Destined to lose?

[THESHAMISASHAME]

Re: Destined to lose?

I completely agree with this post. I wasn't even a member on the forums, just a long time lurker, and I joined just to post here. And for everyone pushing the "you don't realize how much of your play is affecting what's happening"....I play on Legendary, out the box..I've thrown on some sliders(don't remember which) that I've pulled off this site...I use ground up Tums as a little chalk for my thumb for when I start to sweat a little, I use a timing mechanism that involves both my breathing and lightly taking my thumb off the stick before placing it back down. I've thrown no hitters in other versions of the show, and I've blanked powerful lineups like the Tigers while on the road, getting out of jam after jam, putting down Miggy and Prince with runners on.

Trust me, I'm really good at this game. And other posters here are also very good at this game...this is how we know. Another example just yesterday that may be the end of me playing this game. First inning, I get a runner on, one out. Ground ball, they don't get the out at second but they do get the out at first, a rare occurence in itself. This is how I knew the game was going to give me an oppurtunity to score a run. Two outs, I have Robby Cano up, take the first pitch, strike. Second pitch is a passed ball, my runner advances. I get up 2-1 in the count, the pitcher throws a fast ball on the outer half, close to the corner but not quite, I put a lovely swing on it, go yard dead center. Feels beautiful, the exact kind of pitch you know a superstar like Cano can drive to center in that situation.

I strike out to end the inning and I know for a fact the cpu will tie this game before the fourth, at least. Why? Because I was going out there with my 5th starter(Nova), I was on the road, and I had won the first three games in the series comfortably(first game was close followed by a 71 and 8-1 win). The game was not going to let me go up 2-0 in this game and just cruise to the win, it's gonna turn into a slugfest.

The very next inning, they get the leadoff guy on, I don't panic. I get an out. Next batter gets a hit, first and third one out. I stay cool. Make a great pitch, inning ending double play ball at Tex...it hit magically hits something in the dirt, flys up over Tex's head and trickles into the outfield. 2-1. I know I can still get out the inning but it's just a matter of time before the lead goes. My next two frames up to bat I make nothing happen, striking out before the bottom of the fourth. First hitter is Swisher, they're best hitter. I get squeezed a bit, the count runs 3-1, I aim to throw a two seamer low, I'm on pulse pitching, close the circle as close to perfect without being pefect, the two seamer is a strike but it's higher than I want and Swisher goes the opposite way of the foul pole.

Homers don't happen off the foul pole often, but when you're whooping on the cpu, you are BOUND to see homers just off foul pole. That's how the game aims to tell you "Ohh, you were close, but it just hit the pole, thems the breaks, that's baseball." No, that's the algorithim that kicked in because I was outclassing the cpu over a stretch of time and to balance it out the game is going to give them a break whenever it has a chance. I'll grab the Show on the next-gen, but I think it's maxed out for me at this point.

I know youll get beat up on this post because its so called all opinion BUT I played this game 7 days a week 3 games a day for two months and I saw all the trends you speak of .
I mean whos kidding who the game is programmed to be a sim of baseball so you will win or lose regardless of what you do at certain times .......... and I hate that as a gamer , I mean why even play a game you have no chance in or legitly competing in or even worse when your given a freebees do to whatever variables kicking in.
I dont even mind the momentum stuff if it didnt come off so blatantly forced like I have little input at times , like Im not even playing .
So if somehow SCEA can blend that disconnect better as others mentioned through animations I think that would help alot and once again this isnt about winning or losing , its about losing that scripted feeling .

[Knight165]

Re: Destined to lose?

This is how we know?....because you're good at the game?(oh I'm sorry...REALLY good)

So you know...but the guys who make the game don't know?

The absurdity level just got kicked up another notch. I didn't think it was possible.


Kudos.

But just for ****s and giggles?
Why?
Why would the devs even bother doing this?

M.K.
Knight165

[rjackson]

Re: Destined to lose?

I can't find it anywhere but two things come to mind during the annual comback code discussions, and I use the word discussion loosely here.

1. There was a really good post by Brian_SCEA if I recall correctly about managing the late game situations, pitcher confidence, relievers, etc. It really explained why this comes up every year. I just cannot seem to find it for some reason!!!!

2. Nomo who actually takes the time to test hypotheses instead of making baseless claims tested this and found that more runs are scored in the game during the 6th inning than any other, though there was an uptick in the 9th.

Look, there really is not much if any tangible or scientific evidence verifying that there is comeback code. HOWEVER, with this confidence system as it is plus the programmed game theory, there is a lot to consider.

1-We tend to leave pitchers in too long. We want them to get that complete game or ignore that our guy is starting to miss his spots more often and lost a tick or two on his heater.

2-Even if we don't leave them in too long, you never know if a pitcher is going to have it that day or not. Thus, there is an inherent risk to bringing in any reliever at any time. I do better when I don't do 7th, 8th, 9th inning guys but leave in pitchers when they are doing well even if I don't have them for tomorrow's game then.

3-Another person and especially a CPU is always going to be better at picking up our own attempted randomness than we are going to be. Do you throw a fastball on 3 ball counts more than 66% of the time? I'll look for it if it is 75% or more. This is simple game theory stuff that we don't catch when it is 1st person subjective or we are going through the motions. After I strike out and jam a few with cutters moving in on two strikes, the next one might be a HR even if it is out of the zone. I've also noticed that I get one chance on low fastballs in double play situations to hit it out before the CPU adjusts. I have hit shoestring HR's this way. But also, I get higher pitches and hit into less DP's. The CPU adjusts faster at higher levels.

PS The developers have admitted to giving CPU player ratings and AI boosts/human player ratings handicaps at higher levels like HoF and vice-versa on rookie. Maybe people are playing at too high of a skill level? Why would they admit this but not NBA Jam comeback code? Heck, why did NBA Jam admit to it?

PPS I would hope this thread gets closed but another would pop up in its place in a week or two.

PPPS "Even the wisest man cannot reason away what a fool believes".

[Sairheart]

Re: Destined to lose?

This is how we know?....because you're good at the game?(oh I'm sorry...REALLY good)

So you know...but the guys who make the game don't know?

The absurdity level just got kicked up another notch. I didn't think it was possible.


Kudos.

But just for ****s and giggles?
Why?
Why would the devs even bother doing this?

M.K.
Knight165

Ahh, and yet here you are trying to make me out to be an elitist. You'd rather roll your eyes than take what I'm saying seriously and that's fine. But my point about "being good" is that everyone claims it's actually ONLY user error that causes bad things to happen...I am simply saying in situations in which the USER HAS NO CONTROL, the game will TILT(not pre-determine) situations, and a certain amount of variables will decide where that leans. I'm not making the point that I'm superior to you, your faux exasperation can be toned down a bit. Do user errors cause bad things to happen? OF COURSE. I'm a huge fan of the series, it's a remarkably deep game. But I'm saying at the highest levels of the game, when you're beating the cpu badly these things become more prevalent.

The game has to account for the random things that happen in baseball some way. You can hit a ball on the screws and not get a hit, make the perfect pitch and give up a hit, make a crucial error on a routine ball with two outs. You call my post absurd but I'm not the only one making that point and if you look throughout my posting in this thread I've constantly stated THERE IS NO COMEBACK CODE. Until you've played a season and half worth of games on Legendary(and that's just for this years game, I've bought every Show) I really don't think you should be so flippant. And I understand who you are on this board, I think I've even used some of your sliders to good results in previous versions.

I understand the momentum swing in terms of AB's, it's too drastic on a pitch by pitch basis but it can be overcome if you use the proper combination of contact swing and swing influence, depending on how you did on a previous pitch in the AB and so forth. But poor fielding animations, strike zones being squeezed, the cpu hitting pitches you could never put in play, the ball going straight through the bat on pitches you put a good hack on. The Show can be a great game and still have problems. I don't think the devs are evil, lying people....I will repeat again THERE IS NO COMEBACK CODE...but will "random baseball events" tilt against you, if you, the human player, make the wrong decision in situations in which you have control? UNDENIABLY.

It works both ways. I'm just saying it needs to work in a different way in the next series.

[Sairheart]

Re: Destined to lose?

Would you like another example to call absurd? Say you get a guy on 2nd with no outs, doesn't matter how he got there. Let's say you then fail to move him over, one out. the second batter, you swing at a high fastball in the zone, but you fly out. Now it's two outs with your best hitter up. Now some people would argue the "probability of randomness" has not changed in this situation, BUT IT HAS. Let's say you got the runner over, but hit a ball right to the third basemen so he couldn't advance. Your best hitter is again up with two outs, but the runner on third. The "probability of randomness" is not as deeply tilted against you as it was in the other scenario but it has tilted.

Is it IMPOSSIBLE to get that runner in? NO! But is it much more likely he throws a killer bordeline pitch and gets the call, you "just miss" a pitch you should've hit, a fielder make a great play on a ball? YES. On Legendary, these kinds of things are exaggerated. And if you do everything perfect while batting and get the breaks, will the game EVENTUALLY put you in a tilted situation where you have to get out of a jam. Yes. Is it impossible to get out that jam, no. But I shouldn't be penalized for playing really well, and I shouldn't be rewarded for going through a set of motions the game will reward.

Have you ever taken a pitch that you should've swung at? Have you taken a pitch you didn't want but it made the announcers say, "oohh, I bet he'd swing at that if he got the chance"? The vast majority of the time, if you swing at that next pitch, you will get a bad result. You ever get up 2-0 in a count, runner at first, you take the next pitch and it's over the plate but you didn't want it. Then you swing at the 2-1 pitch, perfect timing and the whole nine, but you bang the ball right at the fielder for a double play? What do you think happened there? There has to be a method to the madness of assigning "randomness" and it reveals itself at the highest levels of the game.

[nomo17k]

Re: Destined to lose?

Sairheart, you have no idea what you are talking about. All your examples don't constitute any kind of evidence to prove your points. They only serve to prove that there are a kind of people who do not recognize that they suffer from confirmation bias. People who say they have no confirmation bias are basically saying they aren't observant enough to recognize that they suffer from one.

(Those are the kind of people the modern marketing people target in business... because they tend to be easy baits, and can easily manipulated by shrewd marketing techniques.)

[THESHAMISASHAME]

Re: Destined to lose?

. The "probability of randomness" is not as deeply tilted against you as it was in the other scenario but it has tilted.
Is it impossible to get out that jam, no. But I shouldn't be penalized for playing really well, and I shouldn't be rewarded for going through a set of motions the game will reward.
.

After many years of playing this game I also know most of the possible scenarios in my sleep but you gotta understand alot guys here dont even play the game they watch it so they dont see or care to see what were talking about as gamers .

They just like to compare the stats and random thats just baseball stuff and say wow in how it can unfold , kinda like a cpu stat game but with pretty graphics which I agree is fun to watch but lacking to play at times as it can have a very scripted feeling do to momentum swing or tilting like EA NHL uses .

[THESHAMISASHAME]

Re: Destined to lose?

That's why I personally am NOT denying that, at times, there's some "scripted" feeling on how things happen. I want that feeling to go away. In order for the devs to do something about it, however, we somehow need to understand why and where that feeling exactly come from, and not repeating the dead horse about how there is this code that forces situation one way or another.

This is my only issue with the MLB Series and anything I can do to help get it removed or changed I would like to help if you have any ideas Nomo ? Thanks again for all your great input and info

[rjackson]

Re: Destined to lose?

Sairhart, if you don't want the game to be so challenging and you don't want the handicaps associated with it, stop playing on Legend. Read my post. CPU game theory is most optimal there plus your players get ratings handicapped.

thessameisdifferent or whatever your name is, also read my post. Maybe you can see some cause and effect in there and ADJUST. Otherwise, all we can ask for is the effects of pitcher confidence getting toned down but that is a horse that has been beaten to death countless times just like this stuff has been.

[nomo17k]

Re: Destined to lose?

....and I understand that people are just using the term "randomness" casually when what they really mean is variety (which is a more appropriate word) that you expect in a sport, but if you go by a more rigorous definition (like this wikipedia entry), the game really cannot be random and force/script situations at the same time.

A random event can only be assigned a probability of it happening, so as soon as you somehow know the event will definitely happen for sure (as in the case for forced/scripted event), it cannot be called a random event.

A good example is a batting average of a hitter. A lifetime .300 hitter is likely to get 3 hits out of 10 attempts. So in terms of probability, given an at bat, he is likely to get a hit 30% of the time.

But you cannot predict exactly what the hitter will do in his next at bat in real life. If the same life situation is repeatable (I wish!!) and if we do repeat that exact situation 100 times, then he would probably get a hit about 30 times. That's what a .300 hitter means. However, we cannot definitively say he will get a hit or not in his next at bat. Nobody has the ability to predict that. That what it means to assign a probability (30%) to an event (a hitter getting a hit in an at-bat).

Even though a coin flip is likely to yield a head 50% of the time, you cannot really predict if head comes up in the next flip; you can only say it's 50-50. That's the beauty of probability and randomness, and the reason why games heavily depend on the concept.

The game is doing pretty much the same thing by doing a series of dice rolls. That's what programmers mean by not forcing situations or scripting events. Given a situation, what the game knows is what possible events are, and their probabilities of happening. User input can (and should) influence the probabilities, but they are still probabilities and therefore not going to definitively determine the outcomes (unless user input is meant to override them by design).

If one event is forced to happen 100% of the time, then that's not a random event and that event is scripted/forced. This game is simply not doing that sort of thing.

[Sairheart]

Re: Destined to lose?

Sairheart, you have no idea what you are talking about. All your examples don't constitute any kind of evidence to prove your points. They only serve to prove that there are a kind of people who do not recognize that they suffer from confirmation bias. People who say they have no confirmation bias are basically saying they aren't observant enough to recognize that they suffer from one.

(Those are the kind of people the modern marketing people target in business... because they tend to be easy baits, and can easily manipulated by shrewd marketing techniques.)

My evidence is anectdotal obviously, but that doesn't make it irrelevant. You're arguing that the perception of the evidence is incorrect, that I am oblivious to the fact that I am oblivious. Like I've said ad nauseum, I don't think there's a comeback code...I just think the game SHRINKS YOUR MARGIN for error and effectively lowers your probability of success in a game where "everything can go right" but you can still get a bad result, or you do something bad like get your bat sawed off but it still lands for a double. Baseball is a very hard game to quantify.

I love a lot of things about the game. But once I started to minimize my own mistakes, like only swinging at strikes, taking pitches to avoid a quick inning, being defensively aggressive when applicable, mixing up my pitches and the zones I throw in, going through a lineup a diff way the second and third times, knowing when to go to the mound/pull my starter/pull the reliever...once I got things like that under control, I STILL noticed the game tilting in either my direction or the cpu's direction, based on a a set of variables. Trends begin to appear. I'm not the only one who thinks so, it's not all, "you think you're going to bang into a DP and then you swing at that pitch and bang into it. Confirmation bias." And sure, marketers love me, I'm the A-1 capitlist consumer, tell me how the product can fill that void in my life and I will purchase it to become whole. And I thought we were making a whole excercise of coming to conclusions without evidence. You made a comment about that "scripted feeling" as well. I believe we are more in agreement than you think.

And THESHAMISASHAME, I feel you bro. No one is saying here that they played a ton of games on Legendary with good sliders and have had a completely different experience. And I'm not saying that's impossible. It just hasn't been my experience.

[Sairheart]

Re: Destined to lose?

Sairhart, if you don't want the game to be so challenging and you don't want the handicaps associated with it, stop playing on Legend. Read my post. CPU game theory is most optimal there plus your players get ratings handicapped.

thessameisdifferent or whatever your name is, also read my post. Maybe you can see some cause and effect in there and ADJUST. Otherwise, all we can ask for is the effects of pitcher confidence getting toned down but that is a horse that has been beaten to death countless times just like this stuff has been.

This might be the answer, but I have found on HOF the game to be a little too easy, my pitching is too good. But you are at least bringing up something that proves why I am feeling this effect in my experience, as opposed to me imagining this effect going on.

[nomo17k]

Re: Destined to lose?

My evidence is anectdotal obviously, but that doesn't make it irrelevant. You're arguing that the perception of the evidence is incorrect, that I am oblivious to the fact that I am oblivious. Like I've said ad nauseum, I don't think there's a comeback code...I just think the game SHRINKS YOUR MARGIN for error and effectively lowers your probability of success in a game where "everything can go right" but you can still get a bad result, or you do something bad like get your bat sawed off but it still lands for a double. Baseball is a very hard game to quantify.

I love a lot of things about the game. But once I started to minimize my own mistakes, like only swinging at strikes, taking pitches to avoid a quick inning, being defensively aggressive when applicable, mixing up my pitches and the zones I throw in, going through a lineup a diff way the second and third times, knowing when to go to the mound/pull my starter/pull the reliever...once I got things like that under control, I STILL noticed the game tilting in either my direction or the cpu's direction, based on a a set of variables. Trends begin to appear. I'm not the only one who thinks so, it's not all, "you think you're going to bang into a DP and then you swing at that pitch and bang into it. Confirmation bias." And sure, marketers love me, I'm the A-1 capitlist consumer, tell me how the product can fill that void in my life and I will purchase it to become whole. And I thought we were making a whole excercise of coming to conclusions without evidence. You made a comment about that "scripted feeling" as well. I believe we are more in agreement than you think.

And THESHAMISASHAME, I feel you bro. No one is saying here that they played a ton of games on Legendary with good sliders and have had a completely different experience. And I'm not saying that's impossible. It just hasn't been my experience.

Perhaps I made a "mistake" of writing that statement about the "scripted feel," as I really hope that I'm not in agreement with what you write (I don't agree at all about anything you have written).

I made that statement not to mean that I personally actually feel the game is scripted, but really what I meant was that, at times, I see some "game balance issues" that might lead some people (like you and the rest of this-game-forces-outcomes crowd) to feel that way. I don't share the feeling, but I can understand why some people could interpret what I see in different ways. That's where I stand.

It would be fun to discuss those specific game balance issues that I feel exist in the game. I have been repeating that I only chime in in this kinda threads in hope of having fruitful discussions that build on what we already know. That would make great feedback for developers as well. But, unfortunately, these threads usually ends up being filled with old, useless discussions like how "momentum" (which doesn't exist) decides the game outcomes, etc.

Why is it so fun for some of you to keep beating dead horse about stuff that has been explicitly denied by the developers themselves?


.... and I agree somewhat with rjackson's suggestion. If you feel the game plays funky on Legend, then the game isn't playing at the right setting for you. The same thing could be said for people who complain about the game not being realistic when they are playing on Beginner/Rookie/Veteran.

[Sairheart]

Re: Destined to lose?

Perhaps I made a "mistake" of writing that statement about the "scripted feel," as I really hope that I'm not in agreement with what you write (I don't agree at all about anything you have written).

I made that statement not to mean that I personally actually feel the game is scripted, but really what I meant was that, at times, I see some "game balance issues" that might lead some people (like you and the rest of this-game-forces-outcomes crowd) to feel that way. I don't share the feeling, but I can understand why some people could interpret what I see in different ways. That's where I stand.

It would be fun to discuss those specific game balance issues that I feel exist in the game. I have been repeating that I only chime in in this kinda threads in hope of having fruitful discussions that build on what we already know. That would make great feedback for developers as well. But, unfortunately, these threads usually ends up being filled with old, useless discussions like how "momentum" (which doesn't exist) decides the game outcomes, etc.

Why is it so fun for some of you to keep beating dead horse about stuff that has been explicitly denied by the developers themselves?


.... and I agree somewhat with rjackson's suggestion. If you feel the game plays funky on Legend, then the game isn't playing at the right setting for you. The same thing could be said for people who complain about the game not being realistic when they are playing on Beginner/Rookie/Veteran.

"Game balance issues", "that scripted feeling", "momentum"....are we not all talking about the same phenomenon? This is semantics. I'm just saying this thing feels more prevalent on Legendary. I've had deeply satisfying wins I felt I truly earned and bad losses I felt like I truly deserved by making bad decisions or simply "getting beat" or "it just wasn't our day" type of thing. But I've had too many expericiences with crazy fielding plays, suddenly squeezed strike zones, or good pitches being hit while I've clung to a small lead. And plenty of times I can't get anyone out and then once I get the tie I throw a fastball right down the pipe and get a ground ball to short.

What level of difficulty do you play on? Have you not felt if you took a tough 2-1 pitch to go up 3-1 you were more likely to get a good result if you put a good swing on a pitch? And vice versa?

[rjackson]

Re: Destined to lose?

This might be the answer, but I have found on HOF the game to be a little too easy, my pitching is too good. But you are at least bringing up something that proves why I am feeling this effect in my experience, as opposed to me imagining this effect going on.

You can combine levels as well so you can pitch on legend and hit on Allstar...