Destined to lose?

[THESHAMISASHAME]

Re: Destined to lose?

The Mariners just scored six runs against me with two outs in the ninth....

Its not about winning or losing !!! Once again the box scores are near perfect IMO , its THE HOW things happen win or lose with little true control or input which is lacking for so many especially after 5 years its getting tiresome , predictable and no fun .

Reading some of these i think you guys need to change your difficulty and whatever you're using for pitching

I totally disagree with this statement and this is coming from a six year veteran of the show who saw this game go from slider based to slider vagueness and because there is no randomness thats just baseball slider .

So your either buying what scea is selling as baseball or your not and for those that dont I guess we are out of luck as I hear SCEA is very firm with how they use pitcher confidence as the catalyst in their game so I guess for the first time since 1990s RBI baseball I will be without a game.
See you can tweak all you want but the real issue is the programming and how you adjust and once you get better or more patient then its time to tweak again but with real sliders you dont have that issue as user skill then plays a bigger role , ah maybe one day pitcher confidence will be optional and all will be happy .

[fatheifer]

Re: Destined to lose?

Just reading the last few pages of this thread, you guys are experiencing what I'm experiencing. This game is broken. I don't care what anyone says otherwise. There is absolutely a ridiculous comeback glitch or whatever you would call it. Time after time ridiculous events occur so that I lose the game. Mariano Rivera pitches like a complete scrub when I need him most.

[rjackson]

Re: Destined to lose?

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

[nowitsourtime]

Re: Destined to lose?

I had a game where I felt destined to lose...

I'm up 2-1 on the Yankees with the Oakland A's and I bring in Balfour to close the game out. First hitter is Hafner and he draws a tough 7 pitch walk. Then Youkilis comes up and smacks a single into left field on the first pitch.
"Oh boy, here we go," I thought. Then Granderson draws a 4 pitch walk. And it's not like these pitches were bad pitches, they were all borderline strikes/balls.

At this point i'm getting frustrated. I have Cook up in the bullpen and I mound visit and I'm ready to bring him in. But then I stop myself and go with my gut that Balfour will pull this out. Ichiro is the first hitter up. I kid you not, I took about 5 minutes on the Ichiro AB alone. I took my sweet time pitching from the stretch and step off whenever I didn't feel comfortable with the pitch. I went to what pitch was working for me and that was Balfour's slider. I made sure not to use the low confidence pitches like his curve and fastball. I throw Ichiro 2 straight sliders for the first two strikes to get ahead. I threw another one low to change his eye level then I jammed him with a fastball to get him to hit a weak pop up to Donaldson for the first out. Naturally, this was a huge relief as a double play ball can get me out of this jam and win the game.

Vernon Wells was the next batter and he battled me for the longest time. I got to 1-2 and he started fouling off everything in sight. Then he took 2 straight balls, one was a bad call by the ump I might add, to run it to 3-2. At this point I'm sweating bullets. I rear up and let a fastball fly and he almost drove it out of the park but it curved foul. Then I made an interesting decision. I decided my next pitch would be a ball. My logic was that if he was fouling off a bunch of balls around the plate that on 3-2, he would expect another pitch around the plate. So I threw another slider that was well low but something happened... He hit a chopper to Lowrie that got me the game winning double play.

That inning took me 20 minutes to complete, I kid you not. Now I will be the first to admit I've had my fair share of questionable losses and wins as well. But I don't think that the CPU just comes back when it feels like it. I think that slowing the pace and getting the CPU out of its rhythm and only throwing what you feel comfortable with can avoid quite a few of the "Destined to lose" moments I've seen in here. And trust me I've seen quite a few in a lot of games, MLB included. I just think that most people are just too rushed and get frustrated and have that "Oh, here comes the CPU comeback that is unavoidable" because then you're just setting yourself up for what you resigned yourself to happen.

[TheNumber35]

Re: Destined to lose?

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

Ya know what? I was thinking the same thing. When people believe something very strongly, they only look to things that confirm their opinions rather than looking at the whole picture. It seems like a lot of the complaints in here are from people who refuse to take responsibility for what has happened. Or, in some cases...give the opposition credit. I think because we're playing an AI opponent that sometimes we forget to give it credit when they beat us on our pitch, or with a perfect pitch. Baseball is a funny game, its a very humbling game...sometimes you can do everything right and still fail. Hell the best hitters in baseball fail 7 out of 10 times (there's a Ted Williams quote that I love on baseball about this very thing.)

I think we need to remember that sometimes guys hit perfect pitches, that's when you tip your hat to the hitter and move on (Panda in the WS last season off that Verlander heater at 100 at his head.) Sometimes pitchers get away with mistakes, sometimes those same mistakes go 500 feet. Sometimes baserunners don't know how many outs there are and get doubled off to end the game (Orioles yesterday anyone?), sometimes baserunners make a mistake but their initial mistake ends up being offset by another mistake. Sometimes you get picked off to end the game (White Sox?), sometimes guys throw the pickoff throw away and it costs them a run. Sometimes pitchers roll right through a game and dominate from start to finish, sometimes you just don't have it from the start (Mo Rivera's blown save against the Mets this year comes to mind) and sometimes a pitcher can be rolling early and then hit a massive road block and start to crumble (I point to Anibal Sanchez, his May 29th start against the Pirates in which he allowed 1 run on 2 hits over 6.1 innings, then allowed 5 consecutive batters to reach, and 6 of the final 7 he faced to get on, allowing a 3-1 lead to evaporate into a 5-3 deficit.) And finally, sometimes guys make errors in situations that are untimely, most of the time they do not.

I'm not saying that The Show is perfect by any stretch of the imagination, I just think the assertion that there is a code to force events to happen in certain situations is ridiculous and the anecdotal evidence offered in support of this theory reeks of confirmation bias.

[Knight165]

Re: Destined to lose?

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

Actually.....I need only one.

Absurd.

M.K.
Knight165

[JTommy67]

Re: Destined to lose?

In lieu of the insightful comments concerning confirmation bias, perhaps the best thing to do with respect to this issue would be for those who contend there is a problem to start compiling some actual statistics over the long haul that might serve to strengthen the case, rather than post logs of what happened in individual games.

What percentage of your errors are coming in late innings when you're ahead, for example? How many unearned runs are your closer and setup guys surrendering? There may be ways to build a case that are more objective than describing what happened in a given game and saying it shouldn't be happening. TheNumber35's post is dead on; baseball is a crazy game and you'll see all sorts of ridiculous stuff if you play enough games. That doesn't, however, mean there isn't something going on. And on that note I would say the only thing I see that gives me pause is that I do observe my team (ranked 5th overall in defense) making lots of errors late in the game when I'm ahead, and it's not because I'm ahead all the time (I'm about a .500 team right now). However, as pointed out, I may only be noticing these instances where it costs me the game.

If some statistical evidence could be presented then it might further the discussion. I'm not willing to admit something is going on, but game developers in other genres have inserted balancing features in the past (remember NBA Live years ago) it's not unreasonable to consider...

But this question should in no way imply a "comeback code." It seems skeptics are quick to turn this into some kind of conspiracy theory where critics contend that scripted events play out to make people lose (although the thread title does imply such a thing). It could be subtle fluctuations in player ratings that kick in under certain circumstances to simulate momentum shifts. If such was the case, then developers can rightly claim that there is no such "comeback code" in the game but people might still observe oddball stuff happening every so often.

A question then, is raised: are hot and cold streaks for pitchers/hitters merely descriptive, or are they helped along by the engine somehow? I tend to think the latter, and I would speculate this is done through the type of ratings fluctuations I mentioned previously. While it's always the same guy holding the controller, a given player will get red hot and then ice cold...seems a stretch to attribute that entirely to the person pushing the buttons.

It would seem that the pitch command/confidence meters would have to affect the control ratings for pitches. My point here is simply that it seems pretty apparent that ratings do, indeed, fluctuate within the game. We also know there are hidden ratings, like for pickoffs. Is there a hidden "choke" rating for players? As silly as it might sound...we don't know, or at least I think we don't know.

While I think ranting and raving about scripting and comeback codes is a bit extreme, I think it's also unwarranted to dismiss entirely the possibility that developers seek ways to enhance the excitement level and uncertainty that baseball lovers come to expect. I don't think that's a crime, though it would cross the line if a Steve Bartman look-a-like reached out and snatched an out from my left fielder while I was playing the Marlins in the playoffs.

The question is, where is the line?

[nomo17k]

Re: Destined to lose?

In lieu of the insightful comments concerning confirmation bias, perhaps the best thing to do with respect to this issue would be for those who contend there is a problem to start compiling some actual statistics over the long haul that might serve to strengthen the case, rather than post logs of what happened in individual games.

What percentage of your errors are coming in late innings when you're ahead, for example? How many unearned runs are your closer and setup guys surrendering? There may be ways to build a case that are more objective than describing what happened in a given game and saying it shouldn't be happening. TheNumber35's post is dead on; baseball is a crazy game and you'll see all sorts of ridiculous stuff if you play enough games. That doesn't, however, mean there isn't something going on. And on that note I would say the only thing I see that gives me pause is that I do observe my team (ranked 5th overall in defense) making lots of errors late in the game when I'm ahead, and it's not because I'm ahead all the time (I'm about a .500 team right now). However, as pointed out, I may only be noticing these instances where it costs me the game.

If some statistical evidence could be presented then it might further the discussion. I'm not willing to admit something is going on, but game developers in other genres have inserted balancing features in the past (remember NBA Live years ago) it's not unreasonable to consider...

But this question should in no way imply a "comeback code." It seems skeptics are quick to turn this into some kind of conspiracy theory where critics contend that scripted events play out to make people lose (although the thread title does imply such a thing). It could be subtle fluctuations in player ratings that kick in under certain circumstances to simulate momentum shifts. If such was the case, then developers can rightly claim that there is no such "comeback code" in the game but people might still observe oddball stuff happening every so often.

A question then, is raised: are hot and cold streaks for pitchers/hitters merely descriptive, or are they helped along by the engine somehow? I tend to think the latter, and I would speculate this is done through the type of ratings fluctuations I mentioned previously. While it's always the same guy holding the controller, a given player will get red hot and then ice cold...seems a stretch to attribute that entirely to the person pushing the buttons.

It would seem that the pitch command/confidence meters would have to affect the control ratings for pitches. My point here is simply that it seems pretty apparent that ratings do, indeed, fluctuate within the game. We also know there are hidden ratings, like for pickoffs. Is there a hidden "choke" rating for players? As silly as it might sound...we don't know, or at least I think we don't know.

While I think ranting and raving about scripting and comeback codes is a bit extreme, I think it's also unwarranted to dismiss entirely the possibility that developers seek ways to enhance the excitement level and uncertainty that baseball lovers come to expect. I don't think that's a crime, though it would cross the line if a Steve Bartman look-a-like reached out and snatched an out from my left fielder while I was playing the Marlins in the playoffs.

The question is, where is the line?

I agree with a couple points you make, but my personal frustration with the group of people who keep insisting on the game fabricating outcomes and therefore diluting the quality of every discussion related to the issue is this:

The fact is, the developers have explicitly stated that the game does not *force situations.* No forced outcomes. (If you don't agree with that statement, then basically you are claiming the developers are a bunch of liars.) That essentially means we can exclude the possibility that any kinds of dramas in games, be it comeback or rallies or see-saw games, are outcomes of *game balance*, and not from the way the game explicitly scripts or forces those situations. That basically excludes the possibility for your last point as well. If the developer is (successfully or unsuccessfully) enhancing the excitement level and uncertainty of baseball in this game, then it is not because those events are forced to happen, as in RPG or something. They just happen because they actually try to make the game play as in real life... that is, by physics and probabilities.

Strange and unexpected things happen. After all, that's the beauty of ANY games/sports that people have been enjoying for years. Each game plays differently. That's what happens in real life, and that's why we keep following the sport. If everything and anything happens as expected, what's the fun? And why accuse the game of making it happen *without explicitly coding the situations in*? That's just a sign of a well designed video game.

Having said it, I don't mean the game does a perfect simulation of baseball. As far as I'm concerned, if we actually care enough (I unfortunately do, and I'm in mid-30s), we should be discussing WHY and HOW. And there should be no place for "lying developers" in that WHY and HOW, because it's simply ludicrous, if not ludacris.

[Jordyn]

Re: Destined to lose?

Actually.....I need only one.

Absurd.

M.K.
Knight165

Thanks. This post really added a lot to the topic.

[Knight165]

Re: Destined to lose?

Thanks. This post really added a lot to the topic.

As much as any relating to comeback code or scripted outings....no doubt.

M.K.
Knight165

[G3no_11]

Re: Destined to lose?

Thanks. This post really added a lot to the topic.

So did this. ^^^


And this. ^

[JTommy67]

Re: Destined to lose?

The fact is, the developers have explicitly stated that the game does not *force situations.* No forced outcomes. (If you don't agree with that statement, then basically you are claiming the developers are a bunch of liars.) That essentially means we can exclude the possibility that any kinds of dramas in games, be it comeback or rallies or see-saw games, are outcomes of *game balance*, and not from the way the game explicitly scripts or forces those situations. That basically excludes the possibility for your last point as well.

I'm not sure if you're suggesting I'm calling the developers liars, or if you are speaking more generally to other posters in this thread, but I'll take the time to stress that I believe the developers are being completely honest when they say there are no forced situations. I'm trying to push the discussion towards something more informative about the game itself, and away from the ranting and raving about conspiracies and comeback codes.

To suggest the possibility of ratings fluctuations to simulate momentum shifts is not to say that scripting exists in the game. We know, for example, that pitchers' control ratings must necessarily change during the course of the game based on fatigue levels and performance. While this is predominately performance-based, and not scenario-based, it does illustrate that dynamic ratings are a part of gameflow design; it does not seem unreasonable to suggest that this method may be used in other areas as well. If they do exist, then this would not constitute a forced situation, comeback code, scripting, "destiny" or whatever you want to call it. Nor do I think it's wrong; I just want to understand the game better and by understanding this we are in a better position to provide feedback to developers. But I can certainly understand why they would prefer not to have public discussions about even if such features were indeed present. They would involve intricacies in the game and design method that cross the line established by traditional feedback method for the purposes of competition with competitors.

I tried to find statistics on this but failed. Namely, I was looking for a distribution of errors based on innings in MLB. Perhaps more errors in late innings is perfectly in line with real life. When one considers fatigue, close games causing more rushed throws, etc...it seems reasonable that there might be slightly more errors in those situation. Now, if this is indeed the case, then we might ask how exactly developers could replicate this in the game. Could there be a hidden defensive clutch rating? Would they link fatigue levels with defensive ratings? Or would there be a more universal ratings deterioration as you approach the 7th, 8th, and 9th inning?

If they integrated such things into the design based on actual MLB statistics, then it would certainly not constitute a forced situation. Such manipulations would not remove the probability-based engine which you describe, and would not script anything to happen; they would just make certain things more likely to happen.

This is why I raised the question of hot and cold streaks. Are they the result of hidden ratings fluctuations, or not? (I personally don't know) And what other things might be done to simulate features of MLB, such as home field advantage, teams that are in the midst of a playoff run in September, and other nuances of the game?

If we agree that ratings control what happens on the field, and we know that they fluctuate for certain purposes, it's not unreasonable to speculate where else they might come into play. Even so, for as long as the ratings - whether dynamic or not - control what is happening then no forced situations or scripting would be present.

But this does not mean that certain game situations are not influenced by the engine. If such is the case then tendencies could indeed be detected over the course of 100+ games, they would not be forced situations, and the developers would certainly not be lying by pointing this out.

Again, we don't really know, but I certainly believe them when they say no forced situations or comeback code. However, in my humble opinion that's not really where the discussion should be.

[nomo17k]

Re: Destined to lose?

I'm not sure if you're suggesting I'm calling the developers liars, or if you are speaking more generally to other posters in this thread, but I'll take the time to stress that I believe the developers are being completely honest when they say there are no forced situations. I'm trying to push the discussion towards something more informative about the game itself, and away from the ranting and raving about conspiracies and comeback codes.

No I wasn't referring to you specifically. I'm referring to those people who have repeated the same statement about how the game scripts situation, forces outcomes to stay sim, and user input doesn't matter, sliders don't do anything, etc., etc., over and over the past few years, without even putting some effort to digest what has already been revealed about the game (which is quite a lot, since the devs sometimes chime in in this forum). You are not one of them.

To suggest the possibility of ratings fluctuations to simulate momentum shifts is not to say that scripting exists in the game. We know, for example, that pitchers' control ratings must necessarily change during the course of the game based on fatigue levels and performance. While this is predominately performance-based, and not scenario-based, it does illustrate that dynamic ratings are a part of gameflow design; it does not seem unreasonable to suggest that this method may be used in other areas as well. If they do exist, then this would not constitute a forced situation, comeback code, scripting, "destiny" or whatever you want to call it. Nor do I think it's wrong; I just want to understand the game better and by understanding this we are in a better position to provide feedback to developers. But I can certainly understand why they would prefer not to have public discussions about even if such features were indeed present. They would involve intricacies in the game and design method that cross the line established by traditional feedback method for the purposes of competition with competitors.

What you refer as rating fluctuation is probably the easiest thing to implement in the code, so I do suspect a lot of "momentum" related variations may be coded in as such.

In fact, the pitcher confidence/individual pitch command system (that has become notorious among some misguided gamers) has been revealed to be such a system. Woodweaver some time ago wrote it only affects pitch command, which presumably is done though (effectively) modifying BB/9 and/or individual Control rating depending on how the confidence dynamically change throughout the game. That's probably it.

So whoever thinks the confidence system is the culprit of the "scripted feeling", is often severely misguided in that the system is forcing outcomes. More likely, it means that, in this game, pitch command is very essential for pitching effectively.

And I find the SCEA developers really aren't secretive about those things. They chime in sometimes in this forum to give out such an essential piece of info like this one (they really have no incentive to do this... since OS isn't really part of their business operation, the info revealed like this can be misused or misinterpreted...). When I attended the Community Days event back in January, I have to actually ask a dev NOT not reveal too much info to me (because I tend to ask a lot of questions about the internal of the game), since I really value their effort in their attempt to create the best sim baseball out there, and whatever the "secret" they have to make this happen I have no desire for anyone else to steal and/or misinterpret (... also I do not wish to reveal any NDA-sensitive items accidentally, which I hope I'm not doing.)

On the other hand, they do actually know where the game balance still falls short. Sure, because they develop the game so they know how the game plays, and they also garner user feedback from a place like this forum. All the complaining about the game, they know. If the game hasn't been improving in a particular area despite all the complaining, it probably means either the devs cannot do anything about it (e.g., because of licensing issues) or our feedback isn't useful enough for them to actually do anything about it. Most comeback code talks belong in the latter category.

I tried to find statistics on this but failed. Namely, I was looking for a distribution of errors based on innings in MLB. Perhaps more errors in late innings is perfectly in line with real life. When one considers fatigue, close games causing more rushed throws, etc...it seems reasonable that there might be slightly more errors in those situation. Now, if this is indeed the case, then we might ask how exactly developers could replicate this in the game. Could there be a hidden defensive clutch rating? Would they link fatigue levels with defensive ratings? Or would there be a more universal ratings deterioration as you approach the 7th, 8th, and 9th inning?

If they integrated such things into the design based on actual MLB statistics, then it would certainly not constitute a forced situation. Such manipulations would not remove the probability-based engine which you describe, and would not script anything to happen; they would just make certain things more likely to happen.

You are exactly correct, but we shouldn't call those "scripted situations" or "forced outcomes." I'm not calling as such. I consider that to be a "game balancing" issue.

This is why I raised the question of hot and cold streaks. Are they the result of hidden ratings fluctuations, or not? (I personally don't know) And what other things might be done to simulate features of MLB, such as home field advantage, teams that are in the midst of a playoff run in September, and other nuances of the game?

If we agree that ratings control what happens on the field, and we know that they fluctuate for certain purposes, it's not unreasonable to speculate where else they might come into play. Even so, for as long as the ratings - whether dynamic or not - control what is happening then no forced situations or scripting would be present.

My understanding on hot/cold streak is that this has been implemented a few years ago as a mechanism to code in the performance fluctuations over the season (they are indicated by fire/snow icons in the game), but not within a single game like what the pitcher confidence does (e.g., there's no "confidence" equivalent for hitters). I believe this is also rating fluctuations.

My experience is that it correlates with players recent performance, so if a particular player is statistically playing well, the game appears to put him on a hot streak (and therefore rating increase) but when his performance actually drops statistically, he'd get out of that hot streak. Similar story with cold streak. But that's just my experience so it may not be how things actually happen.

(Whether the performance streakiness actually happens because of ability fluctuation in real life is still debated I think... but that's not the point of this discussion.)

But this does not mean that certain game situations are not influenced by the engine. If such is the case then tendencies could indeed be detected over the course of 100+ games, they would not be forced situations, and the developers would certainly not be lying by pointing this out.

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.

[JTommy67]

Re: Destined to lose?

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.

Agreed. Thanks for the reply.

[THESHAMISASHAME]

Re: Destined to lose?

No I wasn't referring to you specifically. I'm referring to those people who have repeated the same statement about how the game scripts situation, forces outcomes to stay sim, and user input doesn't matter, sliders don't do anything, etc., etc., over and over the past few years, without even putting some effort to digest what has already been revealed about the game (which is quite a lot, since the devs sometimes chime in in this forum). You are not one of them.


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.

The first part I guess is kinda of directed at me so I will address it , I dont believe theres any scripting or comeback code but as you mentioned you cant deny theres a scripted type feeling at times and that is all Im saying as I just hate how it unfolds as a gamer as this game is so much better than that .

Its how it feels whether Im destiny to win or lose lol but its gotta be some momentum shifting going on as you both mention and thats why I feel like Im not even playing at times when those shifts happen .
We all know that feeling if we hit the ball great and get nothing and then we hit it poorly and we get rewarded so maybe its momentum thats causing this disingenuity feeling
Sorry if I dont express my opinions clearly as I really miss playing this game but its become more frustrating than fun for me .