Destined to lose?

[Jordyn]

It seems a bit overdone this year. I saw many complaints about this last year as well, but apparently the developers disagreed and made it even more blatant.

[Perfect Zero]

Quote: Originally Posted by Jordyn

It seems a bit overdone this year. I saw many complaints about this last year as well, but apparently the developers disagreed and made it even more blatant.

What's the incentive for them to put in a "script"?

[TeriyAkin]

Destined to lose? Comeback code? No and no... With that being said if the cpu wants something they'll probably get it, there's really nothing you can do but keep fightin

[3fiddy]

Quote: Originally Posted by Perfect Zero

What's the incentive for them to put in a "script"?

Adds to the realism. Like the multiplier for when the user does something wrong. I understand why but it's not perfect.

[birthday_massacre]

Quote: Originally Posted by stealyerface

Okay, this is not actually a "Destined to Lose" entry, but something VERY odd happened last night, and this seemed an appropriate spot without starting a new thread. Red Sox Season, and Ellsbury is off to a killer start. Hitting the cover off the ball, and playing great for my Cyber team. As the team heads to Cleveland for the first game of a three game series, Ells singles on the second pitch of the game, and after Victorino grounds into the 4-6-3 double play, I see that Ells is injured on the slide. As it turns out, I have to leave for real baseball practice, so I quit the game, and see that Ells broke his ankle, and is out 2-3 months. Well, no need to save that game, (yeah, it's lame, but whatever) so later on, after the kids are in bed, I fire up game one again. This time, Ells makes it to the 6th inning, before running down a fairly easy fly ball in center field, and I see the injury animation as he sits on the ground holding a leg/knee. Ahh... this time it is his ACL, and he is done for the year. Once again, I refuse to save the game (extra super lame, I know) and immediately set up yet another game at Cleveland. This time, I sit Ellsbury, and run Jackie Bradley Junior out there, called up after Daniel Nava had some hamstring troubles. I am behind 5-4 going into the top of the ninth and get a lead off single with Mike Carp, who I immediately replace on the base paths with fleet-footed.... you guessed it, Jacoby Ellsbury. Ells steals on the first pitch, and is injured. After the game, I see that it is a broken bone in his wrist. So, while the game may not push you towards a destination of losing, and it is probably ALL coincidence... It is very odd that in three games, against the same team, with no signs of playing him when he was sore, tired or otherwise out of energy, the game decided that Ells was destined for the DL. Very, very odd. ~syf ** What's that??? No, I did not save the game.**

That is why i turn off injuries to prevent that kind of stuff from happening.

There may not be a comeback code coded into the game but sometimes i will be winning but a few runs, then i will get two or three errors or misplays in an inning so the CPU goes ahead or ties it up.

But that is apart of baseball, and I LIKE that I actually lose in this game. I hate if i would be 45-0 instead of 28-17

[nomo17k]

I don't know why some people love conspiracy theory so much. I know it's in vein as this has been said many times at this point, but I'm one of those guys who were fortunate enough to hear from a dev who actually code the game that there is nothing in the game that scripts anything. So again, I'm just repeating what's been already said, but yet another confirmation here.

If you have ever programmed even a simple game (which many kids do in high school computer classes and whatnot these days... computers are commodity now), you know it's so much more tedious and convoluted to script things to happen in certain situations (because you have to explicitly code those situations in... rather than just creating a set of rules and let the game play out under it... which is much simpler). Only extremely hard-working but inept game designers would do such a thing.

[stealyerface]

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

[nomo17k]

Quote: Originally Posted by stealyerface

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.

The case with Ellsbury is probably still a rare coincidence... did it happen for the fourth or even fifth time in a row?? Because unwanted injuries happen all the time in this game, and there are more instances of gamers without saving the game and resuming without seeing the same injuries happening again. (I admit I have done this before...) It looks very suspicious, only because it's such an odd event (which you observed by pure coincidence) and we just tend to magnify it because it looks really, really, really odd... which it is. But we are simply disregarding all the other more common cases in which gamers have no issues resuming without incurring the same injury in the same situation being repeated ... you know what I mean?

If the same thing keeps happening after several more trials, then I'd also believe things like that *might* be coded in... However, even then, it would be more likely that there were other factors (than the game being scripted) which led to this... like maybe Ells was indeed tired (energy is tired to susceptibility to injuries in the game, no?), or some other in-game mechanism to decide whether a player gets injured or not was getting triggered for him, *even if Ells wasn't hot.*

Quote:

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 actually think about that bold part in an entirely different way... if the game programmer has to force certain situations/outcome to happen, then the game is simply not designed well enough to be called a simulation. It would not be a fun game in any case. Like some card game in which some situations are forced to give one side an edge... it will feel weird and not fun. And a game programmer who needs to resort to that sort of ad-hoc solution should go find another profession because s/he is clearly not good and certainly not a genius....

And it's entirely possible with The Show to win or lose most of the games played against CPU if you play at extreme difficulty levels with slider settings lopsided for/against HUM player. I'd probably win most games at Rookie but lose the vast majority of them at Legend in the franchise mode. How is the game dealing with this, if it actually tries to make all those supposed dramas happen to make things even between HUM and CPU and make things more "interesting"? How does the game adjust for the widely different skill levels of gamers at varying difficulty levels? Trying to do such a thing is basically opening up a can of worms right there, and in fact cannot be done well anyways, so why should they bother?

The fact that most of us can find the difficulty level to win and lose roughly 50% of the game in The Show just means the game is extremely well balanced in simulating the game of baseball (in my opinion anyways)... MLB teams often don't win/lose more than 60% of games... unless the quality of the teams are vastly different which isn't the case at the MLB level... and that's the kind of game The Show is trying to simulate (except online, where the best gamers can win more than 90% because skill levels are very different among human players).


Having said this, I'm not saying anything and everything in the game happens in natural ways though. There are certain things that I still feel weird about... like how CPU sometimes starts hitting like a very aggressive madman. Most people feel that's the sign there's comeback code in the game, but I personally call this low pitcher stamina/confidence meltdown... which at times is very unnatural to me watching CPU vs. CPU games.

Unnatural things like that, I hope will improve in future. But it's not very fruitful to discuss these things in terms of forced or scripted code, because it's been made so clear it doesn't exist. so... no matter how much some of us feel the game has issues like that, the devs cannot do anything about it... they cannot tone down the scripted code because it doesn't exist.

We need to identify other causes as to why the game feels unnatural at times. That would make a better piece of feedback IMO.