CPU vs CPU

[Heroesandvillains]

Re: CPU vs CPU

Nomo,

I messed around with a couple if innings of innings of a CPU game yesterday, with reduced frequency (3)...and I just couldn't stomach it.

Halladay versus Hudson...falling behind EVERY hitter early in the count. It was a hitter's paradise. I had to shut it off...reset...put it back to 5 and watched a few games. It was truly remarkable. A wonderful thing to behold.

Obviously, 3 or 4 innings is nothing to go by, but I'm just curious if pitches per game and offense, as a result, gets inflated due to lowering frequency.

Dai's numbers are remarkably spot on. And in your tests, if I recall correctly, your WP numbers weren't really any better with consistency higher, were they?

[steviegolfballs]

Re: CPU vs CPU

Nomo,

I messed around with a couple if innings of innings of a CPU game yesterday, with reduced frequency (3)...and I just couldn't stomach it.

Halladay versus Hudson...falling behind EVERY hitter early in the count. It was a hitter's paradise. I had to shut it off...reset...put it back to 5 and watched a few games. It was truly remarkable. A wonderful thing to behold.

Obviously, 3 or 4 innings is nothing to go by, but I'm just curious if pitches per game and offense, as a result, gets inflated due to lowering frequency.

Dai's numbers are remarkably spot on. And in your tests, if I recall correctly, your WP numbers weren't really any better with consistency higher, were they?

If it helps you out any, check out my WP numbers in my latest post.....way too many on average and my PC is set to 5 (default). One thing I notice with PC at 5 is that there are almost no HBP.

[nomo17k]

Re: CPU vs CPU

Nomo,

I messed around with a couple if innings of innings of a CPU game yesterday, with reduced frequency (3)...and I just couldn't stomach it.

Halladay versus Hudson...falling behind EVERY hitter early in the count. It was a hitter's paradise. I had to shut it off...reset...put it back to 5 and watched a few games. It was truly remarkable. A wonderful thing to behold.

Obviously, 3 or 4 innings is nothing to go by, but I'm just curious if pitches per game and offense, as a result, gets inflated due to lowering frequency.

Dai's numbers are remarkably spot on. And in your tests, if I recall correctly, your WP numbers weren't really any better with consistency higher, were they?

I haven't tested sliders against myself actually playing, so I'm not sure how I actually feel facing pitchers at strike freq 2 or 3. Halladay & Hudson are both decent control pitchers (in view of BB/9), so I see your concern.

But the number wise, the 1st pitch strikes *only* occur 58-59% of the time. I would roughly guess the best pitchers still throw in low-60%. That's definitely a majority, but not by a wide margin, you know. So even the best pitchers don't consistently get ahead all the time. As far as the stats that I'm keeping track of, with strike freq at 3, I get around 59-60% strikes, quite similar number I say.

In the end, it comes down to how you feel which should guide your choice of sliders. Personally, I have nothing against lower pitch consistency to get more obvious balls. The only problem is doing so induces a crazy number of WPs. On average, it still occurs less than once or twice in game, but they occur when runners are on and are often game changing. Watching a few games over the weekend, I was actually quite dismayed how many times catchers drop balls once runners are on; I think they handle pitches in the dirt better when no one's on for some reason.

It really isn't a bug or glitch so we cannot really complain I guess, but if this is something that they could potentially fix in the patch, we may want to kindly ask SCEA to tone down WP and increase HBP slightly? At the very least tone down WPs... I guess Knight already asked them but maybe it's not that easy.... On ave, HBP and WP should roughly occur at the same rate. The only way to control these numbers is with the pitch consistency, and with both way off, there is no way to get reasonable numbers for those at once.

[Heroesandvillains]

Re: CPU vs CPU

Nomo, I wasn't playing. I'm talking CPU versus CPU.

That aside, I'm wondering, are WP even noticeably reduced with consistency 5, frequency 2 or 3, versus consistency 1 or 2 and frequency 5? They're still high regardless. Which was mainly my point. Unless, I'm missing some tests that show otherwise.

[nomo17k]

Re: CPU vs CPU

Nomo, I wasn't playing. I'm talking CPU versus CPU.

That aside, I'm wondering, are WP even noticeably reduced with consistency 5, frequency 2 or 3, versus consistency 1 or 2 and frequency 5? They're still high regardless. Which was mainly my point. Unless, I'm missing some tests that show otherwise.

I've always had PC at 5, and the number I have is 200 in 288 games. That's 0.69 WP per game per team.

Maybe DaiYoung and guys here with lower PC tally the numbers and compare?

I don't think strike freq matters that much.

[TonyC2]

Re: CPU vs CPU

Nomo, I wasn't playing. I'm talking CPU versus CPU.

That aside, I'm wondering, are WP even noticeably reduced with consistency 5, frequency 2 or 3, versus consistency 1 or 2 and frequency 5? They're still high regardless. Which was mainly my point. Unless, I'm missing some tests that show otherwise.

H and V... Are u using guess pitch?

[Heroesandvillains]

Re: CPU vs CPU

I've always had PC at 5, and the number I have is 200 in 288 games. That's 0.69 WP per game per team.

Maybe DaiYoung and guys here with lower PC tally the numbers and compare?

I don't think strike freq matters.

Dai's is 0.77, with PC at 1, Freq at 5. The difference, though noticeable, is marginal.

Where does Steviegolf has his set at (both PC and Freq)? His test isn't as long as yours or Dai's though.

I'm running with the theory that their is no way to directly impact CPU pitcher logic in hitter's counts without a major slider overhaul. Strike frequency does impact pitcher logic directly. Consistency does not...minus pitch confidence.

Regardless, WP need to be addressed. I like both of your results so maybe I'm just thinking out loud here. From what I've seen from your tests Nomo, either one of or both of these must be true:

1. Strike frequency directly impacts WP

2. WP are simply broken, minus a boost to consistency, or a patch to address baserunner aggressiveness on bounced balls.

So I guess I'm saying, if lowering either consistency or strike frequency independant of one another are going to yield nearly identical WP...and increase walks... why mess with the AI pitch logic via frequency? It forces you to change other sliders to compensate for the increase of hitter's counts/inflated offensive advantage.

Nomo, you're doing remarkable work by the way and I admire you for it. Let's just make that clear. But, if lowering frequency instead of consistency was done to get BB with a lower WP rate, that clearly isn't happening. It's not your fault. It's just the way the game was designed. This is why I've been asking SCEA to eliminate the correlation between consistency and WP/HBP for a while now. Give us a separate slider! LOL!

[Heroesandvillains]

Re: CPU vs CPU

H and V... Are u using guess pitch?

For played games, yes. Maybe 10 times a game. Usually with 2 strikes.

[nomo17k]

Re: CPU vs CPU

h&v, I'm not sure the number of games used for Dai's WP rate, but WP is still a relatively rare event so it's quite possible we haven't racked up enough to nail down *true* WP rate. So if the PC slider only has a significant but only subtle effect, it's quite possible we may still not see it. Also there are so many factors go into a WP -- the wildness of pitcher, pitch type, catcher's defense/throwing ability, baserunner's speed, etc., etc. -- it's quite possible even after a couple hundred games we may not be comparing apples to apples. (Actually if we are serious about nailing down we should keep using the same pitcher, catcher, baserunner, same pitch, and only vary PC slider to isolate its effect.)

Having said that you have a point and I agree. If low-PC doesn't cause noticeably more WPs, we may as well use it as we like. I'm actually thinking about using PC to make small adjustment to BB if necessary.

As for AI/strike freq part, that's a better topic for your other thread so I won't do it here...

[nomo17k]

Re: CPU vs CPU

I might add lowering strike freq slider by one or two still only appears to change the overall strike % by only up to 2 % or so, so you aren't really drastically changing that aspect of game. At default, the strike % is about 1 % higher than real life, so it's not an unreasonable adjustment to make.

[Heroesandvillains]

Re: CPU vs CPU

I might add lowering strike freq slider by one or two still only appears to change the overall strike % by only up to 2 % or so, so you aren't really drastically changing that aspect of game. At default, the strike % is about 1 % higher than real life, so it's not an unreasonable adjustment to make.

I didn't realize that the overall percentages changed so subtly with frequency lowered. Had I known that, I wouldn't have added my 2 cents on frequency in my last post.

Thank you for that.

Dai had tested 55 games. 0.77 WP per team per game.

You may be right on the circumstaces, however. The catchers each of you are using, pitchers, etc. So even his 55 games may not be enough to really compare yours to. My point was, that total WP per game (combining both teams), between his set and your set, is I think less than a difference of 0.20 WP. Or, less than 0.10 WP per team, per game. Enough to make a difference when it counts, but his PC is at 1 while yours is at 5. There are 4 clicks in between there. To me, the difference between your two's WP numbers...considering the 4 PC clicks of seperation...is pretty insignificant.

Leading me to believe the Freq has a direct impact on WP.

[Joey Sauce]

Re: CPU vs CPU

any updates on a solid slider set? been pretty quiet

[nomo17k]

Re: CPU vs CPU

any updates on a solid slider set? been pretty quiet

Any of the sliders posted in this thread plays pretty solid games already even though they aren't finalized. Check the stats people posted and should just try the one you like. People are trying to get closer and squeezing the last bit, but for casual people any set would give you a good starting point already.

[steviegolfballs]

Re: CPU vs CPU

any updates on a solid slider set? been pretty quiet

My last set was fairly accurate but I am now testing a couple minor tweaks. Hope to have a good sample size by the end of the weekend and a posting of the results. My latest test is being done in exibition mode with alternating games in the National and American Leagues. I am also rotating starters to get a feel for an entire staff and not just a match-up of aces. Early results are promising, but are exactly that.....early.

[floydpinkster]

Re: CPU vs CPU

Guys... I have been using a set of slider that has changed everything for me. well as far as the show goes anyway. I am finally playing games that not only are on the money statistically... but just as important to me... I am watching a real game of baseball unfold before my eyes. The variety of animations has been opened up I think because of the different things that are now doing on on the field. So much emphasise being put on leaving as many slider at default as possible, when in reality they are there for a reason... for us to change! This set moves virtually every slider. Some a little but others are drastically (and necessary). I would post some stats for you but they are strictly from a blue nays franchise and I didn't know if you would think the results would be skewed. Also you have to see the game unfold before your eyes to believe it.
I don't know if you want anyone posting slider on this thread or just ninjoid and dai and variations on thier work. Let me know the show community, and I will enlighten you on the secrets of life... or at least the show 11.