of addressing my reasonable argument? I stated several times that I couldn't care less if it's direct or indirect. The bottom line is that it's an issue that disrupts the realistic feel of the game, which is frustrating as it feels like the game is playing with diminished influence coming from the player. And whether it's one step from pitcher confidence to less fun game, or 12 steps, what's the difference? It's a widespread issue(perceived or not), and deserves the developers attention.