A different type of forced scripting

[stealyerface]

Nor do I.

I think there is a distinct advantage given to one side prior to the game, and you can either stave it off with good management, positioning, and playing smart baseball, or you can get washed out and have to fight an uphill battle.

I do not think the "back and forth" is there. I believe it is very concrete, and if you play three innings of a game, and restart it three times, you'll see three very different outcomes, even though everything is kept exactly the same.

That is just my 2 cents, and an opinion only.
~syf

[NolanRyansSnowmonkey]

Quote: Originally Posted by stealyerface

lI had Chris Sale pitch me eight innings of 2 hit baseball, and I took a 2-0 lead into the top of the ninth with Kimbrel to close it out. The CPU had struggled, and showed no signs of digging out of its malaise. Kimbrel gave up back to back to back home runs at Fenway, and I lost the game 3-2 While I swore, and shook my head, and wanted to cry foul, I understand that the game needs to replicate the flow of the tides, and I rode the incoming tide with Sale for eight innings, but did not utilize that good fortune to score more runs, and by the time the tide turned, I could not stay in the harbor and got swept out to sea. I feel the game definitely cuts the deck pre-game, and it is up to you to decipher which hand you were dealt, and game plan accordingly. ~syf

Am i the only one who 'crying foul' never even starts to cross my mind when things like this happen across a 162 game season? I mean i never even have a fleeting thought about it. Im glad i am not constantly questioning whether my wins are fair wins and losses are fair losses.

The evidence for the 'deck cutting' theory is the exact same evidence that would support 'no deck-cutting'. I think it boils down to suspicion. People are suspicious of it. And humans tend to find the thing they are suspicious of. Its simply conjecture, and conjecture like this seems like a not-very-fun way to play a franchise.

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by stealyerface

I do not think the "back and forth" is there. I believe it is very concrete, and if you play three innings of a game, and restart it three times, you'll see three very different outcomes, even though everything is kept exactly the same.

If the back and forth isn't there then why do I have a lot of back-and-forth games?

Why do I have a lot of games that turn in a pivotal moment or are very tight throughout with each team having momentum? Why are there games where the bats for one team disappear after running off several early runs?

How does that align with the idea that the game has given one side a distinct advantage?

As for restarting games, of course I'd get different outcomes. The fact my user input would not be the same all three times or the RNG from Classic/Directional would not be the same all three times would all but guarantee that.

[stealyerface]

Quote: Originally Posted by NolanRyansSnowmonkey

Am i the only one who 'crying foul' never even starts to cross my mind when things like this happen across a 162 game season? I mean i never even have a fleeting thought about it. Im glad i am not constantly questioning whether my wins are fair wins and losses are fair losses. The evidence for the 'deck cutting' theory is the exact same evidence that would support 'no deck-cutting'. I think it boils down to suspicion. People are suspicious of it. And humans tend to find the thing they are suspicious of. Its simply conjecture, and conjecture like this seems like a not-very-fun way to play a franchise.

If you read the bulk of my posts over the last, oh, say fourteen years here, you'll see I am not a conspiracy theorist. Nor am I a comeback code guy.

Madden... maybe. This game, not.

But even I get a case of the headshakes when I breeze through eight innings, and then my 95+ rated Closer gives up back to back to backs.

But this is why I LOVE the game, and don't take to the streets with brooms and pitchforks demanding answers. But when I have such a thing happen, I HAVE to question whether or not it was crummy pitch selection, bad execution, bad spotting, or...

If there was nothing I could have done to make the outcome any different than it was.

If I walk the first two guys by nibbling at the plate with a 2-0 lead, does the first pitch to batter three that is near the strike zone get hit out of the park?

The sliders and rosters I play with require me to shift defensive positions, take perfect routes to the ball, and rely on smart decision the entire game. The minute I start daydreaming, or thinking about other stuff, the game takes advantage, and the next thing I know, I'm in trouble. I LOVE this aspect. Be on your game, or you're out of the game.

But... when I call for an extreme shift, and the ball is hit perfectly to within a foot of my second baseman, and he never moves... resulting in a "cheap" hit for the CPU, I am almost afraid to pitch to the next guy.

I played the pull percentage, threw the ball inside and down, and the CPU hit the ball right where I needed it to. However, some outside force highlighted my second baseman, and he froze on a grounder, and it went by him. It is at these moments where I get the feeling that the storm is beginning, and wouldn't you know it, the CPU rips off a five-run inning, and I'm shaking my head.

Not at the CPU cheating, or comeback coding, or whatever...

But at the feeling that there was nothing I could do.

I'm super happy that you can play your games and never have a question as to how a human-programmed game, with non-human freewill, keeps the game interesting, and keeps one from going 162-0

If Virtual Bill Buckner has that ball go through his legs in The Show, while the user is playing defense, there would be a conspiracy theory to the ends of the Earth. But there is no, nor can there be any humanity in a non-human entity. So the game needs to build the humanity, and the possibility of such happenings within the code. When it happens, and is the result survivable, is the golden ticket in the candy bar.

Again, I am not on the Comeback Code bandwagon, nor do I even hang out in its vicinity.

There are occasions, however, where I have to just wonder if my input had anything to do with the result.

~syf

[nemesis04]

Quote: Originally Posted by stealyerface

Nor do I. I think there is a distinct advantage given to one side prior to the game, and you can either stave it off with good management, positioning, and playing smart baseball, or you can get washed out and have to fight an uphill battle. I do not think the "back and forth" is there. I believe it is very concrete, and if you play three innings of a game, and restart it three times, you'll see three very different outcomes, even though everything is kept exactly the same. That is just my 2 cents, and an opinion only. ~syf

I don’t think you are too far off, I think there is some type of win probability factoring in the game. Before the first pitch is thrown one team is slated to be the “potential” winner. Depending on how far the odds are against you or for you is the type of game that will unfold. For the most part the cpu is the constant in the game and the user is the variable and that is where the game diversity comes from is by the user imo.

[bcruise]

So, is there any reason this "stack the deck" theory shouldn't be provable one way or the other using the repeatable situation I described before? Save the in-progress game before the first pitch (or after if you believe the game has to truly start for the script to kick in), then just play out the game several times, making sure to quit out of The Show entirely before the in-progress save gets overwritten. If this theory holds water, all of the games should play out similarly, no?

This is the kind of hard data you'd have to bring to the devs to A. Convince them it's there and B: Get anything changed. Because we already know what their stance is.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[stealyerface]

I'm willing to give it a shot.

I'll do a five-game test set.

If I play a similar game, same pitchers, same style, and same tendencies, the pre-first-pitch save should lock in the dice roll, and allow me to see if there are any glaring consistencies, or otherwise.

The best part is that I do not believe I have ever won, or lost, five in a row, so if I do either, someone's got some splainin' to do!

~syf

[NolanRyansSnowmonkey]

Quote: Originally Posted by bcruise

So, is there any reason this "stack the deck" theory shouldn't be provable one way or the other using the repeatable situation I described before? Save the in-progress game before the first pitch (or after if you believe the game has to truly start for the script to kick in), then just play out the game several times, making sure to quit out of The Show entirely before the in-progress save gets overwritten. If this theory holds water, all of the games should play out similarly, no? This is the kind of hard data you'd have to bring to the devs to A. Convince them it's there and B: Get anything changed. Because we already what their stance is. Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

I was about to reference the same point. I just like data, not conjecture. Questioning the game and forming a hypothesis is fine, but without testing the hypothesis, it will always be conjecture.