Destined to lose?

[Perfect Zero]

Re: Destined to lose?

"Gamers want competition and realistic results." That statement alone should negate any type of so called "scripting" that you have bandied about. The game is programed to give advantages based on the skills of the ballplayer in the game. Pitchers get tired, batters get on hot streaks, its as evident in the game as it is in real life.

The major problem that I have is that there is absolutly no proof of this happening. Sure, there are a bunch of blowhards with anecdotal evidence, but I have yet to see anybody go through and test out their theory. In addition to this, there is still no reason for these developers to put any codes in that create closer games. Even the example that you gave about the "5-6 consecutive hits up in the middle" can be explained by poor pitching management. If you're giving up that many, you need to mix in an errant pitch.

There is no incentive to shortchange the consumer. That's one of the first rules of thumb in economics.

[birthday_massacre]

Re: Destined to lose?

See post #69 about what he did 3 times and Ellsbury getting injured 3 times. While that is not about comeback code, and I don't know if there is one, what does that tell you, if anything?

Maybe there is an injury code? Elsbery is always hurt in real life, hell he is hurt right now, so many that is preset for injuries. That is why I turn off injuries.

[Gophils26]

Re: Destined to lose?

Although my subject header is misleading to what I was actually trying to say, I honestly don't feel there is a script or comeback code in the game. I was merely trying to state that I like how the game emulates baseball and the little things that come into play when determining the outcome of a game. I just wanted to clear up my original post because this thread seems to have spiraled into scripted comeback codes and conspiracy theories.

[Jordyn]

"Gamers want competition and realistic results." That statement alone should negate any type of so called "scripting" that you have bandied about. The game is programed to give advantages based on the skills of the ballplayer in the game. Pitchers get tired, batters get on hot streaks, its as evident in the game as it is in real life.

The major problem that I have is that there is absolutly no proof of this happening. Sure, there are a bunch of blowhards with anecdotal evidence, but I have yet to see anybody go through and test out their theory. In addition to this, there is still no reason for these developers to put any codes in that create closer games. Even the example that you gave about the "5-6 consecutive hits up in the middle" can be explained by poor pitching management. If you're giving up that many, you need to mix in an errant pitch.

There is no incentive to shortchange the consumer. That's one of the first rules of thumb in economics.

Once again, you're failing to see my point. I don't think the game is scripted in any way. I think there is some poor or rather lazy coding involved whereby instead of generating realistic rallies, many people seem to experience rallies via inopportune errors and poor animations.

[nomo17k]

Re: Destined to lose?

Although my subject header is misleading to what I was actually trying to say, I honestly don't feel there is a script or comeback code in the game. I was merely trying to state that I like how the game emulates baseball and the little things that come into play when determining the outcome of a game. I just wanted to clear up my original post because this thread seems to have spiraled into scripted comeback codes and conspiracy theories.

It's unfortunate things remotely related to the so-called scripted feeling in the game seems to always come down this path. Nothing fruitful comes out, since the devs cannot fix issues that really do not exist.

*If* any situation-aware mechanism is coded in (I doubt it is... except things like Clutch ratings in RISP situations), the devs might do a sort of modifier thing... like say a typical fielding pct of a SS is .975, that's making 1 error in 40 fielding chances. They now want to "script" a game to be dramatic by making a SS more prone to making errors in late inning RISP situations, like by modifying his Fielding Ability rating. Now they do not want the SS to always make errors in those situations, since that would make blatantly obvious that the game is scripted. So they decide to increase the SS's chance for making errors more subtly, only by a factor of four, so that now he commits 4 errors in 40 fielding chances in such situations. That would be a fielding pct of .900, which low for any SS. That would achieve the goal of making the SS choke in tight situations, but the overall game balance would become worse when they do this. In order to appear to stay sim, the game still wants the SS to have an "overall" fielding pct of .975, all situations combined, but because of the higher probability for making errors in tight situations, the game now has to think about how much to decrease the probability of SS making errors in all other situations to balance things out.

Why bother with all this, when you can keep a SS to commit 1 error in 40 chances in all situations?? Most of the time, that error would happen in benign situations people quickly forget about, but when it happens in critical situations then some people start making big deal about it as if that event was scripted, no matter if that actually only happens 1 (same in all situations) or 4 (increased in tight situations) out of 40?

Like this example, scripting things in a program really only makes things needlessly more convoluted, with less than ideal outcomes. The above example is still simpler compared to the case when the programmer actually start hard-coding every single situation that he wants to yield situation-specific outcomes.

That's just not a way to make an excellent simulation game, which The Show always aspires to be... and the devs have been saying all this time that they are not making this game like the complicated mess like the above example.

[Cavicchi]

Re: Destined to lose?

"Gamers want competition and realistic results." That statement alone should negate any type of so called "scripting" that you have bandied about. The game is programed to give advantages based on the skills of the ballplayer in the game. Pitchers get tired, batters get on hot streaks, its as evident in the game as it is in real life.

The major problem that I have is that there is absolutly no proof of this happening. Sure, there are a bunch of blowhards with anecdotal evidence, but I have yet to see anybody go through and test out their theory. In addition to this, there is still no reason for these developers to put any codes in that create closer games. Even the example that you gave about the "5-6 consecutive hits up in the middle" can be explained by poor pitching management. If you're giving up that many, you need to mix in an errant pitch.

There is no incentive to shortchange the consumer. That's one of the first rules of thumb in economics.

Not my example but I do have a problem with that. When CPU batters can take a pitch outside and inside and drive it up the middle in the same inning, I have a problem with that. In addition, there are plays that simply defy reality, and I have the videos.

[Perfect Zero]

Re: Destined to lose?

I don't think the game is scripted in any way.

I think there is some poor or rather lazy coding involved...

So there's no scripting involved, it's just the scripting that's the problem.

Gotcha

[Oranges13]

Re: Destined to lose?

Luckily I prefaced my thoughts with the disclaimer that I do not believe in conspiracy plots, or programming, but I did find it very, yes, VERY interesting that in three games, restarted and replayed, the same player ended up getting injured.

So, while I have always loved the notion of getting a behind-the-scenes insight on the dice-roll programming, hitting and pitching timing programming, and some of the "Variable Stuff" that I have talked about, I realize that for stuff to happen, other stuff has to happen.

I know we have heard ad nauseam about the fact there is no code, no comeback, no pre-destined outcomes etc... but, to keep the game from becoming boring, and having the user win every game, there seems like there needs to be some sort of probability programming in there to make sure the human controlled team loses from time to time. Whether it be by a costly error, a pitcher getting pounded, a five run inning in response to a four run inning... whatever the case happens to be, therein lies the beauty and the romance of the programmer's genius.

Try to think about, if you will, attempting to replicate the randomness and the unpredictability of a sport that is entirely based on the actions and reactions of human interaction, a sport where the ebb and flow are as large a part of the game as the ups and downs of the tides, yet less predictable....

Now wrap that up into building a playable game, that replicates the game, but is dependent on the unpredictability of not only the game it portrays, but must factor in the input of the user, and make it viable for the different skills, styles, and knowledge of the game for each customer.

So, at some point, if the game's brain decides via the algorithm, programming, and non-random randomness, that Jacoby Ellsbury is going to be injured during the course of a game, one must accept that the hands of fate (whether artificially generated or occurring within the cosmos) will not be tempered.

~syf

I Agree with you. I think some things are programmed and pre-set. I feel it is necessary in order to separate the great players from the average players.

[Sairheart]

Re: Destined to lose?

There isn't a comeback code but on the highest levels of difficulty the game will manfacture problems for you, especially if you make a "bad decision". For example, I'm up 1-0, Yanks at Det, top of the 8th. Very competitive game, got that one run on a two out single, got out of a bunch of jams with big hitters up and runners on with both my starter and relievers.

I get the leadoff guy on and bunt him over. There's a left on the mound and I got A-Rod up, I swing through the first fastball. I usually have a rule that if I swing at the first pitch I don't swing at the second pitch, unless I put a real good hack on it. Exception to the rule is is there's a RISP...so I swing at an excellent breaking ball that may or may not have been a strike. Huge mistake. I take an inside cutter for strike three, Grandy comes up next. Though I put good swings on pitches, he can't hit lefties so it results in a swing through, foul tip, then a flare to the grass that the second baseman grabs. And know now that I will blow the save if I am not perfect because I should have never swung at that 0-1 breaking pitch with Alex and I didn't pitch hit for Grandy because I needed him for defense as I had already pinch hit my other OF.

Get a quick first out top of the 9th. Two pitches later, tapper to A-Rod, easy play it's right at him, the ball inexplicably goes right underneath his glove rolls to short. I stay calm. Get the second out. Give up a single on a good pitch, 1st and 2nd two outs, Austin Jackson comes up. I get squeezed early in the AB(surprise surprise) then I realize they've pinch ran for Miggy in the last inning so Ramon Santiago is batting third. I pitch around Jackson and walk him. Mo can't find the zone against Santiago, low confidence in the cutter. 2-1 count, I throw one on the outside corner, Santiago goes up the middle with it, game over.

I'm not saying there was NO WAY I was going to win that game. Even if I didn't get that run in, the MANNER IN WHICH my last two AB's played out in the previous inning changed the momentum and doomed me. This happens ROUTINELY on the highest difficulty levels, especially when you're playing very well. If you get out to an early lead, the cpu will be put in a position to make a comeback. If you pitch superbly through the first three, no matter WHO the opposing pitcher is he will always be sharp. You may be able to run his pitch count up or get a run off of him, but that's it.

I wouldn't say there's a "comeback code" but if you play poorly, as in chase a bad pitch with a RISP, bang into a DP when you're ahead in the count, make a bad pitch etc, the game WILL PUNISH YOU. This is undeniable. Does that mean you will automatically lose? No. But does it raise the chances of an easy groundball going right under your third basemans glove in the 9th inning of a 1-0 game? Make it so that the zone gets tight/you give up a seeing eye single/jam shot/ infield hit off the end of the bat. UNDENIABLY. You have to play perfect, which is a challenge, and does make winning very satisfying, but can be quite annoying.

[Sairheart]

Re: Destined to lose?

And sorry, I meant top of the 9th and bottom of the 9th in relation to the time frame.

[Instant C1a55ic]

Re: Destined to lose?

Maybe there is an injury code? Elsbery is always hurt in real life, hell he is hurt right now, so many that is preset for injuries. That is why I turn off injuries.

Why would you turn off injuries? Couldn't you just raise his durability?

[Jordyn]

And like effing clockwork, it happens again.

Playing the Indians, take a 6-2 lead in the 6th, feeling good. Chamberlain comes in for Kuroda. Lead off single. Steal. Wild pitch. Double, 6-3. Sac fly. Single, 6-4. Leave Joba in and he gets a 1-2-3 seventh. Leave him in to start the eighth as his energy is still solid, but start warming Robertson. Lead off K. And then the Show showed up.

Single.
Double.
Joba out, Robertson in.
Single. 6-5.
Double, 6-6.
Single, 7-6.

5 consecutive hits right when they needed it of course. Then naturally they got their runs to take the lead so next two batters hit a can of corn and k.

Of course this all feels like "real" baseball, really "sim."

Top 9. Gardner lead off single. Jeter up. Sac bunt. But WAIT! He bunts it in the air conveniently, which results in Gardner getting doubled off. Cano strikes out to end the game.

But yeah, that all felt really natural because, as many of you always seem to go back to, "that's baseball."

The logic built into this game to make the CPU considerably tougher when they're down gets worse and worse every year in order to fabricate rallies.

[nomo17k]

Re: Destined to lose?

Rallies are not fabricated. It's just that relievers in this game aren't very effective, especially when they haven't built up command/confidence. And CPU hitters tend to hit good pitches when they see them (when pitches aren't well located), so they look very aggressive in those situations.

[chrishthomas]

Re: Destined to lose?

Rallies are not fabricated. It's just that relievers in this game aren't very effective, especially when they haven't built up command/confidence. And CPU hitters tend to hit good pitches when they see them (when pitches aren't well located), so they look very aggressive in those situations.

I think Nomo is pretty close on this assessment. In fact, at some point during the discussion of '11 or '12 Russell or another developer participated in one of those "how to successfully finish games" threads. That developer was fairly open in discussing the lesser quality/skills of relievers versus starters. While I agree with their general assessment, I think it may be a bit overdone in the game.

Couple that with the fact that it seems that there is a severe compounding effect with each successful hit (perhaps it operates through confidence - which for relievers can be destroyed quickly). What I mean is this, as long as I keep people off base things tend to proceed normally. But, let me give up a hit (a seeing eye single, a scorcher, doesn't matter), and it seems exponentially easier for the next batter to follow that up with a hit - especially in those late game situations.

One of the things that bothers me the most is that the CPU notoriously takes the first pitch of most at bats. It seems to me though (notice I used "seems" because I haven't taken the time to collect data), that the CPU is much more apt to swing at the first pitch of the next at bat following a hit if it's even remotely hittable. And, for me, that ball more often than not seems to find it's way through the infield. I've gotten to the point where I am tempted to purposely throw a ball way out of the zone every time on that next first pitch and start the count behind 1-0 rather than giving up that seemingly inevitable follow up single if I put the ball anywhere near the zone, which then puts men at 1st and 2nd. And, again, all of this will be detracting from my confidence. Tends to create some difficult situations to work out of.

I assume this "lower quality reliever effect" would impact simmed games as well as user-controlled games, so one thing I did at the end of an '11 The Show season was compare the number of Blown Saves (per team) in a full season of the game to what actually happened on the field in real life. In the particular season (162 user-controlled games played on all-star pitching and hitting), the number of blown saves in the game was slightly elevated from that in real life but honestly not to the degree that I was expecting.

The average number of blown saves (again, per team) was 23 in the game (range: 12 - 31), and 19 in real life (range: 8 - 27). In the game, the mode (most frequently occurring value) was 21 blown saves - 7 teams, including my user controlled team registered this value. In real life, there wasn't a single mode, 4 teams each had 16, 19, and 25 blown saves.

Doing a mean comparison showed the diffence in average number of blown saves (per team) to be statistically significant. But, in all honesty, the difference though significant in a statistical sense, was not nearly as profound as I was expecting. Given the "feeling" that many people have experienced regarding comebacks (from both sides user and CPU), I was expecting a larger difference in absolute terms. I didn't take the time to do a team by team comparison (other than my user-controlled team - Washington - which I already mentioned had 21 in the game but 27 in real life).

So take it for it's worth - do more leads seem to disappear in the game than in real life (even in CPU vs CPU simmed games). Yes. What causes this effect is up to a number of interpretations. I may go back and sim an entire season (no user controlled games), and see what the results are. I skipped '12, so it would have to be on '11 (obviously doing it with 13 is fruitless given that we don't know the end-of-year stats yet).

Source for 2011 MLB stats: http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/team/_/...ded/order/true

[Perfect Zero]

Re: Destined to lose?

And like effing clockwork, it happens again.

Playing the Indians, take a 6-2 lead in the 6th, feeling good. Chamberlain comes in for Kuroda. Lead off single. Steal. Wild pitch. Double, 6-3. Sac fly. Single, 6-4. Leave Joba in and he gets a 1-2-3 seventh. Leave him in to start the eighth as his energy is still solid, but start warming Robertson. Lead off K. And then the Show showed up.

Single.
Double.
Joba out, Robertson in.
Single. 6-5.
Double, 6-6.
Single, 7-6.

5 consecutive hits right when they needed it of course. Then naturally they got their runs to take the lead so next two batters hit a can of corn and k.

Of course this all feels like "real" baseball, really "sim."

Top 9. Gardner lead off single. Jeter up. Sac bunt. But WAIT! He bunts it in the air conveniently, which results in Gardner getting doubled off. Cano strikes out to end the game.

But yeah, that all felt really natural because, as many of you always seem to go back to, "that's baseball."

The logic built into this game to make the CPU considerably tougher when they're down gets worse and worse every year in order to fabricate rallies.

You know, I think I see your point. Take this game last night. I had a game where I'm playing as the Rangers and have a perfect game going into the fourth inning. I'm taking out the side left and right and Tepesch is lighting it up on the mound. Then magically in the sixth Kawasaki is hit by a pitch and the wheels fall off.

Kawasaki HBP
Cabrera Single
Bautista BB
Encarnacion Double (2 RBI)
Lind SAC FLY (RBI)
Arencibia SAC FLY (RBI)

All of a sudden the game comes right back and I can't hit for anything with a powerful lineup. Instant rally right there...

Spoiler

http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/06/07/4920609/rangers-fall-out-of-first-as-jays.html

Spoiler

Maybe the problem is that you put Chamberlain in, and then asked him to do more than he's ever been able to do (i.e. pitch in a Major League game) and hold a lead when he's being rocked. Just because you didn't manage the game properly doesn't mean that the game is rigged.