Destined to lose?

[THESHAMISASHAME]

Re: Destined to lose?

Have you seen Marmol throw a Mariano Rivera cutter in real baseball? Yes, he has a cutter with 99 movement in the default roster. Whatever any other roster gives Marmol, he only throws 2 pitch types, fastball and slider.

For me to pretend playing real baseball, I need realism in what pitchers throw. However, I am not trying to play real baseball, which is why I play this game.

I should explain the why. Well, I'll be 71 on August 2nd, so I just play for fun. Even so, I would much appreciate seeing pitchers throw what they do in real life, and proper ratings for all.

Wow thats great Happy up coming Birthday and you understand well you play for fun foremost not forced frustration .

[Jordyn]

Just want to chime in an experience I just had that once again shows (at least in my eyes) that the game dictates when certain results will occur.

Playing as the Yankees against the Orioles in NY. Pineda vs. Tillman. Played the first inning and did an in-game save. Reloaded and simmed the game. Final score 14-3 Yankees. Didn't save. Reloaded and simmed the same game. 12-6 Yankees. Didn't save. Reloaded and simmed the same game. 16-5 Yankees. Didn't save. Reloaded and actually played the game this time. 10-3 Yankees. So what exactly are the odds that the same game being replayed four consecutive times with all other variables being equal would result in 4 consecutive Yankee blow-outs? I'm guessing not high, but the game said it was time for a Yankee blow out and so it happened. Easily the most unfulfilling win I've ever experienced. Whatever SCEA did with this game this year was a major step back in my opinion.

[THESHAMISASHAME]

Re: Destined to lose?

Just want to chime in an experience I just had that once again shows (at least in my eyes) that the game dictates when certain results will occur.

Playing as the Yankees against the Orioles in NY. Pineda vs. Tillman. Played the first inning and did an in-game save. Reloaded and simmed the game. Final score 14-3 Yankees. Didn't save. Reloaded and simmed the same game. 12-6 Yankees. Didn't save. Reloaded and simmed the same game. 16-5 Yankees. Didn't save. Reloaded and actually played the game this time. 10-3 Yankees. So what exactly are the odds that the same game being replayed four consecutive times with all other variables being equal would result in 4 consecutive Yankee blow-outs? I'm guessing not high, but the game said it was time for a Yankee blow out and so it happened. Easily the most unfulfilling win I've ever experienced. Whatever SCEA did with this game this year was a major step back in my opinion.

I feel your pain and while I wont say the shenanigans are etched in stone they are certainly skewed to favor outcomes of course depending on many variables but the million dollar question is how much ? you know like odds changing dice rolls but I agree at certain times you have little chance if its deemed because remember this game is programmed to play like a sim regardless of any skill

[nomo17k]

Re: Destined to lose?

Just want to chime in an experience I just had that once again shows (at least in my eyes) that the game dictates when certain results will occur.

Playing as the Yankees against the Orioles in NY. Pineda vs. Tillman. Played the first inning and did an in-game save. Reloaded and simmed the game. Final score 14-3 Yankees. Didn't save. Reloaded and simmed the same game. 12-6 Yankees. Didn't save. Reloaded and simmed the same game. 16-5 Yankees. Didn't save. Reloaded and actually played the game this time. 10-3 Yankees. So what exactly are the odds that the same game being replayed four consecutive times with all other variables being equal would result in 4 consecutive Yankee blow-outs? I'm guessing not high, but the game said it was time for a Yankee blow out and so it happened. Easily the most unfulfilling win I've ever experienced. Whatever SCEA did with this game this year was a major step back in my opinion.

Purely by coincidence, I happened to do similar with my season. STL (Carpenter) vs MIL (Gallardo):

5-2 STL
3-1 STL
2-3 MIL
1-0 STL
1-3 MIL

I guess my CPU decided that this game should be a close game between aces, pretty much evenly split between the two teams. I felt very unrewarded to play such a close game without knowing the game going either way. I really felt this was a CPU-forced close game in which I couldn't predict which side wins.

SCEA indeed took a HUUUUUUUUGE step back forcing an unpredictable game like this to happen. I hope they do a better job of making clear what the game's outcome should be.


By the way, lopsided 4 consecutive wins aren't that uncommon. Even when teams are equally talented, the chances of 4 games going entirely for one side is 6% (= 0.5^4). If one team is much better over the other (say it has a winning % of 60% against another), the chance becomes 13% (= 0.6^4). So 4 consecutive wins are certainly not a rare event.


The bottom line is that people who keep claiming the game forces situations are suffering very severely from the lack of realization that they aren't recognizing confirmation bias as such. That's why they cannot provide better evidence than the evidence that only reinforces their biases. It's consistent throughout this thread. That's actually more unfortunate than at least knowing where they are doing wrong.

As I keep saying, SCEA cannot do anything for you. Because you are accusing of the game for doing something that the game actually doesn't do. Unfortunately all your suggestions are useless for actually improving the game, since they are not well founded. The game will never play to your (misguided) expectations, if your minds work like that.

And hope this thread keeps open, for those who wish to discuss the so-called forced sim. There should always be niches for people who are very imaginative, seeing something the rest of world doesn't see, hearing voices the rest of the world cannot hear..... after all they can see something out of nothing.

[wudl83]

Re: Destined to lose?

As I keep saying, SCEA cannot do anything for you. Because you are accusing of the game for doing something that the game actually doesn't do. Unfortunately all your suggestions are useless for actually improving the game, since they are not well founded. The game will never play to your (misguided) expectations, if your minds work like that.

That's why I asked people to write down when something happens and used some examples and explanations and tried to tell them the same you did already in numerous posts. But you can bet that they won't realize it and that's the problem.

[Sairheart]

Re: Destined to lose?

Purely by coincidence, I happened to do similar with my season. STL (Carpenter) vs MIL (Gallardo):

5-2 STL
3-1 STL
2-3 MIL
1-0 STL
1-3 MIL

I guess my CPU decided that this game should be a close game between aces, pretty much evenly split between the two teams. I felt very unrewarded to play such a close game without knowing the game going either way. I really felt this was a CPU-forced close game in which I couldn't predict which side wins.

SCEA indeed took a HUUUUUUUUGE step back forcing an unpredictable game like this to happen. I hope they do a better job of making clear what the game's outcome should be.


By the way, lopsided 4 consecutive wins aren't that uncommon. Even when teams are equally talented, the chances of 4 games going entirely for one side is 6% (= 0.5^4). If one team is much better over the other (say it has a winning % of 60% against another), the chance becomes 13% (= 0.6^4). So 4 consecutive wins are certainly not a rare event.


The bottom line is that people who keep claiming the game forces situations are suffering very severely from the lack of realization that they aren't recognizing confirmation bias as such. That's why they cannot provide better evidence than the evidence that only reinforces their biases. It's consistent throughout this thread. That's actually more unfortunate than at least knowing where they are doing wrong.

As I keep saying, SCEA cannot do anything for you. Because you are accusing of the game for doing something that the game actually doesn't do. Unfortunately all your suggestions are useless for actually improving the game, since they are not well founded. The game will never play to your (misguided) expectations, if your minds work like that.

And hope this thread keeps open, for those who wish to discuss the so-called forced sim. There should always be niches for people who are very imaginative, seeing something the rest of world doesn't see, hearing voices the rest of the world cannot hear..... after all they can see something out of nothing.

He didn't have four consecutive lopsided wins, he had one game result in four consecutive lopsided outcomes. I'm not trying to be difficult, I just want to know is your formula representative of what he said?

[AC]

Re: Destined to lose?

He didn't have four consecutive lopsided wins, he had one game result in four consecutive lopsided outcomes. I'm not trying to be difficult, I just want to know is your formula representative of what he said?

It doesn't matter, replaying the same games 4 time is akin to playing 4 games. His forumla was correct.

[Sairheart]

Re: Destined to lose?

It doesn't matter, replaying the same games 4 time is akin to playing 4 games. His forumla was correct.

Either way, I'm not sure if the results of sims is entirely indicative of what people have been complaining about here, and from what I understand the game is a very accurate sim and produces "good" box scores. I've actually been surprised to find the amount of people that actually play out every single pitch in a game, I get the impression that more people sim than not.

[Cavicchi]

Re: Destined to lose?

Up until this season, Marmol has thrown at least three pitches.

http://www.fangraphs.com/pitchfx.asp...790&position=P

I understand your frustration, but there is history to suggest that he has thrown 3+ pitches in the past.

Now, he has never thrown a cutter in the past, but as has been pointed out before on other threads, the default rosters are often way off when it comes to repertoires.

I think the reason for the 3 pitch minimum is that pretty much every pitcher in major league baseball has at least three pitches that they can throw, they simple choose to go with their two best pitches.

Either way, this is completely off topic, sorry. Didn't mean to jack the thread.

accordingly to frangraphs.com , Marmol used to have 3 pitches (2009) and even 4 (2008). It's not because it's in his repertoire that he's to using it.

What you can do is set his 3rd pitch to a very very low control level (even 0). That way he'll have a very low confidence on that pitch and the CPU will rarely use it !!!

Guys, fangraphs is not the place to verify what a pitcher throws--check http://www.brooksbaseball.net/

[Jordyn]

Purely by coincidence, I happened to do similar with my season. STL (Carpenter) vs MIL (Gallardo):

5-2 STL
3-1 STL
2-3 MIL
1-0 STL
1-3 MIL

I guess my CPU decided that this game should be a close game between aces, pretty much evenly split between the two teams. I felt very unrewarded to play such a close game without knowing the game going either way. I really felt this was a CPU-forced close game in which I couldn't predict which side wins.

SCEA indeed took a HUUUUUUUUGE step back forcing an unpredictable game like this to happen. I hope they do a better job of making clear what the game's outcome should be.


By the way, lopsided 4 consecutive wins aren't that uncommon. Even when teams are equally talented, the chances of 4 games going entirely for one side is 6% (= 0.5^4). If one team is much better over the other (say it has a winning % of 60% against another), the chance becomes 13% (= 0.6^4). So 4 consecutive wins are certainly not a rare event.


The bottom line is that people who keep claiming the game forces situations are suffering very severely from the lack of realization that they aren't recognizing confirmation bias as such. That's why they cannot provide better evidence than the evidence that only reinforces their biases. It's consistent throughout this thread. That's actually more unfortunate than at least knowing where they are doing wrong.

As I keep saying, SCEA cannot do anything for you. Because you are accusing of the game for doing something that the game actually doesn't do. Unfortunately all your suggestions are useless for actually improving the game, since they are not well founded. The game will never play to your (misguided) expectations, if your minds work like that.

And hope this thread keeps open, for those who wish to discuss the so-called forced sim. There should always be niches for people who are very imaginative, seeing something the rest of world doesn't see, hearing voices the rest of the world cannot hear..... after all they can see something out of nothing.

Nomo, it seems that the only thing that will sway your decision is the programmers coming out and admitting the code is skewed and this simply isn't going to happen. And no offense, but maintaining such a closed mind about this is what deters progress. The fact remains that there is no evidence to prove OR disprove that any "foul" coding exists to make things interesting. Don't assume that what you say is truth because the developers said it was to increase sales and not piss off the masses here at OS. Your retorts are just as much confirmation bias as ours in that you are convinced no code exists to make things interesting. The only difference is we are actually PROVIDING real game stats and results whereas you are simply trying to disprove our actual results with nonsense formulas and figures. You have supplied just as much factual evidence as we have, so please understand that just because you or even the programmers themselves say something, it doesn't mean it's etched in stone, especially when said programmers do indeed have an agenda.

[wudl83]

Re: Destined to lose?

Nomo, it seems that the only thing that will sway your decision is the programmers coming out and admitting the code is skewed and this simply isn't going to happen. And no offense, but maintaining such a closed mind about this is what deters progress. The fact remains that there is no evidence to prove OR disprove that any "foul" coding exists to make things interesting. Don't assume that what you say is truth because the developers said it was to increase sales and not piss off the masses here at OS. Your retorts are just as much confirmation bias as ours in that you are convinced no code exists to make things interesting. The only difference is we are actually PROVIDING real game stats and results whereas you are simply trying to disprove our actual results with nonsense formulas and figures. You have supplied just as much factual evidence as we have, so please understand that just because you or even the programmers themselves say something, it doesn't mean it's etched in stone, especially when said programmers do indeed have an agenda.

You haven't provided any game stats besides the user that simmed the same game 4 times in a row. Additionaly to that post I have not seen one single statistical "prove" or whatever you want to call it which would help your point. Funny thing is: he did not tell us who was the O's pitcher (maybe a bad one?) and how well the Yankees did before those game (maybe some players being hot?). And even funnier: Nomo came in, did the same and got different results.
And I even asked for something like that (statistical proves) and was told that it would be too much work to cover.
Nomo at least has a fundamental base for his opinion and this is the programmers words. You guys only have your own feelings thus far and nothing else.
That's why I asked for some stats or something like that to have a point to go for but as long as there aren't any numbers or something like that, there won't be much progress.

He didn't have four consecutive lopsided wins, he had one game result in four consecutive lopsided outcomes. I'm not trying to be difficult, I just want to know is your formula representative of what he said?

But Nomo had also one game and had different results (although all being close, but not the same winning team every time).

[bp4baseball]

Re: Destined to lose?

Nomo, it seems that the only thing that will sway your decision is the programmers coming out and admitting the code is skewed and this simply isn't going to happen. And no offense, but maintaining such a closed mind about this is what deters progress. The fact remains that there is no evidence to prove OR disprove that any "foul" coding exists to make things interesting. Don't assume that what you say is truth because the developers said it was to increase sales and not piss off the masses here at OS. Your retorts are just as much confirmation bias as ours in that you are convinced no code exists to make things interesting. The only difference is we are actually PROVIDING real game stats and results whereas you are simply trying to disprove our actual results with nonsense formulas and figures. You have supplied just as much factual evidence as we have, so please understand that just because you or even the programmers themselves say something, it doesn't mean it's etched in stone, especially when said programmers do indeed have an agenda.

Please... Nonsense formulas and figures? OS being the masses? it's called math and pretty handy to use.

SCEA has never given us a reason to doubt their honesty so I feel embarrassed for OS that we're questioning that now.

[THESHAMISASHAME]

Re: Destined to lose?

The bottom line is that people who keep claiming the game forces situations are suffering very severely from the lack of realization that they aren't recognizing confirmation bias as such. That's why they cannot provide better evidence than the evidence that only reinforces their biases. It's consistent throughout this thread. That's actually more unfortunate than at least knowing where they are doing wrong.

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.

Nomo I really respect your opinion as everything you say is very well thought out ALWAYS so I have to refuse your recanting on the above as you and me both know what you said is true and perfectly worded and explained so I hope you weren't swayed to change your opinions and dead on assessment of what is wrong with the game and how it can come off as having a " Scripted Feeling " .

I for one am very proud of a insider with more knowledge of how the game really works then most would be so honest

[geisterhome]

Re: Destined to lose?

I dont want to prove anything here and probably you guys are way past this, but what I recognized is that some games are a lot tougher to win than others in my franchise, even when i'm replaying them few times after getting frustrated. i already experienced this when playing the mlb2k series, there it was even more evident in my opinion. i could replay a game (did so cos i felt cheated) more than half a dozen times and i was unable to get anything going, then when playing an exhibition game using the same difficulty and sliders i immediately got a blow out win over the cpu, however when i went back to franchise mode same story again and no chance to win.

also i recognized that this somewhat is occurring in streaks. like some games in a row im just hitting everything, thinking the difficulty is too low.. hell i even went from all star with even sliders to hof with sliders favouring the cpu and didnt feel challenged there for a while after one of those streaks was over. now about 200 games later i'm back to all star and struggling there.
this is happening with pitching as well. i start the season with 10 games were my pitching is overly dominant, im getting swings and misses on mistake pitching and whenever the cpu is getting a hit the next 1 to 3 batters are easy outs.. then the next 20 games the cpu is hitting much better. pitches painting the corners and even out of the zone are being hit.

so my impression is that there is a code in the game that is creating losing/win streaks and that makes it seem like hitting and pitching are cold/hot for some periods of a season. however i havent experienced anything that make me feel that there is an actual comeback code.

[Cavicchi]

Re: Destined to lose?

Wow thats great Happy up coming Birthday and you understand well you play for fun foremost not forced frustration .

Well, I play for fun but at times do get frustrated. Last night I again pitched with Medlen. Seems like every game he gives up a home run. At this rate, he'll probably give up at least 30 homers this year. A changeup was blasted again! Even with control at 99 and movement at 94, somehow it doesn't go where I wanted and whammo!

Originally his rating for giving up homers was bad, but a roster I looked at had it at 81 and it made sense to me because of what he did last year. I edited him to 81 for home runs before starting my franchise, but it seems the game is programmed beyond the edit, or that ratings do not matter, which makes sense to me.