Destined to lose?

[G3no_11]

Re: Destined to lose?

This is a little off-topic but it can relate in a way so I figured I would see what you guys thought:

I'll start off by saying I don't think there is any comeback code or scripting, but I think we all know the feeling that the guys who do think there is, feel. Sometimes it feels a little bit ridiculous at times where everything seems to snowball into this massive meltdown.. I can't really explain why that happens, but it happens very often in real life and it is quite impressive how it can be replicated in the game.

My question to you guys, is do you think it could be possible that some players are destined to go into hot/cold streaks?

This seems to be more prevalent in RTTS due to the fact that you are only controlling one player and your focused on only one players AB's. But at times it seems as though the game forces your player into a hot/cold streak. It's not just when you officially are cold, but for me, if I have been batting around the .240 mark for 10 games, I seem to be much more likely to have a poor next couple of games, pushing me into a cold streak.

Unfortunately it is hard to prove statistically but I can say that a few times when I have thought I am about to go into a "cold streak" I really paid attention to how my AB's were going. My RTTS player has 99 bunting and 95 drag bunting, so when heading into one of these streaks I tried one game to only lay down a bunt. I guessed low pitches, anything that looked like it could be a solid pitch to bunt, I tried laying down a drag bunt.
Couldn't lay it down. All great pitches to bunt were popped up, completely missed, or bunted hard at someone. How someone can possible pop a bunt up that is bordering a low ball is beyond me. Even a sinker low and away (but still catching a lot of the plate) was popped up.

A few more things that were head scratching were completely whiffing on fastballs write down the heart of the plate. Guessing fastball, getting a fastball down the middle, timing it "Good" and completely missing. This is with timing hitting and a player with an average of 95 contact and 96 vision.

Another thing is that it seems like the likeliness for you to get the shaft on borderline strike calls seems to be increased quite dramatically.

This could be a case where it is all in my head. But it is to the point where I can kind of expect when things are going to go sour for me at the plate. I was just curious to see if any of you had any thoughts on this or if anyone else is experiencing this.

[THESHAMISASHAME]

Re: Destined to lose?

This is a little off-topic but it can relate in a way so I figured I would see what you guys thought:

I'll start off by saying I don't think there is any comeback code or scripting, but I think we all know the feeling that the guys who do think there is, feel. Sometimes it feels a little bit ridiculous at times where everything seems to snowball into this massive meltdown.. I can't really explain why that happens, but it happens very often in real life and it is quite impressive how it can be replicated in the game.

My question to you guys, is do you think it could be possible that some players are destined to go into hot/cold streaks?

This seems to be more prevalent in RTTS due to the fact that you are only controlling one player and your focused on only one players AB's. But at times it seems as though the game forces your player into a hot/cold streak. It's not just when you officially are cold, but for me, if I have been batting around the .240 mark for 10 games, I seem to be much more likely to have a poor next couple of games, pushing me into a cold streak.

Unfortunately it is hard to prove statistically but I can say that a few times when I have thought I am about to go into a "cold streak" I really paid attention to how my AB's were going. My RTTS player has 99 bunting and 95 drag bunting, so when heading into one of these streaks I tried one game to only lay down a bunt. I guessed low pitches, anything that looked like it could be a solid pitch to bunt, I tried laying down a drag bunt.
Couldn't lay it down. All great pitches to bunt were popped up, completely missed, or bunted hard at someone. How someone can possible pop a bunt up that is bordering a low ball is beyond me. Even a sinker low and away (but still catching a lot of the plate) was popped up.

A few more things that were head scratching were completely whiffing on fastballs write down the heart of the plate. Guessing fastball, getting a fastball down the middle, timing it "Good" and completely missing. This is with timing hitting and a player with an average of 95 contact and 96 vision.

Another thing is that it seems like the likeliness for you to get the shaft on borderline strike calls seems to be increased quite dramatically.

This could be a case where it is all in my head. But it is to the point where I can kind of expect when things are going to go sour for me at the plate. I was just curious to see if any of you had any thoughts on this or if anyone else is experiencing this.

Not that it will add much to the the thread but yes I feel it as much as I played as you would have to be blind not to see all the trends and programming that goes in this game but dont get me wrong Im not saying its in stone but if you play the game with fair sliders you will lose or win around 60 % to 40 % depending level/team ect reguardless of what you do because the game is programmed to be a sim , no ? .
I can literally feel the so call momentum changing pitch by pitch at times and just as much as I feel I have no chance I also feel the AI letting up if I do things the way it deems so I would prefer more middle ground .
Example : like if the cpu throws a tough off speed pitch and I dont bite I feel Im then given a slight advantage but it only seems to be prevalent/really noticeable at key moments , kind of like the game it constantly changing stat wise like a advantage or like the tilted ice factor EA NHL uses to keep the game unbalanced and random .

[Sairheart]

Re: Destined to lose?

Not that it will add much to the the thread but yes I feel it as much as I played as you would have to be blind not to see all the trends and programming that goes in this game but dont get me wrong Im not saying its in stone but if you play the game with fair sliders you will lose or win around 60 % to 40 % depending level/team ect reguardless of what you do because the game is programmed to be a sim , no ? .
I can literally feel the so call momentum changing pitch by pitch at times and just as much as I feel I have no chance I also feel the AI letting up if I do things the way it deems so I would prefer more middle ground .
Example : like if the cpu throws a tough off speed pitch and I dont bite I feel Im then given a slight advantage but it only seems to be prevalent/really noticeable at key moments , kind of like the game it constantly changing stat wise like a advantage or like the tilted ice factor EA NHL uses to keep the game unbalanced and random .

This is exactly the point. There is no comeback code, but momentum can shift on a pitch by pitch basis. For example, I got a runner on third, two outs, Robby cano is up. I can't hold up on a breaking ball in the dirt, and I knew the ab was doomed already. I take two pitches and get ahead in the count...pull a ground ball through the hole, at the very last second the second baseman makes a grab and throws me out. I was being penalized for that horrendous swingthrough on the first pitch.

Another example. I just go up 2-0, been grinding out ab's, got the opposing pitcher over 100 pitches already. I've been pitching well, come out top of the fifth. Ground ball to Robby, I get that thing where suddenly they don't go into an animation and the ball rolls right past them. I strike out the next batter but it drops, so I have to make the throw to first(one I've already made in that situation all game) except the throw sails over my first basemans head, runners on 2nd and 3rd no one out. I don't panic. I get the first out, walk the next batter, get the second out. I get ahead of the third hitter, Michael Bourne, drop a slider on the outside corner. Even though it goes right to Tex and he immediately gets down into his animaton to scoop it up, it gets there too slow, so by the time I throw it over to first base, the speedy Bourne beats me to first. I was outclassing the cpu for five innings on the road and the game was doing it's best to give them a chance.

There isn't a comeback code. But if you play on Legendary this kind of thing happens all the time. I love the Show and the challenge it brings, but it's getting close to unplayable for me right now and I've been playing the series on it's highest levels since it came out.

[AC]

Re: Destined to lose?

Two words describe this whole thread to me: confirmation bias.

Damn, you stole my post. I was going to say exactly this. Just because you guys are seeing these 'scripted' scenarios once or twice or 5 times, it doesn't mean that the game is scripted. Like nomo (I think) said, that's how the brain is wired. You're going to see patterns when there aren't any.

And you know what? I honestly haven't even seen any 'comeback scripting' this year. I post every game I play in video form on here (in my sig) and you can go look at that for proof. I've blown games, but you know why? Because I'll leave a reliever in for longer than he should, or a starter, and some guys here just aren't willing to a.) admit that they're making mistakes or b.) just tip their cap to the hitter. For example, you get a homer hit off you on a pitch that was out of the zone? Take a look at the following GIF.

Spoiler

Not a single one of those pitches was definitely in the zone. And they were all turned into dingers. Complaining about BS 'perfect timing good stride' swing and misses? Take a look at this infographic.

Spoiler

If you're going to take anything from that, take the section on "Margin of error." SEVEN MILLISECONDS can make that significant a difference. Sometimes in baseball you can do everything right and still fail. Hell, I see J.P. Arencibia swing through about 40 pitches a game that are right down the middle. This is a game in which succeeding 30% of the time can make you a multimillionaire. You're going to fail more often than not - baseball is really hard. But to blame that on a scripted code, I just can't agree with that. Comebacks happen. Anecdotal evidence is the Jays' 7 run comeback against the Rays, capped off by an Arencibia (oh shut up) home run off of Fernando Rodney. Could you imagine if that happened to a user here? There would probably be bannings. People would go nuts. But this is baseball. Which leads me to my next point.

Having said it, I don't mean the game does a perfect simulation of baseball.

I find this statement a bit funny, if not a bit of a paradox, because I don't think there really is such thing as a perfect simulation of baseball. It's too random. Anything can happen. My personal favorite of 'comeback code' in real life is as follows. Take me away, Wiki:

June 4, 1989 – The Blue Jays stage a remarkable comeback in a game against the Red Sox in Boston. Trailing 10-0 after six innings, they slowly close the gap, finally taking an 11-10 lead on a ninth-inning grand slam by Ernie Whitt. Boston ties the score in the bottom half of the inning, but Junior Felix smokes a two-run home run in the top of the 12th inning, giving Toronto a 13-11 victory.

I think that the Jays' WPA was like 0.001 at one point. They just were NOT going to win that game. But they did.

And to those complaining about errors, are you using the throwing meter?Because user input is key. In one of my games I posted, I had a runner on third and I was about to get out of an inning with a two out ground ball to Jose Reyes at short. I figured, screw it, just a grounder, so I was lazy on my timing for analog throwing and Reyes bounced it in the dirt to Edwin Encarnacion, who obviously couldn't dig it out.

These things aren't scripted. Those who claim they are are essentially calling one of the best groups of devs on earth liars. It's baseball. I really wish I could have worded this as eloquently as I did in my head when I was reading through the thread, but I don't think I need to word this any differently to get my point across; Anything can happen. A 10 run comeback. A key error. It's what makes baseball my favorite sport, it's what makes it so beautiful.

Randomness.

[JTommy67]

Re: Destined to lose?

The title of the thread is unfortunate. I could be wrong, because I haven't gone back and re-read the entire discussion, but those advocating some kind of scripting seem to be a small minority, even among those who believe there to be problems (small or large) with momentum, balancing, what have you...

To contend randomness as an explanation for any and all observed phenomena in the game is really to miss the point - in my opinion. Randomness is certainly the setting we're dealing with, but it's probability that's the concern. Probability is a predictive tool designed to deal with random events. If I roll two 6-sided dice then there is a chance I will roll snake eyes, but if I roll two 10-sided dice then there is less of a chance to roll snake eyes. Both events are random, but the probability of a certain outcome has changed.

Probabilities must be programmed into the game with ratings and their fluctuations, and that's where the issue lies, if there is one at all.

[Cavicchi]

Re: Destined to lose?

Damn, you stole my post. I was going to say exactly this. Just because you guys are seeing these 'scripted' scenarios once or twice or 5 times, it doesn't mean that the game is scripted. Like nomo (I think) said, that's how the brain is wired. You're going to see patterns when there aren't any.

And you know what? I honestly haven't even seen any 'comeback scripting' this year. I post every game I play in video form on here (in my sig) and you can go look at that for proof. I've blown games, but you know why? Because I'll leave a reliever in for longer than he should, or a starter, and some guys here just aren't willing to a.) admit that they're making mistakes or b.) just tip their cap to the hitter. For example, you get a homer hit off you on a pitch that was out of the zone? Take a look at the following GIF.

Spoiler

Not a single one of those pitches was definitely in the zone. And they were all turned into dingers. Complaining about BS 'perfect timing good stride' swing and misses? Take a look at this infographic.

Spoiler

If you're going to take anything from that, take the section on "Margin of error." SEVEN MILLISECONDS can make that significant a difference. Sometimes in baseball you can do everything right and still fail. Hell, I see J.P. Arencibia swing through about 40 pitches a game that are right down the middle. This is a game in which succeeding 30% of the time can make you a multimillionaire. You're going to fail more often than not - baseball is really hard. But to blame that on a scripted code, I just can't agree with that. Comebacks happen. Anecdotal evidence is the Jays' 7 run comeback against the Rays, capped off by an Arencibia (oh shut up) home run off of Fernando Rodney. Could you imagine if that happened to a user here? There would probably be bannings. People would go nuts. But this is baseball. Which leads me to my next point.



I find this statement a bit funny, if not a bit of a paradox, because I don't think there really is such thing as a perfect simulation of baseball. It's too random. Anything can happen. My personal favorite of 'comeback code' in real life is as follows. Take me away, Wiki:



I think that the Jays' WPA was like 0.001 at one point. They just were NOT going to win that game. But they did.

And to those complaining about errors, are you using the throwing meter?Because user input is key. In one of my games I posted, I had a runner on third and I was about to get out of an inning with a two out ground ball to Jose Reyes at short. I figured, screw it, just a grounder, so I was lazy on my timing for analog throwing and Reyes bounced it in the dirt to Edwin Encarnacion, who obviously couldn't dig it out.

These things aren't scripted. Those who claim they are are essentially calling one of the best groups of devs on earth liars. It's baseball. I really wish I could have worded this as eloquently as I did in my head when I was reading through the thread, but I don't think I need to word this any differently to get my point across; Anything can happen. A 10 run comeback. A key error. It's what makes baseball my favorite sport, it's what makes it so beautiful.

Randomness.

I have to ask, how many home runs have you hit on pitches well out of the strike zone?

Have you ever got a hit on a pitch that was crossing home plate at the back end?

[chrishthomas]

Re: Destined to lose?

Last year in a comeback code thread, I posted something similar to what JTommy has written above. Randomness is clearly a part of baseball, or any sport or daily activity for that matter, and that has to be taken into account when creating a game like The Show. What people seem to be experiencing and complaining about, however, isn't necessarily the randomness, but rather their impression that many times during the game, the randomness seems not-so-random, or forced.

I don't know much about game coding, but modeling and analyzing probabilistic statistics is a major component of my career. In any predictive equation, even slightly modifying the coefficient (or multiplier) associated with a given variable can cause severe variation in the predicted outcome value.

My point is this (again, noting that I don't know much about coding, so I have no idea how these in game probabilistic dice rolls are conducted): let's say that fielding attributes control how likely it is that a particular player will commit an error (i.e., misplay a ball) on any given play, and these attributes are accounted for during each play via some predictive mathematical equation. Then confidence, momentum, being clutch, some correction for being more error prone in intense situations, or whatever the hell it is in this game, comes into play, most likely by influencing, or serving as a multiplicative coefficient, in the predictive equation, thus increasing the probability of an error, a low confidence pitch getting hammered, etc. Depending on the degree to which this correction increases these probability not just on a particular play, but on several plays in succession, it becomes apparent how some players could perceive these situations as being forced.

[decga]

Re: Destined to lose?

Last year game I found myself losing the close ones. This year not so much. Im 16-5 in my Braves season. Playing with the same sliders/gameplay setup. Either I am playing smarter and making the right in game decisions. Not trying going for complete games, taking the out instead trying to cut down men at the dish with 1 out. That is giving a chance to win, when its earlier in the game.

[THESHAMISASHAME]

Re: Destined to lose?

Last year game I found myself losing the close ones. This year not so much. Im 16-5 in my Braves season. Playing with the same sliders/gameplay setup. Either I am playing smarter and making the right in game decisions. Not trying going for complete games, taking the out instead trying to cut down men at the dish with 1 out. That is giving a chance to win, when its earlier in the game.

I also find this years game alot more forgiving and realistic BUT thats not my point or issue as its not about winning or losing its the how and why these things happen and how it feels scripted or forced at times regardless of who its favors and from what Im hearing its a constant momentum fluctuation calculated through many variables

[AC]

Re: Destined to lose?

To contend randomness as an explanation for any and all observed phenomena in the game is really to miss the point - in my opinion.

What you're saying is totally agreeable, but think about this. I apologize in advance for how poorly I'm wording this. If you have a 5% chance to do X, anything, that's a probability of 5/100 obviously. But when does that 5 start? If you play 5 games in which you have the lead in a row, and you end up losing 5 times in a row, you're gonna say "THIS IS BS!" but then you could reel off 95 straight non-occurrences. Guys may think this is BS, but they're basing it on anecdotal evidence. Think about all the games you play that DON'T end up in a CPU comeback, or human comeback, or whatever kind of comeback. Do you get what I mean? I'm really sorry for how poorly I worded this haha.

I have to ask, how many home runs have you hit on pitches well out of the strike zone?

Have you ever got a hit on a pitch that was crossing home plate at the back end?

None, because I am really, really, really, really [...] really ****ing bad at this game.

I'm not sure, but probably.

[JTommy67]

Re: Destined to lose?

What you're saying is totally agreeable, but think about this. I apologize in advance for how poorly I'm wording this. If you have a 5% chance to do X, anything, that's a probability of 5/100 obviously. But when does that 5 start? If you play 5 games in which you have the lead in a row, and you end up losing 5 times in a row, you're gonna say "THIS IS BS!" but then you could reel off 95 straight non-occurrences. Guys may think this is BS, but they're basing it on anecdotal evidence. Think about all the games you play that DON'T end up in a CPU comeback, or human comeback, or whatever kind of comeback. Do you get what I mean? I'm really sorry for how poorly I worded this haha.

A couple of things: First, I'm trying to refrain from drawing any conclusions myself. I only wish to reframe the debate in terms of probabilities and inquiry into game design (as much as we're allowed). This is why I pointed out initially that more in-depth statistical analysis, while certainly subject to limitations, provides a better venue for discussing these probabilities and comparing them what we observe in the major leagues, if for no other reason than to learn more about the game and provide better feedback.

Essentially what you say is correct; what I am inviting people to do is to examine events in the game that involve as few variables as possible. The best example I can come up with is fielding, since it relies on the least amount of user input. Errors by innings could be tracked and analyzed over the long haul, offering us a better picture of what is happening regardless of whatever conclusions might be drawn.

[AC]

Re: Destined to lose?

A couple of things: First, I'm trying to refrain from drawing any conclusions myself. I only wish to reframe the debate in terms of probabilities and inquiry into game design (as much as we're allowed). This is why I pointed out initially that more in-depth statistical analysis, while certainly subject to limitations, provides a better venue for discussing these probabilities and comparing them what we observe in the major leagues, if for no other reason than to learn more about the game and provide better feedback.

Essentially what you say is correct; what I am inviting people to do is to examine events in the game that involve as few variables as possible. The best example I can come up with is fielding, since it relies on the least amount of user input. Errors by innings could be tracked and analyzed over the long haul, offering us a better picture of what is happening regardless of whatever conclusions might be drawn.

I completely agree with almost everything you're saying... almost. One, fielding is affected by sliders so that's a tough thing to test to paint a broad picture, and two, errors per inning is NOT the most efficient way to complete this. I think you'd have to do something like ErrR + RF + some UZR-esque concoction that would involve lots of graphs. It'd be a task, for sure.

[Cavicchi]

Re: Destined to lose?

What you're saying is totally agreeable, but think about this. I apologize in advance for how poorly I'm wording this. If you have a 5% chance to do X, anything, that's a probability of 5/100 obviously. But when does that 5 start? If you play 5 games in which you have the lead in a row, and you end up losing 5 times in a row, you're gonna say "THIS IS BS!" but then you could reel off 95 straight non-occurrences. Guys may think this is BS, but they're basing it on anecdotal evidence. Think about all the games you play that DON'T end up in a CPU comeback, or human comeback, or whatever kind of comeback. Do you get what I mean? I'm really sorry for how poorly I worded this haha.



None, because I am really, really, really, really [...] really ****ing bad at this game.

I'm not sure, but probably.

Well, being that bad shouldn't be the issue, being good would likely make you avoid pitches out of the zone. The thing is, the CPU can do it and how many of those playing the game do it?

As for the pitch crossing home plate and being a hit, I have the video. Why isn't it a foul ball? I'm surprised it wasn't a swing and miss, or at least a foul ball. A hit on a pitch like that has me confused.

Now I'm not talking about comeback code or losing the game, but I do get the feeling at times the game is scripted. There are those times when I can't get a pitch in the area I want because the batter is supposed to get a hit, so it's like let him get a hit or walk the guy. There are numerous times I get a hit and feel the next batter will somehow hit into a double play, and that's what usually happens when I get that feeling--perhaps a part of keeping the game close.

What amazes me is how many times I hit it right at somebody, meanwhile, the CPU manages to get those seeing eye hits much more frequently than me. You would think those things average out, but I'm not seeing it that way.

I have to admit I'm not looking for realism, because I can't take this game seriously with the player ratings being so out of whack, such as Mat Latos having 95 control rating for a cutter, Hamels with a 99 control rating for his circle change, Marshall having 99's for 2 pitches, and all those A-rated players that make no sense to me. There are quite a few pitchers with 99 ratings for control and movement, and even more for control or just movement. But, I digress, this is not about player ratings. However, if a game is to be taken seriously, I think player ratings are extremely important.

[AC]

Re: Destined to lose?

Well, being that bad shouldn't be the issue, being good would likely make you avoid pitches out of the zone. The thing is, the CPU can do it and how many of those playing the game do it?

But I'm bad enough that when I swing it's "too late" and "bad" as well or whatever the timing/stride messages are, and if the CPU is hitting pitches in the dirt with too late/early timing and bad strides then we have a problem, but I doubt they are.

As for the pitch crossing home plate and being a hit, I have the video. Why isn't it a foul ball? I'm surprised it wasn't a swing and miss, or at least a foul ball. A hit on a pitch like that has me confused.

There are some kinks like this that I've noticed, but no game is perfect. I like to think of it as an ump blowing a call.

Now I'm not talking about comeback code or losing the game, but I do get the feeling at times the game is scripted. There are those times when I can't get a pitch in the area I want because the batter is supposed to get a hit, so it's like let him get a hit or walk the guy. There are numerous times I get a hit and feel the next batter will somehow hit into a double play, and that's what usually happens when I get that feeling--perhaps a part of keeping the game close.

You know when you're biking/driving and you're looking somewhere - say, to the side - and you start drifting towards wherever you're looking? Try ignoring that feeling and thinking you're gonna hit the ball well because if you're giving up on an AB, it ain't gonna go well.

What amazes me is how many times I hit it right at somebody, meanwhile, the CPU manages to get those seeing eye hits much more frequently than me. You would think those things average out, but I'm not seeing it that way.

Which may be a case of confirmation bias.

I have to admit I'm not looking for realism, because I can't take this game seriously with the player ratings being so out of whack, such as Mat Latos having 95 control rating for a cutter, Hamels with a 99 control rating for his circle change, Marshall having 99's for 2 pitches, and all those A-rated players that make no sense to me. There are quite a few pitchers with 99 ratings for control and movement, and even more for control or just movement. But, I digress, this is not about player ratings. However, if a game is to be taken seriously, I think player ratings are extremely important.

If this is your biggest gripe... there are SOOOOO many community rosters with some pretty amazing ratings.

Responses in bold.

[Cavicchi]

Re: Destined to lose?

With all those "amazing ratings", the potential rating does not change, aside from the fact I don't see any perfect roster--and I mean quite a few issues there.

Also, why is it a pitcher must have 3 pitch types? Now doesn't that alone say something about the game? Carlos Marmol throws just a fastball and slider, but in the game he also has a cutter with 99 for movement. Hello Mariano Rivera and take a look! The fact he doesn't have a cutter makes it all the more ridiculous.

Hot zones is another issue. Take a look at Boesch for example. Hello Robinson Cano!

I don't have confirmation bias, I do have lots of videos taken of play in this game, about 20 videos that show some amazing stuff.

What I said about double plays in no way means I resign myself to the outcome.